GT should be ranked in the top 25

[bobongo]

Only when determining "strength" of schedule. Rankings should be some combination of record + strength of schedule. If you include record in each side of that, you are just muddying it. For example, while we lost to USF, we were easily the better team. Stats will show that, but a binary "win or loss" does not. There is a reason that win/loss elo systems of ranking have never been very good predictors of wins in ncaa, where as point per play differential/point per drive differential does.

I am certainly not saying record doesn't matter, I am saying that performance on the field needs to be considered as well. From what I have heard, the CFP committee agrees somewhat.

As I said previously, SOS is the other factor besides w/l. It should be overall SOS combined with overall w/l. Of course SOS has to be considered.

But as far as whether we are the "better team" when compared to USF, that means nothing, zero. You play the game to find out who's going to win, not who the "better team" is. The "better team" is subjective. Who wins is a matter of record, and is the object of playing the game. Predictors of wins mean nothing as to who should be ranked where. Nothing, zero. Teams should be ranked according to who they beat and who they lost to. Point per drive differential? It has its place, but as for determining rankings it's a garbage stat.

 

[ibeattetris]

As I said previously, SOS is the other factor besides w/l. It should be overall SOS combined with overall w/l. Of course SOS has to be considered.

But as far as whether we are the "better team" when compared to USF, that means nothing, zero. You play the game to find out who's going to win, not who the "better team" is. The "better team" is subjective. Who wins is a matter of record, and is the object of playing the game. Predictors of wins mean nothing as to who should be ranked where. Nothing, zero. Teams should be ranked according to who they beat and who they lost to. Point per drive differential? It has its place, but as for determining rankings it's a garbage stat.

a 6-4 team that has beaten 6 statistically weak teams is worse than a 6-4 team that beat 6 statistically good teams. How else do you choose between equally ranked teams? What you are claiming is the exact problem with the rankings. People only look at records, see Miss St is in the SEC so that 6-4 record must be good without actually looking into anything else.

Again, there is a reason the better ranking systems use more than just records. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Not really being serious but the rankings are absolutely crazy to me. SEC gets so much love. UK barley beat an unranked Vandy and Missouri and then got trashed by UGA and beat up on by unranked UT, yet they are ranked 12th and above a 9-0 UCF and 8-2 Syracuse. Then you have Miss st ranked 16th with 4 L’s. LSU is ranked above teams that have been more impressive, and they are above 4 teams with better records. GT has as good of a record as 4 teams in the top 25. GT is 4-0 over the last 4 games while Miss st and Auburn are both 2-2 over the last 4 weeks.

GT is literally playing better than 11 teams that are in the top 25 since the Clemson game.

The ACC has 8 teams with as good or better records as teams in the top 25 but only have 4 of them ranked. SEC also has 8 teams with as good or better records as teams in the top 25, yet....... wait for it.......... 7 are in the top 25.

Rant over........

Beat Virginia and we will talk. Until then, Tech is a fringe top 25 team. Keep improving in all three phases and we will make a statement either against UGA or in a bowl. IF this team does make the top 25 with a 9-4 record it will be one of the most remarkable coaching jobs in Tech history. We will see. Keep getting better should be the mantra.

 

[bobongo]

a 6-4 team that has beaten 6 statistically weak teams is worse than a 6-4 team that beat 6 statistically good teams. How else do you choose between equally ranked teams? What you are claiming is the exact problem with the rankings. People only look at records, see Miss St is in the SEC so that 6-4 record must be good without actually looking into anything else.

Again, there is a reason the better ranking systems use more than just records. I'll leave it at that.

When I look at the Mississippi State record, I see nothing that indicates to me a top 25 team. Their ranking is a sham. Their SOS is obviously weak, and I don't need a pile of stats to tell me that. But they are the exception and not the rule. If their "record" was properly taken into account (including SOS, of course), they wouldn't be anywhere near the top 25.

