• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dullard's college football ratings week 12

dullard

dullard

Elite Member
I kindof got caught up in making a test for a class and typing in notes that I've procrastinated. So I forgot to do the reopimization for my rankings. I might get around to it tonight and I'll edit this post. So here is the ratings using last week's optimization factors. There was a lot of movement. Quite a lot considering this time of year. Sorry Wisconsin fans, my program has never liked you this year.

Place : Win Rating , Score Rating ( W , L ) Team name
01 : 75.5 , 77.5 ( 10, 0) Southern Cal
02 : 73.7 , 72.5 ( 10, 0) Oklahoma
03 : 70.0 , 73.6 ( 8 , 1 ) California
04 : 68.2 , 68.8 ( 10, 0) Utah
05 : 66.9 , 63.9 ( 8 , 2 ) Arizona St
06 : 66.9 , 65.8 ( 9 , 1 ) Texas
07 : 66.3 , 67.0 ( 10, 0) Auburn
08 : 61.2 , 59.5 ( 7 , 2 ) Miami FL
09 : 61.2 , 57.9 ( 9 , 1 ) Michigan
10 : 61.1 , 56.2 ( 9 , 0 ) Boise St
11 : 60.6 , 59.4 ( 7 , 3 ) Texas A&M
12 : 59.2 , 57.8 ( 8 , 2 ) Florida St
13 : 58.9 , 60.9 ( 7 , 1 ) Louisville
14 : 58.5 , 55.4 ( 7 , 2 ) Tennessee
15 : 58.2 , 59.5 ( 8 , 2 ) Georgia
16 : 57.4 , 53.4 ( 8 , 2 ) Iowa
17 : 57.2 , 56.9 ( 7 , 3 ) Oklahoma St
18 : 56.3 , 55.8 ( 7 , 2 ) Virginia
19 : 56.0 , 55.2 ( 7 , 2 ) LSU
20 : 55.5 , 51.8 ( 9 , 1 ) Wisconsin
21 : 51.8 , 50.5 ( 7 , 2 ) Virginia Tech
22 : 50.9 , 50.4 ( 6 , 4 ) Texas Tech
23 : 50.6 , 47.0 ( 7 , 2 ) UTEP
24 : 50.2 , 49.6 ( 6 , 4 ) Notre Dame
25 : 50.0 , 46.5 ( 6 , 4 ) Colorado
26 : 49.9 , 51.7 ( 6 , 4 ) UCLA
27 : 49.8 , 49.0 ( 5 , 5 ) Oregon St
28 : 49.6 , 47.6 ( 7 , 2 ) Boston College
29 : 49.3 , 47.8 ( 8 , 2 ) West Virginia
30 : 48.5 , 50.7 ( 6 , 4 ) Purdue
31 : 47.4 , 45.8 ( 6 , 4 ) New Mexico
32 : 46.5 , 42.2 ( 6 , 3 ) Georgia Tech
33 : 46.5 , 41.0 ( 5 , 5 ) North Carolina
34 : 46.1 , 47.7 ( 6 , 3 ) Fresno St
35 : 45.5 , 44.9 ( 6 , 4 ) Ohio State
36 : 45.3 , 50.4 ( 6 , 4 ) Florida
37 : 44.8 , 45.2 ( 6 , 4 ) South Carolina
38 : 44.7 , 50.0 ( 4 , 5 ) Arkansas
39 : 44.7 , 39.8 ( 5 , 4 ) Iowa St
40 : 44.7 , 46.4 ( 5 , 5 ) Oregon
41 : 44.3 , 43.8 ( 5 , 5 ) Brigham Young
42 : 44.2 , 39.3 ( 6 , 3 ) Alabama-Birmingham
43 : 42.8 , 39.4 ( 6 , 3 ) Pittsburgh
44 : 42.8 , 39.8 ( 6 , 4 ) Wyoming
45 : 42.3 , 44.8 ( 6 , 4 ) Alabama
46 : 42.3 , 39.3 ( 5 , 5 ) Northwestern
47 : 42.2 , 39.9 ( 5 , 5 ) Clemson
48 : 42.2 , 35.2 ( 7 , 2 ) Navy
49 : 42.0 , 46.5 ( 4 , 6 ) Stanford
50 : 41.1 , 42.9 ( 5 , 5 ) Michigan St
51 : 41.0 , 37.7 ( 6 , 3 ) Memphis
