(09-26-2010 05:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  BTW, after that stellar week, the WAC dropped further. Still #9, but C-USA is just a point behind.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

Boise's SOS is 19th ... give it 2 to 3 weeks in WAC play and it will be sub-50. By the end of the year it'll probably be in triple digits.

By virtue of not losing to the MAC, the ACC actually rose to #4. Well, more accurately the Big 10 fell to #5.

How are we #74 and Boise #3 on the SOS?

As rankings stand now, we play, AP rankings, #1 Alabama, #15 Arkansas, #10 Auburn, #12 LSU, and hell, we dismantled fellow WAC member Fresno who has a #47 SOS ranking.

Boise plays/played an over-ranked #10 VT, #24 Oregon State, #25 Nevada, and a bunch of f'n WAC teams.

(09-27-2010 07:20 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 05:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  BTW, after that stellar week, the WAC dropped further. Still #9, but C-USA is just a point behind.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

Boise's SOS is 19th ... give it 2 to 3 weeks in WAC play and it will be sub-50. By the end of the year it'll probably be in triple digits.

By virtue of not losing to the MAC, the ACC actually rose to #4. Well, more accurately the Big 10 fell to #5.

How are we #74 and Boise #3 on the SOS?

As rankings stand now, we play, AP rankings, #1 Alabama, #15 Arkansas, #10 Auburn, #12 LSU, and hell, we dismantled fellow WAC member Fresno who has a #47 SOS ranking.

Boise plays/played an over-ranked #10 VT, #24 Oregon State, #25 Nevada, and a bunch of f'n WAC teams.

Because you haven't played those teams yet. It's SOS of who you have actually played. The Sagarin is computer derived. As such it is strictly based on games that have already been played.

(09-27-2010 08:16 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-27-2010 07:20 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 05:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  BTW, after that stellar week, the WAC dropped further. Still #9, but C-USA is just a point behind.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

Boise's SOS is 19th ... give it 2 to 3 weeks in WAC play and it will be sub-50. By the end of the year it'll probably be in triple digits.

By virtue of not losing to the MAC, the ACC actually rose to #4. Well, more accurately the Big 10 fell to #5.

How are we #74 and Boise #3 on the SOS?

As rankings stand now, we play, AP rankings, #1 Alabama, #15 Arkansas, #10 Auburn, #12 LSU, and hell, we dismantled fellow WAC member Fresno who has a #47 SOS ranking.

Boise plays/played an over-ranked #10 VT, #24 Oregon State, #25 Nevada, and a bunch of f'n WAC teams.

Because you haven't played those teams yet. It's SOS of who you have actually played. The Sagarin is computer derived. As such it is strictly based on games that have already been played.

...then.....how do they have Sagarin rankings before the 1st football game is even played?

(09-27-2010 08:25 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-27-2010 08:16 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-27-2010 07:20 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 05:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  BTW, after that stellar week, the WAC dropped further. Still #9, but C-USA is just a point behind.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

Boise's SOS is 19th ... give it 2 to 3 weeks in WAC play and it will be sub-50. By the end of the year it'll probably be in triple digits.

By virtue of not losing to the MAC, the ACC actually rose to #4. Well, more accurately the Big 10 fell to #5.

How are we #74 and Boise #3 on the SOS?

As rankings stand now, we play, AP rankings, #1 Alabama, #15 Arkansas, #10 Auburn, #12 LSU, and hell, we dismantled fellow WAC member Fresno who has a #47 SOS ranking.

Boise plays/played an over-ranked #10 VT, #24 Oregon State, #25 Nevada, and a bunch of f'n WAC teams.

Because you haven't played those teams yet. It's SOS of who you have actually played. The Sagarin is computer derived. As such it is strictly based on games that have already been played.

...then.....how do they have Sagarin rankings before the 1st football game is even played?

Based upon previous year.

That makes no sense. Their preseason SOS is based on a schedule already played? What f'n good are they?

(09-27-2010 08:42 AM)Rebel Wrote:  That makes no sense. Their preseason SOS is based on a schedule already played? What f'n good are they?

Exactly. This is why there should be no AP or Coach's polls until like week 3 or 4. It's all just a beauty pageant until you get into the season some.

(09-26-2010 08:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 06:48 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 05:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2010 03:58 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  How do you know how they'd perform against these teams? History shows them playing fairly well.

Being there every week against decent to hard competition is alot more difficult than showing up 3 times a year for decent to hard competition then punching the clock.

Complete conjecture. We'll never know how they'd play week-in and week-out because the "elite" teams won't play them week-in and week-out. It's a great argument because it can never be proved false.

To see my argument in action, look at March Madness. It's actually TO THE ADVANTAGE of the "little guy" there because the number of scholarship athletes you need to field an elite team is FAR lower than football. And still -- how often to the "little guys" make it even to the Elite Eight?

2010: Butler
2009: Villinova
2008: Xavier, Memphis, Davidson
2007: Memphis, Georgetown
2006: Memphis, George Mason, Villinova
2005: None
2004: St. Joseph's, Xavier

Looks like the little guys do quite well when given a chance.

(09-28-2010 02:47 AM)jh Wrote:  2010: Butler
2009: Villinova
2008: Xavier, Memphis, Davidson
2007: Memphis, Georgetown
2006: Memphis, George Mason, Villinova
2005: None
2004: St. Joseph's, Xavier

I'll give you those, except Memphis, Georgetown, and Villanova. If you're selling out NBA arenas, you're not the little guy any more. Two out of those three play in the Big East for cryin' out loud.

So the revised board looks like:

2010: Butler --> Runner Up
2009: None
2008: Xavier, Davidson --> Both lost in Elite Eight
2007: None
2006: George Mason --> Lost in Final Four
2005: None
2004: St. Joseph's, Xavier --> Both lost in Elite Eight

Butler made it all the way to the title game in 2010 and lost to Duke. That's the first time since I've followed sports that I can recall a little guy making it to the title game, but I am a much more casual college basketball fan.

(09-28-2010 08:13 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-28-2010 02:47 AM)jh Wrote:  2010: Butler
2009: Villinova
2008: Xavier, Memphis, Davidson
2007: Memphis, Georgetown
2006: Memphis, George Mason, Villinova
2005: None
2004: St. Joseph's, Xavier

I'll give you those, except Memphis, Georgetown, and Villanova. If you're selling out NBA arenas, you're not the little guy any more. Two out of those three play in the Big East for cryin' out loud.

So the revised board looks like:

2010: Butler --> Runner Up
2009: None
2008: Xavier, Davidson --> Both lost in Elite Eight
2007: None
2006: George Mason --> Lost in Final Four
2005: None
2004: St. Joseph's, Xavier --> Both lost in Elite Eight

Butler made it all the way to the title game in 2010 and lost to Duke. That's the first time since I've followed sports that I can recall a little guy making it to the title game, but I am a much more casual college basketball fan.

Memphis is a CUSA team. How does that not count as a little guy? Just because they've managed to make themselves successful is no reason not to count them. In fact, one of the ways they've made themselves successful is by making deep tournament runs. That's the whole point. They took advantage of the relatively equal chance and improved their program. So much so that you no longer consider them one of the little guys.

You can argue about Georgetown & Villinova if you want to. They don't have Division 1A football teams so they aren't really part of the big boys club. Take them off the list if it floats your boat.

You are either young, have a bad memory, or are using a strange definition of little guy if Butler is the first one you remember even making the final. Utah made the final during the mid to late 90s & UNLV made it a couple of times, winning the whole thing at least once. And yes, both Utah and UNLV are little guys.