PonyFans.com

http://cfn.scout.com/2/592469.html

Prove 'em wrong, Mustangs!

That poll is BS. We moved down after beating Tulsa. We were 84th before Houston, stayed 84th after Houston, and moved down after Tulsa. They must be smokin' something strong.

Coming from the same brain trust who has Tulsa listed at #66. So fear not!

CFN is a joke.

PerunaPunch wrote:Coming from the same brain trust who has Tulsa listed at #66. So fear not!

and an 0-11 duke as 89th out of 119 and ahead of marshall, tulane and utep. they must stop paying attention after about 30th.

Seriously, look at the source.

It's a website run by a bunch of guys who probably played HS football, but couldn't conjugate their way out of a standardized test.

Hoofbeat83 wrote:

PerunaPunch wrote:Coming from the same brain trust who has Tulsa listed at #66. So fear not!

and an 0-11 duke as 89th out of 119 and ahead of marshall, tulane and utep. they must stop paying attention after about 30th.

Personally, I'd rate Duke about 134th out of 119.

According to SI here is C-USA:

#30 Houston
#48 Tulsa
#55 USM
#59 ECU
#68 SMU
#69 Rice
#78 UTEP
#83 Marshall
#89 Tulane
#97 UAB
#103 UCF
#111 Memphis

(I'm very displeased with SI. It says SMUt instead of SMU and they have Michigan State listed as SMU)

Their positions are not that far off from Sagarin's, which puts Rice 61 and SMU 88. It appears to be the SMU SOS that's pulling you downward:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm

texd wrote:Their positions are not that far off from Sagarin's, which puts Rice 61 and SMU 88. It appears to be the SMU SOS that's pulling you downward:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm

Sagarin is also dumb.

How do you know? His ratings are strictly based on a mathematic formula and he doesn't pretend to rank teams otherwise. I think it provides an interesting yardstick. I have no real problem with SI's rankings either except Tulsa's rated slightly too high-in fact I believe all CUSA teams are rated slightly too high. All the top CUSA teams have lost some games to each other but Tulsa is at 7 wins SMU is at 6.

Sagarin Ratings:
54. UH
58. Tulsa
59. Southern Miss
60. ECU
61. Rice
88. SMU
92. Marshall
93. UTEP
110. Tulane
112. UAB
116. Central Florida
149. Memphis

I actually believe that Sagarin's ratings are more realistic in showing you where SMU and CUSA is in relation to the rest of Colllege Football EXCEPT that as you get down toward the bottom Division 1AA teams start creeping in because they rolled up big scores against other Division 1AA schools. I wish he did an adjusted Division 1A ranking of only Division 1A schools. The difference between Rice and SMU is an issue but I don't think it is too unfair based upon the quality difference between the two schools schedule. SMU really hasn't proven this to be unfair because although we beat a much higher Tulsa we also lost to a lower rated UTEP and much much lower rated NTSU at 142. BTW in an adjusted Sagarin rating of Division 1A schools ONLY SMU would be at No. 81 which is right about on the money in my opinion.

Rice's OOC included Texas, UCLA, and Fla. St. t's not surprising would be rated higher than us.

Sagarin has two problems in my opinion. First, what he really thinks isn't his "sagarin rankings." The Sagarin rankings that are used don't factor in margin of victory, which he thinks you should do. He does provide his "PURE POINTS" numbers, which he thinks are more indicative. The other problem is beyond the top 50 or so, the ratings get completely out of whack due in no small part to one-loss and undefeated I-AA teams.

Other computer polls in the BCS:

http://www.colleyrankings.com/currank.html

http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootball/ratings.htm

http://www.cfrc.com/Ratings_2006/WK_13.htm

http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf

KnuckleStang wrote:Rice's OOC included Texas, UCLA, and Fla. St. t's not surprising would be rated higher than us.

and Army.