CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: LittlePig on December 01, 2024, 07:23:01 AM
-
Well, Ohio St's loss did not change OSU's spot in my power rankings, but it killed OSU's chances to finish #1 after the CCG. On the other hand, it created a great opportunity for Penn St to move up next week, and it did help Michigan's ranking.
1. Oregon - the only team that's still undefeated.
2. Ohio St - despite loss to Mich, OSU still has wins over PSU and Indiana.
3. Indiana - despite losing to OSU 2 weeks ago, overall I am still impressed with Indiana's dominance over all the other teams on its schedule.
4. Penn St - PSU was dominant in a lot of games, but also lost to Ohio ST at home, and almost lost twice on the road, beating USC in OT, and beating Minnesota by 1.
5. Michigan - this is based mostly on how Mich finished the season, beating OSU on the road, plus a close loss at Ind. This ranking is not based on how Mich played earlier this year, when they lost to Illinois and Wash.
6. Iowa - Iowa is just one of those teams that always wins a couple more games than the stats suggest they should.
7. Illinois - they may be 9-3 but I consider ILL the luckiest team, winning 2 games in OT this year, plus a miracle win at Rutgers in last seconds.
8. Minnesota- Minn had a lot of close losses this year and a good win at Illinois. Overall a good team
9. Rutgers - Rutgers finished season strong after looking like they had collapsed in mid-season.
10. USC - played a lot of close games, good enough to take PSU into OT, but also was only team to lose to MD.
11 Washington - not a bad year, just could never win on the road.
12. UCLA - decent finish after a bad start to the season
13. Nebraska. - Bowl elligible for first time since 2016. That's progress.
14. Wisconsin - streak of 22 straight winning seasons and 22 straight bowl games comes to an end. Wisc was good enough to blow out the bad teams, but not good enough to beat even the average teams.
15. Mich St. - MSU blows chance to make a bowl. The team just fell apart at the end of the season.
16. Northwestern. - 2 victories are over Purdue in OT and over MD
17. Purdue - wiinless but lost 2 games in OT
18. Maryland - did beat USC at home, but was awful in too many games this year.
-
- OREGON (1) - no question now
- OHIO STATE (2) - can't drop them, but no argument for #1 now either
- PENN STATE (3) - another change for Big Game James to change the narrative
- INDIANA (4) - knew they had to win convincingly, and certainly did so
- MINNESOTA (7) +2 (+9)
- IOWA (5) +1 (+61)
- ILLINOIS (6) +1 (+31)
- MICHIGAN (12) +1 (-8)
- USC (9) E (+36)
- WASHINGTON (10) E (E)
- UCLA (11) E (-9)
- WISCONSIN (8) E (-50)
- RUTGERS (15) -1 (-37)
- MICHIGAN STATE (13) -1 (-40)
- NEBRASKA (14) -2 (+8)
- NORTHWESTERN (16) - showed some fight
- MARYLAND (17) - had Indiana fans dreaming for a minute
- PURDUE (18) - rock bottom?
-
1. Oregon
2. Ohio State
3. Indiana
4. Penn State
5. Iowa
6. Minnesota
7. Illinois
8. Michigan
9. Nebraska
10. Rutgers
-
1. Oregon
2. Penn State
3. Indiana
4. Ohio State
5. Iowa
6. Illinois
7. Washington
8. Michigan
9. Minnesota
10. USC
11. Nebraska
12. Wisconsin
13. Rutgers
14. Michigan State
15. UCLA
16. Maryland
17. Northwestern
18. Purdue
-
Ohio State is #1 against all but Michigan and about #15 against Michigan.
Do you ever get the feeling of Deja Vu?
-
Ohio State is #1 against all but Michigan and about #15 against Michigan.
Do you ever get the feeling of Deja Vu?
That's especially bad when you consider that Michigan has only played 9 teams.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ipb9oHc.png)
-
This one is hard for me this week. Or harder, at least.
1) Oregon: Obviously.
2)...
