قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Sports / Which rankings make no sense?

Which rankings make no sense?



Welcome to the Bubble Watch. If you've read my Eliminator articles, you know I still count 15 teams reaching the College Football Playoff. (And if you have not read them yet, you can always return to them.)

Now that the teams have played enough games, we can take a closer look at each team's resume. Since the 15 teams are still alive, I will present you with all the CVs. We will look at each CV to compare the pros and cons of each team. This is the easiest and best way to understand what each team brings to the table in the discussion of the College Football playoffs.

How It Works

For determining quality gains, things like Top 1

0 and Top 25 are arbitrary numbers that do more harm than good. There is no reason why the gap between # 25 and # 26 is considered significantly larger than the gap between # 24 and # 25. To counter this, I am very forgiving of who is rated Top 10 or Top 25. Each team in the top 25 of one of the most important surveys (CFP, AP or Amway Coaches) or a significant number of accepted computer rankings will be placed in the top 25 for recovery. This leads to the embarrassment of having more than 25 "Top 25" teams, but provides a more accurate picture of the entire CV. Besides, it just makes sense. The committee is aware of who a good team is and what counts as a win of decent quality, even if this team did not quite make it to the rankings.

I have also divided every game played by each team into different groups. The groupings are important. First, I focus on the top 10 and top 25 victories. This is of course the quality wins. Next, I'm looking for teams in the top 40. These are solid wins and deserve respect. The next group are teams between 41st and 80th in FBS. These are mediocre teams – they are games that any playoff contender should win but could theoretically lose on a day off. Anyone outside the top 80 is a complete cupcake game and should be rated as negative. To see where each team is and who is not in the top 80, I use a collection of computer rankings that focus on different things (such as Sagarin and Anderson) to get a complete picture of who a cupcake is and who is not.

In recent years, the selection committee has repeatedly called "victories over teams with victory records" as an important measure, and I'll show you. It's a less detailed way to show a win than to see where every win is scored, but the committee seems to care, so we have to. I will not count a win against an FCS team as a +500 victory, regardless of the record. Even if the metric is stupid – there are cupcakes with more than 500 records (eg Buffalo or Western Kentucky) – the committee will take care of it, so we have to.

Offensive and defensive performance [19659006] We involve the ranking in yards per game of each team. On the one hand, the CV focuses on the teams you defeated. I confine myself therefore to the quality of the victories and losses to determine and show you the remaining lots of the individual competitors. On the other hand, the committee "watches" playing teams, which is not really quantifiable statistics, but something we can at least influence. Still, finding an offensive or defensive metric that accurately reflects all teams and playing styles is difficult.
Some metrics overestimate "air raid" type offenses, while others favor more consistent but less explosive schedules. The rank in offensive and defensive yards per game provides a basic yardstick for how efficient and / or consistent a team is on both sides of the ball.

SOS area

The SOS area comes from numerous computer rankings. The areas can be very large, especially as different rankings prefer different things. However, they give a decent picture of how strong the schedule actually is. Keep in mind that it is still a bit early in the season, so the different SOS methods can lead to radically different results. In some cases, ranges may still be high, but should narrow in the next few weeks.

Next … Teams controlling their own destiny


Source link