BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: OUT OF DATE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings (SEE FINAL REV)

Topic: OUT OF DATE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings (SEE FINAL REV)

Author

Message

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

OUT OF DATE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings (SEE FINAL REV)

Posted: 11/2/2014 3:58:22 PM

RNK --- OLD ---- OPPA++ --- SAGARIN ---- TEAM

1 ------ 1 ------ 1.406 ------- 5 ------- Mississippi State (8-0)
2 ------ 3 ------ 1.331 ------- 1 ------- Auburn (7-1)
3 ------ 4 ------ 1.259 ------- 3 ------- Mississippi (7-2)
4 ------ 8 ------ 1.247 ------- 2 ------- Alabama (7-1)
5 ------ 2 ------ 1.209 ------- 13 ------- Florida State (8-0)
6 ------ 18 ------ 1.166 ------- 16 ------- Notre Dame (7-1)
7 ------ 14 ------ 1.131 ------- 4 ------- Oklahoma (6-2)
8 ------ 13 ------ 1.063 ------- 10 ------- Kansas State (7-1)
9 ------ 5 ------ 1.021 ------- 7 ------- Oregon (8-1)
10 ------ 7 ------ 0.969 ------- 31 ------- Boise State (6-2)
11 ------ 11 ------ 0.963 ------- 15 ------- Ohio State (7-1)
12 ------ 10 ------ 0.961 ------- 24 ------- UCLA (7-2)
13 ------ 17 ------ 0.956 ------- 20 ------- Clemson (6-2)
14 ------ 12 ------ 0.945 ------- 6 ------- Louisiana State (7-2)
15 ------ 6 ------ 0.909 ------- 8 ------- Texas Christian (7-1)
16 ------ 9 ------ 0.900 ------- 21 ------- Arizona State (7-1)
17 ------ 23 ------ 0.872 ------- 36 ------- Marshall (8-0)
18 ------ 19 ------ 0.869 ------- 25 ------- Utah (6-2)
19 ------ 31 ------ 0.852 ------- 17 ------- Nebraska (8-1)
20 ------ 20 ------ 0.844 ------- 12 ------- Georgia (6-2)
21 ------ 15 ------ 0.825 ------- 29 ------- Missouri (7-2)
22 ------ 16 ------ 0.794 ------- 32 ------- Arizona (6-2)
23 ------ 21 ------ 0.788 ------- 46 ------- Colorado State (8-1)
24 ------ 30 ------ 0.778 ------- 39 ------- Georgia Tech (7-2)
25 ------ 24 ------ 0.769 ------- 22 ------- Southern California (6-3)
26 ------ 43 ------ 0.750 ------- 11 ------- Michigan State (7-1)
27 ------ 25 ------ 0.721 ------- 27 ------- Miami (FL) (6-3)
28 ------ 28 ------ 0.705 ------- 23 ------- West Virginia (6-3)
29 ------ 26 ------ 0.700 ------- 14 ------- Wisconsin (6-2)
30 ------ 33 ------ 0.691 ------- 9 ------- Baylor (7-1)
31 ------ 45 ------ 0.656 ------- 35 ------- Duke (7-1)
32 ------ 27 ------ 0.653 ------- 47 ------- Penn State (4-4)
33 ------ 34 ------ 0.641 ------- 57 ------- Nevada (6-3)
34 ------ 22 ------ 0.625 ------- 52 ------- Central Florida (5-3)
35 ------ 36 ------ 0.616 ------- 56 ------- Louisiana Tech (6-3)
36 ------ 71 ------ 0.609 ------- 37 ------- Iowa (6-2)
37 ------ 59 ------ 0.606 ------- 49 ------- Minnesota (6-2)
38 ------ 41 ------ 0.603 ------- 42 ------- Brigham Young (5-4)
39 ------ 47 ------ 0.588 ------- 111 ------- Air Force (6-2)
