What's new
By:

BYU Football 2012

CONAN said:
But Sagarin shows the Pac to be the #2 conference the last 10 years yet you didn't disagree with that.
Click to expand...

Right. Again, that's why I wondered if Sagarin (which is used to determine the BCS rankings) considered USC last season (which the BCS did not include in their rankings).

If they did, then I don't know why the Pac 12 was only number 4 even though they had 3 teams finish in the top 10. Either way, the Pac 12 will be much improved this season (I think everyone agrees on that point) so number 4 is not a bad place to start improving from.
 
green said:
This is nothing more than a BYU myth. BYU fan desperately NEEDS to show that the PAC-12 isn't very good, then they can believe that Independence is a good thing. The problem with this is, and it usually the problem with most myths via BYU fan, the facts. The facts say otherwise:

"After I read your post I was curious which two conferences were rated higher. I assumed the SEC was one of them, but I didn't think the Big-12 or the B1G have been better over the last decade. To find out, I went to https://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin-ar chive.htm#foot and did the math myself.

Over the last 10 years, the #1 rated conference was the SEC, with an average ranking of #2.4. The PAC was #2, with an average ranking of #2.9. The Big-12 was #3, with an average ranking of #3.3. The ACC was #4, with an average ranking of #3.5. The B1G was #5, with an average ranking of #4.5.

2011 - PAC #4 SEC #2 B1G #3 ACC #7 Big-12 #1
2010 - PAC #1 SEC #2 B1G #5 ACC #4 Big-12 #3
2009 - PAC #3 SEC #1 B1G #6 ACC #4 Big-12 #5
2008 - PAC #4 SEC #1 B1G #6 ACC #3 Big-12 #2
2007 - PAC #2 SEC #1 B1G #6 ACC #5 Big-12 #3
2006 - PAC #3 SEC #1 B1G #5 ACC #4 Big-12 #6
2005 - PAC #4 SEC #5 B1G #1 ACC #2 Big-12 #3
2004 - PAC #2 SEC #6 B1G #5 ACC #1 Big-12 #4
2003 - PAC #4 SEC #2 B1G #3 ACC #1 Big-12 #5
2002 - PAC #2 SEC #3 B1G #5 ACC #4 Big-12 #1

Ave. - #2.9 - #2.4 -- #4.5 -- #3.5 --- #3.3 "
Click to expand...

I understand falling in love with statistics when it seems to back up your dreams. That's fine.
If your numbers are right, BYU (rated 77.18) is better than Utah (rated 75.92) last year.
The 54-10 must have just been a lucky game, and an outlier and should be thrown out.

Thanks for that, I appreciate it.

green said:
I'll just keep presenting facts, and BYU fans will keep ignoring them:



So, as bad as the PAC-12 is, only the SEC is better.

p.s. you bring up attendance smack...did you see the empty stadium for those late night, November WAC games you guys had? Come on now.
Click to expand...

What facts have you presented? You are now calling Sackofurine rankings as facts? Learn that at the Dave Echoes Skuul of 'biness?

As to any attendance smack, BYU could be 70% full and have as many fans in the stadium as a overfull Rice Echoes stadium. As to your empty stadium vs Wac teams comment, each of the games you are referring to had over 57,000 fans at the game, which is more fans than each and every Utah Home game in existence. Utah has NEVER had that many fans attend one of their home games.

It does warm my heart to see that you are watching BYU games. Thanks for the ratings.

green said:
Those are based on the sagarin ratings, they form the SOS's that everyone uses. There is a link in the post. Here it is again:

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin-archive.htm#foot
Click to expand...

Again, thanks for the link. As I have looked into it more I have come to realize that this system is half copied from a Chess ranking system, and the other half from the prediction system Vegas uses, and averaging them.

I now realize it is something that looks pretty, but has not much substance. If you want to hang your hat on it that much, these are the teams that are better than Utah, that are not part of a powder conference like the Pac 12.

BYU
North Dakota State
Houston
Southern Miss
BYU
Tulsa
Boise State
TCU
BYU
Notre Dame
BYU

There are also 30 teams from "BCS" parasite teams.

This would mean Utah was the 39th best team in the country, which is not bad with all things considered.
Bummer you are still not as highly ranked as BYU according to Mr. Sagarin, but at least you are in a conference that he ranked 4th. Nice, now that is something to hang your helmet on.
 
SaltyDawg said:
No, I think they were 2 or 3. That's why I wondered if USC was factored into the rankings. With 3 teams in the AP top 10, #4 seems a bit low.
Click to expand...

