+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+----- Thread: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey (/thread-788341.html)
Pages: 1 2
Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - Viejobuho - 08-25-2016 04:21 PM
I thought maybe with Stanford and Baylor, our schedule would have rated a little tougher, but I guess that weak C-USA & PV are too hard to overcome. No matter: just win!
Click on the "SSF" column in link below.
http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/fbs/ratings
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - ExcitedOwl18 - 08-25-2016 04:28 PM
Interestingly, WKU comes in at #40. Shows that C-USA east is much better. They play Bama in the non-conference, but also have a Miami OH and HBU which one would think would offset.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - OldOwl - 08-26-2016 01:00 PM
(08-25-2016 04:28 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: Interestingly, WKU comes in at #40. Shows that C-USA east is much better. They play Bama in the non-conference, but also have a Miami OH and HBU which one would think would offset.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - OldOwl - 08-26-2016 01:09 PM
Sagarins has us ranked 112 and our record would be 6 - 6. The teams beating us are
Stanford
Army
Baylor
Louisiana Tech
Western Kentucky
Southern Miss
Pretty lousy!
USA today, who are smoking something, has Rice ranked at 64 and our W-L record is 7-5. We are ranked above Texas A&M, Kansas State, Missouri, California, and Missouri?
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - JIBA 08 - 08-29-2016 09:23 AM
(08-26-2016 01:09 PM)OldOwl Wrote: USA today, who are smoking something, has Rice ranked at 64 and our W-L record is 7-5.
I'll take some of what they're having, please.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - Hambone10 - 08-29-2016 03:31 PM
I know it's apples:Oranges, but 112 vs 64 seems like a huge improvement, and we only pick up one win?
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - OldOwl - 08-29-2016 10:26 PM
Yes but are we better than Texas A&M, Kansas State, Missouri, and/or California?
(08-29-2016 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I know it's apples:Oranges, but 112 vs 64 seems like a huge improvement, and we only pick up one win?
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - RiceLad15 - 08-30-2016 07:17 AM
(08-29-2016 10:26 PM)OldOwl Wrote: Yes but are we better than Texas A&M, Kansas State, Missouri, and/or California?(08-29-2016 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I know it's apples:Oranges, but 112 vs 64 seems like a huge improvement, and we only pick up one win?
Doubtful, but that's what the actual football season is for.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - waltgreenberg - 08-30-2016 07:53 AM
(08-30-2016 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(08-29-2016 10:26 PM)OldOwl Wrote: Yes but are we better than Texas A&M, Kansas State, Missouri, and/or California?(08-29-2016 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I know it's apples:Oranges, but 112 vs 64 seems like a huge improvement, and we only pick up one win?
Doubtful, but that's what the actual football season is for.
What makes no sense with the CUSA ranking is that there is no way a 7-5 record with our weak schedule would garner a Top 75 ranking; it's simply not possible.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - RiceLad15 - 08-30-2016 08:27 AM
(08-30-2016 07:53 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(08-30-2016 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(08-29-2016 10:26 PM)OldOwl Wrote: Yes but are we better than Texas A&M, Kansas State, Missouri, and/or California?(08-29-2016 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I know it's apples:Oranges, but 112 vs 64 seems like a huge improvement, and we only pick up one win?
Doubtful, but that's what the actual football season is for.
What makes no sense with the CUSA ranking is that there is no way a 7-5 record with our weak schedule would garner a Top 75 ranking; it's simply not possible.
Our schedule is so bipolar we could go 9-3 and, should preseason ranks hold true, be unable to tell if we should be ranked in the Top 50 or Bottom 100.
Hopefully CUSA can punch above its weight this year.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - gsloth - 08-30-2016 01:47 PM
(08-30-2016 07:53 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(08-30-2016 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(08-29-2016 10:26 PM)OldOwl Wrote: Yes but are we better than Texas A&M, Kansas State, Missouri, and/or California?(08-29-2016 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I know it's apples:Oranges, but 112 vs 64 seems like a huge improvement, and we only pick up one win?
Doubtful, but that's what the actual football season is for.
What makes no sense with the CUSA ranking is that there is no way a 7-5 record with our weak schedule would garner a Top 75 ranking; it's simply not possible.
That assumes that the preseason rankings, which are based on last year's results, are accurate. They often are not.
