Shufelt CPU Rankings - Week 3
by JShufelt on Sep 20, 2011 7:39 AM PDT
Email
PrintAnother week in the books, and nothing to surprising. A noteworthy game for Boise State despite playing an outmatched Toledo team, they skyrocket up in the Shufelt computer poll with their 40-15 win over a bad team after taking a bye week.
Who else made a big splash this week? Let's take a look at the poll rankings
| Rank | Team | VoW Avg | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma (2-0) | 3.149 | ↔ 0 |
| 2 | Boise State (2-0) | 2.688 | ↑ 32 |
| 3 | Oklahoma State (3-0) | 2.573 | ↓ 1 |
| 4 | Stanford (3-0) | 2.141 | ↑ 11 |
| 5 | LSU (3-0) | 2.135 | ↑ 6 |
| 6 | Alabama (3-0) | 2.125 | ↑ 10 |
| 7 | Texas A&M (2-0) | 2.067 | ↓ 3 |
| 8 | Michigan (3-0) | 2.039 | ↑ 9 |
| 9 | Wisconsin (3-0) | 1.642 | ↑ 16 |
| 10 | Florida International (3-0) | 1.611 | ↑ 19 |
| 11 | Texas (3-0) | 1.609 | ↓ 4 |
| 12 | South Florida (3-0) | 1.607 | ↓ 6 |
| 13 | Georgia Tech (3-0) | 1.518 | ↑ 8 |
| 14 | Notre Dame (1-2) | 1.416 | ↑ 9 |
| 15 | South Carolina (3-0) | 1.314 | ↑ 11 |
| 16 | West Virginia (3-0) | 1.200 | ↑ 11 |
| 17 | USC (3-0) | 1.184 | ↑ 40 |
| 18 | TCU (2-1) | 1.141 | ↓ 8 |
| 19 | Illinois (3-0) | 1.039 | ↑ 1 |
| 20 | Maryland (1-1) | 1.035 | ↑ 26 |
| 21 | Florida (3-0) | 0.988 | ↓ 13 |
| 22 | Tulsa (1-2) | 0.982 | ↓ 13 |
| 23 | Oregon (2-1) | 0.919 | ↑ 7 |
| 24 | Virginia Tech (3-0) | 0.873 | ↑ 16 |
| 25 | Ohio (3-0) | 0.858 | ↑ 14 |
Dropped Out: North Carolina, Houston, Florida State, Auburn, Mississippi State, UCF, Bowling Green, BYU, Ohio State
Oklahoma Keeps their top spot while making mild improvements to their resume. Boise State improved their resume by 2.372 points (That's 88%) and shot up 32 ranks. An unsurprising anomaly for early season data, but still an impressive hop for the Broncos.
While their resume score didn't improve as much as Boise State, USC moved up 40 ranks with their win over upcoming ACC team (And a resume boost from Utah over BYU), Syracuse. I know a lot of people aren't impressed with USC, but they are undefeated after three games. They are still loaded with talent, but it's only knee deep.
Dotted line represents Top 25 Threshold
via lh3.googleusercontent.com
There is a lot more separation between teams this week than last week. Oklahoma is still quite a bit better, but Boise State and Oklahoma State are within arms reach. There is a small group of contenders, which are teams 4-8, and then you hit the rest of the pack. That little dot in the far right corner? Well... we'll get to that team later in the Extra Curricular Awards.
Extra Curriculars
Flavor of the Week Award
This is awarded to the team that has the best win of the week. This is generally given to a team that has a solid win against a good team.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Team VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utah (2.156) | @ BYU (-1.309) | W 54-10 | 4.634 |
| Oklahoma State (3.379) | @ Tulsa (-1.066) | W 59-33 | 4.185 |
| Oklahoma (3.222) | @ Florida State (1.791) | W 23-13 | 3.586 |
| LSU (3.33) | @ Mississippi State (0.408) | W 19-6 | 3.424 |
| Texas (2.62) | @ UCLA (-1.362) | W 49-20 | 3.390 |
I swear, the Utah and BYU game was a competitive game for a while. Really! Utah trailed 7-10 in the second quarter, and I don't know what was said in each team's locker room, but it ended up translating to 40-0 run in the second half.
