2006 Sagarin Ratings

[JoshUCA]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm

Hey, we debut at #198...not bad for having not even played a game as a I-AA team yet!:hurray:

[Mr. C]

Of course, Sagrin has never ranked you before, because he totally neglects non-Division I teams, even though there are a significant number of D-I vs D-II and below encounters. It one of the huge flaws in his methodology.

His preseason ratings this year for I-AA are quite a joke. With all of the uncertainty around the Georgia Southern program, he has the Eagles ranked No. 1 among I-AA teams and 91 overall, ahead of such teams as New Hampshire (93), Northern Iowa (94), North Dakota State (95), Eastern Washington (96), Furman (97), UMass (98), Delaware (99) and Appalachian State (100). The only thing I can figure is he is somehow making strength of schedule a major here, or he fried his mother board. I could see UNH, UNI, Furman, ASU and even North Dakota State rated that high, but GSU, EWU, UMass and Delaware rated ahead of all of them? Truly goofy.

[Killtoppers90]

WOW!

83) Montana
91) Georgia Southern
93) New Hampshire
94) Northern Iowa
95) North Dakota State
96) Eastern Washington
97) Furman
98) Massachusetts
99) Delaware
100) Appalachian State
102) James Madison
104) Southern Illinois
105) Cal Poly-SLO
106) Harvard
110) Western Kentucky
114) Hofstra
118) William & Mary
120) Portland State
122) Villanova
123) Montana State
124) Lehigh
125) Maine
127) Illinois State
128) UC Davis
129) Pennsylvania

[Go...gate]

Colgate is at #144, which sounds about right.

[Stang Fever]

Eastern Washington thta high.......thats a joke

[DFW HOYA]

Colgate is at #144, which sounds about right.

Explain how Georgetown (4-7 in 2005), which finished AHEAD of Fordham (2-9) and Bucknell (1-10) last season, starts the ranking nearly 30 places behind the Rams? Statistically, it makes very little sense.

124. Lehigh Engineers
144. Colgate Red Raiders
164. Lafayette Leopards
187: Holy Cross Crusaders
190: Fordham Rams
194: Bucknell Bison
...
219. Georgetown Hoyas (lowest start since 2002?)

[CatFan22]

Eastern Washington thta high.......thats a joke

Yep. :nod:

[gr8ness97]

yea and south carolina state is precisely ONE spot ahead of WSSU (199 vs. 200)

[Tod]

WOW!

83) Montana
91) Georgia Southern
93) New Hampshire
94) Northern Iowa
95) North Dakota State
96) Eastern Washington
97) Furman
98) Massachusetts
99) Delaware
100) Appalachian State
102) James Madison
104) Southern Illinois
105) Cal Poly-SLO
106) Harvard
110) Western Kentucky
114) Hofstra
118) William & Mary
120) Portland State
122) Villanova
123) Montana State
124) Lehigh
125) Maine
127) Illinois State
128) UC Davis
129) Pennsylvania


Well, he got #1 right. :D You knew that was coming. But seriously, while there are several teams that are misplaced or omitted that you or I would certainly rank differently (or at all), who the hell knows for sure?

I disagree with that poll, but...:confused: :eyebrow:

I'll bet it would have been accepted by AGS. :nod:

[bluehenbillk]

Villanova at #122??

Yes my friends, computer polls know more than we do.

[Cocky]

Eastern Washington thta high.......thats a joke


It's a computer poll or index or whatever you want to call it. This is the same as the GPI or any other computer poll just an opinion hiding behind a computer.

[OL FU]

It's a computer poll or index or whatever you want to call it. This is the same as the GPI or any other computer poll just an opinion hiding behind a computer.

and like other opinions, they have a tendancy to improve as the facts unfold:nod: :smiley_wi

[Eaglegus2]

Of course, Sagrin has never ranked you before, because he totally neglects non-Division I teams, even though there are a significant number of D-I vs D-II and below encounters. It one of the huge flaws in his methodology.

