Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bigd

Records vs P5

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, bigd said:

CONFERENCE

Total vs FBS

Vs P5

Vs G5

BIG 10

18-3

2-2

16-1

ACC

10-5

2-4

8-1

BIG 12

6-3

1-2

5-1

SEC

13-7

5-3

8-4

PAC 12

9-6

2-2

7-4

MWC

8-7

6-5

2-2

AAC

7-8

2-8

5-0

SUN BELT

5-8

2-5

3-3

C-USA

2-14

0-8

0-6

MAC

1-13

0-12

1-1

 

At this point, only the MW and SEC have a winning record against P5 schools this season. It will be short-lived, but impressive nonetheless. 

Not only that, but we were pretty close to winning in 3 of those losses and could’ve been 9-2. In fact, CSU should be good enough to beat Colorado which would’ve made it 10-1. Our game against a pissed off Oregon in Eugene would’ve resulted in a L for anyone in the MW, so it really has been the only OOC body game played in the MWC so far. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, UofMTigers said:

after watching Ga State beat TN, Coastal beat Kansas, App State beat up on Charlotte (CUSA), and Ark State destroy UNLV (those are the only Fun Belt games I've watched) I feel safe saying the Belt > C-USA/MAC right now

The AAC and the MW have a good division and an ok division.  The MAC and Sun Belt have an ok division and a bad division.   CUSA has two bad divisions.

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2019/conference/

Based on Sagarin ratings the MAC EAST is overall slightly better than the West division of the MW (UNLV losing hurts that Sagarin score a lot and SJSU losing to Tulsa hurting less than you would think). 

If the Sun Belt East improved a bit, it could be the equivalent of the West division of the MW.

9  PAC-12-S            (A) =  72.14      72.91  (  9)      6      72.69  (  9)
  10  AAC WEST            (A) =  71.03      70.85  ( 10)      6      70.87  ( 10)
  11  MWC-MTN             (A) =  68.17      67.84  ( 11)      6      68.12  ( 11)
  12  AAC EAST            (A) =  65.14      66.02  ( 12)      6      64.90  ( 12)
  13  MAC-WEST            (A) =  63.59      63.62  ( 13)      6      63.61  ( 13)
  14  MWC-WEST            (A) =  61.61      61.55  ( 14)      6      61.61  ( 14)
  15  SUN BELT-E          (A) =  60.73      61.29  ( 15)      5      61.18  ( 15)
  16  I-A IND.            (A) =  59.96      60.79  ( 16)      6      59.82  ( 16)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Bruininthebay said:

The AAC and the MW have a good division and an ok division.  The MAC and Sun Belt have an ok division and a bad division.   CUSA has two bad divisions.

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2019/conference/

Based on Sagarin ratings the MAC EAST is overall slightly better than the West division of the MW (UNLV losing hurts that Sagarin score a lot and SJSU losing to Tulsa hurting less than you would think). 

If the Sun Belt East improved a bit, it could be the equivalent of the West division of the MW.


9  PAC-12-S            (A) =  72.14      72.91  (  9)      6      72.69  (  9)
  10  AAC WEST            (A) =  71.03      70.85  ( 10)      6      70.87  ( 10)
  11  MWC-MTN             (A) =  68.17      67.84  ( 11)      6      68.12  ( 11)
  12  AAC EAST            (A) =  65.14      66.02  ( 12)      6      64.90  ( 12)
  13  MAC-WEST            (A) =  63.59      63.62  ( 13)      6      63.61  ( 13)
  14  MWC-WEST            (A) =  61.61      61.55  ( 14)      6      61.61  ( 14)
  15  SUN BELT-E          (A) =  60.73      61.29  ( 15)      5      61.18  ( 15)
  16  I-A IND.            (A) =  59.96      60.79  ( 16)      6      59.82  ( 16)

These rankings are worthless this early. Relies on last year too much. Look at wyo for example. 

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, boisewitha-s said:

These rankings are worthless this early. Relies on last year too much. Look at wyo for example. 

I agree that specific numbers aren't reflective of this year's team.

However, to look at divisions/conferences overall (similar aggregate variation per year) Sagarin ratings are fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bruininthebay said:

I agree that specific numbers aren't reflective of this year's team.

However, to look at divisions/conferences overall (similar aggregate variation per year) Sagarin ratings are fine.

Individual teams make up the conference rankings. If the individual team rankings are flawed so are the conference rankings. 

