Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

1. Villanova (64)
2. Richmond (70)
3. App State (75)
4. Montana (76)
5. W&M (81)
6. JMU (83)
7. UNI (85)
8. UNH (88)
9. SIU (93)
10. UMass (98)
11. SDSU (111)
12. UD (112)
13. Elon (113)
14. EWU (116)
15. Furman (122)
16. Weber (125)
17. Wofford (127)
18. Maine (129)
19. Harvard (130)
20. Lamar (131)
21. Cal Poly (132)
22. NDSU (134)
23. Penn (136)
24. GSU (137)
25. Liberty (139)
26. Montana St (140)
27. McNeese (141)
28. NAU (142)
29. SC State (143)
30. Jax State (144)
31. Lafayette (147)
32. Holy Cross (148)
33. UC Davis (149)
34. YSU (150)
35. UCA (151)
36. Ill State (153)
37. Colgate (154)
38. Citadel (155)
39. NDSU (156)
40. Yale (159)
41. Brown (160)

-E Mich lowest I-A at 161

Yep, 7 of the top 12 being CAA sounds about right to me..

*Edit: here is the link for the team list:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/ ... titialskip" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:1. Villanova (64)
2. Richmond (70)
3. App State (75)
4. Montana (76)
5. W&M (81)
6. JMU (83)
7. UNI (85)
8. UNH (88)
9. SIU (93)
10. UMass (98)
11. SDSU (111)
12. UD (112)
13. Elon (113)
14. EWU (116)
15. Furman (122)
16. Weber (125)
17. Wofford (127)
18. Maine (129)
19. Harvard (130)
20. Lamar (131)
21. Cal Poly (132)
22. NDSU (134)
23. Penn (136)
24. GSU (137)
25. Liberty (139)
26. Montana St (140)
27. McNeese (141)
28. NAU (142)
29. SC State (143)
30. Jax State (144)
31. Lafayette (147)
32. Holy Cross (148)
33. UC Davis (149)
34. YSU (150)
35. UCA (151)
36. Ill State (153)
37. Colgate (154)
38. Citadel (155)
39. NDSU (156)
40. Yale (159)
41. Brown (160)

-E Mich lowest I-A at 161
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yep, 7 of the top 12 being CAA sounds about right to me..

What the hell????????

Doc

JMU top 10, hahaha.

Perhaps the most intersting thing about that listing is that Lamar, which is playing its first football game since the 1980s, is ranked 20th and higher than anybody in the Southland Conference it's going into. Not saying it's wrong as Lamar is a total unknown. I'm just wondering how that works...what Sagarin did to rate what's essentially a team from a brand new football program.

I see I'm not the only one who noticed.

Sagarin's ratings have no credibilty as far as I'm concerned.

A few years ago Michigan was 2-1, Oregon was 3-0 including a win at Michigan, yet Sagarin had Michigan ranked ahead of Oregon. After that I became convinced that his system was seriously flawed.

JohnStOnge wrote:Perhaps the most intersting thing about that listing is that Lamar, which is playing its first football game since the 1980s, is ranked 20th and higher than anybody in the Southland Conference it's going into. Not saying it's wrong as Lamar is a total unknown. I'm just wondering how that works...what Sagarin did to rate what's essentially a team from a brand new football program.

I see I'm not the only one who noticed.

I actually put the wrong link up- it was the conference one as opposed to the #1-#245 ranking. Fixed it.

And if you notice, Ga State are #244 and South Alabama #245. Not sure how their computer spit out Lamar at #131.

BlueHen86 wrote:Sagarin's ratings have no credibilty as far as I'm concerned.

A few years ago Michigan was 2-1, Oregon was 3-0 including a win at Michigan, yet Sagarin had Michigan ranked ahead of Oregon. After that I became convinced that his system was seriously flawed.

Michigan wasn't 2-1. They lost to a certain other team as well. (though... your point remains).

Cmon guys, computers are never wrong!

Skjellyfetti wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Sagarin's ratings have no credibilty as far as I'm concerned.

A few years ago Michigan was 2-1, Oregon was 3-0 including a win at Michigan, yet Sagarin had Michigan ranked ahead of Oregon. After that I became convinced that his system was seriously flawed.

Michigan wasn't 2-1. They lost to a certain other team as well. (though... your point remains).

I'm talking about a different year, a few years before ASU beat Michigan.

BlueHen86 wrote:Sagarin's ratings have no credibilty as far as I'm concerned.

A few years ago Michigan was 2-1, Oregon was 3-0 including a win at Michigan, yet Sagarin had Michigan ranked ahead of Oregon. After that I became convinced that his system was seriously flawed.

No Aug pre season poll or ranking has any credibility since they have nothing to go on. ALL of them are as worthless as tits on a bull. I just posted this to get a rise out of non CAA folks, thats all.

