Started By
Message
Pre-National Title Game S&P+ Rankings
Posted on 1/3/17 at 8:59 am
Posted on 1/3/17 at 8:59 am
OVERALL
1. Alabama
4. LSU
13. Auburn
15. Florida
24. Texas A&M
27. Ole Miss
28. Tennessee
47. Arkansas
55. Mississippi State
67. Kentucky
68. Georgia
69. Missouri
71. Vanderbilt
78. South Carolina
OFFENSE
9. Alabama
13. Ole Miss
22. LSU
28. Tennessee
29. Texas A&M
31. Auburn
32. Mississippi State
39. Arkansas
42. Missouri
52. Kentucky
88. Florida
89. Vanderbilt
93. Georgia
107. South Carolina
DEFENSE
1. Alabama
3. LSU
4. Florida
9. Auburn
34. Georgia
36. Texas A&M
40. Vanderbilt
50. South Carolina
52. Tennessee
63. Arkansas
72. Ole Miss
73. Mississippi State
83. Kentucky
88. Missouri
1. Alabama
4. LSU
13. Auburn
15. Florida
24. Texas A&M
27. Ole Miss
28. Tennessee
47. Arkansas
55. Mississippi State
67. Kentucky
68. Georgia
69. Missouri
71. Vanderbilt
78. South Carolina
OFFENSE
9. Alabama
13. Ole Miss
22. LSU
28. Tennessee
29. Texas A&M
31. Auburn
32. Mississippi State
39. Arkansas
42. Missouri
52. Kentucky
88. Florida
89. Vanderbilt
93. Georgia
107. South Carolina
DEFENSE
1. Alabama
3. LSU
4. Florida
9. Auburn
34. Georgia
36. Texas A&M
40. Vanderbilt
50. South Carolina
52. Tennessee
63. Arkansas
72. Ole Miss
73. Mississippi State
83. Kentucky
88. Missouri
8
Posted on 1/3/17 at 9:05 am to Triple Daves
Posted on 1/3/17 at 9:07 am to Triple Daves
We're second best!
Posted on 1/3/17 at 9:37 am to craigbiggio
quote:
We're a distant second best!
FIFY
Posted on 1/3/17 at 9:47 am to Triple Daves
Looks like the booger-eaters are on top again. 
Posted on 1/3/17 at 9:47 am to Triple Daves
ole miss 
Posted on 1/3/17 at 9:52 am to Triple Daves
quote:
67. Kentucky
68. Georgia
we have a better record than UK and beat them head to head in lexington...what justification could their possibly be for them to be higher?
Not that the "S&P+ rankings" mean a damn thing anyway
Posted on 1/3/17 at 9:52 am to Triple Daves
On your marks
Get setttttt..
Get butt hurt about LSU!!!
Get setttttt..
Get butt hurt about LSU!!!
Posted on 1/3/17 at 9:56 am to WG_Dawg
- Georgia beat Kentucky on a field goal at the buzzer
- both teams had similar records
- Kentucky had a decent offense (52nd) and a bad defense (83rd)
- Georgia had a decent defense (34th) and a bad offense (93rd)
Basically it thinks if Kentucky and Georgia played again, today, on neutral field it would be a toss up. I think Georgia would probably be a slight favorite, but not more than 3-5 points.
- both teams had similar records
- Kentucky had a decent offense (52nd) and a bad defense (83rd)
- Georgia had a decent defense (34th) and a bad offense (93rd)
Basically it thinks if Kentucky and Georgia played again, today, on neutral field it would be a toss up. I think Georgia would probably be a slight favorite, but not more than 3-5 points.
Posted on 1/3/17 at 9:59 am to Triple Daves
quote:
Georgia beat Kentucky on a field goal at the buzzer
correct
quote:
both teams had similar records
umm...they had "similar" records in the fact they won more than 5 but less than 10 but they did not has the "same" record...because UGA had more wins and less losses
quote:
Kentucky had a decent offense (52nd) and a bad defense (83rd)
- Georgia had a decent defense (34th) and a bad offense (93rd)
irrelevant when it comes to ranking teams. GT runs for like 350+ yards a game every year but that isn't automatic grounds to rank them really high.
quote:
Basically it thinks if Kentucky and Georgia played again, today, on neutral field it would be a toss up
so whatever this S&P system is just ignores actual results where we can see who would win if the teams played?
I mean I'm not pissed off or anythign about being ranked 68th instead of 67th according to this thing, I just don't see how it would be calibrated to give us these results.
Posted on 1/3/17 at 10:02 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
so whatever this S&P system is just ignores actual results where we can see who would win if the teams played?
It has an "S&P+ Margin", which is basically how much better than the average team (which is 0.0) you are. Then that Margin is ranked.
It's what is used to put together the S&P picks, which have been more accurate than anything else I've seen all season.
It isn't going to tell you whether two really close teams will win or lose, but it is pretty good at figuring out tiers of teams, and the S&P margin almost always mirrors the point spread when site of game, injuries, etc are stripped out.
Posted on 1/3/17 at 10:18 am to Triple Daves
Why is SC at the bottom of the league overall? That makes no freaking sense
Posted on 1/3/17 at 10:21 am to chawk195
quote:
Why is SC at the bottom of the league overall? That makes no freaking sense
Because they weren't very good? It makes total sense.
Wins : Vanderbilt, East Carolina, UMass, Tennessee, Missouri, Western Carolina
Losses : Miss St, Kentucky, Texas A&M, Georgia, Florida, Clemson, South Florida
My eye test would rank them either 12th or 13th, ahead of Missouri and basically tied with Vanderbilt. Where exactly would you rank them?
Posted on 1/3/17 at 10:25 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
we have a better record than UK and beat them head to head in lexington...what justification could their possibly be for them to be higher?
S&P+ are advanced stats, takes almost anything you can think of into account mathematically.
LINK
It's a good way of looking at how good teams actually are beyond just a simple W/L record. How they played throughout the whole season against different opponents.
Posted on 1/3/17 at 10:32 am to Triple Daves
Now do 1st half rankings and 2nd half rankings
Posted on 1/3/17 at 10:47 am to Triple Daves
I'd say 12th in the SEC this year. We improved a ton near the end of the season, especially offensively.
Posted on 1/3/17 at 10:50 am to Triple Daves
Which defense other than Bama's was better than LSU's?
Posted on 1/3/17 at 11:16 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
Which defense other than Bama's was better than LSU's?
Michigan
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News