I guess it's still Ohio State? They looked genuinely good against Penn State in State College. That has to be worth something. And they abused Indiana. So they are here, right? But that loss to Michigan is a bad loss. It's not just head-to-head, it's how you play against everyone else. And that loss to Michigan, at home--even in a rivalry game--looks bad. But bad enough to move them down below Penn State? Probably not. So Ohio State, with reservations.
3) Penn State: have a chance to prove they are really #1 this weekend.
4) Indiana: curious to see what they can do in the playoff.
5) Iowa. Because: Iowa.
6) Minnesota: that was a solid beating on a rival, in the rival's house.
7) Illinois: even with Michigan's win, I'm sticking with the head-to-head here: Illinois gets the nod.
8) Michigan: that's a good win.
9) Washington: got smoked, but Oregon does that to most teams.
10) USC: competitive against ND.
11) Nebraska: losing to Iowa in a competitive game is reasonable.
12) Wisconsin: by default. Because the teams below deserve it.
13) Rutgers: impressive win over Michigan State
14) UCLA: kind of the bottom of the mediocre?
15) Michigan State: win against Iowa gets a look, but the rest of their season is pretty rough.
16) Northwestern: Beat Maryland and Purdue, so this is pretty straight forward.
17) Maryland: ouch.
18) Purdue: o-fer. Is Maryland worse? Maryland beat USC. God only knows how, but it happened.
-
Now that the season is complete, here is the entire schedule/performance table:
(https://i.imgur.com/5yoHeKi.png)
-
A few years ago I started comparing teams based on how they did against each opponent relative to that teams' other opponents, here is the table, then I'll explain it below:
(https://i.imgur.com/RJtj6mp.png)
Explanation:
What I am doing here is ranking each teams' nine opponents. Looking at Oregon, all nine of their opponents lost to them so:
- Ohio State is #1 because they only lost to them by 1
- Wisconsin is #2 because they only lost to them by 3
- Maryland is #3 because they lost to them by 21 in Eugene
- Michigan, Michigan State, and UCLA are tied for #4/5/6 because they each lost to them by 21 at home. They each get a #5.
- ...
- Purdue is #9 because they lost to Oregon by 35 which is worse than any other team.
Notes:
- I only use HFA to break ties. I do NOT add/subtract from the MOV based on location.
Each team thus ends up with nine points of comparison so, for Oregon:
- They were the best against Illinois and Michigan.
- They were second-best against Ohio State, Washington, and UCLA.
- They were fourth-best against Maryland.
- They were fifth-best against MSU and PU.
- They were sixth-best against Wisconsin.
Now that the season is complete each team has nine data points so the averages are:
- 2.56 Ohio State
- 3.11 Oregon
- 3.22 Penn State
- 3.33 Indiana
- 4.00 Michigan
- 4.17 Minnesota
- 4.44 Iowa
- 4.61 USC
- 4.94 Washington
- 5.22 UCLA
- 5.33 Nebraska
- 5.44 Wisconsin
- 5.56 Illinois
- 6.00 Rutgers
- 6.17 Maryland
- 6.78 Northwestern
- 7.00 Michigan State
- 8.11 Purdue
I hesitate to post this because I'm afraid people are going to see it as a Buckeye fan grasping at straws and/or trying to argue that Ohio State is #1. I'm not. For one thing, I've been doing a ranking this way for YEARS so this isn't something I invented this year trying to make tOSU look good. Beyond that, I think the more interesting differences between our rankings and this list are USC and Illinois. Most humans have Illinois pretty high but this method does not like them AT ALL. They are all the way down at #13. This method does like USC as they are MUCH higher here than most humans have them.
-
- 2.56 Ohio State
- 3.11 Oregon
- 3.22 Penn State
- 3.33 Indiana
- 4.00 Michigan
- 4.17 Minnesota
- 4.44 Iowa
- 4.61 USC
- 4.94 Washington
- 5.22 UCLA
- 5.33 Nebraska
- 5.44 Wisconsin
- 5.56 Illinois
- 6.00 Rutgers
- 6.17 Maryland
- 6.78 Northwestern
- 7.00 Michigan State
- 8.11 Purdue
These rankings do help feed into my theory that Illinois is just lucky and not as good as its record.