The Oklahoma State @ Tulsa game ended up actually happening. I believe kickoff was at 12:15am Central. Neither team really slept, with Tulsa putting up 33 points, but they just can't compare to Oklahoma State's offense, which is looking to be one of the best in the country as they put up 59 points - both teams hit the snooze button a few times the next day.
Bitter Sweet Award
This is awarded to the team that had the most disastrous win of the week. This is generally given to a team that played close against a bad team.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Team VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ball State (-0.519) | vs. Buffalo (0.059) | W 28-25 | -0.025 |
| Duke (-1.666) | @ Boston College (-2.563) | W 20-19 | 0.047 |
| Arkansas (3.145) | vs. Troy (-2.045) | W 38-28 | 0.074 |
| Cincinnati (2.044) | vs. Akron (-4.386) | W 59-14 | 0.108 |
| Minnesota (-0.75) | vs. Miami (OH) (-1.208) | W 29-23 | 0.110 |
I don't really know what to say about Ball State vs. Buffalo. It sounds boring. Duke won a conference football game. Arkansas damaged the SEC reputation a little bit by only winning by 10 points against Troy. Cincinnati destroyed Akron - but not by enough.
No Shame Award
This is awarded to the team that had the most respectable loss of the week. This is generally given to the team that played well against a good team.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Team VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona State (1.3) | @ Illinois (2.33) | L 14-17 | 0.977 |
| Navy (2.217) | @ South Carolina (1.698) | L 21-24 | 0.682 |
| UCF (2.29) | @ Florida International (2.195) | L 10-17 | 0.626 |
| Troy (-2.045) | @ Arkansas (3.145) | L 28-38 | 0.477 |
| Tennessee (1.34) | @ Florida (3.085) | L 23-33 | 0.313 |
I know a lot of people are ragging on ASU losing to Illinois, but it wasn't by THAT much, and Illinois isn't THAT bad. This computer poll ranking even has them Illinois ranked.
Navy was very competitive against the SEC East favorite - they almost got out of Columbia, SC with a win that would have shocked the country.
Facepalm Award
This is awarded to the team that really should be embarrassed for their loss. This is generally given to the team that played poorly against a bad team.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Team VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Western Kentucky (-3.597) | vs. Indiana State (-4.643) | L 16-44 | -9.366 |
| UAB (-4.546) | vs. Tulane (0.829) | L 10-49 | -5.147 |
| BYU (-1.309) | vs. Utah (2.156) | L 10-54 | -4.030 |
| Colorado State (0.384) | vs. Colorado (-0.852) | L 14-28 | -3.998 |
| Boston College (-2.563) | vs. Duke (-1.997) | L 19-20 | -3.670 |
This one is kind of epic. Remember that dot in the lower right corner of that graph? That's what happens when an FCS team comes to your home turf and utterly destroys you by 4 touchdowns. I believe this is the worse tracked loss in the Shufelt Poll Rankings era. Western Kentucky was already one of the worst teams, and now they probably will end up staying at the bottom of the rankings the entire year. A Value of Win of -5.147 is really bad. A VoW of -9.366 is atrocious.
Conference Rankings
Conference resume strength, sorted by VoW Avg.
| Rank | Conference | Team VAvg | Opp VAvg | VoW Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Big 12 - (23-2) | 2.462 | -1.487 | 0.792 |
| 2 | SEC - (27-9) | 1.514 | -0.948 | 0.357 |
| 3 | Pac-12 - (22-13) | 0.810 | -0.478 | -0.025 |
| 4 | Independent - (5-7) | -0.156 | 0.594 | -0.033 |
| 5 | Big Ten - (26-10) | 1.400 | -1.382 | -0.037 |
| 6 | Big East - (16-7) | 1.466 | -1.372 | -0.059 |
| 7 | ACC - (23-11) | 1.023 | -0.985 | -0.173 |
| 8 | MWC - (14-8) | 0.520 | -0.524 | -0.412 |
| 9 | C-USA - (17-16) | -0.409 | -0.083 | -0.607 |
| 10 | MAC - (17-21) | -0.273 | -0.470 | -0.978 |
| 11 | Sun Belt - (7-17) | -1.625 | 0.972 | -1.004 |
| 12 | WAC - (7-15) | -0.683 | -0.194 | -1.005 |
Despite having the weakest schedule, the Big-12 is walking away with the best record, thanks to a very top-heavy conference. In addition, they only have 2 losses as a conference heading into week 4.
