OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3 - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to College Football

OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby Free Bagel » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:57 pm

HskrPwr13 wrote:No, 3 losses in the SEC doesnt impress me more than a team that is undefeated in other major conferences. 1 loss, I can buy into that argument/opinion a little better because I can understand the whole "didnt show up one game" type of excuse. 2-losses, and to me, that team is not necessarily the elite, but just one great team among other great teams deserving of a high ranking, but not deserving of a shot over a major conference team that has handled everything in its path. A few years ago I wouldve said the Big East is not deserving of major conference status. In those cases, like a Hawaii, I will not reward them like I would another team with identical proofs.


So basically, what you're saying is that you're rewarding teams for having good teams in their conference even if they haven't played those teams? Sure, the Big 12 has Oklahoma, Texas, and Missouri pulling up their conference strength, but Kansas hasn't played any of them.

What's the difference between Kansas and Hawaii at this point in the season? Kansas State. You're telling me that based on the "facts" a win against a very mediocre Kansas State is the difference between the #4 team and the #19 team? I just want to make sure we're talking about the same Kansas State team here. We're talking about the one that would be the 7th toughest game on most team's schedules, right? The Kansas State Wildcats?

To go a step further, what's the difference between Troy and Hawaii? Florida and Arkansas. If Troy swaps Florida and Arkansas for Hawaii's Louisiana Tech and SE Missouri St then they're the ones sitting at 8-0. While there's no way to tell for sure, I'm fairly confident that Troy would wipe the floor with Hawaii. This is why teams like West Virginia and Boise State won't step up and schedule a real out of conference game, because so many voters feel an obligation to vote based on the "fact" that they haven't lost, so why bother playing USC or LSU when you could play SE Missouri or Tennessee Chatanooga and be better off?

I look at it the opposite way. We're not obligated to vote them high because they haven't slipped up against a mid-major school, they're obligated to show us that they're a good team by beating several ranked teams, and maybe a couple top 10 teams thrown in.

Still looking for a response the below btw...

Free Bagel wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:I'll be glad to endorse any changes to may rankings when someone can point out where my logic is flawed. I guarantee I can either back up my rankings with a schedule comparison or logic comparison (win/loss v. opponents win/loss, opponents rankings, etc.).


Your top 4 teams have played 1 ranked team combined between the four of them, so that bolded part above should be interesting. A handful of the teams around them played more ranked teams, by themselves, in a 1-week span than those 4 teams have played all season combined. You read that right, more ranked teams in your pick of several 2-game spans than those 4 have played in their 28-game span.

Do you not find it the least bit odd that the 5 undefeated teams in the top 25 have far and away the 5 easiest schedules thusfar of the top 25 teams? If that's just coincidence then with those odds, it's time to hit the lotto.

And please don't tell me you said you wanted to bring opponent's win/loss into this. This isn't the NFL, and Western Kentucky is not a tougher game than Auburn.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby statsman88 » Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:11 pm

Good point on Troy, I was debating on whether to rank them at 25 or not this week. They've scheduled 3 SEC teams this year out of conference and play Georgia this week, that takes some guts for a non-power conference team ;-D
Image
statsman88
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 407
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby HskrPwr13 » Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:19 pm

statsman88 wrote:
I definetly don't think VT is that good, and I was surprised when some have them ranked in the top 10, so I agree with you that, I have VT @19

Were never gonna see eye-to-eye if you go by records and I go by who IMO are the best teams, but I will say that Purdue @ 22 with Auburn,Florida, South Carolina and Tennessee under them I cannot see. Purdue's best wins are against Iowa and Northwestern and they have 2 losses. Those 4 teams underneath Purdue are in the best conference and they all have at least 2 good wins.


Honestly, you could probably take the teams I've got ranked 20-35, put 'em in a hopper and I be pretty okay with whatever order the teams came out. I struggled with trying to fill out the final 4-5 spots and yes Purdue I had to look hard at Purdue, Wisconsin, SEC teams, other 2/3-loss teams, and Boise.

How can you be so sure of your rankings despite records? I was pretty darn sure that South Carolina was better than Tenn. Oops. I was pretty sure that Fla was better than UGA. Oops again. I wouldve lost my house if someone wanted to bet me that UCONN would beat the likes of Louisville and USF. I thought Michigan would beat UO and App St. That didnt work out. So couldnt I say that maybe I think Fla would beat KU on a neutral field, yet there is ZERO fact to support that hyposthesis? (See the examples above.) But there IS fact to support the hypothesis of KU being better than Fla, even if one doesnt believe it to be true due to perceived unbalanced scheds or talent gaps.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby Free Bagel » Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:30 pm

HskrPwr13 wrote:How can you be so sure of your rankings despite records? I was pretty darn sure that South Carolina was better than Tenn. Oops. I was pretty sure that Fla was better than UGA. Oops again. I wouldve lost my house if someone wanted to bet me that UCONN would beat the likes of Louisville and USF. I thought Michigan would beat UO and App St. That didnt work out. So couldnt I say that maybe I think Fla would beat KU on a neutral field, yet there is ZERO fact to support that hyposthesis? (See the examples above.) But there IS fact to support the hypothesis of KU being better than Fla, even if one doesnt believe it to be true due to perceived unbalanced scheds or talent gaps.


Yet you do EXACTLY what you're condemning in ranking Kansas 4th and Hawaii 19th (not to mention leaving undefeated DII schools out of your top 25 altogether (I could be thinking of someone else but I believe you had mentioned after week 1 that Appalachian State should be ranked so I'm assuming you'll allow DII schools into your top 25)).

Obviously we are all going to be wrong many times in thinking team A is better than team B. As I've said before, that's why they have a handful of people they trust trying to do it, and why we have a handful of us doing it here, rather than just 1 person. It's all based on opinion. That may suck, but that's the way it is, and as long as there are 119 teams in D1 college football that is always how it's going to be and it's time to get over it.

You seem to be stuck in an almost definite mold moreso than anyone I've ever seen that if team A has a better record than team B, team A must be ranked higher. There are exceptions in your rankings, but far fewer than I've ever seen before. In that case, I don't even know why bother making rankings if they're strictly procedure based. That's how it works in every professional sport, but this isn't pro sports. It's not the NFL, it's not the NBA, it's not the MLB, and it's not even hockey. With 119 teams ranging in talent from "could this team beat the Raiders?" (although there aren't really any teams like that this year) to "could this team beat my 7th grade middleschool team?" it's ridiculous to try and fit that square peg into this round hole.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby Free Bagel » Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:42 pm

HskrPwr13 wrote:I do look at strenght of sched. I also beleive that the SEC is the toughest conference. However, I dont believe theres this wildly wide chasm between the SEC and every other conference. Cripes I swear theres people here who think Vanderbilt could waltz into any other major conference and win it just because they're an SEC team. No, 3 losses in the SEC doesnt impress me more than a team that is undefeated in other major conferences.


I meant to touch on this before and forgot (probably would've just been ignored like the rest anyway though ;)). I think you want so badly to see bias in people and fight for all the conferences that you're taking things in totally the wrong way. Do people think the SEC is better than say, the Big 12? Sure. Do they believe there's this "wildly wide chasm"? Nah, I don't think so.

HOWEVER. Is there a "wildly wide chasm" between a combination of Auburn, LSU, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia vs. Kansas State, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, SE Louisiana, and Toledo? Abso-friggin-lutely.

And really, that's what matters. Who cares whether the SEC is better than the Big 12? Kansas hasn't played the whole Big 12, or any of the top teams in it. You are giving teams credit for conference strength when all they've played are the bottom of the conference.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby HskrPwr13 » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:42 am

Free Bagel wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:How can you be so sure of your rankings despite records? I was pretty darn sure that South Carolina was better than Tenn. Oops. I was pretty sure that Fla was better than UGA. Oops again. I wouldve lost my house if someone wanted to bet me that UCONN would beat the likes of Louisville and USF. I thought Michigan would beat UO and App St. That didnt work out. So couldnt I say that maybe I think Fla would beat KU on a neutral field, yet there is ZERO fact to support that hyposthesis? (See the examples above.) But there IS fact to support the hypothesis of KU being better than Fla, even if one doesnt believe it to be true due to perceived unbalanced scheds or talent gaps.


