Sagarin Conference Rankings week 3

[Across The Field]

The same way you can "rationalize" having Ohio State #1, you put the numbers in and look at the outcome.

Wow, groundbreaking stuff there dude. It all makes sense now.

Christ almighty you are fucking dense. If any of those stats where in the Sagarin rating you might have a point, but I somehow doubt he did that.

Here you are trying to justify Sagarin having you #1 based on qualitative measures while at the same time arguing that his quantitative rankings of the other teams in your conference is somehow wrong.

Bitch about his methodology if you want, but stating he is wrong because your opinion is X, is RETARDED.

So then why even put out rankings? That's my point. His rankings at this point are retarded. I'm not justifying Sagarin having us #1, I'm justifying anyone having us #1. There's easily a case to be made with what we look like so far. What there's not a case for is saying the B1G is the worst P5 conference. You can't even make one yourself, yet I'm the dense one?

 

[Rolltide94]

Wow, groundbreaking stuff there dude. It all makes sense now.



So then why even put out rankings? That's my point. His rankings at this point are retarded. I'm not justifying Sagarin having us #1, I'm justifying anyone having us #1. There's easily a case to be made with what we look like so far. What there's not a case for is saying the B1G is the worst P5 conference. You can't even make one yourself, yet I'm the dense one?

Yes, you are...

If you want to make a qualitative argument that the B1G is not shitty that is one thing.

But if you want to dispute Sagarin's methodology without even understanding what makes up the number(which I have to assume is the case as all your arguments are irrelevant) then you are DENSE as Osmium.

 

[Across The Field]

Yes, you are...

If you want to make a qualitative argument that the B1G is not shitty that is one thing.

But if you want to dispute Sagarin's methodology without even understanding what makes up the number(which I have to assume is the case as all your arguments are irrelevant) then you are DENSE as Osmium.

I am reading up and down what his methodology is and that's why I'm saying it's retarded. Any methodology used that results in you saying the B1G is somehow the worst P5 conference right now in the season is retarded. That's what I'm saying.

 

[Rolltide94]

I am reading up and down what his methodology is and that's why I'm saying it's retarded. Any methodology used that results in you saying the B1G is somehow the worst P5 conference right now in the season is retarded. That's what I'm saying.

Go read some more.

 

[Across The Field]

Go read some more.

No need. Do you understand his methodology?

 

[Tharvot]

That's because of how much of his ratings are still based on last year's results. It will change a lot once only this year's results are used.

Considering the way CFB teams turnover year-to-year, it seems silly to include a lot of importance from the prior year. I get the idea, its a different way to look at rankings and can be fun to play around with, but it's pretty meaningless to have a ranking system that is only accurate at the end of the year.

 

[7Samurai13]

It seems ridiculous to continue to post "rankings" that have more to do with last year than they do this year.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Big 12 in 3rd is a joke just like Sagarin

 

[ericd7633]

I'm not sold on all of them, but you really can't argue against 8 ranked teams. I think the top 4 in each conference would make for amazing games, and you could throw the ACC in there, as well:

Alabama: Ohio State: Louisville
Texas A&M: michigan: Clemson
Georgia: Michigan State: Florida State
Tennessee: Wisconsin: Miami(FL)

When you break it down like that, at least right now, there seems to be a big gap between the perceived best team in each conference and the 2nd best team in each conference. Those top 3 teams you can put in any order and I wouldn't argue. This week I went Bama, tOSU then L'Ville. I give Clemson the best shot at beating L'Ville because I think they have the talent and they get them at home, who knows how L'Ville will react in their first hostile environment.

 

[xpuctaqpGT]

Some things people seem to be getting hung up on...

With the current Sagarin ratings, there is a 3.835 point difference between the #1 conference and the #5 conference. This means that on a neutral field a "generic" SEC team would only be a 3.835 favorite over a "generic" B1G team.

An analogy would be watching the Olympic 100m dash. The guy who comes in 4th....he's still really really fucking fast. That 4th place sprinter could still outrun 6,999,999,995 people in the world. And if they raced again in a week on a good day that 4th place sprinter might win.

But while there's only a 3.835 point difference between #1 and #5, there's 6.595 point drop from #5 to #6. And a 7.125 point drop from #6 to #7. The Power 5 conferences are all fairly equal. There's only a very slight separation between them. But there's a huuuuge separation between the P5 conferences and everyone else.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

Computer polls still use last year's data and preseason rankings for a baseline in their rankings. It's why computer rankings are useless til week 9 or 10. They're still useless after that roo but they at least make sense occasionally

Not sure if you are picking on me, or just pointing out that computer polls in the early season are useless.

