#5 in USA Today poll - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: #5 in USA Today poll (/thread-12563.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: #5 in USA Today poll (/thread-12563.html)
#5 in USA Today poll - TreesAndBirds - 09-06-2016
http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - thunder_chik - 09-06-2016
Our 2 SoCal rivals conspicuously missing (although they still received some votes). 8)
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - washingtonismoney - 09-06-2016
Moved up in some of the computer-based stuff:
From #16 to #13 in Bill Connelly's S&P: https://twitter.com/SBN_BillC/status/773224496639553536
And from #7 to #3 in the FEI: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei
EDIT: and for some reason ESPN's FPI bumped Stanford down a spot, from #21 to #22.
EDIT2: the AP:
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/773226991864524800
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - Mick - 09-06-2016
We're still behind University of Stanky Cretins in the computer poll? How does that happen?
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - OutsiderFan - 09-06-2016
Pretty shocking to see Stanford over Michigan. I think the Coaches Poll tells us how much the coaching community respects Bill Snyder teams. And it makes clear nobody gives much credit for blowing out cupcakes.
My Top 10:
1. Bama - USC is as overrated as usual, but still a dominant win from defending champ
2. FSU - Most impressive win by pre-season Top 10 team, IMO
3. Clemson - if Auburn had a QB, they very well might have beat Clemson, but it was a road game against a very good defense
4. Ohio State - Meyer is as good a coach as Saban, IMO, and he knows what to do with talent; Oklahoma will be a test
5. Michigan - Might put them higher, but though the D is awesome, I question the QB a bit, and embarrassingly soft schedule
6. Stanford - Second best win among pre-season Top 10, IMO, but I just think Michigan has more play making talent
7. Washington - I know it was Rutgers, but that game solidified them as legit, IMO, but Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland State?
8. Houston - There was a reason they were ranked no higher than #15 in the pre-season, and OU just didn't look very good
9. Georgia - Third best win of any pre-season Top 25 team
10. Louisville - Sure they blew out Charlotte, but the ACC had a great showing in the opening week; 2-1 vs. SEC
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - washingtonismoney - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 11:36 AM)Mick link Wrote:We're still behind University of Stanky Cretins in the computer poll? How does that happen?
"(Reminder: Preseason projections still carry ~90% weight.)http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa"
It started out projected #9, and as the tweet says, preseason projections are still very important. Preseason projections liked (as usual) SC's formidable recruiting classes and returning talent. They didn't know Clay Helton is coaching them.
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - CTcard - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 11:39 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=15599.msg170244#msg170244 date=1473186964]
We're still behind University of Stanky Cretins in the computer poll? How does that happen?
"(Reminder: Preseason projections still carry ~90% weight.)http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa"
It started out projected #9, and as the tweet says, preseason projections are still very important. Preseason projections liked (as usual) SC's formidable recruiting classes and returning talent. They didn't know Clay Helton is coaching them.
[/quote]
I should go look, but ...
Do you know how S&P+ does their preseason projections?
Some preseason projections use weighted averages of previous seasons. Those would know that Helton and a parade of other question marks have coached $C. (can I use SC)
Others add in some kind of measure of returning experience (I think Connelly has written about this).
Others add in something from recruiting rankings.
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - OutsiderFan - 09-06-2016
An AP poll update wouldn't be complete without Jon Wilner's unique rankings...
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll-voter/jon-wilner
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - washingtonismoney - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 11:49 AM)CTcard link Wrote:I should go look, but ...
Do you know how S&P+ does their preseason projections?
At a high level: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/2/8/10922288/2016-college-football-rankings-projections
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - BostonCard - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 11:58 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:An AP poll update wouldn't be complete without Jon Wilner's unique rankings...
