NIU (8-0, beat UT, CMU and BSU)

BSU (7-1, took care of business and beat UT and CMU)
BG (7-1, beat UB, and OU)

UT (5-3, but not playing as tough as their entire body of work shows. Beat BG, UB and CMU)
UB (6-2, beat OU)

CMU(5-3, beat OU)
Akron (4-4, beat UT)
OU(4-4, entire body of work gives them an edge over KSU although OU isn't even playing at this level right now.
Kent (3-5, beat OU)

EMU

WMU
UMASS
MIAMI

why is the 8th team in your ranking the bell weather for everyone else?


poor jealous Toledo fans. so sad.

(12-01-2013 03:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  why is the 8th team in your ranking the bell weather for everyone else?


poor jealous Toledo fans. so sad.

What does your first sentence mean? What is "bell weather"?

And how is he a jealous UT fan??

I posted the teams wins vs. >.500 teams in the MAC. It just happens OU didn't beat a team >.500.

(12-01-2013 03:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  why is the 8th team in your ranking the bell weather for everyone else?


poor jealous Toledo fans. so sad.

I get it for the East- you can take the middle team and rank order everyone else around whether they beat that team. Could have used Akron as well but they had the better win so I guess he moved them up. My other thought is that he is actually paying OU a compliment and is listing each teams' best wins. As I review it this theory makes more sense. Jealous? Seriously, THAT is hilarious. I'll leave it to Boca to post how many years it's been since OU beat UT in football. And UofToledo is only one fan, not "fans". Sounds like at least one OU fan is a little touchy. Maybe UofT can explain why he used OU so frequently. May be a perfectly valid reason.

Here are my final power rankings. I consider a lot of factors when I rank the teams and have even broken my rankings down by division with my ranking calculation number following each team's name. I know some may disagree with the methodology and subjective nature of them, and I respect your right to be wrong.

Quote:AXEME'S FINAL MAC POWER RANKING
EAST
Bowling Green 7-1
Buffalo 6-2
Ohio 4-4
Akron 4-4
Kent State 3-5
UMass 1-7
Miami (OH) 0-8

WEST
Northern Illinois 8-0
Ball State 7-1
Toledo 5-3
Central Michigan 5-3
Eastern Michigan 1-7
Western Michigan 1-7

(12-01-2013 06:11 PM)axeme Wrote:  Here are my final power rankings. I consider a lot of factors when I rank the teams and have even broken my rankings down by division with my ranking calculation number following each team's name. I know some may disagree with the methodology and subjective nature of them, and I respect your right to be wrong.

Quote:AXEME'S FINAL MAC POWER RANKING
EAST
Bowling Green 7-1
Buffalo 6-2
Ohio 4-4
Akron 4-4
Kent State 3-5
UMass 1-7
Miami (OH) 0-8

WEST
Northern Illinois 8-0
Ball State 7-1
Toledo 5-3
Central Michigan 5-3
Eastern Michigan 1-7
Western Michigan 1-7

well done. 'nuff said.

(12-01-2013 06:11 PM)axeme Wrote:  Here are my final power rankings. I consider a lot of factors when I rank the teams and have even broken my rankings down by division with my ranking calculation number following each team's name. I know some may disagree with the methodology and subjective nature of them, and I respect your right to be wrong.

Quote:AXEME'S FINAL MAC POWER RANKING
EAST
Bowling Green 7-1
Buffalo 6-2
Ohio 4-4
Akron 4-4
Kent State 3-5
UMass 1-7
Miami (OH) 0-8

WEST
Northern Illinois 8-0
Ball State 7-1
Toledo 5-3
Central Michigan 5-3
Eastern Michigan 1-7
Western Michigan 1-7

So you got the East ranked first and all their teams ranked ahead of the West and NIU? Wow, these jealous Kent fans......

(12-01-2013 05:57 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  I posted the teams wins vs. >.500 teams in the MAC. It just happens OU didn't beat a team >.500.

but Ohio isn't a >.500 team, they finished 4-4. You're trying to have it both ways, on the one hand you're saying that beating Ohio is a quality win, but on the other hand you're ranking them 8th. 8/13 isn't a quality win.

Any attempt at objectivity flew out the window when you ranked the Zips ahead of Ohio. Based on what? beating an avg Toledo team that mailed it in on the last day of season? You're a Toledo fan, you don't honestly think Akron was the better team do you?

Ohio beat Akron on their own field 43-3, it was the most points the Zips gave up and the least they scored all season. But hey, they beat a checked out Rocket team on Black Friday so that seems like a better tie breaker.

