• 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 - Week 5, 2006

dullard

dullard

Elite Member
Place , Win Rating , Score Rating , W , L , Team name
01 , 60.8 , 59.5 , 4 , 0 , Southern Cal
02 , 59.8 , 65.4 , 5 , 0 , Ohio State
03 , 59.7 , 62.8 , 5 , 0 , Florida
04 , 57.9 , 59.1 , 4 , 0 , Oregon
05 , 57.4 , 60.5 , 5 , 0 , Michigan
06 , 53.0 , 56.3 , 5 , 0 , Auburn
07 , 52.6 , 44.0 , 4 , 1 , Washington
08 , 52.5 , 48.3 , 4 , 1 , Iowa
09 , 52.3 , 48.2 , 4 , 1 , Notre Dame
10 , 52.0 , 54.8 , 3 , 1 , Oklahoma
11 , 51.8 , 57.6 , 4 , 0 , Louisville
12 , 51.2 , 60.3 , 4 , 1 , Tennessee
13 , 50.4 , 60.9 , 4 , 1 , California
14 , 49.6 , 57.3 , 5 , 0 , Boise St
15 , 46.7 , 53.1 , 4 , 0 , West Virginia
16 , 46.1 , 41.6 , 4 , 1 , Boston College
17 , 45.5 , 52.8 , 4 , 1 , Texas
18 , 44.7 , 38.7 , 5 , 0 , Rutgers
19 , 44.3 , 56.0 , 4 , 1 , LSU
20 , 44.0 , 46.0 , 3 , 1 , UCLA
21 , 43.9 , 41.2 , 3 , 1 , Southern Miss
22 , 43.8 , 36.5 , 5 , 0 , Wake Forest
23 , 43.7 , 47.7 , 3 , 1 , TCU
24 , 43.2 , 42.7 , 5 , 0 , Georgia
25 , 43.1 , 47.5 , 4 , 1 , Clemson
26 , 43.1 , 32.6 , 3 , 1 , Arkansas
27 , 42.3 , 42.9 , 4 , 1 , Texas Tech
28 , 41.9 , 44.9 , 5 , 0 , Missouri
29 , 41.7 , 43.7 , 3 , 2 , Penn State
30 , 41.3 , 32.2 , 3 , 1 , San Jose St
31 , 41.2 , 44.7 , 3 , 1 , Florida St
32 , 40.9 , 44.3 , 4 , 1 , Georgia Tech
33 , 40.5 , 51.1 , 2 , 1 , Air Force
34 , 40.5 , 42.4 , 3 , 2 , Washington St
35 , 40.5 , 42.3 , 4 , 1 , Navy
36 , 39.5 , 44.3 , 4 , 1 , Nebraska
37 , 39.0 , 44.9 , 3 , 2 , Brigham Young
38 , 38.5 , 42.2 , 4 , 1 , Houston
39 , 38.2 , 41.1 , 4 , 1 , Wisconsin
40 , 37.8 , 45.9 , 4 , 1 , Pittsburgh
41 , 37.8 , 37.3 , 3 , 1 , Tulsa
42 , 37.7 , 40.5 , 4 , 1 , Texas A&M
43 , 37.6 , 32.8 , 2 , 2 , North Carolina St
44 , 37.5 , 41.5 , 3 , 2 , Alabama
45 , 37.0 , 43.0 , 4 , 1 , Virginia Tech
46 , 36.1 , 36.7 , 3 , 2 , Arizona St
47 , 36.1 , 33.8 , 3 , 2 , Kentucky
48 , 35.5 , 36.0 , 2 , 2 , Miami FL
49 , 35.5 , 32.6 , 3 , 1 , Colorado St
50 , 35.2 , 28.0 , 3 , 2 , Iowa St
51 , 35.0 , 32.1 , 2 , 3 , Arizona
52 , 34.9 , 36.1 , 3 , 2 , Syracuse
53 , 34.4 , 34.1 , 3 , 2 , Kansas St
54 , 33.6 , 37.9 , 2 , 2 , Oregon St
55 , 33.5 , 36.8 , 1 , 3 , Fresno St
56 , 33.4 , 31.6 , 4 , 1 , Purdue
57 , 33.3 , 41.5 , 3 , 1 , Oklahoma St
58 , 33.2 , 38.1 , 3 , 2 , Michigan St
