This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
8/22/2013 9:10 AM
As with most rankings, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish.   Almost every major power plays a cupcake or two.  The SEC almost has to schedule one to give themselves a break.   For instance, the top 6 SEC teams play Chattanooga, GA Southern, App State, Furman, Coastal Carolina and Sam Houston State.   And they'll still have some of the toughest schedules in CFB(except 'bama and that's probably because they don't have to play themselves while missing GA, SC, FL this year).  Seems like it's a wash as to whether you include FCS teams or not.   
8/22/2013 10:31 AM (edited)
I've said for years I think you need to scale the teams better.  There is practically no difference between a team ranked 90 and a team ranked 125.  You also put way too much emphasis on every game.  On any given schedule there are only about half to 9 games that truly matter i.e. games that could be realistically close (they all aren't always close and some are close that shouldn't be, but that is a different thing).  I mean is anyone going to pay attention to Ohio State's game against Buffalo to start the year.  The game just doesn't matter in the scheme of things (at least the 999,999 times out of a million that OSU does what it should).  There is no way that game should have an equal bearing on Ohio State's ranking as the game at Michigan to close the year.  You seem to have this notion that every game counts, which just isn't true.  Only the losses and the good wins count, the **** game wins don't (unless virtually your whole schedule is **** games, call that the Boise State problem).

I think you could capture this if you just treated every teams worst 3 wins the same.  Lets say Buffalo, Florida A&M and San Diego State end up as the three worst wins for Ohio State (they may they may not, but just for the sake of argument).  Just treat them the exact same way you treat Colorado St., Georgia State, and Chattanooga (the likely 3 worst wins for Alabama).  And on and on.  Now sure this might pose problems when you start getting the crap teams at the end of the year, but the reality is no one really cares about rankings past the top 25-50 teams any way, so who really cares, especially for a ranking like yours that is supposed to be used for determining playoff teams.

8/22/2013 10:34 AM
One could argue that only pre-season ranking and losses count.    If any of the AP top 10 go undefeated, with the possible exception of Louisville, they're in the BCS championship.   I suppose it's possible that 5 of them could(B10, PAC12, SEC, ACC and AAC all have reps) but that seems highly unlikely. 

I assume colonels is attempting to start everyone at 0 and work from there. 
8/22/2013 1:16 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2013 10:34:00 AM (view original):
One could argue that only pre-season ranking and losses count.    If any of the AP top 10 go undefeated, with the possible exception of Louisville, they're in the BCS championship.   I suppose it's possible that 5 of them could(B10, PAC12, SEC, ACC and AAC all have reps) but that seems highly unlikely. 

I assume colonels is attempting to start everyone at 0 and work from there. 
If any team from those conferences went unbeaten (and there were 2 or less of those teams) they would go to the BCS Championship regardless of where they were ranked in the preseason.  Auburn is a very recent example of this.  I am not a fan of preseason rankings, but they don't keep deserving teams out of games by the end of the year. 
8/22/2013 1:27 PM
And Louisville?
8/22/2013 2:40 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):
And Louisville?
If they are 1 of only 2 unbeaten teams then yes I think they will play for the national title.  They certainly could have helped themselves a bit more by having a better non-con, but I think overall they should have a good enough schedule to get there, especially coming off the big bowl win last year they have that momentum in the voters eyes.  The one caveat would be a major unbeaten and a 1 loss Alabama (that wins the SEC).  I think in that situation, Alabama would be ahead of them and playing the other unbeaten for the title.
8/22/2013 2:55 PM
That's exactly what I was thinking.    I think it's also possible that a 1 loss Stanford or Oregon(assuming the loss is to the other) could top Louisville.

Which basically means Louisville, or the AAC, isn't a lock with an unbeaten season.  Which I think is what you claimed when you contradicted me.
8/22/2013 3:17 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2013 10:34:00 AM (view original):
One could argue that only pre-season ranking and losses count.    If any of the AP top 10 go undefeated, with the possible exception of Louisville, they're in the BCS championship.   I suppose it's possible that 5 of them could(B10, PAC12, SEC, ACC and AAC all have reps) but that seems highly unlikely. 

I assume colonels is attempting to start everyone at 0 and work from there. 
I'm planning to release my first rankings on 10-7-13...I normally let 4 or 5 weeks pass before I put out the first ones, sooner would be pointless.
8/22/2013 3:36 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):
That's exactly what I was thinking.    I think it's also possible that a 1 loss Stanford or Oregon(assuming the loss is to the other) could top Louisville.

