Sagarin conference ratings based on end of 2009

M

Mesaclone

Banned
So, I guess the new Big 12 IS a top 3 football conference.

81.07 SEC
76.97 Big East
76.23 New Big-12
75.97 New Big-10
75.90 ACC
75.54 Old Big-12 Total
75.45 Pac-10
74.49 Old Big-10 Total


From our resident statistician at ISU confidential (Cygarin). The data is direct from the computer Sagarin ratings. BTW, the point isn't that the computer numbers are perfect, but they DO make it clear that the Big 12, Big 10, and even the Big East are all in close proximity in terms of football product on the field.

 
Considering Iowa beat the ACC Champ and Ohio State took out the Pac-10 Champ, I'll skip the computer stuff and go with what my eyes tell me...although I would be interested to see what the ranking for the new big12 would be if they had only lost Colorado's craptastic program.
 
Looking at individual games is like taking anecdotal evidence and applying it as an indicator of public sentiment...it just doesn't work. To attain averages like Sagarin, you have to examine the totality of league play...which is how sagarin works.
 
Mesaclone said:
The data is direct from the computer Sagarin ratings. BTW, the point isn't that the computer numbers are perfect, but they DO make it clear that the Big 12, Big 10, and even the Big East are all in close proximity in terms of football product on the field.

Click to expand...

The whole this conference is better argument is tired. Honestly none of the major confrences are/have been all that far apart in terms of on the field product. Media talking heads and message boards love to spout off about one conferences superiority but most of it is largely mythical. Sure there are cycles, highs and lows but over all all 4 are relatively close.

With that said lets talk about what each of our teams have done for that sargin ranking.... :)
 
busabus114 said:
Who cares?

Who has time to put this sort of stuff together?
Click to expand...

Fans of one of the worst D1 teams in the history of college football, that's who. They can't defend their own program, so they start challenging others about how good their conference supposedly is. That's just sad.

The fact of the matter is, in the current setup of the new Big 12, ISU's days of qualifying for minor bowl games will soon be over. There are going to be a lot of 4-8 type of records coming down the pike.
 
Mesaclone said:
So, I guess the new Big 12 IS a top 3 football conference.

81.07 SEC
76.97 Big East
76.23 New Big-12
75.97 New Big-10
75.90 ACC
75.54 Old Big-12 Total
75.45 Pac-10
74.49 Old Big-10 Total


From our resident statistician at ISU confidential (Cygarin). The data is direct from the computer Sagarin ratings. BTW, the point isn't that the computer numbers are perfect, but they DO make it clear that the Big 12, Big 10, and even the Big East are all in close proximity in terms of football product on the field.
Click to expand...

1) Where the hell did you find these?

2) How about we wait to play some games before deciding who has a better conference in 2010? These numbers are pointless because they are based off Nebraska playing a Big 12 schedule last year. Seriously there is no data to support this because Nebraska didn't play 8 Big Ten games last year.
 
That is super for 2010...lets see how they look in 2010 since that is what year we are currently in.

Although I do find it funny that clone-fan throws those numbers up there while their team is a reason why it is not higher.
 
Mesaclone said:
Looking at individual games is like taking anecdotal evidence and applying it as an indicator of public sentiment...it just doesn't work. To attain averages like Sagarin, you have to examine the totality of league play...which is how sagarin works.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'll stop watching games and just check out Sagarin then...talk about a time saver!
 
Polls are polls. Sagarin is no different than any other. My guess is that many of you follow the polls quite closely...including the pre-season polls. If you find such early season polls to be of minimal value...great. If you find them interesting, well, I just gave you one to take a look at.

As for where the data comes from...Cygarin, a poster on the ISU confidential board, is a statistician, and a good one. He puts a lot of this sort of thing together on a wide variety of topics. Its good stuff as long as you don't take it too seriously.

And whoever said above that the top 4 conferences are roughly equal...hit it dead on.
 
I would like to see how each Big 12 division ranks today (including Colorado and Nebraska). My guess is the southern division would outrank the northern division by a significant margin. It's the southern division that gives the Big 12 the rating they have.

With the new Big 12 conference beginning in 2011 the balance of power will be clearly south of Norman, Oklahoma (inclusive). There will be a larger power gap between the northern and southern teams. Not so in the Big Ten.
 
Werent you guys screaming trying to get out of the big 12 last week. Now there gods gift to football. I think im pretty much done consulting with isu fans. If they cant see the nose on there face, then whats the point of trying to show them the light of day.
 
Mesaclone has proven himself pretty irrelevant and out of touch on the subject with most of his posts.. what changes this now?
 
Mesaclone said:
Looking at individual games is like taking anecdotal evidence and applying it as an indicator of public sentiment...it just doesn't work. To attain averages like Sagarin, you have to examine the totality of league play...which is how sagarin works.
Click to expand...

Iowa didn't earn the Orange Bowl trophy using averages or "the totality of league play". Iowa won it on the field. That's the goal of football, with apologies to pencil-necks everywhere.

And given the level of domination Iowa displayed - and we weren't even B10 champions - I'm actually pretty comfortable stating B10 >> ACC last year.
 
Mesaclone said:
Polls are polls. Sagarin is no different than any other. My guess is that many of you follow the polls quite closely...including the pre-season polls. If you find such early season polls to be of minimal value...great. If you find them interesting, well, I just gave you one to take a look at.

As for where the data comes from...Cygarin, a poster on the ISU confidential board, is a statistician, and a good one. He puts a lot of this sort of thing together on a wide variety of topics. Its good stuff as long as you don't take it too seriously.

And whoever said above that the top 4 conferences are roughly equal...hit it dead on.
Click to expand...

Or, dead wrong. The SEC and Big 10 are quite a bit better than the next group. The Big 12-Lite is going to be the Big 2 and the Little 8...something that many fans called the Big 10 Conference back in the day.

The SEC and Big 10 have much, much better depth in their leagues, and top to bottom are simply a rung or two above everyone else.
 
Mesaclone said:
Looking at individual games is like taking anecdotal evidence and applying it as an indicator of public sentiment...it just doesn't work. To attain averages like Sagarin, you have to examine the totality of league play...which is how sagarin works.
Click to expand...

Considering how high the Big East was, in addition to the ACC, immediately invalidates the Sagarin data there. Comparing averages means little unless you also take in account some of the higher order statistics as well.
 
Here's another issue that I think demonstrates some of the big problems with the rating systems:

3-win Virginia Sagarin rating = 69.01 (only "signature" victory was against North Carolina)

8-win Northwestern Sagarin rating = 70.95 (same squad that beat Iowa and Wisconsin)
5-win Purdue Sagarin rating = 68.60 (same squad that almost beat Oregon and defeated tOSU)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top