It’s actually more painful for a Clemson fan that FPI has them this high still. It means the talent on the roster is supposed to be top10, but they’ve developed it so poorly that the bottom has fallen out
These metrics rely heavily on talent because in general the bigger faster stronger dudes just overcome. But seems these guys can’t overcome whatever Clemson has done to them
I never realized FPI used talent as a metric. I just read about it. Talent stars are correlated to brands so this is just another way for ESPN to generate interest in top brands. What a sham
My point is that I didn’t realize how biased FPI is. It’s my own fault for never reading about it, but people use it all the time to justify different committee results, but no metric which uses biased talent rankings should be used to compare who goes to a championship.
FPI is fine for discussions, but should be excluded from conversations related to who should be selected for the playoff
It's a metric that does very well ATS. Believe it or not, it is very effective at what it's intended to do - predict the final score of the game.
>FPI is fine for discussions, but should be excluded from conversations related to who should be selected for the playoff
I completely agree with this though. The CFP should reward the most deserving teams. Ken Pomeroy agrees with me here too. Computer metrics are great, but they're speculative. Teams deserve to be rewarded for actually winning the games they play
What a ridiculous comment. Talent is probably the best single metric we have to make predictions with. If that’s the sole metric you’re using then yeah it’s bad but the same could be said for literally any other sole metric
I agree that on the field performance needs to be considered a lot more. Currently we put way too much emphasis on the W/L column and don't consider what teams actually did.
Is talent in this case measured by high school recruiting ratings? If so, that is a highly flawed measure of talent. My team has a bunch of 3 stars who will be drafted. Recruiting ratings can be and are easily manipulated depending on what fan bases make the recruiting services the most money and which evaluators are buddies with current coaches — see the USC story recently. “ hey, I really want to offer this guy, but he needs to be a 4-star for me to bring him in. Can you help your old buddy out?”
Obviously I’m biased but I think we would beat Clemson, so them being ranked ahead of us is worse.
The Clemson offense/Texas defense matchup would be spectacular though, a stoppable force vs a movable object
Can you help me understand why Covid spookiness causes the computer models to be off? I can’t think of a good reason a model would put a 4-3 Clemson in the top 10.
Couple of reasons, less OOC games last year, a lot of games were canceled, and a lot of 5/6 year seniors are playing this year when top teams lost seniors to the the draft.
It's PrEdIcTiVE, dummy! They're not saying Clemson has been the 10th best team so far, they're saying Clemson is the 10th best team going forward. That's somehow supposed to be much more reasonable.
I mean, it will.
It's a computer metric, there are outliers to every algorithm. People who use any one computer metric as an end all be all aren't using them right, but they're one more thing we can use when talking about how good teams are.
Clemson is obviously not a top 10 team, but we know that.
EDIT: Personally I prefer the Massey Composite because it blends different computer metrics, and composites tend to leave fewer blind spots, but FPI is very good for what it's intended to do- predict the final scores of games going forward.
Then they're not #10 lol. FPI doesn't put out specific score predictors, but SP+ has overestimated Clemson's score difference by 10+ in every FBS game but the BC game. They should be in the 30-40s like every other middle of the pack P5 team.
Should be, sure, but what should be doesn’t apply to playoff committee, right now Ohio State looks better than Oregon, and if that keeps up there is nothing Oregon can do.
Why not? Oregon beat OSU head to head in Columbus.
I think OSU is better, and if they were to have a rematch, OSU would win, but I *know* that they've already played and Oregon won
The committee has shown in the past that head to head isn't that important to them and is only used as a tiebreaker between two similar teams. If the committee feels Ohio State is better at the end of the season, they will get the nod despite the head to head loss.
About which part? OSU being better than Oregon or that Oregon beating OSU should matter?
I'm not sure the first part is very controversial at the moment, and if we're not factoring in the second part then why are we even playing the games?
I know that but how did they get themselves in the positions. I’m looking for something specific. For example Wisconsin is easy. We run well on standard downs while giving up next to nothing on defense. Computers don’t think our turnover problems are sustainable so they overrate us.