59 , 32.8 , 30.6 , 3 , 1 , Maryland
60 , 32.0 , 32.6 , 3 , 2 , Nevada
61 , 31.5 , 40.8 , 2 , 3 , Minnesota
62 , 31.0 , 43.4 , 2 , 2 , Hawai`i
63 , 30.9 , 32.2 , 3 , 2 , South Carolina
64 , 30.8 , 32.1 , 3 , 1 , Western Michigan
65 , 30.5 , 25.6 , 2 , 3 , Illinois
66 , 29.5 , 34.0 , 3 , 2 , Utah
67 , 28.9 , 24.4 , 3 , 2 , SMU
68 , 28.8 , 27.9 , 2 , 2 , Connecticut
69 , 28.3 , 25.6 , 2 , 3 , Central Michigan
70 , 28.1 , 33.5 , 2 , 3 , Vanderbilt
71 , 28.0 , 29.3 , 3 , 2 , Kent St
72 , 28.0 , 26.4 , 3 , 2 , Middle Tennessee St
73 , 27.9 , 28.7 , 3 , 2 , Northern Illinois
74 , 27.3 , 35.1 , 2 , 3 , Baylor
75 , 27.3 , 23.8 , 2 , 3 , Ohio U.
76 , 27.0 , 18.7 , 3 , 2 , Bowling Green
77 , 26.5 , 23.9 , 2 , 3 , Akron
78 , 26.3 , 29.5 , 2 , 3 , New Mexico
79 , 26.2 , 27.9 , 2 , 3 , Alabama-Birmingham
80 , 26.0 , 24.6 , 1 , 3 , Marshall
81 , 25.2 , 26.3 , 2 , 2 , UTEP
82 , 25.1 , 25.8 , 3 , 2 , Kansas
83 , 24.4 , 29.1 , 1 , 4 , Rice
84 , 24.4 , 26.1 , 3 , 2 , South Florida
85 , 23.5 , 29.4 , 2 , 3 , Virginia
86 , 23.5 , 19.1 , 1 , 3 , North Carolina
87 , 23.2 , 26.7 , 1 , 3 , Central Florida
88 , 23.1 , 22.5 , 2 , 3 , Army
89 , 23.0 , 26.9 , 2 , 3 , Cincinnati
90 , 22.7 , 18.5 , 2 , 2 , Arkansas St
91 , 22.1 , 31.0 , 1 , 3 , East Carolina
92 , 21.4 , 16.1 , 1 , 3 , Tulane
93 , 21.2 , 17.9 , 1 , 4 , Mississippi
94 , 21.0 , 20.9 , 2 , 3 , Indiana
95 , 20.8 , 19.5 , 1 , 4 , Mississippi St
96 , 20.8 , 15.3 , 0 , 5 , Stanford
97 , 20.7 , 19.7 , 2 , 3 , Toledo
98 , 19.2 , 9.3 , 1 , 3 , Louisiana Tech
99 , 19.1 , 34.4 , 1 , 4 , Wyoming
100 , 19.0 , 12.7 , 2 , 3 , Idaho
101 , 18.9 , 22.1 , 2 , 2 , New Mexico St
102 , 18.6 , 10.8 , 1 , 4 , North Texas
103 , 18.3 , 12.9 , 1 , 3 , Buffalo
104 , 17.8 , 19.1 , 2 , 3 , Northwestern
105 , 17.3 , 14.1 , 2 , 2 , Louisiana-Lafayette
106 , 15.8 , 19.6 , 1 , 3 , Memphis
107 , 15.8 , 19.3 , 1 , 4 , Troy
108 , 15.8 , 18.8 , 1 , 3 , UNLV
109 , 13.9 , 2.0 , 1 , 4 , Florida Atlantic
110 , 11.7 , 11.7 , 0 , 4 , San Diego St
111 , 11.5 , 7.9 , 0 , 4 , Duke
112 , 11.4 , 18.1 , 0 , 5 , Colorado
113 , 10.5 , 17.2 , 1 , 4 , Ball St
114 , 8.6 , 3.7 , 0 , 5 , Temple
115 , 6.8 , 0.0 , 0 , 5 , Utah St
116 , 6.2 , 6.4 , 1 , 3 , Louisiana-Monroe
117 , 5.9 , 12.7 , 0 , 5 , Miami OH
118 , 5.7 , 12.8 , 0 , 5 , Florida Int'l
119 , 0.0 , 2.9 , 0 , 5 , Eastern Michigan