But I have to concede these rankings probably undervalue the teams that always seem to find a way to win when a game is close at the end. This is something Illinois was good at this year and Iowa was good at last year. This is also is something that Nebraska and USC have not been good at. Which probably explains why Illinois beat Neb in OT this year and why Iowa keeps beating Neb with FG's on the last play of the game (its happened 4 times since 2018).
Or maybe some teams are just lucky, what do I know?
-
better to be lucky than good
-
after 14 weeks, I'll give it a try
Oregon
Ohio State
Penn State
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Iowa
USC
Washington
UCLA
Nebraska
Illinois
Wisconsin
Rutgers
Maryland
Northwestern
Michigan State
Purdue
-
I like the computer models. I think they are useful. Same for yours, Medina.
Your version looks like it may struggle with the strenght of schedule: Oregon played a weaker schedule than Ohio State, but it still won all of its games. They also don't do a good job of capturing the teams that are better or worse in close games. Sometimes it's just luck, but when you get a consistent set of results, it starts to suggest that some teams handle the stress of close games better. That is a behavior that can be learned/coached, so when you have a team that consistently wins or consistently loses those close games, I think it's fair to take it out of the luck category.
-
it's luck ;)
-
I like the computer models. I think they are useful. Same for yours, Medina.
Your version looks like it may struggle with the strenght of schedule: Oregon played a weaker schedule than Ohio State, but it still won all of its games. They also don't do a good job of capturing the teams that are better or worse in close games. Sometimes it's just luck, but when you get a consistent set of results, it starts to suggest that some teams handle the stress of close games better. That is a behavior that can be learned/coached, so when you have a team that consistently wins or consistently loses those close games, I think it's fair to take it out of the luck category.
I think the goal of such a model is to TRY to correct for strength of schedule issues.
However I think the blind spot might be that it incorporates a certain level of MOV advantage that can benefit schools who run up the score vs schools who are pulling their starters in the 3rd quarter and coasting.
I.e. I was finding it interesting that Indiana was still as high as they are... But I think Indiana knows that when it comes to the committee, and when your schedule is Charmin soft, that "style points" mean something. If you're playing to try to prove something because you know you're not ever getting the benefit of the doubt, you run up the score. I mean, their starting QB was in the game against Purdue until they were up 59-0. I know it's a rivalry game so you also want to stick the knife in deep, but Indiana knew they couldn't take their foot off the gas in any game.
So a team like OSU that had a tougher schedule than Oregon may get a benefit of being the best against tough opponents because they played more tough opponents. Whereas someone like Oregon knew that in certain games they already were beating the weak opponents badly, and decided to just pound the rock in the running game to chew clock because they KNEW the other team wasn't going to come back.
So a model that tries to correct for strength of schedule might actually exacerbate some strength of schedule issues...
Anyway @medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547) -- I'm just spitballing here, not criticizing your model. Just interested in it for academic purposes.
If I've offended, PM me your address and I'll send you an early Christmas gift (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CRBCNQXW) :57:
-
I like the computer models. I think they are useful. Same for yours, Medina.
Your version looks like it may struggle with the strenght of schedule: Oregon played a weaker schedule than Ohio State, but it still won all of its games. They also don't do a good job of capturing the teams that are better or worse in close games. Sometimes it's just luck, but when you get a consistent set of results, it starts to suggest that some teams handle the stress of close games better. That is a behavior that can be learned/coached, so when you have a team that consistently wins or consistently loses those close games, I think it's fair to take it out of the luck category.
Strength of schedule shouldn't be an issue because my model doesn't compare you to the teams you played, it compares you to the other teams that your opponents played.
It should only be an issue if your opponents played a particularly strong or particularly weak schedule.
Examples:
Purdue had a REALLY tough schedule. They were the only team in the league to play all of the top-4 and they also played Illinois which has an argument for #5. Consequently, you had to really beat the snot out of them to get a decent rating:
- IU beat them by 66
- UWisc beat them by 46
- tOSU beat them by 45
- PSU beat them by 29
- Ore beat them by 28
- UNL beat them by 18.
Nebraska's 18 point win over Purdue would probably have been a lot better IF Purdue hadn't also played IU, UWisc, tOSU, PSU, and Oregon.
