SP+: Gophs back in top 30

Donate To GopherHole
S

swingman

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
3,143
Reaction score
2,022
Points
113
Gophs were top 30 pre-season and then fell off. Dead even with MD...likes their offense. The analytics love the Badger, Iowa defenses (also In and Nw) and special teams...Analytics doesn't factor in injuries, or culture.
TEAMRATINGOFFENSEDEFENSESPECIAL TEAMS
1. Georgia (7-0)29.738.7 (7)9.3 (1)0.2 (30)
2. Ohio St. (5-1)29.448.0 (1)19.3 (21)0.7 (1)
3. Alabama (6-1)26.941.9 (3)15.3 (7)0.3 (20)
4. Clemson (4-2)23.134.4 (30)11.5 (3)0.3 (24)
5. Florida (4-3)21.941.2 (4)19.3 (22)0.1 (52)
6. Penn St. (5-1)21.534.3 (31)13.0 (5)0.2 (36)
7. Wisconsin (3-3) 20.8 30.4 (55) 10.0 (2) 0.4 (18)
8. Michigan (6-0)20.135.6 (18)16.1 (9)0.7 (2)
9. Oklahoma (7-0)19.543.1 (2)24.1 (49)0.5 (6)
10. Cincinnati (6-0)19.335.0 (24)15.5 (8)-0.2 (98)
11. Pittsburgh (5-1)19.137.2 (13)18.4 (18)0.3 (23)
12. Iowa St. (4-2)17.635.3 (21)17.7 (15)0.0 (58)
13. Texas A&M (5-2)17.233.3 (40)16.5 (11)0.4 (12)
14. Notre Dame (5-1)16.633.3 (39)16.9 (12)0.1 (47)
15. Tennessee (4-3)16.035.4 (20)19.7 (24)0.3 (19)
16. Iowa (6-1)14.6 26.2 (83) 12.1 (4) 0.5 (5)
17. N. Carolina (4-3)14.640.2 (6)25.6 (58)-0.1 (70)
18. Arizona St. (5-2)14.535.1 (23)20.5 (30)-0.1 (80)
19. Auburn (5-2)14.432.3 (42)18.3 (17)0.4 (17)
20. Ole Miss (5-1)14.441.1 (5)26.8 (66)0.1 (50)
21. Michigan St. (7-0)14.331.6 (48)17.3 (13)0.0 (62)
22. Baylor (6-1)13.831.7 (47)18.1 (16)0.3 (28)
23. Nebraska (3-5)13.6 34.6 (28) 20.5 (29) -0.5 (126)
24. Texas (4-3)12.838.0 (9)25.7 (59)0.5 (10)
25. NC St. (5-1)12.730.1 (60)17.4 (14)0.0 (68)
26. Utah (4-2)12.532.7 (41)19.7 (23)-0.5 (123)
27. Miami (2-4)12.334.6 (27)22.5 (39)0.1 (45)
28. Minnesota (4-2)12.0 33.9 (34) 21.8 (34) 0.0 (55)
29. Maryland (4-2) 12.0 35.1 (22) 23.1 (45) -0.1 (78)
30. Coastal Caro. (6-0)11.638.5 (8)26.7 (65)-0.2 (104)
31. Virginia (5-2)11.237.5 (10)26.1 (62)-0.2 (94)
32. Oklahoma St. (6-0)10.426.9 (80)16.4 (10)-0.1 (75)
33. Arkansas (4-3)10.332.3 (43)22.0 (36)-0.1 (76)
34. Oregon (5-1)10.233.4 (38)23.8 (48)0.6 (4)
35. Miss. St. (3-3)10.230.8 (53)20.4 (28)-0.3 (116)
36. Liberty (5-2)10.033.7 (36)23.5 (46)-0.3 (106)
37. UCLA (5-2)9.937.4 (11)27.7 (79)0.2 (41)
38. Purdue (4-2) 9.8 30.3 (56) 20.3 (27) -0.3 (108)
39. Kentucky (6-1)9.832.0 (45)22.2 (37)0.0 (57)
40. Fresno St. (5-2)9.333.8 (35)24.4 (50)-0.1 (77)
41. TCU (3-3)8.936.5 (15)27.5 (77)0.0 (59)
42. USC (3-3)8.436.3 (16)28.0 (81)0.2 (35)
43. Boston Coll. (4-2)8.434.2 (32)26.1 (61)0.3 (26)
44. Wake Forest (6-0)8.034.9 (26)27.2 (71)0.3 (27)
45. LSU (4-3)7.935.6 (17)28.1 (82)0.4 (15)
46. Indiana (2-4) 7.8 27.1 (79) 19.2 (20) -0.1 (83)
47. Kansas St. (3-3)7.732.2 (44)24.5 (52)0.1 (51)
71. Rutgers (3-4)2.624.3 (96)21.5 (32)-0.2 (91)72. 77. Northwestern (3-3)1.0 21.9 (108) 20.5 (31) -0.4 (111)
 

swingman said:
Gophs were top 30 pre-season and then fell off. Dead even with MD...likes their offense. The analytics love the Badger, Iowa defenses (also In and Nw) and special teams...Analytics doesn't factor in injuries, or culture.
Click to expand...
nor does Connelly effectively track HOW or gROWth throughout the season
 

How is Wisconsin #7? Clemson #4? There must be some serious multi-year look-back in these ratings because I can't imagine the on field factors from this season that would rank those teams anywhere near that high.

Wisconsin and Iowa State must somehow play a style that computers like. Every single year the computers have those programs somewhat to far ahead of their actual on-field performance.
 




fmlizard said:
How is Wisconsin #7? Clemson #4? There must be some serious multi-year look-back in these ratings because I can't imagine the on field factors from this season that would rank those teams anywhere near that high.

Wisconsin and Iowa State must somehow play a style that computers like. Every single year the computers have those programs somewhat to far ahead of their actual on-field performance.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s not meant to be a measure of how good teams are. It’s a measure predicting who is good moving forward.
So in college football that means you rig your ratings to have traditional good teams better and you are correct 85% of the time
 

S&P confuses me year in and year out. I think their formula stinks. I know, people disagree with me and I realize it's not like an AP Poll, but often people who study various algorithms or use AI, you take a step back and look at some of the results. If some of the results are insane, you re-calculate. S&P just doesn't seem to do this.

Do they really believe that if Oregon or Kentucky played Maryland today, that Maryland would be favored?
Wisconsin would be favored over Oklahoma? Notre Dame (who already smashed them on a neutral site)? Michigan (who also already smashed them)?
 


Goldmember said:
Well SP+ is trash, apparently.
Click to expand...
According to the dude running the numbers.

It's rankings are still 50% influencd by its pre season rankings and the fact that there is no clear team to hold any spot after#4.... really dorks things up.

SP+ has however been beating the spread, and I think that was actually what it was initially made to do.... pretty impressive imo.
 



Analytics still place Nebraska ahead of us. Our win over Nebraska was really a good thing for the team. We re-discovered our passing game … which we will need for the rest of the season.
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
According to the dude running the numbers.

It's rankings are still 50% influencd by its pre season rankings and the fact that there is no clear team to hold any spot after#4.... really dorks things up.

SP+ has however been beating the spread, and I think that was actually what it was initially made to do.... pretty impressive imo.
Click to expand...
Dumb that a computer based rating system would need to account for preseason rankings halfway through the season.
 





You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom