Not to mention that Florida team UL beat was tied with Bowling Green halfway through the 3rd in the Swamp.

(05-13-2013 07:25 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 05:16 PM)sarasotahuskie Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 03:58 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 03:52 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 03:50 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Wrong and wrong. The UConn game was a disaster of epic proportions but in reality had no bearing on the outcome of the season. Win or lose we still play Florida in the Sugar Bowl, the only difference is a better record and a few spots higher in the final polls. In the Rutgers game Teddy was at about 40% with a broken wrist and sprained ankle and couldn't even take a snap under center or scramble but still picked apart a top 20 defense.

We can play "my team would've beaten your team" all day long, but the bottom line is my team performed in the postseason, yours didn't. The Big East was less than stellar last year but it was leaps and bounds better than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sag...onference/

Hmm, I wonder if other people do polls?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...wl-edition

What's your point? That link is one sportswriter's opinion. Sagarin uses the same rankings that ranks chess players. One is biased, the other is not.

You just further proved my point. Thanks.

Um, chess players play LOTS OF GAMES. FOR YEARS RUNNING. The chess player doesn't have turnover of half his "team" from one year to the next. That's why it's accurate - only after they've played a lot of games. It doesn't work well when you play only 4 OOC games - for many schools most or all of those are at home - and then simply play other teams in their own conference. How can you then compare conferences basically based on 4 games? It's a joke.

EDIT: since most teams are playing an FCS school in OOC, it's really 3 games they're basing that on, if you're talking about comparing conferences.

(05-13-2013 09:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Um, chess players play LOTS OF GAMES. FOR YEARS RUNNING. The chess player doesn't have turnover of half his "team" from one year to the next. That's why it's accurate - only after they've played a lot of games. It doesn't work well when you play only 4 OOC games - for many schools most or all of those are at home - and then simply play other teams in their own conference. How can you then compare conferences basically based on 4 games? It's a joke.

EDIT: since most teams are playing an FCS school in OOC, it's really 3 games they're basing that on, if you're talking about comparing conferences.

My point (which went completely over your head) is that it's considerably more reliable than a random sportswriter. Anybody with an internet connection can say one conference is stronger than another. Sagarin actually computes each team's ranking using numbers that literally can't show bias towards one team or another unlike a human. That's the difference, and based on those unbiased numbers, the Big East LAST YEAR was stronger than the MAC, and it's not even that close. According to Sagarin, the MAC was closer competition-wise to the Big Sky than it was to the Big East. What does that tell you?

You really just don't know what you're talking about.

(05-13-2013 09:46 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 09:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Um, chess players play LOTS OF GAMES. FOR YEARS RUNNING. The chess player doesn't have turnover of half his "team" from one year to the next. That's why it's accurate - only after they've played a lot of games. It doesn't work well when you play only 4 OOC games - for many schools most or all of those are at home - and then simply play other teams in their own conference. How can you then compare conferences basically based on 4 games? It's a joke.

EDIT: since most teams are playing an FCS school in OOC, it's really 3 games they're basing that on, if you're talking about comparing conferences.

My point (which went completely over your head) is that it's considerably more reliable than a random sportswriter. Anybody with an internet connection can say one conference is stronger than another. Sagarin actually computes each team's ranking using numbers that literally can't show bias towards one team or another unlike a human. That's the difference, and based on those unbiased numbers, the Big East LAST YEAR was stronger than the MAC, and it's not even that close. According to Sagarin, the MAC was closer competition-wise to the Big Sky than it was to the Big East. What does that tell you?

You really just don't know what you're talking about.

Unbiased doesn't mean accurate. And I would take head to head results over Sagarin any day. And what number does Sagarin start at for the year for a particular team?

I thought the Cards were an ACC headin', preseason top fivin', NCG hopin', Heisman candidate havin', super power, why are their fans trolling a lowly MAC board?

Are all Cardinal fans this insecure?

(05-13-2013 10:13 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I thought the Cards were an ACC headin', preseason top fivin', NCG hopin', Heisman candidate havin', super power, why are their fans trolling a lowly MAC board?

Are all Cardinal fans this insecure?

Yea, what the heck? We have an FSU fan over here too, but he isn't a troll. Please go back to your own board.

And if you think that a chess rating would be accurate after a player plays 3 games of chess, then YOU don't know what you're talking about.

Also it is not unbiased. Sagarin may use a formula but like all the computer models out there they are all biased into getting what they want out of it. That is why the computer models keep getting tweaked. They have a result they want and they make the model that best fits what they think is important (in fact this has been documented with the computer rankings used in the BCS as they did not like how the rankings were going then so they changed the criteria in the hopes that it would better fit what they wanted to see). This is also why different computer models give you different results. At one point last year I looked at Kent States ranking in the computers. Most had them in the low to mid 20s. Two had us at 20 (the high mark at the time). Sagarin had us at the worst at the mid 30s. That is a big difference so in fact it was dropped in the rankings (they drop the best and worst to help keep out extreme scores messing with the results). Sagarin seems to have a formula that does not like the MAC it had CUSA ahead of the MAC when CUSA had less TOTAL OOC wins than the MAC had AQ wins at the time.

It is certainly less biased than a vote but more biased than say the style of rankings in the NFL. Granted leagues like the NFL have it easier because you can more accurately rate the teams since there are so few teams as compared to college. Ranking in college is very difficult.

I remember in 2011 I think it was, that Temple had a much higher Sagarin rating than we did, despite the fact that we won the West division, they didn't win the East division, we had a better record, they didn't beat anybody with a winning record, and we beat 3 teams that they lost to.

(05-13-2013 10:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I remember in 2011 I think it was, that Temple had a much higher Sagarin rating than we did, despite the fact that we won the West division, they didn't win the East division, we had a better record, they didn't beat anybody with a winning record, and we beat 3 teams that they lost to.

It is true with RPI in basketball as well. Certain conferences/schools have realized that you can game RPI due to the fact that it has certain biases built in. If I recall correctly a great way to help your RPI is to try to schedule teams you think will have a good record but will not be tough to beat such as a school from a low major that will likely dominate its conference. Yes their OOC record will be not so good but most games you play are conference games and a large part of your RPI is your opponents record and if they dominate a bad conference then they help you more than you would think.

Some on other boards were accusing the MWC schools of doing things like this in basketball to increase their RPI though I do not know how true it is.

(05-13-2013 10:42 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 10:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I remember in 2011 I think it was, that Temple had a much higher Sagarin rating than we did, despite the fact that we won the West division, they didn't win the East division, we had a better record, they didn't beat anybody with a winning record, and we beat 3 teams that they lost to.

It is true with RPI in basketball as well. Certain conferences/schools have realized that you can game RPI due to the fact that it has certain biases built in. If I recall correctly a great way to help your RPI is to try to schedule teams you think will have a good record but will not be tough to beat such as a school from a low major that will likely dominate its conference. Yes their OOC record will be not so good but most games you play are conference games and a large part of your RPI is your opponents record and if they dominate a bad conference then they help you more than you would think.

Some on other boards were accusing the MWC schools of doing things like this in basketball to increase their RPI though I do not know how true it is.

Do you know how they calculate Sagarins at the beginning of the year?

(05-13-2013 07:54 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Stand up just fine? NIU got smacked around by Florida State, any of the above teams would curb stomp your Huskies whether you want to admit it or not. Those wins against Central Michigan, Umass, and Akron didn't do you much good when FSU was waltzing up and down the field all game. You guys cry about how unfair the BCS is but when you finally have a chance to prove it you piss your pants.

NIU had a chance to be the next Boise. What do you think the average football fan thought of NIU after the Orange Bowl?

The difference is which FSU team showed up that game compared OU-Boise State, Wisconsin-TCU, etc. The Seminoles went to Miami ready to play a BSC bowl while the Sooners sleepwalked for most of the game and the Badgers weren't really that great to begin with. Had the FSU that NC State played (or GT/VT for that matter) faced NIU, then it would've been a much different ballgame.

Had the Louisville team that played FIU/Southern Miss/Syracuse/UConn went up against UF, it wouldn't have been close. Coaching, injuries, and other intangible factors influence a team on a week-to-week basis, and it just so happened that the Huskies (who were playing without their head coach) were overmatched in the end despite playing fairly well for most of the game.

A question for you gocards#1: How do you think UL would've done against UF without Charlie Strong? How do you think NIU would've done with Dave Doeren? If we're talking about the strength of the general program, how would the MAC be doing if Kent State had Nick Saban, BG had Urban Meyer, Ball State had Brady Hoke, CMU had Brian Kelly/Butch Jones, Toledo had Gary Pinkel, and other good MAC coaches who deserted their programs (Gill, Haywood, etc.) stuck around?

