Firebirdparts
Best tackle for his weight the old school ever had
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2014
- Messages
- 4,321
- Likes
- 7,643
How come UGA didn’t jump Ohio State after beating us?WEEK 10 2022 RANKINGS (with AP/Coaches/CFP):
1. Ohio St (9-0) - 182.3085 (2/2/2)
2. Georgia (9-0) - 181.9311 (1/1/1)
3. Tennessee (8-1) - 173.2954 (5/5/5)
4. Michigan (9-0) - 173.1594 (3/3/3)
5. TCU (9-0) - 161.1919 (4/4/4)
6. Alabama (7-2) - 160.6598 (10/11/9)
7. USC (8-1) - 155.8823 (8/7/8)
8. UCLA (8-1) - 155.5205 (9/10/12)
9. Clemson (8-1) - 155.3879 (12/12/10)
10. Penn St (7-2) - 152.1642 (14/15/14)
11. Oregon (8-1) - 150.8089 (6/6/6)
12. LSU (7-2) - 150.3072 (7/8/7)
13. Utah (7-2) - 148.0706 (13/13/13)
14. Ole Miss (8-1) - 145.9945 (11/9/11)
15. UCF (7-2) - 144.1767 (22/21/22)
16. North Carolina (8-1) - 143.6144 (15/14/15)
17. Notre Dame (6-3) - 142.9965 (20/25/20)
18. Troy (7-2) - 141.7769 (UR/UR/UR)
19. NC State (7-2) - 141.4515 (17/16/16)
20. Texas (6-3) - 141.4177 (18/18/18)
21. Kansas St (6-3) - 141.1126 (23/22/19)
22. Florida St (6-3) - 140.8117 (25/UR/23)
23. Tulane (8-1) - 140.4822 (16/17/17)
24. Coastal Carolina (8-1) - 137.6304 (UR/UR/UR)
25. Illinois (7-2) - 136.4172 (21/20/21)
WEEK 10 2022 RANKINGS (with AP/Coaches/CFP):
1. Ohio St (9-0) - 182.3085 (2/2/2)
2. Georgia (9-0) - 181.9311 (1/1/1)
3. Tennessee (8-1) - 173.2954 (5/5/5)
4. Michigan (9-0) - 173.1594 (3/3/3)
5. TCU (9-0) - 161.1919 (4/4/4)
6. Alabama (7-2) - 160.6598 (10/11/9)
7. USC (8-1) - 155.8823 (8/7/8)
8. UCLA (8-1) - 155.5205 (9/10/12)
9. Clemson (8-1) - 155.3879 (12/12/10)
10. Penn St (7-2) - 152.1642 (14/15/14)
11. Oregon (8-1) - 150.8089 (6/6/6)
12. LSU (7-2) - 150.3072 (7/8/7)
13. Utah (7-2) - 148.0706 (13/13/13)
14. Ole Miss (8-1) - 145.9945 (11/9/11)
15. UCF (7-2) - 144.1767 (22/21/22)
16. North Carolina (8-1) - 143.6144 (15/14/15)
17. Notre Dame (6-3) - 142.9965 (20/25/20)
18. Troy (7-2) - 141.7769 (UR/UR/UR)
19. NC State (7-2) - 141.4515 (17/16/16)
20. Texas (6-3) - 141.4177 (18/18/18)
21. Kansas St (6-3) - 141.1126 (23/22/19)
22. Florida St (6-3) - 140.8117 (25/UR/23)
23. Tulane (8-1) - 140.4822 (16/17/17)
24. Coastal Carolina (8-1) - 137.6304 (UR/UR/UR)
25. Illinois (7-2) - 136.4172 (21/20/21)
Lol @ A&M.The Rest of the SEC:
34. Mississippi St (6-4) - 126.8700
38. Florida (6-4) - 123.9490
55. Kentucky (6-4) - 115.6950
59. Arkansas (5-5) - 112.9100
75. South Carolina (6-4) - 104.1546
79. Auburn (4-6) - 99.0721
81. Missouri (4-6) - 98.3150
88. Vanderbilt (4-6) - 90.0729
98. Texas A&M (3-7) - 85.4710
Thats what it should be IMONY6 Bowl Matchups as of today:
Fiesta (CFP) - #2 Ohio St vs. #3 Tennessee
Peach (CFP) - #1 Georgia vs. #4 Michigan
Cotton (G5 vs. At-Large) - #12 UCF vs. #11 Utah
Orange (ACC vs. Big 10/SEC/ND) - #8 Clemson vs. #10 LSU
Sugar (SEC vs. Big XII) - #5 Alabama vs. #6 TCU
Rose (Big Ten vs. Pac-12) - #7 Penn St vs. #9 USC
It's interesting that the 12 NY6 teams are exactly the Top 12.
