What's the most we've ever had in Massey top25? Have we ever had more than 3?

(10-23-2017 01:26 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:04 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:30 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:26 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:22 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  If you didn't start the argument then why would you list team from worst on top to best on the bottom. You could have chosen the more traditional way of representing the composite. If you list best to worst then the AAC looks great with 3 teams at the top. See how that looks?

Literally are arguing about the formating of top to bottom or bottom to top ranking

No we're talking about "starting the argument" as you suggested that you did not. It's called trolling in other circles. Besides, you didn't answer the question. Typical liberal technique, deflect and hope the question is hidden.

Ur a moron. The best 3 teams have the best 3 rankings. Whether its listed at the bottom or top? Its how i read it when i posted it. Scroll to 65 (halfway point of college football) and scrolled up to #1. Frickin whiney baby. No adgenda with no opinion in a post, but others are on here posting the wrong ******* rankings

Yep, typical liberal left wing nutjob that start name calling instead of addressing perception. It's just plain stupid, or to use your term MORONIC to list in such a way unless there is an agenda, such as trolling. It would have just as easy to list the top 3 or even 5.

What is the purpose to list beyond that, other then to troll and be MORONIC?

I know, it's what liberals do best, post meaningless information and wonder why people call them out on it.

What question haven't i answered my lord of the message board? I chose the top 65 because i always do. That's the midway of fricking college football and when i did the podcast, those were teams i previewed. Nothing has changed. No teams behind 65 are relevant IMO. Teams inside the top 65 are what I consider "quality" opponents.

How you think this explanation isn't answering every question you have asked is astounding.

(10-23-2017 12:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  FFS, there are only 2 G4 1 loss teams. There is only 1 AAC one-loss team, and that team is Memphis.

Of all the one-loss teams in the nation, Toledo is ranked next to last, and Marshall is ranked last.

Shoot, I forgot about Marshall. About time they started showing up here again crowing about how they deserve a shot. After all, their best win is against Cincy.

(10-23-2017 01:45 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 12:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  FFS, there are only 2 G4 1 loss teams. There is only 1 AAC one-loss team, and that team is Memphis.

Of all the one-loss teams in the nation, Toledo is ranked next to last, and Marshall is ranked last.

Shoot, I forgot about Marshall. About time they started showing up here again crowing about how they deserve a shot. After all, their best win is against Cincy.

If their best win is Cincy, they definitely don't deserve a shot because we f#$@ing suck.

(10-23-2017 01:40 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:26 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:04 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:30 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:26 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Literally are arguing about the formating of top to bottom or bottom to top ranking

No we're talking about "starting the argument" as you suggested that you did not. It's called trolling in other circles. Besides, you didn't answer the question. Typical liberal technique, deflect and hope the question is hidden.

Ur a moron. The best 3 teams have the best 3 rankings. Whether its listed at the bottom or top? Its how i read it when i posted it. Scroll to 65 (halfway point of college football) and scrolled up to #1. Frickin whiney baby. No adgenda with no opinion in a post, but others are on here posting the wrong ******* rankings

Yep, typical liberal left wing nutjob that start name calling instead of addressing perception. It's just plain stupid, or to use your term MORONIC to list in such a way unless there is an agenda, such as trolling. It would have just as easy to list the top 3 or even 5.

What is the purpose to list beyond that, other then to troll and be MORONIC?

I know, it's what liberals do best, post meaningless information and wonder why people call them out on it.

What question haven't i answered my lord of the message board? I chose the top 65 because i always do. That's the midway of fricking college football and when i did the podcast, those were teams i previewed. Nothing has changed. No teams behind 65 are relevant IMO. Teams inside the top 65 are what I consider "quality" opponents.

How you think this explanation isn't answering every question you have asked is astounding.

OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:40 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:26 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:04 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:30 AM)sfink16 Wrote:  No we're talking about "starting the argument" as you suggested that you did not. It's called trolling in other circles. Besides, you didn't answer the question. Typical liberal technique, deflect and hope the question is hidden.

Ur a moron. The best 3 teams have the best 3 rankings. Whether its listed at the bottom or top? Its how i read it when i posted it. Scroll to 65 (halfway point of college football) and scrolled up to #1. Frickin whiney baby. No adgenda with no opinion in a post, but others are on here posting the wrong ******* rankings

Yep, typical liberal left wing nutjob that start name calling instead of addressing perception. It's just plain stupid, or to use your term MORONIC to list in such a way unless there is an agenda, such as trolling. It would have just as easy to list the top 3 or even 5.

What is the purpose to list beyond that, other then to troll and be MORONIC?

I know, it's what liberals do best, post meaningless information and wonder why people call them out on it.

