Pac-12 Power ratings - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Pac-12 Power ratings (/thread-10524.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Pac-12 Power ratings (/thread-10524.html)
Pac-12 Power ratings - BostonCard - 11-02-2015
1) Stanford: U-G-L-Y, but still a win, and good teams manage to win even when they play poorly.
2) Utah: Bounce back from the game against USC to beat OSU easily. The game at Washington is suddenly quite meaningful.
3/4) LA schools: When good USC comes to town, they are better than UCLA. But bad USC comes to town a bit too often. Both teams had closer games than they should have against overmatched opponents, but a win is a win, and both have two-game winning streaks.
5) WSU: If moral victories counted, WSU would be higher.
6) Oregon: It's clear that Oregon + Adams is a better team than without; but still, we are talking about an OT win over ASU on a last minute TD.
7) Washington: Raise your hand if you saw the beatdown of Arizona coming. Like Oregon, it is clear that UW + Browning > UW - Browning.
8) Cal: Raise your hand if you've heard this song before. Hot start for Cal gets everyone buzzing, followed by a collapse down the stretch. Important game against Oregon this week.
9/10) Arizona schools: It's hard to believe given the pre-season hype, but the territorial cup may be a battle to secure a bowl berth. I'd like to think ASU has the edge here, with four tough but winnable games to get two wins but Arizona only needs one win in three (though it will be an underdog in all).
11)Â Colorado: Actually, I am a touch nervous about our game there, not because I don't think we will win, but because of the magnitude of the disappointment if we don't.
12) Oregon State: Sadly I don't see a conference win for them this year.
BC
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - stupac2 - 11-02-2015
(11-02-2015, 05:34 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:11)Â Colorado: Actually, I am a touch nervous about our game there, not because I don't think we will win, but because of the magnitude of the disappointment if we don't.
Yeah, that would be a Clemsoning. Especially if their starting QB doesn't play.
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - CTcard - 11-02-2015
See http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=13449.0
And putting two teams on one line is cheating ... the whole point of ranking is to rank them.
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - StanfordMatt - 11-02-2015
In their current form, SC is clearly #2 in my opinion. Big dropoff between them and third.
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - Cardinal96 - 11-02-2015
(11-02-2015, 09:08 PM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:In their current form, SC is clearly #2 in my opinion. Big dropoff between them and third.
I think Vegas would agree with you.
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - Stymie - 11-02-2015
Sagarin has the toejams @#7, 3 ahead of us.
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - CTcard - 11-02-2015
(11-02-2015, 09:17 PM)Stymie link Wrote:Sagarin has the toejams @#7, 3 ahead of us.
The love for $C in the computer rankings is not completely intuitive. They have two really good wins - large margins over ASU and Utah, they have a close win over c.a.l. and two blowouts over terrible teams. Of their three losses, two were by two scores and another to an iffy UW team. Surprised that points-only schemes have them that high.
On yardage based schemes it's not quite so obvious either, as BC has pointed out on his recent series summarizing per drive stats - though good offenses versus Utah and Stanford would count quite a lot.
If you look at the Massey compilation of a bajillion computer rankings, there are so many options that most every team is all over the map. $C is consistently the best 3 loss team however (which is a far cry from Sagarin and others having them top 10).
http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - stupac2 - 11-02-2015
(11-02-2015, 09:17 PM)Stymie link Wrote:Sagarin has the toejams @#7, 3 ahead of us.
At this point I think more advanced ranking systems have them ahead of us than the reverse. Which seems strange to me, but it'll probably work itself out over the rest of the season.
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - BostonCard - 11-02-2015
At some point, you have to factor in the three losses that USC has suffered. Yes, Stanford and Notre Dame are good teams, and Washington is not bad, so one, even two losses would be understandable even for a good team, but losing three out of the four of the games against top competition (they beat Utah) ought to say something.
BC
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - FarmBoy - 11-02-2015
It's a fun oddity of the computers, but the committee aren't going to take 'SC seriously even if they win out.
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - BostonCard - 11-02-2015
(11-02-2015, 10:00 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:It's a fun oddity of the computers, but the committee aren't going to take 'SC seriously even if they win out.
If they win out, the question is whether they would have a chance at one of the New Years' Six bowls if they won out (but didn't make it to the conference championship game).
BC
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - CTcard - 11-03-2015
Our friend at the Merc chimes in with his Pac 12 Power Rankings.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/11/03/pac-12-football-power-ratings-and-the-leagues-explanation-of-the-mccaffrey-non-fumble/
1. Stanford
2. Utah
3. $C
4. UCLA
5. Oregon
6. ASU
7. WSU
8. c.a.l.
9. UW
10. UA
11. Colorado
12. OSU
Not that different from the folks on here.
Perhaps of more interest, Wilner chimes in on the McCaffrey fumble. He says he talked to the conference VP of Officiating for the scoop. I don't know what exactly he was told, as there are no direct quotations, but it seems to me that the VP told him about the loose ball rule, but Wilner didn't understand and is still focused on the held ball rules.
Quote:Two rules applied as the booth examined the call on the field: Rule 4-2-2-a (Held ball out of bounds) and 4-2-3-a (Loose ball out of bounds).
So in order to overturn the call on the field, the booth needed conclusive evidence that 1) McCaffrey fumbled while in-bounds and 2) that WSUs Ivan McLennan recovered while in-bounds.
The issue for the loose ball out of bounds part is NOT whether McLennan recovered while in bounds, it is whether McCaffrey contacted the ball while McCaffrey was out of bounds and before McLennan had control - which looked like a pretty clear yes to me.
The rule reads,
Quote:Rule 4Â
Section 2
...
Loose Ball Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 3
a. A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is out of bounds, or that is on or outside a boundary line.
Re: Pac-12 Power ratings - BostonCard - 11-03-2015
This one made me laugh out loud:
Quote:10. Arizona (5-4, 2-4)
Last week: 10
Result: Lost at Washington 49-3
Next up: at USC
Comment: After giving up 49 points to a bad offense, Wildcats must be relieved to know their next opponent is completely devoid of playmakers.
Arizona at USC could be u-g-l-y, or maybe USC will Toejam and inexplicably not show up.
BC