PonyFans.com

I see a lot of people talking about this rating system, how is it figured?

<small>[ 10-28-2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: abezontar ]</small>

Some complex mathematical comparison of all teams factoring in margin of victory and home field. He is not divulging his method but it helps to be in the Big XII.

if no one knows how it is computed, and what factors he uses, why his he used as part of the BCS, and why does everyone here talk as though his rankings are the end all and be all?

I saw that, and it doesn't really answer my questions.

People think he's smart, so they listen to what he says. His rankings tend to be somewhat bogus though to people who actually watch the games.

Sagarin. Wasn't that the name of the bad guy in the movie "Star Trek: Generations" that killed Captain Kirk and played by Malcolm McDowell? :hmm:

If anyone is curious I checked the BCS computer rankings for SMU (at least all the ones I could find) and the are as follows (these are the current weekly ratings reflecting the Tulsa game):
Anderson & Hester (Seattle Times): 117
Richard Billingsley: N/A
Colley Matrix: 117
Kenneth Massey: 176
New York Times: 114
Jeff Sagarins: 173
Peter Wolfe: 216

TCUs
AH: 5
RB: 10
CM: 8
KM: 29
NYT: 36
JS: 46
PW: 12
USA/Today: 13
AP: 15

one more quick note, has anyone else noticed that yesterday's and today's pictures of the day both have people that look like they are getting ready for a passionate lip to lip embrace?

<small>[ 10-28-2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: abezontar ]</small>

The great thing about the Sagarins is, there are so many different ways to look at them. For example, many on this board do not care for TCU. So we look and see how much lower their S ranking is than their AP ranking. This feels good, in a sick way. Then we look at SMU's horrible Sagarin ranking. We see that the Citadel is ranked ahead of us. We (or I) know, that as bad as we are, we would beat the Citadel. I've seen the Citadel play. Hell, it's like playing VMI. Literally, 10 percent of the school is on the football team, or something like that. Much has been made of the imperfections of the sagarin ratings. They're really more a conversation piece than anything. I'll go out on a limb and say we would beat all three Ivys that are currently ranked ahead of us.

New Sunshiner's strategy-"Attack the Stat Man!"

Actually I was just looking for more clarification about how the computer ranking systems work. With the AP, and USA/Today at least I know, some guy likes this school better than the other. With the computer rankings they have to be programmed to do that, and I was curious as to what factors make the rankings up, particularly the Sagarins ranking which everyone seems to throw around like it is the end all and be all.

And what is the basis for thinking we can beat anyone ranked above us in the Sagarin or other rankings?
We often fall into a trap that keeps us thinking of SMU in the past. The proud heritage is a distant memory for all of us (and not even that for some) but we think we can beat people who have been historically the downtrodden. I wonder if that is true today. We certainly haven't shown it against say a UTEP who are one of college football's worst over the past 30 years.
The rankings are just the rankings. They give everyone something to talk about but it is hard to verify anything beyond head to head meetings. It is telling though when we are that far below the bottom of the D1 teams.

You guys must really love feeling bad to go to this much trouble to compare rankings etc. just to confirm what we already know...we are 0-8. Okay, we don't presently have one of the great SMU teams of the past, but we have played head to head with at least some of the teams we have played this year. Our biggest problem has been stupid mistakes, stupid penalties and turnovers. We actually held Tulsa to their lowest offensive production in terms of yardage. Two busted coverages lead to 14 points for Tulsa and took the wind out of our sails. We could have and should have beaten Baylor, but an untimely turnover is the margin there. Nevada...ditto. UTEP, a fumble on the two yard line preventing a sure touchdown...who knows what the game would have been like if that fumble doesn't happen. Are we really that much worse than those teams minus the turnovers and busted coverages. I know these are not the elite teams of the nation I am comparing us to, but we aren't as bad as the won/lost record makes us look. Three of the teams we lost to have blown past just about everyone they have played. Those mistakes and turnovers don't reflect so much on talent as it does on focus and bad decision making. One win in any of those early games would have made a big difference in attitude and confidence. The farther down the road we got the more players tried to force things to happen...usually with bad results. So if you want to continue to feel as bad as you can, then keep focusing on the ratings game, or you can try to see some of the good that is out there and appreciate these kids for busting their butts trying to win one for their whinny fans.

<small>[ 10-28-2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: PK ]</small>

The Seattle ratings should be banned... TCU at #5? Which of TCU's wins was most impressive?

Might I suggest:
Tulane 38-35
Arizona 13-10
South Florida 13-10
UAB 27-24
Houston 62-55

Anyone who thinks TCU could beat Texas or Virginia Tech should have their voting privileges revoked. :thumbdown:

I've seen VMI play. We out weigh them on the line by about 75 lbs. per person. Same with most of the Ivy's and most of 1-AA. Delaware, however, would kick our butts.