01 , 41.7 , 33.8 , 3 , 1 , Montana
02 , 37.1 , 34.6 , 4 , 1 , Appalachian St
03 , 37.1 , 20.6 , 4 , 0 , Towson
04 , 35.5 , 23.2 , 4 , 1 , Cal Poly SLO
05 , 35.2 , 21.7 , 3 , 0 , Princeton
06 , 33.4 , 31.2 , 4 , 1 , Youngstown St
07 , 32.7 , 29.6 , 3 , 1 , Illinois St
08 , 32.6 , 8.0 , 4 , 0 , Charleston Southern
09 , 32.5 , 31.0 , 3 , 2 , Portland St
10 , 32.5 , 22.3 , 4 , 0 , Richmond
11 , 32.4 , 23.5 , 4 , 0 , North Dakota St
12 , 31.7 , 20.5 , 3 , 0 , Harvard
13 , 30.6 , 32.7 , 4 , 0 , New Hampshire
14 , 27.7 , 33.5 , 3 , 1 , Massachusetts
15 , 27.5 , 27.3 , 3 , 1 , James Madison
16 , 27.3 , 23.3 , 2 , 2 , Northern Iowa
17 , 27.3 , 18.1 , 5 , 0 , Hampton
18 , 27.2 , 20.4 , 4 , 0 , San Diego
19 , 24.2 , 23.3 , 4 , 0 , Southern Illinois
20 , 24.2 , 14.8 , 4 , 1 , Tennessee-Martin
21 , 23.5 , 24.3 , 2 , 2 , UC-Davis
22 , 22.8 , 9.2 , 1 , 3 , Sacramento St
23 , 22.1 , 3.1 , 2 , 1 , Yale
24 , 22.0 , 12.4 , 2 , 2 , Elon
25 , 21.5 , 14.4 , 2 , 2 , Maine
26 , 20.1 , 9.7 , 2 , 1 , Columbia
27 , 20.0 , 3.6 , 3 , 2 , Gardner-Webb
28 , 19.7 , 20.0 , 4 , 1 , Furman
29 , 19.2 , 4.2 , 3 , 1 , Alabama A&M
30 , 19.1 , 10.5 , 2 , 2 , Hofstra
31 , 19.1 , 9.8 , 2 , 3 , Weber St
32 , 17.9 , 9.8 , 2 , 2 , Sam Houston St
33 , 16.7 , 5.9 , 1 , 3 , The Citadel
34 , 15.6 , 9.6 , 3 , 2 , Southern Utah
35 , 15.4 , 4.0 , 2 , 3 , South Dakota St
36 , 15.3 , 6.8 , 2 , 3 , Eastern Illinois
37 , 15.3 , 5.6 , 3 , 1 , Jackson St
38 , 15.0 , 0.1 , 4 , 1 , Monmouth NJ
39 , 14.9 , 18.2 , 2 , 2 , Jacksonville St
40 , 14.6 , 8.0 , 3 , 2 , Liberty
41 , 14.1 , 3.8 , 3 , 2 , Albany NY
42 , 13.8 , 6.5 , 1 , 4 , Eastern Washington
43 , 13.7 , 9.1 , 2 , 1 , Pennsylvania
44 , 13.7 , -4.5 , 3 , 2 , Bucknell
45 , 13.6 , 1.8 , 4 , 1 , Drake
46 , 13.5 , 2.8 , 3 , 1 , SE Missouri St
47 , 13.5 , -5.4 , 3 , 2 , Florida A&M
48 , 13.4 , 4.4 , 2 , 2 , Northwestern St
49 , 13.4 , 3.6 , 2 , 2 , Western Kentucky
50 , 13.3 , 15.3 , 2 , 2 , Delaware
51 , 13.1 , 4.1 , 1 , 4 , Northeastern
52 , 12.7 , 1.2 , 3 , 2 , Holy Cross
53 , 12.6 , 0.2 , 4 , 1 , Central Conn St
54 , 11.9 , 11.4 , 1 , 3 , Lehigh
55 , 11.5 , 5.2 , 2 , 3 , Lafayette
56 , 11.4 , 2.8 , 1 , 4 , SE Louisiana St
57 , 11.3 , 0.9 , 2 , 3 , Tennessee St
58 , 11.1 , 6.7 , 2 , 2 , Rhode Island
59 , 10.9 , 4.3 , 2 , 3 , Montana St
60 , 10.8 , 13.6 , 1 , 3 , Grambling St
61 , 10.3 , 1.4 , 2 , 2 , Delaware St
