bukie

Again, there are plenty of ways to determine elite QBs, and winning should not be one of them. If a QB has to "step up and make a play", why isn't he just playing at that level the entire game? "Clutch" ability is largely random noise, unpredictable and not useful in a discussion on ability. You continue to assume things as fact that are not. And saying Crosby should have won it for "him" again misses the entire point.

We're getting way too technical here. I am not trying to knock Rodgers, because the guy is a great QB. I'm simply stating that at some point the guy has to take it upon himself to win games if he's going to be among the elite. You can't always rely on a FG kicker or defense to win you a game; sometimes you just have to put the ball in the endzone yourself. By blaming teammates for losing games, you could argue that with a better O-Line and WRs, Cutler could be an elite QB, but no one considers him even close to that. You have to find a way to win and pickup your teammates, and Rodgers has had chances to do that. An individual does not win a game in a team sport. Football, especially, is one of the most team-dependent sports in existence when it comes to wins. Nobody puts the ball in the end zone themselves. It's not technical, it's just not considering a team sport appropriately when we assign wins to a player.

I agree - but not for the reason you have. This is the ideal time to preserve CJ and give Ringer carries. :banghead: It was garbage time, but it was beautiful. :D And just like that, my team goes from the lowest scoring in the league to the highest scoring (i.e. it was a really tight week).

And just like that, the Blackhawks lead the NHL in points (no, really).

They aren't a particularly good team but they play in possibly the only stadium in the league with a homefield advantage the past few years, and face the worst division in the league. There is a decent chance they're the best team in the NFC West, and still worse than every other team in the NFC besides Carolina.

In a game where yardage was basically even while the game was close. S&P calculates efficiency based on success per play, which was surprisingly even.

FO's S&P+ ratings for this week (essentially the OPS of college football efficiency): 1 Ohio State 6-0 311.6 2 Alabama 5-1 275.3 3 Miami-FL 3-2 272.3 4 South Carolina 4-1 266.4 5 Nebraska 5-0 266.2 6 Boise State 5-0 264.6 7 Arizona 4-1 262.9 8 California 3-2 257.8 9 Auburn 6-0 255.6 10 Illinois 3-2 254.5 11 Missouri 5-0 254.3 12 TCU 6-0 252.6 13 Oregon State 3-2 251.7 14 LSU 6-0 250.8 15 Virginia Tech 4-2 248.9 16 Iowa 4-1 246.6 17 Florida State 5-1 246.1 18 Michigan State 6-0 244.9 19 Stanford 5-1 244.5 20 Oklahoma 5-0 243.5 21 Florida 4-2 239.2 22 Notre Dame 3-3 237.6 23 Arkansas 4-1 236.1 24 Utah 5-0 234.0 25 USC 4-2 230.5 Keep in mind, this is purely based on efficiency and opponent efficiency (and is a straight sum of offense + defense), so it's completely objective. Also keep in mind, that Ohio State's opponent efficiency looks really good right now. EDIT: The entire FBS is rated here.

I have to pick two of: Calvin Johnson (Q) @ NYG Johnny Knox v SEA Kevin Walter v KC Roy Williams @ Min

According to DYAR, Collins' game Sunday was worse than Cutler's game the previous Sunday. Two of the 30 worst passing performances of all time.

Vikings/Lions aside, you really think that's worth something at this point? And coming into this week the Chiefs had the 2nd highest DVOA in the league. The Bears at 27 would be heavy underdogs against he Seahawks and the only team they rank ahead of on their remaining schedule is the Bills. Come on. The Seahawks are an odd case, basically different teams on the road and at home. The Chiefs may actually be good. The Bears had such a terrible rating after the Giants game, which I expect to improve slightly, and it's still to be determined how good the team really is. What I was trying to get across is there really aren't any gimme wins (except maybe Buffalo), and I'm not sure the Vikings any better than Detroit, certainly not so much that a game in Detroit is less winnable than a home game against a team like Minnesota.

There's a decent chance Detroit is better than Minnesota this year (coming into this week, Detroit had a higher DVOA than Minnesota). I'd argue that the home game vs. Minny is at least as winnable as the game at Detroit.

