SportsHoopla Top 25 Week 7 Discussion thread

[BoiseMike19]

Actually gonna give this one a little thought and not grab teams from the 5 guys that posted ahead of me. Half way through this thing and we got a trend beyond gut feeling.

 

[rmilia1]

1. Ohio State
2. Baylor
3. Utah
4. TCU
5. LSU
6. Clemson
7. Florida
8. Alabama
9. Texas A&M
10. Florida State
11. Michigan State
12. Michigan
13. UCLA
14. Notre Dame
15. Oklahoma State
16. Stanford
17. Memphis
18. California
19. Oklahoma
20. Boise State
21. Ole Miss
22. Duke
23. Temple
24. Toledo
25. Washington

No Iowa?

 

[Chewbaccer]

No Iowa?

I'll fix that, totally forgot about them.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

GO!

 

[Jakology]

Should we discuss rec votes here too, or is that for another thread?

 

[7Samurai13]

Should we discuss rec votes here too, or is that for another thread?

Only if they get 65 of them.

 

[dennis580]

I'll fix that, totally forgot about them.

Making good use of the discussion thread

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Cal is a top 15 team, even after last nights loss. Bama on the move up. TCU remains high on the list.

 

[theSabanator20]

bump

 

[4down20]

No Iowa?

Iowa sucks and hasn't played anyone.

 

[theSabanator20]

tS20'S Top 25

1. Clemson
2. Florida
3. Utah
4. TCU
5. LSU
6. Iowa
7. Oklahoma State
8. Toledo
9. Texas A&M
10. Temple
11. Memphis
12. Baylor
13. Florida State
14. Ohio State
15. Houston
16. Michigan State
17. Michigan
18. Notre Dame
19. Ole Miss
20. California
21. Alabama
22. UCLA
23. Northwestern
24. Duke
25. Stanford

I think my rankings are justifiable. Do I believe my own rankings sometimes? Not always, but for the most part I look at the overall resume of every team...

1. Best record (any undefeated as of right now)
2. Best win (Clemson over ND at home)
3. Best SOS (Clemson, Florida, Utah, Oklahoma State)
4. Game control (knowing when the game is pretty much out of hand and when)
5. MOV (especially against inferior competition)
6. MOL (especially against inferior competition, but also for relative competition)
7. Common opponents (Toledo beat Arkansas in regulation, TAMU needed OT)
8. Best loss (i.e. losing to 5-1 Michigan on the road 38-0 isn't as bad as losing to 2-4 Texas 24-17 at a neutral site)
9. Overall Team Efficiency (Are they good in all 5 phases of the game, Offense, Defense, Special Teams, Coaching, Intangibles? And some may be better than others in certain areas, i.e. Florida and Utah better D but not as good O as TCU and Texas A&M)
10. The "Team A,B,C" principle (which can be applied early in the season and later until other statistical data proves otherwise, such as Northwestern>Stanford>USC, Ole Miss>Alabama>Georgia)

I try to look at everything objectively and unbiased and I think my ranking does a good job in that manner.

 

[UNA Lion]

Sorry, no ranking for four more weeks.

Please check in at that time.

 

[4down20]

I think my rankings are justifiable. Do I believe my own rankings sometimes? Not always, but for the most part I look at the overall resume of every team...

1. Best record (any undefeated as of right now)
2. Best win (Clemson over ND at home)
3. Best SOS (Clemson, Florida, Utah, Oklahoma State)
4. Game control (knowing when the game is pretty much out of hand and when)
5. MOV (especially against inferior competition)
6. MOL (especially against inferior competition, but also for relative competition)
7. Common opponents (Toledo beat Arkansas in regulation, TAMU needed OT)
8. Best loss (i.e. losing to 5-1 Michigan on the road 38-0 isn't as bad as losing to 2-4 Texas 24-17 at a neutral site)
9. Overall Team Efficiency (Are they good in all 5 phases of the game, Offense, Defense, Special Teams, Coaching, Intangibles? And some may be better than others in certain areas, i.e. Florida and Utah better D but not as good O as TCU and Texas A&M)
10. The "Team A,B,C" principle (which can be applied early in the season and later until other statistical data proves otherwise, such as Northwestern>Stanford>USC, Ole Miss>Alabama>Georgia)

I try to look at everything objectively and unbiased and I think my ranking does a good job in that manner.

the "Team A,B,C principle is known as the transitive property. And it's a long time running joke in college football for being terrible.

