College Football - Week of Sept. 19th

[jersey cubs fan]

I think those polls are just as meaningless after two weeks as any other polls. The only thing you can do is watch the games and try to make the most subjective decision based on how those teams looked and the players that they have. Human polls don't do a great job at this, but after two weeks computers do an even worse job. By the end of the year once the computers have enough data to go off of then they can make a more accurate assessment, but not today.

 

Yeah, nobody would try ranking baseball teams based on computers after 2 game, why would you do that with college football?

[bukie]

I think those polls are just as meaningless after two weeks as any other polls. The only thing you can do is watch the games and try to make the most subjective decision based on how those teams looked and the players that they have. Human polls don't do a great job at this, but after two weeks computers do an even worse job. By the end of the year once the computers have enough data to go off of then they can make a more accurate assessment, but not today.

 

Yeah, nobody would try ranking baseball teams based on computers after 2 game, why would you do that with college football?

Well, since the college football season is only 12 games long, more than 15% of the season is already over. It's more akin to ranking baseball teams after April. Still of limited use, but at least it offers as objective an analysis as is possible at this point.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think those polls are just as meaningless after two weeks as any other polls. The only thing you can do is watch the games and try to make the most subjective decision based on how those teams looked and the players that they have. Human polls don't do a great job at this, but after two weeks computers do an even worse job. By the end of the year once the computers have enough data to go off of then they can make a more accurate assessment, but not today.

 

Yeah, nobody would try ranking baseball teams based on computers after 2 game, why would you do that with college football?

Well, since the college football season is only 12 games long, more than 15% of the season is already over. It's more akin to ranking baseball teams after April. Still of limited use, but at least it offers as objective an analysis as is possible at this point.

 

It's still 2 games. The fact that football is so much shorter just makes those types of rankings less meaningless.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think those polls are just as meaningless after two weeks as any other polls. The only thing you can do is watch the games and try to make the most subjective decision based on how those teams looked and the players that they have. Human polls don't do a great job at this, but after two weeks computers do an even worse job. By the end of the year once the computers have enough data to go off of then they can make a more accurate assessment, but not today.

 

Yeah, nobody would try ranking baseball teams based on computers after 2 game, why would you do that with college football?

Well, since the college football season is only 12 games long, more than 15% of the season is already over. It's more akin to ranking baseball teams after April. Still of limited use, but at least it offers as objective an analysis as is possible at this point.

 

It's still 2 games. The fact that football is so much shorter just makes those types of rankings less meaningless.

[dew1679666265]

Because I hate the human polls at this point, here's the top 25 according to Sagarin, two ways:

 

1) Pure Points (where scoring margin is all that matters - also the best predictor of future results, in general):

 

16. Tennessee

 

I love Tennessee and I don't like human polls, but this one's hard to defend. I realize they'll likely plummet after Saturday, but they're putting this much weight into blowing out Western Kentucky?

[shnsajax]

I think those polls are just as meaningless after two weeks as any other polls. The only thing you can do is watch the games and try to make the most subjective decision based on how those teams looked and the players that they have. Human polls don't do a great job at this, but after two weeks computers do an even worse job. By the end of the year once the computers have enough data to go off of then they can make a more accurate assessment, but not today.

 

Yeah, nobody would try ranking baseball teams based on computers after 2 game, why would you do that with college football?

Well, since the college football season is only 12 games long, more than 15% of the season is already over. It's more akin to ranking baseball teams after April. Still of limited use, but at least it offers as objective an analysis as is possible at this point.

 

It's still 2 games. The fact that football is so much shorter just makes those types of rankings less meaningless.

 

Exactly and about 95% of those games are meaningless games that show almost nothing about the other team. A computer then should not be able to assess the difference from Florida or Duke without having some sort of data entered in prior to everything. So the quality of the data will have an affect on it output.

[manbearcub]

If on-field results lead you to believe that Virginia Tech or Missouri are top 20 teams right now, then your system is wrong. If on-field results lead to Miami being a top 10 team, the system is wrong.

i'd like for everyone to re-read this please.

