forums

#23 in initial SP+ ranking

OrangeBowlMagic

OrangeBowlMagic

CEO
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
14,182
Link below, but here’s the snippet about Miami:


SP+ seemed to have a strange crush on Manny Diaz's Hurricanes last year, continuing to rank them in the top 30 no matter how many unlikely ways they found to lose football games. A combination of bad breaks and bad offense led to a 6-7 finish, and while Diaz can't do much about the former, he addressed the latter by bringing in not only a new offensive coordinator (Rhett Lashlee) but also Houston quarterback D'Eriq King.
The U also brings back five of its top seven receivers and basically every offensive lineman. The defensive front seven will need a lot of new contributors to step up (the addition of star Temple end Quincy Roche will help), but the secondary is seasoned, at least, and there aren't usually many reasons to doubt a Diaz defense.




www.espn.com

Alabama tops preseason SP+ college football rankings

The first version of SP+ rankings for 2020 has Alabama at No. 1 and is surprisingly high on Texas. Where does your team fit?
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
Advertisement
My understanding of SP+ is that it's a quantitative metric without subjectivity, and therefore can't have "a crush" or any other sort of bias.
 
Advertisement
CashMoneyCane said:
My understanding of SP+ is that it's a quantitative metric without subjectivity, and therefore can't have "a crush" or any other sort of bias.
Click to expand...

You're reading a little too much into that. You're correct, but what he's saying is Miami kept losing games, yet never really fell much in his ranking tool. The reason being, they kept losing games that his metric felt they should've won. He talks about it often...if you lose games that you dominate and the metrics think you should've won, you don't drop much in his rankings. You can win games and drop, however, if you get lucky and win. It's a predictive tool, not a resume rank.
 
I get no one cares about what other teams do in the Coastal do. But best case scenario is we elevate our game and beat teams that are also getting to 9-10 wins. UNC, UVA, VT winning non con games and just makes us look better when we beat them.
 
Not getting over hyped but if King can stay healthy. The OL grows and the LB are somehow able to stop being Elijah Price. This season can be a pretty solid year vs what we just seen.

There is a lot of if's, but it is possible with this swiss cheese schedule.
 
If I'm reading this correctly, they still don't trust our offense, ranking them 63rd.
Our D ranks 9th.

I could see a lot of the polls going this way. 5-loss p5 teams usually round-out the top 25.

Here's to hoping for a 2-3 loss season and a top-15 finish
:chugger: :neonu:
 
Advertisement
OrangeBowlMagic said:
You're reading a little too much into that. You're correct, but what he's saying is Miami kept losing games, yet never really fell much in his ranking tool. The reason being, they kept losing games that his metric felt they should've won. He talks about it often...if you lose games that you dominate and the metrics think you should've won, you don't drop much in his rankings. You can win games and drop, however, if you get lucky and win. It's a predictive tool, not a resume rank.
Click to expand...

I figured that might be the case, but I'm also a nerd for all things statistics, and very interested in the notion of "luck" as a statistical measure. So I couldn't help but chime in.

As for the behavior of the rankings, if true and repeatable, sounds like a problem with the metric itself. But I'd have to dig further into the formula to really form an opinion on that, which I'm not gonna do.
 
Advertisement
NJshoreCane said:
If I'm reading this correctly, they still don't trust our offense, ranking them 63rd.
Our D ranks 9th.

I could see a lot of the polls going this way. 5-loss p5 teams usually round-out the top 25.

Here's to hoping for a 2-3 loss season and a top-15 finish
:chugger: :neonu:
Click to expand...
If the offense is even Top 50 this thing changes a lot. I’d say that’s a pretty conservative offensive estimate. Defense was at 9, so that may be a little aggressive given the new LBs.
 
CashMoneyCane said:
My understanding of SP+ is that it's a quantitative metric without subjectivity, and therefore can't have "a crush" or any other sort of bias.
Click to expand...
While not a bias, it doesn’t account for coaching...

either above or below average coaching will always impact Ws and Ls, but it’s reflected in measurements of player talent or performance.

Another example showing us why it’s not just jimmys and joes that win football games.
 
1mg of Epi said:
While not a bias, it doesn’t account for coaching...

either above or below average coaching will always impact Ws and Ls, but it’s reflected in measurements of player talent or performance.

Another example showing us why it’s not just jimmys and joes that win football games.
Click to expand...

I think there's a very valid argument that you cannot account for coaching due to:

1) Too many intangible factors, and
2) Small sample size.

My initial reaction is you just look at win %age and factor that in, but what do you do with a first year head coach?

Too many randoms to quantify.
 
Advertisement
CashMoneyCane said:
I think there's a very valid argument that you cannot account for coaching due to:

1) Too many intangible factors, and
2) Small sample size.

My initial reaction is you just look at win %age and factor that in, but what do you do with a first year head coach?

Too many randoms to quantify.
Click to expand...

exactly... a first year HC can’ really be evaluated in that way. Really neither can first year coordinators etc.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top