College Football Thread - Pandemonium Reigns!

[MRT144]

Originally posted by DanS


Yes, that's a major factor. And all the guys who washed out of the program in the transition.

why have teams that beat navy, air force, perdue, etc etc, this year had lower recruiting class ranks in 2004 and 2005 then?

in other words, why are you losing to teams this year that have never recruited better than you, and why are teams that have not recruited better than you beating these same teams?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MRT144
why have teams that beat navy, air force, perdue, etc etc, this year had lower recruiting class ranks in 2004 and 2005 then?

in other words, why are you losing to teams this year that have never recruited better than you, and why are teams that have not recruited better than you beating these same teams?

Very, very good point. And I think the answer is because Weiss just isn't that good of a coach.

I mean Rutgers just beat down on Navy, and I know its recruiting classes haven't been as good as ND's. And Schiano is a very poor gameday coach on top of that.

[MRT144]

I really believe that developing talent is more important than recruiting it. I suppose you could make a lack of senior and junior talent and leadership but it is on weiss to do that. he has had at least 2 years to develop that though.

I don't know why people are defending weiss though. fans are supposed to be loyal to the team first, not the coach.

[MRT144]

as for teams that had worse recruits since 2002 to 2006 (from teams that had at least 1 top 25 classes)? and had a better record in the 2005 and 2006 seasons?

notre dame (avg rank of 21 past 5 years) 76%

penn state (avg rank of 32 recruiting past 4 years) 80.45%
viriginia tech (average rank of 32 past 4 years) 80.77%
boston college (average rank of 36 past 4 years) 76%
west virginia (average rank of 43 past 4 years) 88%

both penn state and west virginia also won BCS games.

i will figure out the standings if I include this season AND i will also figure out top 25 victory% for the past 2 years and this one.

[DanS]

As stated, the last 2 year's guys (2006 and 2007) could be world-beaters, but they're still freshmen and sophomores, so we don't know. They should be removed from consideration. There are fewer positions where freshmen and sophomores make an impact than you might imagine.

As for winning percentage, you will have to consider strength of schedule as well. Sagarin's will do.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by DanS
As stated, the last 2 year's guys (2006 and 2007) could be world-beaters, but they're still freshmen and sophomores, so we don't know. They should be removed from consideration. There are fewer positions where freshmen and sophomores make an impact than you might imagine.

As for winning percentage, you will have to consider strength of schedule as well.

oh, im working on that too. SOS and top 25 winning %.

regardless, penn state and west virginia have done better than ND 2005-2006 with worse recruiting. they also actually won their BCS games.

[DanS]

The BCS is a whole 'nuther topic, but suffice it to say that since ND doesn't have a traditional bowl tie-in, the matchups were made on business grounds rather than competitive grounds. That's how a ranked 10-ish ND squad plays teams that the following year are in the championship game (I'm assuming that LSU makes it to the game this year).

[MRT144]

if that is the case then why tout that they have been to BCS games back to back

[DanS]

Because they have. They earned the bid under the rules in place.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by DanS
Because they have. They earned the bid under the rules in place.

and they lost both games. So they should get kudos for getting a BCS game but they shouldnt be held accountable for losing them?

they shouldnt get kudos because they lost both of them or they should get half kudos. either way, I still think Penn State has done better.

2005-2006, notre dame had the lowest winning % vs top 30 teams among the top 15 teams of 2005-2006 and had the 3rd hardest schedule among the top 15 in 2005-2006

[MRT144]

nevermind, flawed methodology.

[SlowwHand]

OMG. I robot.

[MRT144]

This is how I rank the teams based on what they have done over the past 3 years with respect to their SOS and Recruiting.

if you have a strong SOS and won a medium % of games you received more points than if you had a weak SOS and won a high % of games.
if you had bad recruiting you got more points for when you did well, and if you had good recruiting and you did well you got less points.

This will help explain why teams like Texas and Oklahoma are rated below Stanford. Stanford not only had a tougher SOS they also had much worse recruiting. Texas and Oklahoma had some of the best recruiting but they did not have a tough SOS nor did OK actually play very well with their SOS.

West Virginia has a very weak SOS but their recruiting isn't that good and they do win a high % of their games.

think of it this way. WV has done Good with Poor against Poor. Texas has done Good with Good against Poor. I rate WV higher because of it. USC has done Good with Good against Good. that is why they are rated highly. Stanford has done Poor against The Best with The 2nd Worst.

BC
oregon
usc
ucla
florida
ohio state
lsu
west virginia
michigan
penn state
virginia tech
georgia tech
cal
Stanford
az state
texas
tennessee
washington state
texas tech
oklahoma
iowa
georgia
illinois
south carolina
arizona
auburn
notre dame
nc state
alabama
maryland
virginia
UW
florida state
nebraska
clemson
north carolina
miss state
michigan state
kansas state
colorado
oklahoma state
perdue
arkansas
texas a&m
pitt
miami-fl
ole miss

[-Jrabbit]

The U must be very proud...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Man, the curse of #2. Dixon out for game, super early, and Brady Leaf just decides to give the game to Arizona.