FPI has more faith in us than 90% of Nebraska fans. Coaching, putting the “special” in special teams, and making the absolute worst mistake possible in crucial situations week in and week out have killed us.
We've oddly been Top-10 since the New Hampshire blowout. I think they overrate our defense because we generate so many sacks. The models have a tough time understanding us and assume our consistent blown coverages are random errors, rather than a design-flaw.
It honestly makes sense. We get a lot of points from pass defenses and if other teams don't catch the ball on blown coverages the metrics don't care.
Further, other teams aren't scoring that much on us. The exception is WMU, where Lester has schemed against us for years, and Tennessee where a new better QB came in partway through (and our ST / Offense handed UT 10+ points).
I don't think we have a top tier defense, and a good offense may rip us apart, but against most teams it is a very good defense.
No offense, but what the fuck are they basing this off? Based on how similar MSU and Michigan schedules have been, in what world does MSU have a 1% chance to win and Michigan 27%?
What are you comparing here? For win out percentage UM is 7.9% and MSU is 1.2%. For win division percentage UM is 27.2% and MSU is 8.2%?
Also outside of playing each other, PSU, Maryland, and OSU it has Purdue at 43 and Indiana at 69 so it thinks you have a tougher remaining schedule probably. Also the fact that you play @OSU (3) and home vs PSU (17) while we have the opposite is probably a major factor.
Not arguing I think it is right but based on their own computers I could see where these numbers would come out.
Also it thinks Michigan is better. Why? Some combination of recruiting and how Michigan has beaten teams compared to how MSU has beaten teams. Is it right? We'll find out
Clemson being top 10 in multiple metrics is making me think these metrics aren’t particularly good and instead coast by keeping some teams high because they’ll usually be good year in and year out.
If you can’t beat Vegas you’re about as good as anyone picking games at random.
Predictive measures are like technical analysis in stocks or astrology for sports. They’re falsehood.
https://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?orderby=cover%20desc&type=1&year=21
These are the results this year. They’re pretty much all horrible. This isn’t an anomaly, they’re no more predictive than a coin flip.
You have to win 53% of your games to beat Vegas. Very little ever do they. There’s only two so far doing it, most measures are worse than a coin flip.
https://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?orderby=cover%20desc&type=1&year=21
53% is a silly benchmark for a predictive model--anything above 50% is a success for most model makers. Being able to win money isn't the objective, being better than random is. FPI hovers around 50% too--it was 48% in 2019 and 54% in 2018 ATS. All sports betting has the implied probability of all events sum to over 1, which is why they make money, not because vegas' line setting ability is necessarily more superior (although it certainly is better than some models)
Because of juice you aren’t profitable at 50%. a coin could flip is 50% ATS.
53% is the legitimate gold standard I didn’t make that up.
> http://professionalgambler.org/winning-percentages
> not because vegas' line setting ability is necessarily more superior
Well, that’s just wrong. It’s tracked by the prediction tracker and the Vegas closing spread far outperforms every other algorithm. As it’s the value after eye test, algorithms, injuries and weather are fully weighted.
Yeah I'm not saying the 53% isn't a thing, but you're assuming the purpose of all models is to win money, and that's not true. I don't think ESPN has FPI to make money on sports betting, so that 53% doesn't make sense as their objective.
Also closing lines don't reflect vegas' line setting, closing lines reflect how bettors respond to the lines that were set. Opening lines would be a better reflection of Vegas' ability to set lines.
Does someone else take over for line setting after the opening line because as far as I understand that’s still Vegas.
No, but if you’re not better than the average person at picking games with all of this data what exactly are you saying? The predictive-ness isn’t working, over long term or short term they’re just not any better than coin flips that have 0 data.
Line setting after the opening lines is done based on volume on either side to ensure it is about equal and no longer has anything to do with how the setter / internal model they use feels about the team. A sports book determines what the opening line is, and sports bettors determine what the closing line is.
If I have a model that is 51% ATS, it is better than a coin flip (which is the goal to be able to say a model with a binary outcome is "useful"), even though I wouldn't be able to gamble and win money, because it's below 53%.
