Mephistopheles

honestly you'd get a better accuracy if you also use a *bit* of the previous season. sure team turnover rate is abnormally high in the sport, but you gain much needed interconference play.

you may think the sample size is too small for objective models, but theyre still more accurate than the subjective polls... they are not final and absolute, but they tell more than everything else.

I think there are 2 major stumbling blocks. The NBC TV package and some joint academic stuff that may be against Notre Dame's beliefs. I think the Big Ten would take them in a heartbeat, but they want to TV money shared. I am sure the academic stuff could be worked out if the NBC thing got worked out. there is zero financial incentive for ND to join a conference. PSU only joined because they needed a conference to prop up the 26 non-football sports programs There will be when their football program continues to suck for the next ten years.

Teams do not have to win their conference to play for the national championship. See Oklahoma several years ago. It was OK? I thought it was Nebraska but you're probably right. If Georgia played LSU I'd have less of an issue with it but they didn't. It was both. And it was almost Michigan last year.

The conference map for the Big East is hilarious. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Big_East-USA-states.PNG/800px-Big_East-USA-states.PNG

Yet I've been constantly called an SEC homer who only follows the SEC and Florida and wouldn't know that Mizzou beat the Illini this season because they're not SEC teams (not by you though iirc).

Just add Notre Dame and be done with it. Notre Dame should not be in the Big East.

Excellent

I still don't see how the SEC is leading though. Exactly who have they beaten OOC? VTech was a good win but what I think is ironic is that in Basketball Syracuse gets ripped for playing a lot of games at home but in football the SEC does it and gets a pass. LSU beat VT UGA killed OkSU Florida killed FSU Auburn over KSU An average SEC team (SC) pretty much tied 9-3 ACC Clemson You don't just look who they beat, you look at who they lost to as well. The SEC had one loss to a non BCS conference team (Alabama to Monroe). The Pac 10 had 4. The Big Ten had 5. The Big East had 3. The Big XII had 5. The ACC had 3ish.* You also look at how well they played (Score). And running up the score should matter some (obviously not completely). *going into this week. The non BCS teams the BE lost to were Louisville to Utah, Pitt to Navy and Syracuse to Miami (Oh), those are solid programs. Also, I don't know about the other BCS conferences but the BE plays a lot of home and homes which we both know the SEC did not do this year. Did I complain about the BE? With Dixon out the BE is probably the #2 conference. I happened to have USF in the top fifteen. They're unranked.

I didn't say the SEC played a great non conference this year. Apparently Tebow broke his hand on the first possession of the third quarter against FSU and will be in a cast for the next two weeks. No wonder the Gators did not drop fifty on the Noles. STUPID TEBOW! http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/ncaa/11/25/bc.fbc.t25.florida.tebow.ap/index.html

I still don't see how the SEC is leading though. Exactly who have they beaten OOC? VTech was a good win but what I think is ironic is that in Basketball Syracuse gets ripped for playing a lot of games at home but in football the SEC does it and gets a pass. LSU beat VT UGA killed OkSU Florida killed FSU Auburn over KSU You don't just look who they beat, you look at who they lost to as well. The SEC had one loss to a non BCS conference team (Alabama to Monroe). The Pac 10 had 4. The Big Ten had 5. The Big East had 3. The Big XII had 5. The ACC had 3ish.* You also look at how well they played (Score). And running up the score should matter some (obviously not completely). *going into this week. you'll get a more accurate picture if you break those conferences down by team (for example, the total suckfest that was Minnesota accounted for, what, 3 of those 5 losses?) just saying minnesota is a big ten team the last time i checked. their suckage counts.

unfortunately, it'll be a few years before the Big 10 non-con is any good. PSU, for example, has two years of Syracuse starting next year, but then have two-year series with Alabama (2010-11) and Viriginia (2012-13) after that The Big Ten can be good without a tough non conference schedule.

I still don't see how the SEC is leading though. Exactly who have they beaten OOC? VTech was a good win but what I think is ironic is that in Basketball Syracuse gets ripped for playing a lot of games at home but in football the SEC does it and gets a pass. LSU beat VT UGA killed OkSU Florida killed FSU Auburn over KSU An average SEC team (SC) pretty much tied 9-3 ACC Clemson You don't just look who they beat, you look at who they lost to as well. The SEC had one loss to a non BCS conference team (Alabama to Monroe). The Pac 10 had 4. The Big Ten had 5. The Big East had 3. The Big XII had 5. The ACC had 3ish.* You also look at how well they played (Score). And running up the score should matter some (obviously not completely). *going into this week.

if you want to get technical, all of those Big Ten teams who took Notre Dame outside the woodshed helped the Big Ten once Notre Dame knocked off UCLA and Stanford.

Yeah the Big Ten was a pretty weak conference this year. It's unfortunate that they will probably end up with two BCS teams, unless youre an Illini fan. Don't worry, there's a lot of talent in the Big Ten and it will be fine. Just a one (or two see 2006) year thing. A few years ago the SEC was pulling up the rear of the BCS conferences. It has been leading it the last two. It's cyclical between the Big XII, Big Ten, SEC. None of the conferences are better than the others over the long haul.

What is Clemson ranked these days? 16th? Mediocre indeed. SC lost by 2 to the 16th ranked team...that's a pretty good showing. They have played 7 top 30 teams after all and their last four losses are to teams ranked #2, #16, #19, and #27 in Sagarin. So what do we take from those four losses? They're not #27. They may be #28-#119. The Vandy loss was bad though. If team say #37 losing to team #50 is bad.

Exactly. It means the teams are evenly matched*. That's all it means. When two teams play to a close game like that what should we take away from the game? The teams are evenly matched. Which team won or lost means little for the future success of the teams (except for in standings). *on that day, but I really don't want to open that bag of cookies right now.

Hosak, you're missing the entire point...If teams have identical schedules wins and losses matter more in college football than they do in baseball. When one team plays a top ten schedule and the other plays a schedule of say 50th or so. That's like a two loss difference that no one takes into account. That's the reason why wins and losses in college football are poor indicators of success. See: Kansas

Um, yeah it is random. It's like one third down conversion or one fifteen yard play.

We're trying to determine the most likely outcome of a game between the two teams. If Florida and Kansas played and Kansas beat Florida handedly, then Florida would likely fall behind Kansas in such algorithms. The games do matter. If Florida and Kansas played and Kansas won by one point, nothing would likely change. If they won 45-14, then there'd be a huge change and rightfully so. But enough about me winning this argument with relative ease, let's talk about this:

The difference does not mean anything when it comes to telling us which team is better. It really does not. This is not a difficult concept. Wins and losses have almost no predicative power in college football, even less than they do in major league baseball. I'm telling you that the score means more than who won or lost. And don't even spew the crap about the score shows who won and who lost. You're not dumb. You know what I mean. Deserving is subjective. What makes an inferior team more deserving than a superior team? Remember these rankings are based on how well the teams played... When it comes to how good two teams are. Beating a team by 2 points is worth about as much as losing by 2 points. A few points either way in a college game are kinda random. It's not like we're talking about two touchdowns up is the same as two touchdowns down, it's not. We're talking about a field goal either way. There's a lot of volatility in that. There's a reason it works out this way...and it has nothing to do with the SEC, Big XII, Big Ten or Mangino's waist size. Is three losses on their schedule all that different than one loss on Kansas'? (Answer: No). Schedule matters. I have not said anything about Florida going to the NC game.... Guess who is number one in the ratings where Florida is number two....

You're right. A 12 point loss in a game where Tebow couldn't run because of his shoulder and was sacked six times because of this. He's been sacked six times the entire rest of the season (!). Granted, the defense gave up 42 points, but the Gators would have scored 40 or so with a healthy Tebow, more than likely so the 12 point difference isn't very telling but keep pretending it is if you want. I'm going to need some explanation. The best baseball teams almost never win 60 percent of their games and the worst don't often win under 40. Meanwhile, in college football, there are normally plenty of two-loss or fewer teams and plenty of two-win or fewer teams. From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game. Your on the right track. This quote is true: "From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game." The problem is that wins and losses don't accurately measure which team is better. If you assume that the Gators are the number 2 team in the country, based on their schedule the most likely outcome is 2 losses. They would be expected to lose 2 games 32% of the time. They would be expected to lose 3 or more games 27.8% of the time! So they score 40 with Tebow they still lose by 2 And a two point loss tells us nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's means about the same as winning by two points...

You're right. A 12 point loss in a game where Tebow couldn't run because of his shoulder and was sacked six times because of this. He's been sacked six times the entire rest of the season (!). Granted, the defense gave up 42 points, but the Gators would have scored 40 or so with a healthy Tebow, more than likely so the 12 point difference isn't very telling but keep pretending it is if you want. I'm going to need some explanation. The best baseball teams almost never win 60 percent of their games and the worst don't often win under 40. Meanwhile, in college football, there are normally plenty of two-loss or fewer teams and plenty of two-win or fewer teams. From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game. Your on the right track. This quote is true: "From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game." The problem is that wins and losses don't accurately measure which team is better. If you assume that the Gators are the number 2 team in the country, based on their schedule the most likely outcome is 2 losses. They would be expected to lose 2 games 32% of the time. They would be expected to lose 3 or more games 27.8% of the time!

good thing some guy in USA Today's rankings have no actual effect on the real world Except one of his polls is used for the BCS Computer rankings... Florida's top five in all scientific polls that involve SOS and score as well as other things. It should be certain that theyre one of the top five teams in the country. which of FLorida's 3 losses was your favorite? I prefer the 12 point loss at home to Georgia. Good stuff. I prefer the home loss to an unranked mediocre Auburn team. Great stuff. Yes, #20. good thing some guy in USA Today's rankings have no actual effect on the real world Except one of his polls is used for the BCS Computer rankings... Florida's top five in all scientific polls that involve SOS and score as well as other things. It should be certain that theyre one of the top five teams in the country. which of FLorida's 3 losses was your favorite? I prefer the 12 point loss at home to Georgia. Good stuff. Well the fact that you don't know that Georgia-Florida is a neutral site game pretty much nullifies your opinion. Good Stuff. good thing some guy in USA Today's rankings have no actual effect on the real world As Meph said, Sagarin does have an influence on the BCS as he is one of the computer rankings. Of course, in the formula that counts for the BCS Florida's only 9th. Again though meph, you're willing to accept that Florida is 2nd using pure points, but at the same time that formula has Kansas 6th and Missouri 9th after last night's games, while you have Missouri 2nd and Kansas 17th. So it's pretty obvious you don't put much weight in that formula except for the high ranking of Florida. There is an inverse relationship between accuracy and SOS. In other words, the system is going to get a team like Kansas wrong because Mangino eats cupcakes everyday. This place's fixation on losses is laughable. A game between two opponents is a probabilistic outcome. Just because team X is better it does not mean they will win 100% of the time. Wins and losses in college football mean less than wins and losses in baseball. This is a statistical truth and can not be refuted.

One thing to note is that he's currently the #2 rated passer in the country while playing a top five schedule. Obviously his legs help him in that department as well, but he's a naturally gifted passer on top of being a great power runner.