His preseason ratings this year for I-AA are quite a joke. With all of the uncertainty around the Georgia Southern program, he has the Eagles ranked No. 1 among I-AA teams and 91 overall, ahead of such teams as New Hampshire (93), Northern Iowa (94), North Dakota State (95), Eastern Washington (96), Furman (97), UMass (98), Delaware (99) and Appalachian State (100). The only thing I can figure is he is somehow making strength of schedule a major here, or he fried his mother board. I could see UNH, UNI, Furman, ASU and even North Dakota State rated that high, but GSU, EWU, UMass and Delaware rated ahead of all of them? Truly goofy.


Actually, Montana is ranked #1. It is obvious your dislike for Georgia Southern is showing Mr. C.:nonono2: :nono: We will have to see what this season has to offer for everyone as the season unfolds from week to week.

I am sorry that your Mountaineers were ranked at #100. I believe they should have been higher rated.

[AppGuy04]

11 1-AA's ahead of ECU, "stilljonesing" for some Pirate football??xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[AppGuy04]

Actually, Montana is ranked #1. It is obvious your dislike for Georgia Southern is showing Mr. C.:nonono2: :nono: We will have to see what this season has to offer for everyone as the season unfolds from week to week.

I am sorry that your Mountaineers were ranked at #100. I believe they should have been higher rated.

Its not dislike, its honesty, you guys have alot of "unknowns." Why is that hard to understand?

[OL FU]

Actually, Montana is ranked #1. It is obvious your dislike for Georgia Southern is showing Mr. C.:nonono2: :nono: We will have to see what this season has to offer for everyone as the season unfolds from week to week.

I am sorry that your Mountaineers were ranked at #100. I believe they should have been higher rated.

I think he stated a consensus opinion among most I-AA fans/experts.

It would not surprise me if GSU does quite well but let's face the unknowns are enough to keep pre-season rankings lower than normal. You don't have to dislike GSU to form that opinion

[blueballs]

Seeing where GSU plays three of the teams on Coulson's list we'll see what Sagarin AND Coulson really know, won't we? I for one (and I'd bet 99.9999% of the "GSU nation" agrees w/me) will be keeping tabs on all this with the sole intention of rubbing some faces in the **** if and when they turn out to be wrong. We'll see...

For my two cents App is the lead dog in this pack 'til somebody whips their ass and proves differently. They won the playoffs and return 17 starters, 'nuff said.

[OL FU]

Seeing where GSU plays three of the teams on Coulson's list we'll see what Sagarin AND Coulson really know, won't we? I for one (and I'd bet 99.9999% of the "GSU nation" agrees w/me) will be keeping tabs on all this with the sole intention of rubbing some faces in the **** if and when they turn out to be wrong. We'll see...

For my two cents App is the lead dog in this pack 'til somebody whips their ass and proves differently. They won the playoffs and return 17 starters, 'nuff said.

Wrong is a matter of degrees. My comment was simply it is understandable why someone would not rate you pre-season number 2.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

WOW!

83) Montana
91) Georgia Southern
93) New Hampshire
94) Northern Iowa
95) North Dakota State
96) Eastern Washington
97) Furman
98) Massachusetts
99) Delaware
100) Appalachian State
102) James Madison
104) Southern Illinois
105) Cal Poly-SLO
106) Harvard
110) Western Kentucky
114) Hofstra
118) William & Mary
120) Portland State
122) Villanova
123) Montana State
124) Lehigh
125) Maine
127) Illinois State
128) UC Davis
129) Pennsylvania

I don't know what metric could be used to plug data into a computer, but it seems to me that there is some kind of reputation factor being weighed into these pre-season Sagarin ratings. Many of the schools that currently look to be rated unreasonably high are also schools that have had successful programs in the past. :twocents:

[*****]

It's a computer poll or index or whatever you want to call it. This is the same as the GPI or any other computer poll just an opinion hiding behind a computer.Sag and Keeper are computer Rankings (meaning they are not a poll, a collection of opinions). The GPI is an index meaning a collection of other rankings and in its case, polls. So the GPI is not the same as Sag. In fact, Sag is being dropped from the GPI this year because they do not rank all opponents of I-AA squads. I don't think this will make the GPI anything but the best again this year.

[Go...gate]

Villanova at #122??

Yes my friends, computer polls know more than we do.

Is Villanova just going through a rough patch, or has their administration begun to back off on football again?

