Dullard's College Football - Week 12, 2006

[dullard]

Ok, I tweaked the overall rating that I'm posting here. I increased the artificial point loss for losing games. Basically in the tweaked rating, I now subtract a total of 2.0 for each loss in addition to the numerical amount that gives optimal results. It is artificial and gives worse predictions, but I think it is the only way to pacify some of the more outspoken posters in my threads.

For example, it drops LSU (2 losses) to just below Florida (1 loss). Without this tweak, LSU was just about tied with Florida, but with a very minimal lead and thus LSU would have been listed above Florida.

At least this week we can stop the silly WVU/Rutgers national championship talk.

Place / Tweaked Rating , Win Place / Win Rating , Score Place / Score Rating , W , L , Team name
01 / 71.4 , 02 / 68.6 , 01 / 74.2 , 12 , 0 , Ohio State
02 / 68.6 , 01 / 70.0 , 02 / 69.1 , 09 , 1 , Southern Cal
03 / 64.7 , 03 / 66.3 , 06 / 65.0 , 11 , 1 , Michigan
04 / 63.0 , 05 / 62.8 , 05 / 65.2 , 09 , 1 , Louisville
05 / 62.2 , 08 / 59.5 , 03 / 66.8 , 09 , 1 , West Virginia
06 / 60.3 , 06 / 61.8 , 10 / 60.7 , 10 , 1 , Florida
07 / 59.5 , 13 / 57.5 , 04 / 65.4 , 09 , 2 , LSU
08 / 59.0 , 04 / 63.2 , 16 / 56.7 , 10 , 1 , Notre Dame
09 / 58.8 , 07 / 60.3 , 07 / 63.3 , 08 , 3 , California
10 / 57.6 , 10 / 58.9 , 13 / 58.3 , 10 , 1 , Wisconsin
11 / 57.5 , 12 / 57.5 , 14 / 57.5 , 11 , 0 , Boise St
12 / 55.7 , 09 / 59.1 , 20 / 54.3 , 09 , 1 , Rutgers
13 / 55.7 , 11 / 57.9 , 19 / 55.5 , 10 , 1 , Arkansas
14 / 55.6 , 17 / 54.5 , 09 / 60.7 , 09 , 2 , Texas
15 / 55.0 , 15 / 55.7 , 12 / 58.3 , 09 , 2 , Virginia Tech
16 / 54.6 , 14 / 57.5 , 18 / 55.6 , 10 , 2 , Auburn
17 / 54.2 , 26 / 49.8 , 08 / 62.6 , 9 , 2 , Brigham Young
18 / 54.2 , 19 / 53.8 , 11 / 60.5 , 8 , 3 , Tennessee
19 / 53.3 , 18 / 54.1 , 17 / 56.5 , 9 , 2 , Oklahoma
20 / 52.6 , 16 / 55.3 , 21 / 53.9 , 9 , 2 , Boston College
21 / 49.4 , 32 / 45.8 , 15 / 57.0 , 9 , 2 , Hawai`i
22 / 48.9 , 25 / 50.1 , 22 / 53.6 , 8 , 3 , Clemson
23 / 47.2 , 21 / 51.8 , 24 / 50.6 , 7 , 4 , Oregon
24 / 46.9 , 20 / 51.9 , 36 / 45.9 , 9 , 2 , Georgia Tech
25 / 46.8 , 27 / 48.2 , 23 / 51.4 , 8 , 3 , Nebraska
26 / 46.7 , 22 / 51.7 , 37 / 45.7 , 9 , 2 , Wake Forest
27 / 45.4 , 23 / 50.3 , 29 / 48.5 , 8 , 4 , Penn State
28 / 45.3 , 24 / 50.2 , 30 / 48.4 , 7 , 4 , Oregon St
29 / 45.3 , 33 / 45.7 , 28 / 48.8 , 8 , 2 , TCU
30 / 43.4 , 30 / 47.4 , 27 / 49.3 , 6 , 5 , UCLA