Conversely, Rutgers had a very soft schedule. They were the only team in the league to miss all of the top-4. So, against the Scarlet Knights:
- UWisc beat them by 35
- USC beat them by 22
- IL beat them by 7 (Piscataway)
- UNL beat them by 7 (Lincoln)
- UCLA beat them by 3
I don't think that IL and UNL would have been top-4 against them if they had played Oregon and Penn State.
In theory that could be somewhat unbalanced but I am taking nine different comparisons so it should even out because there are a LOT of datapoints in there.
This method definitely doesn't do a good job with teams that just "find a way to win/lose". I think most objective measures don't.
-
I think the goal of such a model is to TRY to correct for strength of schedule issues.
However I think the blind spot might be that it incorporates a certain level of MOV advantage that can benefit schools who run up the score vs schools who are pulling their starters in the 3rd quarter and coasting.
I.e. I was finding it interesting that Indiana was still as high as they are... But I think Indiana knows that when it comes to the committee, and when your schedule is Charmin soft, that "style points" mean something. If you're playing to try to prove something because you know you're not ever getting the benefit of the doubt, you run up the score. I mean, their starting QB was in the game against Purdue until they were up 59-0. I know it's a rivalry game so you also want to stick the knife in deep, but Indiana knew they couldn't take their foot off the gas in any game.
So a team like OSU that had a tougher schedule than Oregon may get a benefit of being the best against tough opponents because they played more tough opponents. Whereas someone like Oregon knew that in certain games they already were beating the weak opponents badly, and decided to just pound the rock in the running game to chew clock because they KNEW the other team wasn't going to come back.
So a model that tries to correct for strength of schedule might actually exacerbate some strength of schedule issues...
Anyway @medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547) -- I'm just spitballing here, not criticizing your model. Just interested in it for academic purposes.
If I've offended, PM me your address and I'll send you an early Christmas gift (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CRBCNQXW) :57:
I hadn't really looked that closely but now that you mention it, IU was #1 in the league against:
- 0-9 Purdue
- 3-6 UCLA
- 3-6 MSU
- 3-6 UNL
It probably isn't coincidental that none of those teams are very good. It would make sense that Oregon/Ohio State/Penn State wouldn't "need" to score 66 on Purdue but Indiana might.
LoL @ your gift, funny!
-
I am not sure how your formula ranks wins or losses in overtime, but I would rank any win in overtime as a win by 0 points. And any loss in overtime as a loss by 0 points. Then only use the point difference in OT if a team played more than 1 OT game as a way to break that tie between the OT games.
-
I hadn't really looked that closely but now that you mention it, IU was #1 in the league against:
- 0-9 Purdue
- 3-6 UCLA
- 3-6 MSU
- 3-6 UNL
It probably isn't coincidental that none of those teams are very good. It would make sense that Oregon/Ohio State/Penn State wouldn't "need" to score 66 on Purdue but Indiana might.
LoL @ your gift, funny!
Yeah, I wonder if you could pick a number, 21, 24, 28, whatever, and rather than rank by MOV once you get over that number, you would rank any win based on how much time was left in the game when you surpassed that margin. So if Oregon went up 28-0 on Purdue in the 2nd quarter, and then pulled starters and played conservatively in the 2nd half, played backups, and only won 42-7, that would still be better than Indiana not taking a 28-0 until into the third quarter, but keeping their foot on the gas and winning 56-0
-
I am not sure how your formula ranks wins or losses in overtime, but I would rank any win in overtime as a win by 0 points. And any loss in overtime as a loss by 0 points. Then only use the point difference in OT if a team played more than 1 OT game as a way to break that tie between the OT games.
I do. I effectively treat an OT win/loss as being by 0.5 points regardless of what the actual MoV was. I do this for the reason that you referenced, I think that a win by 1 in regulation is more convincing than a win by 8 in OT. I don't break OT ties (they don't come up very often) on points but I do break them on HFA so a 1 point OT win on the road is better than an 8 point OT win at home.
