(10-10-2014 11:32 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Cinci is not as good so far as people thought which is hurting Memphis sos. Memphis might have the easiest conference schedule too since they don't play ecu or ucf and get Houston at home. If cinci were as good as they were last year I think things would be different in regards to sos.

Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

Yawn

(10-10-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There are 411 teams? That game is essentially meaningless just like ECU's game against Central and UCF's against BCU. I don't really care to judge which one of those teams are the tougher opponent, because all 3 are there just for the purpose of being an easy win. Looking at the rest of the schedules of those 3 I don't think there's much of a debate that Memphis has played the harder schedule. @Ole Miss, @UCLA, @Cincy, and MTSU for Memphis is tougher than @USC, @VT, UNC, and SMU for ECU and PSU neutral, @Missouri, @Houston, and BYU for UCF. Ole Miss and UCLA are better than any team ECU or UCF has played this year IMO. The idea that anyone is going to say Memphis' schedule is worse because their garbage game was a little more garbage than the others is just silly.

I disagree. Let's compare teams.

UCLA = Missouri
MTSA = Houston
AP = BC

That leaves Memphis with Ole Miss and Cincinnati and UCF with BYU and Penn State.

Ole Miss is harder than both (no contest), but BYU and Penn State are both top 40 teams receiving votes in the AP poll while Cincinnati is not.

Is that an unequivocal Memphis SoS > UCF. I don't think so at all. They have tougher teams and they have weaker teams. UCFs schedule isn't as hard at the tough end but isn't as weak on the weak end either.

(10-10-2014 11:34 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:32 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Cinci is not as good so far as people thought which is hurting Memphis sos. Memphis might have the easiest conference schedule too since they don't play ecu or ucf and get Houston at home. If cinci were as good as they were last year I think things would be different in regards to sos.

Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

I'm not sure that I understand your comment.

Those were "tough" road games, I don't care what any computer program says. If you're trying to pick a fight with the term "spouting off", I don't participate and I don't "get it" unless you're just being a pain.

I agree with Knights of UCF that our conference schedule is about as advantageous as we could have while not being in the sunbelt. However, all but one of those games have yet to be played.

(10-10-2014 11:45 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:34 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:32 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Cinci is not as good so far as people thought which is hurting Memphis sos. Memphis might have the easiest conference schedule too since they don't play ecu or ucf and get Houston at home. If cinci were as good as they were last year I think things would be different in regards to sos.

Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

I'm not sure that I understand your comment.

Those were "tough" road games, I don't care what any computer program says. If you're trying to pick a fight with the term "spouting off", I don't participate and I don't "get it" unless you're just being a pain.

I agree with Knights of UCF that our conference schedule is about as advantageous as we could have while not being in the sunbelt. However, all but one of those games have yet to be played.

We'll just stop this discussion here then. If you think this year's Cincinnati and MTSA teams are "tough," we really don't have anything more to discuss.

(10-10-2014 11:34 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:32 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Cinci is not as good so far as people thought which is hurting Memphis sos. Memphis might have the easiest conference schedule too since they don't play ecu or ucf and get Houston at home. If cinci were as good as they were last year I think things would be different in regards to sos.

Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

This isn't about the future games.

Going forward our remaining schedule is ranked 104.

This is about the current schedule.

This rating was put on here for 1 reason. This certain UCF fan got all giggly inside for beating a DEPLETED BYU team and he wanted to say "hey look at our SOS compared to everyone else." Sorry but Your schedule isn't better than ours. Your FCS team apparently was for whatever that's worth.

(10-10-2014 11:43 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There are 411 teams? That game is essentially meaningless just like ECU's game against Central and UCF's against BCU. I don't really care to judge which one of those teams are the tougher opponent, because all 3 are there just for the purpose of being an easy win. Looking at the rest of the schedules of those 3 I don't think there's much of a debate that Memphis has played the harder schedule. @Ole Miss, @UCLA, @Cincy, and MTSU for Memphis is tougher than @USC, @VT, UNC, and SMU for ECU and PSU neutral, @Missouri, @Houston, and BYU for UCF. Ole Miss and UCLA are better than any team ECU or UCF has played this year IMO. The idea that anyone is going to say Memphis' schedule is worse because their garbage game was a little more garbage than the others is just silly.

I disagree. Let's compare teams.