Which basically means Louisville, or the AAC, isn't a lock with an unbeaten season.  Which I think is what you claimed when you contradicted me.
I contradicted your assertion that preseason rankings determine those things.
8/22/2013 3:44 PM
Posted by moranis on 8/22/2013 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I've said for years I think you need to scale the teams better.  There is practically no difference between a team ranked 90 and a team ranked 125.  You also put way too much emphasis on every game.  On any given schedule there are only about half to 9 games that truly matter i.e. games that could be realistically close (they all aren't always close and some are close that shouldn't be, but that is a different thing).  I mean is anyone going to pay attention to Ohio State's game against Buffalo to start the year.  The game just doesn't matter in the scheme of things (at least the 999,999 times out of a million that OSU does what it should).  There is no way that game should have an equal bearing on Ohio State's ranking as the game at Michigan to close the year.  You seem to have this notion that every game counts, which just isn't true.  Only the losses and the good wins count, the **** game wins don't (unless virtually your whole schedule is **** games, call that the Boise State problem).

I think you could capture this if you just treated every teams worst 3 wins the same.  Lets say Buffalo, Florida A&M and San Diego State end up as the three worst wins for Ohio State (they may they may not, but just for the sake of argument).  Just treat them the exact same way you treat Colorado St., Georgia State, and Chattanooga (the likely 3 worst wins for Alabama).  And on and on.  Now sure this might pose problems when you start getting the crap teams at the end of the year, but the reality is no one really cares about rankings past the top 25-50 teams any way, so who really cares, especially for a ranking like yours that is supposed to be used for determining playoff teams.

I am not in favor of that at all...this is just like rewarding the same number of points in an Indy Car race for 15th place through 25th place.  It's the FCS games that seem to bog teams down and I think my proposition would eliminate a lot of the "problem".  Each game should carry equal weight, because nothing is worse than a conglomerated SOS based on overall W-L, and I can't stand when I hear/see the talking heads on CBS/ESPN talking about 6 games out of 35 when it comes to the NCAAB tournament either...it's just ridiculous.
8/22/2013 4:27 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 8/22/2013 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2013 10:34:00 AM (view original):
One could argue that only pre-season ranking and losses count.    If any of the AP top 10 go undefeated, with the possible exception of Louisville, they're in the BCS championship.   I suppose it's possible that 5 of them could(B10, PAC12, SEC, ACC and AAC all have reps) but that seems highly unlikely. 

I assume colonels is attempting to start everyone at 0 and work from there. 
I'm planning to release my first rankings on 10-7-13...I normally let 4 or 5 weeks pass before I put out the first ones, sooner would be pointless.
4-5 weeks might be pointless.    GA opens with Clemson and then gets SC.   5 weeks in they could be 3-2.   And still be a top 15 team by pretty much any standard but record. 
8/22/2013 4:39 PM (edited)
Posted by colonels19 on 8/22/2013 3:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moranis on 8/22/2013 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I've said for years I think you need to scale the teams better.  There is practically no difference between a team ranked 90 and a team ranked 125.  You also put way too much emphasis on every game.  On any given schedule there are only about half to 9 games that truly matter i.e. games that could be realistically close (they all aren't always close and some are close that shouldn't be, but that is a different thing).  I mean is anyone going to pay attention to Ohio State's game against Buffalo to start the year.  The game just doesn't matter in the scheme of things (at least the 999,999 times out of a million that OSU does what it should).  There is no way that game should have an equal bearing on Ohio State's ranking as the game at Michigan to close the year.  You seem to have this notion that every game counts, which just isn't true.  Only the losses and the good wins count, the **** game wins don't (unless virtually your whole schedule is **** games, call that the Boise State problem).

I think you could capture this if you just treated every teams worst 3 wins the same.  Lets say Buffalo, Florida A&M and San Diego State end up as the three worst wins for Ohio State (they may they may not, but just for the sake of argument).  Just treat them the exact same way you treat Colorado St., Georgia State, and Chattanooga (the likely 3 worst wins for Alabama).  And on and on.  Now sure this might pose problems when you start getting the crap teams at the end of the year, but the reality is no one really cares about rankings past the top 25-50 teams any way, so who really cares, especially for a ranking like yours that is supposed to be used for determining playoff teams.

I am not in favor of that at all...this is just like rewarding the same number of points in an Indy Car race for 15th place through 25th place.  It's the FCS games that seem to bog teams down and I think my proposition would eliminate a lot of the "problem".  Each game should carry equal weight, because nothing is worse than a conglomerated SOS based on overall W-L, and I can't stand when I hear/see the talking heads on CBS/ESPN talking about 6 games out of 35 when it comes to the NCAAB tournament either...it's just ridiculous.
It isn't like 15th and 25th in an individual race.  Wins are wins, points are points (though if you actually want to look at it it would be like treating 90 and 125 the same which is a lot different).  You want to claim that beating the 90th ranked team is 35 points higher than beating the 125th, but there isn't that sort of difference in those teams.  Nothing like beating 1 as opposed to beating 36.  That is a huge difference. 

Not all games matter.  That is just reality.  No one pays attention to the crappy wins on a schedule.

8/22/2013 5:44 PM
If you aren't factoring in all games played on a schedule, then you're doing an injustice to the system/rankings/etc.  You can't pick and choose, they ALL count.
8/22/2013 7:09 PM
Aren't you suggesting, in your first post, that you might not count some of them?    Make up your mind.
of 2

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.