The numbers to the right of a team's schedule strength
are its rank of schedule - (in parentheses) - and its
record versus teams in these rating's CURRENT top 10
and top 30 respectively.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/
35. Marshall
41. UCF
46. ECU
49. Boise State
57. Memphis
63. Temple
67. Louisaana Tech
68. Houston
73. Cincinnati
74. Nevada
I'm now convinced. Marshall has definitely played a tougher schedule then Memphis. How did I not see this before?
(10-12-2014 08:04 PM)tnzazz Wrote: [ -> ]I'm now convinced. Marshall has definitely played a tougher schedule then Memphis. How did I not see this before?
These are the overall rankings not the SOSs. Those are at the link. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
Also AAC relevant >> UCF's SOS is 28. ECU's SOS is 97
(10-12-2014 08:32 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:04 PM)tnzazz Wrote: [ -> ]I'm now convinced. Marshall has definitely played a tougher schedule then Memphis. How did I not see this before?
These are the overall rankings not the SOSs. Those are at the link. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
ANYONE who thinks Marshall's ranking, including SOS up until now, is higher than ECU's is flawed. They need to go back to the drawing board and figure out why. There is NO way Marshall has played a tougher schedule to be ranked higher at this point. losing to South Carolina should be worth more than some of Marshall's wins. Just ludicrous that any team would find advantage this early in the season for a schedule like they've played so far. I could care less if that all works out in the end. They shouldn't get a bump for crap like that early on period. FLAWED rankings that people defend primarily because they can't figure out how to correct it.
(10-12-2014 08:37 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote: [ -> ]Also AAC relevant >> UCF's SOS is 28. ECU's SOS is 97
We all know that's BS as well. NO way UCF's SOS is that much better.
UCF's opponents are a combined 20-9
ECU's opponents are a combined 14-21
Remember that it looked like ECU was playing tough opponents early because three of them were ranked but they are all now unranked after a combined 9 losses. Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
(10-12-2014 08:48 PM)apex_pirate Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:32 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:04 PM)tnzazz Wrote: [ -> ]I'm now convinced. Marshall has definitely played a tougher schedule then Memphis. How did I not see this before?
These are the overall rankings not the SOSs. Those are at the link. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
ANYONE who thinks Marshall's ranking, including SOS up until now, is higher than ECU's is flawed. They need to go back to the drawing board and figure out why. There is NO way Marshall has played a tougher schedule to be ranked higher at this point. losing to South Carolina should be worth more than some of Marshall's wins. Just ludicrous that any team would find advantage this early in the season for a schedule like they've played so far. I could care less if that all works out in the end. They shouldn't get a bump for crap like that early on period. FLAWED rankings that people defend primarily because they can't figure out how to correct it.
Is it "flawed" to comment without actually looking at (or looking but not understanding) the info in the link?
(10-12-2014 08:57 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote: [ -> ]UCF's opponents are a combined 20-9
ECU's opponents are a combined 14-21
Remember that it looked like ECU was playing tough opponents early because three of them were ranked but they are all now unranked after a combined 9 losses. Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
Ummmm, I'm smart enough to know that records should not be the determining factor as to how tough an opponent is. Pretty sure that's why we have a committee deciding the important bowl spots.
(10-12-2014 08:57 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote: [ -> ]UCF's opponents are a combined 20-9
ECU's opponents are a combined 14-21
Remember that it looked like ECU was playing tough opponents early because three of them were ranked but they are all now unranked after a combined 9 losses. Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
EXACTLY. And ECU is still getting credit in the rankings for beating those preseason ranked teams who clearly shouldn't have been there. Plus the loss to South Carolina, who is looking worse and worse, is equally looking bad.
(10-12-2014 09:00 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:48 PM)apex_pirate Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:32 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:04 PM)tnzazz Wrote: [ -> ]I'm now convinced. Marshall has definitely played a tougher schedule then Memphis. How did I not see this before?
These are the overall rankings not the SOSs. Those are at the link. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
ANYONE who thinks Marshall's ranking, including SOS up until now, is higher than ECU's is flawed. They need to go back to the drawing board and figure out why. There is NO way Marshall has played a tougher schedule to be ranked higher at this point. losing to South Carolina should be worth more than some of Marshall's wins. Just ludicrous that any team would find advantage this early in the season for a schedule like they've played so far. I could care less if that all works out in the end. They shouldn't get a bump for crap like that early on period. FLAWED rankings that people defend primarily because they can't figure out how to correct it.
Is it "flawed" to comment without actually looking at (or looking but not understanding) the info in the link?
Maybe I didn't get my message across clearly...that is my fault. But your response is inaccurate...and that is my fault as well since I didn't get my message across clearly.