You can literally make it so any team is better than another team with it.

My Team Is Better Than Your Team - The Transitive Property of Sports

But:

Iowa #6 is a joke.

Iowa doesn't even belong in the top20. 20-25 is about right.

And then you have Alabama #21.

So you really think Iowa is that much better than Alabama? Iowa would lose about 40-0 to Alabama. They struggled with Illinois this past weekend and won 29-20. And you really think that team can hang with Alabama - even when we are playing bad? To the point where Alabama is not even a top20 team?

Your rankings are terrible.

 

[fordman84]

1. Utah
2. TCU
3. LSU
4. Michigan State
5. Ohio State
6. Clemson
7. Baylor
8. Florida
9. Iowa
10. Temple
11. Michigan
12. Ole Miss
13. Alabama
14. Florida State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Toledo
17. Notre Dame
18. Memphis
19. Boise State
20. Houston
21. Western Kentucky
22. Duke
23. Marshall
24. Oklahoma
25. Ohio

Wow, A&M doesn't even make the top 25? I'm pretty sure if you have OU ranked, or the Hilltoppers, then A&M should be there too.

 

[theSabanator20]

I think my rankings are justifiable. Do I believe my own rankings sometimes? Not always, but for the most part I look at the overall resume of every team...

1. Best record (any undefeated as of right now)
5. MOV (especially against inferior competition)
6. MOL (especially against inferior competition, but also for relative competition)
9. Overall Team Efficiency


I try to look at everything objectively and unbiased and I think my ranking does a good job in that manner.

the "Team A,B,C principle is known as the transitive property. And it's a long time running joke in college football for being terrible.

You can literally make it so any team is better than another team with it.

My Team Is Better Than Your Team - The Transitive Property of Sports

But:

Iowa #6 is a joke.

Iowa doesn't even belong in the top20. 20-25 is about right.

And then you have Alabama #21.

So you really think Iowa is that much better than Alabama? Iowa would lose about 40-0 to Alabama. They struggled with Illinois this past weekend and won 29-20. And you really think that team can hang with Alabama - even when we are playing bad? To the point where Alabama is not even a top20 team?

Your rankings are terrible.

1. I stated my opinion of my own ranking earlier.
2. Those two qualifications in bold are why I have any undefeated team above Alabama.
3. My transitive property extends no further than 3 degrees, again, unless proven otherwise. Right now, I don't think USC is better than nor could they beat Northwestern the way they are playing right now.
4a. Your opinion is as valid as mine.
4b. They may be horrible, but they sure aren't biased. Unlike anyone who thinks Ohio State is playing like they are the best team in the country. Because they obviously are not. That's why I have other teams playing better football vs. better opponents ahead of them.
5. The Ole Miss/Alabama game can be seen almost exactly the same as Clemson/Notre Dame. Clemson had the game in the basket, and Notre Dame fought their way back multiple times after turnovers and barely came up short.
6. I think Iowa right now is playing very good for what they have. But again, read point #1. They are one of 16 undefeated teams in the FBS right now. They have wins over Wisconsin, Pitt, and Illinois, all teams with 4 wins. We have wins over Georgia and Wisconsin. And Georgia losing to Tennessee didn't help our case (even though Chubb was out the whole game, they still gave up a 3 TD lead).
7. Again, my rankings are probably the least biased rankings on the board. Does that mean they are right? NO. But at least I don't have some bullshit like 1. Ohio State 2. Baylor because (1) who has Baylor played worth a damn and beaten solidly and (2) Ohio State 2015 ain't Ohio State 2014 and sure ain't playing at that level right now.