31 / 43.1 , 34 / 45.0 , 32 / 47.1 , 8 , 3 , Texas A&M
32 / 42.9 , 37 / 44.0 , 25 / 49.7 , 7 , 4 , Georgia
33 / 41.6 , 31 / 45.9 , 42 / 43.2 , 8 , 3 , Navy
34 / 41.3 , 41 / 43.2 , 26 / 49.4 , 6 , 5 , South Carolina
35 / 40.8 , 29 / 47.6 , 41 / 44.0 , 6 , 5 , Arizona
36 / 39.9 , 35 / 44.4 , 38 / 45.3 , 6 , 5 , Arizona St
37 / 39.8 , 49 / 39.4 , 35 / 46.1 , 8 , 3 , Nevada
38 / 39.3 , 28 / 47.9 , 57 / 36.7 , 8 , 3 , Maryland
39 / 39.2 , 46 / 39.9 , 34 / 46.4 , 7 , 4 , Missouri
40 / 38.8 , 40 / 43.3 , 40 / 44.2 , 6 , 5 , Cincinnati
41 / 38.0 , 44 / 40.8 , 49 / 41.2 , 9 , 3 , Houston
42 / 37.6 , 54 / 37.6 , 31 / 47.6 , 6 , 5 , Pittsburgh
43 / 37.3 , 38 / 43.9 , 43 / 42.6 , 6 , 6 , Washington St
44 / 37.2 , 36 / 44.1 , 54 / 38.3 , 7 , 4 , Kentucky
45 / 36.7 , 45 / 40.7 , 50 / 40.7 , 7 , 4 , South Florida
46 / 36.3 , 42 / 42.6 , 47 / 41.9 , 6 , 6 , Minnesota
47 / 36.2 , 59 / 35.9 , 33 / 46.5 , 6 , 5 , Oklahoma St
48 / 35.5 , 39 / 43.4 , 61 / 35.5 , 8 , 4 , Purdue
49 / 35.4 , 51 / 38.8 , 46 / 41.9 , 6 , 5 , Florida St
50 / 35.3 , 56 / 37.1 , 48 / 41.4 , 7 , 4 , Utah
51 / 35.2 , 47 / 39.8 , 44 / 42.5 , 6 , 6 , Iowa
52 / 34.7 , 53 / 37.9 , 51 / 39.5 , 7 , 4 , Tulsa
53 / 34.6 , 57 / 36.8 , 45 / 42.4 , 7 , 5 , Texas Tech
54 / 34.5 , 43 / 41.1 , 65 / 33.8 , 8 , 3 , Ohio U.
55 / 34.2 , 60 / 35.7 , 39 / 44.7 , 6 , 6 , Alabama
56 / 33.1 , 52 / 38.5 , 56 / 37.6 , 7 , 5 , Kansas St
57 / 32.9 , 55 / 37.5 , 59 / 36.3 , 7 , 4 , Southern Miss
58 / 32.6 , 50 / 38.8 , 62 / 34.3 , 7 , 4 , Central Michigan
59 / 31.7 , 48 / 39.5 , 55 / 37.8 , 5 , 7 , Washington
60 / 30.3 , 68 / 31.4 , 52 / 39.2 , 6 , 5 , Kansas
61 / 29.9 , 64 / 34.1 , 60 / 35.7 , 6 , 5 , East Carolina
62 / 29.5 , 61 / 35.5 , 69 / 31.5 , 6 , 4 , San Jose St
63 / 28.7 , 58 / 35.9 , 77 / 29.4 , 7 , 4 , Middle Tennessee St
64 / 28.5 , 63 / 34.9 , 76 / 30.0 , 7 , 4 , Western Michigan
65 / 28.4 , 72 / 30.3 , 53 / 38.4 , 4 , 6 , Air Force
66 / 28.0 , 67 / 31.6 , 58 / 36.4 , 5 , 6 , Miami FL
67 / 26.8 , 62 / 35.0 , 79 / 28.6 , 6 , 5 , Rice
68 / 26.8 , 70 / 30.7 , 67 / 32.9 , 6 , 5 , Northern Illinois
69 / 26.1 , 74 / 29.9 , 63 / 34.3 , 6 , 6 , Wyoming
70 / 25.6 , 66 / 32.6 , 71 / 30.5 , 4 , 6 , Connecticut
71 / 25.2 , 69 / 30.9 , 70 / 31.4 , 5 , 6 , Virginia
72 / 25.1 , 71 / 30.4 , 66 / 33.7 , 4 , 7 , Syracuse
73 / 24.5 , 73 / 30.1 , 78 / 28.8 , 6 , 5 , SMU
74 / 23.3 , 65 / 34.0 , 85 / 26.5 , 5 , 7 , Indiana
75 / 23.1 , 75 / 29.5 , 68 / 32.6 , 4 , 8 , Michigan St
