BCS Rankings v2

[scott]

Texas getting much more respect this week, but still a hose job by the computers given how much higher teams like ND and Cal and even Rutgers are in the computers.

OSU-Michigan is setting up nicely... it's pretty amazing that this college football season will likely end up having THREE 1 vs 2 matchups (OSU vs UT, OSU vs Mich, BCS Champ Game)

Team Harris Coach AH RB CM KM JS PW Avg. Total
1 OSU .999 1.000 23 25 24 23 23 23 .930 .976
2 Mich .942 .923 24 24 25 24 24 25 .970 .945
3 USC .926 .933 25 23 23 25 25 24 .970 .943
4 WV .870 .885 15 21 13 10 8 13 .510 .775
5 Aub .742 .748 17 19 18 21 21 17 .750 .747
6 Fla .691 .667 21 15 21 20 20 21 .820 .726
7 Tex .822 .830 10 22 12 11 14 15 .520 .724
8 Lou .759 .765 20 17 16 15 11 16 .640 .722
9 ND .642 .647 18 18 19 18 18 19 .730 .673
10 Cal .608 .586 19 20 22 22 19 20 .810 .668
11 Ten .695 .664 16 12 14 17 17 11 .590 .650
12 Clm .607 .611 11 14 8 9 10 14 .440 .553
13 Ark .471 .444 13 9 10 19 22 18 .600 .505
14 Rut .396 .354 22 13 20 16 16 22 .740 .497
15 BSU .389 .423 14 11 17 14 15 10 .540 .451

[scott]

And yes... you are reading correctly... 2 of the computer Polls have Rutgers ranked as the #4 team in the country. 2 other computers have Cal ranked #4... ahead of the Tenn team that smoked them... and then there is the computer that has Ark ranked #4.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Well, here's a reason why:

Sagarin SOS rankings

1. USC
2. Washington State
3. California
4. Stanford
5. Washington

8. Oregon
9. Oregon State

17. ASU
18. Arizona

35. UCLA



Amazingly accurate and unbiased.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm

[johngateswhiteley]

Well, here's a reason why:

Sagarin SOS rankings

1. USC
2. Washington State
3. California
4. Stanford
5. Washington

8. Oregon
9. Oregon State

17. ASU
18. Arizona

35. UCLA



Amazingly accurate and unbiased.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm


...i was trying to tell people that USC had the #1 strength of schedule. this weekend WSU beat Oregon, and Cal beat Washington by 7...but UDub did not have their starting QB and threw 5, count it 5, interceptions. the pac-10 also had some tough preseason games as well.

[Brutalis]

Some friends out of state asked me if I feel like Arkansas is getting screwed.

My answer is no. We lost to the practical #1 team in the country, and beat the #2 at the time. We got lucky (much like Texas did with Nebraska) beating Alabama. The schedule up to @ South Carolina as been reletively easy and our "big time" games are the last few of the season.

It's make or break time for Houston Nutt. Dropping 2 of 3 games to Carolina, Tenn and LSU will have his job.

[Brutalis]

USC would not be as good as they have been over the years if they faced an SEC schedule john. Keeping that in mind is simply why they are not #1 yet.

[MajorMike]

USC would not be as good as they have been over the years if they faced an SEC schedule john. Keeping that in mind is simply why they are not #1 yet.

Blah blah. Prove it. You can't. Therefore such a statement means nothing. You can make all sorts of lame statemsnts to such.

In '98, Tenn didn't have to play the '2nd best' team because of a hurricane, literally. UCLA should have played for the title, but the game against Miami was postponed due to Hurricane George and played the last game of the season, in which UCLA lost 49-45 on a last second TD. If that game would have been the 3rd game of the season, they would have been higher in the polls and went on to beat Tenn.

In '03, the best team didn't even play in the BCS game. Instead, LSU got to play uo, who didn't even win their own conf.

A P10 team has been in the past 2 BCS game, split them, was the best team 3 years ago, and got 2 teams in 4 years ago. They argueably should have had 2 teams in 2 years ago with the phantom UT leaping of Cal in the human polls after Mack's crying plea.

A B12 team has been in the BCS game the past 5 of 6 years. No SEC team would have been in if they faced a B12 schedule.

[JoeChalupa]

How 'bout them Buckeyes!!
Texas squeezed by Nebraska. Nebraska should have won that game.