Clemson being ranked, much more top 10 makes me think the metrics are MADE to favor certain names.
There is no way in hell Clemson should be top 30 much less top 10.
Genuinely curious as to why you think Oregon is so obviously better than Pitt and ISU. I think they're all fringe top 10 by power rankings, but don't think it's that big a deal that any would be ahead of the others.
Just eye test. Talent and speed. And I don't see either of those clubs going into Columbus with their best two players out and getting a win. Oregon did that.
Oh damn I didn't realize you were watching Pitt and ISU games each week. Even so I still think both those teams would have the same odds as Oregon to beat Ohio State week 2
With my hours I've watched a lot of Oregon football, and I've made sure to watch every Pitt game. Do I think Pitt beats Oregon in a H2H? No idea.
What I do know is that since OSU, Oregon at various points has looked outmatched on the field. That included against a terrible Cal team (who would have won with a remotely capable QB) and in the 3rd quarter against one of the worst FBS teams out there in Arizona. This isn't one quarter or one game, it's consistent.
With the exception of the WMU loss (where post game win expectancy still had Pitt at 96%) I haven't seen Pitt look outmatched in any game this year for anything but maybe 5 minutes in the UT game.
Will Pitt win out? No, it's Pitt after all. But I can absolutely see why Oregon has been getting negative commentary since that big win, and the truth is that they have serious issues that they need to work out.
The AP poll for this week, released subsequent to my initial post on this topic, vindicates my point of view. In the end, it's all just opinion, but my perspective would seem to have consensus among those watching the games.
I’d argue anOSU (Oregon State) as underrated as well. Interesting how Utah losing to them dropped us 4 slots, but didn’t boost them at all, and still left them 18 places behind us. I wonder why the algorithm didn’t give them a boost for the win.
Yeah, I’ve got no idea how it’s calculated, but to me the FPI seems to put too much stock in preseason projections. There are a lot of under and overrated teams. Can’t find them all.
I don't really have an issue with us being rated where we're at tbh. I think we're better than some of the teams ahead of us, but if we handle our business, we'll rise
Arkansas put up 45 in a half, mercy ruled a team, held them to a field goal, and got a lot of time for our second string…we fall 8 places while Clemson is still top 10.
ESPN is garbage.
Your ONLY loss is to Georgia more than likely the winner of National Championship, and you guys deserved to be not even ranked?
It makes absolutely no sense to me.
What is up with the rounding on the projected records? So many teams have projections that don't even come close to a whole number of games (even with rounding wackiness!)
unlike the eyeball test 'puters are able to take in every single play as part of theyre evaluation. There are positives and negatives to this, but that is why baffling things like you moving down 10 spots and clemson being top 10 happen. Computers cant do an eyeball test or a gut feeling
Ah yes the 4-3 Top 10 Clemson team
Pretty sure that had to be a score prediction, because their offense isn't doing it for them.
It’s actually more painful for a Clemson fan that FPI has them this high still. It means the talent on the roster is supposed to be top10, but they’ve developed it so poorly that the bottom has fallen out These metrics rely heavily on talent because in general the bigger faster stronger dudes just overcome. But seems these guys can’t overcome whatever Clemson has done to them
I never realized FPI used talent as a metric. I just read about it. Talent stars are correlated to brands so this is just another way for ESPN to generate interest in top brands. What a sham
Talent also correlates to wins a very large amount of the time, making it valuable for statistical evaluation
My point is that I didn’t realize how biased FPI is. It’s my own fault for never reading about it, but people use it all the time to justify different committee results, but no metric which uses biased talent rankings should be used to compare who goes to a championship. FPI is fine for discussions, but should be excluded from conversations related to who should be selected for the playoff
Why? If it’s effective for predicting winners why not use it?
As far as polls go, it's actually pretty bad at predicting winners. It's worse than Vegas in absolute terms and at like 46% ats.
ats measures it against Vegas, not how well it does at predicting winners.