What question haven't i answered my lord of the message board? I chose the top 65 because i always do. That's the midway of fricking college football and when i did the podcast, those were teams i previewed. Nothing has changed. No teams behind 65 are relevant IMO. Teams inside the top 65 are what I consider "quality" opponents.

How you think this explanation isn't answering every question you have asked is astounding.

OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

Well every team in the G5 expects to lose to Alabama, Clemson, and Miami... Sorry SOS matters, and FSU despite their record NOW... Will be a P5 bowl team.... And for my definition, that is quality.

In your scenario SMU and Houston are below quality. If you truly believe that statement... Take it up with their fans, and I will live with NIU and WMU as nothingness games as we play them.

Tred lightly though... For 2 more weeks FSU will be below .500, and as they rise? Navy could fall behind that line. If you can justify them being below quality??? Enlighten me.

(10-23-2017 01:32 PM)STL_Wave Wrote:  What's the most we've ever had in Massey top25? Have we ever had more than 3?

In the one that counts, CFP, the AAC had 4 teams ranked in the top 25 at one time in 2015. 2016 ended with one dropping out and the champ and runner up ranked. No other non power conference has had these type of results thus far. It wouldn't surprise me if 3 teams are ranked at some point again this year.

(10-23-2017 05:22 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  In the one that counts, CFP, the AAC had 4 teams ranked in the top 25 at one time in 2015. 2016 ended with one dropping out and the champ and runner up ranked. No other non power conference has had these type of results thus far. It wouldn't surprise me if 3 teams are ranked at some point again this year.

The highest ranked non power conference school since the CFP poll started in 2015 was Memphis at 13 in November, 2015.

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

That makes little sense. What if Alabama had played the New England Patriots three times and the Pittsburgh Steelers three times, and was 1-2 versus both, thus 2-4 overall. By your reckoning, we should write them off as a non-quality team when Auburn plays them later this year.

Hint: SOS matters. Sagarin says FSU has played the #1 toughest schedule in the country so far.

(10-23-2017 04:33 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:40 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:26 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:04 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Ur a moron. The best 3 teams have the best 3 rankings. Whether its listed at the bottom or top? Its how i read it when i posted it. Scroll to 65 (halfway point of college football) and scrolled up to #1. Frickin whiney baby. No adgenda with no opinion in a post, but others are on here posting the wrong ******* rankings

Yep, typical liberal left wing nutjob that start name calling instead of addressing perception. It's just plain stupid, or to use your term MORONIC to list in such a way unless there is an agenda, such as trolling. It would have just as easy to list the top 3 or even 5.

What is the purpose to list beyond that, other then to troll and be MORONIC?

I know, it's what liberals do best, post meaningless information and wonder why people call them out on it.

What question haven't i answered my lord of the message board? I chose the top 65 because i always do. That's the midway of fricking college football and when i did the podcast, those were teams i previewed. Nothing has changed. No teams behind 65 are relevant IMO. Teams inside the top 65 are what I consider "quality" opponents.

How you think this explanation isn't answering every question you have asked is astounding.

OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

Well every team in the G5 expects to lose to Alabama, Clemson, and Miami... Sorry SOS matters, and FSU despite their record NOW... Will be a P5 bowl team.... And for my definition, that is quality.

In your scenario SMU and Houston are below quality. If you truly believe that statement... Take it up with their fans, and I will live with NIU and WMU as nothingness games as we play them.

Tred lightly though... For 2 more weeks FSU will be below .500, and as they rise? Navy could fall behind that line. If you can justify them being below quality??? Enlighten me.

FSU hasn't lost to Clemson yet because they haven't played them. They have beaten exactly one teams with a winning record and that team is WF, who will probably have a losing record by the end of the year. And Navy can't drop below .500 in two weeks with their 5 and 2 record.

Yes, at this point, by Massey standards, which I don't necessarily agree with are not quality. My definition of quality is a team that is expected to beat all teams they face with records .500 or below AND have at least impressive win (over .500 at least). Also, no bad losses. SMU doesn't really have that quality win yet and Houston lost to a sub .500 team.

Losing to good teams shouldn't be a criteria to determine a quality team. By that logic, Temple losing to ND, Army, Houston, and USF makes them a quality team. Don't you have to beat somebody as well at some point? Even FSU wins have not been impressive over WF and Duke.

BTW, I mentioned Houston beating Temple earlier this year, it just so happens that Houston has a 13 and 2, with 2 ties, record against the mighty FSU. Then again FSU wasn't great before Bobby Bowden got there.

