Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/12/25 at 10:29 am to Gings5
Not bothered by facts at all. I don’t know how SP+ is calculated. Would a team like Kennesaw State or Indiana State receive favorable treatment from this calculation?
I’m curious though - what are the offensive stats for the teams Ohio State and Indiana have faced.
Do you see much difference?
I’m curious though - what are the offensive stats for the teams Ohio State and Indiana have faced.
Do you see much difference?
Posted on 11/12/25 at 10:37 am to SanAg
quote:
Is Sellers not playing well?
Sellers is playing OK. Our O-line is TERRIBLE.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 10:39 am to Lonnie Utah
Sellers is a scary dude for A&M fans, so nobody is taking his skillset lightly. He played like Superman vs A&M last year.
And I’m sure the A&M defense wants redemption against a human highlight reel.
And I’m sure the A&M defense wants redemption against a human highlight reel.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 10:59 am to tBrand
quote:
It makes sense to you that sacks on pass plays would inflate a rushing defense ranking? Ok.
Taylon Green dropped backed to pass, then scrambled for like 1,000 yards against? Should those count as rushing yards?
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 11:00 am
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:04 am to AGGIES
It's Bill Connelly's system.
"What is SP+? In a single sentence, it's a tempo- and opponent-adjusted measure of college football efficiency that I originally created at Football Outsiders in 2008. SP+ is intended to be predictive and forward-facing. It is not a résumé ranking, so it does not automatically give credit for big wins or particularly brave scheduling -- no good predictive system does. It is simply a measure of the most sustainable and predictable aspects of football. If you're lucky or unimpressive in a win, your rating will probably fall. If you're strong and unlucky in a loss, it will probably rise."
Indiana:
ODU - 54
Kennesaw State - 108
Indiana State - N/A
Illinois - 15 (gave up 10)
Iowa - 52
Oregon - 12 (gave up 20)
Michigan State - 66
UCLA - 70
Maryland - 76
Penn State - 24 (gave up 24)
Ohio State:
Texas - 44
Grambling State - N/A
Ohio - 88
Washington - 26 (gave up 6)
Minnesota - 84
Illinois - 15 (gave up 16)
Wisconsin - 119
Penn State - 24 (gave up 14)
Purdue - 83
SP+ defenses:
A&M - 18
Indiana - 4
Ohio State - 1
Neutral site spreads:
OSU -8 vs. A&M
Indiana -4 vs. A&M
"What is SP+? In a single sentence, it's a tempo- and opponent-adjusted measure of college football efficiency that I originally created at Football Outsiders in 2008. SP+ is intended to be predictive and forward-facing. It is not a résumé ranking, so it does not automatically give credit for big wins or particularly brave scheduling -- no good predictive system does. It is simply a measure of the most sustainable and predictable aspects of football. If you're lucky or unimpressive in a win, your rating will probably fall. If you're strong and unlucky in a loss, it will probably rise."
Indiana:
ODU - 54
Kennesaw State - 108
Indiana State - N/A
Illinois - 15 (gave up 10)
Iowa - 52
Oregon - 12 (gave up 20)
Michigan State - 66
UCLA - 70
Maryland - 76
Penn State - 24 (gave up 24)
Ohio State:
Texas - 44
Grambling State - N/A
Ohio - 88
Washington - 26 (gave up 6)
Minnesota - 84
Illinois - 15 (gave up 16)
Wisconsin - 119
Penn State - 24 (gave up 14)
Purdue - 83
SP+ defenses:
A&M - 18
Indiana - 4
Ohio State - 1
Neutral site spreads:
OSU -8 vs. A&M
Indiana -4 vs. A&M
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 11:12 am
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:07 am to tBrand
quote:
This is misleading because it includes lost yardage from sacks.
Then simply tell the QB to get rid of the ball. Problem solved. Next question…
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:13 am to Gings5
Yeah, quite a discrepancy between 1, 4 and 18. Which is weird given you posted the following:
quote:
Offenses they’ve faced according to SP+: UTSA - 45 Utah State - 51 ND - 6 (gave up 40) Auburn - 62 Miss St. - 36 Florida - 72 Arky - 7 (gave up 42) LSU - 63 Mizzou - 28
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:19 am to Gings5
Spreadsheet Ag does something like this every week. I wonder if his outcomes would be different if he used SP+.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:21 am to Tiger97
Ok, thanks for the loser post.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:28 am to Houag80
A&M is the most complete team in the conference and Elko coached circles around Drink and co. They are light years ahead of MIZ as a program.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:34 am to MIZ58
I don't know if I would go that far. MIZ is a good team, with a good coach battling significant injuries to key personnel.
Elko is strategic in how he attacks perceived weaknesses....as is Drink. Drink was missing a QB, a TE and I being a kicker. The kicker wouldn't have made much difference but the other two would.
The OP'S post is a non starter and embarrassing for the OP, not the team.
Elko is strategic in how he attacks perceived weaknesses....as is Drink. Drink was missing a QB, a TE and I being a kicker. The kicker wouldn't have made much difference but the other two would.
The OP'S post is a non starter and embarrassing for the OP, not the team.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:43 am to Houag80
That turnover at end of the half was a dagger, we all knew deep down Mizzou didnt have a come back in them. Elko cemented this with the fake punt (great call) and abusing us in one of our best areas (run defense) in the second half. Coaching clinic, but works because Elk has the horses to impose his will.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:47 am to MIZ58
From what I've read he sat on that fake punt call for about 6-7 weeks. Shocked the hell out of me since he tends to be conservative on everything except blitz packages. And, it was brilliant. Hell, Brooks was 25 yards down field b4 anyone knew what was happening.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:49 am to Tiger97
Mizzou is still the #1 rush offense in the SEC so it’s not like we were punchless kittens
Hope Zollers is better this week, we are going to need him
Hope Zollers is better this week, we are going to need him
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:51 am to Houag80
You have not watched MU's Off Coord run our season off a cliff the last 4-5 weeks. He is the embarassment, not the post.
I was simply responding to some of the talking heads coming out with "What makes A&M's defense so special" and "A&M has the offense and defense to challenge for the crown".
I should have been more clear. They may be right. But they should not be making those declarations about this last game. An ACC or middling Big 10 defense would have looked good against that sad offensive coaching effort.
I was simply responding to some of the talking heads coming out with "What makes A&M's defense so special" and "A&M has the offense and defense to challenge for the crown".
I should have been more clear. They may be right. But they should not be making those declarations about this last game. An ACC or middling Big 10 defense would have looked good against that sad offensive coaching effort.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 11:54 am to Tiger97
Understood.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 12:38 pm to tBrand
quote:Sacks are yet another indicator of a solid defense.
#5 Rushing Defense 123 YPGquote:
This is misleading because it includes lost yardage from sacks.
But it would be interesting to see a ranking of run defense, net of sack yardage and/or scramble yardage.
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 11/12/25 at 1:16 pm to Nasty_Canasta
Only on third downs.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 2:06 pm to Tiger97
Their defense will look stellar in the nail biting loss to Bama in a few weeks.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News