SportsHoopla Top 25 Week 5 2015

[4down20]

Head to head results > the rest.

Iowa St got screwed in 2011, they should have been #2.

 

[USCDoom]

Let not also forget Sark has never lost fewer than 4 games and he WILL lose at least 4 this year and probably every year until he is fired. He is just a BAD coach. I doubt ANYONE would not trade their schools offensive players for USCs. Yet Sark can ONLY show it when he plays Inferior schools, and even then he cannot use the Offense to win games (BC and Stanford are perfect examples). No way should a team with NO DEFENSIVE LINEMEN hold this USC team to 31 points at Home. Yet Sark can.

USC WILL Sark games up for no reason.

 

[4down20]

Let not also forget Sark has never lost fewer than 4 games and he WILL lose at least 4 this year and probably every year until he is fired. He is just a BAD coach. I doubt ANYONE would not trade their schools offensive players for USCs. Yet Sark can ONLY show it when he plays Inferior schools, and even then he cannot use the Offense to win games (BC and Stanford are perfect examples). No way should a team with NO DEFENSIVE LINEMEN hold this USC team to 31 points at Home. Yet Sark can.

USC WILL Sark games up for no reason.

That's what makes college football fun and great.

 

[USCDoom]

I would like to know how West Virginia is ranked so high?
Most schools would be 3-0 with their schedule.

 

[4down20]

I would like to know how West Virginia is ranked so high?
Most schools would be 3-0 with their schedule.

If you don't use last years data you don't know most schools would be 3-0 with their schedule.

 

[Rebel]

Using advanced stats is fine. However the truth is NW is 4-0, has 2 quality wins and owns a head to head win over Stanford. NW win over Duke is also better than any win USC has. If you want to do a power rating that's fine but it's not a CFB ranking. I happen to think Bama is light years better than Ole Miss but it's not fair to use opinion when you can use fact.

You think bama is light years better than the team that beat them two years in a row? Not slightly better but light years...cool story.

 

[rmilia1]

You think bama is light years better than the team that beat them two years in a row? Not slightly better but light years...cool story.

Yep. Don't care about last year. It's irrelevant. Bama played terrible, Ole Miss got a fluke TD and it was still a close game. That said I'm not ranking Bama ahead of the Rebels. That's just stupid BUT there's a better argument to do that than ranking Stanford ahead of NW or USC ahead of either

 

[4down20]

You think bama is light years better than the team that beat them two years in a row? Not slightly better but light years...cool story.

I do.

I didn't until we played the game and Ole Miss won.

 

[Rebel]

Yep. Don't care about last year. It's irrelevant. Bama played terrible, Ole Miss got a fluke TD and it was still a close game. That said I'm not ranking Bama ahead of the Rebels. That's just stupid BUT there's a better argument to do that than ranking Stanford ahead of NW or USC ahead of either

Better team played bad at their house in a revenge game. I don't think better teams do that. Better teams also don't trail 20 points with ten left in the fourth and throw game losing picks. Matter of fact the better team doesn't turn the ball over five times. You have a cool opinion tho.

 

[Rebel]

I do.

I didn't until we played the game and Ole Miss won.

Yeah Alabama is much better, enjoy that L though.

 

[rmilia1]

Better team played bad at their house in a revenge game. I don't think better teams do that. Better teams also don't trail 20 points with ten left in the fourth and throw game losing picks. Matter of fact the better team doesn't turn the ball over five times. You have a cool opinion tho.

Maybe? The fact all that happened and it was still a 6 pt gane is what I mean though. Even if I think Bama is better I'm certainly not going to rank them as such because the results say otherwise

 

[tabascojet]

if bama is the better team than you have to blame coaching no??

 

[4down20]

Yeah Alabama is much better, enjoy that L though.

Better team played real bad and you still barely won.

I expected Ole Miss to win but not because Alabama was playing bad. I expected Ole Miss to beat an Alabama team that was playing well.

I also won't rank Ole Miss ahead of Alabama right now, but I do think Alabama is the overall better team and think it will show before the year is over. I actually dropped Ole Miss down in my rankings after your win and I had you above Alabama before and after your win.

We play Georgia this weekend, so that will tell the story. If we put up another bad performance, then yep it's just who we are.

 

[4down20]

if bama is the better team than you have to blame coaching no??

Fuck yes.

Check the Alabama forum for my rant on coaching with the Ole Miss game. Highschool level coaching decisions before that game.

 

[uncfan103]

Advanced stats do something no human is capable of. They examine every game played in FBS college football without bias.

It's funny how you say statistics can't decide anything based on looking at every game made in college football, while you claim that you are somehow able to do it yourself while watching on a couple of games a week max and then apply your own biases.

Advanced stats take into account the teams you are playing and all the games, and I'd put my faith into them before your opinion any day of the week.

I never said anything about my eyes or my ability. I'm saying I'm not going to count games and plays and fcs or crap teams to help me decide that the loser of the game is better than the winner when the only evidence backing that up is using statistics.

You're a smart guy, you know about sample size.

