All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > College Football > Playoffs, a season early
11/22/2013 12:42 PM
The process may have merit (or at least the intent behind it), but the results don't.
11/22/2013 1:17 PM
Yeah, I sort of said that.   But all the OSU fans heard was "OSU at 8 looks about right" and responded with "OSU does not suck!!!!  No way should they be behind Wisconsin!!!!"
11/22/2013 3:09 PM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/22/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I sort of said that.   But all the OSU fans heard was "OSU at 8 looks about right" and responded with "OSU does not suck!!!!  No way should they be behind Wisconsin!!!!"
That isn't what anyone said.  The general consensus is that any rating system that has Wisconsin at #4 is a flawed system and thus isn't a system that you can use as a ranking.  Wisconsin may very well have an efficient offense and defense, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to totally flub it when it actually matters or that the efficiency will yield wins and losses.
11/22/2013 2:56 PM
Anything that says four yards on first down is failure should be thrown out entirely. You can agree with the "stats nerds" all you like but that's just dumbass logic. It's entertaining that you're searching the internet finding anything that downs Ohio St, I expect you to post some garbage from bleacher report next.
11/22/2013 3:02 PM
If the stats say "2nd and 6" limits teams to pass options only, I don't think it's invalid.   That's like taking half the bullets out of a gun and saying "Yeah, it's still as good as that fully loaded gun."

I don't like statnerds.   I think they sit behind a computer, plug numbers in and say "See??!??!"    But what they do can shed new light on a subject.  Like punting on the opponents 45 yard line.   That's dumb but teams continue to do it. 
11/22/2013 3:03 PM
Posted by moranis on 11/22/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/22/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I sort of said that.   But all the OSU fans heard was "OSU at 8 looks about right" and responded with "OSU does not suck!!!!  No way should they be behind Wisconsin!!!!"
That isn't what anyone said.  The general consensus is that any rating system that has Wisconsin at #4 is a flawed system and thus isn't a system that you can use as a ranking.  Wisconsin may very well have an efficient offense and defense, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to totally flub it when it actually matters or that the efficiency will yield wins and losses.
Watching games in your Bucky the Buckeye head and saying "OSU is the best" is also a flawed system.    Very flawed.
11/22/2013 3:11 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/22/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moranis on 11/22/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/22/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I sort of said that.   But all the OSU fans heard was "OSU at 8 looks about right" and responded with "OSU does not suck!!!!  No way should they be behind Wisconsin!!!!"
That isn't what anyone said.  The general consensus is that any rating system that has Wisconsin at #4 is a flawed system and thus isn't a system that you can use as a ranking.  Wisconsin may very well have an efficient offense and defense, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to totally flub it when it actually matters or that the efficiency will yield wins and losses.
Watching games in your Bucky the Buckeye head and saying "OSU is the best" is also a flawed system.    Very flawed.
again fuckstick, I have never said Ohio State is #1 or that it should be.  I have merely pointed out that only a moron would have a team that lost to Utah ahead of them.
11/22/2013 3:38 PM

Eat a dick and then admit that you'd find flaws in any system that puts a 1 loss team in front of OSU. 

As I said before, be a homer if you want.   Just don't pretend that you're trying to be objective.

11/22/2013 6:00 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/22/2013 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Eat a dick and then admit that you'd find flaws in any system that puts a 1 loss team in front of OSU. 

As I said before, be a homer if you want.   Just don't pretend that you're trying to be objective.

I've said numerous times in this thread that I could have seen a situation that would have had a 1 loss team ahead of an unbeaten Ohio State this year.  You are the one that isn't paying attention and who clearly isn't objective when it comes to Ohio State.  You have an insane hatred of them that just isn't based in reality.
11/22/2013 7:08 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/22/2013 6:39:00 AM (view original):
Jeez.   They examined the stats waaaaaaay deeper than you, me, moranis or anyone else with an opinion in this thread.   As I said earlier, they consider a 4 yard gain on 1st down a failure.    I don't know why but, if you'll read my theory, it makes sense.

Out of curiousity, how many times have you seen each team in your top 25 play?
I appreciate your admiration for the work they put in to come up with their rankings. I also agree with you on your theory about a 4 yard gain on 1st down.

Where we have a difference is that I see no reason for why I should take S&P+ ranking of Ohio State as proof for your argument just because it's a complex ranking that you admit to not understanding really yourself. Just because something is complex, doesn't mean that it automatically comes up to an optimal conclusion.

As for the Top 25 that I posted & your question to me: That Top 25 wasn't my own, it was a calculation that I did based on the best sources that I can come up with. That Top 25 that I posted does have a human component to it which the S&P+ doesn't, it's a computer calculation based on every play. That is why the Top 25 that I posted is far more reasonable & closer to reality than the S&P+. I understand that a mix of human & computer is the best way to get an accurate ranking. Therefore, it doesn't matter how many games that I've personally seen... no one person can watch every game, but if you go out & gather the best information available & do your research... you can come up with a better idea than any single human or computer. Between everything that's in that Top 25, it covers some intangibles, I'm sure of it.
11/23/2013 5:18 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I believe, on a neutral field, that OSU would be underdogs to Bama, FSU, Oregon, Stanford, Baylor.   I think they'd be pick 'ems with Auburn, Clemson, Mizzou, TAMU, SC and Mich St.

So, yeah, OSU at 8 sounds about right even if the 7 in front aren't quite right. 
This. 

I put OSU somewhere between 6 and 12,   But I'd put them closer to 6 than 12.

Auburn-I don't think they can throw
Clemson-always lays an egg
Mizzou-just don't believe they're as good as their ranking
TAMU-no D
SC-Can't put a complete game together
Mich State-great D, so so O
11/23/2013 5:20 PM
And, as I watch LSU/TAMU, I'm very tempted to put LSU in and take TAMU out.    The ****** weather is doing Manziel no favors but he's missing receivers by yards not inches.
11/23/2013 5:50 PM
Arizona whipping up on Oregon. 
11/23/2013 6:01 PM
LOL at Florida.    Write a big check and take an asswhippin'.
11/23/2013 6:04 PM
Posted by moranis on 11/23/2013 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Arizona whipping up on Oregon. 

Haven't been watching that one but. from the stats, they can't stop teams that run.    As I said when they lost to Stanford, they can't play "their" game when the other team can line-up and punch them in the face(meaning their opponent isn't chasing a score the entire game),

of 28
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > College Football > Playoffs, a season early

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.