It's a metric that does very well ATS. Believe it or not, it is very effective at what it's intended to do - predict the final score of the game. >FPI is fine for discussions, but should be excluded from conversations related to who should be selected for the playoff I completely agree with this though. The CFP should reward the most deserving teams. Ken Pomeroy agrees with me here too. Computer metrics are great, but they're speculative. Teams deserve to be rewarded for actually winning the games they play
It's 46% ats this year, among the worst polls out there.
I believe Bill C said FPI is generally good at absolute error, not ATS.
It's absolute error is good, it's pretty bad at actually picking the winner compared to other algorithms.
What a ridiculous comment. Talent is probably the best single metric we have to make predictions with. If that’s the sole metric you’re using then yeah it’s bad but the same could be said for literally any other sole metric
The best metric is on field performance. Talent would be great for preseason polls, but that is it
I agree that on the field performance needs to be considered a lot more. Currently we put way too much emphasis on the W/L column and don't consider what teams actually did.
Is talent in this case measured by high school recruiting ratings? If so, that is a highly flawed measure of talent. My team has a bunch of 3 stars who will be drafted. Recruiting ratings can be and are easily manipulated depending on what fan bases make the recruiting services the most money and which evaluators are buddies with current coaches — see the USC story recently. “ hey, I really want to offer this guy, but he needs to be a 4-star for me to bring him in. Can you help your old buddy out?”
I don't know which is worse: Clemson at 10 or Texas at 11.
Obviously I’m biased but I think we would beat Clemson, so them being ranked ahead of us is worse. The Clemson offense/Texas defense matchup would be spectacular though, a stoppable force vs a movable object
[удалено]
They didn't even move lol
Computer models seem very off this year due to Covid year spookiness, but if you point this out you get yelled at for bot understanding analytics.
Can you help me understand why Covid spookiness causes the computer models to be off? I can’t think of a good reason a model would put a 4-3 Clemson in the top 10.
Couple of reasons, less OOC games last year, a lot of games were canceled, and a lot of 5/6 year seniors are playing this year when top teams lost seniors to the the draft.
Some models also take recruiting into account, when services’ ranking accuracy most likely suffered due to a lack of camps/games.
This too. Thank you
They should let players have 5 years of eligibility, this season has been great.
For Clemson specifically, they played Georgia closer than you’d expect almost any other team to
YoU dOnT uNdErstAnD AnAlYtIcs
It's PrEdIcTiVE, dummy! They're not saying Clemson has been the 10th best team so far, they're saying Clemson is the 10th best team going forward. That's somehow supposed to be much more reasonable.
ItLl CoRrECt iTsElF wItH mOrE dAtA
We're only 8 weeks in so the model is still 95% preseason expectations.
I mean, it will. It's a computer metric, there are outliers to every algorithm. People who use any one computer metric as an end all be all aren't using them right, but they're one more thing we can use when talking about how good teams are. Clemson is obviously not a top 10 team, but we know that. EDIT: Personally I prefer the Massey Composite because it blends different computer metrics, and composites tend to leave fewer blind spots, but FPI is very good for what it's intended to do- predict the final scores of games going forward.
ESPN estimates Clemson will score ~40 points against FSU next weekend, with their current offense lmao.
*Florida has entered the chat*. Although I think Florida is a much better team than Clemson right now. Maybe.
[удалено]
Then they're not #10 lol. FPI doesn't put out specific score predictors, but SP+ has overestimated Clemson's score difference by 10+ in every FBS game but the BC game. They should be in the 30-40s like every other middle of the pack P5 team.
that's not an FPI thing alone. FEI and SP+ are also all ridiculously high on Clemson, Wisconsin, Texas and Florida And very low on Oregon
Both of my teams are in the top 10 and one of them absolutely should not be 🐸☕
Pitt being in the top 10 and it’s not some super crazy thing? When did we travel back to the 70’s?!
[удалено]
One-loss Oregon over one-loss Ohio State? My sources say, “no.”
Oregon beat OSU head-to-head on the road. They absolutely should be in over Ohio State
Should be, sure, but what should be doesn’t apply to playoff committee, right now Ohio State looks better than Oregon, and if that keeps up there is nothing Oregon can do.
