SP+ has Gophs 23rd

Donate To GopherHole




TEAMRATINGOFFENSEDEFENSESPECIAL TEAMS
1. Ohio St. (6-1)28.547.0 (1)19.1 (20)0.7 (2)
2. Georgia (7-0)27.937.9 (9)10.2 (2)0.2 (30)
3. Alabama (7-1)25.541.9 (3)16.7 (10)0.3 (23)
4. Clemson (4-3)21.633.4 (35)12.3 (3)0.5 (7)
5. Florida (4-3)20.940.6 (5)19.8 (21)0.1 (50)
6. Wisconsin (4-3)20.529.7 (62)9.7 (1)0.5 (10)
7. Michigan (7-0)19.634.9 (22)15.9 (8)0.6 (3)
8. Texas A&M (6-2)18.433.8 (31)15.7 (7)0.4 (18)
9. Pittsburgh (6-1)17.835.7 (15)18.2 (14)0.3 (22)
10. Penn St. (5-2)17.331.4 (49)14.2 (6)0.2 (32)
11. Oklahoma (8-0)17.242.5 (2)25.8 (58)0.6 (4)
12. Iowa St. (5-2)16.235.2 (20)18.8 (19)-0.1 (81)
13. Cincinnati (7-0)16.032.8 (38)16.6 (9)-0.1 (85)
14. Notre Dame (6-1)15.433.5 (34)18.0 (13)0.0 (65)
15. Ole Miss (6-1)15.340.6 (4)25.5 (56)0.2 (39)
16. N. Carolina (4-3)15.040.3 (6)25.2 (54)-0.1 (77)
17. Tennessee (4-4)15.035.6 (16)21.1 (28)0.4 (15)
18. Auburn (5-2)14.432.3 (42)18.2 (15)0.4 (17)
19. Iowa (6-1)13.8 25.7 (86)12.5 (4)0.5 (5)
20. Nebraska (3-5)13.734.5 (26)20.2 (24)-0.5 (127)
21. Michigan St. (7-0)13.631.0 (53)17.4 (12)0.0 (69)
22. Baylor (6-1)13.131.1 (52)18.2 (16)0.3 (25)
23. Minnesota (5-2) 12.9 34.4 (27) 21.5 (32) 0.0 (61)
24. Arizona St. (5-2)12.834.2 (28)21.2 (31)-0.1 (84)
25. Texas (4-3)12.737.8 (10)25.5 (57)0.5 (9)
26. Miami (3-4)12.635.0 (21)22.6 (37)0.2 (40)27. Virginia (6-2)12.038.8 (7)26.7 (66)-0.1 (79)28. NC St. (5-2)11.930.4 (56)18.6 (17)0.1 (47)29. Arkansas (5-3)11.833.0 (36)21.1 (30)-0.1 (72)30. Miss. St. (4-3)11.031.3 (50)20.0 (22)-0.3 (110)31. Oregon (6-1)11.033.9 (29)23.5 (43)0.5 (6)32. Florida St. (3-4)10.635.2 (19)24.9 (53)0.3 (26)33. Maryland (4-3)10.334.8 (24)24.5 (47)0.0 (66)34. Oklahoma St. (6-1)10.027.5 (76)17.3 (11)-0.2 (90)35. Louisville (4-3)9.837.5 (11)27.8 (77)0.1 (42)36. Kentucky (6-1)9.731.8 (46)22.0 (34)0.0 (63)37. Wake Forest (7-0)9.637.0 (13)27.6 (76)0.3 (24)38. Coastal Caro. (6-1)9.538.0 (8)28.5 (84)0.0 (58)39. Utah (4-3)9.532.1 (44)22.1 (36)-0.5 (124)40. Purdue (4-3)8.528.8 (67)20.1 (23)-0.2 (101)41. Kansas