NCAA Football 2021

[Vinsk]

Yep. Again, Georgia, OSU, OU, ALA, all have some serious work to do just to make the final four. Meanwhile Cincinnati gets to have pudding and watch all the deserving teams battle it out. OU having to play TX again? It’s extremely difficult to beat a top rival twice in one season especially when TX really has nothing to lose.

[saevel25]

10 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Yep. Again, Georgia, OSU, OU, ALA, all have some serious work to do just to make the final four. Meanwhile Cincinnati gets to have pudding and watch all the deserving teams battle it out. OU having to play TX again? It’s extremely difficult to beat a top rival twice in one season especially when TX really has nothing to lose.

I get that. 

I just listened to an interesting youtube video were they discussed a what if OSU played Georgia now. They have their own computer model (based around yards per play (Offense and Defense), and how well that translates to your scoring). They have OSU and Georgia tied. Basically, it was because OSU's offense is so explosive, that they will score points with less yards per play than Georgia. OSU is more efficient on offense. 

These are fun websites..

BCF Toys - 2021 Points Per Drive

*Don't know why hitting enter twice posted this when I wasn't done..

Georgia averages about half as many plays per drive as Ohio State, but scores about 10 less points per game. The difference is Georgia has punted more often then OSU, and has taken twice as many field goals as OSU. OSU is really good at scoring touchdowns, and they do so quickly. 

The youtube analysis showed the game as a push 32-32. Georgia will out gain OSU. It's primarily that OSU's offense is just stupid good, really efficient and really explosive. They average 5.7 plays per drive, they do not have good starting field position (ranked 86th in the country), they score a TD on 53% of their drives. They only punt one out of every 5 drives. 

This is kind of why i picked PSU to win this past weekend. I just thought Iowa's defense could not keep up giving them great field position with all the turnovers gained. I was wrong on the first drive for PSU, but after that. PSU settled down and really dominated that game till their starting QB came out. They were not turning the ball over till then either. I just didn't think Iowa's offense could sustain drives with out a short field. 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by saevel25

[klineka]

12 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Cinci really wants Georgia to beat Alabama. If Cinci wins out, their chances drop by 10% if Alabama beats Georgia in the SEC championship game. Assuming both win out. 

If OU wins out, and bouncing between Georgia and Alabama makes their odds drop 14%, actually drop under 50%. 

Cinci really wanted OU to lose. 

I think Cinci (undefeated) gets picked over the ACC champ and the Pac-12 champ. 

 

UC doesn't really control their own destiny in regards to the playoffs, unlike the other teams in the top 6. If any of the other teams in the top 6 win out then they're in. 

I think UC would need both Bama and OSU to have a 2nd loss to be guaranteed a spot. Because a 1 loss SEC champ Bama or a 1 loss Big10 champ OSU would both be in over an undefeated UC. 

Worst case for UC would be Bama and OSU winning out. If that happened then It'd be Georgia, Bama, OU, and OSU.

If only Bama had a 2nd loss, then that'd be Georgia, OU, OSU, and possibly UC or Iowa depending on how close the Big 10 championship was and how UC looked the rest of the season.

If only OSU had a 2nd loss, then thatd be Georgia, OU, Bama, Iowa. 

But if both Bama and OSU had 2 losses then thatd be Georgia, OU, Iowa, and most likely UC. I think an undefeated conference champ UC would get the 4th spot over a 2 loss non conference champ Bama or OSU.

[Vinsk]

3 hours ago, klineka said:

I think UC would need both Bama and OSU to have a 2nd loss to be guaranteed a spot. Because a 1 loss SEC champ Bama or a 1 loss Big10 champ OSU would both be in over an undefeated UC. 

A one loss Big12  champ should be above Cincinnati as well. 

[saevel25]

18 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

A one loss Big12  champ should be above Cincinnati as well. 

Yea, it could end up being 2 loss Texas beating OU, which I think the 1-loss OU team is out. 

 

[klineka]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yea, it could end up being 2 loss Texas beating OU, which I think the 1-loss OU team is out. 

A 2 loss conference champ Texas compared to an undefeated conference champ UC would be a very interesting decision for the committee. 

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

A 2 loss conference champ Texas compared to an undefeated conference champ UC would be a very interesting decision for the committee. 