 

[MWBATL]

I think we have a good shot at squeaking by UVa because of their injuries and our improvement, as long as "bad GT" doesn't show up with turnovers.

I would guess UGa beats us by at least 20. Their offense is every bit as good as ours. Their defense is MUCH better than ours.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Most 6-4 teams are receiving votes now (we aren't). I would say it'd be fair to be receiving votes if we win against UVA, and then becoming ranked with a win over UGA.

They may be receiving votes but that does not mean they are any good. A lot of these teams in the top 50 or so are capable of beating a team in the top 25 if the stars align. We are bowl eligible now, let's concentrate on playing UVA and improving. The defense and special teams can only get better.

 

[bobongo]

I think we have a good shot at squeaking by UVa because of their injuries and our improvement, as long as "bad GT" doesn't show up with turnovers.

I would guess UGa beats us by at least 20. Their offense is every bit as good as ours. Their defense is MUCH better than ours.

Last year I said we had no shot to win at all against Ugag. Zip, nichts, nada.

This year we have a small, fighting chance. And the defense continues to improve.

 

[ibeattetris]

When I look at the Mississippi State record, I see nothing that indicates to me a top 25 team. Their ranking is a sham. Their SOS is obviously weak, and I don't need a pile of stats to tell me that. But they are the exception and not the rule. If their "record" was properly taken into account (including SOS, of course), they wouldn't be anywhere near the top 25.

You keep talking in circles dude. How do you define SOS? You keep saying my method of determining SOS is wrong without saying how you determine what SOS is. It's all good though, have a good one.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

You keep talking in circles dude. How do you define SOS? You keep saying my method of determining SOS is wrong without saying how you determine what SOS is. It's all good though, have a good one.

 

[bobongo]

You keep talking in circles dude. How do you define SOS? You keep saying my method of determining SOS is wrong without saying how you determine what SOS is. It's all good though, have a good one.

SOS is determined the same way the stats are, only by different criteria, based on wins and losses, not yardage or points per drive or whatnot. In the end, it's all subjective. Stats against who?
At some point, someone has to make a subjective determination. SOS should be determined by who you played and who they beat, or didn't, not some pile of meaningless stats.
The thing is, the object of the game is to WIN, not run up stats. So shouldn't THAT be what rankings are based on?
I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one. I enjoy reading your posts, and I see your point. Just don't agree.

 

[ibeattetris]

SOS is determined the same way the stats are, only by different criteria, based on wins and losses, not yardage or points per drive or whatnot. In the end, it's all subjective. Stats against who?
At some point, someone has to make a subjective determination. SOS should be determined by who you played and who they beat, or didn't, not some pile of meaningless stats.
I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one. I enjoy reading your posts, and I see your point. Just don't agree.

Things just start to look really weird once you don't take any stats into consideration
http://www.cpiratings.com/top25.html
This only looks at:
Record
Opponent Record
Opponent Opponent Record

The top 4 is almost always easy due to straight record, but does anyone really think Georgia (the team that lost to LSU whom Alabama annihilated) is better than Alabama? Based on a static SOS approach where only W/L matter, then that certainly could be the case, since Alabama has beaten nobody and apparently UGA has. You could always try to manually craft these sorts of things, but that seems incredibly time consuming and open to the bias I mention. I certainly value looking at opponent record and opponent opponent record as part portion of the criteria, but I think it should really only be a part of the full story, and not the only story.

 

[bobongo]

Things just start to look really weird once you don't take any stats into consideration
http://www.cpiratings.com/top25.html
This only looks at:
Record
Opponent Record
Opponent Opponent Record

The top 4 is almost always easy due to straight record, but does anyone really think Georgia (the team that lost to LSU whom Alabama annihilated) is better than Alabama? Based on a static SOS approach where only W/L matter, then that certainly could be the case, since Alabama has beaten nobody and apparently UGA has. You could always try to manually craft these sorts of things, but that seems incredibly time consuming and open to the bias I mention. I certainly value looking at opponent record and opponent opponent record as part portion of the criteria, but I think it should really only be a part of the full story, and not the only story.

There's no one objective template that works in the real world. These rankings require some common sense, what I call the ol' eyeball test. I really preferred the rankings before stats and computer models got involved. Just ask the coaches and sportswriters, and go by that. They've got computers on top of their shoulders that take much more into account than any artificial system. As imperfect as they are, they're better than any arbitrarily determined criteria/template base on sheer numbers. The system you cite looks weird compared to the AP or USA Today top 25, for that matter. It has its faults (Mississippi State, for example), but it seems to be generally far better than any computer model.

And yes, it does matter, for instance, whether Georgia loses by 20 to LSU or by one. Margin of victory should come into play, to an extent.

 

[alagold]

Mississippi State shouldn't be there.

I should have made clearer that I was talking about what the rankings should be about. It should be about your record and your strength of schedule - nothing else. Those are the only two factors that should be considered in the rankings, IMO.

Maybe not but I doubt many teams ahead of them would want to play them in a bowl.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I think we have a good shot at squeaking by UVa because of their injuries and our improvement, as long as "bad GT" doesn't show up with turnovers.

I would guess UGa beats us by at least 20. Their offense is every bit as good as ours. Their defense is MUCH better than ours.

FIFY ..... UGAg ST are much much better than ours. REI #4 for UGAg and #95 for us. We've moved way up recently, but #4 is pretty impressive. UGAg doesn't beat themselves on ST and beats others there. BTW, LSU? ST = #1.

 

[ibeattetris]

FIFY ..... UGAg ST are much much better than ours. REI #4 for UGAg and #95 for us. We've moved way up recently, but #4 is pretty impressive. UGAg doesn't beat themselves on ST and beats others there. BTW, LSU? ST = #1.

I wish you could see week over week data for FEI. I would like to know how much our early place kicking woes is still affecting us (since we never kick fgs anyways). I realize our kickoff return issues would still be pulling us down, but if we are perfect on the season in XP's and 90% or better in FG% would our FEI ST be so low?

 

[bke1984]

There's no one objective template that works in the real world. These rankings require some common sense, what I call the ol' eyeball test. I really preferred the rankings before stats and computer models got involved. Just ask the coaches and sportswriters, and go by that. They've got computers on top of their shoulders that take much more into account than any artificial system. As imperfect as they are, they're better than any arbitrarily determined criteria/template base on sheer numbers. The system you cite looks weird compared to the AP or USA Today top 25, for that matter. It has its faults (Mississippi State, for example), but it seems to be generally far better than any computer model.

I completely disagree. The coaches have very little knowledge of any team that is not on their schedule...in fact, most of the coaches delegate the voting to someone on their staff. Writers? ...please. They're even worse. Those guys cover the teams in their local market and know very little about other teams in the same conference most of the time.

Poll based voting is stupid. What's even more stupid is having a committee that has active athletic directors of the teams involved helping decide the rankings...I mean really?

Yes, the computers are also flawed, but at least they are not biased to the name on the jersey or the region the team plays in. Here's a system that works very well. Every division has a winner, every conference has a winner, conference winners go to a playoff and are seeded. Teams play in the playoff and win or lose. Winners move on until someone doesn't lose.

Rankings that ultimately decide "champions" are pretty much the dumbest thing that exists in sports.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

FIFY ..... UGAg ST are much much better than ours. REI #4 for UGAg and #95 for us. We've moved way up recently, but #4 is pretty impressive. UGAg doesn't beat themselves on ST and beats others there. BTW, LSU? ST = #1.

This article says Tennessee has the #2 strength of schedule

https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...ll-2018-strength-of-schedule-week-12-rankings

 

[AE 87]

As I said previously, SOS is the other factor besides w/l. It should be overall SOS combined with overall w/l. Of course SOS has to be considered.

