Started By
Message
Projected S&P+ Rankings (all 130 teams)
Posted on 2/9/18 at 8:53 am
Posted on 2/9/18 at 8:53 am
LINK
WEST
2. Alabama
5. Auburn
14. Mississippi St
16. LSU
24. Texas A&M
25. Ole Miss
52. Arkansas
EAST
6. Georgia
30. Missouri
32. Florida
35. South Carolina
64. Kentucky
75. Vanderbilt
79. Tennessee
Projected 6th best in the west is good enough for 2nd in the east. This conference is long overdue for changes.
WEST
2. Alabama
5. Auburn
14. Mississippi St
16. LSU
24. Texas A&M
25. Ole Miss
52. Arkansas
EAST
6. Georgia
30. Missouri
32. Florida
35. South Carolina
64. Kentucky
75. Vanderbilt
79. Tennessee
Projected 6th best in the west is good enough for 2nd in the east. This conference is long overdue for changes.
14
Posted on 2/9/18 at 8:53 am to Farmer1906
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/9/18 at 8:55 am
Posted on 2/9/18 at 8:56 am to Farmer1906
quote:
79. Tennessee
Posted on 2/9/18 at 8:56 am to TRUERockyTop
0-8 gunna 0-8
Posted on 2/9/18 at 8:57 am to Farmer1906
I doubt Missouri will finish second in the east
Posted on 2/9/18 at 8:59 am to Farmer1906
shite on us easy going forward brothers. We're a basketball school these days.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:01 am to Farmer1906
quote:
Projected 6th best in the west is good enough for 2nd in the east. This conference is long overdue for changes.
If you ever wondered why the "winning your division" argument doesn't tend to carry a lot of weight, this is it.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:10 am to Farmer1906
quote:
Projected 6th best in the west is good enough for 2nd in the east. This conference is long overdue for changes.
Yes. Finally someone else starting a thread about this.
It's not going away either. It's not a cycle. Florida and Tennessee will never experience their Golden Age of football simultaneously while Alabama and LSu experience program lows. It masked the problem for the first 12-14 years of division play, but those days will never return.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:12 am to BHMKyle
Adding A&M and Mizzou didn't help things. Not that MU is terrible and A&M is great, but one program is better than the other and one program is more invested than the other.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:18 am to Farmer1906
quote:
Projected 6th best in the west is good enough for 2nd in the east. This conference is long overdue for changes.
You don't seem to understand how his S&P+ projections are calculated... Also, would be willing to bet that South Carolina finishes higher than that... can't speak for the rest of the east, but that's a clear under-ranking IMO. You're not wrong that we could use some help at balancing things out, but S&P rankings aren't really a great indicator...
I've been a proponent for the Roommate Switch approach for a long time now...
LINK
It takes care of imbalance *AND* would help develop rivalries with every school in the conference, rather than the current approach where as far as UGA is concerned, Texas A&M may actually still be in the Big XII and we just don't know it...
Way too long between matchups for the non-permanent opposite division teams. 9 games doesn't really address it.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:20 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
You don't seem to understand how his S&P+ projections are calculated... Also, would be willing to bet that South Carolina finishes higher than that... can't speak for the rest of the east, but that's a clear under-ranking IMO.
Of course, they will. All west teams will play each other. They will accumulate more losses than a team that plays almost half their conference schedule vs teams outside the top 60 projection.
Roommate switch works. What works best for the majority of the conference would be to go to 9 games and ditch permanent rivals. You get through the other division in just a few years.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:34 am to Farmer1906
Love having to play the only good team in the East.
Great scheduling system we've got.
Great scheduling system we've got.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:43 am to Farmer1906
Missouri at #2 in the East? Should be South Carolina.
Should be South Carolina.Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:45 am to Farmer1906
quote:
Adding A&M and Mizzou didn't help things. Not that MU is terrible and A&M is great, but one program is better than the other and one program is more invested than the other.
The East is always gonna be handicapped because of UK and VU. Swap AU with the latter and that would help things.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:47 am to Farmer1906
quote:
What works best for the majority of the conference would be to go to 9 games and ditch permanent rivals.
Let’s go to 9 and keep the permanent rivals.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:51 am to Dawgsontop34
quote:
Let’s go to 9 and keep the permanent rivals.
It would still take 3 years to play everyone and 6 years to complete home and homes.
If you go to 9 with no perm then in a player's 4-year career they will play everyone once and 6 out of 8 twice.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:53 am to CarolinaGamecock99
quote:
I doubt Missouri will finish second in the east
Of course you do, but this is not really a projection of finish. It's just overall team strength. It doesn't take into account schedules.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:54 am to Farmer1906
quote:
Of course, they will. All west teams will play each other. They will accumulate more losses than a team that plays almost half their conference schedule vs teams outside the top 60 projection.
The thing is... the difference between the top 3 teams:
Alabama - 27 points better than an "average" team
Auburn - 23
Georgia - 22
and the next several from the west is essentially a touchdown or more.
The difference between A&M (the bottom of that bunch) and South Carolina (the bottom of the next 3 from the East) is 4 points... and that's with 33% of the rating based on the last 5 years...
LSU, Ole Miss, and Texas A&M are propped up to some degree based on past 5 years results *despite* playing in the west... it's because Wins and Losses don't dictate S&P+ results directly... winning certainly helps because it likely means you are doing more things "right", but because of how he calculates, it's not a critical component (thus the reason Ohio State was a top tier team even immediately following losses last year).
Again, not arguing that the divisions aren't imbalanced, but this just isn't the best dataset to really make your point from a "going forward" standpoint.
As to ditching permanent rivals, A&M may have been willing to ditch the Texas rivalry, but DSOR and TSIO aren't getting dropped...
Posted on 2/9/18 at 9:56 am to Farmer1906
quote:
1 Ohio State 27.0
2 Alabama 27.0
Wonder why Alabama isn't listed as a T1 with tOSU? Not that it matters but they gave them the same score it looks like.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:02 am to Farmer1906
quote:
It would still take 3 years to play everyone and 6 years to complete home and homes.
If you go to 9 with no perm then in a player's 4-year career they will play everyone once and 6 out of 8 twice.
Or we could get rid of OOC games and the SECCG and have a 13 game schedule.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News