The AAC

[ragtimejoe1]

Sagarin at least has BSU at 25 and Memphis at 30 but has Utah State and byu below BSU, so obviously, even complex stat models need some "eye test". Nonetheless, he has the AAC (both divisions) CLEARLY in front of the MWC-Mountain Division. Our best division is closer to the MAC than the AAC's worst division. The MWC-West division? Well, you know.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2015/conference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:lol: (sorry, I'm still lmao off at your kindergarten analysis of records and such--that might even surpass FCS is the same as half of FBS).

 

[cowboyz]

Now, then, if you really want to use your logic but move past EXTREMELY elementary logic and statistics that you use, I suggest looking into one of the numerous models out there that evaluate what you hint at. However, their attempts are correct in looking at QUALITY of opponent rather than opponent record. Several of these are used in the playoff formula.

Here is one that was updated on the 19th:

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2015-college-football-advanced-statistical-profiles?_ga=1.80792919.1189990893.1436898588" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is how it is calculated: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I claimed, the MWC is a dumpster fire.

:rofl: and you were calling people elementary while you are assembling a bunch of records from teams, including FCS, with no regard to what played into those records. :rofl: FFS, man, pull it together.

Surely these rankings have nothing to do with reality, when undefeated team are lower ranked then the teams ahead of them that they beat (OK State/WV, Mich/Mich State).

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Surely these rankings have nothing to do with reality, when undefeated team are lower ranked then the teams ahead of them that they beat (OK State/WV, Mich/Mich State).

They generally become more and more accurate with more data (i.e. as the season progresses). However, that is beside the point (I also alluded to that but used a different example: BSU ranked above usu and byu).

What is more realistic, these models or kansas' approach of combined records of opponents? Careful, if you say the former, you probably are too elementary to understand :lol:

 

[TSpoke]

There is no doubt that the AAC is better than the MWC by a long ways this year. The MWC is really bad. But it doesn't have to remain that way. We can bounce back. I think there is a dividing line in the G5 and the AAC is in the top part but so is the MWC(maybe not this year but historically). I assume the NY6 games will always go to either the AAC or the MWC. While the AAC is in some good markets and recruoiting beds back east they are also surronded by other better conferences. Out here it is us and the PAC so that is one built in advantage the MWC has just need to take advantage of it. There have been some shitty coaching hires in the MWC esspecially the west division. Get some good coaches in place and the MWC will be fine.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

There is no doubt that the AAC is better than the MWC by a long ways this year. The MWC is really bad. But it doesn't have to remain that way. We can bounce back. I think there is a dividing line in the G5 and the AAC is in the top part but so is the MWC(maybe not this year but historically). I assume the NY6 games will always go to either the AAC or the MWC. While the AAC is in some good markets and recruoiting beds back east they are also surronded by other better conferences. Out here it is us and the PAC so that is one built in advantage the MWC has just need to take advantage of it. There have been some shitty coaching hires in the MWC esspecially the west division. Get some good coaches in place and the MWC will be fine.

I definitely don't disagree that the MWC can get better. Still, since the BCS was formed, we don't have many programs that have demonstrated "staying" power. Utah and TCU carried the MWC and byu added a little depth. BSU is definitely up there with the likes of Utah and TCU. After that, usu is at best a byu and then it gets ugly.

I really hope I'm wrong, but, to me, it is starting to feel like a separation point.

 

[LanderPoke]

There is no doubt that the AAC is better than the MWC by a long ways this year. The MWC is really bad. But it doesn't have to remain that way. We can bounce back. I think there is a dividing line in the G5 and the AAC is in the top part but so is the MWC(maybe not this year but historically). I assume the NY6 games will always go to either the AAC or the MWC. While the AAC is in some good markets and recruoiting beds back east they are also surronded by other better conferences. Out here it is us and the PAC so that is one built in advantage the MWC has just need to take advantage of it. There have been some shitty coaching hires in the MWC esspecially the west division. Get some good coaches in place and the MWC will be fine.

I definitely don't disagree that the MWC can get better. Still, since the BCS was formed, we don't have many programs that have demonstrated "staying" power. Utah and TCU carried the MWC and byu added a little depth. BSU is definitely up there with the likes of Utah and TCU. After that, usu is at best a byu and then it gets ugly.

I really hope I'm wrong, but, to me, it is starting to feel like a separation point.

Wyo really picked a crappy time in history to go into a decade-long coma athletics-wise.

 

[BJC]

MWC needs a good TV deal....hard to get when down but hopefully we can get a decent deal...$$$$...exposure...better players...wins....repeat.

And YES to above post.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Wyo really picked a crappy time in history to go into a decade-long coma athletics-wise.