But as far as whether we are the "better team" when compared to USF, that means nothing, zero. You play the game to find out who's going to win, not who the "better team" is. The "better team" is subjective. Who wins is a matter of record, and is the object of playing the game. Predictors of wins mean nothing as to who should be ranked where. Nothing, zero. Teams should be ranked according to who they beat and who they lost to. Point per drive differential? It has its place, but as for determining rankings it's a garbage stat.

I appreciate your perspective, but it's not very thoughtful imo.

1) Rankings are making claims about who's better team. That's why you needed to concede strength of schedule matters. It's not a tournament awarding a championship. It's ranking teams that may not play each other nor common opponents.

2) Yes, when asking questions about who wins the ACC or what bowl invitation you get, being the "better team" on paper doesn't mean anything. However, that's a different question from the question of ranking teams.

3) Calling my PPDvP5 a garbage stat for determining rankings defies the evidence. It comes to the same top 4 and top 9 as the two major polls without looking at the W-L.

That is decidedly not garbage. Or put another way, if it's a garbage stat for ranking than so are the polls because they get the same answers.

 

[bobongo]

I appreciate your perspective, but it's not very thoughtful imo.

1) Rankings are making claims about who's better team. That's why you needed to concede strength of schedule matters. It's not a tournament awarding a championship. It's ranking teams that may not play each other nor common opponents.

2) Yes, when asking questions about who wins the ACC or what bowl invitation you get, being the "better team" on paper doesn't mean anything. However, that's a different question from the question of ranking teams.

3) Calling my PPDvP5 a garbage stat for determining rankings defies the evidence. It comes to the same top 4 and top 9 as the two major polls without looking at the W-L.

That is decidedly not garbage. Or put another way, if it's a garbage stat for ranking than so are the polls because they get the same answers.

1. Of course strength of schedule matters. It isn't a "concession", it's a fact I've never denied and have stated several times. The rankings are imperfect, and will always be so no matter the criteria because each team only plays a tenth of the teams out there. Thus, SOS is equally important as record.

2. Now wait. You just said rankings are making "claims" about who's the better team. I think rankings, as imperfect as they are, ought to be based on who has earned them, not "who's better" on a piece of paper. Why bother with the game if it's just about who's better on paper? Just give it to Alabama and forgo the season.

3. Yes, PPDvP5 is a garbage stat for determining rankings. So are all the other stats. You play the game not to run up stats, but to win games on the scoreboard. Thus, rankings should be based on that (and who you're playing), not stats. If it correlates with today's ranking, fine. Maybe it does now, and maybe not later on. But in any case it's not the object of the game and shouldn't be considered for rankings.

 

[AE 87]

1. Of course strength of schedule matters. It isn't a "concession", it's a fact I've never denied and have stated several times. The rankings are imperfect, and will always be so no matter the criteria because each team only plays a tenth of the teams out there. Thus, SOS is equally important as record.

2. Now wait. You just said rankings are making "claims" about who's the better team. I think rankings, as imperfect as they are, ought to be based on who has earned them, not "who's better" on a piece of paper. Why bother with the game if it's just about who's better on paper? Just give it to Alabama and forgo the season.

3. Yes, PPDvP5 is a garbage stat for determining rankings. So are all the other stats. You play the game not to run up stats, but to win games on the scoreboard. Thus, rankings should be based on that (and who you're playing), not stats. If it correlates with today's ranking, fine. Maybe it does now, and maybe not later on. But in any case it's not the object of the game and shouldn't be considered for rankings.

It's correlated for years.

The object of the game is to win by scoring more points than you allow.

If two teams play the same opponent and team A wins by 3pts and team B wins by 21, most people would conclude that generally speaking Team B is probably better than Team A.

Your "logic" demands that we consider Team A and Team B equal and that we believe the inference that Team B is better to be garbage.

You are probably the only sports fan that thinks this way.