St. (4-3)8.232.0 (45)23.9 (46)0.0 (60)42. Liberty (6-2)7.832.6 (40)24.5 (49)-0.3 (107)43. Va. Tech (3-4)7.630.2 (57)22.6 (38)0.0 (57)44. Fresno St. (6-2)7.633.8 (30)26.2 (61)0.0 (62)45. TCU (3-4)7.534.8 (23)27.4 (73)0.1 (48)46. USC (3-4)7.335.4 (17)28.2 (80)0.1 (49)47. UCLA (5-3)7.136.0 (14)29.0 (87)0.1 (51)48. LSU (4-4)6.934.6 (25)28.0 (79)0.3 (20)49. San Diego St. (6-0)6.919.5 (121)13.1 (5)0.4 (12)50. Ga. Tech (3-4)6.831.6 (47)24.6 (50)-0.2 (94)51. W. Virginia (3-4)6.830.0 (60)23.1 (41)-0.1 (83)52. Texas Tech (5-3)6.733.7 (32)27.4 (74)0.4 (19)53. SMU (7-0)6.535.4 (18)28.5 (85)-0.3 (112)54. Syracuse (4-4)6.430.2 (58)23.4 (42)-0.4 (119)55. Boston Coll. (4-3)6.232.6 (39)26.5 (64)0.1 (46)56. Indiana (2-5)5.426.4 (81)20.9 (27)-0.1 (87)57. Marshall (4-3)5.328.5 (68)23.0 (40)-0.2 (96)58. Oregon St. (5-2)5.137.2 (12)32.3 (106)0.2 (28)59. App. St. (5-2)5.030.9 (54)26.3 (63)0.4 (16)60. BYU (6-2)4.932.9 (37)27.6 (75)-0.3 (116)61. UCF (4-3)4.633.5 (33)28.9 (86)0.0 (56)62. Washington (3-4)4.529.2 (65)24.5 (48)-0.2 (99)63. Boise St. (3-4)4.229.5 (63)25.8 (59)0.4 (14)64. UAB (5-3)3.624.3 (96)20.4 (26)-0.3 (108)65. Rutgers (3-4)3.424.7 (93)21.1 (29)-0.2 (93)66. Louisiana (6-1)2.930.4 (55)27.3 (70)-0.2 (103)67. Air Force (6-2)2.926.8 (80)23.6 (44)-0.3 (106)68. Missouri (3-4)2.832.2 (43)30.0 (94)0.7 (1)69. Houston (6-1)2.825.7 (87)22.7 (39)-0.3 (105)70. UTSA (8-0)2.528.9 (66)26.5 (65)0.1 (45)71. Wyoming (4-3)2.321.5 (110)18.7 (18)-0.5 (122)72. Nevada (5-2)2.230.0 (59)27.8 (78)0.0 (67)73. Tulsa (3-4)2.127.0 (78)24.8 (52)0.0 (68)74. Wash. St. (4-4)1.632.5 (41)31.1 (99)0.1 (41)75. California (2-5)1.528.1 (71)26.8 (67)0.2 (35)76. Memphis (4-4)1.428.3 (69)26.8 (68)-0.1 (73)77. S. Carolina (4-4)1.424.8 (92)23.8 (45)0.4 (11)78. Colorado St. (3-4)1.122.6 (105)21.5 (33)0.0 (54)
79. Northwestern (3-4) 0.9 21.7 (108) 20.3 (25) -0.5 (126)
80. WKU (3-4)0.731.2 (51)30.8 (97)0.3 (21)81. San Jose St. (4-4)0.125.2 (90)25.2 (55)0.2 (38)82. FAU (4-3)-0.226.2 (83)26.3 (62)-0.1 (88)83. Toledo (4-4)-0.421.8 (107)22.0 (35)-0.2 (91)
 





