Don't get me wrong, I had NT+6 tonight but they are out played by S Miss in this game. Both defense are playing exceptionally well, while S Miss take TO and turn it into pts. GL on the rest of the bowls.
I guess strenght of Schedule does make a difference?
- Thread starter kenman
- Start date
Joe De said:
:142smilie :142smilie :142smilie
Joe, not laughing at you, the way you word it crack me up. You are a repected capper here and I coattail your Don't Laugh plays all the time. GL the rest of the bowls game Joe.
In bowl games strength of schedule/ conference strength is one of the main things you look at, now you know. But theres other factors invoved as well, listed in order of importance to me: scores and how they play away from home, team stats, injuries, location of the game (which team is closer, if the team parties, or thinks of it as a vacation), players looking to go the the NFL (especially QB's), and weather. I dunno they are all the things I look at. Normally works for me. Look at all these elements and you can see why N Texas lost. And no, I'm not trying to rub it in, just trying to teach you how to learn from your mistakes as I always try to see what I overlooked when I lose. And then again there is always luck invovled in the game, which no one can account for, but then again thats the beauty of gambling, no matter how much a team should win, they always have a chance of losing, that chance is due mostly to turnovers and penalties. Just some thoughts, you can take it or ignore it
soljah67 said:
Good pts and I agree with you. Do you focus on OOC play? Reason I ask is how do you know how good a conf. or more importantly a "specific" team is if they are not tested by anyone outside of conf. play. You left out OOC play as a criteria you look at. So I was just curious. Also, who's SOS do you use? Second, do you ever use power ratings as a tool? If yes, who's? Lastly, I never really thought about players who might go to NFL (QB's) as a factor in handicapping. Good point!
See this is part of how I cant see how helpful SOS can be because fact is it is stastically flawed, no matter whose you use. First, 3 non-conference games isnt even in the vicinity of being a large enough sample. Second, say a team beats Arizona, Baylor, and Vanderbilt. Those teams suck - period. But in these SOS forumlas those teams look better when thye keep losing to teams like USC and OU and so on. They dont get better simply because someone else beats the crap out of them. And then of course it gets extrapolated further, into conferences where teams just play each other.
Sun Tzu
In Arizona's defense, take a look at their schedule.
You "think" Arizona is a bad team because they are 3-8. THAT IS WRONG!
Arizona lost too Utah, USC, and CAL. All 3 are top 10 teams in the country and 2/3 are playing in BCS bowl games.
Arizona also lost to Wisconsin (by 2pts) who is also a bowl team who finished near the top of the Big 10 conf.
3 of Arizona's other losses were AT UCLA and AT Oregon and Oregon St. (2/3 are bowl teams and 2/3 were on the road)
You expect Arizona to be above 500 with that schedule????
GIVE ME A BREAK!
That is why the Pac 10 does not get respect. People just look at wins/losses. People like to reward teams for beating/playing cupcakes. TAKE A FREAKING LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE! Pac 10 teams play tough schedules, PERIOD! All Pac 10 teams are TESTED!
If Arizona scheduled like the SEC, they would have 5 & maybe 6 wins, and remember, 6 wins gets you a bowl game! PERFECT EXAMPLE TO SUPPORT MY ARGUMENTS! :142lmao:
Just because Arizona is 3-8 does not mean they are a bad team. Not saying they are a good/great team, but please do not compare them with Vandy or Baylor.
This is a team who finished NEAR the bottom of the conference. Says a lot about how tough of schedules the Pac 10 teams as a conf. play.
In Arizona's defense, take a look at their schedule.
You "think" Arizona is a bad team because they are 3-8. THAT IS WRONG!
Arizona lost too Utah, USC, and CAL. All 3 are top 10 teams in the country and 2/3 are playing in BCS bowl games.
Arizona also lost to Wisconsin (by 2pts) who is also a bowl team who finished near the top of the Big 10 conf.
3 of Arizona's other losses were AT UCLA and AT Oregon and Oregon St. (2/3 are bowl teams and 2/3 were on the road)
You expect Arizona to be above 500 with that schedule????
GIVE ME A BREAK!
That is why the Pac 10 does not get respect. People just look at wins/losses. People like to reward teams for beating/playing cupcakes. TAKE A FREAKING LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE! Pac 10 teams play tough schedules, PERIOD! All Pac 10 teams are TESTED!
If Arizona scheduled like the SEC, they would have 5 & maybe 6 wins, and remember, 6 wins gets you a bowl game! PERFECT EXAMPLE TO SUPPORT MY ARGUMENTS! :142lmao:
Just because Arizona is 3-8 does not mean they are a bad team. Not saying they are a good/great team, but please do not compare them with Vandy or Baylor.
This is a team who finished NEAR the bottom of the conference. Says a lot about how tough of schedules the Pac 10 teams as a conf. play.
Scot4USC I totally agree with you on the PAC 10, they don't get respect. I feel this is gonna be another 2001 season I think when Washington and Oregon State went to the BCS games. I normally look at Sagarin's ratings, but never look at the team rankings as those could be messed up, because of teams in weak conferences (Like 10-0 Harvard). His conference rankings are at:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc04.htm
But yeah I usually look at teams with star players who are looking at going to the NFL because they NEED to have a good game. Look last years game with Miami Ohio made me a Roethlisberger believer that he should have been the #1 pick in the draft as he is better right now. Eli Manning may eventually be better, but he was better from the start. Anyways, some college teams with these NFL prospects (other than the obvious from ranked teams) are Oregon State's Andersen, Hawaii's Timmmy Chang, Toledo's Gradkowski, Bowling Green's Omar Jacobs, Miami Ohio's Josh Betts.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc04.htm
But yeah I usually look at teams with star players who are looking at going to the NFL because they NEED to have a good game. Look last years game with Miami Ohio made me a Roethlisberger believer that he should have been the #1 pick in the draft as he is better right now. Eli Manning may eventually be better, but he was better from the start. Anyways, some college teams with these NFL prospects (other than the obvious from ranked teams) are Oregon State's Andersen, Hawaii's Timmmy Chang, Toledo's Gradkowski, Bowling Green's Omar Jacobs, Miami Ohio's Josh Betts.
I said Arizona solely because of record - wasnt meant to slam at them or Baylor so saying they suck wasnt appropriate. But they sure aint good in the grand scheme of things. At least Az will be at some point. I was trying to simply say with names "play 3 cellar dwellers" to accentuate the point Believe it or not Scott, there can be a bad team or 2 Pac-10 - you know, just like any conference. There are alot of teams better than their records, many who are worse. But those are subjective views - views which arent applicable (supposedly) to computers. In short, a team that beats X team - let's say Vandy - doesnt suddenly get even better the next week when Vandy loses to Georgia or wins against a crap team, and so on - but the computers say they do via SOS. Or another way, a computer would rank Vandy higher for going 0-2 against USC and OU than if they lost to any other two teams. They sure as hell arent any better because of who they lost to. If you had 2 winless teams one would be ranked higher because they lost to better teams - with no objective computer-type reason to think either would win a game against the other's schedule. We see this in the BCS computers every year - some random game is important becasue one team played a team that played a team. That's just nuts.