40 ------ 32 ------ 0.582 ------- 33 ------- Louisville (6-3)
41 ------ 55 ------ 0.566 ------- 38 ------- South Carolina (4-5)
42 ------ 37 ------ 0.560 ------- 48 ------- Boston College (6-3)
43 ------ 57 ------ 0.558 ------- 34 ------- Arkansas (4-5)
44 ------ 40 ------ 0.549 ------- 30 ------- Tennessee (4-5)
45 ------ 56 ------ 0.538 ------- 19 ------- Texas A&M (6-3)
46 ------ 35 ------ 0.538 ------- 18 ------- Florida (4-4)
47 ------ 49 ------ 0.535 ------- 40 ------- Maryland (6-3)
48 ------ 39 ------ 0.513 ------- 65 ------- Toledo (5-3)
49 ------ 51 ------ 0.505 ------- 60 ------- North Carolina (4-5)
50 ------ 88 ------ 0.499 ------- 43 ------- Texas (4-5)
51 ------ 38 ------ 0.497 ------- 53 ------- Houston (5-3)
52 ------ 50 ------ 0.495 ------- 26 ------- Stanford (5-4)
53 ------ 29 ------ 0.494 ------- 76 ------- Louisiana-Lafayette (5-3)
54 ------ 77 ------ 0.491 ------- 59 ------- East Carolina (6-2)
55 ------ 42 ------ 0.488 ------- 45 ------- Memphis (5-3)
56 ------ 79 ------ 0.478 ------- 51 ------- Oklahoma State (5-4)
57 ------ 44 ------ 0.466 ------- 50 ------- Virginia Tech (4-5)
58 ------ 48 ------ 0.460 ------- 55 ------- Utah State (6-3)
59 ------ 72 ------ 0.426 ------- 58 ------- California (5-4)
60 ------ 52 ------ 0.425 ------- 61 ------- Iowa State (2-6)
61 ------ 62 ------ 0.420 ------- 67 ------- North Carolina State (5-4)
62 ------ 60 ------ 0.410 ------- 69 ------- Pittsburgh (4-5)
63 ------ 94 ------ 0.409 ------- 104 ------- Texas-El Paso (5-3)
64 ------ 70 ------ 0.408 ------- 68 ------- Virginia (4-5)
65 ------ 65 ------ 0.403 ------- 117 ------- Western Kentucky (3-5)
66 ------ 75 ------ 0.402 ------- 91 ------- Western Michigan (6-3)
67 ------ 95 ------ 0.398 ------- 44 ------- Kentucky (5-4)
67 ------ 72 ------ 0.398 ------- 112 ------- Middle Tennessee State (5-4)
69 ------ 84 ------ 0.393 ------- 107 ------- Central Michigan (6-4)
70 ------ 54 ------ 0.385 ------- 92 ------- Illinois (4-5)
71 ------ 97 ------ 0.384 ------- 102 ------- Bowling Green State (5-3)
72 ------ 92 ------ 0.378 ------- 84 ------- Rutgers (5-4)
73 ------ 63 ------ 0.378 ------- 54 ------- Cincinnati (5-3)
74 ------ 46 ------ 0.372 ------- 71 ------- Northwestern (3-5)
75 ------ 68 ------ 0.369 ------- 41 ------- Washington (6-3)
76 ------ 57 ------ 0.363 ------- 83 ------- Navy (4-5)
77 ------ 61 ------ 0.363 ------- 64 ------- Arkansas State (5-3)
78 ------ 97 ------ 0.353 ------- 79 ------- Rice (5-3)
78 ------ 69 ------ 0.353 ------- 75 ------- Temple (5-3)
80 ------ 53 ------ 0.322 ------- 103 ------- Ball State (3-5)
81 ------ 74 ------ 0.298 ------- 81 ------- Purdue (3-6)
82 ------ 80 ------ 0.294 ------- 116 ------- Wyoming (4-5)
83 ------ 64 ------ 0.294 ------- 80 ------- Indiana (3-5)
84 ------ 67 ------ 0.294 ------- 124 ------- Texas-San Antonio (2-6)