Yeah, it was like a perfect storm. I think Shy has things on track and I think Bohl will, too. We need to feed them some resources, but, as unrealistic as it sounds, I like our chances better than a lot of the other MWC programs.

 

[kansasCowboy]

Now, then, if you really want to use your logic but move past EXTREMELY elementary logic and statistics that you use, I suggest looking into one of the numerous models out there that evaluate what you hint at. However, their attempts are correct in looking at QUALITY of opponent rather than opponent record. Several of these are used in the playoff formula.

Here is one that was updated on the 19th:

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2015-college-football-advanced-statistical-profiles?_ga=1.80792919.1189990893.1436898588" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is how it is calculated: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I claimed, the MWC is a dumpster fire.

:rofl: and you were calling people elementary while you are assembling a bunch of records from teams, including FCS, with no regard to what played into those records. :rofl: FFS, man, pull it together.

Okay buddy, you will have to explain this to me since you're so enriched in the science of other peoples ratings rather than common sense:

Ready???

How in the hell can USC (3-3) and WVU (3-3) and lowly Sun Belt foe Appy St (5-1) who has beaten the likes quality teams such as Wyoming and Old Dominion. And who you also claimed were still FCS when we did play them, how In the world do you justify rating either of these three teams above the likes of:

7-0 Mich State- who has had a significant schedule and come out unscathed?
Or
6-0 Utah- who has surprised everyone and still continues to win over actual quality programs?

Come to your conclusion and get back to me...

And also you can laugh that I added in the FCS schools all you want, but even taking them out benefits my argument... So, again, better luck next time.

But seriously, justify using this rating system you just sent me, and answer those questions honestly.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Okay buddy, you will have to explain this to me since you're so enriched in the science of other peoples ratings rather than common sense:

Ready???

How in the hell can USC (3-3) and WVU (3-3) and lowly Sun Belt foe Appy St (5-1) who has beaten the likes quality teams such as Wyoming and Old Dominion. And who you also claimed were still FCS when we did play them, how In the world do you justify rating either of these three teams above the likes of:

7-0 Mich State- who has had a significant schedule and come out unscathed?
Or
6-0 Utah- who has surprised everyone and still continues to win over actual quality programs?

Come to your conclusion and get back to me...

And also you can laugh that I added in the FCS schools all you want, but even taking them out benefits my argument... So, again, better luck next time.

But seriously, justify using this rating system you just sent me, and answer those questions honestly.

And did you see Sagarin? Massey is also one. The playoff formula combines them and makes other adjustments.

Bottom line is, they all try to account for things like quality of win. Your formula/proposal is nothing short of ridiculous of just looking at opponent win/loss. There is a reason that people are paid a lot of money to try to derive meaningful statistical data from the CFB season. They all all become more accurate with more data.

What doesn't change and all of them agree on is that the AAC is far ahead of the MWC this year and the MWC is loaded with craptastic teams which makes it a dumpster fire.

I mean honestly, if you think your kindergarten analysis is more valid than the likes of Sagarin, Massey, the S&P+, and CFB playoff formula, I don't know what the hell to tell you other than your head is in the sand.

It is okay, you can acknowledge that I'm right...just like FCS equaling half of FBS and successful coaches in the G5 ranks taking 6+ years to build programs. Damn, real data is inconvenient, isn't it?

 

[ragtimejoe1]

How in the hell can USC (3-3) and WVU (3-3) and lowly Sun Belt foe Appy St (5-1) who has beaten the likes quality teams such as Wyoming and Old Dominion. And who you also claimed were still FCS when we did play them, how In the world do you justify rating either of these three teams above the likes of:

7-0 Mich State- who has had a significant schedule and come out unscathed?
Or
6-0 Utah- who has surprised everyone and still continues to win over actual quality programs?

Come to your conclusion and get back to me...

To answer this question directly, some of the formulas utilize last season's stats up through the first part of this season. The residual from that should be increasingly minimized and perhaps gone by now? I'm not 100% sure if some of that residue could still be impacting the formula (i.e. ranked x in week 1 which is higher than should be, so week 2 is higher, so week 3 is higher, etc. etc.). I'm not 100% certain in which week the previous year does not impact the ratings in any way.

Secondly, these formulas are much more accurate at the end of the season than the beginning. In any model, not enough data can increase the amount of "outliers".

Still, any model is prone to results that don't seem or are not logical; typically these are just a few data points. That is why the BCS formula (or whatever it is called now) also includes the human polls which neutralize these few outlier data points.

Analyzing all computer models and human polls shows the AAC is ranked higher, has better teams (according to rankings), is deeper, and the MWC is a dumpster fire this year. So, we can go with statisticians, AP writers, NCAA coaches, etc. or we can go with kansas' complex analysis of opponents' win/loss record? You decide.