UCLA = Missouri
MTSA = Houston
AP = BC

That leaves Memphis with Ole Miss and Cincinnati and UCF with BYU and Penn State.

Ole Miss is harder than both (no contest), but BYU and Penn State are both top 40 teams receiving votes in the AP poll while Cincinnati is not.

Is that an unequivocal Memphis SoS > UCF. I don't think so at all. They have tougher teams and they have weaker teams. UCFs schedule isn't as hard at the tough end but isn't as weak on the weak end either.

BYU is not even close to the same team with the players they are missing. Try again.

(10-10-2014 11:34 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:32 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Cinci is not as good so far as people thought which is hurting Memphis sos. Memphis might have the easiest conference schedule too since they don't play ecu or ucf and get Houston at home. If cinci were as good as they were last year I think things would be different in regards to sos.

Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

No one in this conference has played two road games that are even remotely similar to the ucla and ole miss games. It's not even close.

(10-10-2014 11:49 AM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:34 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:32 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Cinci is not as good so far as people thought which is hurting Memphis sos. Memphis might have the easiest conference schedule too since they don't play ecu or ucf and get Houston at home. If cinci were as good as they were last year I think things would be different in regards to sos.

Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

This rating was put on here for 1 reason. This certain UCF fan got all giggly inside for beating a DEPLETED BYU team and he wanted to say "hey look at our SOS compared to everyone else."

Actually you're wrong. Go look at my commentary in the OP. This thread was made to showcase that the majority of the AAC is underperforming compared to where they should be with their SoS. Memphis isn't even a team I called out BTW.

Memphis fans turned this into an attack against them by bringing up how much better their SoS is. I didn't even want to talk about UCF.

(10-10-2014 11:48 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:45 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:34 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:32 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Cinci is not as good so far as people thought which is hurting Memphis sos. Memphis might have the easiest conference schedule too since they don't play ecu or ucf and get Houston at home. If cinci were as good as they were last year I think things would be different in regards to sos.

Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

I'm not sure that I understand your comment.

Those were "tough" road games, I don't care what any computer program says. If you're trying to pick a fight with the term "spouting off", I don't participate and I don't "get it" unless you're just being a pain.

I agree with Knights of UCF that our conference schedule is about as advantageous as we could have while not being in the sunbelt. However, all but one of those games have yet to be played.

We'll just stop this discussion here then. If you think this year's Cincinnati and MTSA teams are "tough," we really don't have anything more to discuss.

I don't think MTSU is great by any means. However, they will be a bowl team with 7-8 wins realistically. Granted C-USA isn't amazing.

(10-10-2014 11:48 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:45 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:34 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:32 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Cinci is not as good so far as people thought which is hurting Memphis sos. Memphis might have the easiest conference schedule too since they don't play ecu or ucf and get Houston at home. If cinci were as good as they were last year I think things would be different in regards to sos.

Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

I'm not sure that I understand your comment.

Those were "tough" road games, I don't care what any computer program says. If you're trying to pick a fight with the term "spouting off", I don't participate and I don't "get it" unless you're just being a pain.

I agree with Knights of UCF that our conference schedule is about as advantageous as we could have while not being in the sunbelt. However, all but one of those games have yet to be played.

We'll just stop this discussion here then. If you think this year's Cincinnati and MTSA teams are "tough," we really don't have anything more to discuss.

You can stop the discussion if you want, but that and the above comment just means that you can't back up some of your comments, especially the one above. I don't care what anyone or any computer ranking says, Ole Miss and UCLA were tough road games.....period. I don't know who MTSA even is......we played MTSU at home, not on the road. If this discussion does indeed continue, you should keep your screen name because it's not making any sense.

I stated above that I fully realize that our conference schedule is very, very advantageous.

(10-10-2014 11:54 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:48 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:45 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:34 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:32 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Cinci is not as good so far as people thought which is hurting Memphis sos. Memphis might have the easiest conference schedule too since they don't play ecu or ucf and get Houston at home. If cinci were as good as they were last year I think things would be different in regards to sos.

Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

I'm not sure that I understand your comment.

Those were "tough" road games, I don't care what any computer program says. If you're trying to pick a fight with the term "spouting off", I don't participate and I don't "get it" unless you're just being a pain.

I agree with Knights of UCF that our conference schedule is about as advantageous as we could have while not being in the sunbelt. However, all but one of those games have yet to be played.