[AppGuy04]

I don't know what metric could be used to plug data into a computer, but it seems to me that there is some kind of reputation factor being weighed into these pre-season Sagarin ratings. Many of the schools that currently look to be rated unreasonably high are also schools that have had successful programs in the past. :twocents:

How would that even be possible? Come on, thats just crazy

[SunCoastBlueHen]

How would that even be possible? Come on, thats just crazy

It would be possible if previous Sagarin ratings were included in the calculation. For example, Delaware completed the 2003 season with a very high Sagarin rating and seem to be rated a bit high going into this year. I wouldn't be surprised if that high 2003 number is somehow factored in. What's so crazy about that?

Including a history of success as a factor in a pre-season rating does not seem so off the wall to me.

[AppGuy04]

It would be possible if previous Sagarin ratings were included in the calculation. For example, Delaware completed the 2003 season with a very high Sagarin rating and seem to be rated a bit high going into this year. I wouldn't be surprised if that high 2003 number is somehow factored in. What's so crazy about that?

Including a history of success as a factor in a pre-season rating does not seem so off the wall to me.

When a team has a successful season, in theory, they recruit better the next year, so that could also explain it. These are computer rankings; I'm not sure computer know reputation and I'm not aware of any ranking that uses that.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

When a team has a successful season, in theory, they recruit better the next year, so that could also explain it. These are computer rankings; I'm not sure computer know reputation and I'm not aware of any ranking that uses that.

Maybe "reputation" wasn't the most accurate word to use, so please insert "history of success" into it's place (but what else is reputation based on?). History can be represented by a tangible number and included into a computer ranking. If you are well versed in the data included into the various pre-season computer rankings, please share this knowledge with the rest of us.

[AppGuy04]

Maybe "reputation" wasn't the most accurate word to use, so please insert "history of success" into it's place (but what else is reputation based on?). History can be represented by a tangible number and included into a computer ranking. If you are well versed in the data included into the various pre-season computer rankings, please share this knowledge with the rest of us.

I'm not disputing that its possible, I just don't think its used

[UNHWildCats]

more proof Jeff Sagarin sucks.

Notre Dame 18? USC 1? Georgia Southern 2 among I-AA

ugh! pathetic rankings.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I'm not disputing that its possible, I just don't think its used

It would certainly explain why your Apps are ranked tenth after winning the National Championship and returning most of your starters. How else could a computer spit out results that have schools like GSU, Delaware, and UMass rated ahead of you if there is no historical factor in the data mix?

[AppGuy04]

It would certainly explain why your Apps are ranked tenth after winning the National Championship and returning most of your starters. How else could a computer spit out results that have schools like GSU, Delaware, and UMass rated ahead of you if there is no historical factor in the data mix?
Well, ASU's "history factor" isn't shabby, but certainly not 6 flags over Georgia. It doesn't bother me that we are ranked lower in this ranking, b/c that somewhat lessons the bullseye on our back. A team like GSU will have to live up to this lofty goal, when there is no certainty that they can.

[Russ B]

I'm not disputing that its possible, I just don't think its used

Email him and ask. :) I did exactly that several years ago when UCDavis got ranked as a D-II, we had a nice little conversation about the system. This was before the BCS, admittedly...

[LBPop]

Explain how Georgetown (4-7 in 2005), which finished AHEAD of Fordham (2-9) and Bucknell (1-10) last season, starts the ranking nearly 30 places behind the Rams? Statistically, it makes very little sense.

124. Lehigh Engineers
144. Colgate Red Raiders
164. Lafayette Leopards
187: Holy Cross Crusaders
190: Fordham Rams
194: Bucknell Bison
...
219. Georgetown Hoyas (lowest start since 2002?)

You know my opinion...they were fortunate last season and still must earn respect. This is great news for these kids and you can be sure they will have all the details by this weekend. :hurray:

[SunCoastBlueHen]

Well, ASU's "history factor" isn't shabby, but certainly not 6 flags over Georgia. It doesn't bother me that we are ranked lower in this ranking, b/c that somewhat lessons the bullseye on our back. A team like GSU will have to live up to this lofty goal, when there is no certainty that they can.

