|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Oct 12, 2004 14:49:52 GMT -5
I love to do "averages" just to see what happens. I've added the rankings of both Pablo and the KRPI together to create a composite ranking and then compared it to the the current AVCA poll. Here it is for the week of 10/11. The composite is before the teams name, and the AVCA is after.
Doesn't really prove anything, but thought it was interesting.
1) Nebraska (4)
2) Minnesota (2)
3) Washington (1)
4) Florida (10)
5) USC (6)
6) Penn State (5)
7) Ohio State (8)
8T) Texas (9)
8T) Hawaii (3)
10T) UCLA (11)
10T) Stanford (12)
12) Tennesse (17)
13T) Missouri (NR)
13T) St. Mary's (14)
15) Colorado (NR)
16) San Diego (25)
17) Wisconsin (NR)
18) Santa Clara (15)
19) Kansas State (16)
20T) Georgia Tech (NR)
20T) Michigan (NR)
22) Rice (NR)
23T) Pacific (NR)
23T) Illinois (NR)
23T) LBSU (NR)
The following are teams that didn't make this top 25 but that are ranked in the AVCA poll (These are not 26th, 27th, etc., but are list for reference only):
Colorado State (7)
California (13)
Utah (18)
UCSB (19)
TAMU (20)
Lousiville (21)
Arizonia (22)
Illinois (23)
FAMU (24)
|
|
|
|
Post by TDCincy on Oct 12, 2004 15:44:04 GMT -5
I understand CAL getting some coaches votes, but why is Colorado State #7??
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 12, 2004 15:57:10 GMT -5
I understand CAL getting some coaches votes, but why is Colorado State #7?? By default. They started high and haven't had any losses since their "good loss" to Minnesota. |
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Oct 12, 2004 16:50:37 GMT -5
It had taken me half way through the season to find a way to get my Huskers on top. ;D What a fan won't do to promote his team.  Seriously though, with the exception of Colorado State, the formula ranking average for the top dozen teams follow pretty close to the coaches poll. Florida and Hawaii are a little off but really not too bad. But after that there really doesn't seem to be too much consistancy. Very similar to what we've seen in the VT poll voting. The Big 12 is kind of interesting with Missouri and Colorado above KSU and TAMU not in the top 25. |
|
|
|
Post by Boom on Oct 12, 2004 18:38:59 GMT -5
I understand CAL getting some coaches votes, but why is Colorado State #7?? Well, they beat #15 and #20 in this averaging poll, and their only loss is to #2, so I find it tough that they are not even in the top 25. I guess they look bad in the computer rankings because despite beating Pablo's 14, 17, and 28, they've had a poor schedule otherwise and don't seem to dominate teams that they should, ie winning in 3 or 4, but not pounding the other team. For example, lets look at CSU's instate rival, Colorado. The buffs have a good pablo win over USD, and two bad losses to CSU and Oregon. But, they are ranked 12 spots ahead of CSU who has 3 good pablo wins (GTU, CU, and Ohio) and no bad pablo losses. The trick is that CSU's opponents average a pablo rank of over 100, and CU's is in the 60's. For conference opponents, the big 12 averages 43, and the MWC 106 ( we SUCK this year). At least that's what I think.... I've said it before, I get the RKPI, but the pablo is just a mystery to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Boom on Oct 12, 2004 18:46:39 GMT -5
The trick is that CSU's opponents average a pablo rank of over 100, and CU's is in the 60's. For conference opponents, the big 12 averages 43, and the MWC 106 ( we stink this year). Well, I just blew my own theory to hell by looking at Tennessee. They have no good Pablo wins, no bad losses, and their ave opponent rank is about 100, and their conference is at 77. AND, they are ranked way above CSU. I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 12, 2004 20:39:44 GMT -5
Well, I just blew my own theory to heck by looking at Tennessee. They have no good Pablo wins, no bad losses, and their ave opponent rank is about 100, and their conference is at 77. AND, they are ranked way above CSU. I don't get it. Neither do I. ;D |
|
