USC and NDSU

Donate To GopherHole
dpodoll68 said:
Normally, your misplaced USC homerism is obnoxious, but it is welcome ammunition in this instance.
Click to expand...

lol...glad i could be of assistance...err...amusement...both?

i am a gopher fan too...and hopefully will have more to cheer about next year.

rabble rabble rabble
 

Dean S said:
USC was the worst of the 10 - 2 teams IMO. We don't know if USC would have been 11-2 or 10-3 since they did not play in a bowl game. Since the cutoff for a 13 - 1 team was somewhere between the ranking of 14 - 18, a 10 - 2 team like USC certainly could fall between 20 - 25. I have seen stranger results over the years.
Click to expand...


Huh?
Are you arguing that a 10-3 USC team would have been ranked 20-25? I don't think you have seen stranger results than this USC team being ranked #25 if they finished with 3 or even 4 losses.

It feels like you're trolling USC on a Gopher message board.
 

I think we'll learn a lot about Lane Kiffin's true coaching ability next season. If he can get them into the mindset of "we gotta show the world USC is back," I could see them being VERY good next season.
 




Unregistered User said:
NorDak had one punt vs. the Gophers this year and it was 31 yards. The Gophers had one punt also, and it was 48 yards.

Do you think that the overall season average might have something to do with the quality of the athlete pressuring the punter?
Click to expand...

No. But I'm impressed by the single-point extrapolation conclusion you drew about the two punters.
 


14 - 18 depends on the final poll you use. Houston was ranked 18, if I remember correctly, by USA Today. They were ranked 14 by AP. In either case, voter history has shown extreme bias in some voter cases. So, the whole thing is a kind of a sham. How does a 13-1 record not achieve a higher ranking than 14? When USC has not played the extra game, how can people claim they would have deserved to be ranked as high as 5 when we don't know who they would have played and if they would have won that extra game. Seems a bit of a stretch to give them that automatic nod to greatness above so many others who who did and won with similar regular season records. The only fair place to put them, while on probation, is at the bottom of that pool. Thus, my initial eye ball test of 20 - 25 wasn't so far out of the question, especially when Houston was ranked 18 by USA Today (Don't knock me for stating it. I didn't put them there.) I really don't think blowouts of mediocre teams (see UCLA) deserve extra credit.
 

Houston is ranked 18 because they lost to Southern Miss in a game that didn't even feel close. It's not like when Boise lost to TCU, 2 teams that have a perception of being high-quality teams (even though TCU didn't do that well compared to normal this year). USC is ranked 5 because they beat the Pac-12 Champion, took Stanford to like triple OT, and stomped on their rival UCLA right at the end of the season. May not make sense to you that that got them ranked so high, but USC also has that perception of being a great team.
 



Dean S said:
14 - 18 depends on the final poll you use. Houston was ranked 18, if I remember correctly, by USA Today. They were ranked 14 by AP. In either case, voter history has shown extreme bias in some voter cases. So, the whole thing is a kind of a sham. How does a 13-1 record not achieve a higher ranking than 14? When USC has not played the extra game, how can people claim they would have deserved to be ranked as high as 5 when we don't know who they would have played and if they would have won that extra game. Seems a bit of a stretch to give them that automatic nod to greatness above so many others who who did and won with similar regular season records. The only fair place to put them, while on probation, is at the bottom of that pool. Thus, my initial eye ball test of 20 - 25 wasn't so far out of the question, especially when Houston was ranked 18 by USA Today (Don't knock me for stating it. I didn't put them there.) I really don't think blowouts of mediocre teams (see UCLA) deserve extra credit.
Click to expand...

Houston's strength of schedule is #97 according to Sagarin. USC's strength of schedule was #33. Case closed.
 

RodentRampage said:
Houston's strength of schedule is #97 according to Sagarin. USC's strength of schedule was #33. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Sagarin starts with prior season bias as a starting point, reference the SOS. So, as this rolls forward, it gets minimized, but the effect has already occured and it continues to spread into the season.

What SOS did Jeff Anderson-Chris Hester, Richard Billingsley, Wes Colley, Kenneth Massey, and Peter Wolfe give Houston? They count in the BCS just as much but less than the coaches poll and the AP Writers polls. Since the so called unbiased computer polls start with the previous years rankings as a starting point for SOS, and that the early season AP and Coaches poll probably have some prior season bias, don't you think that Houston has no way of proving its ability by being left out of the upper tier games? Of course they get robbed, jobbed, and bobbed.
 

The AP poll has zero role in the BCS process.

At least one, and probably several, of the computer rankings in the BCS rely solely on the current year's data for their rankings.
 

It doesn't change the fact that USC's strength of schedule was much stronger than was Houston's.
 



dpodoll68 said:
The AP poll has zero role in the BCS process.

At least one, and probably several, of the computer rankings in the BCS rely solely on the current year's data for their rankings.
Click to expand...

Harris poll is included.
Coaches poll is included.
Richard Billingsley uses carries a team's rank over from previous year.
1 of the 6 publish their formulas. Your guess is as good as anyone what is actually in the formula.

OOG knows nothing.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom