hbengal Wrote:

cardtopper Wrote:But the Big East is closer to MWC and CUSA than to the PAC10.  We need some more distance from those below us and less distance from the PAC10 (who I believe we could overtake if not for SC). 

...and UCLA,and Cal,and Arizona St....

Last time a Big East team played a Pac 10 team, it didn't turn out too badly :D

Cardtopper, How do you know the big East is closer to CUSA/MWC than the Pac10?

TopCoug Wrote:Cardtopper, How do you know the big East is closer to CUSA/MWC than the Pac10?

Check the above thread Top Coug, it is not as far apart as you think. As a matter of act it is showing more of a Big 4 then a Big 5.

hbengal Wrote:

cardtopper Wrote:But the Big East is closer to MWC and CUSA than to the PAC10.  We need some more distance from those below us and less distance from the PAC10 (who I believe we could overtake if not for SC). 

...and UCLA,and Cal,and Arizona St....

Actually no.

Obviously USC counts so you can't take a team out. Since you tried to be funny though, he was correct in that we'd be very close.

BE- 72.2 point avg
PAC-10 w/o USC- 73.4 avg.

That is very close. Like I said, USC must be included, but that 1 team is the difference this week in his system.

you missed my point cardtopper...the numbers do not show anything one way or the other. If the computer says i can beat you at checkers does that make it so? I have no proof the Pac 10 is better than the Big East, have you played them? Why would you care anyway?

TopCoug Wrote:you missed my point cardtopper...the numbers do not show anything one way or the other. If the computer says i can beat you at checkers does that make it so? I have no proof the Pac 10 is better than the Big East, have you played them? Why would you care anyway?

Coug; no one is missing your point, your missing everyone elses point. No one really likes the computer thing, and your right its bogus, but it is what it is, and we all have to play by those rules. Unless we get a playoff some day, the computers will continue to determine who is who. If the computers say that Auburn wasnt worthy to play in the championship game, then guess what? They did not play in the championship game. As far as I am concerned, Auburn shoul have had a shot at USC last year.

TopCoug Wrote:you missed my point cardtopper...the numbers do not show anything one way or the other. If the computer says i can beat you at checkers does that make it so? I have no proof the Pac 10 is better than the Big East, have you played them? Why would you care anyway?

Coug everyone knows the computer argument proves nothing on the field but they matter in regards to BCS bowls. Until we have a playoff system nobody will know who good auburn or USC was last year. Its certainly no point in crying about it now, it is what it is. We can talk about this until we are blue in the face and at the end of the day its nothing but "opinion", the only opinions that matter are the Coaches, Harris, and Computers.

I really don't care about the Sagarin ratings in general. But I accept that we need a strong Sagarin rating to get critics off our backs!

Yoda Wrote:You guys are so funny.

A week ago, I posted the same rankings and Sagarin had the MWC above you. And I got trashed. The stats were meaningless, I used the wrong rankings, it was all bogus, I was a MWC troll (I hate the MWC), etc.

This week you are ahead of the MWC and suddenly the stats look way more credible to you. They have meaning. The rankings are the right ones. Nothing is bogus -- you're gaining on the PAC 10. Life is good again.

Just a suggestion: The MWC is comparing themselves to you. You might do well to stop comparing yourselves to them. What matters isn't the MWC and staying barely above them in the various rankings. What matters is getting to and staying above at least one of the conferences that is currently above you.

Yoda out...

And it still is bogus. But the fact of that matter is that people like you and the media and MWC fans MAKE something big out of it. So we have to accept it as is to get criticism off our back. So if you're going to gloat about the MWC being 6th I'm going to gloat about the Big East being 6th. I still don't think the stats are that credible, tell you the truth. But they are what they are.

If USC loses this weekend, the BE could jump ahead of the Pac 10

njndirish Wrote:If USC loses this weekend, the BE could jump ahead of the Pac 10

You guys are 18th so a USC loss wouldn't make a massive difference for them. It certainly drops them but they'll still be 5th.

TopCoug Wrote:who cares what saragin's computer says. What does that have to do with what goes on via the players.....nothing. Its about players on the field, not computers.

unfortunately, it's NOT about players on the field and it IS about the computers.

All of the schools don't play one another. The computers are used to estimate the relative strengths of these far-flung programs.

All of college fandom would like to see a playoff system that let the top 16 schools play for the National Championship at the end of the year.

But that ain't happening.

So long as so much hangs on the power of these little polls and ratings systems, then there will be lengthy and heated discussion about them.

AT the END of the year this computer ranking is as valid as any poll in my mind, if not moreso as it wont pick schools based on their names...

Halfway through the year sagaring does not have enough data on where schools have played, won, and lost to rank everything appropriately. Because of this, you get the occasional silly ranking. I remember we beat FAMU and it dropped us. By the end of the year though, a 1-aa win will be less impressive than others. One of the reasons we're so high right now is the combined success of UL, UM, and PSU.

And for anyone wanting to make a case that human polls are better than computer polls: Your logic is broken. Human beings are responsible for both, which means errors in both. But at least a computer won't pick 10-1 miami over 10-1 washington state (for example) just because miami is miami. Many human voters would.

bearcat, It is about the players, has to be. Computers mean nothing. What does saragin have to do with who wins the Big East. Since the national title thing is phony the Big East title is all you have.

And to think you're conference accomplished all of that without playing or beating anyone this year. Those three wins you have against BCS teams ooc must have been the three biggest wins in the history of football to pull your ****** conference rankings up as far as they are now. You guys should build more formulas and polls stacked with your voters and just play high school teams. You should be able to finish .500 against high school teams.

Gotta admire the way Wyoming defended their home turf last week. And they're one of the BETTER MWC teams? :laugh:

TopCoog, are you just arguing for the sake of arguing again? Love or hate the computers, everyone else is right.

Nope...you can't decide the value of a football team on a computer...you know that.

The Big East is rated 6th, that's all I care about. It'll keep all the anti-Big East whiners off our backs.

TopCoug Wrote:bearcat, It is about the players, has to be. Computers mean nothing. What does saragin have to do with who wins the Big East. Since the national title thing is phony the Big East title is all you have.

Who said Sagarin had anything to do with winning the Big East? Only a few teams have a chance to win a national title this year, and that eliminates not only the Big East, but the Big Ten and SEC.