M
MontyBrunswick
Oct 24, 2010 10:26pm
Hawaii doesn't appear to be shaping up to be terrible. They have a questionable loss over Colorado, but their only other loss is a 36-49 loss to USC in week 1. They also beat Nevada last week.
wildcats20
Posts: 27,794
Oct 24, 2010 10:27pm
dlazz;531551 wrote:Realistically, I can see any of the top 10 teams losing in the coming weeks except Boise and Bama.
Bama will lose to LSU on 11/6. Night game in Tiger Stadium.
Oh and don't forget that highly intense game with Georgia St. A FIRST year team for football.
Z
ZombieKiller
Posts: 817
Oct 24, 2010 10:28pm
Boise St isn't going to lose. They aren't like Ohio State and lose to teams they should beat
M
MontyBrunswick
Oct 24, 2010 10:36pm
wildcats20;531574 wrote:Bama will lose to LSU on 11/6. Night game in Tiger Stadium.
LSU has underperformed all season. As far as I'm concerned, Auburn eeking out a win yesterday shows that they aren't very good either.
As a whole, the SEC is turning out to be overrated. Auburn and Oregon will both lose in the coming weeks. I think the final BCS rankings will look something like:
I wouldn't be too shocked to see Boise/Bama title game.
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
Oct 24, 2010 10:40pm
ccrunner609;531598 wrote:Boise doesnt have to play at Camp Randall either
No, they do have to play at Idaho though. Camp Randall is nothing compared to the Kibbie Dome. I'd like to see Ohio State try to get a win there.
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
Oct 24, 2010 10:43pm
Alabama is the only complete team in the SEC. Auburn's defense is bad. LSU's offense is bad. There really aren't any other good teams that come to mind. It is really a joke that a one loss Alabama is in great shape to climb back into the top 2, while Wisconsin and Ohio State are too far out of reach.
Z
ZombieKiller
Posts: 817
Oct 24, 2010 10:45pm
ccrunner609;531598 wrote:Boise doesnt have to play at Camp Randall either
Boise St would show up and beat Wisconsin
Z
ZombieKiller
Posts: 817
Oct 24, 2010 10:45pm
Cleveland Buck;531611 wrote:No, they do have to play at Idaho though. Camp Randall is nothing compared to the Kibbie Dome. I'd like to see Ohio State try to get a win there.
Ohio State is afraid to travel anywhere out of conference
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
Oct 24, 2010 10:49pm
ZombieKiller;531630 wrote:Ohio State is afraid to travel anywhere out of conference
This is true. That's why we had USC and Texas play us at FedEx Field so we didn't have to face them in true road games. Oh, wait.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Oct 24, 2010 10:53pm
the_system;531395 wrote:Who would you have above Missouri? They're undefeated and have wins over a #1 team and nice wins over a pretty good Illinois team and drilled Texas A&M. Everyone below them has a loss except Utah and their schedule is junk.
Bama.
Agreed on Utah. I have them 10th or so.
M
MontyBrunswick
Oct 24, 2010 10:54pm
LOL'd.Cleveland Buck;531640 wrote:This is true. That's why we had USC and Texas play us at FedEx Field so we didn't have to face them in true road games. Oh, wait.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Oct 24, 2010 10:56pm
dlazz;531572 wrote:Hawaii doesn't appear to be shaping up to be terrible. They have a questionable loss over Colorado, but their only other loss is a 36-49 loss to USC in week 1. They also beat Nevada last week.
Buddy and I were talking about Hawaii last night too. Could be a sleeper team. They have that typical high school offense.
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
Oct 24, 2010 10:58pm
Hawaii is decent relative to the other teams in their conference. In other words, they are garbage.
darbypitcher22
Posts: 8,000
Oct 24, 2010 11:06pm
ZombieKiller;531630 wrote:Ohio State is afraid to travel anywhere out of conference
That's why we've been to USC and Texas and are going to Miami, Cal, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, and Tennessee in the next 10 years
M
MontyBrunswick
Oct 24, 2010 11:09pm
Cleveland Buck;531658 wrote:Hawaii is decent relative to the other teams in their conference. In other words, they are garbage.
I suppose. But they do run a "different" offense than what most teams are used to. Kind of like Air Force, difficult to prepare for.
Expect Shotgun 5WR sets all night.
Z
ZombieKiller
Posts: 817
Oct 24, 2010 11:10pm
darbypitcher22;531668 wrote:That's why we've been to USC and Texas and are going to Miami, Cal, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, and Tennessee in the next 10 years
those are some awesome teams
OQB
Posts: 6,679
Oct 24, 2010 11:41pm
Alabama will beat Auburn that should be there only loss....
B
bo shemmy3337
Posts: 962
Oct 25, 2010 12:06am
I don't really understand the complaining about AQ schools jumping NAQ teams who are unbeaten. Well all would agree that if Alabama were to go unbeaten, they would be number 1 so why in the hell would Auburn not deserve it now? Bosie and TCU are only going to get in the tittle game if there are no undefeated teams in the AQ conferences. Anyone who does not see this is crazy IMO. Also OSU dropped as far as they did after there loss because of the computer poll. (remember they were really only number 5 in the BCS before the Wisconsin game so they did not drop that far in the BCS IMO)
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Oct 25, 2010 12:15am
OrrvilleQB;531406 wrote:I don't really care where the Bucks are ranked, but does anyone else think it's a little weird that no other #1 team that lost fell as far as Ohio State did.....
Oklahoma fell to exactly the same spot as OSU did in the Coaches/AP (though OU was ranked #3 in those). There was no BCS rankings the week before OSU lost, so it's hard to compare that.
F
fan_from_texas
Posts: 2,693
Oct 25, 2010 10:24am
ptown_trojans_1;531341 wrote:Ehh, I like Oregon at number 1, but Auburn still has to play Bama and Georgia.
I'm not sold on Auburn either with an OT win to Clemson, and 3 point victories to UK and Miss St.
OSU at 11 is fine for now. Wisconsin should be ranked ahead of them. Oklahoma ahead of OSU is a stretch to me, but w/e.
Missouri that high is interesting and I wouldn't have them that high, but we'll see this weekend against Nebraska.
Sparty at 5 is very interesting. If they beat Iowa, it is not outside the realm of possibility for them to head to the title.
If the BCS computers could consider margin of victory (like the pollsters do), the rankings would make more sense. As it is, it's a travesty that they have to consider Oregon's blowout of UCLA the same as if Oregon had struggled and pulled at a one point victory. It's silly not to treat that differently.
B
bigkahuna
Posts: 4,454
Oct 25, 2010 10:53am
I don't understand the difference in the 6 different computers. What is each one doing?
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Oct 25, 2010 11:04am
I'm not too worried about OSU right now. If they win out things will take care of themselves. If they don't it won't matter.
I am hoping for all the undefeated AQ teams to get a couple of losses so we get Boise and TCU in the championship game. It would be a nice step towards getting rid of the stupid BCS.
I am hoping for all the undefeated AQ teams to get a couple of losses so we get Boise and TCU in the championship game. It would be a nice step towards getting rid of the stupid BCS.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Oct 25, 2010 11:33am
fan_from_texas;531869 wrote:If the BCS computers could consider margin of victory (like the pollsters do), the rankings would make more sense. As it is, it's a travesty that they have to consider Oregon's blowout of UCLA the same as if Oregon had struggled and pulled at a one point victory. It's silly not to treat that differently.
Yeah, but they had margin of victory originally in there. But the coaches wanted it taken out, as their argument, I believe, was it encouraged running up the score. I'm not sure how you adjust the model to fit in margin of victory, but not lead to running up the score against teams.
OQB
Posts: 6,679
Oct 25, 2010 11:34am
ts1227;531723 wrote:Oklahoma fell to exactly the same spot as OSU did in the Coaches/AP (though OU was ranked #3 in those). There was no BCS rankings the week before OSU lost, so it's hard to compare that.
true, I just find it weird....
F
fan_from_texas
Posts: 2,693
Oct 25, 2010 11:40am
ptown_trojans_1;531958 wrote:Yeah, but they had margin of victory originally in there. But the coaches wanted it taken out, as their argument, I believe, was it encouraged running up the score. I'm not sure how you adjust the model to fit in margin of victory, but not lead to running up the score against teams.
Any sort of logarithmic function removes this. As long as the returns diminish (and perhaps are capped at 28 points or so), you're not going to see people running up the score. E.g., winning by 28 is not four times as good as winning by 7, and winning by 56 may only be 1.1 times as good as winning by 28--the returns diminish drastically. I don't think we'd see people running up the score anymore than they do now to impress the pollsters, who definitely take MOV into consideration.