Yeah I don’t think any two loss team should be in the final four. Unless all the current top four manage to become 2 loss teams by then….🤭

[saevel25]

My Top 10 (Resume Based)

Georgia 
Michigan 
Oklahoma 
Iowa 
Cincinnati 
Michigan St 
Alabama 
Ohio State 
Penn State 
Notre Dame 

My Top 10 (Performance Based)

Georgia
Ohio State
Alabama
Florida
Michigan
Oklahoma
Penn State
Cincinnati
Iowa
Clemson
 

[klineka]

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

My Top 10 (Resume Based)

Georgia 
Michigan 
Oklahoma 
Iowa 
Cincinnati 
Michigan St 
Alabama 
Ohio State 
Penn State 
Notre Dame 

My Top 10 (Performance Based)

Georgia
Ohio State
Alabama
Florida
Michigan
Oklahoma
Penn State
Cincinnati
Iowa
Clemson
 

Why is Michigan #2 in your resume based top 10?

In the images you posted on Monday their strength of schedule thus far is 50th and they haven't even played a ranked team. Their conference wins haven't been particularly impressive either, winning by 7 against Rutgers (who OSU beat by 39) and by 3 against Nebraska. What about Michigan's resume in your opinion has them deserving the #2 spot?

Iowa's strength of schedule is 31st and they beat a top 10 team, surely they should be ahead of Michigan when comparing both resumes and performance, right? Also how can Penn State be above Iowa in a performance based top 10 when Iowa beat Penn State especially considering their strength of schedules are only 3 spots apart, 31st for Iowa and 28th for Penn State.

Florida being 4th in performance based doesn't make much sense either. Their strength of schedule is 21st, so only 10 spots better than Iowa, but Florida has 2 losses and Iowa is undefeated with a top 10 win. How does Florida deserve to be 5 spots ahead of Iowa?

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

Why is Michigan #2 in your resume based top 10?

I went to a website that has a ranking system, and shows how many teams you've beaten that are in the top 50. I took how many teams you beaten in the top 25. 

Michigan is undefeated, and has beaten 2 top 25 teams. There performance rankings shows they have done that better than a team like OU which has two top 25 wins .

I ranked by undefeated, then ranked by most wins in the top 25. If you have zero wins versus the top 25, then I might rank you below a one loss team who's loss is to a top 25 team, and who has top 25 wins. 

Obviously, my rankings could change pending the ranking system used. So, the SOS is different, but I think looking at it broken down helps with resume. You could have a team who played #1 and #2 in the nation, but then remaining 4 games are versus the bottom 25 in the nation. I think taking wins versus the top 25 is a decent way to differentiate the teams. 

Your example, Iowa has two top 25 wins. One of them is good, but only because PSU starting QB got injured. BUT, Iowa has a worse performance score. So, they have not won as decisively as Michigan. I think Michigan's resume is better. Honestly, the BIG10 west is a dumpster fire.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

Also how can Penn State be above Iowa in a performance based top 10 when Iowa beat Penn State especially considering their strength of schedules are only 3 spots apart, 31st for Iowa and 28th for Penn State.

PSU has had better wins than Iowa. I don't base performance on one game, or head to head games. Should Texas A&M be ahead of Alabama, heck no. One game is just one component. 

Iowa only won because PSU QB got hurt. So, I took PSU over Iowa for performance based. 

1 hour ago, klineka said:

Florida being 4th in performance based doesn't make much sense either. Their strength of schedule is 21st, so only 10 spots better than Iowa, but Florida has 2 losses and Iowa is undefeated with a top 10 win. How does Florida deserve to be 5 spots ahead of Iowa?

Performance is more than SOS, it is how well you have performed over the totality of your season. Losses are not the end of the story. 

Team A: 0-6 record.
Team B: 4-2 record.

You would say Team B has performed better than Team A. What if I told you that Team A played the top 6 toughest teams, and lost to them on average by less than a touchdown a game? What if i told you Team B played the 6 worst teams in the nation, and only won 4 of them on average by less than a TD, and got blown out in the two losses?

Florida loss by 2 points to Alabama, and 7 points to an undefeated Kentucky team, who looks to be good this year. So.... That is why there performance is high. They have crushed who they have supposed to crush and loss to two very good teams by less than a touchdown average. 

Yes, doing your job against inferior opponents is part of the equation. It looks really bad when Ohio State is with in 7 points of Tulsa going into the 4th quarter. People say, "Of course they look good, they played Akron, Rutgers and Maryland" The statement should be, they did what they should have done against those three. Well maybe not double the spread versus Rutgers and Maryland. That is why any performance metric is higher for the elite teams. They blow out inferior teams. 

 

[Vinsk]

50 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That is why any performance metric is higher for the elite teams. They blow out inferior teams. 

I just don’t think doing what a team is supposed to do outweighs doing what was exceptional. Blowing out inferior teams isn’t really exceptional. It’s what they should do. That logic would’ve put Boise State in the CFP for about three years straight or more in the earlier days when they were completely unmatched in the MWC. 
I agree a loss isn’t a nail in the coffin but it sure as hell should be a huge blow to performance.

