SEC (It just means more.. even its losses are wins)

[buckeyemania11]

Not to quote an older post but thank the stars Iowa inexplicably lost to ISU early that year. Without that, those low margins of victory would have kept OSU out for sure.


Have they ever released the formula for FPI? I feel like there's no way you could get those results without purposely cooking the books.

I don't think they've ever released the actual formula but we do know that the FPI leans way too heavily on recruiting rankings and past data, this is why a team like Bama last year could lose 4 games and still be in the top 5 at the end and how Ped State is still a top 20 team this year. The baked in biases often result in little change throughout the season regardless of the actual game results.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I don't think they've ever released the actual formula but we do know that the FPI leans way too heavily on recruiting rankings and past data, this is why a team like Bama last year could lose 4 games and still be in the top 5 at the end and how Ped State is still a top 20 team this year. The baked in biases often result in little change throughout the season regardless of the actual game results.

At the very best, you could squint real hard and say they are trying to capture a "true talent" component in their FPI which any college football predictive index needs.

That said, ESPN FPI = RNG

It's all bullshit pseudo stats used to make their marketing directives look like science.

 

[BB73]

At the very best, you could squint real hard and say they are trying to capture a "true talent" component in their FPI which any college football predictive index needs.

That said, ESPN FPI = RNG

It's all bullshit pseudo stats used to make their marketing directives look like science.

Another thing, if they’re using recruiting rankings, they slant the ratings of SEC commits upwards, and then use that to say the SEC teams are better because they have ‘better talent’.

Recruiting rankings should have no place in determining which teams are the most worthy of the CFP.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Another thing, if they’re using recruiting rankings, they slant the ratings of SEC commits upwards, and then use that to say the SEC teams are better because they have ‘better talent’.

Recruiting rankings should have no place in determining which teams are the most worthy of the CFP.

In theory, not the way they actually apply it, I would disagree.

You need to have some sort of baseline idea of talent to go along with the results of the games in CFB because there is such a wide dispersion of talent.

The extreme of "no adjusting for talent" is the undefeated Mountain West team (or whatever lightweight division) taking a spot from a 3rd place B1G/SEC team that would beat them by 21 points if they played. Look to early round games of last years CFP as case in point.

 

[BB73]

In theory, not the way they actually apply it, I would disagree.

You need to have some sort of baseline idea of talent to go along with the results of the games in CFB because there is such a wide dispersion of talent.

The extreme of "no adjusting for talent" is the undefeated Mountain West team (or whatever lightweight division) taking a spot from a 3rd place B1G/SEC team that would beat them by 21 points if they played. Look to early round games of last years CFP as case in point.

I don’t see why some recruiting evaluation is needed. The BCS ranked teams using computers for years, and I don’t believe any of those used recruiting info.

All methods are flawed. Committees are subject to the biases of their members, and computers are only as good as the formulas they’re fed.

But I hate the idea of using recruiting rankings. Eventually some team would get left out because the other team had 1 more 4-star recruit, and that’s a crock.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I don’t see why some recruiting evaluation is needed. The BCS ranked teams using computers for years, and I don’t believe any of those used recruiting info.

All methods are flawed. Committees are subject to the biases of their members, and computers are only as good as the formulas they’re fed.

But I hate the idea of using recruiting rankings. Eventually some team would get left out because the other team had 1 more 4-star recruit, and that’s a crock.

Use PFF grades then or something but I think you need to have a sense of weight class in CFB. It's unique to the sport so it's going to take a unique solution.

I completely agree that the current state recruiting rankings are not an objective input into any algo.