re: How defenses are looking after 2 weeks...

quote:

---

The biggest problem with them is it's only week 2 and it's having to use previous years data as a placeholder for now.

---

that's the point though

teams aren't the same as last year's. I wouldn't really look at FEI until at least everyone has 4-5 games under their belt. Pretty sure they used to not even release those until after week 4 or something a few years back

quote:

---

that's the point though

teams aren't the same as last year's. I wouldn't really look at FEI until at least everyone has 4-5 games under their belt. Pretty sure they used to not even release those until after week 4 or something a few years back

---

They didn't release them because they didn't use previous years data.

And I'll put this data up against those raw stats people are using all day long. I know for a fact they are a hell of a lot more accurate than the alternative.

So if you just want to claim it's too early to tell much, then I'll agree. But if you want to talk stats, these and SP+ are the best available.

quote:

---

They didn't release them because they didn't use previous years data.

---

Which makes more sense than trying to use previous season data for the sake of creating rankings too early imo

quote:

---

And I'll put this data up against those raw stats people are using all day long.

---

I mean I guess theoretically sure it has slightly more context applied, but it's still extremely flawed context. IIRC they eliminate stats against FCS opponents entirely, which means several teams are only looking at one game's stats that didn't happen in garbage time

Those are some really small sample sizes for some

quote:

---

LSU - 6.2

---

How can this be? They have the highest paid DC in all the land played nickel and dime state last week

quote:

---

Which makes more sense than trying to use previous season data for the sake of creating rankings too early imo

---

No it doesn't. Even at week 4 the stats are more accurate when you use previous years data than when you don't. Not using previous years stats as a base for a good part of the season just leads to bad stats.

quote:

---

I mean I guess theoretically sure it has slightly more context applied, but it's still extremely flawed context. IIRC they eliminate stats against FCS opponents entirely, which means several teams are only looking at one game's stats that didn't happen in garbage time

---

FCS opponents are worthless for this kind of metric and SHOULD be ignored. You can't compare the stats a team gets against an FCS team who plays a majority of other FCS teams where they are going to get basic stats the same as the FBS level.

And what you are saying is exactly why you need previous years data. Because even when you get to week 4 and 5, you still have the majority of team that don't have a quality game on their schedule yet.

Without the previous years data, you are treating Western Kentucky as being equal to Georgia in the first few weeks. Which is what raw stats do as well. This is obviously bogus. Last year stats tell you plain as day that Georgia is better. Will there be change in the rankings? Yes of course, however the amount of movement from week to week to later weeks is MUCH less. Not going to be great for trying to argue Texas, Alabama or Georgia is the best, but you do get a pretty good overall idea. Sure, I expect Michigan to drop some. But are they going to drop to #50, or #125? Or equal to another? No. They are much closer to last years stats than that.

And I don't know how this guy does it, but personally I kept a trailing amount of games. As games got played in the new season, the oldest games dropped off the previous seasons data. Which usually lead to better overall stats since the last part of the year features the best match ups.

The amount of flaws you are talking about are extremely minor in comparison to just starting with a blank state. Are you telling me Missouri's performance was anywhere near as impressive as Georgia's thus far? But that kind of flaw should be looked over, while Michigan maybe needing to drop 5-10 spots can not be? Come on, that's dumb.

quote:

---

Shut outs are nice, but there is a huge difference between shutting out a top team, or even just holding to a FG, than it is to shut out an FCS team and almost the worst fricking offense at the FBS level.

---

Where did I compare shutting out two cupcakes to holding a top team to a low score?

My point was many FBS teams open against cupcakes and it is fairly rare to shutout two in a row to start the season. Nobody’s beating their chest over it, but I’d rather have that than the alternative.

Oh, and by the way frick that Big Xll bullshite. It’s been more than a decade. Get some new material for fricks sake!

quote:

---

You'll need a different excuse.

---

Ok. You're a bloviating dumbass.

How's that ?

I looked for some message board stats to back me up, but they just proved I'm 100% correct, and no one likes a braggart.

Our pass defense was bad on 3 MTSU drives in the middle of the game. The defense stiffened before giving up TDs (although MTSU got gypped out of one TD).

If you didn't watch the game you probably didn't know this, though. The reason for that is that Ole Miss posters have not been melting about it, unlike some other fan base that has been melting for 3 days about their run defense against an FCS school.

1998

I watched nc state play western Carolina. They are not a good team at all. They got bullied on both sides of the line, Grayson McCall is too small, dude can’t see over the line and has not adjusted to life outside of chadwells system. If kc conception doesn’t completely ball out nc state loses that game by two score.