62 , 10.1 , 0.3 , 3 , 2 , Southern U.
63 , 10.0 , 4.0 , 2 , 3 , Northern Arizona
64 , 9.9 , -10.2 , 3 , 1 , Dayton
65 , 9.8 , 8.4 , 2 , 2 , Colgate
66 , 9.3 , -6.2 , 2 , 3 , Morgan St
67 , 9.2 , 12.2 , 1 , 3 , William & Mary
68 , 8.8 , 12.5 , 1 , 3 , Villanova
69 , 8.8 , 1.1 , 2 , 3 , Samford
70 , 8.1 , 4.9 , 2 , 3 , Chattanooga
71 , 7.3 , 3.8 , 1 , 3 , Nicholls St
72 , 7.3 , 3.2 , 1 , 2 , Brown
73 , 7.3 , -3.9 , 2 , 3 , Tennessee Tech
74 , 7.2 , -7.1 , 3 , 2 , Mississippi Valley St
75 , 7.0 , 6.1 , 2 , 2 , Georgia Southern
76 , 6.8 , 4.6 , 3 , 2 , Western Illinois
77 , 6.5 , 5.5 , 1 , 4 , Missouri St
78 , 6.5 , -11.8 , 1 , 3 , Howard
79 , 6.4 , 5.2 , 0 , 5 , Stephen F. Austin
80 , 6.3 , 5.0 , 3 , 2 , Coastal Carolina
81 , 6.0 , -7.0 , 3 , 2 , Robert Morris
82 , 5.7 , 4.2 , 1 , 3 , Idaho St
83 , 5.6 , -11.5 , 5 , 0 , St John's MN
84 , 5.1 , -0.6 , 1 , 4 , Murray St
85 , 5.1 , -4.5 , 3 , 2 , Duquesne
86 , 4.6 , -2.9 , 3 , 1 , Norfolk St
87 , 4.3 , -11.3 , 2 , 3 , Texas Southern
88 , 3.9 , -10.5 , 1 , 3 , Fordham
89 , 3.8 , -0.4 , 3 , 2 , Bethune-Cookman
90 , 3.7 , -2.2 , 1 , 4 , Stony Brook
91 , 3.7 , -5.9 , 4 , 1 , Wagner
92 , 3.4 , -17.2 , 2 , 2 , Jacksonville FL
93 , 2.7 , -6.2 , 1 , 4 , Northern Colorado
94 , 1.7 , -3.4 , 4 , 0 , Georgetown KY
95 , 1.6 , 6.6 , 1 , 3 , Wofford
96 , 1.2 , -5.7 , 1 , 3 , Texas St-San Marcos
97 , 0.1 , -10.0 , 1 , 3 , Davidson
98 , -0.3 , -8.2 , 1 , 3 , McNeese St
99 , -0.6 , -16.0 , 1 , 4 , VMI
100 , -1.3 , -11.0 , 2 , 3 , Alabama St
101 , -1.3 , -12.4 , 2 , 3 , Prairie View A&M
102 , -1.6 , -7.7 , 2 , 2 , Western Carolina
103 , -1.9 , -10.5 , 0 , 5 , Indiana St
104 , -2.2 , -8.7 , 1 , 4 , Eastern Kentucky
105 , -2.3 , -10.3 , 2 , 3 , Arkansas-Pine Bluff
106 , -3.7 , -7.2 , 0 , 3 , Dartmouth
107 , -4.0 , -11.6 , 2 , 3 , Sacred Heart
108 , -5.5 , -27.8 , 2 , 3 , Butler
109 , -6.6 , -16.4 , 1 , 4 , Austin Peay
110 , -7.2 , -28.1 , 1 , 4 , Marist
111 , -9.9 , -7.8 , 1 , 3 , South Carolina St
112 , -11.2 , -27.2 , 1 , 3 , La Salle
113 , -13.7 , -20.9 , 1 , 3 , Alcorn St
114 , -13.9 , -29.5 , 2 , 3 , Valparaiso
115 , -13.9 , -30.0 , 0 , 4 , North Carolina A&T
116 , -14.1 , -18.7 , 1 , 4 , Iona
117 , -15.1 , -31.4 , 1 , 4 , St Francis PA
118 , -19.6 , -29.4 , 0 , 5 , Morehead St
119 , -20.4 , -44.8 , 0 , 5 , St Peter's
120 , -20.7 , -34.4 , 0 , 4 , Savannah St
121 , -21.6 , -40.0 , 2 , 3 , Cornell IA
 
