Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/14/26 at 1:42 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
People greatly underestimate how much sporting leagues have improved over time.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 1:48 pm to UFFan
I’d love to see a team from today built to stop the spread with skinny linebackers running a nickel package try to stop 95 Nebraska’s option offense. No way in hell that happens
Posted on 7/14/26 at 1:51 pm to skrayper
These are power ratings akin to SP+. They measure how many points the team would be favored against compared to an average FBS team from the season when they played. They aren't based on the team's record, whether they won a national championship, etc. 2016 and 2018 Alabama (who didn't win NCs) apparently had higher power ratings in his system than 2015 and 2017 Alabama (who did win NCs.)
Now, if you want to know an even more surprising selection on here, it's 1972 Nebraska as the #4 team of all time. Nebraska was 9-2-1 that year. Yes, I repeat, Nebraska had 2 losses and a tie, yet is rated as the #4 team on here. That Nebraska team had a narrow loss to another top team on here (1972 OU), and destroyed opponents in their 9 wins (including 4 straight shutout wins at one point), yet had an inexplicable loss and tie to opponents who weren't that good. (Including a tie to a 5-6-1 Iowa State team.) That Nebraska team is discussed in this tiptop25 article.
LINK
Now, although the 1972 Nebraska team may rate highly on all time power ratings, (ie what you'd expect the betting lines to be if they played the rest of FBS that year), obviously they can't rated that highly if you rate the team by its actual accomplishments rather than by its power rating.
Now, if you want to know an even more surprising selection on here, it's 1972 Nebraska as the #4 team of all time. Nebraska was 9-2-1 that year. Yes, I repeat, Nebraska had 2 losses and a tie, yet is rated as the #4 team on here. That Nebraska team had a narrow loss to another top team on here (1972 OU), and destroyed opponents in their 9 wins (including 4 straight shutout wins at one point), yet had an inexplicable loss and tie to opponents who weren't that good. (Including a tie to a 5-6-1 Iowa State team.) That Nebraska team is discussed in this tiptop25 article.
LINK
Now, although the 1972 Nebraska team may rate highly on all time power ratings, (ie what you'd expect the betting lines to be if they played the rest of FBS that year), obviously they can't rated that highly if you rate the team by its actual accomplishments rather than by its power rating.
This post was edited on 7/14/26 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 7/14/26 at 1:52 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
Dude, why do you think that nobody runs the option anymore? It's precisely because the option offense would not be successful vs today's defenses.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 1:56 pm to MilkJug
quote:
1996 Florida was scored at 31.6, just above 2011 LSU and Bama. Florida didn't dominate the way you think they did that year.
UF beat the shite out of every team on the schedule other than Vandy. It was almost our oops game, but we did what we needed to do to win on a chilly day in Nashville.
Now talk about 1996 Nebraska getting shut out at Arizona State and losing to Texas, who lost 5 games that season. Ranking Nebraska ahead of Florida is ridiculous when Nebraska wasn't even the conference champ and failed to beat 2 teams, whereas UF beat every team it played. We avenged that shitty game at FSU with the shitty referees when we spanked them by 32 points on a neutral field.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 2:41 pm to UFFan
quote:
Dude, why do you think that nobody runs the option anymore? It's precisely because the option offense would not be successful vs today's defenses.
Gtfoh. They’d run roughshod over today’s defense. They don’t run it because it’s not sexy and it’s tough to recruit for
Posted on 7/14/26 at 3:29 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
quote:
A potent offense that played a ton of shitty defenses. 2013 Baylor had tougher schedule but I don’t seem them on there despite only averaging 1 point less per game. Houston also ran the score up on terrible defenses. Who cares if they were dickheads and rung 95 up on a terrible SMU team. They are getting too much credit for running the scores up on the sisters of the week.
Baylor's SOS was similar to Houston's. Houston had a more potent offense and a better defense.
You're just pointing out the marginal differences that the model shows. Model shows Houston as a 5-point favorite over that Baylor team.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 3:47 pm to MilkJug
I’m pointing out that running the score up in dead time is a flaw in your system. Most teams call off the dogs at some point while Houston did not. You need to find a way to adjust for garbage time.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 4:07 pm to MilkJug
93 FSU way too low
Posted on 7/14/26 at 4:51 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
quote:
I’m pointing out that running the score up in dead time is a flaw in your system. Most teams call off the dogs at some point while Houston did not. You need to find a way to adjust for garbage time.