Im sure I have bias, but the computer has cognitive bias, sampling bias, and all kinds of other biases as well. It's different later in the year when NW has losses and Stanford doesn't and it's a fluke, but right now your computers statistics are showing you that Stanford would beat Northwestern even though actual results on the field in games and plays that matter show that the computer isn't always right. It could mean the best team doesn't always win, or it could mean the sample size is too small to be accurate.

 

[occupant]

TCU lost to Baylor last year in the last moments of the game, with some help from the zebras, on Baylors home turf.

Anyone who watched that game would tell you that if that game was on a neutral field, TCU takes AT LEAST 3 of 5.

That was the fifth game of the season.

Baylor seemingly regressed after that game and TCU seemingly got better after that game.

If they were to have met again in a conf. champ. game, Vegas would have had TCU as a 7.5 point favorite AT LEAST.

Head to head is nice and all, but doesn't tell the whole story every time.

 

[4down20]

I never said anything about my eyes or my ability. I'm saying I'm not going to count games and plays and fcs or crap teams to help me decide that the loser of the game is better than the winner when the only evidence backing that up is using statistics.

You're a smart guy, you know about sample size.

Im sure I have bias, but the computer has cognitive bias, sampling bias, and all kinds of other biases as well. It's different later in the year when NW has losses and Stanford doesn't and it's a fluke, but right now your computers statistics are showing you that Stanford would beat Northwestern even though actual results on the field in games and plays that matter show that the computer isn't always right. It could mean the best team doesn't always win, or it could mean the sample size is too small to be accurate.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the computer which is able to look at every play of every game is hindered by sampling bias while a human who is only able to watch a few games at most doesn't.

And it's not uncommon that a team would be favored to beat a team they just lost too. Would Iowa St have been the favorites over Oklahoma St in 2011 if they had a rematch? I bet OkSt would have been multiple TD favorites in a rematch and for good reason.

 

[uncfan103]

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the computer which is able to look at every play of every game is hindered by sampling bias while a human who is only able to watch a few games at most doesn't.

And it's not uncommon that a team would be favored to beat a team they just lost too. Would Iowa St have been the favorites over Oklahoma St in 2011 if they had a rematch? I bet OkSt would have been multiple TD favorites in a rematch and for good reason.

well, I'll start with the computer is using data from previous seasons which have no impact on this year. Does it take into account losing coaches/players/etc?

Also, is it relevant how teams do in the second half of games up by 30? And, when the teams have only played three or four teams I don't have a problem saying that the computer can't have a much better grasp on things.

Iowa State wouldn't have been favored, but that's because there were enough games that had been played to show it was a fluke. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that meaningless plays are somehow used to support an argument that the better team lost. Instead of rewarding teams for winning the game (which is the goal) you're rewarding/penalizing teams for how they do in garbage time?

Do I think Stanford would be favored in a rematch against NW? Yes.
Do I think Stanford deserves a better ranking than NW? Absolutely not. And I can't understand why at this point in the year they could be. (Except in your situation since you're projecting and are more concerned about future results)

It's also a little strange you keep going back to Oklahoma State and Iowa State. There have been several times where the team that pulled off the upset just turned out to be the better team over the course of the season. It's not like it just goes one way

 

[Rebel]

Better team played real bad and you still barely won.

I expected Ole Miss to win but not because Alabama was playing bad. I expected Ole Miss to beat an Alabama team that was playing well.

I also won't rank Ole Miss ahead of Alabama right now, but I do think Alabama is the overall better team and think it will show before the year is over. I actually dropped Ole Miss down in my rankings after your win and I had you above Alabama before and after your win.

We play Georgia this weekend, so that will tell the story. If we put up another bad performance, then yep it's just who we are.

All I can say is cool story. Sorry bama just kept giving the ball up and let ole Miss score effortlessly in the red zone. I think you are a good poster but we just going to disagree on this one. Who knows tho maybe we get blasted by Florida in the swamp and I get shit thrown in my face.

 

[4down20]

well, I'll start with the computer is using data from previous seasons which have no impact on this year. Does it take into account losing coaches/players/etc?

No, ESPN FPI does but I don't care for it to be honest. Direct human input as data kind of ruins the reason I like computer data.

Also, is it relevant how teams do in the second half of games up by 30? And, when the teams have only played three or four teams I don't have a problem saying that the computer can't have a much better grasp on things.

Yes the good ones do. What you are talking about is referred to as garbage time and the better ones do. Not all, mine didn't but it was something I was working on as it required play by play stats rather than game stats.

Iowa State wouldn't have been favored, but that's because there were enough games that had been played to show it was a fluke. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that meaningless plays are somehow used to support an argument that the better team lost. Instead of rewarding teams for winning the game (which is the goal) you're rewarding/penalizing teams for how they do in garbage time?

The same factors that show Iowa St was a fluke are still used to determine the data presented now.

Do I think Stanford would be favored in a rematch against NW? Yes.
Do I think Stanford deserves a better ranking than NW? Absolutely not. And I can't understand why at this point in the year they could be. (Except in your situation since you're projecting and are more concerned about future results)

If the ranking is:

18. Stanford
19. Northwestern

Then yes that is a bit silly. But when you have a gap for other reasons than head to head, then it does not make sense. Just as it wouldn't make sense to rank Iowa St ahead of Oklahoma St in 2011 after that loss.