In fact, lose close games to teams in the top 40 and win big against the rest, and that can easily result in a top 75 rating. Even if the opponents are who we think they are.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - waltgreenberg - 08-30-2016 03:33 PM
(08-30-2016 01:47 PM)gsloth Wrote:(08-30-2016 07:53 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(08-30-2016 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(08-29-2016 10:26 PM)OldOwl Wrote: Yes but are we better than Texas A&M, Kansas State, Missouri, and/or California?(08-29-2016 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I know it's apples:Oranges, but 112 vs 64 seems like a huge improvement, and we only pick up one win?
Doubtful, but that's what the actual football season is for.
What makes no sense with the CUSA ranking is that there is no way a 7-5 record with our weak schedule would garner a Top 75 ranking; it's simply not possible.
That assumes that the preseason rankings, which are based on last year's results, are accurate. They often are not.
In fact, lose close games to teams in the top 40 and win big against the rest, and that can easily result in a top 75 rating. Even if the opponents are who we think they are.
??? Um, no. First off, we're likely only going to play two teams ending the year in the Top 40 (Stanford and Baylor), and I wouldn't be surprised if Baylor ends up out of the Top 25. WKU could end up borderline Top 50. LaTech and USM may both have 9-3 records, but given their schedule, I doubt they'll crack the Top 60. Everyone else on our schedule will be almost assuredly in the bottom quintile of the FBS division.So, tell me again how a 7-5 record is going to can "easily result in a Top 75 rating"?
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - Frizzy Owl - 08-30-2016 03:38 PM
To put it another way, to go 7-5 Rice would have to lose to at least three bad teams, which is incompatible with a top 75 finish. If Rice instead goes 9-3 or 10-2 it's a different story.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - WRCisforgotten79 - 08-30-2016 03:45 PM
Last season, Georgia Southern finished 9-4, with a 6-2 record (3rd place ) in the abysmal Sun Belt Conference. They played exactly 2 teams among my top 40 (#25 Georgia 17-23, and #35 West Virginia 0-44). In my final rankings, Georgia Southern ended at #64, well within the top 75.
Edit: Even had the Georgia game been a blowout loss, Georgia Southern would have fallen only to #67.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - waltgreenberg - 08-30-2016 03:49 PM
(08-30-2016 03:45 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: Last season, Georgia Southern finished 9-4, with a 6-2 record (3rd place ) in the abysmal Sun Belt Conference. They played exactly 2 teams among my top 40 (#25 Georgia 17-23, and #35 West Virginia 0-44). In my final rankings, Georgia Southern ended at #64, well within the top 75.
9-4 is NOT 7-5; that's 2 more wins and one less loss-- a big difference in the computer algorithms...and I doubt Georgia Southern's overall schedule is any worse than ours. Don't we play 7 games against opponents with rankings at or outside the Top 100?
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - WRCisforgotten79 - 08-30-2016 04:00 PM
(08-30-2016 03:49 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(08-30-2016 03:45 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: Last season, Georgia Southern finished 9-4, with a 6-2 record (3rd place ) in the abysmal Sun Belt Conference. They played exactly 2 teams among my top 40 (#25 Georgia 17-23, and #35 West Virginia 0-44). In my final rankings, Georgia Southern ended at #64, well within the top 75.
9-4 is NOT 7-5; that's 2 more wins and one less loss-- a big difference in the computer algorithms...and I doubt Georgia Southern's overall schedule is any worse than ours. Don't we play 7 games against opponents with rankings at or outside the Top 100?
First of all, the Sun Belt is a far worse conference, so that will skew the win-loss comparison.
But, here's another example:
Middle Tennessee State finished 7-6, with a 6-2 record in conference. They played 2 teams among my top 40: (#1 Alabama 10-37 and #21 Western Kentucky 28-58). MTSU finished at #71 in my final rankings.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - waltgreenberg - 08-30-2016 04:06 PM
(08-30-2016 04:00 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:(08-30-2016 03:49 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(08-30-2016 03:45 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: Last season, Georgia Southern finished 9-4, with a 6-2 record (3rd place ) in the abysmal Sun Belt Conference. They played exactly 2 teams among my top 40 (#25 Georgia 17-23, and #35 West Virginia 0-44). In my final rankings, Georgia Southern ended at #64, well within the top 75.