Pac-12 Conference Rankings
No big shock here. Stanford is undefeated and have effectively controlled all their games. USC has the benefit of being undefeated against "okay" competition. They got a little help from Utah's destruction of BYU. Oregon State's resume improved - probably because they didn't play.
| Rank | Team | Team VAvg | Opp VAvg | VoW Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stanford - (3-0) | 4.597 | -1.887 | 2.141 |
| 2 | USC - (3-0) | 1.383 | 0.427 | 1.184 |
| 3 | Oregon - (2-1) | 1.895 | -0.574 | 0.919 |
| 4 | Utah - (2-1) | 2.156 | -1.523 | 0.684 |
| 5 | Arizona State - (2-1) | 1.300 | -0.161 | 0.546 |
| 6 | Washington State - (2-1) | 1.971 | -1.303 | 0.525 |
| 7 | California - (3-0) | 2.719 | -2.121 | 0.460 |
| 8 | Arizona - (1-2) | -1.353 | 1.111 | -0.503 |
| 9 | UCLA - (1-2) | -1.362 | 0.790 | -0.711 |
| 10 | Colorado - (1-2) | -0.852 | 0.875 | -0.864 |
| 11 | Washington - (2-1) | 0.001 | -0.956 | -1.406 |
| 12 | Oregon State - (0-2) | -2.732 | -0.415 | -3.276 |
Top 10 Toughest Schedules
These schools have so far had the most difficult opponents, according to their VAvg. This isn't always indicative of always playing great opponents, but playing opponents that have had a high Team Value, like explosive, high octane, high-winning opponents.
| Rank | Team (Record) | Conference | Opp VAvg |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Middle Tennessee - (0-2) | Sun Belt | 2.910 |
| 2 | North Texas - (0-3) | Sun Belt | 2.854 |
| 3 | New Mexico - (0-3) | MWC | 2.754 |
| 4 | Troy - (0-2) | Sun Belt | 2.518 |
| 5 | Tulsa - (1-2) | C-USA | 2.477 |
| 6 | East Carolina - (0-2) | C-USA | 2.397 |
| 7 | Marshall - (1-2) | C-USA | 2.375 |
| 8 | Florida Atlantic - (0-2) | Sun Belt | 2.359 |
| 9 | Kent State - (0-3) | MAC | 2.350 |
| 10 | Notre Dame - (1-2) | Independent | 2.328 |
With the Sun Belt and the C-USA being the FBS whipping boys for the SEC, Big-12, Big-10 - this is not shocking to see so many of their teams here. Notre Dame also schedules tough games every year. We'll see how it shakes out as these conferences start their in-conference play.
Bottom 10 Toughest Schedules
These schools have so far had the easiest opponents, according to their VAvg. This isn't always indicative of always playing the weakest opponents, but playing opponents that have had a low Team Value, like low scoring teams that find themselves losing more than winning.
| Rank | Team (Record) | Conference | Opp VAvg |
|---|---|---|---|
| 120 | Texas Tech - (2-0) | Big 12 | -4.361 |
| 119 | Kansas State - (2-0) | Big 12 | -4.029 |
| 118 | Arkansas - (3-0) | SEC | -3.589 |
| 117 | Tulane - (2-1) | C-USA | -3.418 |
| 116 | Colorado State - (2-1) | MWC | -3.192 |
| 115 | Michigan State - (2-1) | Big Ten | -2.891 |
| 114 | Northwestern - (2-1) | Big Ten | -2.829 |
| 113 | Purdue - (2-1) | Big Ten | -2.821 |
| 112 | Temple - (2-1) | MAC | -2.778 |
| 111 | North Carolina State - (2-1) | ACC | -2.664 |
Here we find the teams beating up on the Sun Belt and C-USA. Tulane thought they could squeeze through here though. Ha! I'm on to you, Tulane!
