Jump to content

S&P+ rankings: Overperformance or overcorrection?


Recommended Posts

Posted
25 minutes ago, texasstrong12 said:

It's right. 

Miss State struggled with ULL and didn't dominate Southern Miss either. K-State dominated Nichols and Bowling Green. Then K-State controlled Miss State on the road. 

Yet, this system has Miss State 36 spots higher? I get it's early and the rankings are still heavily based on the preseason rankings but this is a joke. 

Upsets happen. I take MSU to beat KSU 9 times out of 10. - BC probably 

  • Like 2
Posted
6 hours ago, PilotsError said:

The whole purpose of his system is to generate controversy and have people talk about him. He's a fucking expert at it and you people are his best proof.

Does he benefit somehow from a thread on Surly being made about him? 

  • Like 1
Posted

The Miss St. ranking is proof positive this 'system' is an absolute joke.  Anyone that watched that game saw KSU dominate it.   If KSU didn't shoot themselves in the foot with stupid mistakes time and time again it's not even close.

Posted
38 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

College football fans make baseball fans look like Mensa members - just the absolute, bottom of the barrel mouth breathing hoopleheadedness.  

Jesus dude. So I don't think much of these computer models? Chill out you drama queen.

Posted
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

College football fans make baseball fans look like Mensa members - just the absolute, bottom of the barrel mouth breathing hoopleheadedness.  

Fozzz makes other college football fans look like Albert Einstein.

  • Like 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

College football fans make baseball fans look like Mensa members - just the absolute, bottom of the barrel mouth breathing hoopleheadedness.  

Silly us for not being impressed by this unbelievable predictive system that was magically able to pick 50% of the games correct against the spread.   

Posted
49 minutes ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

Does the algorithm even look at wins and kisses, or just stats?  I'm guessing just stats.  

Yeah, I don't think he values in season wins and losses much at all.

Posted
53 minutes ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

Does the algorithm even look at wins and kisses, or just stats?  I'm guessing just stats.  

If it's wins and kisses we'd be leading the rankings going away

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

Best thread to put this on, I guess. FBS teams are connected as of this last Saturday, so it's actually possible to calculate ratings based only on this season already. Usually takes longer. Anyway, the problem with early season stuff is pretty clear if you do a standard power rating for this season. Here's the Top 10 based only on final scores from this season:

1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. Notre Dame
4. Tulane
5. Louisville
6. Arizona St.
7. Michigan St.
8. Western Kentucky
9. Memphis
10. Kent St.

Edited by Huckleberry
Posted
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Best thread to put this on, I guess. FBS teams are connected as of this last Saturday, so it's actually possible to calculate ratings based only on this season already. Usually takes longer. Anyway, the problem with early season stuff is pretty clear if you do a standard power rating for this season. Here's the Top 10 based only on final scores from this season:

1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. Notre Dame
4. Tulane
5. Louisville
6. Arizona St.
7. Michigan St.
8. Western Kentucky
9. Memphis
10. Kent St.

Kent State out here with the nation's BEST losses

Posted
4 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Best thread to put this on, I guess. FBS teams are connected as of this last Saturday, so it's actually possible to calculate ratings based only on this season already. Usually takes longer. Anyway, the problem with early season stuff is pretty clear if you do a standard power rating for this season. Here's the Top 10 based only on final scores from this season:

1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. Notre Dame
4. Tulane
5. Louisville
6. Arizona St.
7. Michigan St.
8. Western Kentucky
9. Memphis
10. Kent St.

Apparently not inconnected enough.  Wait two more weeks.

Posted (edited)

Texas' win probability distribution for the rest of the season. The Okie Lite game is a tossup (as is Iowa State later in the season), and we're then favourites against WVU and Kansas State. Expected win total for the season is 7.1

spacer.png

Edited by satyanash
Posted

Might as well drop mine in here, I have a preseason component that fades completely with connectivity, but is still decently strong right now.