Jealousy, bias, whatever is, you've twisted yourself into a pretzel to try to justify your rankings. Its devoid of logic or reason.

(12-01-2013 06:58 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 05:57 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  I posted the teams wins vs. >.500 teams in the MAC. It just happens OU didn't beat a team >.500.

but Ohio isn't a >.500 team, they finished 4-4. You're trying to have it both ways, on the one hand you're saying that beating Ohio is a quality win, but on the other hand you're ranking them 8th. 8/13 isn't a quality win.

Any attempt at objectivity flew out the window when you ranked the Zips ahead of Ohio. Based on what? beating an avg Toledo team that mailed it in on the last day of season? You're a Toledo fan, you don't honestly think Akron was the better team do you?

Ohio beat Akron on their own field 43-3, it was the most points the Zips gave up and the least they scored all season. But hey, they beat a checked out Rocket team on Black Friday so that seems like a better tie breaker.

Jealousy, bias, whatever is, you've twisted yourself into a pretzel to try to justify your rankings. Its devoid of logic or reason.

Wow, someone has their panties in a wad today.

(12-01-2013 07:21 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 06:58 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 05:57 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  I posted the teams wins vs. >.500 teams in the MAC. It just happens OU didn't beat a team >.500.

but Ohio isn't a >.500 team, they finished 4-4. You're trying to have it both ways, on the one hand you're saying that beating Ohio is a quality win, but on the other hand you're ranking them 8th. 8/13 isn't a quality win.

Any attempt at objectivity flew out the window when you ranked the Zips ahead of Ohio. Based on what? beating an avg Toledo team that mailed it in on the last day of season? You're a Toledo fan, you don't honestly think Akron was the better team do you?

Ohio beat Akron on their own field 43-3, it was the most points the Zips gave up and



the least they scored all season. But hey, they beat a checked out Rocket team on Black Friday so that seems like a better tie breaker.

Jealousy, bias, whatever is, you've twisted yourself into a pretzel to try to justify your rankings. Its devoid of logic or reason.

Wow, someone has their panties in a wad today.

(12-01-2013 06:58 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  but Ohio isn't a >.500 team, they finished 4-4.

Man, talking about hanging a rant on being unable to see the different ways a simple statement can be read.

">.500 teams in the MAC" can be read "teams that are above .500 in MAC play", or as "teams in the MAC that are above .500". In the second case, its not the 4-4 OhioU, its the 7-5 OhioU, which would be above .500.

Its an arbitrary cut-off either way, but if it were me, I'd do the second since it includes more games.

(12-02-2013 12:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 06:58 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  but Ohio isn't a >.500 team, they finished 4-4.

Man, talking about hanging a rant on being unable to see the different ways a simple statement can be read.

">.500 teams in the MAC" can be read "teams that are above .500 in MAC play", or as "teams in the MAC that are above .500". In the second case, its not the 4-4 OhioU, its the 7-5 OhioU, which would be above .500.

Its an arbitrary cut-off either way, but if it were me, I'd do the second since it includes more games.

but he specifically spells out everyone's record as their conference record so he's made it clear OOC games are not in consideration.

this is what I mean by playing both sides, we're supposed to consider Ohio's OOC wins when giving credit to other teams that beat them, but then we're not supposed to consider them when ranking Ohio 8th behind Akron.

and I don't care where they're ranked, rank them 13th if you want, just use some sort of logic and consistency to justify it.

(12-02-2013 01:30 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 12:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 06:58 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  but Ohio isn't a >.500 team, they finished 4-4.

Man, talking about hanging a rant on being unable to see the different ways a simple statement can be read.

">.500 teams in the MAC" can be read "teams that are above .500 in MAC play", or as "teams in the MAC that are above .500". In the second case, its not the 4-4 OhioU, its the 7-5 OhioU, which would be above .500.

Its an arbitrary cut-off either way, but if it were me, I'd do the second since it includes more games.

This is all I hear.

(12-01-2013 06:11 PM)axeme Wrote:  Here are my final power rankings. I consider a lot of factors when I rank the teams and have even broken my rankings down by division with my ranking calculation number following each team's name. I know some may disagree with the methodology and subjective nature of them, and I respect your right to be wrong.

Quote:AXEME'S FINAL MAC POWER RANKING
EAST
Bowling Green 7-1
Buffalo 6-2
Ohio 4-4
Akron 4-4
Kent State 3-5
UMass 1-7
Miami (OH) 0-8

WEST
Northern Illinois 8-0
Ball State 7-1
Toledo 5-3
Central Michigan 5-3
Eastern Michigan 1-7
Western Michigan 1-7

If you could only come up with a way to validate these rankings on the field, then you'd have something.