52 : 41.0 , 40.5 ( 4 , 6 ) Washington St
53 : 40.9 , 42.2 ( 6 , 5 ) Minnesota
54 : 40.2 , 43.1 ( 8 , 2 ) Bowling Green
55 : 40.2 , 35.9 ( 5 , 3 ) Southern Miss
56 : 39.3 , 37.3 ( 5 , 5 ) Nebraska
57 : 38.8 , 40.3 ( 4 , 6 ) Kansas St
58 : 38.6 , 39.6 ( 4 , 5 ) Maryland
59 : 38.4 , 37.0 ( 5 , 4 ) Cincinnati
60 : 38.2 , 38.4 ( 4 , 6 ) Colorado St
61 : 38.1 , 40.1 ( 4 , 5 ) Missouri
62 : 38.0 , 37.0 ( 6 , 4 ) Troy St
63 : 37.7 , 38.5 ( 4 , 6 ) North Carolina St
64 : 37.5 , 32.3 ( 5 , 5 ) Louisiana Tech
65 : 36.7 , 28.0 ( 6 , 4 ) North Texas
66 : 36.7 , 33.6 ( 5 , 5 ) Syracuse
67 : 36.6 , 34.7 ( 5 , 4 ) Connecticut
68 : 35.7 , 30.5 ( 5 , 5 ) New Mexico St
69 : 35.7 , 34.9 ( 7 , 3 ) Northern Illinois
70 : 35.2 , 34.1 ( 4 , 6 ) Air Force
71 : 35.2 , 38.0 ( 3 , 7 ) Kansas
72 : 34.0 , 34.2 ( 4 , 5 ) Wake Forest
73 : 33.6 , 29.8 ( 4 , 5 ) TCU
74 : 33.4 , 29.5 ( 4 , 4 ) South Florida
75 : 32.9 , 30.8 ( 7 , 3 ) Toledo
76 : 32.8 , 32.5 ( 7 , 3 ) Miami OH
77 : 31.8 , 30.4 ( 3 , 6 ) Mississippi
78 : 31.1 , 29.1 ( 4 , 5 ) Rutgers
79 : 30.9 , 25.0 ( 3 , 7 ) Baylor
80 : 30.1 , 31.1 ( 2 , 8 ) Arizona
81 : 30.1 , 25.6 ( 4 , 5 ) Hawai`i
82 : 29.6 , 29.2 ( 3 , 7 ) San Diego St
83 : 29.2 , 32.8 ( 3 , 7 ) Penn St
84 : 28.4 , 30.2 ( 5 , 5 ) Marshall
85 : 28.2 , 27.7 ( 3 , 6 ) Mississippi St
86 : 27.9 , 22.9 ( 5 , 5 ) Middle Tenn St
87 : 26.7 , 21.4 ( 6 , 4 ) Akron
88 : 26.6 , 26.3 ( 3 , 7 ) Illinois
89 : 26.6 , 22.8 ( 4 , 5 ) Tulane
90 : 26.0 , 28.1 ( 3 , 7 ) Indiana
91 : 25.9 , 23.4 ( 3 , 7 ) Houston
92 : 24.8 , 23.4 ( 2 , 8 ) UNLV
93 : 23.8 , 16.8 ( 4 , 6 ) UL-Monroe
94 : 23.0 , 23.5 ( 1 , 9 ) Washington
95 : 22.8 , 19.6 ( 4 , 6 ) UL-Lafayette
96 : 22.5 , 20.6 ( 3 , 7 ) Rice
97 : 22.4 , 20.8 ( 2 , 8 ) Duke
98 : 22.4 , 19.2 ( 5 , 5 ) Nevada
99 : 22.4 , 15.8 ( 3 , 7 ) SMU
100 : 21.3 , 21.1 ( 2 , 8 ) Kentucky
101 : 20.3 , 22.7 ( 2 , 8 ) Vanderbilt
102 : 19.0 , 14.0 ( 3 , 7 ) Arkansas St
103 : 18.8 , 17.2 ( 2 , 7 ) Army
104 : 18.7 , 14.1 ( 2 , 7 ) East Carolina
105 : 18.0 , 16.1 ( 2 , 8 ) Temple
106 : 17.9 , 20.2 ( 4 , 6 ) Kent St
107 : 17.8 , 16.9 ( 2 , 8 ) Tulsa
108 : 15.9 , 8.9 ( 3 , 8 ) Idaho
109 : 15.7 , 10.6 ( 2 , 8 ) Utah St
110 : 14.7 , 11.5 ( 2 , 7 ) San Jos? St
111 : 12.9 , 12.7 ( 4 , 7 ) Ohio U.
112 : 11.4 , 7.4 ( 4 , 6 ) Eastern Michigan
113 : 10.1 , 8.2 ( 2 , 8 ) Ball St
114 : 8.6 , 5.9 ( 3 , 7 ) Central Michigan
115 : 3.0 , 1.5 ( 2 , 8 ) Buffalo
116 : 0.5 , 0.0 ( 1 , 9 ) Western Michigan
117 : 0.0 , 1.0 ( 0 , 10 ) Central Florida
 