(10-12-2014 09:07 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:57 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote: [ -> ]UCF's opponents are a combined 20-9
ECU's opponents are a combined 14-21
Remember that it looked like ECU was playing tough opponents early because three of them were ranked but they are all now unranked after a combined 9 losses. Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
EXACTLY. And ECU is still getting credit in the rankings for beating those preseason ranked teams who clearly shouldn't have been there. Plus the loss to South Carolina, who is looking worse and worse, is equally looking bad.
Yet Mizzou got curb stomped and you don't think the SOS is giving them too much credit? Ok, I get it. Gink is an ECU hater...has long been one. You are too. Have at it.
(10-12-2014 09:11 PM)apex_pirate Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 09:07 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:57 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote: [ -> ]UCF's opponents are a combined 20-9
ECU's opponents are a combined 14-21
Remember that it looked like ECU was playing tough opponents early because three of them were ranked but they are all now unranked after a combined 9 losses. Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
EXACTLY. And ECU is still getting credit in the rankings for beating those preseason ranked teams who clearly shouldn't have been there. Plus the loss to South Carolina, who is looking worse and worse, is equally looking bad.
Yet Mizzou got curb stomped and you don't think the SOS is giving them too much credit? Ok, I get it. Gink is an ECU hater...has long been one. You are too. Have at it.
Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
Don't let your hatred for all things UCF blind you from what's right in front of you.
Well, at least 6 of the top 10 G-5's are in the AAC. Followed by 2 from C-USA and 2 from MWC.
(10-12-2014 09:16 PM)piratefan1975 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, at least 6 of the top 10 G-5's are in the AAC. Followed by 2 from C-USA and 2 from MWC.
Flagship
(10-12-2014 09:15 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 09:11 PM)apex_pirate Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 09:07 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:57 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote: [ -> ]UCF's opponents are a combined 20-9
ECU's opponents are a combined 14-21
Remember that it looked like ECU was playing tough opponents early because three of them were ranked but they are all now unranked after a combined 9 losses. Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
EXACTLY. And ECU is still getting credit in the rankings for beating those preseason ranked teams who clearly shouldn't have been there. Plus the loss to South Carolina, who is looking worse and worse, is equally looking bad.
Yet Mizzou got curb stomped and you don't think the SOS is giving them too much credit? Ok, I get it. Gink is an ECU hater...has long been one. You are too. Have at it.
Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
Don't let your hatred for all things UCF blind you from what's right in front of you.
Lol! You are the one who is blind. My comment about Mizzou was to tigercity bozo. I liked how he used USC against us but failed to include Mizzou. Convenient...only because he was trying to slam ECU. The part for you was using records to rationalize...and that doesn't pass the eyeball test. But try again, if you must. You, Kruciff and Insane_baboon are pretty good at finding back handed ways of demeaning and/or trivializing those who are doing better than UCF.
(10-12-2014 09:07 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:57 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote: [ -> ]UCF's opponents are a combined 20-9
ECU's opponents are a combined 14-21
Remember that it looked like ECU was playing tough opponents early because three of them were ranked but they are all now unranked after a combined 9 losses. Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
EXACTLY. And ECU is still getting credit in the rankings for beating those preseason ranked teams who clearly shouldn't have been there. Plus the loss to South Carolina, who is looking worse and worse, is equally looking bad.
VT was not ranked preseason
VT (33 Sagarin) is 4-2 only losses were to 5-1 ECU and 5-1 GT
(10-12-2014 09:26 PM)Piratelife4me Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 09:07 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2014 08:57 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote: [ -> ]UCF's opponents are a combined 20-9
ECU's opponents are a combined 14-21
Remember that it looked like ECU was playing tough opponents early because three of them were ranked but they are all now unranked after a combined 9 losses. Same thing can be said about Mizzou.
EXACTLY. And ECU is still getting credit in the rankings for beating those preseason ranked teams who clearly shouldn't have been there. Plus the loss to South Carolina, who is looking worse and worse, is equally looking bad.
VT was not ranked preseason
VT (33 Sagarin) is 4-2 only losses were to 5-1 ECU and 5-1 GT
So is that BEST win supposed to prove or disprove the point? I mean since you expended the effort to post it --- Marshall is 35.
Determining a team's starting position is the real flaw. Sagarin, AP, and Coaches all start teams at a certain position and in some cases too high. Coaches seems to be the most accurate in terms of on field performance between teams with the wild card being who benefited from a preseason ranking without playing 1 down. So ECU benefits by beating VT and NC with a close loss to SC because of their preseason standings. Marshall on the other hand has no P5 opponents and plays no ranked opponents.
End of the day we shall see what the Plafoff poll shows on 10/28. That will be the real poll.
I'm not sure if ECU should be higher of if Marshall and UCF should just be lower.