Sure one can say OU being down by 21 is poor performance, but they also rallied back and won which was exceptional. The largest come back in the Red River rival ever. So you can’t praise OSU for overcoming a poor performance against Rutgers, a much weaker team than Texas, yet discredit OU for being down to Texas. Not saying you did that, just seems there’s a bit too much credit for blowing out far inferior teams.

The ranking system to me seems perplexing in that Cincinnati is ranked so high. I honestly think if OSU played Cincinnati on Saturday they’d blow them out easily. I think OU would do the same.

I wish UCF hadn’t lost their talent as that could’ve been an interesting game. I’m actually looking forward to seeing it but UCF isn’t bringing the talent they had a couple of seasons ago.

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I just don’t think doing what a team is supposed to do outweighs doing what was exceptional. Blowing out inferior teams isn’t really exceptional. It’s what they should do. That logic would’ve put Boise State in the CFP for about three years straight or more in the earlier days when they were completely unmatched in the MWC. 

That is were these metrics come into place. Boise State has been one of the best teams in terms of win %, but they have never cracked the top 4 in terms of SP+, FPI, FEI, or other metrics that look at how good a team performs versus their competition. This year, Cinci is dominating their schedule enough to be higher in the performance than Boise State has been recently. 

If Georgia was projected to win by 24, and does so by 50, that is exceptional. Only 4% of games are won by 50 or more points. So, yes blowing out a really bad team is exceptional. You can not say, "Well, Georgia is expected to win by 50..." Well, not they were not. If so, then they should do so for half of their schedule. Yet, they don't. They might cover the spread, like 24 points, but blowing out an opponent is tough to do. By blowing out, I mean winning by like 5 TD's or more for inferior opponents, and winning by like 3-TD's versus closer to equal opponents. If Georgia beats Alabama by 21 points, that is exceptional. If Georgia beats Vanderbilt by 21 points, that is not exceptional. Beating Vanderbilt by 50+ points is exceptional. 

30 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Sure one can say OU being down by 21 is poor performance, but they also rallied back and won which was exceptional. The largest come back in the Red River rival ever. So you can’t praise OSU for overcoming a poor performance against Rutgers, a much weaker team than Texas, yet discredit OU for being down to Texas. Not saying you did that, just seems there’s a bit too much credit for blowing out far inferior teams.

Well, it was a poor performance for a half. I don't care about that. They came back and won. In the end, it was a marginal win by a top 10 team versus a team that was playing like a 25th to 30th ranked team. So, I say it wasn't a good performance by OU, but they did win, which good teams do. OU should have controlled that game more. 

33 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

So you can’t praise OSU for overcoming a poor performance against Rutgers, a much weaker team than Texas, yet discredit OU for being down to Texas. Not saying you did that, just seems there’s a bit too much credit for blowing out far inferior teams.

You might mean Tulsa maybe? OSU trashed Rutgers. 

On a neutral field, you probably have Texas +18 over Rutgers Today. OU won by 7, and never really controlled the game. OSU beat Rutgers by 39, and was up 39 at the half and took the foot of the pedal. 

Only 11% of games in 2019 were won by 39 points or more. You can't say that OSU was expected to beat Rutgers by 39, when the spread was Rutgers +16.

42 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

The ranking system to me seems perplexing in that Cincinnati is ranked so high. I honestly think if OSU played Cincinnati on Saturday they’d blow them out easily. I think OU would do the same.

I am not sure the metrics know what to do with Cinci. Some have them as low as 12th, others have them high as 5th. 

 

[klineka]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Michigan is undefeated, and has beaten 2 top 25 teams. 

Who??? No team Michigan played was in the top 25 when Michigan played them. There is a BIG difference between "beating a team that was in the top 25 at some point in the season" vs. "Beating a team that is in the top 25 when you played them"

Week 1 Western Michigan - No

Week 2 Washington - No (Fell out of top 25 after losing week 1)

Week 3 Northern IL - No

Week 4 Rutgers - No

Week 5 Wisconsin - No (Fell out of top 25 after losing by 28 to Notre Dame in week 4)

Week 6 Nebraska - No

They haven't played, let alone beaten, any team that was in the top 25 when they played them.

 

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I ranked by undefeated, then ranked by most wins in the top 25. If you have zero wins versus the top 25, then I might rank you below a one loss team who's loss is to a top 25 team, and who has top 25 wins. 