Division I-AA

Place : Score Rating ( W , L ) Team name
01 : 84.7 ( 9 , 2 ) Georgia Southern
02 : 83.5 ( 10, 1) Southern Illinois
03 : 82.9 ( 9 , 0 ) Harvard
04 : 80.5 ( 8 , 2 ) New Hampshire
05 : 79.1 ( 8 , 2 ) Furman
06 : 78.3 ( 8 , 2 ) James Madison
07 : 78.3 ( 8 , 2 ) William & Mary
08 : 78.1 ( 8 , 3 ) Eastern Washington
09 : 76.2 ( 8 , 2 ) Cal Poly SLO
10 : 75.8 ( 8 , 2 ) Montana
11 : 75.0 ( 7 , 3 ) Delaware
12 : 74.9 ( 6 , 4 ) Villanova
13 : 74.3 ( 6 , 3 ) Florida Atlantic
14 : 73.8 ( 8 , 2 ) Sam Houston St
15 : 72.2 ( 7 , 2 ) Pennsylvania
16 : 72.1 ( 9 , 1 ) Lehigh
17 : 71.7 ( 8 , 2 ) Western Kentucky
18 : 70.8 ( 6 , 4 ) Northern Iowa
19 : 69.8 ( 5 , 5 ) Maine
20 : 69.7 ( 8 , 1 ) Jacksonville St
21 : 69.6 ( 5 , 5 ) Hofstra
22 : 68.7 ( 6 , 4 ) Portland St
23 : 68.0 ( 7 , 3 ) Northwestern St
24 : 67.0 ( 9 , 1 ) Hampton
25 : 65.9 ( 5 , 5 ) Massachusetts
 
Auburn behind 2 1-loss teams (Cal and Texas), a 2-loss team (ASU), and a mid-major Cinderella team (Utah)?
Dullard....man, you really need to lay off the crack rock.
 
