tschu

cool rebounding effort, petteway. sheezus.

Need more of that from Pitchford. Strong.

We need to make this game as ugly and terrible as possible to have any chance of winning

So far, rousing success

Awesome Games Done Quick ...it's that time of year again. For Prevent Cancer foundation this time, so a good cause.

The stream: http://www.twitch.tv/gamesdonequick

The schedule: https://gamesdonequick.com/schedule

Tomorrow has a great lineup.

I'm going to have to figure out how to watch The Daily Show, but aside from that I have no worries.

I think you can watch full episodes on Comedy Central's website

I think we pay like $120 for cable + Internet. Sadly I watch way too many sports on way too many channels and I don't want to give that up. If it wasn't for sports I'd be fine - I rarely watch anything else

Please don't take my last post as being an ass. But, how in the heck can you make that judgment like you asked when things constantly change in college football?

How the heck can you make any prediction? Yet as sports fans we do this all the time. There's a Contest Crib every week asking us to predict the final score of the game. Who knows? What about Nebraska? Maybe Nebraska will win 7 games next year, maybe we'll win 12, who knows? But we can make educated guesses. I'm just curious what others' educated guesses are. Lighten up.

I'm not saying that's what WILL happen, I'm saying this is what's most likely to happen based on how the college football landscape has set itself up going forward. Next year I will evaluate on its own merits, period. I have no dog in the fight. I don't care when my predictions go wrong.

I am defensive coordinator. Do I get to take away the blackshirts when my defensive players are posting badly?

ERIC MARTIN FOR EVERY POSITION

Man I really think Helu > Burkhead but I understand why Burkhead is winning

Thanks for your input, but this is the part where you post your rankings and reasoning, not just blind disagreement I understand that people are going to disagree with me, and I'm not even going to argue with anyone. So let's hear it!

Alright so here is a question going forward and one that I don't know the answer to but have some opinion on, which is this:

How would you rank the conferences

A) next year

B) for the overall next 5 years

I think that for 2015 it is very clearly

1. SEC

2. Pac

3. Big 12

4. Big Ten

5. ACC

And for the next 5 years

1.SEC

2. Pac

3. Big 12 = Big Ten

5. ACC

I think FSU will take a step back next year, and depending on how DeShaun Watson develops, Clemson could be the class of the ACC for the next couple years. Oklahoma had about as disappointing a year as any team in the entire country this year, and Texas has yet to get established in the Strong era. With any sort of quarterback whatsoever, they'll be back to winning soon. TCU and Baylor both have Top-10 coaches in the nation and have devoted resources to winning. They are going to be winning programs going forward. But Kansas State without Snyder will likely regress, Gundy is not a good coach IMO, and West Virginia is likely a perennial 7-8 win team. Meanwhile the Big Ten looks to be on the way up, but Michigan won't be back next year, Wisconsin might take a step back, Nebraska and Penn State is still in quasi-transition modes (who knows?) and the bottom of the Big Ten continues to be atrocious.

The Pac-12 is super interesting and I'm not sold on their future, but Oregon will win as long as Knight is there. USC isn't going to win championships under Sark, but they'll win 8-9 games a year. UCLA might be in trouble if (when) Mora jumps to the NFL, and same with Stanford and Shaw (NFL loves Shaw). Arizona and Arizona State both look like they have bright futures, and Washington remains a huge wild card. The Peterson era has been disappointing so far there. Cal and WSU - who knows, they seem to be content putting up 60 points a game and not fielding a defense. But at any rate, the California/Arizona recruiting grounds are super fertile. Pac will keep being strong.

Hard to see any league being better than the SEC over the next 5 years though. As long as the best recruits in the nation continue to be produced in their backyard and the likes of Saban, Miles, Richt, Bielema, Mullen, etc stay there, they'll be the best over the 5-year period. It's simply hard to beat the geographical advantage in recruiting, especially when the league also has a perception advantage and a recruiting rules advantage. Anyways, the two teams I'm most interested in seeing what happens going forward are Arkansas and Tennessee.

But I am interested in seeing others' opinions as well.

The fact that Nupolo has even been mentioned in the HC pole is mind numbing.

