Ducks getting screwed in BCS?

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Mill
Sagarin's ratings are unduly biased against Conferences with more than 10 teams or Conferences that play Championship games.

The more teams in your conference the lower your average will be. That's why the Big East looks "decent" in his ratings, whereas the WAC would destroy just about all of their teams this year, and I wouldn't be shocked if they lose their BCS slot eventually.

If his rating are biased against conferences with more than 10 teams, whyis the ACC ranked so high the last two years?
The Big Least has hardly ever looked good in Sagarin's ratings. In the list I posted, they only made the top 5 once, and that was when Miami, BC and VT were still in.

The ACC is the best conference, IMO, from top to bottom, especially this year.
The middle of the ACC is especially tough. Teams like BC, Clemson, Maryland, NC State, Virginia, and GT can and often do beat top 10 teams on any given Saturday.

You just don't have that in the Pac 10, Big 12, or even the SEC this year.

The SEC still has 5 great teams. The only program missing is Tennessee, which is falling apart. South Carolina fails to be considered 'great' this year, but they were dangerous.
Spurrier will bring that team into the picture in the next few years.

Georgia 7-2 10-2
Florida 5-3 8-3
Auburn 7-1 9-2
LSU 7-2 10-2
Alabama 6-2 9-2

South Carolina 5-3 7-4

This year so far it is ACC=SEC> Big 10>>>>>Pac 10>big

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Mill
Sagarin's ratings are unduly biased against Conferences with more than 10 teams or Conferences that play Championship games.

The more teams in your conference the lower your average will be. That's why the Big East looks "decent" in his ratings, whereas the WAC would destroy just about all of their teams this year, and I wouldn't be shocked if they lose their BCS slot eventually.

If his rating are biased against conferences with more than 10 teams, whyis the ACC ranked so high the last two years?
The Big Least has hardly ever looked good in Sagarin's ratings. In the list I posted, they only made the top 5 once, and that was when Miami, BC and VT were still in.

The ACC is the best conference, IMO, from top to bottom, especially this year.
The middle of the ACC is especially tough. Teams like BC, Clemson, Maryland, NC State, Virginia, and GT can and often do beat top 10 teams on any given Saturday.

You just don't have that in the Pac 10, Big 12, or even the SEC this year.

When you add Miami and Va. Tech it doesn't exactly dilute your talent pool.

Fact is, the ACC had a good year, in that Duke was the only HORRIBLE team this year. Kentucky, Ole Miss, and MSU were horrible teams this year, but Ole Miss and MSU will eventually be good again. The main problem stems from the fact that Sagarin's rating are nowhere near the same as the polls. He's got the ACC teams rated much higher and the SEC teams lower.

You can find computer rankings to fit an agenda no matter what:

http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootball/ratings.htm#Conference -- Pac-10 is weaker and so is the ACC
http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf -- USC's schedule is the weakest in the Top 5

http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html - ACC has a losing record to SEC -- SEC is tired with Pac-10, etc

You can argue numerous ways.

Fact is, the Pac-10 simply doesn't have the competition and strength as any of the other major conferences. They are top heavy.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Mill
Sagarin's ratings are unduly biased against Conferences with more than 10 teams or Conferences that play Championship games.

The more teams in your conference the lower your average will be. That's why the Big East looks "decent" in his ratings, whereas the WAC would destroy just about all of their teams this year, and I wouldn't be shocked if they lose their BCS slot eventually.

If his rating are biased against conferences with more than 10 teams, whyis the ACC ranked so high the last two years?
The Big Least has hardly ever looked good in Sagarin's ratings. In the list I posted, they only made the top 5 once, and that was when Miami, BC and VT were still in.

The ACC is the best conference, IMO, from top to bottom, especially this year.
The middle of the ACC is especially tough. Teams like BC, Clemson, Maryland, NC State, Virginia, and GT can and often do beat top 10 teams on any given Saturday.

You just don't have that in the Pac 10, Big 12, or even the SEC this year.

When you add Miami and Va. Tech it doesn't exactly dilute your talent pool.