76 / 22.9 , 77 / 27.8 , 64 / 33.9 , 4 , 8 , Vanderbilt
77 / 22.2 , 81 / 26.3 , 75 / 30.0 , 5 , 6 , Marshall
78 / 21.4 , 80 / 26.5 , 80 / 28.3 , 5 , 6 , New Mexico
79 / 21.0 , 76 / 27.9 , 90 / 24.0 , 6 , 5 , Kent St
80 / 20.5 , 79 / 26.7 , 73 / 30.2 , 3 , 8 , Mississippi St
81 / 20.3 , 82 / 26.3 , 72 / 30.3 , 3 , 8 , North Carolina St
82 / 20.1 , 96 / 22.0 , 74 / 30.1 , 4 , 6 , Colorado St
83 / 19.2 , 87 / 25.1 , 88 / 25.3 , 5 , 6 , UTEP
84 / 19.0 , 90 / 23.8 , 82 / 28.2 , 3 , 7 , Fresno St
85 / 18.8 , 78 / 27.6 , 87 / 26.0 , 4 , 8 , Northwestern
86 / 18.6 , 85 / 25.6 , 91 / 23.5 , 5 , 6 , Akron
87 / 18.4 , 84 / 26.2 , 94 / 20.5 , 5 , 5 , Troy
88 / 17.8 , 94 / 23.0 , 84 / 26.6 , 4 , 7 , Ball St
89 / 17.8 , 88 / 24.2 , 83 / 27.3 , 3 , 8 , Mississippi
90 / 16.2 , 89 / 24.0 , 89 / 24.4 , 4 , 8 , Baylor
91 / 14.9 , 83 / 26.2 , 108 / 13.6 , 6 , 5 , Arkansas St
92 / 14.6 , 91 / 23.6 , 103 / 15.5 , 5 , 5 , Louisiana-Lafayette
93 / 13.8 , 86 / 25.1 , 102 / 16.5 , 4 , 7 , Tulane
94 / 13.7 , 93 / 23.1 , 95 / 20.2 , 4 , 8 , Iowa St
95 / 13.5 , 92 / 23.4 , 93 / 21.5 , 2 , 9 , North Carolina
96 / 13.4 , 98 / 20.7 , 86 / 26.1 , 2 , 10 , Illinois
97 / 13.1 , 107 / 15.9 , 81 / 28.2 , 2 , 9 , Colorado
98 / 12.5 , 104 / 17.8 , 92 / 23.2 , 3 , 8 , Alabama-Birmingham
99 / 12.1 , 102 / 19.1 , 96 / 19.1 , 4 , 7 , Toledo
100 / 10.9 , 101 / 19.3 , 97 / 18.4 , 3 , 8 , Central Florida
101 / 9.7 , 99 / 19.6 , 107 / 13.7 , 4 , 7 , Bowling Green
102 / 9.4 , 106 / 16.3 , 98 / 18.4 , 2 , 8 , San Diego St
103 / 8.8 , 95 / 22.9 , 104 / 14.7 , 1 , 10 , Stanford
104 / 8.8 , 97 / 21.5 , 111 / 10.0 , 4 , 7 , Idaho
105 / 8.2 , 100 / 19.6 , 110 / 10.8 , 4 , 7 , Florida Atlantic
106 / 7.2 , 105 / 17.5 , 109 / 12.8 , 3 , 8 , Army
107 / 6.0 , 111 / 10.9 , 100 / 17.0 , 2 , 8 , Louisiana-Monroe
108 / 5.4 , 115 / 9.2 , 99 / 17.6 , 2 , 8 , New Mexico St
109 / 4.8 , 112 / 10.9 , 101 / 16.7 , 2 , 9 , Miami OH
110 / 2.5 , 103 / 18.5 , 117 / 2.5 , 3 , 8 , Louisiana Tech
111 / 2.3 , 109 / 13.1 , 114 / 7.4 , 2 , 8 , Buffalo
112 / 2.1 , 108 / 13.4 , 115 / 6.8 , 3 , 8 , North Texas
113 / -0.2 , 118 / 5.2 , 105 / 14.5 , 1 , 10 , Memphis
114 / -0.2 , 117 / 5.7 , 106 / 13.9 , 1 , 10 , UNLV
115 / -1.7 , 114 / 9.4 , 112 / 9.3 , 0 , 11 , Duke
116 / -2.6 , 116 / 5.9 , 113 / 8.9 , 1 , 10 , Eastern Michigan
117 / -3.2 , 110 / 11.5 , 118 / 2.1 , 1 , 10 , Utah St
118 / -6.0 , 113 / 10.1 , 119 / 0.0 , 1 , 11 , Temple
119 / -8.7 , 119 / 0.0 , 116 / 2.6 , 0 , 10 , Florida Int'l