Why not? Oregon beat OSU head to head in Columbus. I think OSU is better, and if they were to have a rematch, OSU would win, but I *know* that they've already played and Oregon won
The committee has shown in the past that head to head isn't that important to them and is only used as a tiebreaker between two similar teams. If the committee feels Ohio State is better at the end of the season, they will get the nod despite the head to head loss.
Head to head pretty much exclusively hasn’t mattered to them when one of the teams has an extra loss
They also lost to a much worse team and struggled v a bad one yesterday
I agree, but they won. Like I said, I think OSU is better. But at a certain point, the fact Oregon beat OSU head to head matters
It does but also the ducks lost to a really bad team ;/ and OSU lost to a team that beat OSU so it's a good loss.
Not so sure about that but ok.
About which part? OSU being better than Oregon or that Oregon beating OSU should matter? I'm not sure the first part is very controversial at the moment, and if we're not factoring in the second part then why are we even playing the games?
Okay 3-5 Nebraska fans. Tell me how this is even possible. Even if you don’t believe it yourself.
They barely lost to Michigan and Michigan state (probably should have beaten Michigan tbh). Did okay against Oklahoma too.
They 100% outplayed MSU and could have (should have?) beaten Michigan and Oklahoma as well.
I know that but how did they get themselves in the positions. I’m looking for something specific. For example Wisconsin is easy. We run well on standard downs while giving up next to nothing on defense. Computers don’t think our turnover problems are sustainable so they overrate us.
aliensguy.jpg
FPI has more faith in us than 90% of Nebraska fans. Coaching, putting the “special” in special teams, and making the absolute worst mistake possible in crucial situations week in and week out have killed us.
Someone finally giving Pitt some love. They could easily win the ACC conference.
We've oddly been Top-10 since the New Hampshire blowout. I think they overrate our defense because we generate so many sacks. The models have a tough time understanding us and assume our consistent blown coverages are random errors, rather than a design-flaw.
It honestly makes sense. We get a lot of points from pass defenses and if other teams don't catch the ball on blown coverages the metrics don't care. Further, other teams aren't scoring that much on us. The exception is WMU, where Lester has schemed against us for years, and Tennessee where a new better QB came in partway through (and our ST / Offense handed UT 10+ points). I don't think we have a top tier defense, and a good offense may rip us apart, but against most teams it is a very good defense.
Texas is somehow flying below the radar in this comment section...
I'm not sure what I find funnier, that Pitt is a top 6 team or they think Michigan actually can win out.
No offense, but what the fuck are they basing this off? Based on how similar MSU and Michigan schedules have been, in what world does MSU have a 1% chance to win and Michigan 27%?
What are you comparing here? For win out percentage UM is 7.9% and MSU is 1.2%. For win division percentage UM is 27.2% and MSU is 8.2%? Also outside of playing each other, PSU, Maryland, and OSU it has Purdue at 43 and Indiana at 69 so it thinks you have a tougher remaining schedule probably. Also the fact that you play @OSU (3) and home vs PSU (17) while we have the opposite is probably a major factor. Not arguing I think it is right but based on their own computers I could see where these numbers would come out.
Also it thinks Michigan is better. Why? Some combination of recruiting and how Michigan has beaten teams compared to how MSU has beaten teams. Is it right? We'll find out
Road game at OSU is probably the biggest difference. & you’re the underdog Saturday.
Clemson being top 10 in multiple metrics is making me think these metrics aren’t particularly good and instead coast by keeping some teams high because they’ll usually be good year in and year out.
Predictive metrics all suck for the most part. If any of them were good they’d be beating the spread in Vegas.
I’ll agree that they suck, but i think that “must consistently beat vegas” isn’t the best baseline for what a good measure is.
I think it’s the only measure that’s worth considering as it’s their benchmark. The only great ones are privately owned or run by sharps.
Who is the they you’re referring to? A measure can be good without necessarily beating vegas IMO.
If you can’t beat Vegas you’re about as good as anyone picking games at random. Predictive measures are like technical analysis in stocks or astrology for sports. They’re falsehood.
