tschu

No, that's not what I'm doing. You just automatically assume that's the only thing others do. They get credit for winning games. But when trying to determine which conferences are better, it does no good to look at intra-conference games. You have to see how they did against outside competition to really know anything. But the SEC chooses to play precious few games OOC to protect themselves. There is no measure of what has actually taken place on the field this year that says the SEC is better than the Pac-12. The Pac-12 was 8-3 against other Power 5 teams this year; the SEC was 5-6. The Pac-12 is currently 4-1 in bowl games; the SEC is 4-3. The computers are nice in that they give you a way to compare teams that largely haven't played each other. But once you have actual on-field performance to look at, the computers don't mean much. How did the Sagarin predictor fare in telling us what would happen in the Peach Bowl or the Orange Bowl? Or do we not care what actually happened in the game because the computer said it shouldn't have happened that way? This is like beating my brain against the wall. You have, again, picked "Power 5 teams" as if that means something (ignores the fact that some P5 teams are horrible while some non-P5 teams are good) while also completely ignores the individual matchups themselves, and pointed to records in 5 games, with no margin of victory figures included in your analysis whatsoever, and attempted to draw a conclusion from it Meanwhile, Sagarin draws the data from every matchup between every team, and as a part of its very analysis calculates what team ratings best fit the results on the field that have actually occurred, in every game, using the actual game score data - yes, margin of victory. You also don't seem to understand variance - Ohio State outperformed their Sagarin/Vegas expectation in the B1GCCG by 63 points - something that you'd actually expect to occur once out of every 100 or so games anyway. That's why I rightfully put virtually no stock into any one individual game outcome - it could be meaningful or meaningless. The only way to know is to look at it as part of a larger data set. Like, a whole entire season for example. "But once you have actual on-field performance to look at, computers don't mean much" is a total non sequitur. It does not make sense as a statement. The computers draw their inferences directly from the on-field performances. Anything other obvious things that I need to point out for the thousandth time?

think mine is tschubauer

I'm choosing to NOT ignore an entire season's worth of body of work in favor of pointing fingers at two bowl game results and going "SEEEE????" That's what I'm doing. Carry on doing whatever it is that you're doing. All those losses do is knock those teams down a couple of ratings points and knock the SEC down a slim amount in their lead over the Pac-12. You can't ignore them - they count just as much as any other game. No more, no less. Any loss of rating by the SEC per LSU/Ole Miss is probably made up by the amount Georgia gained by beating down Louisville and Arkansas by destroying Texas. They're up to 2 in Sagarin Predictor and Arkansas is 11.

When that's the only decent OOC opponent you play, there's not a lot else to compare between conferences. Ole Miss beat Boise State by 22 points. Boise State is currently winning the Fiesta Bowl. If you want to play this silly game again.

Have we reached the part of the year where 1 bowl game overrides all else? Appears we have

a;lskdfj;alskdjfa;slkfja;lskfj

This is rough

Oh sh#t Well sh#t

looooooooooooool @ that entire sequence and shavon over the scorers table!

walter peeeeee fore threeeeeeee

SANDSTORMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Some fuckwad has been getting into your apartment?

Well, time will tell on this one We all knew it was coming though

I think that rule is going to prevent people from being elected to positions that they would fit well in and deserve Not that this is a big deal, but since in and of itself we have a bunch of different rules and stipulations apparently it has at least a little bit of meaning

This is true . . . and quite different than the false claims made by Brownback and company when they touted that their supply side economics would prevent a drop in revenue. I'm not sure how many times we are going to have to rediscover that cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue. We just haven't cut taxes nearly enough, that's all

You failed miserably. Sorry that you're a baby boomer, it's not your fault

Let's kill them. Seriously. Like. Gas chambers. Round 'em all up and put them in labor camps in the meantime. Excuse me?

I can't wait until all the baby boomers are dead Worst American generation that ever lived, and my generation has to live with the consequences