Yet you do EXACTLY what you're condemning in ranking Kansas 4th and Hawaii 19th (not to mention leaving undefeated DII schools out of your top 25 altogether (I could be thinking of someone else but I believe you had mentioned after week 1 that Appalachian State should be ranked so I'm assuming you'll allow DII schools into your top 25)).

Obviously we are all going to be wrong many times in thinking team A is better than team B. As I've said before, that's why they have a handful of people they trust trying to do it, and why we have a handful of us doing it here, rather than just 1 person. It's all based on opinion. That may suck, but that's the way it is, and as long as there are 119 teams in D1 college football that is always how it's going to be and it's time to get over it.

You seem to be stuck in an almost definite mold moreso than anyone I've ever seen that if team A has a better record than team B, team A must be ranked higher. There are exceptions in your rankings, but far fewer than I've ever seen before. In that case, I don't even know why bother making rankings if they're strictly procedure based. That's how it works in every professional sport, but this isn't pro sports. It's not the NFL, it's not the NBA, it's not the MLB, and it's not even hockey. With 119 teams ranging in talent from "could this team beat the Raiders?" (although there aren't really any teams like that this year) to "could this team beat my 7th grade middleschool team?" it's ridiculous to try and fit that square peg into this round hole.


I'll try to hit all your points. I wasnt ignoring you, I just would see one particular post and respond to it before I saw others.

The first point, which was in another post, regarding "opponents rankings": This is only one factor I use in trying to determine my rankings. I use my rankings as a guide as well as other's rankings.

Regarding your first paragraph: You do have me confused with someone else, as I do not advocate 1-AA teams in 1-A rankings. I think what youre saying is that based on how I rank, that I should have Hawaii ranked right up there with KU, ASU, etc. (?) Its the combination of the 2 facts I have at hand, W/L and SOS. I can say with no dispute that they can beat anyone they play. How do I know this? They've already proven it. This fact cannot be disproven until they lose. Can I say for a fact that LSU would be undefeated with Hawaii's sched? I can assume so, but its still just opinion since the fact I want will never have the chance to be proven. So, I weigh the facts against my opinion. I'll always give more weight to the facts over my assumptions in rankings. The final result is the compromise of the two. So in essence I've punished UH because their schedule doesnt match up well with the other undefeateds or the teams I have above them. But the teams I have below them have no fact based argument to claim they're better than UH since they've at least proven to be beatable teams on multiple occasions. As far as the ones at the top of my rankings, KU, etc., they've beaten good teams and have beaten other teams that have beaten good teams. In the case of KU, beating CU at home is no small task (see OU). I'm not saying its a Herculean task, but the Buffs put up a good fight at home (see their margins of victory/loss at home v. on the road). (Before FSU is brought up, yes, I consider this a good win for them as well, but that alone is not going to get them in my rankings.) You brought up KSU. I dont consider that as nice of a victory as CU since it was at home, but this is the same KSU that hammered a mid-ranked Texas. Now for comparison's sake, I wouldnt consider either one of those wins as good as BC's win at VT for the obvious reasons. Hence why BC is ranked higher than KU. I've got a pretty comprehensive spreadsheet going if I do say so my self :-B . Ultimately, the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not throwing out rankings for the sake of being different. They are based 95% on fact with the other 5% where I'm making my best judgment call where the facts that I have still just arent enough for me to have a 100% accurate assessment compared to other teams (as in the case of UH).

