So, What's your Top 10?
- Thread starter Infield Infidel
- Start date
Do you pee when you sit down too? Christ. Stanford has lost two close games this year on the road and beat Oregon the last two years something no other program can claim. They've been great at recruiting. They're an elite program. Act like you've been there.Old Fart Tree said:
1. Bama
2. Fsu
3. Baylor
4. Oregon
5. Stanford
6. Ohio st
7. Missouri
8. Oklahoma St
9. Wisconsin
10. Auburn
FEI... the stat that gives you credit for multiple losses as long as their close and efficient. Maybe FEI can name the moral victory National Champion game. BYU can play Stanford.
Why is their validation of performance any less valid? Because they value other things than wins and losses? They do ok predicting outcomes. I've gone 12 amd 0 against the spread with their model. But is 9 and 0 or 10 and 0 that much better than 8 and 2? Isn't there enough randomness that it's not really all that important?
How worthless do you think those numbers are? I mean that as an honest question.
How worthless do you think those numbers are? I mean that as an honest question.
I admittedly know less about FEI than you, but when I checked it out a few weeks ago, I thought the win prediction model was off the mark. I was looking at FEI not FEI+, so I'm not really sure which gospel you're preaching from. But FEI has Stanford 2, the best rated defensive team in the nation at 21, and somehow Utah at 3-6 is 22 despite Off/Def/ST rankings of 26/28/39.SMU_Sox said:
So burdens on you to explain to me why Utah is ranked 22 when the next 6 loss teams are down around 41 and 52 and play in the SEC.
And if you're truly 12-0 against the spread, I hope you're smart enough to know you're ahead of the curve. Don't bet today, correction is coming.
Edit: One other point, I get that wins and losses can be random sometimes, Auburn/Georgia last week for instance. But 6 losses? Ranked 22, metric has to account for that IMO.
wonderland said:
I still like Stanford and think they are top 10, and yes they have lost 2 close road games this year, but we are not talking to Miss St, and LSU. They have lost to the worst team in the Pac 12, and to a pretty good but no more than that USC team. When you lose to the worst team in your conference it leaves a big scar
Paul, I think you were getting at F+ which is their two ratings systems blended into one (it is not FEI+).
I hear you re Utah. Every year there is an outlier team that seems to pop up way ahead of where they appear yo belong. But let's look at Utah. Aside from Oregon and Usc they have been competitive in every game this year. Many of their losses are by less than a score. They beat Stanford. Nearly upset ASU. Had it not been for 6 turnovers they had every chance to beat UCLA. Let's pretend instead of losing by a total of 8 to UCLA and ASU they eek out wins. Their rating wouldn't change that much in FEI. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have a problem with them at 21 or 22 in the fei ratings. Now I know it didn't happen like that but the ratings tell me that Utah is close to being a very solid team and are not nearly as bad as their record indicates. That and they didn't have an easy schedule.
I hear you re Utah. Every year there is an outlier team that seems to pop up way ahead of where they appear yo belong. But let's look at Utah. Aside from Oregon and Usc they have been competitive in every game this year. Many of their losses are by less than a score. They beat Stanford. Nearly upset ASU. Had it not been for 6 turnovers they had every chance to beat UCLA. Let's pretend instead of losing by a total of 8 to UCLA and ASU they eek out wins. Their rating wouldn't change that much in FEI. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have a problem with them at 21 or 22 in the fei ratings. Now I know it didn't happen like that but the ratings tell me that Utah is close to being a very solid team and are not nearly as bad as their record indicates. That and they didn't have an easy schedule.
I was looking at both, but pulled Utah at 22 from FEI. Here
Still have trouble reconciling Utah from Florida, who sits at 41 with close losses to South Carolina, Georgia, Miami, LSU and larger margins to Vandy and Mizzou. That seems like too much of a margin for me considering Florida has more wins. Hard to put much credibility in a stat that has some obvious outliers. Makes you wonder where the rouge teams end.
Still have trouble reconciling Utah from Florida, who sits at 41 with close losses to South Carolina, Georgia, Miami, LSU and larger margins to Vandy and Mizzou. That seems like too much of a margin for me considering Florida has more wins. Hard to put much credibility in a stat that has some obvious outliers. Makes you wonder where the rouge teams end.
PaulinMyrBch said:
Clearly Utah get a huge bump from beating the #2 team in their rankings. They also beat BYU (#14), Utah St (#38), Weber St (NR)
This site has Toledo (#53) as Florida's bet win. Their other wins are against Kentucky (#87), Tennessee (#80), Arkansas, (#93)
I think looking through the rankings must be the fact that #81 is 6-4 Penn St, and #82 is 0-10 Hawaii
Utah ranks highly in advanced metrics because they've played the hardest schedule in the country. Stanford, Oregon, Arizona St, USC, UCLA, and BYU all are 7-3 or better, and Arizona and Oregon St are no slouches either. Just a brutal slate. They've probably played 8 games that would have been the toughest or second toughest game on Ohio State's schedule, for example.
I'm curious, why do you have OSU so low? The team has won 23 games in a row in the Big Ten, Oregon has lost games and on the verge of losing a 2nd.wonderland said:
FL4WL3SS said:
Well, at the time I had my rankings, Oregon had lost once on the road against a very good team. I clearly misjudged them and would drop them accordingly now.
As for Ohio State, yes, they've won a bunch of games in a row but outside of Wisconsin, they haven't played much. And I think Wisconsin would beat them now. I also think Michigan State will beat them in the Big 10 championship. If the Buckeyes do win that game, I'll move them up, for sure.
1 FSU
2 Alabama
3 Ohio State
4 Missouri
5 Auburn
6 Michigan State
7 Oklahoma State
8 Baylor
9 Clemson
10 Wisconsin
2 Alabama
3 Ohio State
4 Missouri
5 Auburn
6 Michigan State
7 Oklahoma State
8 Baylor
9 Clemson
10 Wisconsin
I'm not sure you've watched a single OSU game - at least not recently. They are playing their best football right now and there's no way Wisconsin would beat them.wonderland said:
Braxton Miller look phenomenal right now and is the most dynamic QB in the FBS. If not for missing 2.5 games, he'd be leading the Heisman right now. OSU also has one of the best running backs in the FBS in Carlos Hyde as well as the best offensive line in college football. The defense has it's question marks, but they've played solid enough to compliment the offense and has a few key playmakers in shutdown corner Roby and linebacker Shazier.
Michigan St. could def give OSU a run for it's money, but I'd be pretty surprised if they could keep up offensively.
Admittedly, I'm an OSU fan, but as others can attest on this board, I'm usually pretty even-handed. I think OSU has been criminally under-rated this year and is flying under the radar. Having said that, I understand with their shit schedule why people don't take them serious.
PaulinMyrBch said:
Yesterday went 11-3 but since they were all teasers it turned out to 4-3. I weighted my bets with more money to the ones that were, in theory (and it played out this way too), safer bets. I finished up +1.927 units. So the individual team record is 23-3 using the FEI and F+ system. Assuming I should have a 75% chance to win even randomly with teasers I would have a 5.435% chance of being 23-3. So it is very possible that my system is just getting lucky. On the other hand there is a distinct possibility that I might be on to a better way of valuating college ball. I will keep it going. Look, if I bust, you are right. It was just random. If on the other hand I continue to have success I think you should take that into account.
I think Wisconsin and Ohio St are playing similarly well. OSU beat Indiana this week 42-14, Wisconsin beat them last week 51-3. They each had similar scores against Illinois. I think they'd play just as close now as they did when they played, but each team is playing better now than then. It was only a 1 score difference in Columbus.
Badgers are absolutely running over teams right now. Two 1000 yard rushers and another guy with 500, avg 6.8 per carry. Defense is good too. 36 points against over the last 4 weeks, including games against live teams in BYU and Minnesota. I have them at #10 because they are playing great right now and have 1.5 losses.
I just got to thinking, it's really hard to compare Wisconsin to other teams because they run the ball so much and so well. I think they look to have a similar strength defensively and a marginally better offense than OSU, but with the caveat that if they play a team with a front seven that is elite against the run, and thus can cover Abberderis, they can be slowed considerably. So since very few teams have that kind of defensive arsenal, they look amazing against non-elite teams purely because they wear defenses down and shorten the game. So their success rate on standard downs is always going to be high because they get lots of yards on the ground, instead of incompletions here and there. Wisconsin's success rate ranking is 4, OSU is 8.
OSU on the other hand can do a lot more offensively, but have to mix it up to get the most out of their offense, and they depend more on great play from the QB instead of the plug-and-play RBs at Wisconsin.
Badgers are absolutely running over teams right now. Two 1000 yard rushers and another guy with 500, avg 6.8 per carry. Defense is good too. 36 points against over the last 4 weeks, including games against live teams in BYU and Minnesota. I have them at #10 because they are playing great right now and have 1.5 losses.
I just got to thinking, it's really hard to compare Wisconsin to other teams because they run the ball so much and so well. I think they look to have a similar strength defensively and a marginally better offense than OSU, but with the caveat that if they play a team with a front seven that is elite against the run, and thus can cover Abberderis, they can be slowed considerably. So since very few teams have that kind of defensive arsenal, they look amazing against non-elite teams purely because they wear defenses down and shorten the game. So their success rate on standard downs is always going to be high because they get lots of yards on the ground, instead of incompletions here and there. Wisconsin's success rate ranking is 4, OSU is 8.
OSU on the other hand can do a lot more offensively, but have to mix it up to get the most out of their offense, and they depend more on great play from the QB instead of the plug-and-play RBs at Wisconsin.
FL4WL3SS said:
I've watched them. I don't mean to come across as bashing OSU. I think they are very good team but when the last three games are against Purdue, Illinois, and Indiana it's hard to get a real good read on them. So I have them lower but it's also a function of thinking the other teams are very good.
We'll find out in a couple weeks.
With all the conference shuffling, I don't think the coaches or whoever votes in the Coaches' poll in the Power conferences understand that having #19 UCF (F/+ 22, wins @ Louisville and @ Penn State, close home loss to S. Car.) behind #16 Fresno (F/+ 45) and #14 NIU (F/+ 60) means that they are giving up an at-large BCS bid. I mean, shit, they still have Louisville ahead of UCF, they don't follow this stuff closely
I'm sure the coaches at Oregon, ASU, Baylor, Wisconsin, and Michigan St want UCF higher, since it's doubtful NIU or Fresno will get into the top 12.
I'm sure the coaches at Oregon, ASU, Baylor, Wisconsin, and Michigan St want UCF higher, since it's doubtful NIU or Fresno will get into the top 12.
Infield Infidel said:
I guess it will be interesting to see who gets left out
There are 10 spots.
Automatics ACC, SEC, Pac12, Big 10, Big 12 AAC
So that leaves 4 spots.
Save to say SEC gets a second (Sugar bowl)
Clemson gets Orange bowl if they win this week, Peach bowl if they lose (i suspect)
If one of the outliers get in, who does get that last bowl.
As it is likely the other pick would be made by the Orange, I suspect they take the Big 1G team.
Which leaves the Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls screwed, and Oregon, ASU and Baylor in second rate bowls (Regardless of the outlier, Baylor's only hope is an OSU loss)
It will be funny if they who system is screwed by something we were complaining about 6 weeks ago, the idiotic ranking of UCF
- FSU
- Ohio State
- Missouri (Loss to South Carolina)
- Auburn (Loss to LSU)
- Alabama (Loss to Auburn)
- Oklahoma State (Loss to WVU)
- Stanford (Loss to Utah, Southern Cal)
- Baylor (Loss to Oklahoma State)
- Michigan State (Loss to Notre Dame)
- South Carolina (Loss to Georgia, Tennessee)
1. Florida State
2. Ohio State
3. Auburn
4. Missouri
5. Alabama
6. Oklahoma State
7. Stanford
8. Michigan State
9. South Carolina
10. Baylor
2. Ohio State
3. Auburn
4. Missouri
5. Alabama
6. Oklahoma State
7. Stanford
8. Michigan State
9. South Carolina
10. Baylor
1. FSU
2. Ohio State
3. Auburn
4. Alabama
5. Missouri
6. Oklahoma State
7. Stanford
8. Baylor
9. Michigan State
10. South Carolina
Next week: MSU upsets Ohio State, Auburn beats Missouri, FSU pounds Duke. Top 5 at that point becomes: (1) FSU, (2) Auburn, (3) Alabama, (4) Oklahoma State, (5) Stanford. FSU-Auburn in the BCS Championship game, which would be a pretty good game, I would think.
2. Ohio State
3. Auburn
4. Alabama
5. Missouri
6. Oklahoma State
7. Stanford
8. Baylor
9. Michigan State
10. South Carolina
Next week: MSU upsets Ohio State, Auburn beats Missouri, FSU pounds Duke. Top 5 at that point becomes: (1) FSU, (2) Auburn, (3) Alabama, (4) Oklahoma State, (5) Stanford. FSU-Auburn in the BCS Championship game, which would be a pretty good game, I would think.
1. Florida State
2. Ohio State
3. Auburn
4. Missouri
5. Alabama
6. Oklahoma State
7. Baylor
8. Michigan State
9. South Carolina
10. Stanford
2. Ohio State
3. Auburn
4. Missouri
5. Alabama
6. Oklahoma State
7. Baylor
8. Michigan State
9. South Carolina
10. Stanford
1 Florida State
2 Ohio State
3 Oklahoma St
4 South Carolina
5 Auburn
6 Alabama
7 Missouri
8 Michigan St
9 Stanford
10 Baylor
I know it looks weird, but let's just say that the consensus top five in the AP and Coaches' polls all play 8 game conference schedules, and weak non-conference. When I think teams are pretty even, like numbers 3-8 above, I give the benefit to the teams that play 10 live opponents, instead of scheduling 3 bye weeks (AKA FCS and sunbelt teams). That's also why I have Stanford ahead of Baylor.
South Carolina's non-conf: UNC, UCF, Clemson, Coastal Carolina. Only 1 chump.
2 Ohio State
3 Oklahoma St
4 South Carolina
5 Auburn
6 Alabama
7 Missouri
8 Michigan St
9 Stanford
10 Baylor
I know it looks weird, but let's just say that the consensus top five in the AP and Coaches' polls all play 8 game conference schedules, and weak non-conference. When I think teams are pretty even, like numbers 3-8 above, I give the benefit to the teams that play 10 live opponents, instead of scheduling 3 bye weeks (AKA FCS and sunbelt teams). That's also why I have Stanford ahead of Baylor.
South Carolina's non-conf: UNC, UCF, Clemson, Coastal Carolina. Only 1 chump.
You realize South Carolina has two losses? Played Mizzou sans Franklin and won on a shanked OT FG.
Plus you didn't have SC in your top ten last week, so a win against a 6 turnover Clemson is worth 6+ spots?
1. Florida State
2. Auburn
3. Missouri
4. Ohio State
5. Oklahoma State
6. Alabama
7. Michigan State
8. South Carolina
9. Baylor
10. Stanford
2. Auburn
3. Missouri
4. Ohio State
5. Oklahoma State
6. Alabama
7. Michigan State
8. South Carolina
9. Baylor
10. Stanford
You realize South Carolina has two losses? Played Mizzou sans Franklin and won on a shanked OT FG.Plus you didn't have SC in your top ten last week, so a win against a 6 turnover Clemson is worth 6+ spots?
I dont move teams up or down, I look at who the played. I had Sc underrated because I hadn't looked at the schedule closely enough. Losing two games wgen you played 11 quality opponents is better than losing 1 game when you only played 9 quality opponents.
Also you had Clemson 4 last week which is the biggest homer joke ranking in this thread al season.
I dont move teams up or down, I look at who the played. I had Sc underrated because I hadn't looked at the schedule closely enough. Losing two games wgen you played 11 quality opponents is better than losing 1 game when you only played 9 quality opponents.
Also you had Clemson 4 last week which is the biggest homer joke ranking in this thread al season.
Infield Infidel said:
They were #4 in the coaches poll, weren't they?
EDIT: And the Harris poll.
1. FSU
2. Alabama
3. Auburn
4. Missouri
5. OSU-Ohio
6. OSU-Oklahoma
7. South Carolina
8. Stanford
9. Baylor
10.Arizona State
2. Alabama
3. Auburn
4. Missouri
5. OSU-Ohio
6. OSU-Oklahoma
7. South Carolina
8. Stanford
9. Baylor
10.Arizona State
I was being serious, I thought you somehow overlooked the fact that SC had two losses. As it stands you just change your methodology week to week. Which is fine, just explain it when you post the poll, that way we won't wonder if you've made a mistake and instead we'll just silently think you don't really know that much about college football. But when you start your explanation with "I know it looks wierd..." I guess in a way you were warning us.Infield Infidel said:
But since question my Clemson pick at 4, I'll admit I'm the Clemson homer on the board. I had them 4, but Coaches had them 4, Harris had them 4, and BCS had them 6. Since you had them 9, you're actually the outlier there, so "joke" is a bit strong unless you want to switch things around. Keep in mind they played a healthy Georgia team, which no one else this year did, and even though the LSU game came last year in a bowl, they are the only non-SEC team to beat two top 10 SEC teams in a row.
