THE PAC12 Thread

[Vitamike]

North Korea joking about American poverty???? - YouTube

"This is how they live in modern day America. Huddled together, the Poor, the Cold, the Lonely and the Homosexual."

 

[NativeWebfoot]

First, congrats TF12 for winning the wk 6 pick'ems. For my wk 7 pick'ems, I have AZ, Stanford, Colorado to cover, UCLA, OR St (Homer pick), and UW to cover with scores; OR 52 @ UW 45.

 

[Vitamike]

Watched the game and saw the injuries. Imo, if those players were faking, then Stanford has an excellent drama program and their players are getting A's in the class!!

 

[4down20]

While I appreciate all your hard work 4d20 IMO Stanford's too high, Oregon's too low. ASU at No. 11 is absurd! Washington and UCLA rankings are a joke way too low. Utah is about right, Oregon State is too low right now but might end up being about right in the end and sorry tf12, USC is way too high. Man the Trojans lost in a bye week and I'm serious! The only way that happens is when you lose your HC during the season and it's the bye week!

I guess that's the problem with rolling last years numbers into the current year.

When do those stats purge?

Week 7 or something?

Stanford is that high because right now it thinks they have the toughest schedule in the country and will only lose 1 to Oregon. They are also a team that is considered very good. I'm not sure I disagree with it, won't know for sure until a few more games get played.

Oregon has a weak schedule and hasn't played anyone. They will probably rise as the year goes on, they started out like #9 and have moved up. I don't feel bad about their ranking at this point honestly. Future games only count for half their points, so if they start beating some better teams they should rise more etc.

It likes ASU, and while they are currently 3-2, it's looking at their entire schedule. It see's them as winning out right now, and #11 is right where a 10-2 teams should finish. UCLA and Washington are the big ones they will need to win, but a loss to Stanford isn't going to hurt, and a loss to Notre Dame isn't going to hurt that much either at this point.

Oregon St lost to a FCS school. That will hurt any team a ton, and IMO it should because these games shouldn't be scheduled to start with. I penalize teams for playing them generally, I award 0 points for a win, and -100 points for a loss.

USC is picked to finish 7-6 and bowl eligible right now. If they do finish with that record, it's an accurate ranking. The computer works solely off stats with no human input, it has no clue who is the coach or any such things. I don't "fix" them based on my opinion, it's completely unbiased in what it does without opinion. My only input is in the formula itself.

UCLA was #5 before the bug fix, #7 last week which was a bit high. If they are as good as they seem, they should rise up. Especially if they fix a couple of losses. The worst prediction is a 1 point loss to USC. If they show some strength and/or USC shows more weakness, a change in that prediction should put them top25ish right away, and would drop USC to where they probably will be at seasons end. 1 point won't take much stats wise to change that.

Some teams have been purged of last years stats, and some others(Baylor) still have 2 weeks to go. The way the data is normalized any team still on last years data will have some effect on other teams, but I don't think it's going to be that major. Another major factor at this point is limited data. 5 weeks is what I consider the bare minimum, but the more weeks the better. Especially while teams like Oregon/Baylor and so on have yet to be challenged.

Quality games mean a bunch to these things, and while you start getting a clearer picture around week 7-8, it's not really solid until near the end of the year. I think of it as trying to gain focus, and each week new data comes in and makes it clearer.

 

[4down20]

First of all, EWU won by a field goal which is hardly kicking our ass. Secondly, not all FCS schools are equal. EWU is #2 because they earned their ranking through a playoff system, not VOTED there. There's a huge difference between playing a top (EWU) FCS and a bottom (Nicholls St) FCS team. Where are the FCS teams on your sched ranked? You'll finish your season playing scrimmages with bottom FCS teams and won't be penalized at all for it.

All FCS schools are treated equally to me. You shouldn't be playing them to start with, so you are penalized for playing them by giving each school the least amount of points possible(0). If you lose to a FCS school, you will lose the maximum amount of points possible(-100).

All teams are penalized for it. IMO, these games shouldn't be on the schedule at all, they are pathetic and all teams that put them on their schedule deserve to be punished.

And for the record, not only is Alabama penalized for playing them, they are basically penalized twice this year because Georgia St is pretty much treated as a FCS because they suck so bad even though they are FBS. Right now they gave Alabama a whooping 1.61 points.

Oregon St would be ranked #34 without that loss, exactly 1 rank above Utah. So it's not like Oregon St is really tearing it up anyway. You guys will make a bowl game and that will be about it. Computer says 7-5, and looking at your schedule I find that to be agreeable if not possibly generous.

 

[963BUSC]

Thursday Night:

Arizona @ Southern California - 6 1/2

Saturday:

Stanford @ Utah + 9 1/2

Colorado @ Arizona State - 25 1/2

California @ UCLA - 24 1/2

Oregon State @ Washington State -1 1/2

Game of Week: Pick Final Score

Oregon @ Washington + 14 1/2

Oregon 38 Washington 17

 

[963BUSC]

All FCS schools are treated equally to me. You shouldn't be playing them to start with,

That's all you needed to say.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Thursday Night:

Arizona @ SOCAL - 6 1/2

Saturday:

Stanford @ UTAH + 9 1/2

Colorado @ A-STATE - 25 1/2

CAL @ UCLA - 24 1/2

OREGON STATE @ Washington State -1 1/2

Game of Week: Pick Final Score

Oregon @ WASHINGTON + 14 1/2


Ducks 24 Huskies 31

 

[WizardHawk]

Few things on the Shaw presser today and the whole situation.

1) Sark said their line coach told them to sit down, not fake an injury. That means if you do get dinged up don't run off the field, sit down and drag it out. May be a subtle difference, but 'sitting down' is fairly well known to mean don't hurry off the field.

2) Shaw said Stanford has never faked an injury and never will.
[YOUTUBE]-HeH-cNIcDs[/YOUTUBE]
Tell Oregon that. Watch Kelly roll his eyes at the 'injury' and notice what he says to the ref next to him. You can see him say watch, he will be out next play, you watch, you watch. And of course they guy who had to be helped off was able to run back on after one play.

3) Shaw told the media that Sark called out a coach by name. Sark actually just said 'their D line coach'. Unless his name was changed to D line coach he made an accusation that was false.

4) Shaw said they didn't bring anything up after their loss to UW. No shit? What would you have had to complain about? UW didn't sit down to slow you down ffs.

5) After his full 3 minute rant on the topic he said they shouldn't be talking about it, but should be instead talking about the play of Montgomery and Price. Then you should have been better than that and not talking about it yourself. Sark's comments were made in a post game interview and were maybe 10 seconds while Shaw went out on national media and devoted 3 full minutes to the topic. Who prevented him from talking about the stellar play of both of those players?

After having seen that video of them doing the exact same thing against Oregon I'm convinced it was on purpose. It wasn't a question of did he get dinged up, but how long he stayed on the ground, how slow he was to leave the field, and how fast he got back on and played out the rest of the series.

I'm also still not happy that Sark said it to begin with. He claims to be trying to keep a mantra of no distractions this year and creates a big one going into the Oregon game week. Not a smart move IMO.

 

[Vitamike]

Stanford is that high because right now it thinks they have the toughest schedule in the country and will only lose 1 to Oregon. They are also a team that is considered very good. I'm not sure I disagree with it, won't know for sure until a few more games get played.

Too bad your computer can't adjust for what we all know. And I don't think it matters if it looks like the ball hit the ground or not on that reversal booth call but there are enough football people saying it wasn't indisputable evidence to over turn the call on the field and who knows what Washington would have done from there. One thing I do know, they were on a roll!

Oregon has a weak schedule and hasn't played anyone. They will probably rise as the year goes on, they started out like #9 and have moved up. I don't feel bad about their ranking at this point honestly. Future games only count for half their points, so if they start beating some better teams they should rise more etc.

