iggymcfly

Actually, the thing about Oklahoma refusing to play anyone good on the road is still valid. Yes, they wanted to play USC, but they agreed to it only on the condition that they come to Norman. USC said they'd do the game at their place, but refused to travel when they already had three difficult non-conference road games scheduled.

OK, here's the new rankings here. There were some shakeups, but I think the new rankings are pretty accurate, with the only thing that might be off being California, since they haven't played in forever. (I haven't got to bed yet, so I'm not gonna format it all pretty yet; I might fix it up tomorrow. For now, previous rank is in parenthesis.) 1. USC 4-0 (1) 2. Oklahoma 3-0 (3) 3. Miami 3-0 (2) 4. Texas 3-0 (5) 5. Tennessee 3-0 (6) 6. Auburn 4-0 (9) 7. Arizona State 4-0 (16) 8. Purdue 3-0 (4) 9. LSU 3-1 (10) 10. Florida State 2-1 (7) 11. California 2-0 (11) 12. Georgia 3-0 (13) 13. Ohio State 3-0 (15) 14. Louisville 3-0 (NR) 15. Utah 4-0 (12) 16. Boise State 4-0 (8) 17. Virginia 4-0 (14) 18. Stanford 2-1 (19) 19. West Virginia 4-0 (17) 20. Fresno State 3-0 (18) 21. Florida 2-1 (21) 22. Wisconsin 4-0 (24) 23. Michigan 3-1 (25) 24. Arkansas 3-1 (NR) 25. NC State 2-1 (NR)

Wisconsin's at least got the dominating defense going for them. Minnesota's just a mediocre team who's looked unimpressive in beating shitty teams. There's really not much to differentiate Minnesota from someone like Navy at this point of the season. If they do finally beat a decent team, then we can forget about them letting Illinois State hang around into the second half and they can break into the Top 25. Shit, even a dominant win against Penn State would probably get the job done. (If you really want to know, I'd say they're probably ranked about 29 right now, behind Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, and Southern Miss)

Oh, all right. I figured there was an exception, but I just couldn't think what it could be. That is kind of random when you think about it though that one team gets changes made in the NCAA bylaws just because it's hard to get to their school.

WEDNESDAY Miami of Ohio at Marshall THURSDAY Pittsburgh at Connecticut Navy at Air Force FRIDAY Utah at New Mexico SATURDAY Arkansas at Florida West Virginia at Virginia Tech North Carolina at Florida State Texas Tech at Oklahoma Purdue at Notre Dame Miami at Georgia Tech Michigan at Indiana Colorado at Missouri LSU at Georgia California at Oregon State South Carolina at Alabama Kansas State at Texas A&M Auburn at Tennessee Ohio State at Northwestern Arizona State at Oregon Tiebreak #1: How many total points will be scored in the Utah/New Mexico game? 48 Tiebreak #2: How many yards passing with UConn's Dan Orlovsky have against Pittsburgh? 209

Hey, last year, the Pac-10 might have been the worst BCS conference in football. Although even then, the way the bowl games went down with Cal beating Va. Tech, WSU destroying Texas, and USC killing Michigan kind of makes me wonder. This year? No way. Arizona State's an extremely solid team, beating one of the better Big 10 squads 41-7, Cal looks legit, Oregon State who's no better than middle of the pack damn near knocked off LSU, Stanford's solid, and USC's the consensus #1 team in the country. Meanwhile, the Big 12 North has no one that looks like they can play football worth a shit. Kansas State got exposed by Fresno, Missouri got stomped by Troy, Nebraska lost to Southern Miss, Kansas is Kansas, Iowa State's mediocre at best, and just from watching Colorado play the Cougs, I can tell that they're gonna suck dick too. OSU, Texas Tech and Texas A&M might win some games here and there, but for the most part, the Big 12 is a two team league. If it wasn't for the Big East (which shouldn't even be able to call itself a BCS conference anymore,) the Big 12 would be the worst major conference in the country.

Yeah, actually Stanford's been above Michigan for the last two weeks. As for Fresno, they beat a couple really overrated teams, and then nearly lost to a I-AA school. I haven't seen anything too impressive out of them yet.

I know you said you already have an idea, but I like to stick my nose in places, so I just wanted to say that if you use percents instead of ranks, it would help. i.e. 4-0 = 1.00, 3-1 = .750, 2-2 =.500 85% picks made = 0.85, 80% picks correct = 0.80, 80% picks against = 0.80, 70% picks against = 0.70, etc., etc., If you want the low number to get it, then just switch wins for losses, and picks right for picks wrong.

For Boise State, I'd say the best thing to do would be to just go with the Vegas favorites. We don't need somebody repeated throughout the contest. This way, Boise can be competitive without making anything too complicated. By the way, how exactly are we dealing with my Bowling Green team? Do I get a 0 for my picks last week? (which would pretty much guarantee a last place finish for a third of my BCS points). I was hoping that since I just took over, you could just average the weeks where picks were made, or at least give me the same number of picks for Week 3 as whoever got last.

First of all, Washington is terrible. They'll be lucky to win four games this year. And the reason Fresno dropped is that they only beat Portland State by 10, when PSU isn't even a very good I-AA team.

This week is a perfect example of why I need to make my own college football rankings. Arizona State who is currently undefeated, beat Iowa last week by a score of 44-7. It was utter domination, as Iowa didn't even get their lone touchdown until the 4th quarter. Yet look at the new ESPN/USA Today coaches poll, and you'll see that Iowa's ranked and Arizona State is not. "Why is that?", you might ask. Do they know something magical about Iowa that we don't? No, it's just that it was a late game, and most of the coaches didn't even bother to check the score. Anyway, without further ado, here's Iggy's unbiased I-A NCF rankings: .. Team .............Record Prev. 1. USC .................3-0 .... 1 2. Miami ...............2-0 .... 2 3. Oklahoma .........3-0 .... 3 4. Purdue .............2-0 .... 4 5. Texas ...............2-0 .... 5 6. Tennessee ........2-0 .... 8 7. Florida State .....1-1 .... 9 8. Boise State .......3-0 .... 6 9. Auburn .............3-0 ... 15 10. LSU ................2-1 .... 7 11. California ........2-0 ... 11 12. Utah ...............3-0 ... 12 13. Georgia ..........3-0 ... 13 14. Virginia ..........3-0 ... 14 15. Ohio State ......3-0 ... 16 16. Arizona State ..3-0 .... - 17. West Virginia ...3-0 ... 20 18. Fresno State ...3-0 ... 10 19. Stanford .........2-0 ... 17 20. Virginia Tech ...2-1 ... 18 21. Florida ............1-1 ... 24 22. Alabama .........3-0 .... - 23. Boston College 3-0 .... - 24. Wisconsin .......3-0 ... 23 25. Michigan .........2-1 ... 25

None of those teams have been very impressive, but I gave Wisconsin a slight nod over Minnesota due to the fact that they didn't have a close game with a mediocre I-AA team, and that their defense looks like they'll be able to pull them out of the fire in a lot of close games. I decided to give Michigan a little bit of a pass due to their performance last year. I kind of like to let undefeated teams fall no lower than 10 spots below their final rank last year when I start out, so I figured it was only fair to let Michigan stay within 20 spots of their final rank last year (5) with one loss.

Boise State dominated the same Oregon State team that outplayed LSU, and would have won in Baton Rouge except for extra points. Their offense has also been utterly dominant through the year, as they are averaging 55 points a game, and no one has come close to stopping them. However, they didn't play as well as they should have against UTEP as they actually let them stay in the game into the second half, so I dropped them a couple spots this week. Ohio State has been struggling this year, even against mediocre competition, as they nearly lost to Marshall, and were far from impressive against Cincinnatti. They did do better against the Wolfpack, but I didn't think it was enough to warrant lifting them over teams that have dominated this year like Utah, Virginia, or California.

Since strength of schedule only has meaning in terms of the record shouldn't it be weighted less strongly than the record? I think every major RPI type formula has record count twice as much as strength of schedule. It seems like if you used a 50%/25%/25% formula instead of a 33%/33%/33% formula, you'd get more accurate results.

The coaches poll makes little to no sense. (See my ASU/Iowa example above.) All of my rankings are completely justified by logic. Oklahoma's a very good team, and I have them ranked third in the country. They just haven't proven themselves like Miami has against Florida State, or USC has against Virginia Tech. In addition, they've failed to dominate mediocre teams, as they let Bowling Green stay in the game late into the fourth quarter, whereas USC has shown killer instinct in similar situations against Colorado State and BYU.