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio State
4. LSU
5. Georgia
6. Oregon
7. Oklahoma
8. Wisconsin
9. Auburn
10. Notre Dame

Texas is 15.

 

My picks match BC's winners, but some are quite different:

* Utah 31, USC 28
* Wisconsin 35, Michigan 24
* Auburn 28, Texas A&M 20
* App State 24, UNC 20
* Texas 45, OSU 38
* Georgia 30, Notre Dame 21

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, satyanash said:

Texas' win probability distribution for the rest of the season. The Okie Lite game is a tossup (as is Iowa State later in the season), and we're then favourites against WVU and Kansas State. Expected win total for the season is 7.1

spacer.png

He has as underdogs to Baylor. Next.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, OrangEngr said:

He has as underdogs to Baylor. Next.

Baylor is good this year, the game is in Waco, and plenty of cfb writers have us pegged to lose that game.

Edited by texifornia
Posted
1 minute ago, OrangEngr said:

 

Playing SFA and UTSA...

 

 

Oh, they're definitely coasting on decent recruiting numbers and returning production up until now, but they haven't fucked up yet so there's not much else to add. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Which ones?

I'm much too lazy to go back to preseason articles, but it seemed like the go-to for this format: "Texas wins a game it shouldn't (aka LSU or OU) and loses one it shouldn't (probably Baylor)".

They love them some Charlie Brewer.

Posted
22 hours ago, satyanash said:

Texas' win probability distribution for the rest of the season. The Okie Lite game is a tossup (as is Iowa State later in the season), and we're then favourites against WVU and Kansas State. Expected win total for the season is 7.1

spacer.png

45% chance of beating fucking Baylor?

You serious Clark?

Art Briles ain't walking throught that door.

Posted

His model hasn't started phasing out preseason data yet, which to me makes the model less useful at this point, and that starts after this week. 

  • Like 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Girdwood said:

Connelly is such a passive aggressive douche. 

His model sucks at predicting Texas when coached by Tom Herman.  Same thing for Houston.  He sees it's flawed yet refuses to make changes or simply say it doesn't work for certain teams so ignore those predictions.  Instead he doubles down by blaming the team rather than the model.  He's very much like a religious fanatic in that respect.  Texas has been better than SP+ predicted for 5 consecutive games and for 3 of those five the miss distance has been bigger than CJ's catch radius.

The errors are not randomly distributed and are all in one direction.  I met guys like Connally doing quant models of market behavior.  Their models are reasonably close most of the time but disastrously wrong at other times and they can't seem to understand why.  Connally isn't as smart as those guys but he's just as arrogant and as you point out, passive aggressive as well.

  • Like 3
Posted
On 9/16/2019 at 9:24 AM, Fozzz said:

College football fans make baseball fans look like Mensa members - just the absolute, bottom of the barrel mouth breathing hoopleheadedness.  

And the really dumb ones develop ranking systems.

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 9/19/2019 at 8:05 AM, Fud said:

His model hasn't started phasing out preseason data yet, which to me makes the model less useful at this point, and that starts after this week. 

It'll get worse not better.  Go read my first few posts on this thread, his terminology has changed somewhat since then, but his model still fails the rationality test.  If it can't accurately tell you how good a single set of downs or a single drive is, it's not going to improve upon that when you put it in aggregate. Aggregation just helps to hide the underlying issues.

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, JBJ said:

It'll get worse not better.  Go read my first few posts on this thread, his terminology has changed somewhat since then, but his model still fails the rationality test.  If it can't accurately tell you how good a single set of downs or a single drive is, it's not going to improve upon that when you put it in aggregate. Aggregation just helps to hide the underlying issues.

TBF, his model's doing really well so far this season. He's hitting 54.3% against the spread, better than FPI, Sagarin, or ESPN's FPI.

Edited by satyanash
Posted
32 minutes ago, satyanash said:

TBF, his model's doing really well so far this season. He's hitting 54.3% against the spread, better than FPI, Sagarin, or ESPN's FPI.

He started off hot last year too then it really tapered off. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...