Then by this logic Penn State should be ahead of, if not right behind Michigan since Penn State has a top 5 loss but also has 2 top 25 wins when they beat Wisconsin who was ranked 12th when they played each other and Auburn who was ranked 22 when they played each other. But you have Michigan 6 spots ahead of Penn State in your resume based rankings. That doesn't make sense. 

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Yes, doing your job against inferior opponents is part of the equation. It looks really bad when Ohio State is with in 7 points of Tulsa going into the 4th quarter. 

Then shouldn't it also look really bad when Michigan only beat Rutgers by 7 while OSU beat them by 39? Or that Michigan beat an unranked Nebraska team by 3, who lost to Illinois?

I'm still not seeing what about Michigan's resume deserves them to be 2nd in your resume based rankings. 0 wins against teams that were ranked in the top 25 at the time of playing (or currently are in the top 25), and 1 score games against Rutgers and Nebraska.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, klineka said:

Who??? No team Michigan played was in the top 25 when Michigan played them. There is a BIG difference between "beating a team that was in the top 25 at some point in the season" vs. "Beating a team that is in the top 25 when you played them"

Not top 25 by your list.

Top 25 by the site I used. It’s the top 25 by their metrics. I take my bias out of it for the most part. I am an OSU fan, and I can put MU as #2 if the numbers say so, not what the team name says.

3 minutes ago, klineka said:

Then by this logic Penn State should be ahead of, if not right behind Michigan since Penn State has a top 5 loss but also has 2 top 25 wins when they beat Wisconsin who was ranked 12th when they played each other and Auburn who was ranked 22 when they played each other. But you have Michigan 6 spots ahead of Penn State in your resume based rankings. That doesn't make sense. 

Who said Wisconsin was 12th? Do you know what rankings I used?

Also, it’s a resume ranking. Being undefeated matters more.

4 minutes ago, klineka said:

Then shouldn't it also look really bad when Michigan only beat Rutgers by 7 while OSU beat them by 39? Or that Michigan beat an unranked Nebraska team by 3, who lost to Illinois?

Yep, and that is why OSU is ahead of Michigan in my performance ranking (highly devalues wins, though winning means better performance generally.) and values more game control and dominance, Resume rankings is different.

You can have a 3-loss team have a high performance grade pending who they played and how they played in their wins and those losses. You can have an undefeated team who has lower performance if they squeak past weaker teams. As for resume, wins and losses matter more, I’m putting the undefeated higher. 

I prefer performance rankings over resume rankings. 

[klineka]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

Not top 25 by your list.

Top 25 by the site I used. It’s the top 25 by their metrics. 

What is your site and source of rankings then?

Because it's a pretty common assumption that when someone says "Top 25" at this point in the season (before the college football playoff committee starts) they are referencing the AP poll. 

Really curious to see the ranking criteria your site uses since the AP poll has Michigan not playing any teams ranked in the top 25 at the time of the teams playing.

8 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I take my bias out of it for the most part. I am an OSU fan, and I can put MU as #2 if the numbers say so, not what the team name says.

I am an OSU fan as well, and if the numbers indicated that Michigan's resume was the 2nd best in the country I would have no problem saying so. I'm just not seeing the stats/facts that indicate that should be the case.  

[saevel25]

18 minutes ago, klineka said:

Because it's a pretty common assumption that when someone says "Top 25" at this point in the season (before the college football playoff committee starts) they are referencing the AP poll. 

I wouldn't, the AP Poll is garbage. 

NCAA College Football Predictive Rankings & Ratings

---

NCAA College Football Predictive Rankings & Ratings from TeamRankings.com, your source for NCAAF computer power rankings.

By there rankings, Wisconsin is still top 25, and Nebraska is still top 25. 

Nebraska has lost each of their games by like 7 points or less. I think they at a certain point, they had given up or let go of 20+ points through special teams. Nebraska is not a bad team. 

21 minutes ago, klineka said:

I am an OSU fan as well, and if the numbers indicated that Michigan's resume was the 2nd best in the country I would have no problem saying so. I'm just not seeing the stats/facts that indicate that should be the case.  

Maybe I should have ranked it by top 10 wins than 11-25 wins. I just went with top 25. 

Maybe it should be Georgia, OU, Alabama, PSU, Iowa, MU, pick the next 5. 

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Maybe it should be Georgia, OU, Alabama, PSU, Iowa, MU, pick the next 5. 

Kentucky, OkSt, MSU, OleMiss, ND

[Vinsk]

Iowa gone. Double digit loss to an unranked team in your own stadium? They did it in 2018 to OhioSt. Purdue just put the buzz kill on Iowa. Bye Bye top 10 for Iowa!