85 ------ 96 ------ 0.291 ------- 99 ------- Northern Illinois (6-2)
86 ------ 83 ------ 0.277 ------- 78 ------- Washington State (2-7)
87 ------ 80 ------ 0.266 ------- 70 ------- Michigan (4-5)
88 ------ 76 ------ 0.253 ------- 72 ------- Georgia Southern (7-2)
89 ------ 100 ------ 0.251 ------- 119 ------- Alabama-Birmingham (5-4)
90 ------ 78 ------ 0.250 ------- 63 ------- Oregon State (4-4)
91 ------ 102 ------ 0.234 ------- 126 ------- Texas State (5-3)
92 ------ 66 ------ 0.231 ------- 133 ------- Connecticut (2-6)
93 ------ 99 ------ 0.228 ------- 114 ------- Akron (4-4)
94 ------ 89 ------ 0.218 ------- 109 ------- Fresno State (3-6)
95 ------ 109 ------ 0.213 ------- 170 ------- Army (2-6)
96 ------ 85 ------ 0.212 ------- 74 ------- Syracuse (3-6)
96 ------ 85 ------ 0.212 ------- 86 ------- Texas Tech (3-6)
98 ------ 101 ------ 0.206 ------- 132 ------- Florida Atlantic (3-6)
99 ------ 89 ------ 0.204 ------- 147 ------- Florida International (3-6)
100 ------ 106 ------ 0.203 ------- 90 ------- San Diego State (4-4)
101 ------ 87 ------ 0.202 ------- 142 ------- Ohio (4-5)
102 ------ 104 ------ 0.197 ------- 93 ------- San Jose State (3-5)
103 ------ 82 ------ 0.181 ------- 123 ------- Kansas (2-6)
103 ------ 104 ------ 0.181 ------- 139 ------- New Mexico (3-5)
105 ------ 89 ------ 0.176 ------- 150 ------- Old Dominion (3-6)
106 ------ 93 ------ 0.164 ------- 164 ------- Idaho (2-7)
106 ------ 117 ------ 0.164 ------- 95 ------- Colorado (2-7)
108 ------ 107 ------ 0.143 ------- 105 ------- Vanderbilt (3-6)
109 ------ 111 ------ 0.130 ------- 129 ------- Hawaii (2-7)
110 ------ 112 ------ 0.125 ------- 134 ------- Louisiana-Monroe (3-5)
110 ------ 102 ------ 0.125 ------- 118 ------- South Alabama (5-3)
112 ------ 107 ------ 0.115 ------- 128 ------- South Florida (3-6)
113 ------ 109 ------ 0.103 ------- 130 ------- Tulane (2-6)
114 ------ 117 ------ 0.094 ------- 208 ------- Eastern Michigan (2-7)
115 ------ 117 ------ 0.080 ------- 167 ------- Nevada-Las Vegas (2-7)
116 ------ 114 ------ 0.079 ------- 136 ------- Southern Mississippi (3-6)
117 ------ 115 ------ 0.078 ------- 140 ------- Wake Forest (2-6)
118 ------ 117 ------ 0.066 ------- 155 ------- Massachusetts (2-7)
119 ------ 112 ------ 0.063 ------- 149 ------- Buffalo (3-5)
119 ------ 123 ------ 0.063 ------- 180 ------- Kent State (1-7)
119 ------ 123 ------ 0.063 ------- 153 ------- Tulsa (1-7)
122 ------ 122 ------ 0.058 ------- 172 ------- Miami (OH) (2-8)
123 ------ 125 ------ 0.040 ------- 183 ------- Troy (1-8)
124 ------ 115 ------ 0.031 ------- 151 ------- North Texas (2-6)
125 ------ 117 ------ 0.025 ------- 181 ------- New Mexico State (2-7)
126 ------ 125 ------ 0.012 ------- 200 ------- Georgia State (1-8)
127 ------ 127 ------ 0.000 ------- 188 ------- Southern Methodist (0-7)