(05-13-2013 10:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I remember in 2011 I think it was, that Temple had a much higher Sagarin rating than we did, despite the fact that we won the West division, they didn't win the East division, we had a better record, they didn't beat anybody with a winning record, and we beat 3 teams that they lost to.

Hell, every year Temple was ranked higher in everything- preseason polls, recruiting classes, beauty pageants, you name it. Still couldn't beat a MAC team with a winning record.

(05-13-2013 10:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 10:42 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 10:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I remember in 2011 I think it was, that Temple had a much higher Sagarin rating than we did, despite the fact that we won the West division, they didn't win the East division, we had a better record, they didn't beat anybody with a winning record, and we beat 3 teams that they lost to.

It is true with RPI in basketball as well. Certain conferences/schools have realized that you can game RPI due to the fact that it has certain biases built in. If I recall correctly a great way to help your RPI is to try to schedule teams you think will have a good record but will not be tough to beat such as a school from a low major that will likely dominate its conference. Yes their OOC record will be not so good but most games you play are conference games and a large part of your RPI is your opponents record and if they dominate a bad conference then they help you more than you would think.

Some on other boards were accusing the MWC schools of doing things like this in basketball to increase their RPI though I do not know how true it is.

Do you know how they calculate Sagarins at the beginning of the year?

I do not and I am not sure it has been released. If you are a good mathematician you might be able to derive it but I am not that good and do not enjoy math that much. I do know that the rankings at the start of the year are so messed up that Sagarin always tells everybody that they are shots in the dark though. He is honest in that regard.

(05-13-2013 07:25 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 05:16 PM)sarasotahuskie Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 03:58 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 03:52 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 03:50 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Wrong and wrong. The UConn game was a disaster of epic proportions but in reality had no bearing on the outcome of the season. Win or lose we still play Florida in the Sugar Bowl, the only difference is a better record and a few spots higher in the final polls. In the Rutgers game Teddy was at about 40% with a broken wrist and sprained ankle and couldn't even take a snap under center or scramble but still picked apart a top 20 defense.

We can play "my team would've beaten your team" all day long, but the bottom line is my team performed in the postseason, yours didn't. The Big East was less than stellar last year but it was leaps and bounds better than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sag...onference/

Hmm, I wonder if other people do polls?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...wl-edition

What's your point? That link is one sportswriter's opinion. Sagarin uses the same rankings that ranks chess players. One is biased, the other is not.

You just further proved my point. Thanks.

Wow, I guess I'm real good to you. (At least in your head) btw In your precious Sagarin, Louisville was less than half a point ahead of NIU in the Predictor of a future game.

To get back on point, NIU just scheduled Iowa in football for 2018 and 2020. Nice to see they value playing other big area schools. Its either a good sign of things to come, or we just made 1.5 mil in back-out fees.

(05-14-2013 12:26 PM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  To get back on point, NIU just scheduled Iowa in football for 2018 and 2020. Nice to see they value playing other big area schools. Its either a good sign of things to come, or we just made 1.5 mil in back-out fees.

The Big Ten schools that have been regularly scheduling FCS schools (Iowa has played Northern Iowa with some regularity) are going to have to start looking around for Mid-Majors to fill that spot. And that's the real game that Saban is playing ~ trying to push the SEC to follow suit regarding scheduling FCS schools.

(05-14-2013 08:31 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  I do know that the rankings at the start of the year are so messed up that Sagarin always tells everybody that they are shots in the dark though. He is honest in that regard.

If its a predictive model, it maybe that there are historical variables, which might offer data points at the beginning of the season, but the model clearly won't be putting a lot of weight on those variables, so the bulk of the model is current season records versus success of those opponents versus success of THEIR opponents and so on.

Up until a certain point in the season, the current season records don't form a connected system, and different clumps would be ranked by those historical variables ~ which would given them far more weight than they ought to have. Sagarin notes when it makes up a single coherent system, and I would consider the ratings before it hits that week to be mostly noise.

Of course, even when its a complete system, the rankings can only tell you a certain kind of information ~ there's always both the intangibles that are impossible to capture in a model and the critical events you couldn't quantify until after the fact.

(05-14-2013 12:54 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:26 PM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  To get back on point, NIU just scheduled Iowa in football for 2018 and 2020. Nice to see they value playing other big area schools. Its either a good sign of things to come, or we just made 1.5 mil in back-out fees.