As far as that Michigan, Oregon deal, that was 07'. Michigan was actually 1-2 after losing to App State and, getting smoked by Oregon at home 39-7, then spanking Notre Dame in South Bend 38-0. Oregon was 3-0 after spanking Michigan and a couple of C-USA teams. You were looking at Sagarin in Sept. Of course it's still worthless then, just like every other ranking and poll- not enough data to go on till at least the mid point of the season. At the end of the year Oregon was 9-4 and #8, and Michigan had bounced back to go 9-4, beating Florida in their bowl game to also finish 9-4, ad Sagarin had them at #21. That was probably about right.

Why I generally don't pay any attention to any polls or rankings till the mid point of the season (except in a case like this just to try to get a rise out of non CAA folks . Before that there's not enough for the computers or voters to go on- in Sept they're still all pretty much worthless.

BDKJMU wrote:Not sure how their computer spit out Lamar at #131.

I'm guessing they were placed at the exact mid-point of Division I due to lack of any data, and then adjusted slightly downward due to a predicted weak schedule.

BDKJMU wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Sagarin's ratings have no credibilty as far as I'm concerned.

A few years ago Michigan was 2-1, Oregon was 3-0 including a win at Michigan, yet Sagarin had Michigan ranked ahead of Oregon. After that I became convinced that his system was seriously flawed.

No Aug pre season poll or ranking has any credibility since they have nothing to go on. ALL of them are as worthless as tits on a bull. I just posted this to get a rise out of non CAA folks, thats all.

As far as that Michigan, Oregon deal, that was 07'. Michigan was actually 1-2 after losing to App State and, getting smoked by Oregon at home 39-7, then spanking Notre Dame in South Bend 38-0. Oregon was 3-0 after spanking Michigan and a couple of C-USA teams. You were looking at Sagarin in Sept. Of course it's still worthless then, just like every other ranking and poll- not enough data to go on till at least the mid point of the season. At the end of the year Oregon was 9-4 and #8, and Michigan had bounced back to go 9-4, beating Florida in their bowl game to also finish 9-4, ad Sagarin had them at #21. That was probably about right.

Why I generally don't pay any attention to any polls or rankings till the mid point of the season (except in a case like this just to try to get a rise out of non CAA folks . Before that there's not enough for the computers or voters to go on- in Sept they're still all pretty much worthless.

I'm not talking about '07, the game I'm talking about took place a few years earlier. Oregon was definitely one of the teams, I think Michigan was the other team involved, but it may have been Oklahoma.

What I am sure about is a 2-1 team was ranked ahead of a 3-0 team, even though the 3-0 team had won on the road against the 2-1 team.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Michigan wasn't 2-1. They lost to a certain other team as well. (though... your point remains).

I'm talking about a different year, a few years before ASU beat Michigan.

Only 2 times since 02' that Michigan played Oregon, 07' and 03', so you must have been referring to 03' Michigan wasn't 2-1 after they lost to Oregon, they were 3-1. Both Michigan and Oregon came into that game 3-0, but Michigan had been more impressive in their 3 wins than Oregon, and only lost @ Oregon by 4 (I think Sagarin gives the home team 4 points). So it wouldn't have been that off to still have Michigan a little higher. (Kind of like last year when after Nova lost @ UNH in Oct, people still had them a little higher).
http://espn.go.com/college-football/tea ... wolverines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I said though, you were looking at Sagarin too early, and not enough data for any poll/ranking, human or computer, to be worthwhile till at least the mid point of the season.

BDKJMU wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I'm talking about a different year, a few years before ASU beat Michigan.

Only 2 times since 02' that Michigan played Oregon, 07' and 03', so you must have been referring to 03' Michigan wasn't 2-1 after they lost to Oregon, they were 3-1. Both Michigan and Oregon came into that game 3-0, but Michigan had been more impressive in their 3 wins than Oregon, and only lost @ Oregon by 4 (I think Sagarin gives the home team 4 points). So it wouldn't have been that off to still have Michigan a little higher. (Kind of like last year when after Nova lost @ UNH in Oct, people still had them a little higher).
http://espn.go.com/college-football/tea ... wolverines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I said though, you were looking at Sagarin too early, and not enough data for any poll/ranking, human or computer, to be worthwhile till at least the mid point of the season.

As I already said, it might not have been Michigan. The teams involved don't matter, the point is a 2-1 team was ranked ahead of a 3-0 team that it lost to. Any poll that does that losses credibility with me, regardless of when the poll is conducted.

I'm guessing they were placed at the exact mid-point of Division I due to lack of any data, and then adjusted slightly downward due to a predicted weak schedule.