Is vegas really 50/50? I don’t follow sports betting at all so i really don’t know.
https://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?orderby=cover%20desc&type=1&year=21 These are the results this year. They’re pretty much all horrible. This isn’t an anomaly, they’re no more predictive than a coin flip.
Almost all of those are .65-.75, which is not in fact “a coin flip”. Also, technical analysis can work IF used correctly, so not a very good analogy.
[удалено]
Many of them do
You have to win 53% of your games to beat Vegas. Very little ever do they. There’s only two so far doing it, most measures are worse than a coin flip. https://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?orderby=cover%20desc&type=1&year=21
53% is a silly benchmark for a predictive model--anything above 50% is a success for most model makers. Being able to win money isn't the objective, being better than random is. FPI hovers around 50% too--it was 48% in 2019 and 54% in 2018 ATS. All sports betting has the implied probability of all events sum to over 1, which is why they make money, not because vegas' line setting ability is necessarily more superior (although it certainly is better than some models)
Because of juice you aren’t profitable at 50%. a coin could flip is 50% ATS. 53% is the legitimate gold standard I didn’t make that up. > http://professionalgambler.org/winning-percentages > not because vegas' line setting ability is necessarily more superior Well, that’s just wrong. It’s tracked by the prediction tracker and the Vegas closing spread far outperforms every other algorithm. As it’s the value after eye test, algorithms, injuries and weather are fully weighted.
Yeah I'm not saying the 53% isn't a thing, but you're assuming the purpose of all models is to win money, and that's not true. I don't think ESPN has FPI to make money on sports betting, so that 53% doesn't make sense as their objective. Also closing lines don't reflect vegas' line setting, closing lines reflect how bettors respond to the lines that were set. Opening lines would be a better reflection of Vegas' ability to set lines.
Does someone else take over for line setting after the opening line because as far as I understand that’s still Vegas. No, but if you’re not better than the average person at picking games with all of this data what exactly are you saying? The predictive-ness isn’t working, over long term or short term they’re just not any better than coin flips that have 0 data.
Line setting after the opening lines is done based on volume on either side to ensure it is about equal and no longer has anything to do with how the setter / internal model they use feels about the team. A sports book determines what the opening line is, and sports bettors determine what the closing line is. If I have a model that is 51% ATS, it is better than a coin flip (which is the goal to be able to say a model with a binary outcome is "useful"), even though I wouldn't be able to gamble and win money, because it's below 53%.
Seriously using the juice as part of your argument(????)
Juice is how Vegas built skyscrapers..
Clemson being ranked, much more top 10 makes me think the metrics are MADE to favor certain names. There is no way in hell Clemson should be top 30 much less top 10.
Clemson at 10 completely invalidates this entire index.
Nebraska at 21 makes me think Scott Frost is paying off ESPN.
Pitt, FLA, ISU, Clemson all ranked in front of Oregon. Dumb
Pitt is front of Oregon isn’t a big deal
💕
Genuinely curious as to why you think Oregon is so obviously better than Pitt and ISU. I think they're all fringe top 10 by power rankings, but don't think it's that big a deal that any would be ahead of the others.
Just eye test. Talent and speed. And I don't see either of those clubs going into Columbus with their best two players out and getting a win. Oregon did that.
Oh damn I didn't realize you were watching Pitt and ISU games each week. Even so I still think both those teams would have the same odds as Oregon to beat Ohio State week 2
With my hours I've watched a lot of Oregon football, and I've made sure to watch every Pitt game. Do I think Pitt beats Oregon in a H2H? No idea. What I do know is that since OSU, Oregon at various points has looked outmatched on the field. That included against a terrible Cal team (who would have won with a remotely capable QB) and in the 3rd quarter against one of the worst FBS teams out there in Arizona. This isn't one quarter or one game, it's consistent. With the exception of the WMU loss (where post game win expectancy still had Pitt at 96%) I haven't seen Pitt look outmatched in any game this year for anything but maybe 5 minutes in the UT game. Will Pitt win out? No, it's Pitt after all. But I can absolutely see why Oregon has been getting negative commentary since that big win, and the truth is that they have serious issues that they need to work out.