Well, your more recent history, at least according to Sagarin, ain't that stellar. Though you finished the 2005 season #1 in the Sagarin, the previous three years look like this:

2004 #32 in Sagarin
2003 #25
2002 #19

[Ronbo]

We're way too high there. Maybe #150 or so.

[Pard4Life]

Harvard top 15? Whatever.. they haven't been that high since the Method Man and Redman movie... ugh..

[SunCoastBlueHen]

Harvard top 15? Whatever.. they haven't been that high since the Method Man and Redman movie... ugh..

Sagarin had them at #2 at the end of 2004 season. More evidence that recent history beyond last year is factored into his pre-season rankings. :nod:

[blueballs]

Wrong is a matter of degrees. My comment was simply it is understandable why someone would not rate you pre-season number 2.

FWIW I completely agree that GSU should not be ranked #2 preseason in 1-AA. Nobody except those closest to the program knows exactly what GSU has this year, but I'll let y'all in on a secret- there's a boatload of talent in that program.

For my money App is head and shoulders above everybody else until somebody else proves differently.

[AppGuy04]

FWIW I completely agree that GSU should not be ranked #2 preseason in 1-AA. Nobody except those closest to the program knows exactly what GSU has this year, but I'll let y'all in on a secret- there's a boatload of talent in that program.

For my money App is head and shoulders above everybody else until somebody else proves differently.

Just my :twocents: . NC State has had a ton of talent the last 5 years, but that hasn't translated on the field. We won't know until they start to hit somebody.

[OL FU]

FWIW I completely agree that GSU should not be ranked #2 preseason in 1-AA. Nobody except those closest to the program knows exactly what GSU has this year, but I'll let y'all in on a secret- there's a boatload of talent in that program.

For my money App is head and shoulders above everybody else until somebody else proves differently.

I can't think of any years where that wasn't the case:)

[flexbone]

This just goes to show you how BADLY the experts are when it comes to 1-aa. u r right there is no way GSU or E Wash should be ranked even close to where they are in this poll. Some times I think "Do they put any effort into it?"

[Russ B]

This just goes to show you how BADLY the experts are when it comes to 1-aa. u r right there is no way GSU or E Wash should be ranked even close to where they are in this poll. Some times I think "Do they put any effort into it?"

It's a computer ranking, not a poll.

[blueballs]

Just my :twocents: . NC State has had a ton of talent the last 5 years, but that hasn't translated on the field. We won't know until they start to hit somebody.

Yep... same could be said for a lot of teams.:nod:

[Pard4Life]

Sagarin had them at #2 at the end of 2004 season. More evidence that recent history beyond last year is factored into his pre-season rankings. :nod:

It seems like this is the case.

However I will say taht Harvard deserved that ranking in 2004. They were extremely good.

[bluehenbillk]

Sag and Keeper are computer Rankings (meaning they are not a poll, a collection of opinions). The GPI is an index meaning a collection of other rankings and in its case, polls. So the GPI is not the same as Sag. In fact, Sag is being dropped from the GPI this year because they do not rank all opponents of I-AA squads. I don't think this will make the GPI anything but the best again this year.

Boy, are you the master of spin. Where do I start?

"The GPI is an index meaning a collection of other rankings..."

It doesn't matter what terminology you want to call it, Sagarin was a PART of a faulty system, not the whole system but by including computer polls in general it flawa the entire end result.

"Sag is being dropped from the GPI"

So, now we admit that the Sagarin poll is not an indicative method of rating teams? Even though it's 1/8th, 1/9th of the total output used in the past?

"I don't think this will make the GPI anything but the best again this year" I hope you work in public relations for a career because you can try to sell ice to eskimos Ralph. Computer polls don't work. I've lambasted this 3-lettered atrocity for years & used Sagarin as my leading example often, because not showing any homerism, it overrated the A-10 consistently. I heard nothing but defense for the GPI, & now reading halfway through your lauding of the imperfect system you note that Sagarin will be dropped.
The more I hear of this 3-letter crap, the more it stinks of the 1-A or soon to be Bowl Division 3-letter crap that SIMILARLY "tweaks" every year because it doesn't work either. But we don't model off that do we?

[Cap'n Cat]

Youngstown #134?

Soft schedule hurts 'em? Again?