For what its worth, since you look at who they played, please note Alabama and Auburn played a tougher schedule than SC and had fewer losses, yet you have SC ranked higher.
But with your methodology, Clemson could be 5th. You don't mind ranking 2 loss teams in the top 5, and in your poll Clemson has only lost to #1 and #4.
Hey Paul, not to antagonize you but my college betting continues to be profitable (not a single week in the red and every week has made money)... let's be objective. How large a sample size would you need to think a modified FEI system is not that bad and might actually have a good amount of value?
I don't think there isn't value so its not sample size. I just think from what I've read the Fremeau stuff is more related to how a game was played rather than who won. So when you use it to rank teams for what they've already done, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect. Specifically the team that won may not have been the most efficient, or things that effected the outcome may not be easily measurable. Using it to rank teams in this thread once we already know the W/L record is probably counterproductive and that's how I was looking at it.
It actually makes sense that it would be predictive of the future and if you are using it to place bets, I don't doubt that your system is working for you. My comment a week or so ago was more general....house doesn't lose consistently, so temper your enthusiasm with betting and continued good luck there.
I am curious, what did the Fremeau stuff say about the Auburn/Georgia game and the Auburn/Alabama games? I think if Auburn plays those two games, 100 times in a row, they're probably 2-0 once, 1-1, twice, and 0-2 97 times. But here they are.
I will say its been an interesting thread, lots of different perspectives.
It actually makes sense that it would be predictive of the future and if you are using it to place bets, I don't doubt that your system is working for you. My comment a week or so ago was more general....house doesn't lose consistently, so temper your enthusiasm with betting and continued good luck there.
I am curious, what did the Fremeau stuff say about the Auburn/Georgia game and the Auburn/Alabama games? I think if Auburn plays those two games, 100 times in a row, they're probably 2-0 once, 1-1, twice, and 0-2 97 times. But here they are.
I will say its been an interesting thread, lots of different perspectives.
WayBackVazquez said:
Both of those polls still have Louisville higher than UCF; I take them with a grain of salt and will be glad that they won't mean squat next season
Last week, Clemson was 10th in the computers, and 13th by F/+. I think those are better judges of their quality
Yeah, joke was probably to strong. I have Clemson 12.PaulinMyrBch said:
I don't really agree with the idea that you just look at losses. You can if the scheds are close, but if not, schedule strength is more important for me. South Carolina, 28th sched strength, lost to full strength Georgia in sept, but was 3-1 vs currently ranked teams, all three wins over BCS top 16 teams. Clemson beat one top 25 team, over Georgia by 3. They didn't beat anyone else good, second best win is 7-5 BC, and their schedule was 63rd by Sagarin.
I also look at how teams play. That's an integral part of F/+, and its value is predictive. Both times they played someone elite it wasn't much of a game. Clemson to me is a team that safely beats mid-tier teams but upchucks vs. elite teams. Is Clemson that much better than Duke, who's also 10-2 with a SoS of 65? (I'm thinking coaching has those two teams where they are; Clemson is clearly more talented. Ivan Maisel says he thinks Clemson gets too amped for big games.)
The sched is weak because the ACC is down, but Clemson also played two FCS teams. What happens if we switch one of those to UCF or Washington State, like SCar and Auburn did? Or even Buffalo or East Carolina? Do they win? Do they play as well the next week? Do they have more injuries?
You called him having a team ranked the very same as both polls "the biggest homer joke in this thread all season." But I get it it. You know better than everyone else, and the fact that your assessment of USC (as better than Auburn despite the fact that they've lost more games than Auburn playing a weaker schedule) is so different from everyone else's will all be straightened out next year when Condie makes the decisions.Infield Infidel said:
1. No one else in the thread had Clemson over 8 last week.
2. Sagarin's SoS has Auburn 26 and SCar 28, so I'm rewarding SCar for stronger non-conf scheduling. And fewer miracles.
3. Condi at least won't be coaching and probably will watch more games. And so will the other 12 people.
4. You don't even post rankings, so way to criticize others when you don't even put yourself out there to be critiqued. Unless you blindly follow the coaches' and Harris polls. I mean, those authorities have had Louisville over UCF all season, they are obviously on top of things and not biased at all.
I mean, seriously, I can't believe you are defending the current system.
2. Sagarin's SoS has Auburn 26 and SCar 28, so I'm rewarding SCar for stronger non-conf scheduling. And fewer miracles.
3. Condi at least won't be coaching and probably will watch more games. And so will the other 12 people.
4. You don't even post rankings, so way to criticize others when you don't even put yourself out there to be critiqued. Unless you blindly follow the coaches' and Harris polls. I mean, those authorities have had Louisville over UCF all season, they are obviously on top of things and not biased at all.
I mean, seriously, I can't believe you are defending the current system.
I actually wasn't criticizing rankings. I was criticizing your objectively moronic insult of someone else's ranking that was perfectly reasonable. Carry on, though.Infield Infidel said:
Infidel, find me another school that plays two SEC schools as out of conference opponents every year. In the last 13 games Clemson has played 3 top 10 SEC schools and is 2-1. Too amped?
And Georgia wasn't full strength for SC, they lost their top WR against Clemson. Bet you're probably thinking Mizzou was full strength as well.
And Georgia wasn't full strength for SC, they lost their top WR against Clemson. Bet you're probably thinking Mizzou was full strength as well.
Uh, not defending the current system. Just noting that it's only in your fantasy world that USC ends up,near a playoff. Not with polls, not with a selection committee.Infield Infidel said:
So, you seem to mention Sagarin fair bit. How do his computers (you know, the ones he thinks are better, not the BCS one) think Louisville would do against UCF?
Yes, after you defended your objectively moronic insult, I pointed out your objectively moronic ranking. You win?Infield Infidel said:
PaulinMyrBch said:
As far as Georgia, I was more referencing how they were in better condition in September than how depleted they were by the Florida game. A lot of teams lose one good player and can survive. They had Gurley for both games against schools from the Palmetto state. They were 1-2 the games he missed (including yes a loss to Mizzou when UGa lost turnovers 4-0)
I think it's good they play two SEC schools, but I could turn that around and say "find me a school that plays two FCS schools?" They probably do the latter because of the former. That seems to hurt SoS more than the SEC schools help, although Sagarin has the Atlantic as the weakest division among major conferences. It all counts.
You probably know better than me: does the state make them play SC State and the Citadel?
WayBackVazquez said:
Can you find a more divergent homer ranking in this thread?
well, that isn't DukeSox's tongue-in-cheek one-off
And also, as far as the "moronic ranking" is concerned, here's the non-conference comparison between Auburn and S Carolina
SCar: UNC, UCF (@ Orlando), Clemson, Coastal Carolina - by F/+ 3 teams in top 37 as of last week, plus an FCS
Auburn: Arkansas St, Western Carolina, FAU, Washington St. - by F/+ 68, 95, 55 + FCS
playing crappy teams in the non-conf keeps teams healthy and gives you free* wins. Auburn's schedule has more peaks and valleys, while South Carolina played live teams almost every week.
*well I'm sure they paid a lot of money for them.
Yeah, I mentioned Sagarin's SoS a fair bit; his rankings, not so much. I think his SoS is good because he figures in FCS teams.WayBackVazquez said:
Computer rankings are useful if teams haven't played, but when they have, that takes precedence for me. We don't need to calculate how UCF "would do," they beat Lousiville, on the road, that's good enough for me that they deserve a higher ranking.
Infield Infidel said:
Infield Infidel said:
It's hard to respect your stance in this thread when you're all over the board. Each post redefines the last, like we're all stupid and should have known what you meant. Reality is you don't put enough thought into your post until someone calls you out and then you try to backfill your logic. We might actually have some respect for you if you would just admit you don't who Malcolm Mitchell is or when and how he was lost for the season.
The previous posts you've made are out there. You had SC not ranked a week ago and Clemson 9th. So an unranked two loss team beats your #9 team and you elevate them to 4th, yet an undefeated #2 loses on a fluke play to your #5, and they drop below SC. Then we find out you "don't move teams up and down" and you "hadn't looked at the schedule closely enough" to explain away prior rankings that don't jive with your current. I have to assume you had respect for Georgia State, Colorado State, and Chattanooga on November 24. I can only imagine what they must have done in the last week to lose your respect. I'm sure you'll tell us what your logic was as soon as you figure it out.
Carry on.