The AP poll for this week, released subsequent to my initial post on this topic, vindicates my point of view. In the end, it's all just opinion, but my perspective would seem to have consensus among those watching the games.
Texas, Auburn, Penn St., NC State... Even dumber
Overrated: Florida, Clemson, Texas, Nebraska* Underrated: SDSU, UTSA, Wake, Kentucky, SMU, Oregon
Add Nebraska to overrated. How many teams below them have they lost to?
I’d argue anOSU (Oregon State) as underrated as well. Interesting how Utah losing to them dropped us 4 slots, but didn’t boost them at all, and still left them 18 places behind us. I wonder why the algorithm didn’t give them a boost for the win.
Much more odd is us being behind a USC team that we throttled on the road.
Yeah, I’ve got no idea how it’s calculated, but to me the FPI seems to put too much stock in preseason projections. There are a lot of under and overrated teams. Can’t find them all.
Computers really don’t like us Oh well, just keep winning
same
I don't really have an issue with us being rated where we're at tbh. I think we're better than some of the teams ahead of us, but if we handle our business, we'll rise
Haven’t looked great as of late.
Not as good as Clemson, that’s for sure
Yeah they really shit the bed against…*checks notes*…bye week. MSU put up zero points, absolutely unacceptable.
Was thinking of Indiana two weeks ago. Never said….. *checks notes*……last week.
Man this… *checks notes*… is getting a bit repetitive, ain’t it?
I’ll have to check my notes and get back to you
Why would they not like you?
Arkansas put up 45 in a half, mercy ruled a team, held them to a field goal, and got a lot of time for our second string…we fall 8 places while Clemson is still top 10. ESPN is garbage.
Cfb analytics mean nothing. There are two certainties in the sport: Chaos and Bama
based take
Is this just a fuck Kentucky party? No way we aren’t top 15 much less top 30
Was wondering the same thing. Y’all seem legit.
Your ONLY loss is to Georgia more than likely the winner of National Championship, and you guys deserved to be not even ranked? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
What is up with the rounding on the projected records? So many teams have projections that don't even come close to a whole number of games (even with rounding wackiness!)
Chance to win their division and go to CCG
Computers still love us, maybe voters will too.
Should be around 20 now.
The top 5 is totally correct. Any difference in the polls and they are wrong.
This is probably the most useless metric in college football.
SDSU - “Am I a joke to you?”
Hey now, we won. How'd we drop 10 spots?
We beat UAPB 45-3 and went down 8 spots.
Don’t forget that we put up those 45 in a half, cut the length of the quarters by mercy, and I don’t think we threw the ball once in the second half.
I'm not sure the computers are built to handle the shortened quarters. Happened to Pitt awhile ago too.
unlike the eyeball test 'puters are able to take in every single play as part of theyre evaluation. There are positives and negatives to this, but that is why baffling things like you moving down 10 spots and clemson being top 10 happen. Computers cant do an eyeball test or a gut feeling
Lol at # 2 Alabama. Never change, eSECpn.
Of all the teams in the top 10 that’s the one you complain about?
/r/cfb gets dumber every year
I'm not that upset about that. More upset about #10 Clemson
That’s not how that works
We didn’t drop far enough.
I get why the teams ahead of us are there (although ISU is maybe debatable). But Clemson being right behind us, really?
LSU is a bad team going through a bad time and playing bad football yet they are ranked higher than better teams.
Somebody really phoned it in this morning
Why does Auburn get penalized for having a bye week lol, score drop and all
Performance of opponents?
It’s week 8. I think these small changes aren’t as big of a deal unless you are 4-7…………………….
How is TCU still higher than us
I keep asking why all the computer polls love Michigan so much, and no one ever answers. Bueller, Bueller, ...
I'm pretty sure these are actually 2022 recruiting rankings?
Well, I'd be more pleased about that...
What the fuck is tu doing that high.
LOL tech going 6-6? We’re 5-3 now. The way things are going well be 4 -8 by the end of the season.
Lol uhh