[NoMoneyDown]

http://images.cafepress.com/product/24293337_240x240_Front.jpg

Sorry for posting this in this forum.

I think he is a very good candidate. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformed voters will take one look at his name and be turned off. In this day-n-age, image is more important than integrity.

[samikeyp]

How 'bout them Buckeyes!!
Texas squeezed by Nebraska. Nebraska should have won that game.

why? texas scored more points...isn't that how you win a game? That is what the rules say.

[Mr Dio]

....lost to the practical #1 team in the country, and beat the #2 at the time.....

So Ohio St was #2? :lol
You go by the rankings with the Auburn example but not the game you lost in Ark. Which is it, you agree with or don't agree with the rankings?

[Mr Dio]

Well, here's a reason why:

Sagarin SOS rankings

1. USC
2. Washington State
3. California
4. Stanford
5. Washington

8. Oregon
9. Oregon State

17. ASU
18. Arizona

35. UCLA



Amazingly accurate and unbiased.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm

Are the SOS rankings using any type of poll?
If so, then a team that is ranked in the 10-15 range that plays let's say, in the PAC-10 as an example, could stay in that range by playing other PAC-10 teams & just lose 1 or 2 games & still be considered a good team even though the majority of its conference sucking.
Hard to find that as a HARD fact & unbiased.

[Brutalis]

Try to catch the point instead.

[Brutalis]

Blah blah. Prove it. You can't. Therefore such a statement means nothing. You can make all sorts of lame statemsnts to such.

In '98, Tenn didn't have to play the '2nd best' team because of a hurricane, literally. UCLA should have played for the title, but the game against Miami was postponed due to Hurricane George and played the last game of the season, in which UCLA lost 49-45 on a last second TD. If that game would have been the 3rd game of the season, they would have been higher in the polls and went on to beat Tenn.

In '03, the best team didn't even play in the BCS game. Instead, LSU got to play uo, who didn't even win their own conf.

A P10 team has been in the past 2 BCS game, split them, was the best team 3 years ago, and got 2 teams in 4 years ago. They argueably should have had 2 teams in 2 years ago with the phantom UT leaping of Cal in the human polls after Mack's crying plea.

A B12 team has been in the BCS game the past 5 of 6 years. No SEC team would have been in if they faced a B12 schedule.


Sorry but if you think the Pac10 is tougher than the SEC any comment you ever have about anything college football is out the window.

[Mr Dio]

Talk about missing the point.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Are the SOS rankings using any type of poll?
If so, then a team that is ranked in the 10-15 range that plays let's say, in the PAC-10 as an example, could stay in that range by playing other PAC-10 teams & just lose 1 or 2 games & still be considered a good team even though the majority of its conference sucking.
Hard to find that as a HARD fact & unbiased.


Sagarin's ELO-CHESS ranking is used in the BCS. I have to assume that his SOS plays a predominant role in those rankings.

BTW, he has WSU ranked 17th with 3 losses.

[Brutalis]

I know, you missed it. That's what I meant to begin with. :)

[Mr Dio]

Wow, talk about you missing it twice! :lol

OK, let me see if I can make it any easier for you.
Did you even make a point? :lol

[MajorMike]

Sorry but if you think the Pac10 is tougher than the SEC any comment you ever have about anything college football is out the window.

Wow... you just ain't too bright when it comes to derriving a point.

Prove that the SEC is the best conf. How many times have they had the best team. How many times have they been in the title game.

And actually the best arguement:
Why wasn't an undefeated Auburn rated ahead of an undefeated SC or uo if the SEC is so much better when most of the computer polls are based on SOS?

Talk about throwing everything you know out the window. You'd think having an OSU grad as your coach, he would teach you guys better.

[johngateswhiteley]

Blah blah. Prove it. You can't. Therefore such a statement means nothing. You can make all sorts of lame statemsnts to such.

In '98, Tenn didn't have to play the '2nd best' team because of a hurricane, literally. UCLA should have played for the title, but the game against Miami was postponed due to Hurricane George and played the last game of the season, in which UCLA lost 49-45 on a last second TD. If that game would have been the 3rd game of the season, they would have been higher in the polls and went on to beat Tenn.

In '03, the best team didn't even play in the BCS game. Instead, LSU got to play uo, who didn't even win their own conf.