01 / 40.3 , 120 / 44.4 , 121 / 38.1 , 10 , 1 , Massachusetts
02 / 38.5 , 123 / 40.1 , 120 / 38.9 , 10 , 1 , Appalachian St
03 / 38.2 , 121 / 42.7 , 123 / 35.6 , 10 , 1 , North Dakota St
04 / 35.5 , 125 / 38.6 , 122 / 36.3 , 9 , 2 , James Madison
05 / 33.8 , 124 / 38.8 , 124 / 32.7 , 9 , 2 , Youngstown St
06 / 33.0 , 122 / 42.7 , 128 / 25.3 , 10 , 1 , Montana
07 / 29.2 , 128 / 34.0 , 125 / 30.3 , 8 , 3 , New Hampshire
08 / 26.8 , 129 / 32.6 , 126 / 27.0 , 8 , 3 , Illinois St
09 / 24.4 , 133 / 28.8 , 127 / 25.9 , 8 , 3 , Southern Illinois
10 / 24.0 , 126 / 38.5 , 149 / 11.4 , 9 , 1 , Princeton
11 / 22.9 , 130 / 31.4 , 132 / 22.3 , 7 , 4 , Portland St
12 / 22.3 , 136 / 27.8 , 134 / 18.7 , 10 , 1 , Hampton
13 / 22.1 , 131 / 29.1 , 130 / 23.0 , 7 , 4 , Northern Iowa
14 / 21.5 , 139 / 26.8 , 129 / 24.2 , 7 , 4 , Wofford
15 / 21.1 , 145 / 24.3 , 136 / 17.9 , 10 , 0 , San Diego
16 / 20.9 , 127 / 34.3 , 148 / 11.5 , 8 , 2 , Yale
17 / 20.3 , 135 / 28.4 , 135 / 18.2 , 8 , 3 , Furman
18 / 19.3 , 132 / 29.0 , 142 / 13.6 , 9 , 2 , Coastal Carolina
19 / 19.3 , 142 / 25.8 , 131 / 22.7 , 6 , 5 , Maine
20 / 18.3 , 144 / 24.5 , 133 / 22.1 , 5 , 5 , UC-Davis
21 / 17.9 , 134 / 28.8 , 144 / 12.9 , 7 , 3 , Harvard
22 / 17.7 , 141 / 26.6 , 145 / 12.7 , 9 , 2 , Tennessee-Martin
23 / 16.8 , 140 / 26.7 , 138 / 14.9 , 7 , 4 , Cal Poly SLO
24 / 16.6 , 138 / 27.0 , 140 / 14.2 , 7 , 4 , Towson
25 / 14.4 , 151 / 21.4 , 137 / 17.4 , 6 , 5 , Richmond
26 / 14.1 , 146 / 24.2 , 141 / 13.9 , 6 , 5 , Villanova
27 / 14.1 , 137 / 27.8 , 156 / 8.3 , 7 , 4 , South Dakota St
28 / 13.5 , 148 / 23.7 , 151 / 11.3 , 8 , 4 , Eastern Illinois
29 / 13.4 , 143 / 25.6 , 153 / 9.2 , 7 , 4 , Montana St
30 / 12.8 , 152 / 20.7 , 139 / 14.8 , 6 , 5 , Northern Arizona
31 / 12.4 , 150 / 21.9 , 166 / 4.9 , 10 , 1 , Monmouth NJ
32 / 11.8 , 147 / 23.9 , 147 / 11.6 , 5 , 6 , Northeastern
33 / 10.4 , 153 / 19.4 , 150 / 11.3 , 6 , 5 , Western Kentucky
34 / 9.3 , 165 / 15.7 , 143 / 12.9 , 6 , 5 , Jacksonville St
35 / 9.1 , 149 / 22.3 , 178 / -0.1 , 9 , 2 , Charleston Southern
36 / 8.6 , 157 / 17.6 , 158 / 7.5 , 7 , 4 , South Carolina St
37 / 8.3 , 161 / 16.4 , 146 / 12.2 , 5 , 6 , Delaware
38 / 8.0 , 158 / 17.4 , 155 / 8.6 , 6 , 5 , Lehigh
39 / 7.5 , 154 / 18.3 , 160 / 6.7 , 5 , 5 , Pennsylvania
40 / 6.9 , 159 / 16.7 , 171 / 3.0 , 8 , 3 , Delaware St
41 / 6.6 , 156 / 17.7 , 170 / 3.4 , 7 , 4 , McNeese St
42 / 6.4 , 163 / 16.1 , 154 / 8.7 , 5 , 6 , The Citadel
43 / 5.6 , 166 / 15.7 , 163 / 5.5 , 6 , 5 , Sam Houston St
44 / 4.8 , 168 / 14.7 , 167 / 4.9 , 6 , 5 , Lafayette
45 / 4.8 , 155 / 18.0 , 186 / -2.5 , 8 , 3 , Arkansas-Pine Bluff
46 / 4.6 , 167 / 15.5 , 169 / 3.6 , 6 , 5 , Eastern Kentucky
47 / 4.2 , 179 / 10.9 , 152 / 9.4 , 5 , 6 , Western Illinois
48 / 4.0 , 164 / 15.7 , 175 / 0.3 , 7 , 4 , Holy Cross
49 / 3.4 , 162 / 16.2 , 189 / -3.5 , 8 , 3 , Alabama A&M
50 / 3.3 , 171 / 13.3 , 191 / -4.7 , 10 , 1 , St John's MN
51 / 3.3 , 178 / 11.3 , 165 / 5.2 , 6 , 5 , Liberty
52 / 2.8 , 182 / 10.4 , 173 / 1.1 , 8 , 3 , Central Conn St
53 / 2.5 , 177 / 11.6 , 159 / 7.3 , 4 , 7 , Stephen F. Austin
54 / 2.4 , 174 / 12.5 , 168 / 4.2 , 5 , 6 , Elon
55 / 1.9 , 169 / 13.7 , 176 / 0.1 , 6 , 5 , Tennessee St
56 / 1.7 , 175 / 11.7 , 180 / -0.4 , 7 , 4 , Albany NY
57 / 1.3 , 176 / 11.6 , 193 / -5.0 , 9 , 2 , Drake
58 / 1.3 , 160 / 16.6 , 195 / -6.1 , 7 , 4 , Florida A&M
59 / 1.0 , 170 / 13.4 , 172 / 2.5 , 4 , 7 , Rhode Island
60 / 0.0 , 181 / 10.6 , 164 / 5.4 , 3 , 8 , Eastern Washington
61 / -0.4 , 185 / 8.9 , 161 / 6.2 , 3 , 8 , William & Mary
