]]>
so i guess davis was wrong and joe schad was right or very close to it. schad says a few more are still under consideration to be held out.
out
DT Austin, CB Brown, CB Burney, WR Little, DE McAdoo, DE Quinn, RB Draughns, DR Euwell, S Gupton, TB Houston, S Searcy, S Smith
known waiting
LB Carter, S Williams, LB Sturdivant
i don’t see how davis’s head doesn’t roll.
]]>
]]>
Been impressed with some of Southern Miss’s drives though and not impressed at all with South Carolina’s offensive line, looks horrid. USC’s receivers look pretty good, nice and tall. If the offensive line gives Garcia time they might be scary.
]]>These would be the most competitive games to watch, based on your Pick ‘Em picks.
Flip a coin, it should be a good one:
Washington
12
BYU
14
I should try to catch this one on TV:
Minnesota
17
Middle Tennessee
9
Colorado
17
Colorado State
9
Connecticut
9
Michigan
17
Pittsburgh
19
Utah
7
---------------------------------
And here are the rest:
Could be interesting:
Northwestern
20
Vanderbilt
6
Richmond
5
Virginia
21
Villanova
5
Temple
21
Bowling Green
5
Troy
21
Boise State
5
Virginia Tech
21
Cincinnati
21
Fresno State
5
I’ll just check the ticker:
LSU
22
North Carolina
4
Navy
22
Maryland
4
Purdue
4
Notre Dame
22
Kentucky
23
Louisville
3
Hey, it could happen:
Oregon State
2
TCU
24
Southern Miss
1
South Carolina
25
Southern Methodist
1
Texas Tech
25
Forgone conclusion:
Elon
0
Duke
26
fiercey said:
“A “predictor” and a “ranking” are whole different animals…
Team A might be ranked higher than Teams B, C, D, and E because of on-field accomplishments, yet Team E might be tagged by a predictor as likely to win a game vs. Team A but not vs. Teams B, C, and D.
I’m considering tooling around with a predictor behind the scenes this year, though. My rankings are set up to be BCS-computer compliant (no margin of victory, etc.)… although a predictor could use whatever data I want. But it’s a lot of work, which is the big downer.
What I want to see are Sagarin’s weekly rankings… why hide them?”
MJruffalo replied:
I hear this argument from others and respectfully it is nonsense. The main points of contention is usually the venue and MOV factors which Sagarin is able to account for with his algorythm but other systems using less sophisticated math are not. So since they are unable to deal with that very important factor they attempt to simply discount it. Because other systems simply do not account for those factors their ranking are flawed when it comes to determing how strong a team truly is. So when the 2 systems disagree on which team is ranked higher ie better and should win, it is usually the team ranked higher in the Sagarin system that is victorious. Another thing I hear from people who simply do not understand the system is that it is biased towards PAC-10 teams, which again is utter ridiculousness.
--------------------------------------------
Well, that’s an opinion (on your part). If I were putting together a predictor, I would consider Team A’s rushing offense vs. Team B’s rushing defense, Team A’s passing offense vs. Team B’s passing defense, and vice versa… and these factors would get the most weight with respect to and in the microcosm of “Team A vs. Team B”. That’s a very simplistic way to say it, because I have further ideas on how to do it appropriately that I’m not going to get into the discussion of sharing. But, again, that’s an opinion (on my part).
That said, my rankings will be published each week starting post-week 4, and they will remain on my site indefinitely (www.jwagoner.com/football.html). You’re welcome to do the footwork and compare them, as long as you put in the context that one is a ranking and one is a predictor in any published results. But a more apples-to-apples comparison would be my rankings vs. Sagarin’s BCS rankings. In the context of “rankings”, I would posit that mine did better than Sagarin’s for 2009 (again, opinion).
-f
]]>Just remember I told you so…
]]>USC vs. Hawai’i? (38-17 USCw)
]]>