(10-23-2017 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

That makes little sense. What if Alabama had played the New England Patriots three times and the Pittsburgh Steelers three times, and was 1-2 versus both, thus 2-4 overall. By your reckoning, we should write them off as a non-quality team when Auburn plays them later this year.

Hint: SOS matters. Sagarin says FSU has played the #1 toughest schedule in the country so far.

What if I played golf with Jordan Spieth and he gave me three strokes a hole and I beat him? My statement makes about as much sense as Alabama playing the Patriots and the Steelers. First Alabama could play the Patriots 100 times and never beat them, but that's another story.

BTW, when you lose you help the other teams SOS, especially when playing teams not named Alabama. Louisville would be 4 and 4 instead of 5 and 3 for example.

Here is an astonishing fact. All four FSU losses came at home while both wins came on the road.

(10-23-2017 04:33 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:40 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:26 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:04 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Ur a moron. The best 3 teams have the best 3 rankings. Whether its listed at the bottom or top? Its how i read it when i posted it. Scroll to 65 (halfway point of college football) and scrolled up to #1. Frickin whiney baby. No adgenda with no opinion in a post, but others are on here posting the wrong ******* rankings

Yep, typical liberal left wing nutjob that start name calling instead of addressing perception. It's just plain stupid, or to use your term MORONIC to list in such a way unless there is an agenda, such as trolling. It would have just as easy to list the top 3 or even 5.

What is the purpose to list beyond that, other then to troll and be MORONIC?

I know, it's what liberals do best, post meaningless information and wonder why people call them out on it.

What question haven't i answered my lord of the message board? I chose the top 65 because i always do. That's the midway of fricking college football and when i did the podcast, those were teams i previewed. Nothing has changed. No teams behind 65 are relevant IMO. Teams inside the top 65 are what I consider "quality" opponents.

How you think this explanation isn't answering every question you have asked is astounding.

OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

Well every team in the G5 expects to lose to Alabama, Clemson, and Miami... Sorry SOS matters, and FSU despite their record NOW... Will be a P5 bowl team.... And for my definition, that is quality.

In your scenario SMU and Houston are below quality. If you truly believe that statement... Take it up with their fans, and I will live with NIU and WMU as nothingness games as we play them.

Tred lightly though... For 2 more weeks FSU will be below .500, and as they rise? Navy could fall behind that line. If you can justify them being below quality??? Enlighten me.

Well, last year before the CCGs, the committee said Navy had three quality wins that WMU didn't: Houston, Tulsa, and Memphis. The lowest of those in Massey's composite was #40. WMU had Toledo at 42 and NW at 47.
Seems the committee thinks quality is somewhere around 40

(10-23-2017 08:21 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 04:33 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:40 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 01:26 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  Yep, typical liberal left wing nutjob that start name calling instead of addressing perception. It's just plain stupid, or to use your term MORONIC to list in such a way unless there is an agenda, such as trolling. It would have just as easy to list the top 3 or even 5.

What is the purpose to list beyond that, other then to troll and be MORONIC?

I know, it's what liberals do best, post meaningless information and wonder why people call them out on it.

What question haven't i answered my lord of the message board? I chose the top 65 because i always do. That's the midway of fricking college football and when i did the podcast, those were teams i previewed. Nothing has changed. No teams behind 65 are relevant IMO. Teams inside the top 65 are what I consider "quality" opponents.

How you think this explanation isn't answering every question you have asked is astounding.

OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

Well every team in the G5 expects to lose to Alabama, Clemson, and Miami... Sorry SOS matters, and FSU despite their record NOW... Will be a P5 bowl team.... And for my definition, that is quality.

In your scenario SMU and Houston are below quality. If you truly believe that statement... Take it up with their fans, and I will live with NIU and WMU as nothingness games as we play them.

Tred lightly though... For 2 more weeks FSU will be below .500, and as they rise? Navy could fall behind that line. If you can justify them being below quality??? Enlighten me.

Well, last year before the CCGs, the committee said Navy had three quality wins that WMU didn't: Houston, Tulsa, and Memphis. The lowest of those in Massey's composite was #40. WMU had Toledo at 42 and NW at 47.
Seems the committee thinks quality is somewhere around 40

Hmmm, not far off from the line I draw at above FSU, who happens to be 42 at the moment found HERE. The random halfway point of 65 seems to allow too much mediocrity IMO. So last year the committee had 40 and I pulled 41, not bad.

(10-23-2017 07:31 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

That makes little sense. What if Alabama had played the New England Patriots three times and the Pittsburgh Steelers three times, and was 1-2 versus both, thus 2-4 overall. By your reckoning, we should write them off as a non-quality team when Auburn plays them later this year.

Hint: SOS matters. Sagarin says FSU has played the #1 toughest schedule in the country so far.