Fact is, the ACC had a good year, in that Duke was the only HORRIBLE team this year. Kentucky, Ole Miss, and MSU were horrible teams this year, but Ole Miss and MSU will eventually be good again. The main problem stems from the fact that Sagarin's rating are nowhere near the same as the polls. He's got the ACC teams rated much higher and the SEC teams lower.

You can find computer rankings to fit an agenda no matter what:

http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootball/ratings.htm#Conference -- Pac-10 is weaker and so is the ACC
http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf -- USC's schedule is the weakest in the Top 5

http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html - ACC has a losing record to SEC -- SEC is tired with Pac-10, etc

You can argue numerous ways.

Fact is, the Pac-10 simply doesn't have the competition and strength as any of the other major conferences. They are top heavy.

How about Texas' conference. That's gotta be the worst conference in the nation...

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: Mill
Notre Dame does DESERVE a BCS Bowl, because they are "special" enough to have their own language and rules in the BCS. Such horsesh!t.

I have no problem with Notre Dame's special language, considering that Florida State gets a BCS bid.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: Mill
Notre Dame does DESERVE a BCS Bowl, because they are "special" enough to have their own language and rules in the BCS. Such horsesh!t.

I have no problem with Notre Dame's special language, considering that Florida State gets a BCS bid.

Just like Pitt did last year. Total BS.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Mill
What's the point of this debate. Can't everyone admit that a playoff system would answer all this nonsense?

Pretty much and why I'd hardly even bother if people did'nt always bag on PAC-10 like some Div II league. Who knows if USC or Texas is realy best when they win? Miami may beat them in a playoff setup.. Va tech and half a dozen other teams as well.. Works like that at pro level all the time.. though i don't think wildcards do so well. anyway 'national champion' seems meaningless in a subjective ratings sheme they got going.. if you people like subjective watch figure skating.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: Mill
Notre Dame does DESERVE a BCS Bowl, because they are "special" enough to have their own language and rules in the BCS. Such horsesh!t.

I have no problem with Notre Dame's special language, considering that Florida State gets a BCS bid.

It's no special language, they just choose to be independants and who can blame them with the national TV contract they have because of it.. after all, they are universities so you know they arn't that stupid.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: Mill
Notre Dame does DESERVE a BCS Bowl, because they are "special" enough to have their own language and rules in the BCS. Such horsesh!t.

I have no problem with Notre Dame's special language, considering that Florida State gets a BCS bid.

It's no special language, they just choose to be independants and who can blame them with the national TV contract they have because of it.. after all, they are universities so you know they arn't that stupid.

Re-read it again, please. Notre Dame gets preferred treatment over other independents and conferences.

 

[her209]

Since everyone is arguing about the strength of each conference, I did a quick compilation of the percentage of games won in each of the conferences out-of-conference games. Here are the results:

1. Big 12 (86.11% wins)
2. Big 10 (82.35% wins)
3. SEC and ACC tied (75% wins)
4. Pac-10 (74.19% wins)
5. Big East (59.38% wins)
6. C-USA (40.54% wins)
7. WAC (29.03% wins)
8. S. Belt (18.75% wins)

Yes, I know there are some inherent flaws.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Mill
Sagarin's ratings are unduly biased against Conferences with more than 10 teams or Conferences that play Championship games.

The more teams in your conference the lower your average will be. That's why the Big East looks "decent" in his ratings, whereas the WAC would destroy just about all of their teams this year, and I wouldn't be shocked if they lose their BCS slot eventually.

If his rating are biased against conferences with more than 10 teams, whyis the ACC ranked so high the last two years?
The Big Least has hardly ever looked good in Sagarin's ratings. In the list I posted, they only made the top 5 once, and that was when Miami, BC and VT were still in.

The ACC is the best conference, IMO, from top to bottom, especially this year.
The middle of the ACC is especially tough. Teams like BC, Clemson, Maryland, NC State, Virginia, and GT can and often do beat top 10 teams on any given Saturday.

You just don't have that in the Pac 10, Big 12, or even the SEC this year.

When you add Miami and Va. Tech it doesn't exactly dilute your talent pool.

Fact is, the ACC had a good year, in that Duke was the only HORRIBLE team this year. Kentucky, Ole Miss, and MSU were horrible teams this year, but Ole Miss and MSU will eventually be good again. The main problem stems from the fact that Sagarin's rating are nowhere near the same as the polls. He's got the ACC teams rated much higher and the SEC teams lower.

You can find computer rankings to fit an agenda no matter what:

http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootball/ratings.htm#Conference -- Pac-10 is weaker and so is the ACC
http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf -- USC's schedule is the weakest in the Top 5

http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html - ACC has a losing record to SEC -- SEC is tired with Pac-10, etc

You can argue numerous ways.

Fact is, the Pac-10 simply doesn't have the competition and strength as any of the other major conferences. They are top heavy.

How about Texas' conference. That's gotta be the worst conference in the nation...

The B12 has been overrated for a while, this year has exposed that. Has been a 2-team conference for so long, and when one of them is down (OU), it's just plain bad.

 

[Accipiter22]

This thread title is misleading

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Mill
Sagarin's ratings are unduly biased against Conferences with more than 10 teams or Conferences that play Championship games.

The more teams in your conference the lower your average will be. That's why the Big East looks "decent" in his ratings, whereas the WAC would destroy just about all of their teams this year, and I wouldn't be shocked if they lose their BCS slot eventually.

If his rating are biased against conferences with more than 10 teams, whyis the ACC ranked so high the last two years?
The Big Least has hardly ever looked good in Sagarin's ratings. In the list I posted, they only made the top 5 once, and that was when Miami, BC and VT were still in.

The ACC is the best conference, IMO, from top to bottom, especially this year.
The middle of the ACC is especially tough. Teams like BC, Clemson, Maryland, NC State, Virginia, and GT can and often do beat top 10 teams on any given Saturday.

You just don't have that in the Pac 10, Big 12, or even the SEC this year.

When you add Miami and Va. Tech it doesn't exactly dilute your talent pool.

Fact is, the ACC had a good year, in that Duke was the only HORRIBLE team this year. Kentucky, Ole Miss, and MSU were horrible teams this year, but Ole Miss and MSU will eventually be good again. The main problem stems from the fact that Sagarin's rating are nowhere near the same as the polls. He's got the ACC teams rated much higher and the SEC teams lower.

You can find computer rankings to fit an agenda no matter what:

http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootball/ratings.htm#Conference -- Pac-10 is weaker and so is the ACC
http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf -- USC's schedule is the weakest in the Top 5

http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html - ACC has a losing record to SEC -- SEC is tired with Pac-10, etc

You can argue numerous ways.

Fact is, the Pac-10 simply doesn't have the competition and strength as any of the other major conferences. They are top heavy.

How about Texas' conference. That's gotta be the worst conference in the nation...

The B12 has been overrated for a while, this year has exposed that. Has been a 2-team conference for so long, and when one of them is down (OU), it's just plain bad.

Uh? Might I remind you Colorado and Nebraska used to be extremely good. Its not a two team conference. Did the Big12 have a down year? Yeah. Has it been slightly overrated in years past? Is it better than the Pac10? Yeah Tech proved that last year. When the teams of the big 12 hit on all cylindars its the toughest conference. They just havent been doing that the past three years.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: digitalsm When the teams of the big 12 hit on all cylindars its the toughest conference. They just havent been doing that the past three years.

Do I need a sarcasm meter repaired or did you really mean that?

If they haven't been "hitting on all cylinders" the PAST THREE YEARS, then that means they aren't that good.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: her209
Since everyone is arguing about the strength of each conference, I did a quick compilation of the percentage of games won in each of the conferences out-of-conference games. Here are the results:

1. Big 12 (86.11% wins)
2. Big 10 (82.35% wins)
3. SEC and ACC tied (75% wins)
4. Pac-10 (74.19% wins)
5. Big East (59.38% wins)
6. C-USA (40.54% wins)
7. WAC (29.03% wins)
8. S. Belt (18.75% wins)

Yes, I know there are some inherent flaws.

Yeah, like who played the tougher OOC games? SEC teams are notorious for playing weak OOC.

Edit: Not that I have a problem with teams scheduling home-only games to make money.

 

[hdeck]

i will go ahead and predict a 200+ yard game for mr. peterson.