 

[kansasCowboy]

How in the hell can USC (3-3) and WVU (3-3) and lowly Sun Belt foe Appy St (5-1) who has beaten the likes quality teams such as Wyoming and Old Dominion. And who you also claimed were still FCS when we did play them, how In the world do you justify rating either of these three teams above the likes of:

7-0 Mich State- who has had a significant schedule and come out unscathed?
Or
6-0 Utah- who has surprised everyone and still continues to win over actual quality programs?

Come to your conclusion and get back to me...

To answer this question directly, some of the formulas utilize last season's stats up through the first part of this season. The residual from that should be increasingly minimized and perhaps gone by now? I'm not 100% sure if some of that residue could still be impacting the formula (i.e. ranked x in week 1 which is higher than should be, so week 2 is higher, so week 3 is higher, etc. etc.). I'm not 100% certain in which week the previous year does not impact the ratings in any way.

Secondly, these formulas are much more accurate at the end of the season than the beginning. In any model, not enough data can increase the amount of "outliers".

Still, any model is prone to results that don't seem or are not logical; typically these are just a few data points. That is why the BCS formula (or whatever it is called now) also includes the human polls which neutralize these few outlier data points.

Analyzing all computer models and human polls shows the AAC is ranked higher, has better teams (according to rankings), is deeper, and the MWC is a dumpster fire this year. So, we can go with statisticians, AP writers, NCAA coaches, etc. or we can go with kansas' complex analysis of opponents' win/loss record? You decide.

Wow!

That was amazing!

Your "slight of hand" jargon is astounding! You managed two full long posts of an attempted explanation of how the ratings work while using quick "witted" jabs (if that's what you'd like to call it) at me as filler for vernacular magic trick.

I asked you to use your common sense. Ragtime says," Well, I don't have common sense of my own, so here is a list of ratings done by a 'professional'! He must use common sense in his amazing equation to create this list! Yeah, how else would he be getting paid the big bucks? Here you go Kansas! Try this on for size."

Me: rly:

Answer me why these three teams are above the likes of MSU and Utah?

I got to hand it to you, two posts of attempts to mock me and explain this question and you failed! Miserably!

A vernacular magician, you are not.

I mean, come on, the residual residue of seasons past?

I know. There are probably hidden equations that aren't explained to the public. Such as:

Which coach looks better with facial hair?
Which coach gives the best end game speeches?
Which school color or uniform do I like best? And so on.

This may explain why a 3-3 USC and a 3-3 WVU (who by the way finished 1-5 in their last six games last year... Residue) and Lowly Appy St at 5-1 with top notch wins over opponents such as Old Dominion and WYO would be considered not a spot or two, but several spots above the likes of MSU 7-0 and Utah 6-0...

Yeah, now it's all starting to come together! And these are just some "flaws" I noticed in your professional list to prove to me why the AAC is better than the MWC... I think I'll stick to common sense.

Temple wins their division after a few losses along the way. They meet Memphis in the title who beats them going away and Houston begins to tumble from here on.

... And thus began the magnificent journey of the greatest prognosticator of all time... Kansas!!! :thumb:

Okay, the ending was a little self righteous. I was just trying it on for size.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I mean, come on, the residual residue of seasons past?

I know. There are probably hidden equations that aren't explained to the public. Such as:

Actually some of the formulas are hidden or not completely described. I think Sagarin uses a Bayesian approach and certainly includes data from the previous season. As such, through the first few weeks, the previous season impacts the Sagarin rankings. I'm not sure how long or for how many weeks that occurs. At some point in his model, the previous season becomes irrelevant. If the previous season's rankings are still influencing the current model, it might indicate why there are a few wacky outliers.

I know your highly sophisticated model of opponents' win/loss record, but I'm trying to get you to understand that ALL the models use that but attempt to ascribe some sort of hierarchy to those. In other words, they try to put real stats to it.

Now then, if you would like to run strictly with your model, then by comparison both ECU and Cinci are better than BSU who is at least our 2nd best team. ECU and Cinci are somewhere between 5-7 in the AAC. Also, have you used your brilliant statistical model to evaluate all 120 teams? If not, then you are clearly masking the outliers your model produces. I'll give you a hint: if analyzing opponents' win/loss records was an indication of anything, places like USA Today wouldn't have Sagarin around.

So, I say your kindergarten model of analyzing opponents' win/loss record is nothing short of ridiculous. I place much more confidence in actual NCAA coaches, statisticians, etc.

We'll let the good folks decide which is more credible.

 

[kansasCowboy]

Nope. You still haven't answered the question. I want your opinion for this. Not this defense of the rating system that you don't even understand yourself.

Start with this question? Was WVU(7-6) better than MSU or Utah last year?

Was Appy St ever in any kind of running to make them better last year?