 

[4down20]

1. I stated my opinion of my own ranking earlier.
2. Those two qualifications in bold are why I have any undefeated team above Alabama.
3. My transitive property extends no further than 3 degrees, again, unless proven otherwise. Right now, I don't think USC is better than nor could they beat Northwestern the way they are playing right now.
4a. Your opinion is as valid as mine.
4b. They may be horrible, but they sure aren't biased. Unlike anyone who thinks Ohio State is playing like they are the best team in the country. Because they obviously are not. That's why I have other teams playing better football vs. better opponents ahead of them.
5. The Ole Miss/Alabama game can be seen almost exactly the same as Clemson/Notre Dame. Clemson had the game in the basket, and Notre Dame fought their way back multiple times after turnovers and barely came up short.
6. I think Iowa right now is playing very good for what they have. But again, read point #1. They are one of 16 undefeated teams in the FBS right now. They have wins over Wisconsin, Pitt, and Illinois, all teams with 4 wins. We have wins over Georgia and Wisconsin. And Georgia losing to Tennessee didn't help our case (even though Chubb was out the whole game, they still gave up a 3 TD lead).
7. Again, my rankings are probably the least biased rankings on the board. Does that mean they are right? NO. But at least I don't have some bullshit like 1. Ohio State 2. Baylor because (1) who has Baylor played worth a damn and beaten solidly and (2) Ohio State 2015 ain't Ohio State 2014 and sure ain't playing at that level right now.

If you don't believe your rankings it means they probably suck.

 

[theSabanator20]

If you don't believe your rankings it means they probably suck.

I mean, I could say

1. Alabama
2. Michigan
3. Utah
4. Florida State

because I don't think there is a game on any of these teams schedules that they can't win... but that would be projecting. And projecting is for preseason. My rankings are week to week, and I can guarantee you they will change dramatically each week as more and more undefeateds start losing and other teams start adding losses. And in the end, it will all work out. But in my defense, 2 other people voted Northwestern #1 last week.

That means
1. they looked at the overall resume
2. they looked at everyone else's resume
3. they noticed that no one at the time really had a better resume
4. they saw that beating Stanford wasn't a fluke
5. who else in the country was overachieving like Northwestern?
6. lots of teams are underachieving their preseason expectations
7. they had a reason for voting Northwestern #1

 

[4down20]

I mean, I could say

1. Alabama
2. Michigan
3. Utah
4. Florida State

because I don't think there is a game on any of these teams schedules that they can't win... but that would be projecting. And projecting is for preseason. My rankings are week to week, and I can guarantee you they will change dramatically each week as more and more undefeateds start losing and other teams start adding losses. And in the end, it will all work out. But in my defense, 2 other people voted Northwestern #1 last week.

That means
1. they looked at the overall resume
2. they looked at everyone else's resume
3. they noticed that no one at the time really had a better resume
4. they saw that beating Stanford wasn't a fluke
5. who else in the country was overachieving like Northwestern?
6. lots of teams are underachieving their preseason expectations
7. they had a reason for voting Northwestern #1

2 people who are known for putting out the worst polls on the forum had Northwestern #1. And this past weekend it showed just how dumb it was to have them there.

And then you have Ohio St #14. Which is about as bad as Alabama at #21. Ok, maybe you don't put them in the #1 spot, but #14? Seriously? Because they aren't winning "pretty"? That's what you think football games are about - winning pretty?

Did you even rank the 2009 Alabama team in the top25?

 

[theSabanator20]

2 people who are known for putting out the worst polls on the forum had Northwestern #1. And this past weekend it showed just how dumb it was to have them there.

And then you have Ohio St #14. Which is about as bad as Alabama at #21. Ok, maybe you don't put them in the #1 spot, but #14? Seriously? Because they aren't winning "pretty"? That's what you think football games are about - winning pretty?

Did you even rank the 2009 Alabama team in the top25?

That team beat TEN bowl eligible teams. Which I believe is a record.

 

[uncfan103]

If you don't believe your rankings it means they probably suck.

No it doesn't. Someone could think Baylor is the best team but not rank them #1 because they don't have a top 10 resume. If someone believes their rankings are accurate it most likely means that they're taking into account a lot more than results. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just some people don't think rankings are power rankings of the best teams and instead put the top 25 teams in order based on a resume