I thought about the possibility of it being the midpoint but when I looked at the rankings some more to see I saw that it doesn't look like that's it. First of all, there are 245 teams so the median position would be 123. Secondly, Georgia State and South Alabama, two completely new programs, occupy the two lowest ratings...actually tied for 244th at 12.79.

Lamar has had a football program before but it was a long time ago. It played its most recent previous game...actually a 22-17 win over McNeese...in 1989. But it's still essentially a new program. Hard to see why Lamar would not be treated like Georgia State in the model.

the point is a 2-1 team was ranked ahead of a 3-0 team that it lost to. Any poll that does that losses credibility with me, regardless of when the poll is conducted.

Without looking up specific examples I think that kind of thing happens in all polling systems. Like if you have a team that's ranked something like #5 in the Coaches poll play a team ranked something like #24 and both go into a game between the two at 2-0 then the #24 team wins. In that scenario the team that went in #5 will drop some and the one that went in at #24 will rise some but the team that went in at #5 will probably still be ranked higher in the next poll. There is a certain "momentum" to both human polls and computer rankings.

Sagarin's description of the initial ratings says as much. It says that the pre-season rating has an influence on each subsequent week's rating until enough games have been played so that all the teams are "connected." And once they are all "connected" there's going to be "inertia" associated with what happened in previous games.

I always look at how good ranking systems are at anticipating outcomes of games to assess how reliable they are. And Sagarin does well in that regard.

BlueHen86, I have a proposal: You pick the winners of all of the first week's games and give a margin of victory in each case. Then we will compare your results to the results of the Sagarin system. We will use three measures of accuracy:

Percent winners predicted correctly.

Bias - The average differences between the actual margins of victory and the predicted margins of victory. The closure to zero the number is, the better (sometimes you'll miss high and sometimes you'll miss low).

Absolute error - The average of the absolute values of the differences of the actual margins of victory and the predicted margins of victory.

Then we'll see if you do better than the Sagarin system does. My expectation is that you have a shot at narrowly beating the system in the percent winners picked correctly but, more probably than not, the system will beat you.

I don't think you have any shot when it comes to the bias and absolute error measures. Want to take the challenge?

Is Lamar playing a conference schedule this year? Could it be that is why they received a higher rating...because of some sort of "strength of schedule" or some other type of factor involving scheduling is calculated in?

GA St. MBB Fan wrote:Is Lamar playing a conference schedule this year? Could it be that is why they received a higher rating...because of some sort of "strength of schedule" or some other type of factor involving scheduling is calculated in?

Has to be, them being that high is rediculous.

GA St. MBB Fan wrote:Is Lamar playing a conference schedule this year? Could it be that is why they received a higher rating...because of some sort of "strength of schedule" or some other type of factor involving scheduling is calculated in?

No, they scheduled 4 SLC schools, some other FCS and DII's and I think OPH is a D3 or something?

• LAMAR
  9/4 McNeese
  9/11 Webber Int'l
  9/18 SELA
  9/25 SFA
  10/2 SAM
  10/9 Langston
  10/16 S Alabama
  10/23 bye
  10/30 N Dakota
  11/6 Georgia St
  11/13 S Dakota
  11/20 Ok Panhandle

CatMom wrote:I think OPH is a D3 or something?
11/20 Ok Panhandle

They used to be an NCAA Division II independent, but they are now in the NAIA.

JohnStOnge wrote:Perhaps the most intersting thing about that listing is that Lamar, which is playing its first football game since the 1980s, is ranked 20th and higher than anybody in the Southland Conference it's going into. Not saying it's wrong as Lamar is a total unknown. I'm just wondering how that works...what Sagarin did to rate what's essentially a team from a brand new football program.

I see I'm not the only one who noticed.

As Sagarin's preseason ratings are supposed to be a weighted average of the past several season's final rankings, this point is very interesting. Lamar's rating of 57.36 is very close to the average of all teams FBS and FCS. So, it appears he is giving them an average rating to start.

Look out for #26 Montana State. I think when all is said and done they'll finish the season much higher than that.

Mike Johnson wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Perhaps the most intersting thing about that listing is that Lamar, which is playing its first football game since the 1980s, is ranked 20th and higher than anybody in the Southland Conference it's going into. Not saying it's wrong as Lamar is a total unknown. I'm just wondering how that works...what Sagarin did to rate what's essentially a team from a brand new football program.

I see I'm not the only one who noticed.

As Sagarin's preseason ratings are supposed to be a weighted average of the past several season's final rankings, this point is very interesting. Lamar's rating of 57.36 is very close to the average of all teams FBS and FCS. So, it appears he is giving them an average rating to start.

Okay, then explain South Alabama and Georgia St.'s ratings????

Doc

Sagarin rankings are always pretty unusual, and based on the teams from last season too much. People graduate.