header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Rankings ... ugh

 (Read 717854 times)

Wildcat4E

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5488 on: March 12, 2026, 04:36:01 PM »
Even in 1970, the "good" QBs had a 1:1 TD:INT ratio, and led their teams to a good record.  They'd have a 55-60% comp rate and/or would be a rushing threat with a few hundred yards on the ground.  "Field General" stuff.

This guy didn't do any of that.  At all.  But he was 10th in Heisman voting?  There's no argument for that.  None.
Dude had to be the 2nd coming to take K-State of 1970 to a winning record.  I don't know much, except I was in utero at the time, I'm told.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89408
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5489 on: March 13, 2026, 07:36:57 PM »

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89408
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5490 on: March 13, 2026, 07:37:37 PM »
Peyton listed twice.  

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 16730
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5491 on: March 20, 2026, 03:13:19 PM »
https://www.terminitwitter.com/blog/whats-buzzing/top-bed-bug-cities/

Good job, Cleveland! The #3 city in the US for bed bugs!

Here are the top ten:


  • Philadelphia
  • New York
  • Cleveland-Akron (Canton)
  • Los Angeles
  • Dallas - Ft. Worth
  • Atlanta
  • Houston
  • Washington, D.C (Hagerstown)
  • San Francisco - Oak - San Jose
  • Indianapolis


OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24005
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5492 on: March 20, 2026, 07:46:12 PM »
Peyton listed twice. 
So is Magic.
And the wrong flags by names.
It's bullshit AI nonsense, that you're spreading.
It's purposely erroneous to get more engagement.

Stop being the problem, please.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89408
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5493 on: March 21, 2026, 08:15:31 AM »
The entire thread is about bad or useless rankings ….. I posted an example.


FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 53799
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5494 on: March 21, 2026, 09:39:00 AM »
someone created this thread for that very reason
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24005
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5495 on: March 21, 2026, 10:01:01 AM »
They're not bad rankings, they're not real rankings.  Every reshare, post, or any interaction with those just breeds more.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

MikeDeTiger

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6220
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5496 on: March 21, 2026, 01:44:10 PM »
Kobe Bryant also listed twice.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89408
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5497 on: March 23, 2026, 07:47:11 AM »
Back in the day, I recall being somewhat "consumed" with rankings.  If they Dawgs were doing well, a move up a notch or two was Big News.  I'd watch the scoreboard to see if anyone ahead of them was losing.  I recall when Tech tied ND 3-3 in 1980 and UGA had the last minute comeback against UF, it was pretty big.  To me, at the time.

Of course today a team can end the regular season #1 and leave fans disappointed in the playoffs.  

Indiana fans have a Big Taste now, I wonder if they get all despondent if in 2026 they end up say tenth?

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89408
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5498 on: March 23, 2026, 07:57:45 AM »


Not a ranking really, but interesting, if accurate.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 53799
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5499 on: March 23, 2026, 08:01:06 AM »
tough sledding
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89408
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5500 on: March 23, 2026, 08:07:08 AM »
Yup, a good portion of those games would occur when the team is a clear underdog likely to lose.  The Bama figure is impressive, as are any 33% or better.


FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 53799
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5501 on: March 23, 2026, 08:14:10 AM »
I'm guessing a good portion of the "wins" could be early in the season when a team is ranked #1 but doesn't finish in the top 5

could also be some #1 vs #2 or #3 in bowl games or playoffs 
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.