Who cares?

It's not that outlandish.

The only way to solve the "how do you put team A behind team B when team B beat team A" argument is to do one purely based on W/L which is impossible after a few weeks because you'll have circular arguments.

So you bring in other statistics and I think us being 10 has to do with us being inconsistent as a whole. Our offense struggled against Auburn and for much of the Florida & MSU games. Our defense struggled against our cupcakes, ND and Arkie.

We've also probably played a higher "floor" than many other teams in the top 10, but a lower ceiling, meaning we don't have any truly terrible teams (after week 2) on our schedule, but we also don't have many "good" teams. We have lots of teams with talent at places, but terrible on field results.

The really nice thing is:
- it doesn't matter unless we stumble enough to let it become a factor (lose 3 - a 2 loss A&M is playoff bound this year)
- plenty of teams win championships without being the highest on power rankings

Get into the playoffs, use home field advantage and maybe find a way to win a game we would lose more than 1/2 the time and we could do just that.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

Well, I'd argue Indiana winning at Oregon was a high quality win.

---

Who has Oregon played and beaten?

---

They killed Penn State. Not on the scoreboard. They actually killed the team/program.

7 also beat 4

RARay said:

---

Ian Neff said:

---

RARay said:

---

Quote:

---

The question is does the "higher" ranking team lose? How you have 2-loss teams ranking above those that beat them is a travesty.

---

It's a predictive model, not a ranking of achievement. ND would be favored tomorrow against A&M and Miami in almost every model.

---

Then computers and models are idiots.

---

Do you think in 2012 Florida should have been ranked ahead of the Ags because they won in the second game of the season?

---

Yes, because they only lost 1 game a d beat us head to head

Doesn't mean they were the better team at the end of the season, but they were better when they played us and they had 1 less loss

If you ignore head to head when ranking teams (when the overall records are similar) then what's the point of playing the games?

msn?

Did you find that article by asking Jeeves?

NyAggie said:

---

RARay said:

---

Ian Neff said:

---

RARay said:

---

Quote:

---

The question is does the "higher" ranking team lose? How you have 2-loss teams ranking above those that beat them is a travesty.

---

It's a predictive model, not a ranking of achievement. ND would be favored tomorrow against A&M and Miami in almost every model.

---

Then computers and models are idiots.

---

Do you think in 2012 Florida should have been ranked ahead of the Ags because they won in the second game of the season?

---

Yes, because they only lost 1 game a d beat us head to head

Doesn't mean they were the better team at the end of the season, but they were better when they played us and they had 1 less loss

If you ignore head to head when ranking teams (when the overall records are similar) then what's the point of playing the games?

---

By definition algorithms are biased. Human nature.

Here is an "unbiased" ranking by ChatGPT, happier?

1) Ohio State Buckeyes The model of consistency in the BigTen, elite coaching, deep roster.

Indiana Hoosiers Huge rise in profile. If they keep rolling, they'll stay near the top.

Miami Hurricanes Excellent offseason & early momentum. Big upside.

4) Texas A&M Aggies Strong SEC contender, talent and coaching align.

Alabama Crimson Tide Always a threat; may be building toward another peak.

Georgia Bulldogs Slightly below their peak, but still one of the elite.

Oregon Ducks BigTen transition brings questions, but talent is undeniable.

Ole Miss Rebels Emerging as a serious force; their trajectory is upward.

Texas Tech Red Raiders Perhaps a surprise pick, but improving rapidly.

10) LSU Tigers Revival mode: high ceiling if things align.

We're getting penalized for not running up the score on teams by the computers. 3 late meaningless TDs allowed to Utah State, UTSA and Arkansas don't help either.

RARay said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

amercer said:

---

10th seems fair for who we've played and how we are playing.

---

The point is why is Notre Dame 4 if we are 10 and Miami is 7

---

1. These rankings don't tend to actually use wins and loses because those aren't great predictors.
2. Our win over ND was razor thin and many other games have been played since.
3. It's not at all unreasonable to think that ND would have a good shot at beating the Ags if they played again.

---

My first thought was "yeah, but Tech beating us?!?!"

Then I remembered the 90's. Clearly those years were factored into the model.

Here's a summary of 76 rankings. Almost all are computer ranked with AP and USA Today also included.