62 / -0.5 , 173 / 13.2 , 177 / -0.1 , 4 , 7 , Sacramento St
63 / -0.7 , 187 / 6.8 , 157 / 7.9 , 3 , 8 , Georgia Southern
64 / -2.1 , 184 / 9.5 , 174 / 0.4 , 4 , 7 , Weber St
65 / -2.7 , 172 / 13.2 , 200 / -8.5 , 6 , 5 , Gardner-Webb
66 / -2.9 , 186 / 7.0 , 181 / -0.8 , 5 , 6 , Texas St-San Marcos
67 / -3.0 , 180 / 10.7 , 196 / -6.7 , 5 , 5 , Columbia
68 / -4.1 , 201 / 3.6 , 162 / 6.2 , 2 , 9 , Hofstra
69 / -4.5 , 189 / 6.3 , 197 / -7.2 , 7 , 4 , Robert Morris
70 / -5.2 , 191 / 6.2 , 185 / -2.5 , 4 , 7 , Colgate
71 / -5.5 , 183 / 9.7 , 210 / -10.6 , 6 , 5 , Bucknell
72 / -5.5 , 208 / 2.0 , 182 / -1.0 , 3 , 6 , Grambling St
73 / -5.7 , 196 / 4.6 , 183 / -2.0 , 4 , 7 , Northwestern St
74 / -6.0 , 194 / 5.2 , 187 / -3.1 , 3 , 7 , Brown
75 / -6.3 , 195 / 5.2 , 198 / -7.7 , 6 , 5 , Jackson St
76 / -6.9 , 193 / 6.0 , 204 / -9.7 , 5 , 5 , Alabama St
77 / -6.9 , 205 / 2.5 , 179 / -0.3 , 3 , 8 , Chattanooga
78 / -7.1 , 209 / 1.8 , 205 / -9.9 , 7 , 3 , Duquesne
79 / -7.1 , 200 / 3.7 , 194 / -5.9 , 5 , 6 , Stony Brook
80 / -7.4 , 188 / 6.8 , 202 / -9.5 , 5 , 6 , Howard
81 / -7.8 , 202 / 3.4 , 192 / -5.0 , 4 , 7 , Nicholls St
82 / -7.9 , 199 / 3.8 , 188 / -3.5 , 3 , 8 , Southern Utah
83 / -8.3 , 212 / 0.4 , 216 / -12.9 , 9 , 2 , Georgetown KY
84 / -8.7 , 192 / 6.1 , 211 / -11.4 , 5 , 6 , Morgan St
85 / -8.9 , 190 / 6.3 , 217 / -14.0 , 6 , 5 , Mississippi Valley St
86 / -9.2 , 207 / 2.1 , 199 / -8.4 , 5 , 6 , Bethune-Cookman
87 / -9.3 , 210 / 1.4 , 214 / -11.9 , 6 , 4 , Davidson
88 / -9.5 , 203 / 2.7 , 213 / -11.7 , 5 , 5 , Alcorn St
89 / -9.9 , 211 / 0.6 , 184 / -2.3 , 2 , 9 , Missouri St
90 / -10.0 , 198 / 4.4 , 208 / -10.4 , 4 , 7 , Tennessee Tech
91 / -10.9 , 204 / 2.7 , 209 / -10.5 , 4 , 7 , SE Missouri St
92 / -11.6 , 214 / -1.4 , 190 / -3.8 , 2 , 9 , Idaho St
93 / -11.7 , 213 / 0.2 , 212 / -11.5 , 4 , 6 , Southern U.
94 / -11.8 , 206 / 2.5 , 206 / -10.1 , 2 , 8 , Dartmouth
95 / -14.2 , 215 / -2.2 , 207 / -10.2 , 3 , 8 , Samford
96 / -15.1 , 217 / -2.9 , 201 / -9.3 , 2 , 9 , Western Carolina
97 / -16.6 , 218 / -3.8 , 219 / -15.4 , 4 , 7 , Norfolk St
98 / -17.9 , 219 / -5.3 , 215 / -12.4 , 2 , 9 , SE Louisiana St
99 / -18.8 , 216 / -2.7 , 218 / -14.9 , 1 , 10 , Indiana St
100 / -23.1 , 220 / -6.7 , 225 / -23.4 , 3 , 8 , Fordham
101 / -23.5 , 226 / -11.4 , 226 / -23.5 , 4 , 6 , Dayton
102 / -23.6 , 221 / -6.9 , 221 / -20.2 , 1 , 10 , Northern Colorado
103 / -23.6 , 222 / -8.2 , 224 / -23.0 , 3 , 8 , Texas Southern
104 / -24.2 , 224 / -9.1 , 220 / -19.3 , 1 , 10 , Murray St
105 / -25.1 , 227 / -11.9 , 223 / -22.2 , 3 , 8 , Prairie View A&M
106 / -25.3 , 225 / -9.2 , 222 / -21.3 , 1 , 10 , VMI
107 / -27.6 , 223 / -9.1 , 232 / -34.1 , 4 , 6 , Jacksonville FL
108 / -28.5 , 228 / -14.2 , 228 / -28.7 , 4 , 7 , Wagner
109 / -28.6 , 231 / -17.1 , 227 / -24.0 , 3 , 8 , Austin Peay
110 / -32.0 , 229 / -15.4 , 233 / -34.5 , 4 , 7 , Marist
111 / -33.3 , 233 / -19.1 , 229 / -29.4 , 2 , 9 , Sacred Heart
112 / -33.9 , 230 / -15.5 , 234 / -36.2 , 3 , 8 , St Francis PA
113 / -35.3 , 237 / -22.7 , 231 / -33.8 , 3 , 7 , Iona
114 / -35.9 , 235 / -21.5 , 230 / -32.3 , 2 , 9 , Morehead St
115 / -39.7 , 232 / -18.3 , 235 / -43.1 , 2 , 9 , Savannah St
116 / -40.9 , 236 / -22.1 , 236 / -43.7 , 3 , 8 , Butler
117 / -42.9 , 234 / -19.7 , 237 / -44.0 , 0 , 11 , North Carolina A&T
118 / -44.7 , 238 / -25.1 , 238 / -48.3 , 2 , 8 , St Peter's
119 / -45.0 , 240 / -26.2 , 240 / -49.8 , 3 , 7 , La Salle
120 / -45.8 , 239 / -26.1 , 239 / -49.4 , 3 , 8 , Valparaiso
121 / -53.4 , 241 / -36.2 , 241 / -54.5 , 2 , 8 , Cornell IA