We'll just stop this discussion here then. If you think this year's Cincinnati and MTSA teams are "tough," we really don't have anything more to discuss.

You can stop the discussion if you want, but that and the above comment just means that you can't back up some of your comments, especially the one above. I don't care what anyone or any computer ranking says, Ole Miss and UCLA were tough road games.....period. I don't know who MTSA even is......we played MTSU at home, not on the road. If this discussion does indeed continue, you should keep your screen name because it's not making any sense.

I stated above that I fully realize that our conference schedule is very, very advantageous.

Yep our REMSOS is ranked 104 moving forward.

We can't help the conference schedule.

However our OOC included 2 playoff contenders on the ROAD, and a pretty good MTSU team.

Our road games we're spouting off about were #4 and #11 based off of your rankings. This 75+ is an unture statement.

(10-10-2014 10:52 AM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  Yes, the Austin Peay game is killing us.

However, as I said our schedule is much better than #53. This is the only one who has us that low.

I agree. It's an anomaly. Like a student who gets scores 4 100's and then gets a 0 in the fifth test because of being absent or something. That would bring their average way down to 80. Not a real good indication of the students real intelligence.

(10-10-2014 12:05 PM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:54 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:48 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:45 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 11:34 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Exactly. Both "tough" road games he's spouting off about were rank 75+

I'm not sure that I understand your comment.

Those were "tough" road games, I don't care what any computer program says. If you're trying to pick a fight with the term "spouting off", I don't participate and I don't "get it" unless you're just being a pain.

I agree with Knights of UCF that our conference schedule is about as advantageous as we could have while not being in the sunbelt. However, all but one of those games have yet to be played.

We'll just stop this discussion here then. If you think this year's Cincinnati and MTSA teams are "tough," we really don't have anything more to discuss.

You can stop the discussion if you want, but that and the above comment just means that you can't back up some of your comments, especially the one above. I don't care what anyone or any computer ranking says, Ole Miss and UCLA were tough road games.....period. I don't know who MTSA even is......we played MTSU at home, not on the road. If this discussion does indeed continue, you should keep your screen name because it's not making any sense.

I stated above that I fully realize that our conference schedule is very, very advantageous.

Yep our REMSOS is ranked 104 moving forward.

We can't help the conference schedule.

However our OOC included 2 playoff contenders on the ROAD, and a pretty good MTSU team.

Our road games we're spouting off about were #4 and #11 based off of your rankings. This 75+ is an unture statement.

Well, I think he's confused. He referenced Cincy and "MTSA" (probably meant MTSU) as the 2 "tough" road games that we were talking about and they weren't at all. Heck, MTSU was at home for pete sakes, so he's way off base.

I don't really care where our schedule ranks, we're not access bowl material at this point anyway. I was only addressing comments that were way off base or inaccurate. I hope I got my factual points across without hurting his feelings too bad and my common sense comments came close to making sense.

(10-10-2014 12:12 PM)knightmite Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 10:52 AM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  Yes, the Austin Peay game is killing us.

However, as I said our schedule is much better than #53. This is the only one who has us that low.

I agree. It's an anomaly. Like a student who gets scores 4 100's and then gets a 0 in the fifth test because of being absent or something. That would bring their average way down to 80. Not a real good indication of the students real intelligence.

I wonder what they'd look like if I ran them off the ranking algorithm I put together. I could set all FCS and lower teams to count as #129.

(10-10-2014 12:25 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:12 PM)knightmite Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 10:52 AM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  Yes, the Austin Peay game is killing us.

However, as I said our schedule is much better than #53. This is the only one who has us that low.

I agree. It's an anomaly. Like a student who gets scores 4 100's and then gets a 0 in the fifth test because of being absent or something. That would bring their average way down to 80. Not a real good indication of the students real intelligence.

I wonder what they'd look like if I ran them off the ranking algorithm I put together. I could set all FCS and lower teams to count as #129.

It would definitely lower it, but I wouldn't even put FCS teams on there. I would just take them off. They are buy games, Auto W's to put on the schedule, tune up games.

However, it still doesn't change the main point that you're using this specific system. I have looked at others that have ours without the FCS game @ #17. I saw another that had us #36 and another that had us #34.

UCF I have seen anywhere from #24 to #43.

Neither schedule is in the high 40's or 50's. For anyone to say ours is, is a slap in the face.

Taking Austin Peay out.

@ Ole Miss 5-0
@ UCLA 4-1
@ Cincy 2-2
MTSU 4-2

Combined record 15-5

(10-10-2014 12:50 PM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:25 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:12 PM)knightmite Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 10:52 AM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  Yes, the Austin Peay game is killing us.

However, as I said our schedule is much better than #53. This is the only one who has us that low.

I agree. It's an anomaly. Like a student who gets scores 4 100's and then gets a 0 in the fifth test because of being absent or something. That would bring their average way down to 80. Not a real good indication of the students real intelligence.

I wonder what they'd look like if I ran them off the ranking algorithm I put together. I could set all FCS and lower teams to count as #129.

It would definitely lower it, but I wouldn't even put FCS teams on there. I would just take them off. They are buy games, Auto W's to put on the schedule, tune up games.

However, it still doesn't change the main point that you're using this specific system. I have looked at others that have ours without the FCS game @ #17. I saw another that had us #36 and another that had us #34.

UCF I have seen anywhere from #24 to #43.

Neither schedule is in the high 40's or 50's. For anyone to say ours is, is a slap in the face.

Taking Austin Peay out.

@ Ole Miss 5-0
@ UCLA 4-1
@ Cincy 2-2
MTSU 4-2

Combined record 15-5

I don't know if I'd be willing to take them out since it would make a school that plays 5 good teams and a buy game have an equivalent schedule to a school that plays 6 good teams. The buy game should carry some penalty but it shouldn't be too much. Having it roughly equal to a game with a bad FBS team should be fair.

If I can find time tonight, I'll put something together.

For reference, it would use the following ranks as of last week:

#4 Ole Miss
#12 UCLA
#68 Middle Tennessee
#74 Cincinnati
#129 Austin Peay

My rankings are a little more favorable to Memphis than Massey's are.

(10-10-2014 01:12 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:50 PM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:25 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:12 PM)knightmite Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 10:52 AM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  Yes, the Austin Peay game is killing us.

However, as I said our schedule is much better than #53. This is the only one who has us that low.

I agree. It's an anomaly. Like a student who gets scores 4 100's and then gets a 0 in the fifth test because of being absent or something. That would bring their average way down to 80. Not a real good indication of the students real intelligence.

I wonder what they'd look like if I ran them off the ranking algorithm I put together. I could set all FCS and lower teams to count as #129.

It would definitely lower it, but I wouldn't even put FCS teams on there. I would just take them off. They are buy games, Auto W's to put on the schedule, tune up games.

However, it still doesn't change the main point that you're using this specific system. I have looked at others that have ours without the FCS game @ #17. I saw another that had us #36 and another that had us #34.

UCF I have seen anywhere from #24 to #43.

Neither schedule is in the high 40's or 50's. For anyone to say ours is, is a slap in the face.

Taking Austin Peay out.

@ Ole Miss 5-0
@ UCLA 4-1
@ Cincy 2-2
MTSU 4-2

Combined record 15-5

I don't know if I'd be willing to take them out since it would make a school that plays 5 good teams and a buy game have an equivalent schedule to a school that plays 6 good teams. The buy game should carry some penalty but it shouldn't be too much. Having it roughly equal to a game with a bad FBS team should be fair.

If I can find time tonight, I'll put something together.

For reference, it would use the following ranks as of last week:

#4 Ole Miss
#12 UCLA
#68 Middle Tennessee
#74 Cincinnati
#129 Austin Peay

My rankings are a little more favorable to Memphis than Massey's are.

Yeah, if you find the time, that'd be cool. Also, I agree, #129 is fair if all FCS are counted that way. I see your point.

Looking forward to it and thanks!

(10-10-2014 12:12 PM)knightmite Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 10:52 AM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  Yes, the Austin Peay game is killing us.

However, as I said our schedule is much better than #53. This is the only one who has us that low.

I agree. It's an anomaly. Like a student who gets scores 4 100's and then gets a 0 in the fifth test because of being absent or something. That would bring their average way down to 80. Not a real good indication of the students real intelligence.

It's worse than that. It's like saying a student made 4 100's, but the fifth test was deemed to be so easy that they scored a negative fifty on it, even though they aced the test.