Games to Watch/Stream/TiVo/"Acquire"
These are this week's matchups that have a high VoW Avg and also has a small disparity between the two teams.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Team VAvg) | Team VAvg Diff | Team VAvg Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama (3.976) | vs. Arkansas (3.145) | 0.831 | 3.561 |
| Oklahoma State (3.379) | @ Texas A&M (3.215) | 0.163 | 3.297 |
| LSU (3.33) | @ West Virginia (2.993) | 0.337 | 3.161 |
| Ohio (2.963) | @ Rutgers (2.103) | 0.860 | 2.533 |
| Nebraska (2.251) | @ Wyoming (2.004) | 0.247 | 2.128 |
I'm gonna take a little moment to brag here real quick. Last week, I said in the comments that Alabama would need to beat North Texas by 42 points - that's kind of what the computer results were telling me. They ended up winning 41-0; I was pretty damn close. I know this is probably a huge amount of coincidence, but I want to willfully be blinded by my own hubris for just one second.
Even though Arkansas struggled this week against an inferior opponent, they are still a good team. Alabama has an edge in this one, but it could turn out to be a good game. The Oklahoma State @ ATM game is very intriguing to me - as far as the computer poll rankings is concerned, this is practically a pick-em, if both teams play to their constants, Oklahoma State will win by 1.
Games to Watch During a Root Canal
These are this week's matchups with the largest discrepancies between the two. They are projected to be pretty big blowouts. I removed all the FBS vs FCS teams.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Team VAvg) | Team VAvg Diff | Team VAvg Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas Tech (4.733) | vs. Nevada (-0.409) | 5.141 | 2.162 |
| Boise State (4.009) | vs. Tulsa (-1.066) | 5.075 | 1.472 |
| Virginia Tech (3.096) | @ Marshall (-1.705) | 4.802 | 0.696 |
| Auburn (-0.029) | vs. Florida Atlantic (-3.782) | 3.753 | -1.905 |
| Baylor (2.52) | vs. Rice (-1.183) | 3.704 | 0.668 |
I don't have a lot to say about these. I'm a little shocked Texas Tech vs Nevada is on here, but Texas Tech has been a scoring machine this year (As usual), and Nevada hasn't yet. This could be crazy though, lots of passing yards for Texas Tech, lots of rushing yards for Nevada. I favor Texas Tech's chances with that situation though, because if they can take the lead early, Nevada's strength only kills the clock faster.
About the Poll Rankings
- It has a memory. It will remember what happened in Week 1. Team A may look bad Week 1, but in Week 6, they don't look so bad.
- That means the values are dynamic. To take an example from this year, Boise State squeaked by a highly ranked Virginia Tech team. The next week, Virginia Tech lost to James Madison. Boise State's close call to Virginia Tech does not look NEARLY as impressive now. Week 1 scores will actually change dynamically based upon results, not just Week 1, but every week of college football.
- Style points matter. This includes the margin of victory. Nobody is impressed when you pull of a 1 point squeaker to Saint Mary’s school of the blind. But everyone would be impressed when Alabama is beaten 35-0. MOV matters, but it has diminishing returns. The point difference between winning by 50 and winning by 70 is practically infinitesimal.
- There has been a bonus for shutting a team out, however, I lowered the base amount for this bonus, and added an additional formula that raises and lowers the bonus based upon the quality of the opponent. You will always get extra points for shutting a team out, but you won't get as much against a really bad team, however you can potentially earn MORE than before if you shutout a good team.
- There is no pride in playing an FCS team.
- Location has a small influence on the scoring. A slight penalty for the home team, and a slight bonus for the visiting team. Neutral fields cancel each other out.
- There are bonus points for winning, and penalties for losing. This isn't a significant part of the formula, but it is factored.
- There are three main values. (There are several formulas that make up these values, but I am going to try and simplify it). A score of 0 is neither good nor bad.