:eyebrow: :eyebrow: :eyebrow:

[bluehenbillk]

Yep, Penn State should hurt their rating.

[JohnStOnge]

I think what I'm going to do is save the I-AA pre season top 25 according to Sagarin and also save the Sports Network and Any Given Saturday pre season top 25s so that after the season I can see how each did as compared to the others.

With regard to the Georgia Southern thing: It's a mathematical model. I don't know the details of it but at this point it has to be based on what's happened in the past with each program. I very much doubt that the model considers things like whether or not teams change offensive systems, coaches, etc.

[JohnStOnge]

Schedule strength is not a factor at this point. As far as I can tell the system looks at who teams have played and nobody's played anybody yet. Teams don't get "credit" for who they're going to play in the future. Note that everybody has a schedule strength of "0.00" right now.

[EKU05]

I think both styles of rankings are good to have around (computer and polls). I never understood why people are so down on computer rankings. They aren't perfect, but I think they tend to be at least more fair that human polls which carry an obvious bias any way you slice it. Could a computer ranking be flawed? Absolutely, but not inherently so. Some are bound to be better than others.

But the bottom line is, they are all just ways for us to rank teams in situations where nothing is for certain (because obviously all of the teams play less that 10% of the overall teams). It's just a tool. Nothing to freak out about.

To compare the GPI to the BCS is unfathomable. Yes, they are somewhat similar formulas, but they most certainly DO NOT have similar uses. One of the alpha and the omega of it's sub-classification. The other is really just a one tool that is used. That's just apples and oragnes right there.

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, the fact that System A includes teams outside I-A/I-AA and System B does not does not mean System A is better. It really doesn't.

[ngineer]

Villanova at #122??

Yes my friends, computer polls know more than we do.

I think the return of 'nova's QB who broke his arm in the beginning of the season last year is the reason they could be force to be dealt with. Their offense was pretty weak after they lost their QB last year, and a lot will be riding on his return.

[dirtbag]

It's a computer ranking, not a poll.

It's a poll now, because he's got no data to justify the rankings.

He says that preseason rankings are based on "More or less an average final rating of the last few seasons, with more weight placed on more recent seasons," but you're gonna have to explain to me what GSU has done in the last few seasons that justifies a #2 ranking. If they'd been that good, they wouldn't have a new coach.

[sdgriz24]

That list is complete BS(not the former 1-A)
No way is Indiana higher that UM,come on...what an idiot.

[Mike Johnson]

Of course, Sagrin has never ranked you before, because he totally neglects non-Division I teams, even though there are a significant number of D-I vs D-II and below encounters. It one of the huge flaws in his methodology.

Actually, he usually does all 700 or so NCAA and NAIA teams at the end of the year. He also produces his longest chain of upsets, usually with a team like Michigan, at the top of the list, getting upset by a team that also gets upset and so on through 30-40 victories through IA, IAA, II, NAIA, and finally, III teams at the bottom. That list is usually very interesting.

His preseason rankings are usually an average of the final rankings over the past four or five years. With each week of the season, the initial rankings become less and less weighted until finally dropped five or six weeks into the season.

[JohnStOnge]

he totally neglects non-Division I teams, even though there are a significant number of D-I vs D-II and below encounters. It one of the huge flaws in his methodology.

As I said before, the structure of a mathematical model is lot more important than whether or not all the data are used. It's quite possible for Model B to be better than Model A even though Model A is developed through the use of more data. Here is an example using two different simple mathematical models:

Take the pairs of numbers, (x,y):

1 0.9
2 1.6
3 2.1
4 2.4
5 2.5
6 2.4

Say you use all the data to make a model for predicting y based on x and do simple linear regression using all 6 of the pairs. The model you come up with (y = 0.3x + 0.93) assumes a linear relationship. Let's call it Model A. It looks pretty good in that it "explains" 81 percent of the variation in y based on the x values. But there is error in prediction for all of the 6 x values. Using this model, the six predicted values of y you get are 1.23, 1.53, 1.83, 2.13, 2.43, and 2.73.