I understand this logic, but your computer doesn't adjust for what we all know and that is the Ducks taking their one loss last year to the one team they had to beat to get a NT shot. Well unless they move to the SEC. I guess that's the only place you can get a shot at winning an NT but fail to win your conference.

It likes ASU, and while they are currently 3-2, it's looking at their entire schedule. It see's them as winning out right now, and #11 is right where a 10-2 teams should finish. UCLA and Washington are the big ones they will need to win, but a loss to Stanford isn't going to hurt, and a loss to Notre Dame isn't going to hurt that much either at this point.

Does it notice they can't win on the road yet?

Oregon St lost to a FCS school. That will hurt any team a ton, and IMO it should because these games shouldn't be scheduled to start with. I penalize teams for playing them generally, I award 0 points for a win, and -100 points for a loss.

I agree.

USC is picked to finish 7-6 and bowl eligible right now. If they do finish with that record, it's an accurate ranking. The computer works solely off stats with no human input, it has no clue who is the coach or any such things. I don't "fix" them based on my opinion, it's completely unbiased in what it does without opinion. My only input is in the formula itself.

I see USC as favorites in 3 more game this year Utah/Cal/Colorado. They will be dogs in the rest.

UCLA was #5 before the bug fix, #7 last week which was a bit high. If they are as good as they seem, they should rise up. Especially if they fix a couple of losses. The worst prediction is a 1 point loss to USC. If they show some strength and/or USC shows more weakness, a change in that prediction should put them top25ish right away, and would drop USC to where they probably will be at seasons end. 1 point won't take much stats wise to change that.

Some teams have been purged of last years stats, and some others(Baylor) still have 2 weeks to go. The way the data is normalized any team still on last years data will have some effect on other teams, but I don't think it's going to be that major. Another major factor at this point is limited data. 5 weeks is what I consider the bare minimum, but the more weeks the better. Especially while teams like Oregon/Baylor and so on have yet to be challenged.

Quality games mean a bunch to these things, and while you start getting a clearer picture around week 7-8, it's not really solid until near the end of the year. I think of it as trying to gain focus, and each week new data comes in and makes it clearer.

Thanks!

 

[TheDayMan]

Thursday Night:

Arizona @ Southern California - 6 1/2

Saturday:

Stanford @ Utah + 9 1/2

Colorado @ Arizona State - 25 1/2

California @ UCLA - 24 1/2

Oregon State @ Washington State -1 1/2

Game of Week: Pick Final Score

Oregon @ Washington + 14 1/2
21-34

 

[Brasky]

Thursday Night:

Arizona @ Southern California - 6 1/2

Saturday:

Stanford @ Utah + 9 1/2

Colorado @ Arizona State - 25 1/2

California @ UCLA - 24 1/2

Oregon State @ Washington State -1 1/2

Game of Week: Pick Final Score

Oregon @ Washington + 14 1/2
21-34

 

[JahiiCarson_SqodGeneral]

Yawn* most schools that play the power game going against uptempo teams fake injuries. WISKY!

 

[JahiiCarson_SqodGeneral]

Few things on the Shaw presser today and the whole situation.

1) Sark said their line coach told them to sit down, not fake an injury. That means if you do get dinged up don't run off the field, sit down and drag it out. May be a subtle difference, but 'sitting down' is fairly well known to mean don't hurry off the field.

2) Shaw said Stanford has never faked an injury and never will.
[YOUTUBE]-HeH-cNIcDs[/YOUTUBE]
Tell Oregon that. Watch Kelly roll his eyes at the 'injury' and notice what he says to the ref next to him. You can see him say watch, he will be out next play, you watch, you watch. And of course they guy who had to be helped off was able to run back on after one play.

3) Shaw told the media that Sark called out a coach by name. Sark actually just said 'their D line coach'. Unless his name was changed to D line coach he made an accusation that was false.

4) Shaw said they didn't bring anything up after their loss to UW. No shit? What would you have had to complain about? UW didn't sit down to slow you down ffs.