Did I miss where Appy St became a legit top 25 contender over anyone that is not above them on this list up to 40?

Would you place these three teams above MSU or Utah for any reason?

Simple yes and no's will do here...

 

[ragtimejoe1]

How in the hell can USC (3-3) the world do you justify rating either of these three teams above the likes of:

6-0 Utah- who has surprised everyone and still continues to win over actual quality programs?

http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/10/22/cfb-odds-week-8-usc-trojans-utah-utes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good heavens. You are embarrassing yourself.

Pull your head out. You are suggesting your method of analyzing opponents win/loss is better than all the advanced models in CFB :shock:

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Nope. You still haven't answered the question. I want your opinion for this. Not this defense of the rating system that you don't even understand yourself.

Start with this question? Was WVU(7-6) better than MSU or Utah last year?

Was Appy St ever in any kind of running to make them better last year?

Did I miss where Appy St became a legit top 25 contender over anyone that is not above them on this list up to 40?

Would you place these three teams above MSU or Utah for any reason?

Simple yes and no's will do here...

And to respond to this, I realize it is a little too complicated for you, but all models have issues which is why throughout this thread, I've pointed to what is called a COMPOSITE of the rankings. Here is a T25 of those..
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/10/18/9563483/ncaa-football-rankings-2015-week-8-ap-top-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I said, a COMPOSITE ranking clearly shows the AAC is much better than the dumpster that is the MWC.

Go ahead and keep trying to build a straw-man argument based on a few outliers in 1 model. I love it. "Well, 1 of the advanced models has a couple of outliers, so my method of analyzing opponents win/loss records for a few teams is much more valid!!"

:rofl: Good times slapping you around with a little reality; 3 times in a row now.

 

[kansasCowboy]

Nope. You still haven't answered the question. I want your opinion for this. Not this defense of the rating system that you don't even understand yourself.

Start with this question? Was WVU(7-6) better than MSU or Utah last year?

Was Appy St ever in any kind of running to make them better last year?

Did I miss where Appy St became a legit top 25 contender over anyone that is not above them on this list up to 40?

Would you place these three teams above MSU or Utah for any reason?

Simple yes and no's will do here...

And to respond to this, I realize it is a little too complicated for you, but all models have issues which is why throughout this thread, I've pointed to what is called a COMPOSITE of the rankings. Here is a T25 of those..
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/10/18/9563483/ncaa-football-rankings-2015-week-8-ap-top-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I said, a COMPOSITE ranking clearly shows the AAC is much better than the dumpster that is the MWC.

Go ahead and keep trying to build a straw-man argument based on a few outliers in 1 model. I love it. "Well, 1 of the advanced models has a couple of outliers, so my method of analyzing opponents win/loss records for a few teams is much more valid!!"

:rofl: Good times slapping you around with a little reality; 3 times in a row now.

Geeze dude! You are worse than a politician! Asked a question that is insanely straight forward andgo off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the question.

Again, simple yes or no's will do. What you think of each said question.

Not another link to another list.

There is a reason why people don't like politicians, and you want to be comparable to that? Just answer the question, you know you want to...

Check that... You don't want to, because you can't without admitting something...

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Geeze dude! You are worse than a politician! Asked a question that is insanely straight forward andgo off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the question.

Again, simple yes or no's will do. What you think of each said question.

Not another link to another list.

There is a reason why people don't like politicians, and you want to be comparable to that? Just answer the question, you know you want to...

Check that... You don't want to, because you can't without admitting something...

I honestly feel a little bad for you: either stubborn or dense.

All models have some outliers. A few outliers do not negate a model. Hence a composite of the models is what is used by the entire CFB world sans kansaspoke who uses his analysis of opponents' win/loss records but only for a few teams (to avoid the many and certain outliers his method would produce).

Your questions are irrelevant to the discussion. Your questions are an attempted straw-man argument that you think negates a model and my point by highlighting a few outliers. It doesn't. When the composite is evaluated (which I provided you with several models), a clear picture is formed. One that shows the AAC is better than the MWC dumpster fire.

I'm pretty sure you are about the only person on the planet who thinks your method of analyzing opponents' win/loss records is better than the professional composite rankings that all of CFB uses.

I gotta say, this has been fun smacking you around for a 3rd time with reality. :lol:

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

Holy shit, boys. You could've made love your wives, cleaned the garage, rebuilt a Camaro, and got your elk all in the same time you've invested into this discussion. Haha.

Is the AAC truly worth this amount of research and thought?

 

[fromolwyoming]

Holy shit, boys. You could've made love your wives, cleaned the garage, rebuilt a Camaro, and got your elk all in the same time you've invested into this discussion. Haha.

Is the AAC truly worth this amount of research and thought?

Nope.