@bamawriter Do you think there might be a little Alabama bias in that algorithm? #4?
I know they're talented on paper but #4?
It’s more to keep up with but have you thought about adding opponent’s opponents winning percentage in? I bring it up because your latest rankings have a lot of lower tier teams in the top 25 and I assume that’s because beating a 5-5 Sunbelt team is no different than beating a 5-5 SEC team. Adding the opponent’s opponents winning percentage isn’t a perfect way to capture the relative strength of the opponent but it’s something and I think the BCS used to have such a component back in the day.Back in 2011, during the controversy surrounding the Bama-LSU rematch, I started putting together my own version of a BCS computer ranking system. I was going to use it in a future column to detail how stupid the very concept of the computers is when it comes to determining a champion. But, before I had the chance to write that column, the playoff was announced, and it seemed sort of pointless.
Anyway, I was clearing of a hard drive and found my system. Because I'm bored, I decided to update it for the past several seasons just to see what it would spit out for the four team playoff. Thought some on here might find it interesting. Certainly could spur some debate.
Here's the idea:
Bias is completely eliminated. Team names, history, and conference are all ignored. Winning % and strength of schedule are the most important factors. While the BCS eliminated margin of victory, I think that's ridiculous, so it's back in on mine. In order to adjust for home field advantage, I took the standard Vegas rule and subtracted 3 points for a game at home, and added 3 points for a road game, creating an adjusted point differential. I also included average yardage differential to help account for the way a game actually played out on the field. FCS opponents are given a standard .25 winning % and only their games against FBS teams count toward their point differential.
Here's the formula:
Winning % x 100 (too make it a whole number)
+
Opponents' Winning % x 100
+
Average Adjusted Point Differential
+
Opponents' Average Point Differential
+
Average Yardage Differential / 100
=
SCORE
As an example, 2015 Tennessee had the following score (bowl game not included):
(.6667 x 100) + (.5385 x 100) + 12.4167 + .5753 + (52.0833 / 100) = 134.0328
Interestingly, my system from last year produced the same 4 playoff teams, and even the same semifinal matchups, but with different seeding:
1. Alabama - 176.4984
2. Clemson - 175.6221
3. Oklahoma - 174.9711
4. Mich St. - 164.4958
Michigan State got in over Ohio State by .0007.
I went back to 2008 if anyone is interested in more.
@bamawriter Do you think there might be a little Alabama bias in that algorithm? #4?
I know they're talented on paper but #4?
@bamawriter Do you think there might be a little Alabama bias in that algorithm? #4?
I know they're talented on paper but #4?
I'm just responding to the differences in the other ranking scales for a team like Bama, TN, TX, Penn State, and a few others.On a neutral field like Indianapolis and assuming Georgia is the best team, which team is most likely to defeating Georgia?
I would put Alabama ahead of TCU, LSU, Tennessee, maybe even ahead of Michigan and Ohio State. Just speculation and we will never know.
It’s more to keep up with but have you thought about adding opponent’s opponents winning percentage in? I bring it up because your latest rankings have a lot of lower tier teams in the top 25 and I assume that’s because beating a 5-5 Sunbelt team is no different than beating a 5-5 SEC team. Adding the opponent’s opponents winning percentage isn’t a perfect way to capture the relative strength of the opponent but it’s something and I think the BCS used to have such a component back in the day.
I'm just responding to the differences in the other ranking scales for a team like Bama, TN, TX, Penn State, and a few others.
I'll be curious to see how it matches up with the final results but the other systems are reasonably close to each other and this one seems to be an outlier.