The ACC still is in fifth in the composite of all the computer rankings. It's close but the ACC is hurt by the bottom of the league. I do think in a "power ranking" though the top teams should be worth more than how the bottom teams do.
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
This is the composite computer rankings:
3. Florida State.
6. Clemson
20. Miami (Fl)
21. Virginia Tech
24. Maryland
30. Georgia Tech
43. Pittsburgh
56. Syracuse
59. NC State
71. Virginia
72. Duke
74. North Carolina
77. Boston College
100. Wake Forest
B12:
10. Baylor
11. Oklahoma
18. Texas Tech
27. Oklahoma State
41. TCU
53. West Virginia
64. Texas
66. Kansas State
75. Iowa State
99. Kansas
(10-02-2013 04:42 PM)MKPitt Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC still is in fifth in the composite of all the computer rankings. It's close but the ACC is hurt by the bottom of the league. I do think in a "power ranking" though the top teams should be worth more than how the bottom teams do.
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
This is the composite computer rankings:
3. Florida State.
6. Clemson
20. Miami (Fl)
21. Virginia Tech
24. Maryland
30. Georgia Tech
43. Pittsburgh
56. Syracuse
59. NC State
71. Virginia
72. Duke
74. North Carolina
77. Boston College
100. Wake Forest
But I thought Syracuse and Pitt harmed ACC football!
(10-02-2013 05:29 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2013 04:42 PM)MKPitt Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC still is in fifth in the composite of all the computer rankings. It's close but the ACC is hurt by the bottom of the league. I do think in a "power ranking" though the top teams should be worth more than how the bottom teams do.
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
This is the composite computer rankings:
3. Florida State.
6. Clemson
20. Miami (Fl)
21. Virginia Tech
24. Maryland
30. Georgia Tech
43. Pittsburgh
56. Syracuse
59. NC State
71. Virginia
72. Duke
74. North Carolina
77. Boston College
100. Wake Forest
But I thought Syracuse and Pitt harmed ACC football!
lotta ACC fans are eating crow over those rankings
lets just hope they back up those rankings when conf play starts
C'mon guys y'all are doing very well for yourselves both schools are better than expected. But We at UNC are not doing as well as expected too!
But the biggest difference for the two conferences is that we have more teams and more chances to not be as good.
ACC is very top heavy this year and will once again have it's top teams rated ahead of the Big 12 at the close of the season.
(10-02-2013 07:18 PM)CK42NC Wrote: [ -> ]C'mon guys y'all are doing very well for yourselves both schools are better than expected. But We at UNC are not doing as well as expected too!
But the biggest difference for the two conferences is that we have more teams and more chances to not be as good.
I wonder what the #'s would look like if you put UofL at # 13 in the ACC ratings and added Maryland's #30 and Rutger's #54 to the B1G?
I wonder how much of this is the fact that the Big Ten and Big XII are both essentially done with non-conference games (most of which were patsies) while most ACC teams still have 1 or even 2 more OOC games remaining...?
There's just no way I can think of to justify ranking a conference with 40% of it's teams worse than 60th (Big XII) higher than a league with only 35% worse than 60th (ACC), especially given that the ACC has 2 teams better than 10th while the Big XII has none.
(10-02-2013 11:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how much of this is the fact that the Big Ten and Big XII are both essentially done with non-conference games (most of which were patsies) while most ACC teams still have 1 or even 2 more OOC games remaining...?
There's just no way I can think of to justify ranking a conference with 40% of it's teams worse than 60th (Big XII) higher than a league with only 35% worse than 60th (ACC), especially given that the ACC has 2 teams better than 10th while the Big XII has none.
+1
These might be based off the Sagarin. If that is the case, if I'm not mistaken, I think that Sagarin includes last season data up until week 6 or 7, at which point it drops off.
(10-03-2013 07:59 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]These might be based off the Sagarin. If that is the case, if I'm not mistaken, I think that Sagarin includes last season data up until week 6 or 7, at which point it drops off.
Correct. From the discussion above his final 2012 ratings: "For the first few weeks of the season, the starting ratings have weight in the process (BAYESIAN), but once the teams are all WELL CONNECTED, then the starting ratings are no longer used and all teams are started equal and the RATING, ELO-CHESS, and PURE POINTS (PREDICTOR) are then done in an UNBIASED manner from that point on."
(10-02-2013 11:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]There's just no way I can think of to justify ranking a conference with 40% of it's teams worse than 60th (Big XII) higher than a league with only 35% worse than 60th (ACC), especially given that the ACC has 2 teams better than 10th while the Big XII has none.
we used to see this in the Big East. The smaller conference combined with a full round robin insulate you from catastrophically bad teams in computer rankings, and insulate ratings. That is why the Big East often finished 4th or 5th in computer rankings even though perception was always that it was sixth or even seventh.
(10-03-2013 02:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2013 11:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]There's just no way I can think of to justify ranking a conference with 40% of it's teams worse than 60th (Big XII) higher than a league with only 35% worse than 60th (ACC), especially given that the ACC has 2 teams better than 10th while the Big XII has none.
we used to see this in the Big East. The smaller conference combined with a full round robin insulate you from catastrophically bad teams in computer rankings, and insulate ratings. That is why the Big East often finished 4th or 5th in computer rankings even though perception was always that it was sixth or even seventh.
Even in BE 2.0, the 8 teams were all mid level competitive, so their average looked great. The new American... not so much. They have a bunch of cellar dwellers.
The ACC has jumped to third in the composite of all the computer rankings. I'm guessing some of you were right when you said that last year's ratings were holding the ACC back in some of the computers and the numbers would improve once they fell off.
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
Here are the new rankings:
1. SEC
2. PAC-12
3. ACC
4. B1G
5. Big 12
1. Florida State
4. Clemson
12. Miami
20. Virginia Tech
29. Maryland
33. Georgia Tech
40. Pittsburgh
59. Boston College
68. Duke
70. Syracuse
72. NC State
76. North Carolina
77. Virginia
83. Wake Forest
I'm still amazed at the gap between conferences #5 and #6. I don't think it's ever been as wide as it is this year.
(10-07-2013 10:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still amazed at the gap between conferences #5 and #6. I don't think it's ever been as wide as it is this year.
And it's going to get larger when UL and RU leave the AAC
(10-07-2013 10:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still amazed at the gap between conferences #5 and #6. I don't think it's ever been as wide as it is this year.
In the last couple of years, the conferences competing for sixth have lost Utah, TCU, BYU, West Virginia, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh, with Louisville and Rutgers on deck. The only school of note to replace any of them was Boise, and to a far lesser extent Central Florida and Houston. Add to that San Deigo St, Cincinnati, South Florida, and Connecticut somehow are far worse than they used to be, and there you go.
(10-07-2013 09:37 AM)MKPitt Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC has jumped to third in the composite of all the computer rankings. I'm guessing some of you were right when you said that last year's ratings were holding the ACC back in some of the computers and the numbers would improve once they fell off.
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
Here are the new rankings:
1. SEC
2. PAC-12
3. ACC
4. B1G
5. Big 12
1. Florida State
4. Clemson
12. Miami
20. Virginia Tech
29. Maryland
33. Georgia Tech
40. Pittsburgh
59. Boston College
68. Duke
70. Syracuse
72. NC State
76. North Carolina
77. Virginia
83. Wake Forest
Never thought I'd be so excited to see BC clearly in the middle of the pack. Woohoo; we're #59!!!