9-4 is NOT 7-5; that's 2 more wins and one less loss-- a big difference in the computer algorithms...and I doubt Georgia Southern's overall schedule is any worse than ours. Don't we play 7 games against opponents with rankings at or outside the Top 100?
First of all, the Sun Belt is a far worse conference, so that will skew the win-loss comparison.
But, here's another example:
Middle Tennessee State finished 7-6, with a 6-2 record in conference. They played 2 teams among my top 40: (#1 Alabama 10-37 and #21 Western Kentucky 28-58). MTSU finished at #71 in my final rankings.
First off, your rankings always rank CUSA teams higher than any of the primary ranking systems. Second, MTSU played a MUCH tougher schedule last year than we have this year. The CUSA West is pathetic save for LaTech and USM.
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - Antarius - 08-30-2016 04:09 PM
(08-30-2016 04:00 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:(08-30-2016 03:49 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(08-30-2016 03:45 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: Last season, Georgia Southern finished 9-4, with a 6-2 record (3rd place ) in the abysmal Sun Belt Conference. They played exactly 2 teams among my top 40 (#25 Georgia 17-23, and #35 West Virginia 0-44). In my final rankings, Georgia Southern ended at #64, well within the top 75.
9-4 is NOT 7-5; that's 2 more wins and one less loss-- a big difference in the computer algorithms...and I doubt Georgia Southern's overall schedule is any worse than ours. Don't we play 7 games against opponents with rankings at or outside the Top 100?
First of all, the Sun Belt is a far worse conference, so that will skew the win-loss comparison.
But, here's another example:
Middle Tennessee State finished 7-6, with a 6-2 record in conference. They played 2 teams among my top 40: (#1 Alabama 10-37 and #21 Western Kentucky 28-58). MTSU finished at #71 in my final rankings.
Per Sagarin C-USA was a 55.4 while the Sun Belt was a 55.04. By comparison the AAC was a 66.5 +
How did they fare in your ratings?
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - WRCisforgotten79 - 08-30-2016 04:33 PM
(08-30-2016 04:09 PM)Antarius Wrote:(08-30-2016 04:00 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:(08-30-2016 03:49 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(08-30-2016 03:45 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: Last season, Georgia Southern finished 9-4, with a 6-2 record (3rd place ) in the abysmal Sun Belt Conference. They played exactly 2 teams among my top 40 (#25 Georgia 17-23, and #35 West Virginia 0-44). In my final rankings, Georgia Southern ended at #64, well within the top 75.
9-4 is NOT 7-5; that's 2 more wins and one less loss-- a big difference in the computer algorithms...and I doubt Georgia Southern's overall schedule is any worse than ours. Don't we play 7 games against opponents with rankings at or outside the Top 100?
First of all, the Sun Belt is a far worse conference, so that will skew the win-loss comparison.
But, here's another example:
Middle Tennessee State finished 7-6, with a 6-2 record in conference. They played 2 teams among my top 40: (#1 Alabama 10-37 and #21 Western Kentucky 28-58). MTSU finished at #71 in my final rankings.
Per Sagarin C-USA was a 55.4 while the Sun Belt was a 55.04. By comparison the AAC was a 66.5 +
How did they fare in your ratings?
I've written many times as to the problems with Sagarin, so I won't repeat.
Last season, I had the AAC as the #6 conference (-5.48), with C-USA at #9 (-34.69) and Sun Belt at #10 (-42.81).
RE: Rice's 2016 football schedule rated 119th toughest by Massey - WRCisforgotten79 - 08-30-2016 04:41 PM
(08-30-2016 04:06 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: First off, your rankings always rank CUSA teams higher than any of the primary ranking systems. Second, MTSU played a MUCH tougher schedule last year than we have this year. The CUSA West is pathetic save for LaTech and USM.
1. I don't have the desire to go back for a year by year comparison, based on your unsubstantiated "always" comment. While last season, I had C-USA teams ranked about 4 spots higher than Massey Composite, the previous season it was about 1 spot (statistically insignificant).
2. Last season, MTSU played, in addition to Alabama, Jackson State (FCS), Illinois (5-7) and Vanderbilt (4-8). That slate certainly is no tougher than Stanford, Prairie View, Baylor and Army.