- Team Avg (Team Average); This is simply your team’s performance in a game based upon a formula I’ve made up.
- Opp Avg (Opponent Average); This is an aggregated value of your opponent's Team Average.
- VoW Avg (Value of Win Average.); This is the resume score. Good team vs. Good team will = Great ; Bad team vs. bad team = Awful
- I’ll also be putting up a number next to each extra curricular awards. This is the VoW, (Value of Win). It is a score that factors in the Team's performance vs. their Opponent's resume. A team with a large win vs. a great team will result in a great VoW.
- I can make the numbers simple for you to understand. Negative is bad, positive is good. The further the number is from 0, the more extreme it is. -5 is bad, +5 is good. 0 represents neither good nor bad. This is applicable to all the scores you'll see.
- You get points for playing well against good teams, win or lose. You'll get more for beating good teams, but there is no shame for losing to a good team - as long as it is actually a good team. If you're 4-0, but it's all against FCS teams and the New Mexicos, you'll probably have a decent Team Avg, but your Opp Avg is going to make an embarrassment out of your team.
- Prior to week 1, ALL FBS teams are equal. Previous years have no influence on the
pollrankings. - There are no bonus or penalty points for being in or absent in a BCS conference.
- A team's opponent's opponent's opponent's opponent's (potentiality infinite) score has influence on a team's perception. Meaning: Texas Tech's (Who played New Mexico, who played Oregon) score will influence Oregon's score.
- You now probably know more about my computer
pollrankings than the ones that actually influence the BCS.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Addicted To Quack Moderators. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon fans.
68 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Something's goofy with your SDSU-WSU score.
You have SDSU listed first, when I think the loser was supposed to be listed first. And the score is wrong.
"You could almost imagine Ducks coach Chip Kelly walking to midfield among the bloodied Bruins and shouting in his best gladiator voice, 'Are you not entertained?'" - Ted Miller
Ah, Damn. You are right. I missed that when I was double checking all the scores.
I’ll try and get it all updated later.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
Thanks for catching that, by the way.
Everything is updated.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
Not a problem.
It redeems my embarrassing Panda mistake from last week.
"You could almost imagine Ducks coach Chip Kelly walking to midfield among the bloodied Bruins and shouting in his best gladiator voice, 'Are you not entertained?'" - Ted Miller
Not to be pedantic or anything, but is this really a "poll"?
I looked it up…
Poll
verb /pōl/
…. polled, past participle; polled, past tense; polling, present participle; polls, 3rd person singular present
1. Record the opinion or vote of
: “Four of five members polled prefer HRDBONERPILZ”
2. (of a candidate in an election) Receive a specified number of votes
: “Matt Daddy polled 62% in the Democratic primary for Putz”
3. Check the status of (a measuring device, part of a computer, or a node in a network), esp. as part of a repeated cycle
: “axemen23’s account is regularly polled for non-sequitur name dropping”4. Cut the horns off (an animal, esp. a young cow)
: “Bill Musgrave is eager to poll the Texas Longhorns, should they be admitted to the Pac-n conference.”
noun /pōl/
polls, plural1. The process of voting in an election
: “We polled the membership and decided shufelt’s poll isn’t a poll”2. A record of the number of votes cast in an election
: “The poll of the benzducks voting in that election above constituted a plurality”3. A person’s head
: “John C*nz*no’s head is a poll vault”
Seems more rank than poll.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
Follow @MrBenzduck on the Twitters!
by benzduck on Sep 20, 2011 8:54 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
The only way you cannot rec this is to not read it.
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
Man, that poll question is HARD.
But in the end, I had to make it so.
Also, those four guys would make the best Oregon playcard EVAR.
Now with mustache guarantee!
Interesting choice. Why Picard?
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
Well, in general...
Exhibit A. Picard > Kirk. this is indisputable.
Exhibit B. Presented without comment.
Gandalf vs Picard was a bit of a coin toss. But Picard would kick his ass in a fight.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 20, 2011 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
I can’t defend prequel Vader.