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

If California was 5-6, would they still be ranked ahead of Tennessee on your rankings? (Sorry, I feel antagonizing this morning, and I had to get that conversation started up right away)

 

[SP33Demon]

I like your computer's high rankings for the Big East, deservedly so. When the SEC fanboys get out of hand, I only need to refer them to this thread.

 

[Juno]

rutgers...

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
If California was 5-6, would they still be ranked ahead of Tennessee on your rankings? (Sorry, I feel antagonizing this morning, and I had to get that conversation started up right away)

Even pretending that Cal could be 5-6 without altering the scores, Cal would get a loss tweak of -2.0*3 = -6.0 (for the three additional losses). That would put them in 19th position, behind Tennessee. But then Cal would get deducted for scoring less and Cal would be deducted for losing within the program. Overalll, Cal would be ranked probably in the 50s-60s. If I'm lazy, I'll run that scenario. Which three teams should I swap the scores and give Cal a loss?

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
If California was 5-6, would they still be ranked ahead of Tennessee on your rankings? (Sorry, I feel antagonizing this morning, and I had to get that conversation started up right away)

Cal has 2 blowout losses and still in the top-10 ahead of Ark, Wisc or TX?

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I like your computer's high rankings for the Big East, deservedly so. When the SEC fanboys get out of hand, I only need to refer them to this thread.

Nothing like the best team in your conf getting blown out by a 5-5 powerhouse like Cincy.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I like your computer's high rankings for the Big East, deservedly so. When the SEC fanboys get out of hand, I only need to refer them to this thread.

