(08-30-2016 04:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(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.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. Sure, Jackson State is a gimme, but no more so than Prairie View. Army may very well beat us this year, but they are not anywhere remotely comparable in talent to Illinois or Vandy. I also like the way you fail to mention the comparable CUSA slates, with the Eastern division being much tougher top to bottom than the West.

(08-30-2016 03:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(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?

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"?

To be fair to GSloth, his last sentence, which was the one about a Top 75 ranking, never mentioned a specific won-loss record (i.e., the 7-5 to which you're referring), it just stated that if we won big against "everyone else" (i.e. those not Top 40, which I believe is where WKU ended the season last year?), we would be Top 75. Whether we play 2, 3, 4 or 5 Top 40 teams, if we win the rest by large margins, I think he's probably right about Top 75.

(08-30-2016 06:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 03:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 01:47 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 07:53 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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"?

To be fair to GSloth, his last sentence, which was the one about a Top 75 ranking, never mentioned a specific won-loss record (i.e., the 7-5 to which you're referring), it just stated that if we won big against "everyone else" (i.e. those not Top 40, which I believe is where WKU ended the season last year?), we would be Top 75. Whether we play 2, 3, 4 or 5 Top 40 teams, if we win the rest by large margins, I think he's probably right about Top 75.

Nice try, Rick, but the entire context of my post and this thread was the USAToday ranking us at #64 with a 7-5 record...so a 7-5 record was what he was responding to.

(08-30-2016 07:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 06:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 03:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 01:47 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 07:53 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  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"?

To be fair to GSloth, his last sentence, which was the one about a Top 75 ranking, never mentioned a specific won-loss record (i.e., the 7-5 to which you're referring), it just stated that if we won big against "everyone else" (i.e. those not Top 40, which I believe is where WKU ended the season last year?), we would be Top 75. Whether we play 2, 3, 4 or 5 Top 40 teams, if we win the rest by large margins, I think he's probably right about Top 75.

Nice try, Rick, but the entire context of my post and this thread was the USAToday ranking us at #64 with a 7-5 record...so a 7-5 record was what he was responding to.

And Rick has got the basic math. I don't care whether WKU and La Tech are top 50 or not. Have close losses in road games essentially means you're even in these rating programs. And Rice's three toughest conference games may all be on the road (based on current expectations, WKU, USM and La Tech).

Have close losses to the top teams (like Baylor and Stanford, though like Walt, I expect Baylor to fall in the rankings this year) helps drive your numbers up. And no matter how weak, if you thrash your weak competition, especially if more than the power rankings say you should, then you will push your ranking higher.

Really it's math.

Now, is it likely? Probably not. I've seen enough Bailiff teams to know that they don't consistently beat those rankings. But Walt used one of his always/never statements again, and I wanted to point out that it's certainly possible to do it, even at 7-5 and with a bunch of bad CUSA teams on the schedule.

BTW, this USA Today columnist expects Rice to be Top 75. He also has La Tech at 33, WKU at 41, and USM at 45.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../89537594/

This is more his personal opinion than any mathematical model.