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll-voter/jon-wilner
Indeed. We might call him John "Circular Reasoning" Wilner:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/09/06/ap-top-25-football-ballot-6/
So Texas is in the #2 spot (up from 22) because they beat a good Notre Dame team. And Notre Dame is in the six hole (unchanged) because they lost a close one to Texas. That's not the way it works. If your priors were that Texas was a 22 ranked team and Notre Dame is a 6 ranked team, and Notre Dame loses to Texas, it means that it is due to some combination of Texas being better than expected and/or Notre Dame being worse than expected. That means that you might raise Texas to the top-10, but you don't leave Notre Dame at #6. Part of what gets you to a preseason #6 is that there is uncertainty behind that number. You might be better than a #6, you might be worse than a #6, but on average a #6 ranking is reasonable. When you lose to a team, even a team that might have been better than you thought, some of that uncertainty is removed. So, while Notre Dame still might be as good as a #6 team, it is unlikely to be much better than #6 (or it would have beaten Texas), and there is a chance that it is worse (maybe substantially worse, if Texas doesn't prove worthy of the #2 ranking).
I think Texas did enough to move into the top 10. It might even now be the favorite to win the BIg12, especially since Oklahoma lost. But at the same time, I think Notre Dame showed enough vulnerabilities that you would move it out of the top-10.
But logic never really worked with the circular reasoning one.
BC
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - CrazedZooChimp - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 11:39 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=15599.msg170244#msg170244 date=1473186964]
We're still behind University of Stanky Cretins in the computer poll? How does that happen?
"(Reminder: Preseason projections still carry ~90% weight.)http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa"
It started out projected #9, and as the tweet says, preseason projections are still very important. Preseason projections liked (as usual) SC's formidable recruiting classes and returning talent. They didn't know Clay Helton is coaching them.
[/quote]
I would guess they're also a little more forgiving to a team losing on the road to the top team in the country than humans are. Granted $C lost horribly, but most human polls oddly punish teams for losing games they're expected to lose. The computers tend to punish the number in the loss column less than who they lost to or how they lost. Of course, since it was a blow out, I don't fault any humans for throwing them out of the polls. However, I would not have dropped UCLA from the polls for losing in OT to a team that they weren't actually favored against.
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - BostonCard - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 12:28 PM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:I would guess they're also a little more forgiving to a team losing on the road to the top team in the country than humans are. Granted $C lost horribly, but most human polls oddly punish teams for losing games they're expected to lose. The computers tend to punish the number in the loss column less than who they lost to or how they lost. Of course, since it was a blow out, I don't fault any humans for throwing them out of the polls. However, I would not have dropped UCLA from the polls for losing in OT to a team that they weren't actually favored against.
I disagree. Even if UCLA was marginally expected to lose the game prior to playing it, it was not disfavored overwhelmingly. You might assign TAMU an a priori 60% chance of winning and UCLA a 40% chance of winning. Once the game is played, the uncertainty goes away, and TAMU has 1 win, while UCLA has 1 loss. So, even if the loss wasn't unexpected, the uncertainty is now gone, and UCLA no longer has the possibility to upset A&M. Thus, you would expect the computers to punish UCLA. Moreover, the spread was only a couple points, and UCLA lost by a touchdown. Although it was overtime, and therefore can be considered closer than the score, that I know of, most computers only look at score differential. So I would expect UCLA to be punished, at least a little bit, by the computers.
From the humans perspective, it boils down to a ranked team losing to an unranked one.
BC
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - stupac2 - 09-06-2016
USC didn't just lose horribly, they were completely outclassed. The post I did looking at ypp differentials showed them as having essentially been an FCS team on the receiving end of a beat-down by a top-10 team, that's how bad it was. It makes some sense that computer systems don't react to strongly to the first game because it was just one game, but that beatdown was so thorough that it's definitely a weird result. USC did nothing to justify being ranked in that game, unless you count "looked pretty good in the first quarter before completely imploding" as a positive result.
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - CTcard - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 12:21 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Indeed. We might call him John "Circular Reasoning" Wilner:
I am a little torn on Mr. Circular Reasoning.
I like the fact that he tries to bring logic to his choices, doesn't stick slavishly to what he did the week before, and wants to primarily base his choices on results. But, he doesn't seem to quite understand what he is doing, opening himself up to both circular reasoning and arbitrary data selection.
The key problem right now is that he wants his ballot to be completely results based despite the fact it is week #1, so only a few teams have played reasonable opponents and even among the others we don't really know how good any team is yet.
So there are all sorts of odd things in there.
I'll choose the one affecting Stanford for now.
Quote:Once we account for the teams with marquee victories, the guesswork truly begins with Ohio State, Michigan, TCU, Washington and Stanford in the No. 9 13 spots all teams that I believe are top shelf but didnt record substantive results.