still early in the season, how much assumption/default value is still in your system right now?
 
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Out of curiousity....how did the WSU game affect USC & Auburn (since it was a common opponent)?
Click to expand...
USC was harmed, Auburn was helped.

You can calculate the effects pretty closely (not quite correct, but close enough for discussion), by doing the following.

1) USC should have won by (60.8 - 40.5) = 20.3 points. USC only won by 6. Thus, USC's win rating lost 14.3 points. But, that is just one of 4 games USC played. Therefore, USC's win rating dropped by approximately 14.3/4 = 3.6 points. Instead of being well in the lead, USC is now just barely in 1st place.

2) Auburn should have won by (53.0 - 40.5) = 12.5 points. Instead, Auburn won by 26. Thus, Auburn did 13.5 points better than they were expected. Since Auburn has played 5 games, that averages out to a 2.7 boost in the win ratings.

Without that game, Auburn would be ranked near Tennessee.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
still early in the season, how much assumption/default value is still in your system right now?
Click to expand...
I should write the program to show which teams are not yet connected. But that will be a lot of work. Generally, by the 5th week or so, I see no major fluctuations due to the default settings.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Out of curiousity....how did the WSU game affect USC & Auburn (since it was a common opponent)?
Click to expand...
USC was harmed, Auburn was helped.

You can calculate the effects pretty closely (not quite correct, but close enough for discussion), by doing the following.

1) USC should have won by (60.8 - 40.5) = 20.3 points. USC only won by 6. Thus, USC's win rating lost 14.3 points. But, that is just one of 4 games USC played. Therefore, USC's win rating dropped by approximately 14.3/4 = 3.6 points. Instead of being well in the lead, USC is now just barely in 1st place.

2) Auburn should have won by (53.0 - 40.5) = 12.5 points. Instead, Auburn won by 26. Thus, Auburn did 13.5 points better than they were expected. Since Auburn has played 5 games, that averages out to a 2.7 boost in the win ratings.

Without that game, Auburn would be ranked near Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. Next week should be interesting for those 2 teams (again) in your rankings since we have Arkansas...I can guarantee AU will not win by 50. Tubby doesn't appear to like running the score up on conference opponents if he can help it.
 
how hard would it be to add a per team accuracy score ?

what i mean is, a number that kept track of how often a team wins when it should. I think it would be interesting to see if certain teams are less predictable, for example, maybe a team that blows out weak opponents, ends up overrated and would have a lower accuracy score if it doesn't play as well against better opponents.

i would think such a number would also tend to get better every week, possibly demonstrating how accuracy improves with more data.