The Big Ten schools that have been regularly scheduling FCS schools (Iowa has played Northern Iowa with some regularity) are going to have to start looking around for Mid-Majors to fill that spot. And that's the real game that Saban is playing ~ trying to push the SEC to follow suit regarding scheduling FCS schools.

(05-14-2013 08:31 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  I do know that the rankings at the start of the year are so messed up that Sagarin always tells everybody that they are shots in the dark though. He is honest in that regard.

If its a predictive model, it maybe that there are historical variables, which might offer data points at the beginning of the season, but the model clearly won't be putting a lot of weight on those variables, so the bulk of the model is current season records versus success of those opponents versus success of THEIR opponents and so on.

Up until a certain point in the season, the current season records don't form a connected system, and different clumps would be ranked by those historical variables ~ which would given them far more weight than they ought to have. Sagarin notes when it makes up a single coherent system, and I would consider the ratings before it hits that week to be mostly noise.

Of course, even when its a complete system, the rankings can only tell you a certain kind of information ~ there's always both the intangibles that are impossible to capture in a model and the critical events you couldn't quantify until after the fact.

But what does that mean, when they're finally "connected" and thus supposedly useful? Seems to me that would be the first point at which the model might have some predictive powers, not the point at which it's really "accurate". I mean, when teams in a conference play only 4 OOC games and 1 of those is against FCS, so only 3 games against other FBS conference teams, and then simply play each other the rest of the season, there has to be a lot of error when trying to compare conferences.

(05-13-2013 10:13 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I thought the Cards were an ACC headin', preseason top fivin', NCG hopin', Heisman candidate havin', super power, why are their fans trolling a lowly MAC board?

Are all Cardinal fans this insecure?

Yes Louisville fans have always been ignorant and always will be. I know its been a decade, but back in 2003 when Miami DESTROYED Louisville in the GMAC bowl, their fans were pathetically overconfident. They said Miami had ZERO business playing the likes of the 'Cards from C-USA! Result Miami 49 Loserville 28!

(05-13-2013 10:50 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 07:54 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Stand up just fine? NIU got smacked around by Florida State, any of the above teams would curb stomp your Huskies whether you want to admit it or not. Those wins against Central Michigan, Umass, and Akron didn't do you much good when FSU was waltzing up and down the field all game. You guys cry about how unfair the BCS is but when you finally have a chance to prove it you piss your pants.

NIU had a chance to be the next Boise. What do you think the average football fan thought of NIU after the Orange Bowl?

The difference is which FSU team showed up that game compared OU-Boise State, Wisconsin-TCU, etc. The Seminoles went to Miami ready to play a BSC bowl while the Sooners sleepwalked for most of the game and the Badgers weren't really that great to begin with. Had the FSU that NC State played (or GT/VT for that matter) faced NIU, then it would've been a much different ballgame.

Had the Louisville team that played FIU/Southern Miss/Syracuse/UConn went up against UF, it wouldn't have been close. Coaching, injuries, and other intangible factors influence a team on a week-to-week basis, and it just so happened that the Huskies (who were playing without their head coach) were overmatched in the end despite playing fairly well for most of the game.

A question for you gocards#1: How do you think UL would've done against UF without Charlie Strong? How do you think NIU would've done with Dave Doeren? If we're talking about the strength of the general program, how would the MAC be doing if Kent State had Nick Saban, BG had Urban Meyer, Ball State had Brady Hoke, CMU had Brian Kelly/Butch Jones, Toledo had Gary Pinkel, and other good MAC coaches who deserted their programs (Gill, Haywood, etc.) stuck around?

We can go on about hypotheticals until the sun goes supernova but the fact of the matter is NIU gave the naysayers a reason to complain about non AQ teams getting into the BCS and future playoff.

And expanding on your point, what does it say about your program when your coach cuts and runs for a middle of the road ACC team before the biggest game in your school's and conference's history? NC State is far from being a perennial football superpower but that didn't stop Doeren from getting out of Dodge at the first chance. Why is that? And what does that say about Louisville when our coach spurns an SEC powerhouse despite coaching in the SEC for over a decade?

(05-14-2013 02:17 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  We can go on about hypotheticals until the sun goes supernova but the fact of the matter is NIU gave the naysayers a reason to complain about non AQ teams getting into the BCS and future playoff.

And Boise has given them more than enough reason to complain.... But hey that never stopped them.