Now say you use just the 1st, 3rd, and 6th pairs and make a model with a quadratic (x squared) term in it so that it describes a curve. This is Model B. The model you come up is y = x - 0.1x(x); with x(x) being x squared. Even though you used only half the data, it is a better model. It will exactly predict y based on x in all 6 of the cases above and describe 100 percent of the variation. There is absolutely no error of estimate associated with it.

Thus Model B is much better for describing the relationship and predicting y based on x than Model A is even though all the data were used to construct Model A while only half of the data were used to construct Model B.

I hope that illustrates the basic principle I'm trying to get across. In the case of what we're talking about, you can't really legitimately assume that one model is better than another just because one includes games outside of Division I while the other does not.

[JohnStOnge]

It's a poll now, because he's got no data to justify the rankings.

He says that preseason rankings are based on "More or less an average final rating of the last few seasons, with more weight placed on more recent seasons," but you're gonna have to explain to me what GSU has done in the last few seasons that justifies a #2 ranking. If they'd been that good, they wouldn't have a new coach.

It also depends on what other schools have done during the last few seasons. As far as them having a new coach...I think the only reason that's the case is that they are spoiled by success. I think there are very few I-AA schools that would fire the coach after the season Georgia Southern had last year.

The interesting thing is that, at least when I've looked at it in the past, Sagarin's system predicts almost as well at the beginning of the season as it does at the end. It does improve some...but not by that much. And it's like anything other system...whether it's a model or a poll or one guy's opinion. It "learns" as the season goes along.

I spent a season looking at it in I-A football one time and found that both the Sagarin and Dunkel systems do about as well as the vegas line does in anticipating winners and predicting the spread from the season's start to the season's finish.

[SpartanPride]

Norfolk State ranked 224? Dayum. I hope we do better.

[JohnStOnge]

That list is complete BS(not the former 1-A)
No way is Indiana higher that UM,come on...what an idiot.

You're kidding, right? Not that I don't think a Montana/Indiana matchup would be interesting and represent a chance for a I-AA win over a BCS league squad...but it's still a BCS league squad. Rating Indiana slightly higher is very plausible. I think that if the two played on a neutral field to start the season and vegas was to put a line on it (which they normally wouldn't) Indiana would be a slight to modest favorite.

Really, though, when two teams are rated that close in a power rating what it's really saying is that they're about the same.

[blukeys]

As I said before, the structure of a mathematical model is lot more important than whether or not all the data are used. It's quite possible for Model B to be better than Model A even though Model A is developed through the use of more data. Here is an example using two different simple mathematical models:

Take the pairs of numbers, (x,y):

1 0.9
2 1.6
3 2.1
4 2.4
5 2.5
6 2.4

Say you use all the data to make a model for predicting y based on x and do simple linear regression using all 6 of the pairs. The model you come up with (y = 0.3x + 0.93) assumes a linear relationship. Let's call it Model A. It looks pretty good in that it "explains" 81 percent of the variation in y based on the x values. But there is error in prediction for all of the 6 x values. Using this model, the six predicted values of y you get are 1.23, 1.53, 1.83, 2.13, 2.43, and 2.73.

Now say you use just the 1st, 3rd, and 6th pairs and make a model with a quadratic (x squared) term in it so that it describes a curve. This is Model B. The model you come up is y = x - 0.1x(x); with x(x) being x squared. Even though you used only half the data, it is a better model. It will exactly predict y based on x in all 6 of the cases above and describe 100 percent of the variation. There is absolutely no error of estimate associated with it.

Thus Model B is much better for describing the relationship and predicting y based on x than Model A is even though all the data were used to construct Model A while only half of the data were used to construct Model B.

I hope that illustrates the basic principle I'm trying to get across. In the case of what we're talking about, you can't really legitimately assume that one model is better than another just because one includes games outside of Division I while the other does not.


Darn You JSO!!!

You took the words right out of mouth!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Mr. C]

Actually, Montana is ranked #1. It is obvious your dislike for Georgia Southern is showing Mr. C.:nonono2: :nono: We will have to see what this season has to offer for everyone as the season unfolds from week to week.

I am sorry that your Mountaineers were ranked at #100. I believe they should have been higher rated.
Would you get off of this Georgia Southern bias crap. I didn't see Montana listed when I looked over the poll. You Eagle fans are too much with this type of picking at things. The fact is that GSU has way too much uncertainty to rate them that high and ahead of that many teams right. We will see how the season turns out. There are OBVIOUS problems with Sagrin's numbers for most of the I-AA teams he rates.