A P10 team has been in the past 2 BCS game, split them, was the best team 3 years ago, and got 2 teams in 4 years ago. They argueably should have had 2 teams in 2 years ago with the phantom UT leaping of Cal in the human polls after Mack's crying plea.

A B12 team has been in the BCS game the past 5 of 6 years. No SEC team would have been in if they faced a B12 schedule.


i like what you said here. while i think the SEC is the toughest conference the fact that an unbeaten auburn team did not make the title game is pretty crazy...though it does not change my mind about the SEC.

...the Pac-10 is underrated and the Big 12 might be underrated as well. it still baffles me that t.u. jumped Cal that year.

we have done this a million times, but i think these are the best conferences:

1. SEC
2. Big 12
3. Big 10
4. Pac 10
5. ACC
6. Big East

...but the margin from the Big 12 to Big 10 to Pac 10 are small. Pac 10 is so underrated every year its laughable. i hate UCLA but wish they had beaten notre dame this week.

[NoMoneyDown]

Not that the computer rankings hold a lot of weight, but here is how Wolfe and Massey rank the conferences ...

Wolfe

1 SEC I-A 12 5.271 0.372
2 Big East I-A 8 5.222 0.434
3 Pac 10 I-A 10 5.214 0.512
4 Big 10 I-A 11 5.119 0.091
5 ACC I-A 12 4.760 0.136
6 Big 12 I-A 12 4.635 0.366
7 D-IA Indep. I-A 4 4.401 1.204
8 Mtn West I-A 9 3.936 0.322
9 CUSA I-A 12 3.833 0.287
10 WAC I-A 9 3.791 0.428

Massey

1 Pac 10 10 19 9 1.908 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.6385
2 Southeastern 12 30 7 1.876 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.6537
3 Big 10 11 29 11 1.785 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.6333
4 Big East 8 32 8 1.741 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.6977
5 Atlantic Coast 12 26 12 1.570 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.6714
6 Big 12 12 33 15 1.526 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.7052
7 Division I-A 119 68 6 1.476 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.6456
8 1-A Independents 4 14 16 1.443 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.3897
9 Mountain West 9 15 18 1.280 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.7642
10 Western Athletic 9 16 19 1.269 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.6799

[Brutalis]

Talk about tradition, power and who's better? Matching Pac-10 against SEC is stupid. The Pac-10 gets better each year but doesn't compare.

Or is that what College Gameday said too? Yep sure is.

Besides, you guys wanna take away USC and what do you have? The Pacific Sun Belt.

USC made that conference and continues to make that conference and these other schools getting the $ for it is sad. One team does majority of the work and the others play in the "i'm average" mud.

Oregon, Cal, UCLA, USC then about 6 other nobodies.

In otherwords, California makes that conference.

My point?

Easy.

Comparing the two is juvenille. Shows lack of experience and age in commentation an opinion about the matter.

Put any school in the USC.. I mean the Pac-10... in the SEC... and you will not see an unbeaten ever. You would not even compare the two.

Compare what? Gold to silver? How about no thanks.

[Brutalis]

And to add.

I'd take even the B-12 over the P-10.

Don't let the USC homerism affect how you guys look at the whole conference.

[NoMoneyDown]

Don't discount the Big East. They have 8 teams total - 6 (or 75%) of which are at or above .500 (three are 7-0). They are a combined 3-3 vs. the Big 10, 2-1 vs. the Big 12, and 5-3 vs. the ACC (they are 0-0 vs. the SEC and Pac-10).

[MajorMike]

Put any school in the USC.. I mean the Pac-10... in the SEC... and you will not see an unbeaten ever. You would not even compare the two.


Once again... prove it. Until you can, and you can't, might as well keep asking yourself what would have happened if the chad were counted in Gore's favor - it's a myth that will never be realized.

[johngateswhiteley]

Not that the computer rankings hold a lot of weight, but here is how Wolfe and Massey rank the conferences ...

