We just got dissed on espn...

[puc86]

3 minutes ago, MikeG said:

3-2 South Carolina  at #22?

3-2 Utah at #30?

Not saying anything about our ranking-- don't care much at this point BUT-- who in their right mind is looking at this and giving it much credit for being accurate?

 

For South Carolina there only two losses are to the #2 team and the #13 and they have a win over the #38 team. Now does that hold up for the rest of the season? Idk I sent my crystal ball in for warranty repair but from what has actually happened this season it doesn’t sound too far fetched. I trust computers and I miss the BCS, if given my choice I would get remove the human factor from pretty much everything in life.

[puc86]

4 minutes ago, George_Bullnard_Shaw said:

I so wish they'd do rankings like they do hurricane paths. Aggregate computer models.

Me too and as the spaghetti models get more and more data and become less predictive they all seem to point in the same direction. If you think standing out there with a weather vane and some binoculars trying to eye where the storm is is a better idea and that people do anything more than ruin good data, I think you are dumb.

[MikeG]

2 minutes ago, puc86 said:

For South Carolina there only two losses are to the #2 team and the #13 and they have a win over the #38 team. Now does that hold up for the rest of the season? Idk I sent my crystal ball in for warranty repair but from what has actually happened this season it doesn’t sound too far fetched. I trust computers and I miss the BCS, if given my choice I would get remove the human factor from pretty much everything in life.

can we qualify that with more than just rankings at the time of a loss? They lost to Georgia 41-17 and to a decent Kentucky team 24-10. I watched those games. They were not a top twenty five team by any stretch of the imagination. BUt you know-- they are in the SEC losing to SEC teams so-- they must just be amazeballs

[Apis Bull]

1 hour ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Watching the College Football Playoff Top 25 show...David Pollack said we “are the worst 5-0 team in all of football.” He alluded that If ucf should beat us it will not mean anything and will not help them. 

God, I so hope our players are hearing this...

That's okay because we are a 5-0 team

[MikeG]

I wonder who he thinks the worst Heisman trophy winner ever is? 

what is the point of the comment? who knows. Sounds really stupid the more I think about it.

[puc86]

1 minute ago, MikeG said:

can we qualify that with more than just rankings at the time of a loss? They lost to Georgia 41-17 and to a decent Kentucky team 24-10. I watched those games. They were not a top twenty five team by any stretch of the imagination. BUt you know-- they are in the SEC losing to SEC teams so-- they must just be amazeballs

Then the data will resolve itself as more games are played, you don’t need an eye test to predict what hasn’t happened. And if you have made objective criteria your algorithm will better decipher where everyone is force ranked by it than your eyes will, it’s science.  

[MikeG]

Just now, puc86 said:

Then the data will resolve itself as more games are played, you don’t need an eye test to predict what hasn’t happened. And if you have made objective criteria your algorithm will better decipher where everyone is force ranked by it than your eyes will, it’s science.  

I guess. I became wary of these types of computer long ago when we would get excited over where we were in the Sagarin ratings-- untiul we realized they were not indicative of actual strength as much as how good you could schedule top teams.

[Calibull]

2 minutes ago, MikeG said:

I wonder who he thinks the worst Heisman trophy winner ever is? 

what is the point of the comment? who knows. Sounds really stupid the more I think about it.

I hope we're the ugliest undefeated teams they've ever seen at the end of the season. 

[puc86]

3 minutes ago, MikeG said:

I guess. I became wary of these types of computer long ago when we would get excited over where we were in the Sagarin ratings-- untiul we realized they were not indicative of actual strength as much as how good you could schedule top teams.

At least they have actual objective criteria.

[MikeG]

1 minute ago, puc86 said:

At least they have actual objective criteria.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"