Started By
Message
re: Projected S&P+ Rankings (all 130 teams)
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:06 am to CarolinaGamecock99
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:06 am to CarolinaGamecock99
I dont, at all. After next year though, we fricked for a bit.
I actually think we'll be pretty darn good next year. Ive said all along either 2nd or 3rd.
I actually think we'll be pretty darn good next year. Ive said all along either 2nd or 3rd.
0
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:06 am to elposter
Rounding, Alabama ever so slightly lower than tOSU
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:16 am to Farmer1906
quote:
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
2017 S&P + Projections and Final AP Rank (with record) at end of season
WEST
1. Alabama - 1 (13-1)
4. LSU - 18 (9-4)
8. Auburn - 10 (10-4)
22. aTm - NR (7-6)
23. Ole Miss -NR (6-6)
29. Arkansas - NR (4-8)
33. MSU - 19 (9-4)
EAST
15. Florida - NR (4-7)
21. Georgia - 2 (13-2)
25. Tennessee - NR (4-8)
39. USCe - NR (9-4)
45. Kentucky - NR (7-6)
47. Missouri - NR (7-6)
58. Vanderbilt - NR (5-7)
LINK
LINK
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:19 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
As to ditching permanent rivals, A&M may have been willing to ditch the Texas rivalry, but DSOR and TSIO aren't getting dropped...
Move Bama to the east. It'll help balance things and they keep that UT game. They've given up the Iron Bowl before so no reason to not give it again if it helps the conference as a whole.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:30 am to Farmer1906
Get your crap together Arkansas!
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:31 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
've been a proponent for the Roommate Switch approach for a long time now...
That's awful. Year 1 Tennessee plays 4 other big 6 members while Auburn and Alabama play 3. Year 2 Auburn plays ALL 5 other big 6 members.
Awful idea.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:36 am to Farmer1906
Looks decent. I might move Texas A&M ahead of LSU. Move Missouri below Kentucky.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:39 am to Farmer1906
quote:
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.
I used to be opposed to dropping cross-division rivalries...but, since we became a basketball school I don't give a crap. Dump TSIO and Auburn/Georgia. Football season is just something to pass the time till basketball season comes around...(Kentucky fans...am I doing this right)?
Posted on 2/9/18 at 10:40 am to JamalSanders
quote:
That's awful. Year 1 Tennessee plays 4 other big 6 members while Auburn and Alabama play 3. Year 2 Auburn plays ALL 5 other big 6 members.
We play: Alabama, Auburn, Florida and Georgia next season. We played Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and LSU last season. I wouldn't mind some of y'all getting a taste of that but yeah I agree with your point.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 11:28 am to Farmer1906
We have a 12 win season and an 11 win season and are .500 against the West, are 2-1 vs A&M since joining and somehow Missouri is reason you think the divisions are imbalance?
What a freaking joke.
What a freaking joke.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 11:30 am to Farmer1906
Ole Miss at #25?
Posted on 2/9/18 at 11:33 am to Farmer1906
quote:
14. Mississippi St
quote:
32. Florida
bu bu but Merlins and all that talent...
Posted on 2/9/18 at 11:51 am to madmaxvol
The real shite of it is, even after the season was done there were plenty of teams with worse records including ones that we beat that were rated higher on this scale
Posted on 2/9/18 at 1:58 pm to JamalSanders
quote:
That's awful. Year 1 Tennessee plays 4 other big 6 members while Auburn and Alabama play 3. Year 2 Auburn plays ALL 5 other big 6 members.
Awful idea.
Did you read it at all or just look at the pretty pictures?
quote:
You might prefer to group the teams/pods differently, producing a slightly different schedule for your team. That is fine, these groupings are just one example of what is possible.
The important thing here is just to demonstrate the concept works! We have all of the following:
Major rivalries are played annually,
Rotate through the whole conference every two years,
Two Divisions with full round-robin play every year,
In an 8 or 9 game schedule..
The concept works... could easily add a component where the pods are able to be reshuffled every 4 years (see B1G and their "semi-permanent" opposite division opponents).
Posted on 2/9/18 at 2:11 pm to GameCocky88
quote:
The real shite of it is, even after the season was done there were plenty of teams with worse records including ones that we beat that were rated higher on this scale
Just because people don't understand what the rankings are doesn't make them invalid... it's a tool, based on a mathematical formula to take a *one game* matchup and try to predict an outcome... it's doesn't really account directly for W/L throughout the season, nor is it predictive of where a team should definitively end up as it doesn't account for upcoming schedule. It's imperfect because no one has a crystal ball, but on the whole, I think they ended up something like 53-54 ATS last season, and of course better straight up.
Hell... don't listen to me, listen to the guy that created it:
LINK
It's not intended as some snub to teams... in fact, he makes no bones that often times his metrics "like" some teams more than he thinks it should (mid majors in 2017 for example, and also Missouri) and other times it "dislikes" teams that he probably would say belong higher...
Posted on 2/9/18 at 2:30 pm to fibonaccisquared
South Carolina went 6-1 in one score games and had a mediocre yards per play differential. S&P and probably the vast majority of algorithms designed to power rate teams thought they were a weak 9-4 team. I agree with the rating systems.
Posted on 2/9/18 at 2:50 pm to DallasTiger45
quote:
South Carolina went 6-1 in one score games and had a mediocre yards per play differential. S&P and probably the vast majority of algorithms designed to power rate teams thought they were a weak 9-4 team. I agree with the rating systems.
If anything, it's a compliment that a rating system like this projects you lower and you outperform it... it means that you defied the odds... you won matchups that from a strictly numbers standpoint, you would be "expected" to lose... These things aren't the gospel by any means... simply an evaluation of production on the field relative to other teams...
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News