Wolfe

1 SEC I-A 12 5.271 0.372
2 Big East I-A 8 5.222 0.434
3 Pac 10 I-A 10 5.214 0.512
4 Big 10 I-A 11 5.119 0.091
5 ACC I-A 12 4.760 0.136
6 Big 12 I-A 12 4.635 0.366
7 D-IA Indep. I-A 4 4.401 1.204
8 Mtn West I-A 9 3.936 0.322
9 CUSA I-A 12 3.833 0.287
10 WAC I-A 9 3.791 0.428

Massey

1 Pac 10 10 19 9 1.908 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.6385
2 Southeastern 12 30 7 1.876 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.6537
3 Big 10 11 29 11 1.785 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.6333
4 Big East 8 32 8 1.741 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.6977
5 Atlantic Coast 12 26 12 1.570 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.6714
6 Big 12 12 33 15 1.526 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.7052
7 Division I-A 119 68 6 1.476 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.6456
8 1-A Independents 4 14 16 1.443 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.3897
9 Mountain West 9 15 18 1.280 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.7642
10 Western Athletic 9 16 19 1.269 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.6799


i am not surprised, the Pac 10 seriously is SOLID. their problem is consistancy. teams will rise up and beat a very good team and then lose to a team they should have beaten. any Pac 10 team is capable of beating ANY team in the nation if they have it together that day. i don't think any other conference in the nation can say that...

[Brutalis]

Once again... prove it. Until you can, and you can't, might as well keep asking yourself what would have happened if the chad were counted in Gore's favor - it's a myth that will never be realized.
No dude you don't get it.

YOU need to prove it. SEC Football speaks for itself bro bro.

Thus making your point, and the Pac-10 needing some proof.

Yeahhhhhhhh.

[Bob Lanier]

On a semi-related note, this is rich (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2637561).

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Where was he when ND was ridiculously overrated at #2? Was he asking why they were rated so high with their shitbag D and Swiss cheese OL?

I loathe Jabba the Weis...

[MajorMike]

No dude you don't get it.

YOU need to prove it. SEC Football speaks for itself bro bro.

Thus making your point, and the Pac-10 needing some proof.

Yeahhhhhhhh.

I'm not saying P10 is the best. I'm saying they have as many title appearances as the SEC in the BCS game, and an undefeated P10 team was rated higher than an undefeated SEC team. I'm saying you can't prove the SEC is better, which you can't.

Last 2 years the SEC is 3-3 in bowls each year. Last year the SEC champ lost to the BEast champ in a bowl. The year before the undefeated SEC champ was rated behind the B12 and P10 champ. During that same span, the B12 was 5-3 (getting in 2 more teams) and 4-3 (1 more team). The B12 Champ has been in the BCS game in 4 of 6 years and had a non champ in one year as well. The P10 is 3-2 (only 2 losses to B12) and 3-2 (1 loss to B12). As the B12 has more bowl participants and the P10 has the same percentage of bowl participants (50% each), how can you possibly say 'SEC football speaks for itself'? It speaks and the numbers say it isn't any better than the P10 and hasn't done as well as the B12.

Year in and year out, the B12 gets more teams in bowls. How can you say that the SEC beating up on each other keeps them out of bowls, when you have a same number of teams in another conf getting IN bowls? How about this, the last 2 years SEC had 7 participants (Tenn/SC) while the B12 had 10 different teams in 2 years. Therefore you can't possibly say that he B12 has more doormats, as more different teams have gotten in, and there has been a GREAT turnover recently in the north (with KState and CU down). Hell Baylor damn near went to a bowl last year.

Top to bottom, the B12 is a much better conf than the SEC. Hell, I wish we could play Miss St and Vandy and Kent every year. You can't say that in the B12. Every B12 team except Baylor and Kstate went to a bowl the past 2 years. OSU went to a bowl 3 of the past 4 years, Baylor almost did last year, KState was on of the best programs recently (only Neb, Fla St and Fla won more games than KState from '93-'03). In fact, last year in the B12, EVERY TEAM had a win over a bowl participant. EVERY SINGLE TEAM. The year before, the ONLY team that did not have a win over a bowl team was KState.

There is no fathomable way, other than just smack, you can show the SEC is better than anyone else, especially not the B12. B12 Football speaks for itself bro bro.

[Brutalis]

Blah Blah Blah.

One year it's one thing the next it's another. History speaks for itself, bro bro. I personally don't even like the SEC and which the B12 would send an invite to Arkansas. (like they should have already)

The point still remains the SEC is still and continues to be each year "where it's at." From the gameday experience to the overall fan support there is no conference out there that is better.