5) After his full 3 minute rant on the topic he said they shouldn't be talking about it, but should be instead talking about the play of Montgomery and Price. Then you should have been better than that and not talking about it yourself. Sark's comments were made in a post game interview and were maybe 10 seconds while Shaw went out on national media and devoted 3 full minutes to the topic. Who prevented him from talking about the stellar play of both of those players?

After having seen that video of them doing the exact same thing against Oregon I'm convinced it was on purpose. It wasn't a question of did he get dinged up, but how long he stayed on the ground, how slow he was to leave the field, and how fast he got back on and played out the rest of the series.

I'm also still not happy that Sark said it to begin with. He claims to be trying to keep a mantra of no distractions this year and creates a big one going into the Oregon game week. Not a smart move IMO.

That is fucking pathetic just tail the next play pussy if your that tired.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNLD1qiSY5o]Michael Caputa faking injury 9/14/13 Wisc. vs. ASU - YouTube[/ame] Even worse than this.

 

[TheDayMan]

 

[4down20]

Too bad your computer can't adjust for what we all know. And I don't think it matters if it looks like the ball hit the ground or not on that reversal booth call but there are enough football people saying it wasn't indisputable evidence to over turn the call on the field and who knows what Washington would have done from there. One thing I do know, they were on a roll!

I think it was the right call overall. I wouldn't have been upset either way. It looked to me like the ball hit the ground for sure. Rolls only go so far, in this case that 4th down. Overall, it was a good game and I think the rankings of both teams reflects that. Washington may be a little low, but they have plenty of time to gain.

I understand this logic, but your computer doesn't adjust for what we all know and that is the Ducks taking their one loss last year to the one team they had to beat to get a NT shot. Well unless they move to the SEC. I guess that's the only place you can get a shot at winning an NT but fail to win your conference.

It predicts Oregon will go undefeated and has no problem seeing they are a good team. But there is a difference between being a great team and having a great season. You need to have both. I would say Boise St was the best team in 2010 overall, but they did not have anything near the best season. They dropped a game they would have probably won 9 out of 10 times with a missed FG. And their schedule was weak too. To be ranked high you need to be a good team and have a good season.

My own team is in the exact same situation and is why they are ranked #3.

Does it notice they can't win on the road yet?

Matters very little. They have a loss to Stanford and a loss to Notre Dame which for the moment it still has some respect for, and picks them to win out(all predictions are treated as neutral, I've never bought into the 3 point homefield advantage honestly).

If they lose more games, they will drop.

 

[SUBuddha]

Wizard, I have never denied the whole 2010 debacle under Harbaugh. It was an embarrassment, but it was Harbaugh's team.

The fact that Skov had an MRI after the game and missed practice yesterday then is just part of our clever ploy? Sark did mention Randy Hart by name, did Hart do it when he was your coach for 20+ years? Knowing David, I don't think he would have gone there if Sark had not reinforced the comments on Monday.

Was it a bad choice by Shaw to rant like that? Yes. Do I respect him for defending his players and team, by all means.

 

[4down20]

Thursday Night:

Arizona @ Southern California - 6 1/2

Saturday:

Stanford @ Utah + 9 1/2

Colorado @ Arizona State - 25 1/2

California @ UCLA - 24 1/2

Oregon State @ Washington State -1 1/2

Game of Week: Pick Final Score

Oregon @ Washington + 14 1/2

Oregon: 32
Washington: 26

 

[WhiteMamba]

PAC12ers

Sorry for the delay in posting results en sech.

Been busy... well hungover, but hey...

Next week I will be gone from Friday afternoon til Sunday evening cuz i will be in Seattle.

Reminder that if you are entering a pickem this week the PAC has a Thursday matchup between Zona and SC.

Good Luck 2 all and enjoy the games!

 

[4down20]

Sorry for the delay in posting results en sech.

Been busy... well hungover, but hey...

Next week I will be gone from Friday afternoon til Sunday evening cuz i will be in Seattle.

Reminder that if you are entering a pickem this week the PAC has a Thursday matchup between Zona and SC.

Good Luck 2 all and enjoy the games!

I ain't ever gonna win anyway. So,