Regarding your second paragraph, I'm not sure what youre implying that I have to get over. I question others because Its fun, but also because I generally feel that most actual rankers dont take their job seriously enough. The real rankings are deciding the two teams have a shot to go down in history as the national champion, and these rankings help determine what bowls teams end up going to, which helps bring in recruits, which brings in fans, which ultimately brings in the cash for the school to keep the program at a top level, and so, and so on....To me this SHOULD be taken pretty damned seriously. Now as far as our own poll, obviously it doesnt matter to that level. The amount of brain power I use on my rankings should be equal or less than the time spent by the rankers that actually matter. I'm not trying to be rude or insulting when I question other posters rankings, I'm just hoping that I getting them to look more critically at them. The whole "It sucks, but nothing I can do about it." attitude is a cop out. Either one has sane reasoning that can be supported by fact or the opinion is bunk. Now by the end of the season, the way some have their rankings may prove to be the way it all shakes out. I give kudos to those that will have prognosticated correctly. I'm more of the flavor that I'll just move my rankings every week as things play out.

As far as your last paragraph, I certainly understand your point about the W/L record. In my post to statsman, I explained that although I think the SEC is the best conference, I think many go overboard in considering 2-3 loss SEC teams as so much better than other teams with less losses because they think the SEC is just so much better. Because I dont buy into that circular logic as much as others, my rankings end up more aligned based on record.
On to the pros. This is one thing the pros actually do right in my opinion. As much fun as it is to bicker about who's better than who, at the end of the day, I want the truly most deserving 2 teams to play for the NC. The concept that pros use is perfect. Its not always executed to perfection, but the logic is sound. This is why I would like cf to go to a balance sched with even number of teams in an even number of conferences where the conference winners make up the playoffs and the rest can go to lesser bowls much like we do now. I dont expect everyone, or many, to agree with me on this. I'm just one that hates lose ends and prefers things to be as symmetrical and fair as humanly possible. (No OCD, just anal.)
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby HskrPwr13 » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:15 am

Free Bagel wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:I do look at strenght of sched. I also beleive that the SEC is the toughest conference. However, I dont believe theres this wildly wide chasm between the SEC and every other conference. Cripes I swear theres people here who think Vanderbilt could waltz into any other major conference and win it just because they're an SEC team. No, 3 losses in the SEC doesnt impress me more than a team that is undefeated in other major conferences.


I meant to touch on this before and forgot (probably would've just been ignored like the rest anyway though ;)). I think you want so badly to see bias in people and fight for all the conferences that you're taking things in totally the wrong way. Do people think the SEC is better than say, the Big 12? Sure. Do they believe there's this "wildly wide chasm"? Nah, I don't think so.

HOWEVER. Is there a "wildly wide chasm" between a combination of Auburn, LSU, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia vs. Kansas State, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, SE Louisiana, and Toledo? Abso-friggin-lutely.


And really, that's what matters. Who cares whether the SEC is better than the Big 12? Kansas hasn't played the whole Big 12, or any of the top teams in it. You are giving teams credit for conference strength when all they've played are the bottom of the conference.


I started responding to your other post before you put on this one, but I got side-tracked. :-b C'mon! Gimme some credit. You read the same posts in this thread and others that I do. I'm not the one creating SEC smoke.

Youre right. Theres a difference in KU's sched v. Fla. Heres what it boils down to, and maybe my previous post covers this, not all of KU's sched are bottom feeders, and at this point, they've beaten them all. This isnt debatable. Would Fla have beaten all of them? You certainly think so, and I would give them a great chance to do it, but it IS debatable. Would KU have a better record than FLA if they played the same sched? Again this is debatable. KU has not proven themselves against a 0-loss (removing the loss to Fla) or a 2-loss team so theres zero info to make a judgment supported by any facts. They have played and beaten 3-loss teams so there is evidence to support the notion that they could beat Aub, KY, UT, and Fla.
Right now Fla is 5-3 (.625) which you feel is currently better than KU's 1.000 against a major conference sched (Softer sched then some, but not near the type of sched of a Hawaii.). So, at the end of the year if Fla IMPROVES to 8-4 (.667) against mostly teams that finish between .400 and .700 (plus an assummption of a 1-loss LSU) and KU ends up with 0 or 1 loss against a sched of teams that finish evenly enough between .100 and .900, you'd rank the 8-4 team higher? I know were not gonna come to a full agreement, but if the answer is an unwaivering, dont have to think about it, "yes", then I dont think we'll ever end up in the same zip code.