This was originally a Pac10 discussion. In which that is dead. Pac10 has nothing on SEC/B12 or even the B10 for that matter. Just a dead topic to try and say different. You wanna poll America they'd say the same thing. College Gameday and whenever you hear ESPN or a dicussion on TV about the best conferences and it's always about the SEC or B12, period. Case closed.

No SEC team other than Vandy has been without a bowl game more than 3 years at a time.

Alabama/Auburn/Arkansas/Florida/Georgia/LSU/South Carolina/Tenneessee or Texas/TexasAM/TT/OK/OKState/Nebraska/Mizzou/Colorado? Toss up? Who knows.

[scott]

Is this a joke? The Big 12 has been very weak the last 2 years outside of Texas and (this year) Nebraska. Bowl Appearances are meaningless when there are 43894329432 of them all you need is a 6-5 record to make it to one. The Big 12 puts a bunch of teams in bowl games because they get to pad their records by playing shitty teams, IE, each other.


Alabama/Auburn/Arkansas/Florida/Georgia/LSU/South Carolina/Tenneessee or Texas/TexasAM/TT/OK/OKState/Nebraska/Mizzou/Colorado?

It's the SEC hands down. The only team that can hang with any of them this year is Texas.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I thought OU could hang with the SEC pre-bloading, and Neb could hang now, unless their coach calls a greg-davis-esque 4th quarter against EVERY opponent :lol

[scott]

I thought OU could hang with the SEC pre-bloading, and Neb could hang now, unless their coach calls a greg-davis-esque 4th quarter against EVERY opponent :lol

If the game UT played against Nebraska was their "A" game, then neither school can hang with the SEC and UT is overrated. I suspect more along the lines of Texas having an off game.

[MajorMike]

Is this a joke? The Big 12 has been very weak the last 2 years outside of Texas and (this year) Nebraska. Bowl Appearances are meaningless when there are 43894329432 of them all you need is a 6-5 record to make it to one. The Big 12 puts a bunch of teams in bowl games because they get to pad their records by playing shitty teams, IE, each other.



It's the SEC hands down. The only team that can hang with any of them this year is Texas.


The point is... the SEC has doormats to beat up on. When 10 of 12 teams in a 2 year period make a 6-5 or better bowl and the 2 teams that didn't both finished with 5-6 records, there are no doormats. Therefore how can you say the B12 has been weaker than the SEC the past 2 years, when only 7 of 12 teams were good enough to get into a bowl. The point proves, irregardless, that the B12 is better from top to bottom.

As far as the Alabama/Auburn/Arkansas/Florida/Georgia/LSU/South Carolina/Tenneessee or Texas/TexasAM/TT/OK/OKState/Nebraska/Mizzou/Colorado comment... well are you talking the 2005 versions of Tenn (5-6) and Ark (4-7) or the 2004 versions of SC (6-5)and Ark (5-6)?

How about those 6-5 teams in a bowl? In 2004, the SEC had 2 of them and the B12 had one, while the B12 still had more bowl teams.

How about overall records? 2005 B12 was 80-54, SEC was 76-58.
2004 B12 was 77-57 SEC was 74-60.

I keep providing hard numbers... all you provide is words. Saying something doesn't make it so, and it isn't so.

In addition, there is no tougher division in football than the B12 South.

[scott]

How about you get on the same page as everyone else and talk about this year, numbnutz.

[MajorMike]

How about you get on the same page as everyone else and talk about this year, numbnutz.

Because I was responding to post #22, numbnutz. How about you read instead of talking before your brain thinks, ala Rush.

[johngateswhiteley]

The point is... the SEC has doormats to beat up on. When 10 of 12 teams in a 2 year period make a 6-5 or better bowl and the 2 teams that didn't both finished with 5-6 records, there are no doormats. Therefore how can you say the B12 has been weaker than the SEC the past 2 years, when only 7 of 12 teams were good enough to get into a bowl. The point proves, irregardless, that the B12 is better from top to bottom.

As far as the Alabama/Auburn/Arkansas/Florida/Georgia/LSU/South Carolina/Tenneessee or Texas/TexasAM/TT/OK/OKState/Nebraska/Mizzou/Colorado comment... well are you talking the 2005 versions of Tenn (5-6) and Ark (4-7) or the 2004 versions of SC (6-5)and Ark (5-6)?

How about those 6-5 teams in a bowl? In 2004, the SEC had 2 of them and the B12 had one, while the B12 still had more bowl teams.