The reason #4 seems a bit low to you (even having 3 teams top 10) is probably because you think teams like arizona, washington state, ucla, cal, oregon state, and colorado are better than most people. Ya the top of the pac 12 was really good, but the bottom was really bad.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Right. Again, that's why I wondered if Sagarin (which is used to determine the BCS rankings) considered USC last season (which the BCS did not include in their rankings).

If they did, then I don't know why the Pac 12 was only number 4 even though they had 3 teams finish in the top 10. Either way, the Pac 12 will be much improved this season (I think everyone agrees on that point) so number 4 is not a bad place to start improving from.
Click to expand...
USC is included in the rankings. Sagarin has Pac12 as #4 last year. You disagree with that but not with these 10-year Sagarin ratings?
 
Wow jazzspazz nice post!
 
A lot of bowing down to Sagarin ratings up in here (unless it hurts Utes in which case Sagarin is confusing).
 
fishonjazz said:
The reason #4 seems a bit low to you (even having 3 teams top 10) is probably because you think teams like arizona, washington state, ucla, cal, oregon state, and colorado are better than most people. Ya the top of the pac 12 was really good, but the bottom was really bad.
Click to expand...

Some of those teams were really bad, some were not that horrible (just not great). Cal, UCLA, Washington State= not that bad.
 
CONAN said:
USC is included in the rankings. Sagarin has Pac12 as #4 last year. You disagree with that but not with these 10-year Sagarin ratings?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with the overall 10 year average but not the #4 last year. What's so confusing about that? Am I supposed to agree with everything a person ever days just because I agreed with 1 thing they said?

There will be aberrations here and there, that's why a 10 year average is a better picture than looking at 1 specific year.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Yes, I agree with the overall 10 year average but not the #4 last year. What's so confusing about that? Am I supposed to agree with everything a person ever days just because I agreed with 1 thing they said?

There will be aberrations here and there, that's why a 10 year average is a better picture than looking at 1 specific year.
Click to expand...
You agree with Sagarin when his numbers help the Utes, but disagree with him when his numbers hurt the Utes. You don't see an issue there? Or is that just a huge coincidence?
 
CONAN said:
You agree with Sagarin when his numbers help the Utes, but disagree with him when his numbers hurt the Utes. You don't see an issue there? Or is that just a huge coincidence?
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. I think in general his numbers are pretty good but not perfect. Over a long period his numbers will be a better indicator than a single random year (which would be subject to an abnormality). This is true with just about any stat.
 
fishonjazz said:
I feel like it is a big loss. He was still young and although he struggled last year, i heard that he had nagging injuries. Plus anytime anyone transfers you lose some depth.
Click to expand...

Experienced depth for sure, but they've got 4 or 5 nice athletes at RB to work with. I'm predicating Alisa goes over 1,000 yards and a #2 back emerges that makes us very happy that Q wasn't here jacking his minutes.
 
SaltyDawg said:
That's simply not true. I think in general his numbers are pretty good but not perfect. Over a long period his numbers will be a better indicator than a single random year (which would be subject to an abnormality). This is true with just about any stat.
Click to expand...
I agree more with that. Sagarin ratings can be useful but they are not an end-all ranking.

But I do find it intereting that you disagree with Sagarin over last year but yet not the last ten years? So the other 9 years you feel are spot-on?
 
CONAN said:
I agree more with that. Sagarin ratings can be useful but they are not an end-all ranking.

But I do find it intereting that you disagree with Sagarin over last year but yet not the last ten years? So the other 9 years you feel are spot-on?
Click to expand...

I don't know if each are spot on, I haven't went through each individual year. I do think the Pac was the # 2 conference during that stretch. He may have them a bit lower than I would put them 1 year, and a bit higher than I would put them another year, but over a longer stretch of time we came up with the same average.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I don't know if each are spot on, I haven't went through each individual year. I do think the Pac was the # 2 conference during that stretch. He may have them a bit lower than I would put them 1 year, and a bit higher than I would put them another year, but over a longer stretch of time we came up with the same average.
Click to expand...
Any year in particular where you felt Sagarin had the Pac10 too high?
 
Duck Rodgers said:
Experienced depth for sure, but they've got 4 or 5 nice athletes at RB to work with. I'm predicating Alisa goes over 1,000 yards and a #2 back emerges that makes us very happy that Q wasn't here jacking his minutes.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I don't know if each are spot on, I haven't went through each individual year. I do think the Pac was the # 2 conference during that stretch. He may have them a bit lower than I would put them 1 year, and a bit higher than I would put them another year, but over a longer stretch of time we came up with the same average.
Click to expand...

Sagarin probably works his stuff on a laptop, from there it's all down hill.
I've seen how he works his formulas and stuff, but can I see the inner workings of the app you use to get your rankings?

Thanks,

Marilyn Vos Savant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top