8
Started By
Message
Comparing 5 yr Records vs AP Top 25: Final Ranking vs GameTime Method
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:44 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:44 am
This is why some people prefer record vs GameTime rankings. It usually makes the record vs "ranked teams" look better, because some of those GameTime ranked teams end up not being ranked or even very good when all is said and done. The Delta % at the end shows how much each team's Win% changes (negative number is a drop in Win%) when you use record vs Final Ranked teams compared to GameTime Rankings. If the goal is to compare team records vs quality opponents, then Final Rankings is the accurate way to do it.
Team_______Final Ranking _____________GameTime Ranking
___________Record_____Win Pct_______Record_____Win Pct_______Delta %
ALA_______ 17-9_______ 65.38%_______16-8_______66.67%_______-1.28%
ARK_______ 2-17_______ 10.53%_______3-22_______12.00%_______ -1.47%
AUB_______ 2-20_______ 9.09%_______1-18_________5.26%_______ 3.83%
FLO_______ 5-20_______ 20.00%_______6-20 _______23.08%_______-3.08%
GEO_______ 23-7_______ 76.67%_______19- 6 _______76.00%_______0.67%
KEN_______ 4-17_______ 19.05%_______ 6-15_______ 28.57%_______ -9.52%
LSU_______ 5-17_______ 22.73%_______ 6-14_______ 30.00%_______ -7.27%
MST_______ 4-18_______ 18.18%_______ 4-16_______ 20.00%_______ -1.82%
MZZ_______ 4-15_______ 21.05%_______ 6-13_______ 31.58%_______ -10.53%
OKL_______6-17_______ 26.09%_______ 9-8_________ 52.94%_______ -26.85%
OLE_______ 10-9 _______52.63%_______ 11-7 _______61.11%_______ -8.48%
SCA_______ 4-17_______ 19.05%_______ 7-18 _______28.00%_______ -8.95%
TAM_______ 4-15_______ 21.05%_______ 8-12 _______40.00%_______ -18.95%
TEN_______ 7-15 _______31.82%_______ 10-11_______ 47.62%_______ -15.80%
TEX_______ 12-14_______ 46.15%______17-11_______ 60.71%_______ -14.56%
VAN_______ 1-18_______ 5.26%________ 5-14 _______26.32%_______ -21.05%
Team_______Final Ranking _____________GameTime Ranking
___________Record_____Win Pct_______Record_____Win Pct_______Delta %
ALA_______ 17-9_______ 65.38%_______16-8_______66.67%_______-1.28%
ARK_______ 2-17_______ 10.53%_______3-22_______12.00%_______ -1.47%
AUB_______ 2-20_______ 9.09%_______1-18_________5.26%_______ 3.83%
FLO_______ 5-20_______ 20.00%_______6-20 _______23.08%_______-3.08%
GEO_______ 23-7_______ 76.67%_______19- 6 _______76.00%_______0.67%
KEN_______ 4-17_______ 19.05%_______ 6-15_______ 28.57%_______ -9.52%
LSU_______ 5-17_______ 22.73%_______ 6-14_______ 30.00%_______ -7.27%
MST_______ 4-18_______ 18.18%_______ 4-16_______ 20.00%_______ -1.82%
MZZ_______ 4-15_______ 21.05%_______ 6-13_______ 31.58%_______ -10.53%
OKL_______6-17_______ 26.09%_______ 9-8_________ 52.94%_______ -26.85%
OLE_______ 10-9 _______52.63%_______ 11-7 _______61.11%_______ -8.48%
SCA_______ 4-17_______ 19.05%_______ 7-18 _______28.00%_______ -8.95%
TAM_______ 4-15_______ 21.05%_______ 8-12 _______40.00%_______ -18.95%
TEN_______ 7-15 _______31.82%_______ 10-11_______ 47.62%_______ -15.80%
TEX_______ 12-14_______ 46.15%______17-11_______ 60.71%_______ -14.56%
VAN_______ 1-18_______ 5.26%________ 5-14 _______26.32%_______ -21.05%
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 11:12 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:46 am to wdhalgren
Cool idea, need a better format
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:48 am to wdhalgren
Hard to read, but probably took time. Have an upvote
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:49 am to TexasWranglers
quote:
Cool idea, need a better format
Formatting is hard here because the site doesn't allow html markup in posts.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:49 am to wdhalgren
This should be obvious to 99% of the college football fans.