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Auburn behind 2 1-loss teams (Cal and Texas), a 2-loss team (ASU), and a mid-major Cinderella team (Utah)?
Dullard....man, you really need to lay off the crack rock.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know what it feels like to be on crack. Reminds me of highschool days when I played flag football in PE. I grabbed for a flag from behind someone running. It was just him and I. I grabbed a bit too much, and pulled everything down: flag, shorts, and part of boxers. For years he'd moon me and ask if I wanted some crack. Stupid story I just wanted to tell.

Auburn is already in #5 position in the score rating (best predictor I have of scores). Auburn would be #5 in the win rating if somewhere over the season they had just one more touchdown (in a non-cupcake game). Say if Auburn had beaten LSU by 8 instead of by 1, then Auburn would be #4 in the ratings. So Auburn really isn't behind Arizona St or behind Texas. I call that a tie.
 
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Auburn behind 2 1-loss teams (Cal and Texas), a 2-loss team (ASU), and a mid-major Cinderella team (Utah)?
Dullard....man, you really need to lay off the crack rock.
Click to expand...

Everybody that those teams have lost to are ranked far ahead of anyone Auburn has beaten.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Auburn behind 2 1-loss teams (Cal and Texas), a 2-loss team (ASU), and a mid-major Cinderella team (Utah)?
Dullard....man, you really need to lay off the crack rock.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know what it feels like to be on crack. Reminds me of highschool days when I played flag football in PE. I grabbed for a flag from behind someone running. It was just him and I. I grabbed a bit too much, and pulled everything down: flag, shorts, and part of boxers. For years he'd moon me and ask if I wanted some crack. Stupid story I just wanted to tell.

Auburn is already in #5 position in the score rating (best predictor I have of scores). Auburn would be #5 in the win rating if somewhere over the season they had just one more touchdown (in a non-cupcake game). Say if Auburn had beaten LSU by 8 instead of by 1, then Auburn would be #4 in the ratings. So Auburn really isn't behind Arizona St or behind Texas. I call that a tie.
Click to expand...

You place too much emphasis on offense alone IMO.

Auburn is first nationally in scoring defense, holding opponents to 9.3 points per game. A total of 67 of the 93 points (72 percent) that the Tigers have allowed have come with Auburn leading by 20 or more points.


But if it's offense you like:

Auburn's margin of victory in SEC games is an impressive 20.4 points per game. In all games, the Tigers are third nationally in scoring differential, outscoring their opponents 24.9 ppg. Louisville is first (26.0) followed by Southern California (25.5).

The Tigers have more wins by 18 or more points this season (9) than any other Division I-A program. Next are Utah (7), California (6), USC (6), Virginia (6) and Texas (6).
 
Originally posted by: chuckywang
How is Arizona St. at 5?
Click to expand...
Played damn well against a lot of tough teams. They are pretty much in the top 3 for toughest schedule so far. The only games lost were to teams ranked #1 and #3. And at #5 you should lose to teams ranked #1 and #3 <- a fact lost on most people who complain without making their own ratings.

My rankings basically have Arizona St, Texas, and Auburn tied for the 5th through 7th spots. BCS computers put Arizona St at #7 on average (although it goes as high as #4).
 
Here's an article from this morning's Dallas Morning News.......something to chew on....I think the guy is dead on....

USC? Enough already!
Talk of top-ranked Trojans takes attention away from OU, Auburn
09:26 PM CST on Sunday, November 14, 2004

ESPN?s cast of characters spent most of Saturday night bickering over whether Auburn should leapfrog Oklahoma in the media and coaches? polls.

They missed another issue.

Should Oklahoma and Auburn leap over Southern California?

USC has been ranked No. 1 all season. The Trojans were installed as the preseason No. 1 team, and they?ve won 10 out of 10 games.

Yet nobody talks about how California almost came away victorious or how Oregon State gave USC a good scare in the foggy Pacific Northwest.

?Voters have been putting USC at No. 1 for so long, they?ve forgotten to look at them,? said Jerry Palm, who runs CollegeBCS.com.

If television commentators can sway public opinion so easily, then they need to come clean with all the facts. At a minimum, they should stop giving the Men of Troy a free pass just because they are ranked No. 1.

USC has struggled at times, as have Oklahoma and Auburn. OU has better offensive numbers than USC, and the Tigers play better defense than the other two. And to top it off, both OU and Auburn play tougher competition in their respective leagues and they must win a conference championship game to boot.

Add it all up, and maybe Oklahoma and Auburn both deserve to be in the Fed Ex Orange Bowl.

All the statistical information can be found on the NCAA?s Web site, assuming TV producers know how to check.

The NCAA compiles the win-loss records of each team?s opponents. Any victory or loss against a Division I-AA team is thrown out. Going into this week?s regular-season finale at Baylor, OU?s previous 10 opponents have a combined record of 54-33. It?s the 14th-toughest schedule. The BCS computers certainly it. The Sooners were first in four of the six computer rankings last week and second in the other two.
Texas A&amp;M has the toughest schedule, which should make Aggies fans puff out their chests. A&amp;M?s opponents are 55-30.
USC?s previous opponents are 45-40 and Auburn?s are 41-32.

Now, the Trojans will see that number go up after the final two games. Notre Dame and UCLA are 12-8 combined. So USC doesn?t exactly have an easy road to the finish line.

But let?s look at the path USC has traveled. As of today, the Pac-10 has just four teams that are bowl eligible. To become bowl eligible, a team must post a winning record during the regular season?that means 6-5. USC, California, Arizona State and UCLA are the only ones who have at least six victories.

Over in the Big 12, six teams are bowl eligible. Seven teams are eligible in the SEC.

It?s no wonder why USC has won six games by 30 points or more. The league isn?t that good.

The Big 12 North isn?t that hot, either. But Oklahoma plays in the Big 12 South. That division may fill every top-level bowl game the league is affiliated with.

OU coach Bob Stoops seemed resigned to the fact that Auburn is the flavor of the month.
?All you can do is do your best to win and so ... you know, what are you gonna do?? Stoops said Sunday after The Associated Press Top 25 was released. OU and Auburn are tied for second.

Palm projects OU to remain second and Auburn will be third in this week?s BCS standings, which will be released at 11 a.m. today. But USC will still be No. 1.
Do the Trojans deserve to be there? It?s unknown.

Just don?t expect the ?talking heads,? as Stoops calls them, to tell fans any different.

 
If there is any justice in the world, margin of victory would not be factored into any sort of ranking measurement. You should not be rewarded for running up the score. Margin of defeat however.....that's still iffy.
 
Originally posted by: chuckywang
If there is any justice in the world, margin of victory would not be factored into any sort of ranking measurement. You should not be rewarded for running up the score. Margin of defeat however.....that's still iffy.
Click to expand...
They would result the exact same in my program - depending on how you implement it.

I have a cutoff, no one gets awarded by winning by too much for that reason. But I feel that if a #1 team beats Central Florida by 1 point in 3rd overtime, then that shows a serious problem. A #1 team SHOULD and MUST win by more than 1 point to stay #1 in my opinion. Thus something has to be said about score.

Maybe I could run a list with a lower score cutoff, but then you have the BCS computers all over again.
 
You know whats really scary is accoring to that article we have the toughest schedule in the nation (Texas A&amp;M) and its going to be alot tougher next year (atleast we get to drop utah off though).
 
I'm surprised to see Florida St. get a better ranking this week. They played a horrible game on Thursday.

Still, your rankings (imo) are better than those of the BCS. We're ranked #8 there. :roll:

People are giving us way too much credit, though we are likely to win out until our bowl game since our only remaining game is at home where we're always strong.
 
Originally posted by: Balt
I'm surprised to see Florida St. get a better ranking this week. They played a horrible game on Thursday.
Click to expand...
Yeah I thought you were gone there for a while. My program moved you ahead of 3 teams this week: Tennessee, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Two of them lost badly and one didn't play. So it isn't too surprizing that you moved up a bit.

