header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 153   Go Down
Author

Topic: Rankings ... ugh

 (Read 84174 times)

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1456 on: November 30, 2023, 04:39:53 PM »
Quote from: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 04:22:30 PM
schedule, yes, resume, probably but it's not as far off as you make it.

oregon will have the best win, a 'better' loss, and they will have avenged that loss

I keep hearing people say this, I'm not sure why that's a good thing?

What it actually means is that it took Oregon two tries to get it done, when Texas beat their top opponent in one try.

I'm not sure that rewarding a team for taking a mulligan is really all that praiseworthy.

But I suppose I could see how Alabama fans are more likely to forgive the mulligan, than others... ;)
Logged

MikeDeTiger

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1457 on: November 30, 2023, 04:46:04 PM »
Texas SOS = #2
Oregon SOS = #56

UT opp. rec vs. FBS teams (removing H2H):  80-42 or .606
OR opp. rec. vs. FBS teams (removing H2H): 66-56 or .541

UT def. 7 bowl eligible teams, played 8
OR def. 5 bowl eligible teams, played 6

UT 5-1 vs. FBS winning record
OR 3-1 vs. FBS winning record

Simply looking at best win and best loss hardly tells the story.  Over the course of 12 games, Texas has an equal record against a statistically significantly more difficult schedule. 
Logged

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1458 on: November 30, 2023, 04:48:52 PM »
Quote from: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 04:39:53 PM
I keep hearing people say this, I'm not sure why that's a good thing?

What it actually means is that it took Oregon two tries to get it done, when Texas beat their top opponent in one try.

I'm not sure that rewarding a team for taking a mulligan is really all that praiseworthy.

But I suppose I could see how Alabama fans are more likely to forgive the mulligan, than others... ;)
bama loses and that might not be true. ou could be their top opponent.
Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1459 on: November 30, 2023, 04:50:31 PM »
Quote from: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 04:48:52 PM
bama loses and that might not be true. ou could be their top opponent.
Texas loses and it's irrelevant, so what?

If Oregon wins they're still taking a mulligan, not avenging a loss.
Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1460 on: November 30, 2023, 04:56:35 PM »
Quote from: MikeDeTiger on November 30, 2023, 04:46:04 PM
Texas SOS = #2
Oregon SOS = #56

UT opp. rec vs. FBS teams (removing H2H):  80-42 or .606
OR opp. rec. vs. FBS teams (removing H2H): 66-56 or .541

UT def. 7 bowl eligible teams, played 8
OR def. 5 bowl eligible teams, played 6

UT 5-1 vs. FBS winning record
OR 3-1 vs. FBS winning record

Simply looking at best win and best loss hardly tells the story.  Over the course of 12 games, Texas has an equal record against a statistically significantly more difficult schedule. 

And then there's all of this.  While Oregon was playing FCS in its OOC, Texas played entirely FBS teams, all of which will be going bowling.  Including, you know-- Alabama. :)
Logged

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1461 on: November 30, 2023, 04:56:43 PM »
Quote from: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 04:50:31 PM
Texas loses and it's irrelevant, so what?

If Oregon wins they're still taking a mulligan, not avenging a loss.
bama losing is relevant because that's the scenario we're discussing, lol.

mulligan or not, they're getting a chance to beat the only team that's beat them. kinda the definition of avenge.
Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1462 on: November 30, 2023, 04:57:23 PM »
Quote from: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 04:56:43 PM
bama losing is relevant because that's the scenario we're discussing, lol.

mulligan or not, they're getting a chance to beat the only team that's beat them. kinda the definition of avenge.
Kinda the definition of mulligan
Logged

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1463 on: November 30, 2023, 04:58:35 PM »
Quote from: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 04:57:23 PM
Kinda the definition of mulligan
nah, mulligan isn't counted on score card. this one will. sorry.
Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1464 on: November 30, 2023, 04:59:13 PM »
Quote from: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 04:58:35 PM
nah, mulligan isn't counted on score card. this one will. sorry.
Not sure why you've decided to be such an asshole.  Weird flex.
Logged

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1465 on: November 30, 2023, 05:03:05 PM »
lol, i'm not being an asshole. i've already said texas' schedule is clearly better, and resume is also probably better. but it isn't so much that individual takes like "winning the mulligan" won't be a major consideration. or best win. or worst loss. or better late season win.

this isn't tulane you're comparing against.

don't take so much offense to someone disagreeing.
Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1466 on: November 30, 2023, 05:20:34 PM »
Lulz.

Yeah okay.

Logged

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1467 on: November 30, 2023, 05:40:01 PM »
lets look at them, shall we. again, scenario is oregon and texas both win, bama loses, so just comparing those 2. best to worst:

wash > bama - both will drop, but wash will be 5-8 range, bama will be 10-15 range.
ore st = ok st - ok st will drop to 20-25 range, which is where ore st is
utah = ksu - literally separated by 1 vote in ap poll
usc =< kansas - due to 1 win better record, but overall not much difference
tt = tt
cal =< isu - again, due to 1 win better record

the rest for both are all bad and don't really matter, but still...

wash st = tcu
colo = byu
stan = houston
zona st = baylor
hawaii < wyoming
port st << rice

and then the loses

wash > ou

again, slightly more ticks over to texas, especially in non-con. but it's not that dissimilar.
Logged

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1468 on: November 30, 2023, 05:53:00 PM »
Quote from: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 05:40:01 PM
lets look at them, shall we. again, scenario is oregon and texas both win, bama loses, so just comparing those 2. best to worst:

wash > bama - both will drop, but wash will be 5-8 range, bama will be 10-15 range.
ore st = ok st - ok st will drop to 20-25 range, which is where ore st is
utah = ksu - literally separated by 1 vote in ap poll
usc =< kansas - due to 1 win better record, but overall not much difference
tt = tt
cal =< isu - again, due to 1 win better record

the rest for both are all bad and don't really matter, but still...

wash st = tcu
colo = byu
stan = houston
zona st = baylor
hawaii < wyoming
port st << rice

and then the loses

wash > ou

again, slightly more ticks over to texas, especially in non-con. but it's not that dissimilar.

You understand how probabilities work, don't you?  Small differences multiplied over and over and over.

Which is how you end up with outcomes like this:


https://twitter.com/mikerodak/status/1729230996783202563?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1729230996783202563%7Ctwgr%5E032c34b1d68137092466aa56b6d8b90c80c6b0d8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html1729230996783202563

Logged

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1469 on: November 30, 2023, 06:34:14 PM »
you realize sagarin has oregon ranked above texas, right? so even despite the schedule difference, sagarin thinks it's close enough to rank oregon higher. or his formula does anyway. that's all i'm saying. it's close enough that other things matter as well.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 153   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Custom Mahogany Shadow Box

Smokey Record Hoodie