How about overall records? 2005 B12 was 80-54, SEC was 76-58.
2004 B12 was 77-57 SEC was 74-60.

I keep providing hard numbers... all you provide is words. Saying something doesn't make it so, and it isn't so.

In addition, there is no tougher division in football than the B12 South.


1. irregardless isn't really a word, ha ha
2. i agree that the big 12 south is the toughest division in CFB, but not the toughest conference. when teams beat up on each other...of course their overall records are going to suffer, etc
3. however, it has a very marginal lead over the Big 12, Big 10, and Pac 10, imo. and those great defenses are more a product of inept offenses than anything else. Pac 10 teams could go into the SEC hang huge #'s on those teams (maybe not all of them, but a good amount). see USC, ASU, etc

[MajorMike]

How about you get on the same page as everyone else and talk about this year, numbnutz.

Current Saragin ratings, numbnutz:
1 PAC-10 (A) = 80.37 80.01 ( 1) 10
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 78.55 78.33 ( 2) 12
3 BIG EAST (A) = 77.39 77.57 ( 4) 8

[MajorMike]

How about you get on the same page as everyone else and talk about this year, numbnutz.


Current BCS Conf ratings, numbnutz:
1 Pac-10 0.5567 15 9 0.6250 89 67 0.5705 518 606 0.4609 0.5340 39.70
2 Big Ten 0.5167 23 11 0.6765 103 113 0.4769 722 931 0.4368 0.4635 43.73
3 SEC 0.5086 24 7 0.7742 81 115 0.4133 634 828 0.4337 0.4201 37.67
4 Big East 0.4871 26 8 0.7647 80 141 0.3620 728 856 0.4596 0.3945 38.75

[MajorMike]

when teams beat up on each other...of course their overall records are going to suffer, etc

Does it not stand to reason that 12 B12 teams and 12 SEC teams are both beating up on each other, yet the better overall conf will have a better overall record? B12 teams play just as many intra conf teams as an SEC schedule. uo and UT have been beating up on each other and yet one of them has been in the BCS game 4 of 5 years.

I've still had no one explain to me, if the SEC is indeed a better conf, how when 3 teams are undefeated that an SEC team is rated 3rd. Seems to me when the compter polls are LARGELY based on SOS that it says the SEC wasn't as tuff as the P10 or B12.

[johngateswhiteley]

I've still had no one explain to me, if the SEC is indeed a better conf, how when 3 teams are undefeated that an SEC team is rated 3rd. Seems to me when the compter polls are LARGELY based on SOS that it says the SEC wasn't as tuff as the P10 or B12.

..this is your best argument, and i really don't have a good answer for you other than the computer might be flawed? though i will say, your right the SEC does have more doormats than the big 12, however, their top teams are better...which is why they can be a tougher conference and not have as good an overall record as big 12.

though this is just currently. if the big 12 teams continue to improve like they have (mizzou, nebraska, & kansas in the north; A&M, baylor, & OSU in the south) then the big 12 will be #1 again.

[scott]

Because I was responding to post #22, numbnutz. How about you read instead of talking before your brain thinks, ala Rush.

If you were responding to post #22, you shouldn't have quoted my post (#32) in your response, dumbshit.

[MajorMike]

If you were responding to post #22, you shouldn't have quoted my post (#32) in your response, dumbshit.

Did you REALLY just say that?

[TheTruth]

I think that Colorado is very underrated.

[DarkReign]

I cant believe VaTech beat Clemson, especially so handily.

Huge upset, even in a weak conference.

[scott]

Did you REALLY just say that?

Actually I typed it, Mensa.

[MajorMike]

How about you get on the same page as everyone else and talk about this year, numbnutz.

This weeks Saragins, numbnutz:
1 PAC-10 (A) = 81.03 80.25 ( 1) 10
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 78.94 78.56 ( 2) 12

[MajorMike]

How about you get on the same page as everyone else and talk about this year, numbnutz.

This week's BCS, numbnutz:
1 Pac-10 0.5536 15 9 0.6250 102 79 0.5635 676 786 0.4624 0.5298 39.40
2 Big Ten 0.5158 24 11 0.6857 121 132 0.4783 920 1266 0.4209 0.4591 42.55
3 SEC 0.4970 27 7 0.7941 91 148 0.3808 866 1136 0.4326 0.3980 37.67

[johngateswhiteley]

its all about the Pac-10. i think, if USC can run the table, their computer rankings will be enough to overcome those other teams (the three or four ahead of them).

[Jimcs50]

uSC will lose at least one more game.

[Billy Cobham]

Pac-10 > SEC

Match up the teams on neutral fields and the Pac-10 would win the majority of games. This will be self-evident during bowl season.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

This weeks Saragins, numbnutz:
1 PAC-10 (A) = 81.03 80.25 ( 1) 10
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 78.94 78.56 ( 2) 12

Sagarin's rankings and SOS are garbage. He has been known to favor teams west of the Rockies. All 10 Pac-10 teams are ranked in the top 21 in SOS and he has Cal at #2.

[Brutalis]

Sagarin's rankings and SOS are garbage. He has been known to favor teams west of the Rockies. All 10 Pac-10 teams are ranked in the top 21 in SOS and he has Cal at #2.
BOOOMSHAKALAKASHAKALAKA

[MajorMike]

Sagarin's rankings and SOS are garbage. He has been known to favor teams west of the Rockies. All 10 Pac-10 teams are ranked in the top 21 in SOS and he has Cal at #2.


Hahaha. If it had the ACC and BEast head, you would claim East Coast bias.

What is your excuse for the BCS standings having the P10 ahead of the SEC... it has been know to favor teams west of the Missip?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Hahaha. If it had the ACC and BEast head, you would claim East Coast bias.

What is your excuse for the BCS standings having the P10 ahead of the SEC... it has been know to favor teams west of the Missip?

No, he has man-love for the P10, who outside of USC, is 4-6 in their OOC schedule(BCS opponents). Those 4 quality wins have come against Baylor, Minnesota, Colorado and Oklahoma. The losses have come against Tennessee, Auburn, Notre Dame(2X), LSU and Oklahoma(doesn't even include BSU drilling the team that took down the #1 in the conference).

I understand USC beat Arky and Nebraska, they deserved as much love as possible at the time. But how does the entire conference get that high of a SOS ranking when they've lost almost all their BCS OOC games against quality opponents?

His rankings are shit and have always been shit.

And this coming from a fan of the team he has ranked #1 in the rankings they use in the BCS.

[MajorMike]

No, he has man-love for the P10, who outside of USC, is 4-6 in their OOC schedule(BCS opponents). Those 4 quality wins have come against Baylor, Minnesota, Colorado and Oklahoma. The losses have come against Tennessee, Auburn, Notre Dame(2X), LSU and Oklahoma(doesn't even include BSU drilling the team that took down the #1 in the conference).

I understand USC beat Arky and Nebraska, they deserved as much love as possible at the time. But how does the entire conference get that high of a SOS ranking when they've lost almost all their BCS OOC games against quality opponents?

His rankings are shit and have always been shit.

And this coming from a fan of the team he has ranked #1 in the rankings they use in the BCS.


So, in other words, WITH USC (the team that whipped Ark) they are 6-6.

Let's do the same for the SEC. Without Tenn, the SEC is 5-6 OOC against BCS team. Those quality wins have come against Duke twice (no wins), Colorado (1 win), Zona (3 wins) and Wash State. The losses have come against Mizzou, USC, Wake, and 2 Big East schools.

I understand Tenn beat Cal, they deserved as much love as possible at the time. But how does the entire conference get that high of a SOS ranking when they've lost almost all their BCS OOC games against quality opponents?

It's a conspiracy! All pollsters obviously hate the SEC.

[johngateswhiteley]

So, in other words, WITH USC (the team that whipped Ark) they are 6-6.

Let's do the same for the SEC. Without Tenn, the SEC is 5-6 OOC against BCS team. Those quality wins have come against Duke twice (no wins), Colorado (1 win), Zona (3 wins) and Wash State. The losses have come against Mizzou, USC, Wake, and 2 Big East schools.

I understand Tenn beat Cal, they deserved as much love as possible at the time. But how does the entire conference get that high of a SOS ranking when they've lost almost all their BCS OOC games against quality opponents?

It's a conspiracy! All pollsters obviously hate the SEC.

...people just don't listen. its ALL about the Pac-10, it is not the toughest conference, but any of those teams can beat anyone...except Stanford, seriously.