Well, one of those teams played a Power 5 opponent that was in a bowl game last year, and generally expected to be better this year. Naturally that team came in at the end of this list. Another struggled with an FCS team; they came in mid-group.
And not quite apropos of anything, looking over the ESPN list of scores for Week #1 is kind of funny in that there is one team that appears twice. And they put in some serious travel miles. Sure hoped Michigan paid up the big bucks.
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - 2006alum - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 12:21 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=15599.msg170258#msg170258 date=1473188304]
An AP poll update wouldn't be complete without Jon Wilner's unique rankings...
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll-voter/jon-wilner
Indeed. We might call him John "Circular Reasoning" Wilner:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/09/06/ap-top-25-football-ballot-6/
So Texas is in the #2 spot (up from 22) because they beat a good UFDFG team. And UFDFG is in the six hole (unchanged) because they lost a close one to Texas. That's not the way it works. If your priors were that Texas was a 22 ranked team and UFDFG is a 6 ranked team, and UFDFG loses to Texas, it means that it is due to some combination of Texas being better than expected and/or UFDFG being worse than expected. That means that you might raise Texas to the top-10, but you don't leave UFDFG at #6. Part of what gets you to a preseason #6 is that there is uncertainty behind that number. You might be better than a #6, you might be worse than a #6, but on average a #6 ranking is reasonable. When you lose to a team, even a team that might have been better than you thought, some of that uncertainty is removed. So, while UFDFG still might be as good as a #6 team, it is unlikely to be much better than #6 (or it would have beaten Texas), and there is a chance that it is worse (maybe substantially worse, if Texas doesn't prove worthy of the #2 ranking).
I think Texas did enough to move into the top 10. It might even now be the favorite to win the BIg12, especially since Oklahoma lost. But at the same time, I think UFDFG showed enough vulnerabilities that you would move it out of the top-10.
But logic never really worked with the circular reasoning one.
BC
[/quote]
I also love how Texas A&M is 8 and UCLA is unranked. One undropped pass and the outcome of that game changes. So that one dropped pass is the difference between unranked and #8 in the country??
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - CTcard - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 01:25 PM)2006alum link Wrote:I also love how Texas A&M is 8 and UCLA is unranked. One undropped pass and the outcome of that game changes. So that one dropped pass is the difference between unranked and #8 in the country??
Wilner has UCLA ranked #16, one spot up from their preseason ranking.
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - 2006alum - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 01:25 PM)CTcard link Wrote:And not quite apropos of anything, looking over the ESPN list of scores for Week #1 is kind of funny in that there is one team that appears twice. And they put in some serious travel miles. Sure hoped Michigan paid up the big bucks.
Nice spot. It's worth noting Hawaii played in Australia, too, so talk about jet lag. Isn't that something like 12 hour difference? Makes our Northwestern wake-up call from last year seem like nothing by comparison.
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - 2006alum - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 01:29 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=2006alum link=topic=15599.msg170275#msg170275 date=1473193556]
I also love how Texas A&M is 8 and UCLA is unranked. One undropped pass and the outcome of that game changes. So that one dropped pass is the difference between unranked and #8 in the country??
Wilner has UCLA ranked #16, one spot up from their preseason ranking.
[/quote]
Weird - the rankings list I'm looking at has them no where to be found.
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - CTcard - 09-06-2016
(09-06-2016, 01:30 PM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15599.msg170278#msg170278 date=1473193761]
[quote author=2006alum link=topic=15599.msg170275#msg170275 date=1473193556]
I also love how Texas A&M is 8 and UCLA is unranked. One undropped pass and the outcome of that game changes. So that one dropped pass is the difference between unranked and #8 in the country??
Wilner has UCLA ranked #16, one spot up from their preseason ranking.
[/quote]
Weird - the rankings list I'm looking at has them no where to be found.
[/quote]
To be clear, UCLA is not ranked overall, but neither is Texas A&M ranked #8.
In the link that BC gives above, Wilner has Texas AM at #8 and UCLA at #16 and he uses that game as an example why he doesn't drop teams that lose close games to good opponents.
Re: #5 in USA Today poll - 2006alum - 09-06-2016
Ah. For some reason his ballot omits his votes for teams #15 and 16, which is why I didn't see UCLA.