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boisewitha-s said:

Individual teams make up the conference rankings. If the individual team rankings are flawed so are the conference rankings. 

Averaging controls for variation; essentially that is why you can poll 800 people and project that onto an entire population.

Every metric relies on data sets in some way and what is included in that data set varies.  Certainly the journalist and coaches polls are far more flawed - see Washington's #23 ranking in week 3.

Also, in weeks 5/6 when the Sagarin is largely based on this year's results there are generally not dramatic jumps in a specific team or conferences rank.

Further, the Sagarin is sensitive enough to realize that UNLV is worse than SJSU already 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bruininthebay said:

The AAC and the MW have a good division and an ok division.  The MAC and Sun Belt have an ok division and a bad division.   CUSA has two bad divisions.

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2019/conference/

Based on Sagarin ratings the MAC EAST is overall slightly better than the West division of the MW (UNLV losing hurts that Sagarin score a lot and SJSU losing to Tulsa hurting less than you would think). 

If the Sun Belt East improved a bit, it could be the equivalent of the West division of the MW.


9  PAC-12-S            (A) =  72.14      72.91  (  9)      6      72.69  (  9)
  10  AAC WEST            (A) =  71.03      70.85  ( 10)      6      70.87  ( 10)
  11  MWC-MTN             (A) =  68.17      67.84  ( 11)      6      68.12  ( 11)
  12  AAC EAST            (A) =  65.14      66.02  ( 12)      6      64.90  ( 12)
  13  MAC-WEST            (A) =  63.59      63.62  ( 13)      6      63.61  ( 13)
  14  MWC-WEST            (A) =  61.61      61.55  ( 14)      6      61.61  ( 14)
  15  SUN BELT-E          (A) =  60.73      61.29  ( 15)      5      61.18  ( 15)
  16  I-A IND.            (A) =  59.96      60.79  ( 16)      6      59.82  ( 16)

Lol at using Sagarin ratings in week 2.  Jeff will be the first to tell you not to do that, most of the data refers to the prior year until about week 4 and then the previous year really does not stop being a major contributor until about week 6.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bruininthebay said:

Averaging controls for variation; essentially that is why you can poll 800 people and project that onto an entire population.

Every metric relies on data sets in some way and what is included in that data set varies.  Certainly the journalist and coaches polls are far more flawed - see Washington's #23 ranking in week 3.

Also, in weeks 5/6 when the Sagarin is largely based on this year's results there are generally not dramatic jumps in a specific team or conferences rank.

Further, the Sagarin is sensitive enough to realize that UNLV is worse than SJSU already 

Incorrect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

image.png.c106c66cf6192f9db61db0e2b5cfb3a0.png

Have I not said several times that not only do I want the MW to be as good as possible but that a good MW is good for cfb?  I'm glad the MW has done as well as they have against the P5, just like I am glad the AAC has shown to be superior to their G5 counterparts as evidenced in that same chart.  Of course I wouldn't have made a big deal about it either way sample size being what it is and the fact that the AAC has played 3 top 10 teams and more in the top 25 for their P5 games whereas the MW games haven't exactly been against sexy teams.  Great job though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

Have I not said several times that not only do I want the MW to be as good as possible but that a good MW is good for cfb? I know you're dense but you're barking up the wrong tree.  I'm glad the MW has done as well as they have against the P5, just like I am glad the AAC has shown to be superior to their G5 counterparts as evidenced in that same chart.  Of course I wouldn't have made a big deal about it either way sample size being what it is and the fact that the AAC has played 3 top 10 teams and more in the top 25 for their P5 games whereas the MW games haven't exactly been sexy teams.  Great job though.

You say and "woosh" a lot of things, as we now all know. LOL

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

Have I not said several times that not only do I want the MW to be as good as possible but that a good MW is good for cfb?  I'm glad the MW has done as well as they have against the P5, just like I am glad the AAC has shown to be superior to their G5 counterparts as evidenced in that same chart.  Of course I wouldn't have made a big deal about it either way sample size being what it is and the fact that the AAC has played 3 top 10 teams and more in the top 25 for their P5 games whereas the MW games haven't exactly been against sexy teams.  Great job though.

Says he would not make a big deal out of it.  Proceeds to make big deal out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pelado said:

Tennessee has only lost to one G5 so far this year.

I should have noted that I included Notre Dame as a P5, and the rest of the independents as G5. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...