[SpongeWorthy]

Myles Brand is dead: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4478889

[Grit amp Heart]

Okay if everything is determined by points and wins and losses, how are all the Ivy League schools rated differently? Shouldn't they be tied? None of them have a played a single game, yet Harvard is #120 and Columbia is #212. If the rankings are determined by what teams have done this year on the field, how the hell can Harvard be 92 spots ahead of Columbia.

 

Does it include practices

Because until all teams are connected, he makes use of results prior to this year to connect the teams (i.e. the Bayesian process). Thus, ratings are generated from past results to connect teams that are not yet connected from current results.

 

I know that. You apparently didn't understand that means that there are preconceived biases in that computer since you said that the polls were based on some imaginary level of competency assigned to a team in the preseason but the computers aren't. They are.

 

Whatever process that computer is using the scale preseason rankings down is terrible. I'm not sure how Oklahoma has improved from the preseason based on their loss to BYU. They were third in the points ranking and lost to a team that they were supposed to beat by two touchdowns. The point is that in eight weeks the rankings will probably be better, but right now they're not. I'll bet money that the CBS sportsline 120 poll is a better predictor of wins Saturday.

[CubInOK]

Because I hate the human polls at this point, here's the top 25 according to Sagarin, two ways:

 

1) Pure Points (where scoring margin is all that matters - also the best predictor of future results, in general):

 

16. Tennessee

 

I love Tennessee and I don't like human polls, but this one's hard to defend. I realize they'll likely plummet after Saturday, but they're putting this much weight into blowing out Western Kentucky?

Take a look at the #2 team in that same poll.

[dew1679666265]

Because I hate the human polls at this point, here's the top 25 according to Sagarin, two ways:

 

1) Pure Points (where scoring margin is all that matters - also the best predictor of future results, in general):

 

16. Tennessee

 

I love Tennessee and I don't like human polls, but this one's hard to defend. I realize they'll likely plummet after Saturday, but they're putting this much weight into blowing out Western Kentucky?

Take a look at the #2 team in that same poll.

 

True, but you can make a justifiable argument for the Sooners. I can't come up with any reason to put Tennessee in the top 30 at this point.

 

I'd imagine that poll would be much more useful after, say, week 6 or so when blowouts of teams like Western Kentucky aren't skewing it so much.

[CubInOK]

Because I hate the human polls at this point, here's the top 25 according to Sagarin, two ways:

 

1) Pure Points (where scoring margin is all that matters - also the best predictor of future results, in general):

 

16. Tennessee

 

I love Tennessee and I don't like human polls, but this one's hard to defend. I realize they'll likely plummet after Saturday, but they're putting this much weight into blowing out Western Kentucky?

Take a look at the #2 team in that same poll.

 

True, but you can make a justifiable argument for the Sooners. I can't come up with any reason to put Tennessee in the top 30 at this point.

 

I'd imagine that poll would be much more useful after, say, week 6 or so when blowouts of teams like Western Kentucky aren't skewing it so much.

There really isn't a good reason to justify a #2 ranking for the Sooners at this point. Just about every undefeated team, especially every undefeated team considered "elite," should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma. I mean, yea OU has a +63 point differential, but look at how that margin came about. A 1 pt loss to a team that is probably pretty good, and a 64 pt victory against an FCS team that didn't win a game last season.

[Derwood]

the preseason rankings will never go away. college football is run by the TV networks, and they need the little numbers next to the teams in order to sell their games

[shnsajax]

the preseason rankings will never go away. college football is run by the TV networks, and they need the little numbers next to the teams in order to sell their games

 

That and despite all of the talk on here, we all love the preseason rankings. We can recognize the flaws in having them, but in June/July seeing the magazine with their rankings on the cover is something we all look forward too.

[dew1679666265]

Because I hate the human polls at this point, here's the top 25 according to Sagarin, two ways:

 

1) Pure Points (where scoring margin is all that matters - also the best predictor of future results, in general):

 

16. Tennessee

 

I love Tennessee and I don't like human polls, but this one's hard to defend. I realize they'll likely plummet after Saturday, but they're putting this much weight into blowing out Western Kentucky?