What if I played golf with Jordan Spieth and he gave me three strokes a hole and I beat him? My statement makes about as much sense as Alabama playing the Patriots and the Steelers. First Alabama could play the Patriots 100 times and never beat them, but that's another story.

I wanted to reply to this substantively, but even after reading it 3 times, I still have no idea as to what you're trying to say.

My point stands: A 2-4 record doesn't necessarily indicate a non-quality team. In fact, as my Patriots/Steelers example indicates, it could mean you are a great college team, depending on who you have played.

(10-24-2017 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 07:31 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

That makes little sense. What if Alabama had played the New England Patriots three times and the Pittsburgh Steelers three times, and was 1-2 versus both, thus 2-4 overall. By your reckoning, we should write them off as a non-quality team when Auburn plays them later this year.

Hint: SOS matters. Sagarin says FSU has played the #1 toughest schedule in the country so far.

What if I played golf with Jordan Spieth and he gave me three strokes a hole and I beat him? My statement makes about as much sense as Alabama playing the Patriots and the Steelers. First Alabama could play the Patriots 100 times and never beat them, but that's another story.

I wanted to reply to this substantively, but even after reading it 3 times, I still have no idea as to what you're trying to say.

My point stands: A 2-4 record doesn't necessarily indicate a non-quality team. In fact, as my Patriots/Steelers example indicates, it could mean you are a great college team, depending on who you have played.

I was making a ridiculous example of golf mocking your ridiculous example of Alabama playing the Patriots.

I'm still trying to figure out why people refuse to believe that FSU is not quality this year, simply because of expectations.

About 5 years ago Arkansas was preseason ranked 8th in the country and finished the year with a 3 and 9 record (or something like that). Preseason expectations do not always end as expected. FSU played one truly great team in Alabama and lost.

Miami is certainly worthy of their ranking, the lowest P5 undefeated team behind 3 one loss P5 teams. Let's face it, Miami hasn't played murders row of competition yet. Plus they have dominated the less then great competition they have played by barely beating (no double digit wins) most of their competition with the exception of a bad Duke team and Toledo (decent team).

So again, are you trying to compare FSU's competition to the Patriots and the Steelers? Because that's what it sound like you are doing. The competition FSU has played has one great team, no more no less, at least until Miami plays someone. Lets see what Miami does against ND before we anoint them even a very good team.

(10-23-2017 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

That makes little sense. What if Alabama had played the New England Patriots three times and the Pittsburgh Steelers three times, and was 1-2 versus both, thus 2-4 overall. By your reckoning, we should write them off as a non-quality team when Auburn plays them later this year.

Hint: SOS matters. Sagarin says FSU has played the #1 toughest schedule in the country so far.

The Steelers and Patriots are in a different ecosystem. If they were in ours, then Alabama would not be rated as high as they are.

SOS does matter. If you go far enough down the rabbit hole, however, there has to be some human judgment or intervention, a starting point. FSU is likely playing the toughest schedule in college football because all of the teams that beat them....beat a FSU team that was ranked #2 opening the season.

If you broke it down to just the data, I imagine we would come up with a very different list of rankings.

(10-24-2017 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 07:31 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 07:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 02:04 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  OK, then we completely disagree on quality. IMO, it's a moving target. For example, I go down to the first team with a losing record, in this case 2 and 4 FSU, and take the teams above them. I'm sorry but I can not call a team with a .333 winning % as a quality team regardless of who they played. To win every 3 game means you're not winning enough for that designation.

That makes little sense. What if Alabama had played the New England Patriots three times and the Pittsburgh Steelers three times, and was 1-2 versus both, thus 2-4 overall. By your reckoning, we should write them off as a non-quality team when Auburn plays them later this year.

Hint: SOS matters. Sagarin says FSU has played the #1 toughest schedule in the country so far.

What if I played golf with Jordan Spieth and he gave me three strokes a hole and I beat him? My statement makes about as much sense as Alabama playing the Patriots and the Steelers. First Alabama could play the Patriots 100 times and never beat them, but that's another story.

I wanted to reply to this substantively, but even after reading it 3 times, I still have no idea as to what you're trying to say.

My point stands: A 2-4 record doesn't necessarily indicate a non-quality team. In fact, as my Patriots/Steelers example indicates, it could mean you are a great college team, depending on who you have played.

In this case, FSU just dropped another game to a less then stellar opponent getting blown out at BC. In this case, can we stop talking about FSU as if they are the same FSU that used to be good every year. This is not their year to be good, period, reminiscent to the Arkansas team a few years ago that was pre-season ranked 8th and finished 4 and 8 or something like that!