CSNbbs

West
Memphis 68
Navy 64
Houston 62
Tulsa 52
SMU 48
Tulane 47

East
Temple 62
Cincy 61
UCF 55
ECU 54
USF 53
UConn 49

So, it was a foregone conclusion that the East would be stronger, but as it stands today, the West are #1, #2, and T-#3. Interesting.

How are these done? I'm missing something. The East looks pretty jacked up after Temple and Cincy.

How is UCF ahead of ECU?

(09-20-2015 12:38 AM)AirRaid Wrote: [ -> ]How is UCF ahead of ECU?

How is UCF ahead of Tulsa?
These ratings are bogus.

Warren Nolan Ranking



East
Temple 6
Cincinnati 65
Connecticut 83
East Carolina 86
South Florida 109
UCF 125

West
Memphis 29
Houston 42
Navy 44
Tulsa 45
SMU 84
Tulane 118

(09-19-2015 11:58 PM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]West
Memphis 68
Navy 64
Houston 62
Tulsa 52
SMU 48
Tulane 47

East
Temple 62
Cincy 61
UCF 55
ECU 54
USF 53
UConn 49

Looks biased to me.

True Temple played like crap but still got the win and are 3 and 0. Add that 2 of Temple's opponents won (PSU and Cincy) in week 3 as did a sub opponent (Buffalo lost to PSU but won yesterday). On paper with their win and their opponent's win, Temple had a very good day.

(09-20-2015 07:28 AM)95 Tulsa Cane Wrote: [ -> ]Warren Nolan Ranking



East
Temple 6
Cincinnati 65
Connecticut 83
East Carolina 86
South Florida 109
UCF 125

West
Memphis 29
Houston 42
Navy 44
Tulsa 45
SMU 84
Tulane 118

This one is more beweaveable.

From the site "Records include games against Division I opponents only." Temple's game yesterday wasn't included the ranking.

(09-20-2015 12:38 AM)AirRaid Wrote: [ -> ]How is UCF ahead of ECU?

Everyone should be ahead of ECU.

(09-20-2015 07:39 AM)95 Tulsa Cane Wrote: [ -> ]From the site "Records include games against Division I opponents only." Temple's game yesterday wasn't included the ranking.

I Googled the quoted words in your post but didn't find the site. Why would Temples game yesterday not be included? UMASS is Division 1 (FBS).

That's not good going by those rankings Furman would be in 3rd place in the east...I would imagine they would be ranked higher then the ucf team they just beat.

(09-20-2015 08:01 AM)sfink16 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2015 07:39 AM)95 Tulsa Cane Wrote: [ -> ]From the site "Records include games against Division I opponents only." Temple's game yesterday wasn't included the ranking.

I Googled the quoted words in your post but didn't find the site. Why would Temples game yesterday not be included? UMASS is Division 1 (FBS).

The quote is there about the division one opponents. http://warrennolan.com/football/2015/npi

It was my mistake, I didn't think UMASS was FBS.

UMass is in the MAC (for now)

(09-20-2015 07:39 AM)95 Tulsa Cane Wrote: [ -> ]From the site "Records include games against Division I opponents only." Temple's game yesterday wasn't included the ranking.

Well that explains why UCF is still so high.

(09-21-2015 05:44 AM)Mikeyp Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2015 07:39 AM)95 Tulsa Cane Wrote: [ -> ]From the site "Records include games against Division I opponents only." Temple's game yesterday wasn't included the ranking.

Well that explains why UCF is still so high.

Not really. They still haven't won a game. Seems unlikely that you should be ranked higher with zero wins than a team with any wins, unless you played only top teams. But wait... Tulsa's only loss is to a top team with two wins over FBS teams.

Not ragging on UCF. No need to kick the poor bastards when they're down, and the league needs them to be up. But the rankings are ridiculous.