__________

UPDATE:

I made some modifications to my ranking system based on discussion in this week's thread.

Notably I expanded the award criteria to include fractional point awards for victories against teams under 0.500. Previously only 1 Pt was awarded for each win against teams with 0.500 or better records (there was also an incremental fraction bonus for indirect victories and a loss bonus). Now beating a team with a below 0.500 record can earn 0.0 to 0.85 Pts per win. Beating a team with the lowest win percentage will earn 0 Pts. Beating a team 1 game under 0.500 will earn 0.33 to 0.85 pts as the season progresses. This Pt award is relative therefore the value of beating a team 1 game under 0.500 will increase as the season progresses because fewer and fewer teams will be 1 game under 0.500 (always measured from last game played, not time when the two teams played). Currently beating a team 1 game under 0.500 is worth 0.75 pts. Teams with the most 1 game under victories were Notre Dame and Georgia Tech. A large number of other schools had a pair.

There were a number of big risers such as BGSU, CMU, Kentucky, and Iowa. Michigan State, WMU, Nebraska, Texas, and other saw modest jumps. There were big drops as well from teams including Ball State, Arkansas, UConn. Most teams stayed in the neighborhood of where they were originally. OHIO dropped to #100.

Overall I see this modification as an appreciable improvement. Applying this modification to week 10 increased the correct number of picks by 2, raising the correct pick percentage to 74% for that week.

UPDATE II:

The previous update still had teams like Arkansas, and South Carolina among a few others in a weak spot. These are teams that lost multiple Top 16 games by one possession and got no credit for it. So I added a bonus for Top 4, Top 8, and Top 16 losses by a single possession. This loss bonus is equivalent to half of what the win would be worth (ie losing to a Top 4 team by one possession is equal to 1 pt, half of the would be 2 pts for a victory, and equivalent to beating a 0.500 team with no wins against teams with a winning record). There were 29 total occurrences of these bonuses.

Ultimately update II will only serve as a temporary patch. This is a quick fix until I have some more time to develop a method to eliminate all of the loss bonuses and incorporate points for all losses by a single possession from top to bottom on the rankings (likely by halving the value of the would-be win (ranging from 0-2 pts).

Applying this modification to week 10 increased the correct number of picks by another to 2 games over Update I, raising the correct pick percentage to 77% for that week. Now hopefully you guys see my point about how Jerry Rig Jeff can jerry-rig his rankings in secret to make his model appear more complete. In practice this is very much a grey area of objectivism. While Update II sorts the top a little better, the bottom doesn't receive the same level of diligence, which I will argue is critical at all times (Do as I say not as I do.. at least until I have some more time to rip off the duct tape).

Last Edited: 11/5/2014 9:27:12 AM by The Situation

PhiTau74
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Columbia, SC
Post Count: 457

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/2/2014 4:56:07 PM

I can guarantee you that as bad as South Carolina is they would put 50 pts + on any team in the MAC and 60 on the Bobcats. They may give up 45 but they are better than any MAC team so your ratings don't work for me.

JSF
General User

Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,549

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/2/2014 5:13:49 PM

"I disagree with a single point, so your entire system is invalid."

Last Edited: 11/2/2014 5:14:17 PM by JSF

"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/2/2014 6:37:35 PM

PhiTau74 wrote:

Allegedly.

South Carolina didn't even put up 50 on Furman. And they haven't put up 50 in a single game this season. Your conclusion implies that we should accept your projected results literally without any evidence indicating that would be the outcome (which is quite specific I might add). Hopefully for you it doesn't rain or snow in your hypothetical matchups, you've made quite the guarantee.

The Gamecocks did beat ECU by 10 at home. But do you know who else beat ECU by 10 at home? Temple.

I understand your position is probably quite common. I'll pass along some advice to you from Mark Twain:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,741

Status: Online

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/2/2014 9:10:36 PM

The Situation wrote:

. . .I understand your position is probably quite common. I'll pass along some advice to you from Mark Twain:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"

+1 Great quote from a great man.

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,430

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 7:16:43 AM

The rankings seem to be taking shape a little bit and trimming some of the fat. Interesting that UCF at 5-3 is at #22, but I am not surprised one bit how low Baylor is. The Bears haven't really done anything this year.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 10:52:28 AM

Please take a look at Baylor's results. If they 'haven't done anything' then what have we done?

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 11:31:00 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

Please take a look at Baylor's results. If they 'haven't done anything' then what have we done?

