OFFICIAL HARDCORE HUSKY PAC-10 POWER RANKINGS
-------------- fucking dreckfest --------------
1. Washington (44/27 = 1.63)
2. Stanford (64/43 = 1.49)
3. USC (110/84 = 1.31)
4. UCLA (120/99 = 1.21)
5. Oregon (104/92 = 1.13)
6. Arizona (106/97 = 1.09)
7. Utah (57/56 = 1.02)
8. Cal (171/195 = 0.88) -- still way too damn high
9. ASU (103/120 = 0.86)
10. OSU (46/66 = 0.70)
Comments
-
WE'RE BACK!!!!!!
-
I approve this methodology, as well as contraction.
WDWTA. -
WSU is way too fucking high
-
LOL, I love it when Boobs puts these out five minutes after Auburndoog's. It always cracks me up.
-
Lol at TheGlove.
-
I put 5.5 minutes of effort into my rankings.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:LOL, I love it when Boobs puts these out five minutes after Auburndoog's. It always cracks me up.
-
USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
-
If the best team in your conference lost to Boston College, your conference blows.Mosster47 said:USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
-
TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If the best team in your conference lost to Boston College, your conference blows.Mosster47 said:USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
That was never in the metric, but always a given. I actually bought into the preseason hype. I thought 10 returning QB's and the addition of Peterman while giving Sark more talent would really raise the ceiling. Instead this is the worst I can ever remember, like 1995 bad when a mediocre Duck team made the Cotton Bowl.
-
1999 was the worst ever:Mosster47 said:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If the best team in your conference lost to Boston College, your conference blows.Mosster47 said:USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
That was never in the metric, but always a given. I actually bought into the preseason hype. I thought 10 returning QB's and the addition of Peterman while giving Sark more talent would really raise the ceiling. Instead this is the worst I can ever remember, like 1995 bad when a mediocre Duck team made the Cotton Bowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Stanford_Cardinal_football_team
This year isn't that bad. -
Since when did USC fire sark?Mosster47 said:USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
-
Holy fuck, 7-1 conference record with a loss to San Jose State. That is Rich Brooks quality!TierbsHsotBoobs said:
1999 was the worst ever:Mosster47 said:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If the best team in your conference lost to Boston College, your conference blows.Mosster47 said:USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
That was never in the metric, but always a given. I actually bought into the preseason hype. I thought 10 returning QB's and the addition of Peterman while giving Sark more talent would really raise the ceiling. Instead this is the worst I can ever remember, like 1995 bad when a mediocre Duck team made the Cotton Bowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Stanford_Cardinal_football_team
This year isn't that bad.
Ty actually wasn't that awful at Stanford. Those Indiana Nazis/Catholics fucked him up badly.
-
Husky fans tend to remember Ty for 0-12 but the truth is his career suggests he is mediocre like Sark. With slightly more success.Mosster47 said:
Holy fuck, 7-1 conference record with a loss to San Jose State. That is Rich Brooks quality!TierbsHsotBoobs said:
1999 was the worst ever:Mosster47 said:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If the best team in your conference lost to Boston College, your conference blows.Mosster47 said:USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
That was never in the metric, but always a given. I actually bought into the preseason hype. I thought 10 returning QB's and the addition of Peterman while giving Sark more talent would really raise the ceiling. Instead this is the worst I can ever remember, like 1995 bad when a mediocre Duck team made the Cotton Bowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Stanford_Cardinal_football_team
This year isn't that bad.
Ty actually wasn't that awful at Stanford. Those Indiana Nazis/Catholics fucked him up badly. -
I'll never forget that. Air Farce kicked "our" ass (again) in Seattle. We still damn near won the conference. And Tytanic's Rose Bowl.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
1999 was the worst ever:Mosster47 said:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If the best team in your conference lost to Boston College, your conference blows.Mosster47 said:USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
That was never in the metric, but always a given. I actually bought into the preseason hype. I thought 10 returning QB's and the addition of Peterman while giving Sark more talent would really raise the ceiling. Instead this is the worst I can ever remember, like 1995 bad when a mediocre Duck team made the Cotton Bowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Stanford_Cardinal_football_team
This year isn't that bad. -
What happened to Nevada btw?
-
Sark is Ty. The USC job is the same as Ty at Notre Dame.allpurpleallgold said:
Husky fans tend to remember Ty for 0-12 but the truth is his career suggests he is mediocre like Sark. With slightly more success.Mosster47 said:
Holy fuck, 7-1 conference record with a loss to San Jose State. That is Rich Brooks quality!TierbsHsotBoobs said:
1999 was the worst ever:Mosster47 said:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If the best team in your conference lost to Boston College, your conference blows.Mosster47 said:USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
That was never in the metric, but always a given. I actually bought into the preseason hype. I thought 10 returning QB's and the addition of Peterman while giving Sark more talent would really raise the ceiling. Instead this is the worst I can ever remember, like 1995 bad when a mediocre Duck team made the Cotton Bowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Stanford_Cardinal_football_team
This year isn't that bad.
Ty actually wasn't that awful at Stanford. Those Indiana Nazis/Catholics fucked him up badly. -
Notre Dame is the epitome of PAC 12 dreckfest. Why isn't this PAC 12 member on the list?
-
haven't played enough games yet. Will be at the top come season's endoregonblitzkrieg said:Notre Dame is the epitome of PAC 12 dreckfest. Why isn't this PAC 12 member on the list?
-
Ty at Stanford was better than Sark at Washington.allpurpleallgold said:
Husky fans tend to remember Ty for 0-12 but the truth is his career suggests he is mediocre like Sark. With slightly more success.Mosster47 said:
Holy fuck, 7-1 conference record with a loss to San Jose State. That is Rich Brooks quality!TierbsHsotBoobs said:
1999 was the worst ever:Mosster47 said:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
If the best team in your conference lost to Boston College, your conference blows.Mosster47 said:USC is the best team in the conference right now. Wins over Stanford and UA are the most impressive resume so far.
That was never in the metric, but always a given. I actually bought into the preseason hype. I thought 10 returning QB's and the addition of Peterman while giving Sark more talent would really raise the ceiling. Instead this is the worst I can ever remember, like 1995 bad when a mediocre Duck team made the Cotton Bowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Stanford_Cardinal_football_team
This year isn't that bad.
Ty actually wasn't that awful at Stanford. Those Indiana Nazis/Catholics fucked him up badly. -
Special invitees to the conference must play two Pac-12 teams to be ranked.oregonblitzkrieg said:Notre Dame is the epitome of PAC 12 dreckfest. Why isn't this PAC 12 member on the list?
-
Got beat at home by Colorado State.dhdawg said:What happened to Nevada btw?
-
I've seen all I need to see.
-
Have you considered normalizing each team's relative points scored and allowed against other teams? Then you could try linear regression and stochastic calculus to produce two rank ordered lists and then average sort them.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Methodology: Everyone in this conference sucks. I'm ranking the teams by conference points scored divided by conference points allowed because I can't think of any other way to do it. Can't use +/- because of differences in number of games played.
-
I can't wait for #ourirish to be #1 after their Arizona state plungering
-
Math Superiority Guyuzi said:
Have you considered normalizing each team's relative points scored and allowed against other teams? Then you could try linear regression and stochastic calculus to produce two rank ordered lists and then average sort them.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Methodology: Everyone in this conference sucks. I'm ranking the teams by conference points scored divided by conference points allowed because I can't think of any other way to do it. Can't use +/- because of differences in number of games played.