 
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
also, how does UGA leapfrog Georgia Tech? when Georgia Tech beat a much higher ranked opponent?
Click to expand...

VT is 45th in his poll. that's not very high. who did georgia play?

edit: oh, 93rd.


edit2: how would it look if okiehoma had beaten oregon?
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
also, how does UGA leapfrog Georgia Tech? when Georgia Tech beat a much higher ranked opponent?
Click to expand...

VT is 45th in his poll. that's not very high. who did georgia play?
Click to expand...

South Carolina @ 63 is the best team UGA has played.
 
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
HTF does Rutgers rank higher than UGA and Georgia Tech??

Who has Rutgers played?
Click to expand...
Only on ATOT will people complain that a 5-0 team is in the top 25. Rutgers hasn't played anyone good yet. But, UGA hasn't played anyone either. That'll change next week though.
Originally posted by: Tom
how hard would it be to add a per team accuracy score ?

what i mean is, a number that kept track of how often a team wins when it should. I think it would be interesting to see if certain teams are less predictable, for example, maybe a team that blows out weak opponents, ends up overrated and would have a lower accuracy score if it doesn't play as well against better opponents.

i would think such a number would also tend to get better every week, possibly demonstrating how accuracy improves with more data.
Click to expand...
It would be fairly easy. I've been thinking of doing that for a long time now. I just haven't put any effort into the program for a long time. Maybe if I get some spare time this year I'll do it.
 
does this calculate the rank of a winner of a game from a previous week off of the loser's rank at the time or their rank in the latest poll?

kinda surprised at OSU at no 2...they have beaten then no 2, 24, and 14. I guess usc is getting huge points for not playing tressel ball once they have a lead.

I some of the top teams lose and michighan moves up to no 2 behind OSU by the end of season...that would be an awesome game, and pending an OSU victory, they could play 3 teams ranked 2 this year.
 
I'm a huge Washington fan....how did they get ranked so high? I see they're higher than Oklahoma..the team that beat them.
 
Yea, OSU is the only one that i want to know how its not number 1.

seeing as how Iowa is ranked 8th and Texas 17, both whom they beat, and im not sure who USC beat that is near as high ranked as those two.

its also funny that USC didnt get ONE 1st place vote in the AP poll 😀
 
Slight bias toward the PAC-10 eh? :disgust: Wash in the top-10 on your poll but not ranked in the AP or coaches? hmmm
 
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Slight bias toward the PAC-10 eh? :disgust: Wash in the top-10 on your poll but not ranked in the AP or coaches? hmmm
Click to expand...

I was thinking that as well. It seems like the major component is the number of points scored in a game. I find this skewing hard to believe since its West Coast offenses tend to score lots verses the rest of the country. SEC is probably the exact opposite.

VT as 45th? I know they aren't top 10 even before last weekend, that seems absurdly low (beneath Navy and NC State?). However glad to see WVU is not in the top 10.
 
Originally posted by: Jawo
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Slight bias toward the PAC-10 eh? :disgust: Wash in the top-10 on your poll but not ranked in the AP or coaches? hmmm
Click to expand...

I was thinking that as well. It seems like the major component is the number of points scored in a game. I find this skewing hard to believe since its West Coast offenses tend to score lots verses the rest of the country. SEC is probably the exact opposite.

VT as 45th? I know they aren't top 10 even before last weekend, that seems absurdly low (beneath Navy and NC State?). However glad to see WVU is not in the top 10.
Click to expand...

The win rating has nothing to do with the scores. Only who beat who. The score rating takes the scores into consideration, in which case OSU is #1, Washington is no where near #7, etc.

Edit: Seems that this might be a mistake based on the dullard's post above. This is how I thought it worked. Any clarification dullard?
 
Originally posted by: msparish
Originally posted by: Jawo
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Slight bias toward the PAC-10 eh? :disgust: Wash in the top-10 on your poll but not ranked in the AP or coaches? hmmm
Click to expand...