Baylor, just like Michigan State, is 6-0 against teams with losing records. They are 1-1 against teams with winning records (L @ WVU, W vs TCU).

Baylor beat my number 6 team at home by 3 points. That's what they accomplished so far. But one WVWT doesn't scream Top 15.

Do you know who else has 1 WVWT? Indiana. They were my #15 Missouri's first of two (2) losses (at least Indiana won on the road).

When you look at the data to compare Indiana and Baylor, we see one good win per team. All we have left to compare is their wins against teams with losing records. As is the case, Baylor is currently #33 and Indiana is #64.

You try and loop OU in on this somehow. You haven't sufficiently linked the two cases. I hardly see a conditional relationship. It's a stretch to suggest anyone is implying this OHIO team has accomplished anything of significance (yet). I've got OHIO at #87.

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 1:30:18 PM

Situation, very interesting! I'd say that from 1-50 you and Sagrin are actually pretty close. After #50 or so, however, there are a lot of big discrepancies. Seriously, does anyone on here think that to this point OHIO should be a higher ranked team than Kentucky or BG. This is where the eye test and many objective rankings get confusing. We play those teams 10 teams and I believe we lose 6 or more times. Just not sure how your ranking gets us higher than them.

UpSan Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,812

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 1:49:16 PM

Casper71 wrote:

Ohio and Kentucky have a similar winning percentage, but Kentucky is hurt in this system by beating no one with a winning record. Clearly, the teams Kentucky has lost to are way better than the teams Ohio has lost to, but quality of opponents seems to really only factor into wins. I think that shows up at the bottom of the rankings especially.

PhiTau74
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Columbia, SC
Post Count: 457

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 1:55:07 PM

38 against Kentucky, Ohio scored 3. 35 at Auburn, 38 against Georgia. I guess those teams are MAC level right, end of discussion. Averaging 36 per game against the big boys would easily equate to 50 on MAC teams. Oh and they beat East Carolina badly, didn't Ohio play East Carolina recently in a bowl. Like I said, easily 50+. Not having scored 50 is because they don't play MAC teams or Idaho or Eastern I'llinois. Playing second and third string against Furman is meaningless. Sagarin is right at 38, top 10 offense and actually the highest scoring offense in Gamecocks history. Defense sucks but my point remains absolutely right, they could put up 50 on any MAC team. Do some research before making dumb comments about not agreeing with any points. The best conference in college football so maybe your watching too much MAC or little 12 conference to know what real football looks like.

Last Edited: 11/3/2014 1:58:37 PM by PhiTau74

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 2:03:08 PM

Casper71 wrote:

I've stated precisely how my rankings have OHIO higher than Kentucky.

Kentucky is 0-3 vs teams with winning records. They have no wins against teams with a 0.500 record.

OHIO gets the edge over Kentucky because of their one (1) win over 4-4 Akron. Bottom line.

How do you propose I award points for losses?

Just last week Sagarin #15 (Texas A&M) beat Sagarin #147 (UL-Monroe) at HOME by 5 points.

Should Sagarin jack UL-Monroe up to #60 for their close loss to an allegedly good team? Because he only moved them up to #134.

I've discussed at length why I do not make endless assumptions trying to award/deduct points for every loss. Most teams are capable of losing to most teams by two possessions in general. Seriously the data supports that! When you truly understand this fundamental concept you'll understand why awarding points for losing games is like balancing your finest dining set on the point of a pool stick while riding a unicycle.

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 2:07:49 PM

UpSan Bobcat wrote:

Spot on. Texas is another team that takes a big hit in the rankings for this reason.

Do I personally want Kentucky and Texas higher? Yes. But I don't see a way to make that happen without compromising the integrity of the methodology.

GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,430

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 2:09:05 PM

The Situation wrote:

Casper71 wrote:

It's almost as if you need to add another set of data for the records of the teams that a certain team has lost to. For example, a second set of data that would compare Ohio's losses and UK's losses, rather than just comparing the wins over winning record teams. Unless that's already being taken into account here?

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 2:31:14 PM

PhiTau74 wrote:

38 against Kentucky, Ohio scored 3...