Nothing like the best team in your conf getting blown out by a 5-5 powerhouse like Cincy.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Cincy for beating Rutgers and ending any and all talk about the Big East making it to the BCS title game.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Nothing like the best team in your conf getting blown out by a 5-5 powerhouse like Cincy.

Hey, Rutgers was never the best in the Big East and Cincy is 6-5 by the way. You can't ignore the win against Rutgers in the comparison otherwise that leads to lots of logical fallicies. Thus, you must include it. Sorry but that is the way logic works. And in debates, logic is all that matters.

The Big East this year gets the benefit of remarkably having no really bad teams. In normal years, this won't be the case. But this fluke year keeps the Big East ratings quite high. People tend to look at just the top few teams in a conference. But you often get more useful info looking at the bottom few teams too.

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
If California was 5-6, would they still be ranked ahead of Tennessee on your rankings? (Sorry, I feel antagonizing this morning, and I had to get that conversation started up right away)

Even pretending that Cal could be 5-6 without altering the scores, Cal would get a loss tweak of -2.0*3 = -6.0 (for the three additional losses). That would put them in 19th position, behind Tennessee. But then Cal would get deducted for scoring less and Cal would be deducted for losing within the program. Overalll, Cal would be ranked probably in the 50s-60s. If I'm lazy, I'll run that scenario. Which three teams should I swap the scores and give Cal a loss?

Wow, I was being facetious. Alright, swap Arizona St, Oregon, and UCLA.

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Nothing like the best team in your conf getting blown out by a 5-5 powerhouse like Cincy.

Hey, Rutgers was never the best in the Big East and Cincy is 6-5 by the way. You can't ignore the win against Rutgers in the comparison otherwise that leads to lots of logical fallicies. Thus, you must include it. Sorry but that is the way logic works. And in debates, logic is all that matters.

6-5 is way better. Rutgers controlled their own destiny in the conf and was rated the highest in the Big East by the computers and human polls. Thus they were viewed as the top team in their conf before the ugly loss.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
Wow, I was being facetious. Alright, swap Arizona St, Oregon, and UCLA.

Hmm, did better than I thought. Overall tweaked score: 38.9. Those switches would put a hypothetical 5-6 Cal into 39th position, right above and almost exactly tied with 6-5 Cincinnatti. Note: I didn't run the full optimization, so there could be slight variances.

 

[Kilrsat]

Wisconsin is 11-1 not 10-1. You must have missed their game this week.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I still don't understand your poll. Tennessee has lost to 3 top 10 BCS teams (2 of which were very close) and yet they are well below Cal who they destroyed. Cal also lost to an unranked opponent.

Sometimes I wish we could program 'common sense' into computer rankings.

 

[kalster]

I USC was undefeated at this point would their score rating be above Ohio State's

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Kilrsat
Wisconsin is 11-1 not 10-1. You must have missed their game this week.

Thank you for noticing it. Good eye. On rare occasions, the program misses the last game on this list. And yep, Wisconsin is the last game. I haven't found the bug yet. Although, since Wisconsin won just like they should have won, I don't think that error will make any difference on the ratings. Buffalo will move down a bit, but that is about it. I'll edit the post later when I get the chance to rerun the program.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Sometimes I wish we could program 'common sense' into computer rankings.

Common sense says to look at the other 8 games. The 8 games you are ignoring. As long as you only look at the losses and minimize the other games, you will disagree with my posts (and just about any other computer program). If you wish to write a computer program that selectively ignores poor Tennessee performances where they eek out a win when they should have blown away the opponent, then be my guest. I'd like to see the way you formulate the games to ignore in that code and I'd like to see the results.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Sometimes I wish we could program 'common sense' into computer rankings.

Common sense says to look at the other 8 games. The 8 games you are ignoring. As long as you only look at the losses and minimize the other games, you will disagree with my posts (and just about any other computer program). If you wish to write a computer program that selectively ignores poor Tennessee performances where they eek out a win when they should have blown away the opponent, then be my guest. I'd like to see the way you formulate the games to ignore in that code and I'd like to see the results.

But a win is a win right? At least that's how it works in basketball. Just win baby. I don't even know why it is a big deal to me. Tennessee beat California, badly, so that is all that should matter to me I guess when it comes down to TN vs. Cal performances.

Someone post that pic of the backup QB in the game in the 3rd quarter again please.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
But a win is a win right? At least that's how it works in basketball. Just win baby. I don't even know why it is a big deal to me. Tennessee beat California, badly, so that is all that should matter to me I guess when it comes down to TN vs. Cal performances.

I think I see the problem here. Win TN barely wins over a cupcake, you say "a win in a win". Thus, the fact that TN did horribly, score shouldn't matter as they did barely win.