 

[BlancoNino]

Does anyone remember LSU having to get lucky and struggle to come from behind to beat a so-so Arizona State team this year? The pac-10 beats itself up. Oregon only played ONE BAD HALF of football. They beat CAL and WSU by 3 points but those two teams are actually a LOT better than their records would imply.

WSU's running back

Jerome Harrison, Wash St 308 carries for 1900 Yards averaging 6.2 yards per carry AND had 16 TD's this year...he's the nations leading rusher.

Might I add that WSU could EASILY be playing in a bowl game this year except 4-5 of their losses came with late 4th quarter comebacks including UCLA and Oregon AND Oregon did it rotating two backup QB's against both CAL and WSU and when they rolled OSU 42-14. Fresno State lost it's last two games because they didn't have any more fire left after they already signed to play a bowl game and played the number 1 team in the nation. Plus Nevada is actually a good team and could probably give a lot of these so-called great ACC and SEC teams a good run for their money.

Think Oregon can't handle Adrain Peterson? They have one of the best run defenses in the country.

Does anyone think FSU (4 losses) deserves a major bowl over the ducks? If so, you're crazy. Does anyone bring up the point that the guys on ESPN radio were saying that the only reason OSU is playing Notre Dame is because of the prestige of the schools and not because of who deserves it? It's all about making money, and since Oregon isn't a huge school like ND or OSU, they get screwed...by rule.

Is it because Washington (who is normally a power) isn't doing so well lately that nobody thinks the pac-10 is any good? If anyone watched ND and Washington play...ND didn't have the easiest time with them...Washington ****** the game up where it could have been pretty damn close. Plus Oregon rolled Stanford that ND STRUGGLED with too.

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: hdeck
i will go ahead and predict a 200+ yard game for mr. peterson.

was Peterson out when UCLA beat OU,

he must have been, else OU would have just run the ball rather than their weak QB throw

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: hdeck
i will go ahead and predict a 200+ yard game for mr. peterson.

was Peterson out when UCLA beat OU,

he must have been, else OU would have just run the ball rather than their weak QB throw

Regardless, OU had nothing to stop UCLA's offense, whereas USC
s oh so weak defense basically held them to 3 points until garbage time.

 

[fustercluck]

I too kinda feel like Oregon got screwed, but I also feel Notre Dame is a better team, so i don't mind it much.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Plus Oregon rolled Stanford that ND STRUGGLED with too.

why pick that as the comparison point? Why not USC? Oregon got rolled by USC, but ND was one play away from beating them.

Oregon is overrated, PAC-10 is overrated, get over it.

The Fiesta Bowl doesnt want everyone to turn off the TV at half time because Oregon is getting raped by ND or Ohio State.

 

[GeneValgene]

let's put it to the vote here

 

[jEnus]

You are completely wrong that Fresno can match up to anyone in the nation. They lost to Nevada and LA Tech!

 

[BlancoNino]

Yeah AFTER they already accepted a bowl bid and spent all their energy playing USC. PLUS Nevada is NOT a bad team.

You guys keep bringing up last years bowl results...yeah it wasn't very good for the pac-10 but the year before that.

HOLIDAY BOWL
Washington State 28 vs. Texas 20

INSIGHT BOWL
California 52 vs. Virginia Tech 49

LAS VEGAS BOWL
Oregon State 55 vs. New Mexico 14 (NM was good that year)

ROSE BOWL
USC 28 vs. Michigan 14

that's 4 out of 6 wins against Big-12, Big-10 and ACC. At least put the pac-10 on the SAME LEVEL. ANyone care to claim what the ducks COULD have done to have made it to a BCS bowl then? They lost to the team nobody can beat...and they beat everyone else...what does it take?

 

[Train]

Damn dude your really reaching now, what happened in 4 out of 6 games two years ago validates the Pac-10? gimme a break.

In 3 of those games the PAC-10 had the higher ranked team anyways.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Train
Damn dude your really reaching now, what happened in 4 out of 6 games two years ago validates the Pac-10? gimme a break.

In 3 of those games the PAC-10 had the higher ranked team anyways.

So you're saying that the PAC-10 isn't overrated?