I was thinking that as well. It seems like the major component is the number of points scored in a game. I find this skewing hard to believe since its West Coast offenses tend to score lots verses the rest of the country. SEC is probably the exact opposite.

VT as 45th? I know they aren't top 10 even before last weekend, that seems absurdly low (beneath Navy and NC State?). However glad to see WVU is not in the top 10.
Click to expand...

The win rating has nothing to do with the scores. Only who beat who. The score rating takes the scores into consideration, in which case OSU is #1, Washington is no where near #7, etc.

Edit: Seems that this might be a mistake based on the dullard's post above. This is how I thought it worked. Any clarification dullard?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know how this works as well. Seems like quite a huge difference between what most people who follow CFB think and this "poll". Yet another reason computers should be kept out of deciding these things.

I would also like to know how Cal (another PAC-10 team) is just barely behind Tenn. Do you really think those 2 teams are close this season?
 
Originally posted by: Syringer
UCLA is also #20, but are nowhere near the top #25 in any of the polls.

Yes, heavy bias toward the Pac-10.
Click to expand...



the poll isn't biased, it just isn't necessarily rating what we think it's rating. It might be that different conferences have different playing styles, and evenness of games, and that is part of what we see.

all statistics are like that.


 
Originally posted by: slsmnaz

I'd like to know how this works as well. Seems like quite a huge difference between what most people who follow CFB think and this "poll". Yet another reason computers should be kept out of deciding these things.

I would also like to know how Cal (another PAC-10 team) is just barely behind Tenn. Do you really think those 2 teams are close this season?
Click to expand...

Um...they're barely behind Tenn in the human polls (2 or 3 spots). I often feel that the computers do a better job than the human polls. The human polls are based entirely too much on initial poll position. The computers tend to get more and more accurate as the season goes along. However, there are a few things which they cannot take into account.
 
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
does this calculate the rank of a winner of a game from a previous week off of the loser's rank at the time or their rank in the latest poll?

kinda surprised at OSU at no 2...they have beaten then no 2, 24, and 14. I guess usc is getting huge points for not playing tressel ball once they have a lead.
Click to expand...
It bases the rank vs. the rating of all the teams they played. The rank of their opponents is whatever the rating is NOW, not what the rating was in the past.

OSU is nearly #1 in the win rating, and it is by far #1 in the score rating. Thus, I'd say overall the program puts OSU as #1. Points do matter, so if OSU would just put up a few more points, it would be unanimous.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm a huge Washington fan....how did they get ranked so high? I see they're higher than Oklahoma..the team that beat them.
Click to expand...
Washington really jumped this week to my dismay. I'm an anti-Washington fan. Oh well. This early on, the number of wins/losses is really important. The fact that Washington beat several teams without any other loss must be what put them up there. The score rating does have Washington much further back at #27th. I believe they belong closer to #27 than the #7 that the win rating gives. Lets just call it a fluke because Washington is going to lose several of the next few games.
 
Originally posted by: msparish
Originally posted by: slsmnaz

I'd like to know how this works as well. Seems like quite a huge difference between what most people who follow CFB think and this "poll". Yet another reason computers should be kept out of deciding these things.

I would also like to know how Cal (another PAC-10 team) is just barely behind Tenn. Do you really think those 2 teams are close this season?
Click to expand...

Um...they're barely behind Tenn in the human polls (2 or 3 spots). I often feel that the computers do a better job than the human polls. The human polls are based entirely too much on initial poll position. The computers tend to get more and more accurate as the season goes along. However, there are a few things which they cannot take into account.
Click to expand...

My point about UT/Cal was that they were very close in this one as opposed to pretty far apart in the others (points not spots).

I do think the polls should not be released until the 3rd or 4th week in the season but a playoff would more or less fix that. I mean, how much time does a head coach of a major school have to devote to filling out his ballot? I hope mind is watching film getting ready for next week!

I just look at the huge differences in the computer polls when the BCS is released and it amazes me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top