The only AP ranking that matters is the one published after the bowls/playoffs are played.
I understand having legitimate thought and discussion about the college football playoff rankings when they first publish.
But AP? Hell no.
The only AP ranking that matters is the one published after the bowls/playoffs are played.
I understand having legitimate thought and discussion about the college football playoff rankings when they first publish.
But AP? Hell no.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:52 am to wdhalgren
Ranking at the time the game was played is completely meaningless as more games are played.
A team could finish 6-6, but if they start 6-0 and crack the top 5, the first team that beats them gets credit for a top 5 win, while the last couple teams that beat them get an unranked win. So if we're comparing teams at the end, why would you give one team a top 5 win and another an unranked win when they both beat the same exact team?
A team could finish 6-6, but if they start 6-0 and crack the top 5, the first team that beats them gets credit for a top 5 win, while the last couple teams that beat them get an unranked win. So if we're comparing teams at the end, why would you give one team a top 5 win and another an unranked win when they both beat the same exact team?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:55 am to meansonny
quote:
The only AP ranking that matters is the one published after the bowls/playoffs are played.
Exactly. The beauty contest during the season is good for TV advertising and fan engagement, but it's not a very meaningful data point for analysis, especially when there's a more recent ranking available.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:00 am to wdhalgren
quote:
If the goal is to compare team records vs quality opponents, then Final Rankings is the accurate way to do it.
Final ranking is the logical, rational, and sane way to go about it.
Using ranking at time of game is utterly ridiculous considering a team could be ranked in the top 10 preseason based on absolutely nothing but end up 3-9. Why should their season openign opponent get credit for a "TOP 10 WIN" for that?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:01 am to wdhalgren
ALA -1.28%
17-9 65.38% (vs) 16-8 66.67%
A&M -18.95%
4-15 21.05% (vs) 8-12 40.00%
TEN -15.80%
7-15 31.82% (vs) 10-11 47.62%
TEX - 14.56%
12-14 46.15% (vs) 17-11 60.71%
VAN -21.05%
1-18 5.26% (vs) 5-14 26.32%
just did a few, but this is clearer imo
17-9 65.38% (vs) 16-8 66.67%
A&M -18.95%
4-15 21.05% (vs) 8-12 40.00%
TEN -15.80%
7-15 31.82% (vs) 10-11 47.62%
TEX - 14.56%
12-14 46.15% (vs) 17-11 60.71%
VAN -21.05%
1-18 5.26% (vs) 5-14 26.32%
just did a few, but this is clearer imo
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 11:03 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:03 am to wdhalgren
quote:Do it fancy in Excel then turn it into an image and post.
Formatting is hard here because the site doesn't allow html markup in posts.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:04 am to wdhalgren
I can’t read all that convoluted bullshite
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:04 am to wdhalgren
Agree with everything above. The more interesting question to ask is what effect does the opponent’s GameTime ranking have on the psychology of the coaches and players themselves at the time the game is played?
Rising to the occasion to upset a highly ranked team early in the season (Ole Miss v. LSU), or a highly ranked team having an inflated sense of self and getting beaten by an unranked team (Michigan v. W. Michigan), or a talented but nervous team going up against a top-5 opponent and beating themselves (OU v. UGA) are all real and annual outcomes.