And OHIO held Kentucky to 20. But South Carolina allowed UK to put up 38.

PhiTau74 wrote:

Averaging 36 per game against the big boys would easily equate to 50 on MAC teams.

Again, they only scored 41 at home against the (2-7) Furman Paladins (FCS). Technically there isn't a single data point that has this current South Carolina team scoring 50 points on anyone. For all we know the Gamecocks hit their glass ceiling when they scored 48 points on Vanderbilt (The same mighty Commodores who beat UMass by 3 at home).

Your "equation" has more emotion than the magazine rack at the grocery store.

PhiTau74 wrote:

Oh and they beat East Carolina badly...

Again, South Carolina beat ECU by 10, at home. That is no butt whoopin'.

Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky all allowed South Carolina to score more points than ECU.

PhiTau74 wrote:

Like I said, easily 50+. Not having scored 50 is because they don't play MAC teams or Idaho or Eastern I'llinois. Playing second and third string against Furman is meaningless.

Your presuming for some reason then, Steve Spurrier would inexplicably keep his 1st string in against OHIO just to reach 50 points.

PhiTau74 wrote:

Do some research before making dumb comments about not agreeing with any points. The best conference in college football so maybe your watching too much MAC or little 12 conference to know what real football looks like.

Unfortunately for you argument, I saw South Carolina win at Clemson and Tennessee lose at Georgia, both in person in 2012. And I saw Oregon beat Oregon State in person in 2013. I know what a big time college football matchup plays like. I've seen them first hand.

A part of my motivation for making these rankings is because I've seen these teams play and the gap in competition is no where near what a cretin such as yourself would suggest.

Last Edited: 11/3/2014 2:48:48 PM by The Situation

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 3:20:24 PM

GoCats105 wrote:

There's definitely some room for improvement in ranking the bottom half. But as I've discussed that would require awarding points for every loss. That directly conflicts with the original scope which was to devise an accomplishment based ranking system.

I do have a loss bonus that I've described for losses ranging from one possession to Top 16 teams down to only losing to Top 40 teams. This varies from 0-1 pt total. (or at most equivalent to beating a 0.500 team instead of losing to a Top 16 team by one possession).

But again, the emphasis is on accomplishments.

When I look at historical data and see that 3 WVWTs put a MAC team in the MAC Championship every year but one since 2005, that tells me something.

When I look at who loses to whom by "x" points, it doesn't tell me anything most of the time.

I wish losses revealed more about both teams, but the data just doesn't support the conclusion.

Going way back to my original mid-season rankings post. I suspect Jerry Rig Jeff does just that when he has these Baylor and Michigan State teams Top 12. I just don't know how you can look at the numbers and reach that conclusion without duct taping these teams up there because of emotion. And as long as he keeps a portion of his methodology secret I will continue to hold that belief.

PhiTau74
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Columbia, SC
Post Count: 457

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 8:21:51 PM

I said South Carolina's defense was terrible, maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. I said we would score 50 plus on all the MAC. I said South Carolina sucks this year, but they would score 50 plus per game against MAC teams. 7 SEC games South Carolina has averaged almost 36 pts per game.
Auburn 35
KY 38
Georgia 38
Tenn 42
Vandy 45
Texas AM 28
Missouri 20
So almost 36 in the SEC and the MAC would hold them to what? The bottom 3rd of the SEC would wipe their asses with the top 3rd of the MAC and I played football for Ohio. Get a reality check and the idiot said they barely beat Furman? Since when is 41-10 close? The MAC is what something like the No. 12 league in power. Get your green glasses off and come back to reality that the MAC sucks this year. Just because they can send 6-8 teams to bowls doesn't mean they should or that anyone will watch or care. I wouldn't watch the Gamecocks if they make a bowl this year. I didn't go to South Carolina so I have no skin in the game but I know football. I watch SEC games every week and there is a reason 1-2 weeks ago that the SEC had 4 of the top 5 teams in college football.

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 9:24:03 PM

PhiTau74 wrote:

I said South Carolina's defense was terrible, maybe you have a reading comprehension problem.