For about the millionth time, THEY ARE NOT MY MOUNTAINEERS!!! Yes, I live in Boone. Yes, I cover the Mountaineers. My team is my alma mater, Fresno State. I don't root for ASU any more than Don Heath, the Georgia Southern beat writer, roots for Georgia Southern (I know this because Don is one of my best friends in the business).

[Mr. C]

Actually, he usually does all 700 or so NCAA and NAIA teams at the end of the year. He also produces his longest chain of upsets, usually with a team like Michigan, at the top of the list, getting upset by a team that also gets upset and so on through 30-40 victories through IA, IAA, II, NAIA, and finally, III teams at the bottom. That list is usually very interesting.

His preseason rankings are usually an average of the final rankings over the past four or five years. With each week of the season, the initial rankings become less and less weighted until finally dropped five or six weeks into the season.
You need to talk to Ralph about this. His lack of using non-D-I teams during the course of the year has been something Ralph has discussed a lot and has a lot to do with why the GPI is set up differently.

[JohnStOnge]

Does anybody remember who was ranked #1 prior to the start the of the 2005 season in last year's AGS and Sporting Network polls? Does anybody remember where Appalachian State was ranked? What was the number of teams in those pre season top 25s not in the post season top 25s? How many were absent from the pre season top 25s but present in the final polls? Who started the 2005 season ranked at #2 in those polls and where did that team end up ranked in them?

Me...I don't remember. But I think when we're evaluating Sagarin's ratings we need to remember that ANY pre season ranking of teams is going to be seen after the season is complete as having had a lot of error in it.

[JohnStOnge]

Does anybody remember who was ranked #1 prior to the start the of the 2005 season in last year's AGS and Sporting Network polls? Does anybody remember where Appalachian State was ranked? What was the number of teams in those pre season top 25s not in the post season top 25s? How many were absent from the pre season top 25s but present in the final polls? Who started the 2005 season ranked at #2 in those polls and where did that team end up ranked in them?

Me...I don't remember. But I think when we're evaluating Sagarin's ratings we need to remember that ANY pre season ranking of teams is going to be seen after the season is complete as having had a lot of error in it.

[AppGuy04]

Does anybody remember who was ranked #1 prior to the start the of the 2005 season in last year's AGS and Sporting Network polls? Does anybody remember where Appalachian State was ranked? What was the number of teams in those pre season top 25s not in the post season top 25s? How many were absent from the pre season top 25s but present in the final polls? Who started the 2005 season ranked at #2 in those polls and where did that team end up ranked in them?

Me...I don't remember. But I think when we're evaluating Sagarin's ratings we need to remember that ANY pre season ranking of teams is going to be seen after the season is complete as having had a lot of error in it.

ASU was around 16 or 17 in the AGS preseason poll last year. Most other polls had them unranked.

[blukeys]

Does anybody remember who was ranked #1 prior to the start the of the 2005 season in last year's AGS and Sporting Network polls? Does anybody remember where Appalachian State was ranked? What was the number of teams in those pre season top 25s not in the post season top 25s? How many were absent from the pre season top 25s but present in the final polls? Who started the 2005 season ranked at #2 in those polls and where did that team end up ranked in them?

Me...I don't remember. But I think when we're evaluating Sagarin's ratings we need to remember that ANY pre season ranking of teams is going to be seen after the season is complete as having had a lot of error in it.


ALL Preseason polls are conjecture. It's like a stew that you don't know how it will taste. There's a little bit of last year with a little bit of who you've lost and who you've kept.

No one should take any of the preseason predictions seriously. As Stated earlier how often have they predicted the eventual NC?????????

[StillJonesing]

11 1-AA's ahead of ECU, "stilljonesing" for some Pirate football??xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

I have and Xbox maybe I could make my on computer poll. Good thing the games are played on the field and not a computer game.

Speaking of on the field


2005 52-2 all 1A v 1AA
2005 21-1 nonBCS v 1AA

This is the reality folks

There are no D1aa's in the top 100 of college football.