My first official rankings are not posted until after next week's games, but I thought that it might be illuminating to show the early trends.

The most startling changes from last year have to do with conference strength. As a huge percentage of non-conference games have been played, the relative standings will not change substantially until the bowl games. Here are the standings [my rating points in brackets to demonstrate the relative differences]:

1. SEC (21-7) [27.5354]
2. PAC 12 (23-9) [24.5641]
3. B1G (31-8) [22.2507]
4. AAC (21-8) [16.6707]
5. ACC (23-9) [14.3828]
6. BIG 12 (15-11) [4.0305]

(INDEPENDENTS) (6-6) [-4.1259]

7. MAC (18-17) [-9.8618]
8. MWC (20-15) [-11.1577]
9. C-USA (13-23) [-29.5195]
10. SBC (10-16) [-30.2084]

Here are the C-USA rankings:

West

82. Southern Miss (2-1)
92. La. Tech (1-2)
96. UTSA (1-2)
106. N. Texas (1-2)
111. UTEP (1-2)
121. Rice (0-3)

East

80. W. Kentucky (2-1)
88. Middle Tenn. (2-1)
102. FAU (1-2)
107. Marshall (1-1)
115. Charlotte (1-2)
117. FlU (0-3)
123. Old Dominion (1-2)

OTHERS:

8. Stanford (2-0)
15. Baylor (3-0)
41. Army (3-0)

AAC is a quality league for the 2nd straight year. It's a shame that the P5 can't be reevaluated on a rolling 3-5 year basis. Also interesting that the service academies could all start 3-0 for the 1st time ever. Army's schedule is really favorable. It is not inconceivable that they could win 9 games this year.

(09-18-2016 06:45 PM)Mademen Wrote:  AAC is a quality league for the 2nd straight year. It's a shame that the P5 can't be reevaluated on a rolling 3-5 year basis. Also interesting that the service academies could all start 3-0 for the 1st time ever. Army's schedule is really favorable. It is not inconceivable that they could win 9 games this year.

Those numbers (although only 1 rating, and still early) certainly cast the Big12's consideration of an invite of U of H in a different light.

UH is 5 in Massey and 11 in Sagarin. Rice is 118 and 127.

(09-18-2016 08:48 PM)Antarius Wrote:  UH is 5 in Massey and 11 in Sagarin. Rice is 118 and 127.

Man, I'm glad you pointed that out. I had no idea UH was doing so well this year!

UH's administration has made some very good hiring decisions in the past decade, found a way to fund program improvements (albeit dircetly on the backs of their students), and found highly influential alumni to publicly support them at the right time. I wish our admin had made different hiring decisions going back to 2006, but unfortunately they didn't.

(09-18-2016 08:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 08:48 PM)Antarius Wrote:  UH is 5 in Massey and 11 in Sagarin. Rice is 118 and 127.

Man, I'm glad you pointed that out. I had no idea UH was doing so well this year!

UH's administration has made some very good hiring decisions in the past decade, found a way to fund program improvements (albeit dircetly on the backs of their students), and found highly influential alumni to publicly support them at the right time. I wish our admin had made different hiring decisions going back to 1995, but unfortunately they didn't.

FIFY, but some would argue 1967

(09-18-2016 08:58 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 08:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 08:48 PM)Antarius Wrote:  UH is 5 in Massey and 11 in Sagarin. Rice is 118 and 127.

Man, I'm glad you pointed that out. I had no idea UH was doing so well this year!

UH's administration has made some very good hiring decisions in the past decade, found a way to fund program improvements (albeit dircetly on the backs of their students), and found highly influential alumni to publicly support them at the right time. I wish our admin had made different hiring decisions going back to 1995, but unfortunately they didn't.

FIFY, but some would argue 1967

Ha, I bet. But if you think about it, the reason we ended up with DB is because we hired the Toad. Had we not hired the Toad, we don't end up with DB, a coach who has done some good for us, but in the end, not enough. And who also had a strange knack for doing his best work at the moments when he needed to.

Had we had a different coach in '06, maybe they don't realize how good Chase and JD could have been, so perhaps it was good for us, regardless.

Your ranking means we will only beat Prairie View.

(09-18-2016 06:23 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  My first official rankings are not posted until after next week's games, but I thought that it might be illuminating to show the early trends.

The most startling changes from last year have to do with conference strength. As a huge percentage of non-conference games have been played, the relative standings will not change substantially until the bowl games. Here are the standings [my rating points in brackets to demonstrate the relative differences]:

1. SEC (21-7) [27.5354]
2. PAC 12 (23-9) [24.5641]
3. B1G (31-8) [22.2507]
4. AAC (21-8) [16.6707]
5. ACC (23-9) [14.3828]
6. BIG 12 (15-11) [4.0305]

(INDEPENDENTS) (6-6) [-4.1259]

7. MAC (18-17) [-9.8618]
8. MWC (20-15) [-11.1577]
9. C-USA (13-23) [-29.5195]
10. SBC (10-16) [-30.2084]

Here are the C-USA rankings:

West

82. Southern Miss (2-1)
92. La. Tech (1-2)
96. UTSA (1-2)
106. N. Texas (1-2)
111. UTEP (1-2)
121. Rice (0-3)

East

80. W. Kentucky (2-1)
88. Middle Tenn. (2-1)
102. FAU (1-2)
107. Marshall (1-1)
115. Charlotte (1-2)
117. FlU (0-3)
123. Old Dominion (1-2)

OTHERS:

8. Stanford (2-0)
15. Baylor (3-0)
41. Army (3-0)

(09-18-2016 09:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 08:58 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 08:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 08:48 PM)Antarius Wrote:  UH is 5 in Massey and 11 in Sagarin. Rice is 118 and 127.

Man, I'm glad you pointed that out. I had no idea UH was doing so well this year!

UH's administration has made some very good hiring decisions in the past decade, found a way to fund program improvements (albeit dircetly on the backs of their students), and found highly influential alumni to publicly support them at the right time. I wish our admin had made different hiring decisions going back to 1995, but unfortunately they didn't.

FIFY, but some would argue 1967

Ha, I bet. But if you think about it, the reason we ended up with DB is because we hired the Toad. Had we not hired the Toad, we don't end up with DB, a coach who has done some good for us, but in the end, not enough. And who also had a strange knack for doing his best work at the moments when he needed to.

Had we had a different coach in '06, maybe they don't realize how good Chase and JD could have been, so perhaps it was good for us, regardless.

Had Rice may the moves TCU did (or at least some amount of effort) post SWC, much likely would be different. While clearly some effort is ongoing, but not at the level of CH. Leebron and the BOT is 100% to blame, particularly Greenspan

(09-18-2016 11:02 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Your ranking means we will only beat Prairie View.

(09-18-2016 06:23 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  My first official rankings are not posted until after next week's games, but I thought that it might be illuminating to show the early trends.

The most startling changes from last year have to do with conference strength. As a huge percentage of non-conference games have been played, the relative standings will not change substantially until the bowl games. Here are the standings [my rating points in brackets to demonstrate the relative differences]:

1. SEC (21-7) [27.5354]
2. PAC 12 (23-9) [24.5641]
3. B1G (31-8) [22.2507]
4. AAC (21-8) [16.6707]
5. ACC (23-9) [14.3828]
6. BIG 12 (15-11) [4.0305]

(INDEPENDENTS) (6-6) [-4.1259]

7. MAC (18-17) [-9.8618]
8. MWC (20-15) [-11.1577]
9. C-USA (13-23) [-29.5195]
10. SBC (10-16) [-30.2084]

Here are the C-USA rankings:

West

82. Southern Miss (2-1)
92. La. Tech (1-2)
96. UTSA (1-2)
106. N. Texas (1-2)
111. UTEP (1-2)
121. Rice (0-3)

East

80. W. Kentucky (2-1)
88. Middle Tenn. (2-1)
102. FAU (1-2)
107. Marshall (1-1)
115. Charlotte (1-2)
117. FlU (0-3)
123. Old Dominion (1-2)

OTHERS:

8. Stanford (2-0)
15. Baylor (3-0)
41. Army (3-0)

Rankings are fluid. This is a ranking for Sept. 17. We don't play any games on Sept. 17.

Still, not a good sign...

(09-18-2016 08:45 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 06:45 PM)Mademen Wrote:  AAC is a quality league for the 2nd straight year. It's a shame that the P5 can't be reevaluated on a rolling 3-5 year basis. Also interesting that the service academies could all start 3-0 for the 1st time ever. Army's schedule is really favorable. It is not inconceivable that they could win 9 games this year.

Those numbers (although only 1 rating, and still early) certainly cast the Big12's consideration of an invite of U of H in a different light.

Not really.

Big 12 schools each receive $20+ million in annual TV revenue.

AAC schools receive (IIRC) about $2 million.

I get your general point, but small/short-term fluctuations in onfield performance aren't really relevant at a P5/G5 level.

That being said ... full credit to the AAC.