All I am saying is that Sagarin's ratings of the conferences is horrendous. Xpac then used Illinois as an example of something, so I merely pointed out that each Power 5 Conference has the weak ass teams that will be easy wins for the rest of the conference. Two conferences have teams that could go 0-fer. Boston College could go 0-9 or whatever in the ACC, just like last year, which means Virginia and BC could be really, really bad teams along with Iowa State looking like a really, really bad team.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

Some things people seem to be getting hung up on...

With the current Sagarin ratings, there is a 3.835 point difference between the #1 conference and the #5 conference. This means that on a neutral field a "generic" SEC team would only be a 3.835 favorite over a "generic" B1G team.

An analogy would be watching the Olympic 100m dash. The guy who comes in 4th....he's still really really fucking fast. That 4th place sprinter could still outrun 6,999,999,995 people in the world. And if they raced again in a week on a good day that 4th place sprinter might win.

But while there's only a 3.835 point difference between #1 and #5, there's 6.595 point drop from #5 to #6. And a 7.125 point drop from #6 to #7. The Power 5 conferences are all fairly equal. There's only a very slight separation between them. But there's a huuuuge separation between the P5 conferences and everyone else.

No, I am hung up on the other three conferences not named SEC being ranked better than the B1G. Even though the B1G is the ONLY conference with a winning record against the other Power 5s.

 

[rmilia1]

Not sure if you are picking on me, or just pointing out that computer polls in the early season are useless.

All I am saying is that Sagarin's ratings of the conferences is horrendous. Xpac then used Illinois as an example of something, so I merely pointed out that each Power 5 Conference has the weak ass teams that will be easy wins for the rest of the conference. Two conferences have teams that could go 0-fer. Boston College could go 0-9 or whatever in the ACC, just like last year, which means Virginia and BC could be really, really bad teams along with Iowa State looking like a really, really bad team.

Nope I agree with you. There's no viable reason the rankings would look like they do if you were basing it solely on this season. Frankly it's a bit perplexing even when you factor in last season results and preseason expectations. Any non biased analysis would not have the SEC at the top and it's safe to say the B10 would be substantially higher. Wins over numerous top 25 teams ooc would indicate that even with some of the bad losses factored in ( as all leagues have those )

 

[BucksFanInGA]

Aren't these computer polls essentially useless until like week 8 when the preseason/prior season data is finally washed out?

 

[Wamu]

Nope I agree with you. There's no viable reason the rankings would look like they do if you were basing it solely on this season. Frankly it's a bit perplexing even when you factor in last season results and preseason expectations. Any non biased analysis would not have the SEC at the top and it's safe to say the B10 would be substantially higher. Wins over numerous top 25 teams ooc would indicate that even with some of the bad losses factored in ( as all leagues have those )

Aren't you the Hawkeyes fan that said Ohio State would lose 3 regular season games this year? If that wasn't you my bad. If it was you which 3 games will the Buckeyes lose? Luckily Ohio State doesn't have to play Iowa (again) this year though!

 

[Across The Field]

Aren't these computer polls essentially useless?

Yup.

 

[Codaxx]

Conferences with 2 divisions have their divisions averaged.


#1 SEC 79.745
#2 PAC 78.46
#3 Big 12 78.22
#4 ACC 77.04
#5 B1G 75.91

And for comparison purposes

#6 AAC 69.315
#7 MWC 62.19

There is less than a 4 point difference between the #1 conference and the #5 conference. But there is a 6 point drop off from #5 to #6 and a 7 point drop to #7. It's nice to be in a Power 5 conference and have all the money....

how is the Big 12 #3?

 

[Codaxx]

no dog in this fight, but if you are basing polls on 3 games. I have Louisville #1. The dismantling of FSU was the most impressive victory.There are not a lot of games to base things on, so this is not the best point, but using Ole Miss as a common opponent strengthens Louisville's argument.

 

[4down20]

how is the Big 12 #3?

Still using last years data.

Wait until week 5 or 6 and see how things are IMO.

 

[Codaxx]

Still using last years data.

Wait until week 5 or 6 and see how things are IMO.

Early computer polls are generally wretched. Either completely biased with out dated or circumstantial evidence (recruiting ranks).