(12-02-2013 01:16 PM)Eagle66 Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 06:11 PM)axeme Wrote:  Here are my final power rankings. I consider a lot of factors when I rank the teams and have even broken my rankings down by division with my ranking calculation number following each team's name. I know some may disagree with the methodology and subjective nature of them, and I respect your right to be wrong.

Quote:AXEME'S FINAL MAC POWER RANKING
EAST
Bowling Green 7-1
Buffalo 6-2
Ohio 4-4
Akron 4-4
Kent State 3-5
UMass 1-7
Miami (OH) 0-8

WEST
Northern Illinois 8-0
Ball State 7-1
Toledo 5-3
Central Michigan 5-3
Eastern Michigan 1-7
Western Michigan 1-7

If you could only come up with a way to validate these rankings on the field, then you'd have something.

No divisions, 12 conf. games--everyone plays everyone else for, no OOC games. Problem solved. :jaw drop:


Of course, then everyone would ***** about whom they had to play on the road instead of bitching about who had the weakest schedule. And think how it would seriously screw up SOS rankings because no one would have any games outside the conference to give relative weight.

(12-02-2013 01:30 PM)axeme Wrote:  No divisions, 12 conf. games--everyone plays everyone else for, no OOC games. Problem solved. :jaw drop:


Of course, then everyone would ***** about whom they had to play on the road instead of bitching about who had the weakest schedule. And think how it would seriously screw up SOS rankings because no one would have any games outside the conference to give relative weight.

Get rid of some of the conf members then. First one certainly comes to mind as they've done nothing but siphon off bowl game earnings.

(12-02-2013 01:30 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 01:16 PM)Eagle66 Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 06:11 PM)axeme Wrote:  Here are my final power rankings. I consider a lot of factors when I rank the teams and have even broken my rankings down by division with my ranking calculation number following each team's name. I know some may disagree with the methodology and subjective nature of them, and I respect your right to be wrong.

Quote:AXEME'S FINAL MAC POWER RANKING
EAST
Bowling Green 7-1
Buffalo 6-2
Ohio 4-4
Akron 4-4
Kent State 3-5
UMass 1-7
Miami (OH) 0-8

WEST
Northern Illinois 8-0
Ball State 7-1
Toledo 5-3
Central Michigan 5-3
Eastern Michigan 1-7
Western Michigan 1-7

If you could only come up with a way to validate these rankings on the field, then you'd have something.

No divisions, 12 conf. games--everyone plays everyone else for, no OOC games. Problem solved. :jaw drop:


Of course, then everyone would ***** about whom they had to play on the road instead of bitching about who had the weakest schedule. And think how it would seriously screw up SOS rankings because no one would have any games outside the conference to give relative weight.

Maybe I should have included the [/sarcasim] tag after my post haha

(12-02-2013 01:44 PM)Eagle66 Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 01:30 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 01:16 PM)Eagle66 Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 06:11 PM)axeme Wrote:  Here are my final power rankings. I consider a lot of factors when I rank the teams and have even broken my rankings down by division with my ranking calculation number following each team's name. I know some may disagree with the methodology and subjective nature of them, and I respect your right to be wrong.

Quote:AXEME'S FINAL MAC POWER RANKING
EAST
Bowling Green 7-1
Buffalo 6-2
Ohio 4-4
Akron 4-4
Kent State 3-5
UMass 1-7
Miami (OH) 0-8

WEST
Northern Illinois 8-0
Ball State 7-1
Toledo 5-3
Central Michigan 5-3
Eastern Michigan 1-7
Western Michigan 1-7

If you could only come up with a way to validate these rankings on the field, then you'd have something.

No divisions, 12 conf. games--everyone plays everyone else for, no OOC games. Problem solved. :jaw drop:


Of course, then everyone would ***** about whom they had to play on the road instead of bitching about who had the weakest schedule. And think how it would seriously screw up SOS rankings because no one would have any games outside the conference to give relative weight.

Maybe I should have included the [/sarcasim] tag after my post haha

I got the sarcasm. I hope no one thought my suggestion was serious. It would be a colossally dumb idea.

(12-02-2013 01:48 PM)axeme Wrote:  I got the sarcasm. I hope no one thought my suggestion was serious. It would be a colossally dumb idea.

So right up the MAC's alley then?