In conclusion, knowing the GameTime rankings I believe DOES help add context to the quality of a specific victory, and therefore I’m unconvinced whether one ranking or the other is objectively “more valid”
Rising to the occasion to upset a highly ranked team early in the season (Ole Miss v. LSU), or a highly ranked team having an inflated sense of self and getting beaten by an unranked team (Michigan v. W. Michigan), or a talented but nervous team going up against a top-5 opponent and beating themselves (OU v. UGA) are all real and annual outcomes.
In conclusion, knowing the GameTime rankings I believe DOES help add context to the quality of a specific victory, and therefore I’m unconvinced whether one ranking or the other is objectively “more valid”
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 11:08 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:04 am to wdhalgren
quote:
Formatting is hard here because the site doesn't allow html markup in posts.
You could try putting it in an excel sheet and uploading screenshots. Cool work regardless.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:14 am to BigBro
quote:
just did a few, but this is clearer imo
Yep, that's a better format. I basically just cut and pasted from a spreadsheet, which ends up completely garbled, and then added the underlining to create columns and rows.
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 11:25 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:16 am to Demosthenian
quote:
In conclusion, knowing the GameTime rankings I believe DOES help add context to the quality of a specific victory, and therefore I’m unconvinced whether one ranking or the other is objectively “more valid”
It depends on your goal. If you want to gauge how a team fared against quality opponents over time, whether it's top 25 or top 10, etc., then record vs final rankings is the way to go.
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 11:17 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:21 am to Demosthenian
quote:
In conclusion, knowing the GameTime rankings I believe DOES help add context to the quality of a specific victory, and therefore I’m unconvinced whether one ranking or the other is objectively “more valid”
Players and coaches don't watch gameday.
Weekly ranking affect the gameday show and maybe some of the betting lines (as they are playing to what the public will do in specific situations).
None of that has any bearing on actual gameday (not the tv show) for the players and coaches.
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 11:22 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:25 am to wdhalgren
quote:I think the universal goal is more fundamental than that. It’s: “is the team whose schedule I’m looking at good or not? And you try to short-cut all the analysis and debate by comparing W-L records.
It depends on your goal
My point is that if you compare W-L records as a proxy for how “good” a team is—which includes ability to outperform an opponent (talent, execution) as well as having the ability not to beat themselves (psychology, discipline)—then I’m unconvinced only looking at end of season rankings is inarguably better than looking at GameTime records too.
With respect to GameTime v. final ranking indicating the “quality” of the opponent—“quality” meaning how good they are on paper, like for informing oddsmakers—then yes I agree final ranking is a better indicator of realistically how good a team was during that historical time span (e.g. that prior season)
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 11:29 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:32 am to Demosthenian
We'll have to disagree. The mental fortitude of a team is part of what makes them good vs bad, but the better teams are the ones who play well consistently well over time, no matter how the opponent is ranked at gametime.
GameTime rankings are horribly inconsistent and inaccurate and thus not very useful for statistical purposes. They essentially include a subset of opponents who eventually prove to be of lower quality than their gametime ranking would indicate. As the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.
GameTime rankings are horribly inconsistent and inaccurate and thus not very useful for statistical purposes. They essentially include a subset of opponents who eventually prove to be of lower quality than their gametime ranking would indicate. As the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 11:41 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:44 am to Demosthenian
quote:
My point is that if you compare W-L records as a proxy for how “good” a team is—which includes ability to outperform an opponent (talent, execution) as well as having the ability not to beat themselves (psychology, discipline)—then I’m unconvinced only looking at end of season rankings is inarguably better than looking at GameTime records too.
You are arguing about the psychology of facing a ranked team like that is an obstacle
That is the dumbest thing I have read on this board in a month.
Rat poison is the toughest psychological factor in football. Not gearing up for a ranked opponent.
It is tougher to get excited about a match in starkville or columbia (either one) against an unranked opponent than to go into Knoxville against a ranked Tennessee.
You are a dawg fan and should understand the psychology better.
Who gets down for a "Gameday" games? Honestly
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:54 am to wdhalgren
Blame Gemini if a number or row/column got messed up
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News