I can only FAIRLY judge teams on what they have accomplished, not what they hypothetically cannot accomplish. You may think I'm being to rigid, and youre entitled. You may not like my rankings, but I doubt you'd be able to find too many instances of flawed logic.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby HskrPwr13 » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:16 am

Free Bagel wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:I do look at strenght of sched. I also beleive that the SEC is the toughest conference. However, I dont believe theres this wildly wide chasm between the SEC and every other conference. Cripes I swear theres people here who think Vanderbilt could waltz into any other major conference and win it just because they're an SEC team. No, 3 losses in the SEC doesnt impress me more than a team that is undefeated in other major conferences.


I meant to touch on this before and forgot (probably would've just been ignored like the rest anyway though ;)). I think you want so badly to see bias in people and fight for all the conferences that you're taking things in totally the wrong way. Do people think the SEC is better than say, the Big 12? Sure. Do they believe there's this "wildly wide chasm"? Nah, I don't think so.

HOWEVER. Is there a "wildly wide chasm" between a combination of Auburn, LSU, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia vs. Kansas State, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, SE Louisiana, and Toledo? Abso-friggin-lutely.


And really, that's what matters. Who cares whether the SEC is better than the Big 12? Kansas hasn't played the whole Big 12, or any of the top teams in it. You are giving teams credit for conference strength when all they've played are the bottom of the conference.


I started responding to your other post before you put on this one, but I got side-tracked. :-b C'mon! Gimme some credit. You read the same posts in this thread and others that I do. I'm not the one creating SEC smoke.

Youre right. Theres a difference in KU's sched v. Fla. Heres what it boils down to, and maybe my previous post covers this, not all of KU's sched are bottom feeders, and at this point, they've beaten them all. This isnt debatable. Would Fla have beaten all of them? You certainly think so, and I would give them a great chance to do it, but it IS debatable. Would KU have a better record than FLA if they played the same sched? Again this is debatable. KU has not proven themselves against a 0-loss (removing the loss to Fla) or a 2-loss team so theres zero info to make a judgment supported by any facts. They have played and beaten 3-loss teams so there is evidence to support the notion that they could beat Aub, KY, UT, and Fla.
Right now Fla is 5-3 (.625) which you feel is currently better than KU's 1.000 against a major conference sched (Softer sched then some, but not near the type of sched of a Hawaii.). So, at the end of the year if Fla IMPROVES to 8-4 (.667) against mostly teams that finish between .400 and .700 (plus an assummption of a 1-loss LSU) and KU ends up with 0 or 1 loss against a sched of teams that finish evenly enough between .100 and .900, you'd rank the 8-4 team higher? I know were not gonna come to a full agreement, but if the answer is an unwaivering, dont have to think about it, "yes", then I dont think we'll ever end up in the same zip code.

I can only FAIRLY judge teams on what they have accomplished, not what they hypothetically cannot accomplish. You may think I'm being to rigid, and youre entitled. You may not like my rankings, but I doubt you'd be able to find too many instances of flawed logic.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby knapplc » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:54 am

The level of acrimony in this thread is rapidly approaching absurd.

This is for fun. Remember? ;-)
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: OFFICIAL CAFE Top 25 Week 3

Postby moonhead » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:36 am

knapplc wrote:The level of acrimony in this thread is rapidly approaching absurd.

This is for fun. Remember? ;-)

hey!

Image
Image
moonhead
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 15994
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: questioning your fanhood...funk o'meter: funkalicious

PreviousNext

Return to College Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 7:18 hours
(and 36 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact