<p>Hardly "jealous", Sammy. </p>
<p>You get what you pay for with athletic recruits - except, of course, in the case of Stanford football!</p>
<p>I would love to see Stanford play Harvard. That would be a blowout worth watching. There are very few I-AA teams that can go against I-A teams. Regardless, when you are that far down the ranking list the accuracy drops dramatically.</p>
<p>Predictably, one of the few good ways to gauge team strength in matchups where ELO rankings are woefully inadequate is by comparing how many players they supply the NFL. Anyone want to compare the stats on that one?</p>
<p>Draft Picks. Stanford vs. Harvard
2004: 3 vs. 0
2005: 6 vs. 1 (7th round, hilariously)
2006: 4 vs. 0</p>
<p>There you have it folks. Not even in the same galaxy. </p>
<p>edit: Also, it's laughable how weak a schedule Harvard has. 183 schedule rank? That's easy even for a I-AA team.</p>
<p>It is not surprising that when you use salaried performers, as Stanford does, you will get players who are more vocationally inclined.</p>
<p>In days of yore, however, before college football was transformed into big business and the players at the factory schools were paid to play, the Ivies did OK with the sport.</p>
<p>Indeed, Ivy schools emerged victorious in 3 of their 4 Rose Bowl appearances, including a rousing win by an underdog Columbia squad over Stanford, 7-0, in 1933. The local oddsmakers had installed Stanford as a 4-touchdown favorite, and a west coast sportswriter dismissed Columbia as "Pomona high in light blue jerseys."</p>
<p>(Columbia was hardly the strongest Ivy that year, either, having been crushed 20-0 by Princeton, which declined a trip to Pasadena.)</p>
<p>I see you completely dropped the point of Harvard having a better team than Stanford. Even you can't rescue that one.</p>
<p>Oh, I didn't "drop" it at all. </p>
<p>I merely cited the Sagarin rankings, which have strength of schedule built in, where Harvard currently "outranks' Stanford, and where, 2 years ago, it finished far ahead of Stanford when the final numbers came in. </p>
<p>To be sure, that was a 10-0 Harvard team outranking a 4-7 Stanford team.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be sure, that was a 10-0 Harvard team outranking a 4-7 Stanford team.
[/quote]
Like I said earlier, ELO rankings (and other measures) are woefully inadequate in gauging relative strengths of teams if those two teams are very far apart (3 degrees of seperation or more).</p>
<p>In 2004, Stanford was ranked 46 and Harvard 37. Hardly "far ahead." Not to mention that the pure points predictor was higher for Stanford, the best predictor in a head to head matchup.</p>
<p>With all due respect, the split was wider until the post-season came along. </p>
<p>Since the Ivies don't participate in the Div 1AA playoffs, Harvard slipped, after its season ended, because it lacked the opportunity up its number by playing highly-ranked teams. </p>
<p>My feeling (impossible to prove, of course) is that they'd have done pretty well against the likes of James Madison and the Montana Grizzlies in 2004.</p>
<p>IMHO, the points predictor factor is less important than you think it is, since in the Ivies, where "rankings" are really not a concern, there is less interest in "running up the score" than there is with the Div 1 semi-pro schools lusting after bowl slots and trying to wow the poll voters in order to earn a big payday.</p>
<p>"It is not surprising that when you use salaried performers, as Stanford does, you will get players who are more vocationally inclined.</p>
<p>In days of yore, however, before college football was transformed into big business and the players at the factory schools were paid to play, the Ivies did OK with the sport.</p>
<p>Indeed, Ivy schools emerged victorious in 3 of their 4 Rose Bowl appearances, including a rousing win by an underdog Columbia squad over Stanford, 7-0, in 1933. The local oddsmakers had installed Stanford as a 4-touchdown favorite, and a west coast sportswriter dismissed Columbia as "Pomona high in light blue jerseys."</p>
<p>(Columbia was hardly the strongest Ivy that year, either, having been crushed 20-0 by Princeton, which declined a trip to Pasadena.)"</p>
<p>Ok, now tell us, why in the year 2006 are you on a Pac10 conference school's message board posting the Sagarin rankings for a DIFFERENT pac10 school's football team while reminscing about the Ivy League's status in a time where football players wore leather helmets?</p>
<p>And for god's sake stop acting as if the Ivy League is not after money too. Football (and basketball) is a cash cow, and a much needed one for schools that don't have fat cat alumni to fawn over.</p>
<p>Only a very minor fraction of Div 1A teams make a profit on their football programs - and even then, the "profit" may be an "operating profit" - without considering the vast capital expenses - for stadiums, etc., that the school otherwise absorbs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
IMHO, the points predictor factor is less important than you think it is, since in the Ivies, where "rankings" are really not a concern, there is less interest in "running up the score" than there is with the Div 1 semi-pro schools lusting after bowl slots and trying to wow the poll voters in order to earn a big payday.
[/quote]
As compared to the ELO rankings? Please tell me you are joking.</p>
<p>Read carefully:</p>
<p>"In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence, which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters. PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR of future games."</p>
<p>And of course the rankings to establish who gets which bowl, the voters are clearly influenced by scoring margins, which is why the ambitious goliaths always run it up mercilessly whenever the opportunity presents itself..</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Harvard's rank is like SAT. When your team win all of your games, no matter how absolutely terrible your conference is (such as the Ivies), it would still be ranked no worst than 40th, just like the 200charity points to start with in SAT. It's a PC thing to do even though we all know there are more than 40 teams that can easily run the table if any of them were put into Ivy. LOL! Let's fact it, if there were a Stanford/Harvard matchup tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised Stanford would still be few TDs favorite. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In days of yore, however, before college football was transformed into big business and the players at the factory schools were paid to play, the Ivies did OK with the sport.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yea..that's when schools hardly had any black athletes and pretty much only the privileges could go to privates. Many with athletic talents couldn't go to schools. Apparently that didn't bother you. Looks like you long for those days.</p>
<p>"Only a very minor fraction of Div 1A teams make a profit on their football programs - and even then, the "profit" may be an "operating profit" - without considering the vast capital expenses - for stadiums, etc., that the school otherwise absorbs."</p>
<p>Hence the reason why bowl many is split evenly among all the teams of a conference.</p>
<p>Amusing that despite the fact that the Stanford football team is the most highly paid team in America outside the NFL the best you can say is that you "wouldn't be surprised" if it would be favored" over Div 1AA Harvard "if there were a matchup tomorrow." </p>
<p>That might be true, but only because Harvard is currently reduced to starting the quarterback ranked #4 on its depth chart - a kid recruited by Stanford!</p>
<p>While Harvard might well be able to handle Stanford, they're having trouble on the road with Lehigh today, who may have a stouter riun defense than the Cardinal!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Read carefully:</p>
<p>"In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence, which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters. PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR of future games."</p>
<p>And of course the rankings to establish who gets which bowl, the voters are clearly influenced by scoring margins, which is why the ambitious goliaths always run it up mercilessly whenever the opportunity presents itself..
[/quote]
I'm not sure how this is even a response to what I've said. I know what ELO rankings are. I think they are a good way to rank things, college football has better ranking measures though.</p>
<p>Not only is this the best way to rank football teams, (or else the Bowls wouldn't be using it) and colleges (the revealed preference rankings), but it is the best way to rank lacrosse teams too.</p>
<p>Obviously, the rankings get more accurate as the season goes along. In lax, the abilty to predict results by the end of the year is uncanny. Ditto Sagarin.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not only is this the best way to rank football teams, (or else the Bowls wouldn't be using it) and colleges (the revealed preference rankings), but it is the best way to rank lacrosse teams too.
[/quote]
You are hilarious. ELO rankings are a minor part of the computerized rankings. I think it should be included - but it can obviously be misconstrued by certain people who think computerized rankings are holy writ.</p>