Started By
Message
re: The first Sagarin rankings of the season are out
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:25 am to JuiceTerry
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:25 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
Pretty sure he was agreeing with you.
well then, maybe i need more coffee. ill stop posting so im not misconstrued as a douche.
2
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:25 am to RightHook
quote:
ill stop posting so im not misconstrued as a douche.
I have always considered you the bag.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:25 am to DCRebel
quote:
By the end of the season, they're pretty good.
Week one's not really a good time to judge anything.
Yep.
These rankings get pretty good when there are a lot of data points.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:30 am to DCRebel
quote:
Sagarin puts a LOT of weight into strength of schedule,
How do they know the strength of anyone's schedule? Everybody who won this weekend has played nothing but winless teams so far. Everybody who lost has played only undefeated teams.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:30 am to MrAUTigers
quote:
I have always considered you the bag.
thats a horrible thing to say, but whats worse is that im reusable. cant just dispose of me.
ima stop cause i almost just vomited.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:38 am to DCRebel
quote:
Vandy gets a bump for playing temple as opposed to UT-Martin, but that doesn't explain why Arkansas is so low or why Florida is so high.
If Sagarin has an idea of strength of schedule when no one has played yet, how in the world does beating West Virginia (4-8 last year) rate higher than beating South Carolina or Clemson? Or for that matter, how does beating WVU or Arkie rate higher than beating Wisconsin or Boise St.?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:38 am to RightHook
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:41 am to Nuts4LSU
Cuz Alerbayma iz da bayest.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:43 am to gatorsimz
quote:
A couple more rainouts and we're top 10
Kinda like us in 2005, when Katrina delayed our season. We went from about #6 or #7 in the polls up to #4 without even playing. Hell, a couple more hurricanes that year and we might've won the NC.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:49 am to Rig
quote:
These ratings suck
In fairness to Sagarin or any set of rankings, the whole concept of rankings is flawed to begin with. The truth is that there is no consistent linear hierarchy of teams from 1 through 126. Because of differences in matchups, philosophies, etc., Team A can be better than Team B, which can be better than Team C, which can be better than Team A. There is no order in which all three teams can be ranked correctly, but fans demand ordered rankings, so we have them.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:54 am to RightHook
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
I'm agreeing with you.
I'm agreeing with you.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:55 am to RightHook
quote:
ill stop posting so im not misconstrued as a douche.
Nah, no problem.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:01 am to DCRebel
would rank TAMU higher, Alabama (slightly) lower, and Auburn higher. The rest seem pretty good with only one game played. Lots of upside for Florida and South Carolina to move up steadily.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:20 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
Florida has no stength of schedule
lol?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:22 am to DCRebel
I think State is better than UT and Ole Miss, other than that the order of SEC teams looks good.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:32 am to DCRebel
quote:
2. Alabama
quote:
9. Auburn
quote:
17. Florida
quote:
39. State
these rankiings make no sense...
some get nods for playing cupcakes, some dont....
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:47 am to DCRebel
The most worthless ranking . . . until around the 10th week. Especially this year
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News