And because it's so much fun, here's Sagarin's top 25 based purely on margin of victory against schedule strength (wins and losses don't matter at all): 1. Oregon 2. Alabama 3. Stanford 4. Florida State 5. TCU 6. California 7. Boise State 8. Ohio State 9. Nebraska 10. Arizona 11. LSU 12. South Carolina 13. Arizona State 14. Missouri 15. Arkansas 16. Miami 17. Iowa 18. Oregon State 19. Nevada 20. Virginia Tech 21. USC 22. Florida 23. NC State 24. Texas A&M 25. Auburn This may look even stranger, but it is the best predictor of future success. EDIT: Just FYI, Oklahoma was 26th, Utah 27th, Oklahoma State 28th. (Illinois 29th!)

Keep in mind, also, that just 5 games have been played to this point, so each result is incredibly meaningful. Heck, between last week and this week Illinois jumped a good 30 spots in the Sagarin ratings, just by winning big at PSU.

I don't see Cal's schedule being much, if any, harder than Auburn's. UC Davis is a good 1-AA, while Colorado and UCLA are bad teams (sorry Raisin). Nevada was a blowout loss and Arizona was a "good" loss, if you will. At the same time, Auburn has beaten South Carolina – as good or better than anybody on Cal's schedule. Miss State, Kentucky, Clemson aren't world beaters, however, and Auburn didn't blow them out, though I'd say all three are better than CU and UCLA. Arkansas State and UL-Monroe are little better than UC-Davis probably. There is no way that Clemson is a better team than CU or UCLA this year. Kentucky likely not, either. Mississippi State, sure, I'd give that one. Like I said above, it's the margin of victory that is the difference right now, and that clearly favors Cal. UC Davis is also rated higher than Arkansas State and UL-Monroe, for that matter.

Cal has played a much tougher schedule, and has absolutely blown out teams in every win. If you notice, the BCS version of the formula that doesn't take margin of victory into account has Auburn ahead. Margin has much higher predictive value for the future, though. The Pac-10 is very likely the best BCS conference this year, with Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Oregon State, UCLA and Arizona State all looking good early. Heck, even Washington has played a tough schedule and beat USC. Just the fact that it's a possibility USC is the 9th best team in the Pac-10 this year reflects on how good the conference is top to (near) bottom. Bukie, my head is about to explode. I think it's debatable whether Cal has played a more difficult schedule than Auburn thus far, and Cal has lost two games. Regarding the Pac-10 being the best BSC conference this year, I've logged this in my mental Roladex and will speak to this later in the year. :wink: It's not very debatable. UC-Davis is higher rated than either Arkansas State or Louisiana-Monroe, and Clemson is one of the worst teams in a bad ACC. Nevada and Colorado are miles better. And that's just the out of conference play. Yes, South Carolina is a good team, but Kentucky and Mississippi State aren't exactly upper-tier SEC teams this year, while UCLA and Arizona are both quality teams. So, add all that up, and you are left with: SCHEDL(RANK) California 75.99( 12) Auburn 67.17( 74) Couple that with the fact that Auburn barely squeaked by Clemson, MSU and Kentucky, while Cal blew out every team they beat, and the margin-of-victory factored ratings rates Cal easily higher. The BCS-style ELO ratings, which take into account only wins and losses, however, rate Auburn higher. I don't have a horse in this SEC/Pac-10 power struggle, but I don't see how an objective viewer can't at least entertain the idea that the Pac-10 is stronger top to bottom this year (mostly because the bottom of the Pac-10 is so tiny).

Was that 2004 or 2005?

Cal has played a much tougher schedule, and has absolutely blown out teams in every win. If you notice, the BCS version of the formula that doesn't take margin of victory into account has Auburn ahead. Margin has much higher predictive value for the future, though. The Pac-10 is very likely the best BCS conference this year, with Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Oregon State, UCLA and Arizona State all looking good early. Heck, even Washington has played a tough schedule and beat USC. Just the fact that it's a possibility USC is the 9th best team in the Pac-10 this year reflects on how good the conference is top to (near) bottom.

Sagarin's top 25 (first time this year all teams are connected): College Football 2010 through games of October 9 Saturday HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS 1 Oregon A = 92.22 6 0 70.33( 39) 1 0 | 2 0 | 91.17 4 2 TCU A = 90.79 6 0 68.85( 56) 0 0 | 1 0 | 91.64 2 3 Boise State A = 90.71 5 0 72.15( 28) 0 0 | 2 0 | 93.33 1 4 Stanford A = 90.39 5 1 74.69( 14) 0 1 | 1 1 | 88.94 7 5 LSU A = 87.56 6 0 73.56( 20) 0 0 | 2 0 | 88.09 8 6 Nebraska A = 87.50 5 0 67.01( 76) 0 0 | 0 0 | 87.60 10 7 Arizona A = 87.30 4 1 74.63( 16) 1 0 | 2 1 | 87.24 11 8 Alabama A = 87.13 5 1 72.25( 27) 0 0 | 2 1 | 83.37 17 9 California A = 86.46 3 2 75.99( 12) 0 1 | 0 2 | 83.85 16 10 Florida State A = 86.29 5 1 69.50( 45) 0 0 | 0 1 | 83.15 19 11 Oregon State A = 86.17 3 2 85.02( 1) 1 2 | 2 2 | 89.74 6 12 Oklahoma A = 85.80 5 0 74.66( 15) 1 0 | 2 0 | 91.47 3 13 South Carolina A = 85.48 4 1 72.71( 24) 1 0 | 1 1 | 84.07 15 14 Nevada A = 85.10 6 0 67.00( 78) 1 0 | 1 0 | 86.78 12 15 Ohio State A = 85.08 6 0 63.45( 117) 0 0 | 0 0 | 82.27 23 16 Missouri A = 84.92 5 0 66.53( 84) 0 0 | 0 0 | 84.41 14 17 Auburn A = 84.80 6 0 67.17( 74) 0 0 | 1 0 | 87.62 9 18 Michigan State A = 83.09 6 0 65.15( 95) 0 0 | 2 0 | 90.12 5 19 Virginia Tech A = 82.74 4 2 72.84( 23) 0 1 | 1 1 | 81.72 24 20 Arizona State A = 82.18 3 3 77.90( 6) 0 1 | 0 3 | 79.47 29 21 Iowa A = 81.58 4 1 64.08( 111) 0 1 | 0 1 | 79.25 31 22 NC State A = 81.19 5 1 69.37( 49) 0 0 | 0 1 | 79.33 30 23 Utah A = 80.41 5 0 61.47( 136) 0 0 | 0 0 | 78.34 34 24 Arkansas A = 80.35 4 1 68.15( 66) 0 1 | 0 1 | 76.97 39 25 Wisconsin A = 80.01 5 1 63.59( 116) 0 0 | 1 1 | 82.33 22 The rankings on the far right are the ones submitted to the BCS (they don't factor point spread in at all, while his normal rankings do somewhat).

According to Sagarin ratings, this is the order of quality of Big Ten teams: Ohio State Michigan State Iowa Wisconsin Michigan Illinois Northwestern Purdue Penn State Indiana Minnesota Also, Nebraska would be atop the Big Ten (because they'll be in the conference next year), and Illinois would be atop the Big East (just because the thought of this is funny)

I still feel that if you score 6 points to give yourself a 7 point lead, you should go for two to make it a two score game. Sure, the 8 point lead requires the opponent to make a 2-point conversion, but even if you miss getting the 9 point lead, you are still up 7 and there's a good chance an opposing TD still just ties it.

Nice to see Todd Collins game manage the team to a victory today.

Well, that was a lot more fun to watch than I was anticipating.

Omer Asik shoots Shaq-like free throws. If only the rest of his game were Shaq-like.

It's a shame the worst Yankee hitter has to bat first.

I'll agree they were the least efficient. Whether or not that money was wasted is determined by the benefit they received in spending the money. Even weirder was that they didn't count the Blue Jays in the "most efficient" category, because they didn't get at least 87 wins (which is a threshold only 11 teams reached this year), because the author wanted to set an efficiency threshold of "5 games over .500". That's weird. You can be efficient and bad, I would think. That's just it, the Jays finished 85-77. I wouldn't even consider it bad considering the author made a special exception for the Red Sox having to play in a tough division. I guess I'm just bothered that it's quite apparent the author had some assumptions he was going to roll with, and when his data didn't match up that well, he fudged the conditions until it did. That's not to say the Cubs weren't a terrible model of a franchise this year (along with the Mets), but many high-spending teams failed to make the playoffs this year, so the correlation between payroll and wins was an awful basis for an article trying to analyze this year.