RememberMurray said:
The important point: Nebraska is still in the Top 20, and ranked higher than Minnesota.
Click to expand...
SP is obviously not wearing the correct hoodie.

Seriously, Nebraska is a solid team that if they quit fucking up, could win a game or two more. But they can't stop fucking up. Sadomasochism is the term for them. "We prefer to find ways to make ourselves hurt"
At some point, that has to count for something.
 



Close to a third of the top 25 listed have records right around .500.
 






Where is our Saragrin ranking ndsu fans always harp on
 


BTChamp said:
SP is obviously not wearing the correct hoodie.

Seriously, Nebraska is a solid team that if they quit fucking up, could win a game or two more. But they can't stop fucking up. Sadomasochism is the term for them. "We prefer to find ways to make ourselves hurt"
At some point, that has to count for something.
Click to expand...

But that's what bad teams do. They find a way to lose. When it happens over and over it's not luck or just a letdown. You're just a bad team.
 

RememberMurray said:
It's a computer model, right? I thought I had heard that, anyway. Therefore objective. Stats go in, ratings come out, yes?
Click to expand...
Plus some preset things based on “talent”

so not exactly, but close to that
 

PMWinSTP said:
Close to a third of the top 25 listed have records right around .500.
Click to expand...
Efficiency metrics reward close teams with 3-4 losses more than 1 blowout loss

Also they overemphasize SOS and use SOS to normalize data. So any bias in their SOS calculation and talent rankings compounds itself.
 

GoForGold said:
But that's what bad teams do. They find a way to lose. When it happens over and over it's not luck or just a letdown. You're just a bad team.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. "We beat ourselves today" is a typical loser's lament. Most games are decided by mistakes, turnovers, key penalties. Good teams avoid that stuff, and bad teams keep screwing up.
 

RememberMurray said:
Yes, exactly. "We beat ourselves today" is a typical loser's lament. Most games are decided by mistakes, turnovers, key penalties. Good teams avoid that stuff, and bad teams can't seem to figure it out.
Click to expand...
Things like that are essentially excluded from efficiency rankings
 


GoForGold said:
But that's what bad teams do. They find a way to lose. When it happens over and over it's not luck or just a letdown. You're just a bad team.
Click to expand...
And that is the reason I'm wondering why the "find a way to fail" team is #20. Not directed at you , just a general question. If a certain team loses enough games, their defensive numbers and offensive numbers and special teams numbers should shine though by this point of the season and a shity team shows up as as shitty. Not asking for a reply, just posting my generic thoughts not worth much.
 

RememberMurray said:
It's a computer model, right? I thought I had heard that, anyway. Therefore objective. Stats go in, ratings come out, yes?
Click to expand...
Except that I think SP+ was designed to beat the spread.

Not actually give rankings.

Certainly not rankings like the AP where it's a bunch of different people rating things in different ways.
 

Some guy said:
Efficiency metrics reward close teams with 3-4 losses more than 1 blowout loss

Also they overemphasize SOS and use SOS to normalize data. So any bias in their SOS calculation and talent rankings compounds itself.
Click to expand...
Yep, get that...my point is being good in these areas doesn't necessarily translate into wins. Fun calculation to look at though.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Yep, get that...my point is being good in these areas doesn't necessarily translate into wins. Fun calculation to look at though.
Click to expand...
They are generally pretty good but not specifically

if that makes sense

Better to out teams in ballparks than to rank teams
 

RememberMurray said:
The important point: Nebraska is still in the Top 20, and ranked higher than Minnesota.
Click to expand...

The Bowling Green game you forgot about is a bad loss. I can’t recall the basic SP+ algorithm off the top of my head but strength of opponent factors into the ratings.

Special teams is a weak spot for us, would be interested to see the subset factors for that. I have some suspicions.
 

Word said:
This model is certainly missing the "Mertz factor" regarding it's Wiscy calculations.
Click to expand...

Does any model account for tripping your running backs at key red zone moments? Seems like it should.
 

That Nebraska is at 20 when they are 3-5, lost to Illinois, and have not beaten anyone better than Northwestern, tells me this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. At some point, winning needs to matter, no matter how could you are at putting up yards or whatever other stat is inflating the Huskers ranking. 8 games in, if you are a good team, your most impressive performance can't be "played a solid game while losing to a good team."
 

The real surprise is undefeated Michigan State at 21 (behind Nebraska), undefeated Wake Forest at 37, and undefeated SMU at 53 (one ahead of terrible Syracuse). That's a tough strength of schedule discount.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
That Nebraska is at 20 when they are 3-5, lost to Illinois, and have not beaten anyone better than Northwestern, tells me this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. At some point, winning needs to matter, no matter how could you are at putting up yards or whatever other stat is inflating the Huskers ranking. 8 games in, if you are a good team, your most impressive performance can't be "played a solid game while losing to a good team."
Click to expand...
Sample size is too small to be taken that seriously.

it is better to go 5-7 with 7 close losses and 5 blowout wins than 8-4 with 4 blowout losses and 8 close wins.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom