Saw this on the CUSA board.
51. Tulane
52. ECU
54. Rice
63. North Texas
66. Marshall
88. Middle Tennessee
94. FAU
101. UAB
104. Tulsa
111. FIU
111. Louisiana Tech
119. USM
120. UTEP
999. UTSA (Would be 106)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/bcs
I don't know what I am more surprised by. That they rank all the teams, or that there are 6 teams worse than we are.
(10-21-2013 09:26 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]Saw this on the CUSA board.
51. Tulane
52. ECU
54. Rice
63. North Texas
66. Marshall
88. Middle Tennessee
94. FAU
101. UAB
104. Tulsa
111. FIU
111. Louisiana Tech
119. USM
120. UTEP
999. UTSA (Would be 106)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/bcs
I don't know what I am more surprised by. That they rank all the teams, or that there are 6 teams worse than we are.
That is very interesting. Sort of gives me a little hope against UTSA......especially if we get Nelson, and some of the others well.
(10-21-2013 09:26 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know what I am more surprised by. That they rank all the teams, or that there are 6 teams worse than we are.
I imagine they have to run the computers against every team for the results to be valid (so that they can take the rankings of non-conference opponents into account) so why not go ahead and release those numbers too
And technically I guess those are not BCS numbers since the polls are not included with theses teams. Thae are computer rankings only.
(10-21-2013 11:02 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]And technically I guess those are not BCS numbers since the polls are not included with theses teams. Thae are computer rankings only.
I thought they were the BCS rankings, it's just that a team un ranked by a poll gets a "0" for that poll. Not every team in the BCS top 25 is ranked in the human polls, which is handled the same way
(I could be wrong)
I like our chances against a team that barely slides into the to 1,000
(10-21-2013 11:09 AM)LairDweller Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 11:02 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]And technically I guess those are not BCS numbers since the polls are not included with theses teams. Thae are computer rankings only.
I thought they were the BCS rankings, it's just that a team un ranked by a poll gets a "0" for that poll. Not every team in the BCS top 25 is ranked in the human polls, which is handled the same way
(I could be wrong)
Is the BCS formula publicly available? All the teams with no human votes at all have a zero BCS average, even if they have a computer average. That leads me to believe that the BCS formula is (some formula averaging human polls * some formula averaging computer polls) and since the human polls are zero, the BCS rank comes out to zero. Technically, that means anyone under 39 are all tied for the same BCS rank. CBS just decided to order them by their computer averages.
Yes, the BCS formula is public. Now that I temind myself of it (Google), the BCS formula only ranks 25 teams from the computer polls to calculate their BCS avg.
So, I guess MB was correct
--Harris votes received/total # Harris votes = X
--coaches votes received/total # coaches votes = Y
--of the 6 computer polls, throw out the high and low. For each of the 4 remaining, 1st place =25 points, 2nd =24, 25th = 1. Add the points earned for each poll and divide by 100 = Z
1st place in all 4 polls gets 1, 25th place in all 4 would get 0.04
(X+Y+Z)/3 = BCS average
Don't quote me, but that's how I understand it
(10-21-2013 11:26 AM)LairDweller Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the BCS formula is public. Now that I temind myself of it (Google), the BCS formula only ranks 25 teams from the computer polls to calculate their BCS avg.
So, I guess MB was correct
--Harris votes received/total # Harris votes = X
--coaches votes received/total # coaches votes = Y
--of the 6 computer polls, throw out the high and low. For each of the 4 remaining, 1st place =25 points, 2nd =24, 25th = 1. Add the points earned for each poll and divide by 100 = Z
1st place in all 4 polls gets 1, 25th place in all 4 would get 0.04
(X+Y+Z)/3 = BCS average
Don't quote me, but that's how I understand it
You were quoted because you said I was correct.
(10-21-2013 11:57 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 11:26 AM)LairDweller Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the BCS formula is public. Now that I temind myself of it (Google), the BCS formula only ranks 25 teams from the computer polls to calculate their BCS avg.
So, I guess MB was correct
--Harris votes received/total # Harris votes = X
--coaches votes received/total # coaches votes = Y
--of the 6 computer polls, throw out the high and low. For each of the 4 remaining, 1st place =25 points, 2nd =24, 25th = 1. Add the points earned for each poll and divide by 100 = Z
1st place in all 4 polls gets 1, 25th place in all 4 would get 0.04
(X+Y+Z)/3 = BCS average
Don't quote me, but that's how I understand it
You were quoted because you said I was correct.
It would be nice to get into the top 100, for a change.
Man, what happened to Tulsa?
I hope they keep falling.
USA is 78... amazing what happens when a board of trustees lets its school make a reasonable capital investment in football.
Of course, maybe I should just do what one prominent Alabama booster once told me: blame Bartow for rushing into the football business.
(10-22-2013 08:33 AM)UABslant Wrote: [ -> ]USA is 78... amazing what happens when a board of trustees lets its school make a reasonable capital investment in football.
Of course, maybe I should just do what one prominent Alabama booster once told me: blame Bartow for rushing into the football business.
USA has a real nice team this year........took Tennessee down to the wire, beat WKU and Tulane........stunk it up vs Troy. Like him or not, Jones has done a pretty good job assembling his team.
Not too difficult when all you need to do is call Tuscaloosa & see if they have any rejects.
(10-22-2013 10:26 AM)Bham Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]Like him or not, Jones has done a pretty good job assembling his team.
That is true, but remember, until this year, USA could take disgruntled 4 and 5-star players from major programs, and bring them in to play immediately at USA, only to be back in FBS soon.
UAB did the same thing in the mid 90s. It worked for us the same way as it is working for them.
The question will be can they keep the success going once they have ZERO 4 and 5 star quality guys? UAB did for awhile. Now, those days seem like a different lifetime ago.
(10-22-2013 12:42 PM)the Dragon Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2013 10:26 AM)Bham Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]Like him or not, Jones has done a pretty good job assembling his team.
That is true, but remember, until this year, USA could take disgruntled 4 and 5-star players from major programs, and bring them in to play immediately at USA, only to be back in FBS soon.
UAB did the same thing in the mid 90s. It worked for us the same way as it is working for them.
The question will be can they keep the success going once they have ZERO 4 and 5 star quality guys? UAB did for awhile. Now, those days seem like a different lifetime ago.
That is an interesting point..........we'll see how it turns out for them. You would think a good USA program would affect USM and Troy more than UAB anyway. Some of those Mobile prospects might want to go off for college too, instead of playing for the home team.
They had a close loss at Tennessee. Hell we had two. I lost count of the close losses UAB has had since their first year DI. USA is not doing anything UAB hasn't already done. As soon as UAT sees them as a threat they will be treated the same as us.
(10-22-2013 01:12 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote: [ -> ]They had a close loss at Tennessee. Hell we had two. I lost count of the close losses UAB has had since their first year DI. USA is not doing anything UAB hasn't already done. As soon as UAT sees them as a threat they will be treated the same as us.
I was in Knoxville for the last one :( USA has their own BOT's, so Bahr-Jr. and Finis can't sabotage them as much. I think Bentley might be on theirs though.