-
Yeah, I wonder if you could pick a number, 21, 24, 28, whatever, and rather than rank by MOV once you get over that number, you would rank any win based on how much time was left in the game when you surpassed that margin. So if Oregon went up 28-0 on Purdue in the 2nd quarter, and then pulled starters and played conservatively in the 2nd half, played backups, and only won 42-7, that would still be better than Indiana not taking a 28-0 until into the third quarter, but keeping their foot on the gas and winning 56-0
I agree with this in theory but in practice that is a LOT of work.
I've mentioned here before that I evaluate blowouts based on time rather than margin, almost exactly as you laid out.
My go-to example is two tOSU games that I attended:
1995 Ohio State vs Iowa:
The Buckeyes built a 56-0 lead in the first half then rested their starters. Eddie George only had 110 yards and 4 TD's because he didn't play after the break. In the second half Iowa outscored Ohio State 35-0 leading to a final MoV of "only" 21 at 56-35.
2006 Ohio State vs Penn State:
The Buckeyes and Nittany Lions played a fairly evenly matched defensive slugfest in which the difference in the game was that Ohio State's Goal Line units bested Penn State's Goal Line units. Deep in the fourth quarter the Buckeyes had an eight point lead at 14-6 based on two TD's for tOSU and two FG's for PSU. Eight points, however, is only one score so the game was still 'in play' and PSU was driving with just over 2:00 to go in the game when PSU QB Anthony Morelli tossed a pass that tOSU DB Malcolm Jenkins caught and returned for a pick-6 to effectively end the game at 21-6 with just over two minutes to go. Then, on the very next drive, with just over one minute to go, PSU tossed yet another pick-6 leading to a final MoV of 22 points at 28-6.
The problem with a lot of objective measures such as mine above is that it would treat tOSU's 22 point win over PSU in 2006 as "better" than tOSU's 21 point win over Iowa in 1995 because 22>21. However, any of us can look at those two games and realize that the 2006 tOSU/PSU game was MUCH more evenly matched than the 1995 tOSU/Iowa game.
-
- OREGON
- PENN STATE
- INDIANA
- MINNESOTA
- IOWA
- ILLINOIS
- MICHIGAN 😈
- OHIO STATE😈
- USC
- WASHINGTON
- WISCONSIN
- UCLA
- RUTGERS
- MICHIGAN STATE
- NEBRASKA
- NORTHWESTERN
- MARYLAND
- PURDUE
-
- OREGON
- PENN STATE
- INDIANA
- MINNESOTA
- IOWA
- ILLINOIS
- MICHIGAN 😈
- OHIO STATE😈
- USC
- WASHINGTON
- WISCONSIN
- UCLA
- RUTGERS
- MICHIGAN STATE
- NEBRASKA
- NORTHWESTERN
- MARYLAND
- PURDUE
very BOLD my friend
-
SOR/SP+ Bracket
- #12 Iowa State at #5 OHIO STATE; winner vs. #4 Boise State
- #11 INDIANA at #6 Georgia; winner vs. #3 SMU
- #10 Alabama at #7 PENN STATE; winner vs. #2 Texas
- #9 Tennessee at #8 Notre Dame; winner vs. #1 OREGON
-
Massey Composite Computer Rankings - 88 rankings (last week in parentheses)
- OREGON (2)
- Texas (3)
- Notre Dame (4)
- OHIO STATE (1)
- PENN STATE (5)
- Georgia (6)
- SMU (9)
- INDIANA (7)
- Alabama (10)
- Tennessee (12)
- Ole Miss (11)
- South Carolina (13)
- Miami (8)
- Iowa State (15)
- BYU (17)
- Boise State (16)
- Arizona State (22)
- Louisville (19)
- Clemson (14)
- Colorado (23)
- LSU (24)
- Texas A&M (18)
- Missouri (25)
- Kansas State (20)
- IOWA (-)
- 26. Illinois (27)
- 27. Michigan (33)
- 34. Minnesota (39)
- 35. USC (30)
- 46. Nebraska (47)
- 47. Washington (45)
- 52. Rutgers (61)
- 54. UCLA (65)
- 57. Wisconsin (54)
- 76. Michigan State (70)
- 80. Maryland (79)
- 89. Northwestern (89)
- 120. Purdue (117)