But regular Vader could choke Picard from like… 12 parsecs away.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
4/6 Vaders are indefensible.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 20, 2011 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Wasn't in the original theatrical release, doesn't count.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
That’s prequel Vader, and besides, we’re really only talking 3/4 Vaders, as there were no Vaders in the first two prequels.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
Wait, wait.
3/4 > 4/6
LESS DEFENSIBLE. Indefensibler?
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 20, 2011 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Wow, that's fast.
ATQ's #1 fan of ATQ Guys
by daisyduck on Sep 20, 2011 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I SEE WHAT YOU DOOOOOHHH GOD IM BEING EATEN ALIVE
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 20, 2011 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I’m sorry, but no, Gandalf would destroy Picard, either by slicing him in half with Glamdring, or just beating him to death with his staff, or staff-related powers.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
First. Gandalf isn’t real. Second, neither is his magic.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
Picard and phasers are real.
Also, in an episode with that much awesome, Q would swoop in at the last minute and make them both look like clowns.
Can I change my vote to Q?
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 20, 2011 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
The fact that Kirk and Picard have votes is ridiculous.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
I sort of agree, but I say even more ridiculous are the votes for Gandalf. Gandalf isn’t even real.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
Yes, but Darth Vader, on the other hand, is definitely real.
It doesn’t matter. Fake, real, made out of bits of hobbit – Gandalf would kick all their asses.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I think it depends on which Darth Vader we're talking about.
Young, arrogant, human Darth Vader would get his bratty ass kicked. Older, robotic, force choke via video conferencing Darth Vader, and it’d be different. And remember, the poll says Galdalf the Grey, not Galdalf the White. Distinction.
That being said, I voted for Gandalf.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
I agree that older, wiser, badder of ass Vader v. Gandalf the G would be a great battle. There’s no sense even talking about the cool yet impotent Star Trek captains. Kirk would get choked out by the force and Picard would get knocked on his ass and eaten by Shadowfax. Yes, that’s just how Gandalf rolls.
But the Dark Father vs. Mithrandir…that’s a fight. It’s tough any time you cross universes like this to know what kind of defenses each would have against the other’s attacks. Can Gandalf shield himself against the force? Can his staff block a swipe from a light saber? I have to think yes. Can Vader deflect the energy that Gandalf sends his way? Again, probably yes. Still, at the end of the day, I think Gandalf has more tricks up his sleeve. It would be close, though.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Whatever, dude.
“You shall not pass” blah blah blah…
Darth Vader just blew up Middle Earth with the Death Star. Bam.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
Darth Vader can't fire the Death Star by himself.
He needs a whole team of guys wearing black bedpans on their heads to pull the levers.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
He’s obviously a puppet master though. How else did he get them to wear black bedpans to begin with?
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
Well sure.
Darth Vader’s resources far exceed Gandalf’s giants birds.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
It is impressive that he can convince people to work that job. Check this out
Death Star Weapon’s Officer: A competitive salary. Good health benefits (dental and vision). Life insurance, 401k, flex spending, employee discounts… Heck, the Empire even helped pay for the Death Star Weapons Officer’s relocation of him and his family from his hometown on Dantooine to… well, the Death Star. But what good is any of that, or the GED he earned on the Emperor’s dime, when Death Star Weapons Officer is standing next to a huge, cancer-causing beam of planet-destroying energy? On a platform above a death chasm with no railings? Oh, and that relocation assistance for Mrs. Death Star Weapons Officer and little Sally and Bobby Death Star Weapons Officer? After the Battle of Yavin, Dantooine never looked so good.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Who said it was cancer-causing?
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
What was the point of creating a fun poll if you were then going to proceed to suck all the fun out of the conversation?
Defending maligned chants since 2009
IT’S NOT FUN. IT’S SERIOUS!
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-W-O-O-Z-Y".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
I’ve seen no evidence of the death star beam ever inducing cancer. That’s all I’m saying.
The whole lack of railings bit IS concerning, but it’s the evil empire, and they are saving their money on more important things, like finding the location of the rebel base.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-W-O-O-Z-Y".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
I would argue that the Death Star beam probably eradicated every cancer cell on the planet of Alderaan.