Take a look at the #2 team in that same poll.

 

True, but you can make a justifiable argument for the Sooners. I can't come up with any reason to put Tennessee in the top 30 at this point.

 

I'd imagine that poll would be much more useful after, say, week 6 or so when blowouts of teams like Western Kentucky aren't skewing it so much.

There really isn't a good reason to justify a #2 ranking for the Sooners at this point. Just about every undefeated team, especially every undefeated team considered "elite," should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma. I mean, yea OU has a +63 point differential, but look at how that margin came about. A 1 pt loss to a team that is probably pretty good, and a 64 pt victory against an FCS team that didn't win a game last season.

 

Yeah, but due to Oklahoma's year last year and the players they have returning, there's some level of justification that their talent level puts them toward the top of the rankings. At least they're a top 25 caliber team.

 

Tennessee, on the other hand, has done nothing to show it should be top 25 except blow out Western Kentucky.

[NCCubFan]

2) Elo-Chess (where only winning and losing matters...i.e. the BCS version):

 

1. USC

2. Boise State

3. Alabama

4. Ohio State

5. LSU

6. BYU

7. Utah

8. Miami-FL

9. California

10. Oregon

11. Houston

12. North Carolina

13. Missouri

14. TCU

15. Oklahoma State

16. Georgia

17. Virginia Tech

18. Georgia Tech

19. Texas

20. Florida

21. Wisconsin

22. Arizona

23. UCLA

24. Michigan

25. Baylor

This can't possibly be valid. Oklahoma not even in the top 25?

[ELCABALLO45]

Minnesota head Coach Tim Brewster has banned all coaches and players from talking to the radio station KFAN, due to him being "unhappy withe the coverage".

[CubInOK]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/nursetpd/Notre%20Dame/Irish_Creosote.gif

[Derwood]

Minnesota head Coach Tim Brewster has banned all coaches and players from talking to the radio station KFAN, due to him being "unhappy withe the coverage".

 

The Moises Alou/Kent Mercker school of coaching?

[SouthSideRyan]

the preseason rankings will never go away. college football is run by the TV networks, and they need the little numbers next to the teams in order to sell their games

 

I love when people come up with the idea of no preseason top 25. Like they're going to ban the AP from publishing rankings, it's a ridiculous idea.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The problem isn't with the pre-season rankings; the problem comes from the fact that they are viewed as authoritatve and that voters are slow or reluctant to change when the games begin.

 

The idea that if you win, you shouldn't drop in the rankings may be somewhat true late in the season, but may not be true at all early on.

 

I really don't care that much. the top pretty much shakes out in the long run. And debating over who is more derserving of rankings 20-25 at the end of the season really doesn't matter all that much.

[cubweiser03]

The only rankings that matter are the #1 and #2 at the end of the season. The rankings during the season i view as just for fun and should not be taken seriously. At all. Nobody even remembers the top 10 or even top 25 of last year unless its your team, the year before gets even greyer and so on and so on.

[Cubswin11]

The only rankings that matter are the #1 and #2 at the end of the season. The rankings during the season i view as just for fun and should not be taken seriously. At all. Nobody even remembers the top 10 or even top 25 of last year unless its your team, the year before gets even greyer and so on and so on.

The only thing pre-season/early season rankings are good for are ways to hype games on TV and with betting.

[SouthSideRyan]

The only rankings that matter are the #1 and #2 at the end of the season. The rankings during the season i view as just for fun and should not be taken seriously. At all. Nobody even remembers the top 10 or even top 25 of last year unless its your team, the year before gets even greyer and so on and so on.

 

Didn't Missouri hang a banner at their stadium for spending a week at #1?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The only rankings that matter are the #1 and #2 at the end of the season. The rankings during the season i view as just for fun and should not be taken seriously. At all. Nobody even remembers the top 10 or even top 25 of last year unless its your team, the year before gets even greyer and so on and so on.

 

Didn't Missouri hang a banner at their stadium for spending a week at #1?

 

This is either really bad information, a worse joke, or both.