Massey Composition Ratings

Ags #3

Who cares? Stop begging for rat poison

Quote:

---

the Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) team ratings, boasts one of the higher accuracy computer models for determining a team's place in the college football pecking order while minimizing bias and favoritism. While not perfect, it's more predictive than other models such as the ESPN Football Power Index (FPI) in some major areas.

---

such hirsesh&t!!! you can say anything you want. obviously that model was created to boost teams in the north. its bery output practically PROVES it's an extremely poor model.

the bias is built in.

Duffel Pud said:

---

Sagarin's...

RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | PREDICTOR | GOLDEN_MEAN | RECENT | STRONG RECENT
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 4.37] [ 4.16] [ 4.49] [ 4.46] [ 4.46]
1 Ohio State A = 96.38 7 0 73.12( 20) 1 0 | 3 0 | 93.33 1 | 97.55 1 | 103.61 1 | 111.81 1 BIG TEN (A)
2 Oregon A = 93.74 6 1 71.53( 35) 0 1 | 1 1 | 92.77 2 | 92.67 2 | 99.58 2 | 104.00 2 BIG TEN (A)
3 Notre Dame A = 91.65 5 2 77.43( 6) 0 2 | 1 2 | 91.64 3 | 92.21 3 | 93.66 4 | 95.49 5 I-A IND. (A)
4 Alabama A = 91.34 6 1 78.01( 3) 1 0 | 4 0 | 90.41 4 | 91.22 7 | 95.19 3 | 98.19 4 SEC (A)
5 Indiana A = 90.22 7 0 68.76( 49) 1 0 | 3 0 | 88.59 5 | 91.97 4 | 92.75 5 | 100.45 3 BIG TEN (A)
6 Georgia A = 89.60 6 1 75.77( 11) 0 1 | 3 1 | 88.50 6 | 91.34 6 | 91.37 6 | 92.20 7 SEC (A)
7 Texas A&M A = 88.88 7 0 74.18( 16) 1 0 | 3 0 | 87.24 7 | 91.68 5 | 90.32 7 | 91.58 9 SEC (A)
8 Miami-Florida A = 88.29 5 1 75.95( 9) 1 0 | 2 1 | 87.15 9 | 90.08 8 | 89.82 8 | 90.88 10 ACC (A)
9 Texas A = 87.49 5 2 71.93( 28) 0 1 | 1 2 | 87.21 8 | 88.23 9 | 88.85 9 | 88.58 14 SEC (A)
10 LSU A = 86.31 5 2 76.24( 7) 0 0 | 2 2 | 85.86 11 | 86.63 11 | 88.11 10 | 87.62 17 SEC (A)

---

7 seems fair to me.

We aren't really playing like a top 3 team in the country. I get why a computer would have us ranked a little lower.

RARay said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

amercer said:

---

10th seems fair for who we've played and how we are playing.

---

The point is why is Notre Dame 4 if we are 10 and Miami is 7

---

1. These rankings don't tend to actually use wins and loses because those aren't great predictors.
2. Our win over ND was razor thin and many other games have been played since.
3. It's not at all unreasonable to think that ND would have a good shot at beating the Ags if they played again.

---

But rankings are for playoffs and your record against each other should matter. If what you are suggesting is true we should have been in playoffs with Johnny. We barely lost our 2 games and we would destroy anyone. I know just win, but at some point this BS does matter.

Quote:

---

But rankings are for playoffs and your record against each other should matter. If what you are suggesting is true we should have been in playoffs with Johnny. We barely lost our 2 games and we would destroy anyone. I know just win, but at some point this BS does matter.

---

The ranking being discussed is not for playoffs. It's just someone's computer model that tries to make an objective judgement of how teams are playing. The playoff rankings come from people who WILL take records and head-to-head into account. Do I have to say that record and head-to-head is insufficient to put together the tournament field?

What this model - and most other models - are telling us is that the Ags are a good and balanced team that is not playing well enough to make much noise in the postseason.

As for your Johnny non-sequitar ... there was no playoff when he was playing, but it's a fairly common observation that if there HAD been a playoff in 2012 the Ags might have made it and been a real threat to win - even in the four-team variant. Neither Florida nor LSU would have been in the conversation

Quote:

---

What this model - and most other models - are telling us is that the Ags are a good and balanced team that is not playing well enough to make much noise in the postseason.

---

I think that's fair. We've had maybe one game where offense + defense + special teams all showed up on the same day.

That said, when they do, I think we're a top 5 team.

Post it on the locker room bulletin board.