The systemic toxicity issues are still being worked out in phase two trials.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 20, 2011 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
How could that thing not cause cancer? Look at it, and then think of all other known sources of energy that large. All induce cancer. All of them. And it glows green! Have you ever known anything that glowed green that didn’t cause cancer? Aside from light sabers, in which case they didn’t cause cancer because mitichloriens won’t allow it.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Have you ever known anything that glowed green that didn’t cause cancer?
The Death Star beam and Oregon Duck Anthracite Jerseys
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-W-O-O-Z-Y".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
A. How do you know the Death Star beam didn’t cause cancer?
B. I’m pretty sure those anthracite jerseys do cause cancer.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
A. Because it has effectively destroyed cancerous cells on planets and ships. It’s the cure, not the cause.
B. SCOREBOARD
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-W-O-O-Z-Y".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
In Gorby's defense,
The last time we wore anthracite unis, I’m pretty sure our receivers were suffering from some sort of radioactivity induced sickness, or perhaps cancer.
Winter is coming, Sunshine.
Tako, you know damn well who voted for Kirk.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
Follow @MrBenzduck on the Twitters!
So, Shufelt.
You put in all this work on this supercool, hurts my brain, ranking system. And then you ensure that virtually NO ONE will comment on it by tossing out Nerd Smackdown 2011. It’s like you hate your own children.
ATQ's #1 fan of ATQ Guys
There are too many nerd related pics to chose from posting here....
I cannot relate to this thread, other than to say that I enjoy the poll rankings and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
If I wanted any lip from you, I'd unzip your pants.
Seriously?
22 Tulsa (1-2) 0.982 ↓ 13
23 Oregon (2-1) 0.919 ↑ 7
Shufelt and The Shufelt both hate America
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Sep 22, 2011 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I can't say this enough, Shu -- I love this stuff.
"[Autzen Stadium's] steep concrete banks and closed ends turn a small but rabid crowd from WAC-sized cheering section into a horde of bees with megaphones capable of reaching 127 decibels of hatenoise." -Spencer Hall
So I just realized, Kansas State is ranked second to last in the scheduling department. I find that very appropriate.
I’m want to rename the 10 easiest schedules the “Bill Snyder Award”, but I want something for the 10 easiest, and I don’t have any good ideas.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-W-O-O-Z-Y".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
You mean ten hardest for that last part?
This year being an exception, I’m afraid UW would have some sort of claim to that title. LSU comes to mind, too. And so does USC.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 22, 2011 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions
But Bill Snyder has the reputation, while UW, LSU, USC (and really, even like… Notre Dame) all have had tough schedules lately – but I don’t know if that’s their “reputation”.
I thought maybe Pat Hill or something.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-W-O-O-Z-Y".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
I can't think of one coach who's got the reputation every single year.
It’s pretty random. Georgia always seems to schedule tough, too. You know, except when they decide to duck us.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 22, 2011 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
The Inverse Chris Peterson
Or
Peterson Chris
or
Nosretep Sirhc
or
Oh, it’s not that good anyway.
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Sep 23, 2011 3:09 AM PDT up reply actions
10 Hardest?
The Oregon State Paycheck Games Award.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
As for the predictive power of the Shufelt Not-a-Poll Rankings..
Team (Team VAvg) Opp (Team VAvg) Team VAvg Diff Team VAvg Avg
Texas Tech (4.733) vs. Nevada (-0.409) 5.141 2.162
Boise State (4.009) vs. Tulsa (-1.066) 5.075 1.472
Virginia Tech (3.096) @ Marshall (-1.705) 4.802 0.696
Auburn (-0.029) vs. Florida Atlantic (-3.782) 3.753 -1.905
Baylor (2.52) vs. Rice (-1.183) 3.704 0.668
Texas Tech beat Nevada by one in a thriller.
fBSU blew out Tulsa.
VaTech beat Marshall easily, but not exactly a blowout expected.
Same with Auburn and FAtl.
And Baylor:Rice::Oregon:Arizona.
So, 4 of 5, that’s pretty predictive right thar. Mazel tov.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
Follow @MrBenzduck on the Twitters!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Addicted To Quack
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