No forfeit this week. THURSDAY Miami at Houston Friday Bowling Green at Northern Illinois BYU at Boise State SATURDAY N.C. State at Virginia Tech Boston College at Wake Forest Washington at Notre Dame Clemson at Florida State Iowa at Michigan Washington State at Arizona Alabama at Arkansas Texas Tech at Kansas Penn State at Wisconsin Kentucky at Florida USC at Stanford Northwestern at Minnesota Oregon State at Arizona State Tiebreaker #1: How many total points will be scored in the Bowling Green/Northern Illinois game? 51 Tiebreaker #2: How many yards passing will Miami's Brock Berlin have against Houston? 250 Also, how does that forfeit affect the BCS rankings? Is there actually going to be a zero when my picks right get averaged out or will you just take the average of the other weeks? If I have a zero, I'm pretty much guaranteed to get last or second to last for a third of my ranking, which is kinda cheap since I just took over.

I can't see the fucking kicks today. That first extra point looked like it was through to me, and the second one looked like it missed. Oh, and what the fuck was the personal foul? I didn't see shit on that.

Va. Tech's up 24-7 at the half. I think they'll be all right. As for WVU, I really do like watching Kay-Jay Harris. He's a pretty legitimate Heisman candidate. Oh, and Georgia's got to be the most overrated team in the country. Their first game, they're down at the half to a I-AA team, then they damn near lose to South Carolina, and now they're struggling with Marshall. How does anyone think this is a top-3 ballclub?

I've got to say, Michigan's looking pretty vulnerable right now. First, they had the ND loss, and now they're letting San Diego State hang in there. They could actually get knocked off by a team like Indiana this year. I think the Wolverines are gonna have their worst year in a while and end the season like 8-4. Oh, and this West Virginia/Maryland game's looking pretty sloppy. Even if the Mountaineers win here, there's no way that they beat Virginia Tech.

Maybe, he really doesn't know how many title reigns, because the WWE doesn't even know what their own fucking title history is. In 2002, did it count as: (a.) Two title reigns, both starting at Wrestlemania when he won the two belts from Jericho, with one reign ending at Backlash and one ending at Survivor Series? (b.) One title reign, with half of the title lost at Backlash and the other half held onto until Survivor Series? or (c.) One title reign, starting at WM and ending at Backlash, and then a new title reign started shortly after Summerslam, when he was handed the belt and then beat Ric Flair. I think (c.) is the official company line right now, but it really just changes from day to day.

There actually was an update on Cal/Southern Miss. About two or three days ago, Cal's AD said that they absoultely weren't going to fly to Mississippi to play the game under any circumstances this week, and then the USM people got all pissed off, and said that they were too hasty, and it was really irresponsible of Cal to cancel the game so early when they still might have been able to play it.

Shit, I didn't even realize that Idaho/WSU was a night game. That's tight. That means I can watch the good games, and get good and fucking drunk before I walk my ass over to Martin Stadium. And to be honest, I'm kinda surprised it's televised too. I know FSN picks up a lot of Wazzu games, but it's fucking Idaho. This is like the consensus worst team in the country here.

I certainly know I'm in the minority here, but I think the salary cap has hurt the NFL. Not in ratings, money, etc., but just in entertainment value. There's no consistency from year to year, and it really gets kind of hard to care who wins. It seems like the last time the Super Bowl really "mattered" in the long-term was when Denver won. With that being said, the NHL does need some drastic changes. They're getting comparable salaries with the other "Big 3" when the interest and the money they draw aren't even close. I don't know if a salary cap's the answer, but I can certainly see why the owners would lockout the players.

I think the Colts are starting to get a mental block with the Patriots. They expect to fuck it up late in the game so they do. It's the same reason that the Eagles will lose again in the NFC Championship this year.

Yay for the Jets. I don't want to get my hopes up yet, but they look like they might actually be decent this year. Oh, and just because I feel like posting it, here's what's gonna happen in the NFL this year. AFC Championship: Patriots over Browns 30-24 NFC Championship: Falcons over Eagles 21-20 Super Bowl: Patriots over Falcons 38-17 ...and power rankings that are based on the field, not my imaginative fantasy: 1. Patriots 2. Eagles 3. Broncos 4. Seahawks 5. Colts