That's not how these models work. Adding a variable for this would make the model less accurate. The model's only goal is to predict the outcome of games (spread first, total second), but to do that it has to rate a team's offense and defense (which is where that list came from). If Houston likes to run the score up, fine, the model sees "this team scores a lot" so when it matches Houston against someone else, it understands that "Houston scores a lot". Any specific scenario type variables like "garbage time" (which is called "noise" in these models) make the model less accurate. It also does not consider any personalized characteristics or traits of different teams - and that's on purpose. I can't just tell it "1989 Houston liked to run the score up, so dock them for that". That's a subjective metric and causes noise, which causes inaccuracies.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 5:45 pm to MilkJug
quote:
I can't just tell it "1989 Houston liked to run the score up, so dock them for that".
No shite. Well, other better models have found a way to take out garbage time. Maybe you should find a way as well.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 6:13 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
quote:
No shite. Well, other better models have found a way to take out garbage time. Maybe you should find a way as well.
Can you list these models?
I know SP+ does a few after-the-fact things because his model is meant to rank teams. My model isn't meant to rank teams, it's meant to predict scores - the team rank is just a by-product from the ratings that I have to determine.
This post was edited on 7/14/26 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 7/14/26 at 6:33 pm to MilkJug
quote:
That's not how these models work.
Dude just take a look at your list, cut your losses, and admit the formula you used spit out retarded results.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 6:36 pm to MilkJug
quote:
I can't just tell it "1989 Houston liked to run the score up, so dock them for that". That's a subjective metric and causes noise, which causes inaccuracies.
Well others found a way. You should as well if you want a good model.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 6:49 pm to Tarpon08
quote:
Dude just take a look at your list, cut your losses, and admit the formula you used spit out retarded results.
It's not retarded and it's not a formula. It uses proven, iterative algorithms and it's virtually as accurate as you can get at predicting scores. The list I posted here was just me sorting all the teams by their overall ratings. It's simply a raw-production ranking. A ranking that actually scales each year to a common platform would look a lot different - but I think it would tell a less accurate story. For example, it would probably have 1966 ND in the top 5 - because they shutout 6 teams. It would be a relative-dominance type ranking.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 6:54 pm to vidtiger23
quote:
Well others found a way. You should as well if you want a good model.
I've thought about extending my model. Not changing the predictive ability part, because that part is really good, but taking the rating results from it and adding things to it to do more of a "ranking", but it just seems disingenuous. Seems like that would include too much bias input.
This post was edited on 7/14/26 at 6:55 pm
Posted on 7/14/26 at 7:02 pm to MilkJug
I still say the top 4 CFB teams I have seen were
2001 Miami
2005 USC Trojans
2019 LSU Tigers
1995 Nebraska
2001 Miami
2005 USC Trojans
2019 LSU Tigers
1995 Nebraska
Posted on 7/14/26 at 7:09 pm to Gatorbait2008
How about we do this - for fun. I'll create a new model, we'll use my current model as a base. But yall tell me what things should weighted and give me relative weights. Then I'll plug them and spit out the results.
We can't do cross-era though, it's just to noisy and there's too much variance. We'll have to pick a specific season.
Who's first? This is going to require unbiased discussion. Are you people capable of doing that?
We can't do cross-era though, it's just to noisy and there's too much variance. We'll have to pick a specific season.
Who's first? This is going to require unbiased discussion. Are you people capable of doing that?
Posted on 7/14/26 at 7:12 pm to MilkJug
quote:
It's not retarded
quote:
A ranking that actually scales each year to a common platform would look a lot different - but I think it would tell a less accurate story.
This is not me being a homer saying this:
A formula that spits out 2019 LSU 17 places behind an Ohio State and behind a Clemson team that beat Ohio State on a neutral field and got their shite pushed in by LSU is retarded.
More than that: a list that has 2001 Miami at 7 is retarded.
This is as bad as the Auburn RPI guy from a few years back.
This post was edited on 7/14/26 at 7:14 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News