8/22/2013 9:35 PM
Lol, I have made up my mind, if I do do what I'm proposing, it will only be in regards to games v. FCS opponents.  Moranis is talking about 90-125 and that's out of bounds as far as I'm concerned, but why I bring this up is because a game (or two) v. rank #126 in a 12 game schedule is going to downgrade your SOS, significantly.  Not all FBS teams play an FCS school, and in previous versions of my rankings, I have more or less considered games v. D1-AA/FCS competition to be exhibition games (of sorts) until Michigan-App State flipped that upside down.  The increase in the FCS opponents seems to correlate/coincide with the mandate of the 12 game schedule that happened sometime between 2004 and 2007, and teams are really just using FCS as filler so they can get another payday by filling their stadium and potential TV dollars...it's another way that money has bastardized the "sanctity" of college football...it's a shame really.

Counting only FCS losses seems to be a good/sound policy to me at the moment, I just want to see what others' think.  In moranis' defense, he's basically been making his same argument for 6, 7, 8 years...I still don't agree with him, but I appreciate his input.  Anyone that makes you think is beneficial.

8/22/2013 9:49 PM
Do you think GA State is significantly better than Sam Houston State?
8/22/2013 9:55 PM
Hell, I won't beat around the bush.    They are not.     IOW, AL will be "punished" for scheduling GS while TAMU will not for scheduling SHS.

Seems to me that counting GS as 125 and SHS at 126 is about right.   However, maybe the best way to go would be to run your ranking that way and then only count the games against a specific level.  50?, 75?, whatever?
8/22/2013 11:33 PM
Meh...I might just run that on the side to see what turns up, but as I've stated, I'm very opposed to excluding games that COUNT.  I could justify the FCS win removal because of my previous view of those games as "exhibitions of sorts" because they were played between 2 different divisions.  You do raise an interesting point about Georgia State and Sam Houston State though...TX-San Antonio was in the same position last year, and they played between 4-6 teams in FCS in 2012...that logic points to counting all games v. FCS.
8/23/2013 6:48 AM
All I'm saying is AL will get a game against a 125(or thereabouts) while TAMU will get a pass for playing a team that is on the same level.    I wouldn't be all that comfortable "throwing out" games against Wyoming, New Mexico State, Middle Tennessee, etc, etc but, as moranis said, those games are gimmes against the top teams much like the FBS games. 
8/23/2013 8:12 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/23/2013 6:48:00 AM (view original):
All I'm saying is AL will get a game against a 125(or thereabouts) while TAMU will get a pass for playing a team that is on the same level.    I wouldn't be all that comfortable "throwing out" games against Wyoming, New Mexico State, Middle Tennessee, etc, etc but, as moranis said, those games are gimmes against the top teams much like the FBS games. 
I just said count them all the same, not throw them out, as there is no practical difference between them.  If he doesn't want to just count the 3 worst wins all the same, then he should just tier the opponents.  Everyone 90-125 counts the same, everyone 80-89 counts the same, 75-79, 70-74, 67-69, 64-66, 62-63, 60-61, and then individualize from there (or whatever he thinks is a good tiering system).  All I'm saying is there is a very large difference between a team ranked 10 and a team ranked 25 and there is virtually no difference between a team ranked 110 and a team ranked 125.  The rankings need to reflect that or they aren't a true picture.
8/23/2013 8:25 AM
The only "problem" I'd have with that is there really a difference between 74 and 75?    That's more like GS and SHS than anything else.     Much like the FCS teams and the bottom feeders of the FBS, there's really no difference.    I realize a line has to be drawn somewhere, under your proposal, but the difference between 103 and 90 is probably a lucky bounce on a punt return.
8/23/2013 9:19 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/23/2013 8:25:00 AM (view original):
The only "problem" I'd have with that is there really a difference between 74 and 75?    That's more like GS and SHS than anything else.     Much like the FCS teams and the bottom feeders of the FBS, there's really no difference.    I realize a line has to be drawn somewhere, under your proposal, but the difference between 103 and 90 is probably a lucky bounce on a punt return.
True, but you do have to draw the line and I'd rather just tier teams than have 1-125 rankings.  It puts far more weight on the games that actually matter and gives a truer picture of how a team should be ranked.

Say both of these teams are 10-0:

Opponent Ranks
Team A - 5, 7, 10, 60, 63, 84, 95, 97, 103, 125 - average 64.9
Team B - 30, 33, 35, 39, 43, 49, 72, 78, 80, 88 - average 54.7

Team A should be ranked higher given the 3 strong victories at the top, but in many systems Team B would in fact be ranked higher.  That is the problem I have with rankings that are too linear.  Rankings need to strongly reflect the games that truly matter and the ones that don't matter at all.
8/23/2013 9:35 AM

Honestly, and I've been arguing the same thing about the new baseball metrics, it's almost impossible to just cram numbers into a program and get one number without really looking at what actually happened.   I wholeheartedly agree that beating three top ten teams and 7 bottom 50 teams is more impressive than beating a bunch between 30 and 50. 

of 2

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.