However, when it comes to Cal, you think the fact that TN beat Cal "badly" is an important factor. Thus, score should matter in that game, but not the others?

That is very difficult to program with any sort of consistancy. Is it just on a whim you include scores and on the rest you don't include scores? Or is it when you play a top 10 team you include scores. But what if doing that drops Cal below the top 10 and thus you can't include the score? Do you see where I'm going? Your common sense really isn't following any clear sense yet.

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Sometimes I wish we could program 'common sense' into computer rankings.

Common sense says to look at the other 8 games. The 8 games you are ignoring. As long as you only look at the losses and minimize the other games, you will disagree with my posts (and just about any other computer program). If you wish to write a computer program that selectively ignores poor Tennessee performances where they eek out a win when they should have blown away the opponent, then be my guest. I'd like to see the way you formulate the games to ignore in that code and I'd like to see the results.

But a win is a win right? At least that's how it works in basketball. Just win baby. I don't even know why it is a big deal to me. Tennessee beat California, badly, so that is all that should matter to me I guess when it comes down to TN vs. Cal performances.

Someone post that pic of the backup QB in the game in the 3rd quarter again please.

Just for a fellow Vol: PIC

 

[LordMorpheus]

Man, Rice has Bowl game chances for the first time in decades!

Last year we were 1-11 or something like that (we beat Tulane, after Katrina destroyed their school), this year we're 6-5, one game left!

Armed Forces Bowl, here we come!!

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
But a win is a win right? At least that's how it works in basketball. Just win baby. I don't even know why it is a big deal to me. Tennessee beat California, badly, so that is all that should matter to me I guess when it comes down to TN vs. Cal performances.

I think I see the problem here. Win TN barely wins over a cupcake, you say "a win in a win". Thus, the fact that TN did horribly, score shouldn't matter as they did barely win.

However, when it comes to Cal, you think the fact that TN beat Cal "badly" is an important factor. Thus, score should matter in that game, but not the others?

That is very difficult to program with any sort of consistancy. Is it just on a whim you include scores and on the rest you don't include scores? Or is it when you play a top 10 team you include scores. But what if doing that drops Cal below the top 10 and thus you can't include the score? Do you see where I'm going? Your common sense really isn't following any clear sense yet.

Actually, I just believe SoS and wins/losses is all that should matter. If you take the margin of victory out of your poll how does it calculate? The only reason I bring up the complete demolition of Cal is because they are ranked ahead of TN with the same number of losses and one of those was against an unranked opponent.

And slsmnaz thanks for the pic.

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Sometimes I wish we could program 'common sense' into computer rankings.

Common sense says to look at the other 8 games. The 8 games you are ignoring. As long as you only look at the losses and minimize the other games, you will disagree with my posts (and just about any other computer program). If you wish to write a computer program that selectively ignores poor Tennessee performances where they eek out a win when they should have blown away the opponent, then be my guest. I'd like to see the way you formulate the games to ignore in that code and I'd like to see the results.

The only game where we "eeked out" a win was against Air Force, and by that logic, Florida "eeked out" a win against us. Alabama is a rivalry game, and anything can happen in those. We lost to LSU and Arkansas with a rookie freshman QB.

We won by a large margin against California #9, Marshall, Memphis, Georgia #10, and Vandy. We beat USC with a respectable score.

We lost to #7 (by 1), #13 (by 4), and #11 (by 17). California lost to #22 (us, by 17), #4 (by 14), and a no-rank (by 4).

All-in-all, we're somewhat similar teams...except that we beat California.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Actually, I just believe SoS and wins/losses is all that should matter. If you take the margin of victory out of your poll how does it calculate? The only reason I bring up the complete demolition of Cal is because they are ranked ahead of TN with the same number of losses and one of those was against an unranked opponent.

Take scores out of the picture, and you just end up with the BCS computers again. I post this program to give additional viewpoints other than the six BCS computers which all ignore score. Note: the average ranking in the BCS computers: Cal #14, TN #18 with Cal beating TN in 5 out of 6 of them.

 

[thraashman]

I still don't think a 3 loss team deserves being in the top 10. Maybe at the end of the season one 3 loss team might deserve ending up there. And I also don't like how Cal is ranked higher than Arkansas. They both lost to the same opponenet, USC. Though Arkansas' loss was by a larger margin, they were both solid losses. Then let's look at quality wins for each team, Arkansas has beaten Tennessee and Auburn, both who are still in the top 20. And Cal has beaten Arizona St and Oregon who are both in your poll ranked below 20. Now lets look at other losses than just USC who they share. There's Arkansas who has lost to no one else, and Cal who has lost to Arizona who you have ranked at 35 and Tennessee who you have ranked at 18 and who Arkansas beat. I still don't get how your rankings put Cal so high, especially above a 1 loss team like Arkansas.