 
Originally posted by: kalster
Originally posted by: hdeck
usc should not be in the title game.
Click to expand...

people keep saying that , yeh they keep winning, 30 out of 31 games now 😉
Click to expand...

It looks like they stole the Buckeyes mojo this year, they have been getting by by the skinf their teeth whereas with Auburn it is usually over by halftime.
 
Originally posted by: hdeck
usc should not be in the title game.
Click to expand...
I'm purposely avoiding the other thread on this subject (I got here to late to jump into that mess). But here are my thoughts.

1) If you like my computer ratings at all, it can be used to find strength of schedule without the vast problems occuring by other SOS ratings used elsewhere. The program averages the rating of the opponents that each team plays. Then sort the averages (#1 played toughest SOS, #117 played the easiest SOS). Of the undefeated teams, here is the result: USC is 8th, Oklahoma is 11th, Utah is 53rd, Auburn is 66th, and Boise St is 88th. So of the 5 undefeated teams, two played schedules much harder than the others. It isn't even close with the rest. These two teams are ranked #1 and #2 in my program.

2) USC is undefeated in that tough schedule.

3) USC has the nations second longest win streak.

4) USC is the current co-national champion.

5) USCs narrowest win: 8 points. Oklahoma's narrowest win: 3 points. Auburn's narrowest win: 1 point (actually was losing with 1:15 left in the game).

6) USC: #7 in nation in scoring. Oklahoma is #12. Auburn is #16.

8) Defense: USC allows 11.5 points per game. Oklahoma allows 16.1 points per game. Auburn allows 9.3 points per game. So ok, USC is #2 here, but #2 of these three teams still makes it to the title game.

Seems like no good reason not to let USC play in the title game. Sure they had some close calls. Tell that to Ohio State 2 years ago, LSU last year (missed Georgia field goal), or to any other national champion in recent years.

 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: hdeck
usc should not be in the title game.
Click to expand...
I'm purposely avoiding the other thread on this subject (I got here to late to jump into that mess). But here are my thoughts.

1) If you like my computer ratings at all, it can be used to find strength of schedule without the vast problems occuring by other SOS ratings used elsewhere. The program averages the rating of the opponents that each team plays. Then sort the averages (#1 played toughest SOS, #117 played the easiest SOS). Of the undefeated teams, here is the result: USC is 8th, Oklahoma is 11th, Utah is 53rd, Auburn is 66th, and Boise St is 88th. So of the 5 undefeated teams, two played schedules much harder than the others. It isn't even close with the rest. These two teams are ranked #1 and #2 in my program.

2) USC is undefeated in that tough schedule.

3) USC has the nations second longest win streak.

4) USC is the current co-national champion.

Seems like no good reason not to let USC play in the title game. Sure they had some close calls. Tell that to Ohio State 2 years ago, LSU last year (missed Georgia field goal), or to any other national champion in recent years.
Click to expand...


You base your ratings on ratings that are already artificially inflated to support USC and Oklahoma since the pollsters love them so much.
 
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: kalster
Originally posted by: hdeck
usc should not be in the title game.
Click to expand...

people keep saying that , yeh they keep winning, 30 out of 31 games now 😉
Click to expand...

It looks like they stole the Buckeyes mojo this year, they have been getting by by the skinf their teeth whereas with Auburn it is usually over by halftime.
Click to expand...

people keep finding ways to justify that they shudnt be in the title game

last year it was that their strength of schedule was weak and their big wins didnt mean much, this year its close games

i can only wonder what it will be next year if they keep doing as well as they are right now

 
Originally posted by: Nitemare
You base your ratings on ratings that are already artificially inflated to support USC and Oklahoma since the pollsters love them so much.
Click to expand...
My ratings have nothing to do with the pollsters at all. That is not an input into the program.

I could go on. See my additional points above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top