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 731915 times)

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89514
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5516 on: April 06, 2026, 08:39:18 AM »
meters???
It’s some kind of French thing so they can pretend their country is large, like “it’s 440 km Paris to Marseille!” When it’s only like 60 miles or so …

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 35609
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5517 on: April 06, 2026, 08:41:19 AM »
Using meters for height/elevation makes things seem shorter.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Gigem

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4950
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5518 on: April 06, 2026, 10:08:06 AM »
Here's how you too can make a graphic just like that:


def worthless_random_rankings(team_list=None):
  """
    A completely unserious, meaningless Top 25
    designed purely for off-season arguments and clicks.
    """

    import numpy as np

    # If no list is provided, generate the usual suspects
    if team_list is None:
        team_list = [
            "dumb team 1", "dumb team 2", "dumb team 3", "dumb team 4",
            "dumb team 5", "dumb team 6", "dumb team 7", "dumb team 8",
            "dumb team 9", "dumb team 10", "dumb team 11", "dumb team 12",
            "dumb team 13", "dumb team 14", "dumb team 15", "dumb team 16",
            "dumb team 17", "dumb team 18", "dumb team 19", "dumb team 20",
            "dumb team 21", "dumb team 22", "dumb team 23", "dumb team 24",
            "dumb team 25"
        ]

    # Step 1: Pretend we analyzed "key metrics"
    print("Analyzing strength of schedule, vibes, and mascot energy...")

    # Step 2: Completely ignore that and pick randomly
    rankings = np.random.choice(team_list, size=25, replace=False)

    # Step 3: Add fake justification layer
    print("Applying advanced algorithm: 'gut feeling + chaos'")

    # Step 4: Output rankings like they matter
    print("\n=== OFF-SEASON TOP 25 (DO NOT QUESTION) ===")
    for i, team in enumerate(rankings, start=1):
        print(f"{i}. {team}")

    # Step 5: Stir controversy for engagement
    print("\nBiggest snub: whoever you like")
    print("Biggest reach: whoever you hate")

    return rankings
This is great...

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89514
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5519 on: April 06, 2026, 10:24:43 AM »
It might be fun to create rankings designed solely to elicit responses.  They would have to be semi realistic with some snubs of teams with large fan bases …..

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 16757
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5520 on: April 06, 2026, 10:37:33 AM »

MikeDeTiger

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5521 on: April 06, 2026, 11:29:55 AM »
This is great...

Glad somebody appreciated it.  I spent like 20 minutes avoiding work writing that and trying to think if it would actually run.  Figured some of our programming nerds would be amused.  

Your Texas tax dollars at work..... 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89514
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5522 on: April 06, 2026, 11:34:11 AM »
Here is my shot at "way too early rankings" solely intended to get clicks from Big Tenners:

1.  Texas
2.  Indiana
3.  UGA
4.  Alabama
5.  Penn State
6.  LSU
7.  Texas Tech
8.  Miami
9.  Tennessee
10.  Texas A&M
11.   Iowa
12.   Michigan
13.  Florida
14.  Ole Miss
15.  USC

...

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 53894
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5523 on: April 06, 2026, 11:39:19 AM »
might work

I'd swap Iowa & Nebraska
"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: 89514
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5524 on: April 06, 2026, 11:44:58 AM »
Outstanding response, as usual ....

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 35609
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5525 on: April 06, 2026, 11:47:50 AM »
1. fMiami
2. OSU
3. IU
4. Texas
5. PSU
6. LSU
7. UGa
8. Michigan
9. Bama
10. Ole Miss
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

MikeDeTiger

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5526 on: April 06, 2026, 11:59:06 AM »
I'm not sure how you'd reasonably put together a real effort at pre-season rankings, early or not.  The only school I remotely try to keep track of anymore--and that, just barely--is of course LSU, and we have something like a 66-player turnover from last season.  If we're even remotely the norm, I don't know how that many guys who haven't played together, worked with the staff, etc. can have any sort of accurate forecast.  

Maybe pre-season rankings were always click-bait, but at least I used to think intelligent people could make reasonable arguments for their opinions (ELA, for example).  Now.....I just don't get the point of trying to see through the chaos.  

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 89514
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5527 on: April 06, 2026, 12:02:16 PM »
Shirley, I pay them almost no heed, my point is picking teams based on getting clicks from outraged fans.

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 16757
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5528 on: April 06, 2026, 12:12:52 PM »
I'm not sure how you'd reasonably put together a real effort at pre-season rankings, early or not.  The only school I remotely try to keep track of anymore--and that, just barely--is of course LSU, and we have something like a 66-player turnover from last season.  If we're even remotely the norm, I don't know how that many guys who haven't played together, worked with the staff, etc. can have any sort of accurate forecast. 
You're not. 

Major coaching turnover leads to major player turnover in this new era. 

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/transfer-portal/top-5-college-football-programs-with-most-transfer-portal-player-churn

According to that article, LSU was top-10 in turnover. 

bayareabadger

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10326
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #5529 on: April 06, 2026, 12:18:06 PM »
Shirley, I pay them almost no heed, my point is picking teams based on getting clicks from outraged fans.
They are a product that exists because people want them. And you have to have some numbers to put next to games at the start of the season.

 

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