I'll say it again, Polo is 100% the most deserving HC this year

That's why this is run weirdly, imo should be all the most "prestigious" positions voted on first, then on down the ladder. So HC, then the Coordinators, then the QB/RB/WRs, then the LBs, so on so forth. Like I get that the idea is to nominate only the posters who fit the descriptions, but we all know this is mostly just a visibility/popularity contest and that that's not how it usually works. So you get people like Moraine who is deserving of a better spot being voted in for Equipment Manager. (which is actually why I'm voting for my least favorite candidates for the Recruiting Intern and Equipment Manager positions). If the goal of the mods is to "shake things up" and whatever so that it's not just a popularity contest, then fine.

Although don't get me wrong Moraine, you getting to handle all of the guys' equipment is kinda funny...

lol if he posted what i think he posted, then wow

It was awful

Quite the disparity between betting markets and Sagarin for the Birmingham Bowl (7 points vs. 14 points)

Florida currently up by 11 in the 4th quarter.

Having fewer playoff spots than power conferences is flat-out stupid.

So Oregon was -7.5 against FSU and are also -7.5 against Ohio State in the title game. Who ya got?

I was pretty certain that Oregon was at least a TD better than FSU if not more, plus a bit of a HFA, so I put my biggest bet of the year on them last game. But I also think that Ohio State is significantly better than FSU. So if anything I tend to lean Ohio State +7.5 here? I have little conviction either way so I'm not going to put any money on it.

Buster it depends on whether you count sheer volume, or are using a weighted average or a central mean. Obviously a central mean is probably best. The Pac-12 has 6 teams roughly within that range, and if you stretch it a little bit you can include a seventh in Arizona, just like I stretched the SEC a bit to say you can include that 9th team in Texas A&M. But obviously there are only 12 teams in the Pac-12. That's why the margin isn't huge.

I'm obviously not gonna bother to reply to deedsker's stupidity

 

I can't get past the parts of your post where you clearly still think the SEC is some amazingly dominating conference that is so much better than all the rest.

 

Sorry, there just isn't any facts that prove that.

 

I've never said that; in fact, I've posted probably 10 times in this thread that they're the best conference but that it's not by a big margin. (The margin over the B1G is pretty sizeable though.) But thanks for playing.

Is that the NFL version of floating your name for the Michigan job in order to get a raise?

You might want to check that math.

 

Ok, so now that the Missouri game is over, I did a simple rudimentary exercise to see how well the SEC has performed compared to how the betting market expected them to perform prior to the bowls being played. Pretty cool the results that I found:

 

 

The SEC as a whole has underperformed by just 2 points per game. They're basically performing just like Vegas has expected them to perform. Almost exactly, really. (Note: Alabama and Tennessee have yet to play obviously). In fact, every team except the set of quadruplets from the SECW have actually outperformed their spread. Basically what this tells us is that any gloom and doom about the SEC is massively overstated. But, perception is a weird and fickle beast.

 

I'd like to do this for Sagarin's predictions as well, but I'll have to find an archive from early December, as his ratings update daily and will thus have some bowl outcomes already reflected in them, and I'd like to see the change that bowls may have had - can't use data that already has this factored in. I'll get around to that eventually.

 

This is not how you should be calculating the average point difference per game. You're letting negative and positives differentials offset each other. You should be using the absolute value of the differentials. For those ten games you get a sum of 144. So the average point difference was 14.4 points. This is only the average point differential and doesn't indicate who it was in favor of. But it does indicate the Vegas's spread was, on average, off by about 2 touchdowns. Which, in my opinion, seems pretty significant.

 

If that was my goal, that's what I would have done. But it wasn't. It was to get an idea of how over or under-rated (or over- or under-performing in the bowl games, as a whole) the SEC was. Yes, Vegas spreads are always off because of variance, that's how it works. My goal was to see if they were consistently off by a meaningful margin in one particular direction.

Meh. The SEC may only have one top-5 team in Bama (although man, Georgia might still be a legitmate top-4 team), but they still have 9 top-20 power teams. I don't know whether you call that top-heavy or what you call that.