You used South Carolina's offensive production against a common opponent (UK) in an attempt to demonstrate the type of numbers they'd put up on OHIO. I presented the final score against OHIO's common opponent as counter-evidence to introduce doubt that South Carolina would actually score that many points.

I comprehended. And responded.

PhiTau74 wrote:

Get a reality check and the idiot said they barely beat Furman? Since when is 41-10 close?

I imagine arguing with you in real life is quite difficult. I say this because we conveniently have an exact record of what was said and not said right here in this thread.

And unfortunately for you, I did not say that.

PhiTau74 wrote:

Get your green glasses off and come back to reality that the MAC sucks this year.

These rankings literally have all but 2 MAC teams ranked #75 or lower, including a 6-2 NIU team at #96.

I have this sinking feeling that nothing short of omitting the names of G5 schools will satisfy you.

PhiTau74 wrote:

I didn't go to South Carolina so I have no skin in the game but I know football. I watch SEC games every week and there is a reason 1-2 weeks ago that the SEC had 4 of the top 5 teams in college football.

Like you, I believe the SEC is the best conference. My rankings this week have the SEC in 3 of the top 4 overall positions. But unlike you, I believe I present my reasoning in a coherent fashion.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/3/2014 10:25:58 PM

Definitely a person who allows for other points of view.

Unless they are "invalid."

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/4/2014 8:10:58 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

Definitely a person who allows for other points of view.

Unless they are "invalid."

I have no obligation to entertain every opinion that comes in off the street.

If you have respect for everyone's opinion, you have no respect for you own.

I've told you this before Monroe, I'm wrong with great frequency. That's my secret. Trial and error is my greatest tool for personal development.

I've also told you before that I have minimal respect for you. I still feel that way.

My lack of respect for you is amplified by your consistent inability to directly answer the direct questions addressed to you.

I've made a significant personal investment of time and resources into the profession of engineering. But more specifically, this is not my first modelling effort or ranking system. I've put in the hours to develop my "point of view" (as you call it) on this topic. (My most substantial modelling effort thus far was a Monte Carlo simulation of daily water flow in a creek. The analysis allowed the company I work for to assess confidence to the feasibility of proposed activities placing a new demand on an existing reservoir. )

If someone wants to come to the table and talk without results (just thoughts) that's still welcomed. I really enjoy the discussion. But if you think I should be passing out veto power like candy you're a fool. But I already knew that.

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/4/2014 8:39:56 AM

To clarify, I don't hand pick these rankings. Just the criteria. Everything else is automatic. And teams end up where they end up.

I'm sure there are a number of people that identify with PhiTau's sentiment. Teams certainly slip through the cracks in my system. Personally I'd like Michigan State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Texas, et al to be ranked more favorably. But they're not. And I don't see a way to help them specifically in the rankings without compromising the integrity of the process. (The integrity referring to the application of the same method with the same level of diligence to every FBS team)

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/4/2014 9:23:26 AM

Situation, don't get defensive here. I said your analysis was very interesting and very good at ranking the top 50 teams or so when compared to Sagrin. I hate to tell you though, I saw BG and UK play OHIO and we are not even in the same ball park. You do have to realize that UK has played Top 10 teams with winning records...and lost. Ohio, I don't think has played that kind of overall schedule. So, winning vs teams with winning records is not the end all to any ranking system. This OBJECTIVE system is like all objective systems, it really lacks the "eye" factor. The eye factor may be subjective but it tells me UK has a better schedule and has played much better than OHIO this year. No objective system could make me feel differently. And, I am no UK fan.

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,741

Status: Online

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/4/2014 10:27:38 AM

Casper71, I think the give and take and discussion with TS has been very interesting. This kind of numerical analysis of sports teams is not my thing, but I did find it interesting to read about. In general, I think TS's system is better than having some committee of folks using "eye factors" to rate teams.

Your examples of our ranking relative to BG and UK I disagree with; I guess it's the optimist's eye versus that of the pessimist's. I was at UK, and the thing that stuck out to me was that after the first five minutes we essentially played them even. The defense, after that initial crappiness, had several very impressive stands, including one where as I recall UK had a first and goal inside the 10 and couldn't score. I believe they went for it on fourth and short and couldn't punch it in. I came away with the idea that with a little more experience and the same talent level that we could have won that game. You saw the exact opposite, a team that was lucky not to have been blown out by 50 points.

