At Realtime ->

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

UNC is ranked 37th now. Just saying.

(10-19-2014 09:13 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  UNC is ranked 37th now. Just saying.

Are you saying this is legit? Before you answer Marshall is #25 and ECU is #34. Just sayin.

(10-19-2014 09:19 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 09:13 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  UNC is ranked 37th now. Just saying.

Are you saying this is legit? Before you answer Marshall is #25 and ECU is #34. Just sayin.

Oh no, it's freaking RPI, but CUSA fans love their realtime RPI...Akron is 81st.

Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

Seems another team in this mix is MWC's Colorado State w/ a 6-1 record and 33 ranking.

Whole lotta football left to be played...

(10-19-2014 09:10 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  At Realtime ->

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

i am just thankful that it updates every 5 minutes. I mean you cant be too careful.

(10-19-2014 09:36 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

it's a math formula, not a computer ranking

(10-20-2014 12:09 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 09:36 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

it's a math formula, not a computer ranking

That's what any computer ranking is.

(10-19-2014 09:36 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

What it tells me is the computer doesn't have enough inputs to equate.

(10-20-2014 01:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:09 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 09:36 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

it's a math formula, not a computer ranking

That's what any computer ranking is.

(10-19-2014 11:05 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 09:10 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  At Realtime ->

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

i am just thankful that it updates every 5 minutes. I mean you cant be too careful.

Yes, I set the alarm extra early just to see if something's changed overnight, lol.

(10-20-2014 01:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:09 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 09:36 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

it's a math formula, not a computer ranking

That's what any computer ranking is.

"When all you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail."

Computer ratings/rankings do not work in college football. The small sample size and massive differences in schedules almost makes computer ratings worthless. Warren Nolan has Marshall ranked #3, is that even close to being accurate? Who knows, Marshall doesn't play anyone in the power five, the American Athletic, or the Mountain West.

(10-20-2014 01:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:09 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 09:36 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  Most of these computer rankings are just nonsense…How in the world is UNC 37th??? They have a losing record and were beaten by Va Tech who is ranked below them….That is the problem with computer rankings, a lack of the ability to think rationally.

it's a math formula, not a computer ranking

That's what any computer ranking is.

That may be semantics. Perhaps randaddy was thinking of a composite of other available rankings.

RPI does funny things. When I looked at predictors on that site, it had SMU beating us this weekend 26-20. That could very well happen, but I'd think that would be a fairly significant upset. Whether it's at Vegas, from a formula, or inputs to any program, I's think that predicting a #148 ranked team to beat a #56 ranked team by almost a touchdown is a bit unusual.

RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

(10-20-2014 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

(10-20-2014 10:07 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Computer ratings/rankings do not work in college football. The small sample size and massive differences in schedules almost makes computer ratings worthless. Warren Nolan has Marshall ranked #3, is that even close to being accurate? Who knows, Marshall doesn't play anyone in the power five, the American Athletic, or the Mountain West.

..and these comments were (sort of) my point in my comments above with funny results from RPI. SMU may or may not win this week because I don't think that they are going winless this year, but six games is limited input to predict scores or even Ws/Ls.

(10-19-2014 09:26 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 09:19 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 09:13 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  UNC is ranked 37th now. Just saying.

Are you saying this is legit? Before you answer Marshall is #25 and ECU is #34. Just sayin.

Oh no, it's freaking RPI, but CUSA fans love their realtime RPI...Akron is 81st.

No, you guys love the RPI. You guys are the ones that presented this RPI crap. The RPI is about as meaningless as the Sagarin but posters used it when it benefits their argument of who is best.

(10-20-2014 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  RPI only can become trustworthy with a large sample size. It can work with basketball, not football.

What? With the OP in mind the 'sample size' certainly seems big enough. The American has played 70 games, 46 of them non-conference. The Mountain West has played 84, 46 non-conf. CUSA has played 89, 53 non-conf.