In the BG game, I saw a young but improving offense put up 513 yards to the BG's 355. I saw a team that had 29 first downs to the opponent's 19. I saw a team that had more passing yards and more yards on the ground than the other team. I saw the best offensive performance in several years. The only problem was that these yards were between the 30s for the most part, and not into the end zone. I believe the 513 total yards was the most in OHIO history in a losing effort. In essence what I saw was great progress. Now, I'll admit that BG does not have a very stout defense, but it seems to me that this game showed great potential and the potential of OHIO moving forward.

Now, we did not play well at WMU, but young teams often struggle more on the road than at home. I fully expect much better games against UB and NIU at home. Go OHIO!

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,491

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/4/2014 10:47:59 AM

The Situation wrote:

This, I think, is the primary deficiency in your ranking system - there is no ability to discriminate towards the bottom. It does do a nice job of exposing teams that build an impressive record by beating the hapless, but there is very little difference between #50 and #125.

I wouldn't suggest changing it by giving points for "close losses", or depending on who teams lost for. Instead, a change that would be more consistent with your ranking system would be to divide teams not into two groups, but three. You currently divide teams into "teams with winning records" and "teams with losing records". I would suggest that a win over a team with a record of 5-6 is more impressive than a win over a team with a record of 0-11.

My suggestion therefore, is to continue to divide teams into "teams with a winning record", but then divide the remainder into teams with a "near winning record", and "teams with a distinct losing record", and award points for beating teams with a "near winning record". Obviously the points you would award for that would be a lot less than the points for beating teams with a winning record, but awarding a small amount of points for that would provide an ability to discriminate among the teams in the bottom half of the rankings. The better of the teams in the bottom half might still have few wins against teams with a winning record, but they would have more impressive wins against "teams with a near winning record" rather that wins against really bad teams.

I think this is logically defensible. If you have two teams that end the year 12-0, and one has beaten a dozen teams that all finished 5-7 or 4-8, that is more impressive than a team that beat a dozen teams that all finished 3-9 or less. Neither team, however, is as impressive as some other team that ended up 11-1, but which beat 5 teams with winning records.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: Week 11 OPPA++ Rankings

Posted: 11/4/2014 11:28:50 AM

OhioCatFan wrote:

Your examples of our ranking relative to BG and UK I disagree with; I guess it's the optimist's eye versus that of the pessimist's. I was at UK, and the thing that stuck out to me was that after the first five minutes we essentially played them even. The defense, after that initial crappiness, had several very impressive stands, including one where as I recall UK had a first and goal inside the 10 and couldn't score. I believe they went for it on fourth and short and couldn't punch it in. I came away with the idea that with a little more experience and the same talent level that we could have won that game. You saw the exact opposite, a team that was lucky not to have been blown out by 50 points.

In the BG game, I saw a young but improving offense put up 513 yards to the BG's 355. I saw a team that had 29 first downs to the opponent's 19. I saw a team that had more passing yards and more yards on the ground than the other team. I saw the best offensive performance in several years. The only problem was that these yards were between the 30s for the most part, and not into the end zone. I believe the 513 total yards was the most in OHIO history in a losing effort. In essence what I saw was great progress. Now, I'll admit that BG does not have a very stout defense, but it seems to me that this game showed great potential and the potential of OHIO moving forward.

+1

Casper my disagreement on your post is related to uncashed potential.

Kentucky may very well have a better record than OHIO if given the same opportunity against common opponents. However, the day when we get to find out will never come. So when it comes time to rank a bird in the hand vs two in the bush, I rank the bird in the hand more favorably than two in the bush.

Showing Replies:	1 - 25 of 35 Posts
Jump to Page:	1 \| 2 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 208 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

204 Guests
4 Registered Users:
	OhioCatFan, Cleveburg Bri, Jeff McKinney, Mike Coleman

There are no other users looking at this page.