Week 1 Games

Status
Not open for further replies.
#353      
Washington did not look great either.
I wasn't overly impressed with Washington though I'm always intrigued by a team that has 'zagged' from the traditional ways of doing things.

Washington has skill players that are legitimate track star quick/shifty/fast. But they are....well track star body types. Some of the smallest skill position players I saw yesterday was on their team.

Is it possible they keep those guys healthy over the course of the season? Time will tell. But if they can, we will have a hard time stopping them in the open field. Washington won't be able to stop our run game IMO but it's a truly intriguing matchup of old school PAC 12/West Coast speed against traditional pro-style body types.

If Gabe Jacas gets a good hit on their QB early it could alter the rest of the game. Like the dude can't be more than a buck-75.
 
#358      
Since FPI shows no correlation whatsoever to performance on the field, what’s its value? Football Prestige Index?

Seriously, I was always taught you test your model before trusting it. This one is clearly a steaming load. ESPN should be embarrassed.
 
#361      
Since FPI shows no correlation whatsoever to performance on the field, what’s its value? Football Prestige Index?

Seriously, I was always taught you test your model before trusting it. This one is clearly a steaming load. ESPN should be embarrassed.
It's a projected performance index on a neutral field.
So if you win on the road, higher value.
Win at home not as much.

But weirdly it also projects recruiting rankings of your team into that index, which is why the SEC pushed soo hard for it. It's a good idea in theory if recruiting rankings were perfect and didn't skew based on legacy. However, we know how that works...
 
#362      
Almost all the major games this week have been sloppy messes. I'm sure top defenses play into it a bit, but just tons of missed passes, missed blocking assignments leading to low scoring games. Very few of the offensive game plans looked clean, basically just Utah so far.

EDIT: Which is why, I'm sure, a large number of teams open with the Western Illinois' of the world.
 
#363      
It's a projected performance index on a neutral field.
So if you win on the road, higher value.
Win at home not as much.

But weirdly it also projects recruiting rankings of your team into that index, which is why the SEC pushed soo hard for it. It's a good idea in theory if recruiting rankings were perfect and didn't skew based on legacy. However, we know how that works...
Nice theory, but if it doesn’t really predict performance, what’s the point? Would any sane person place bets based on FPI? If not, what does that say about its predictive value?
 
#364      
Nice theory, but if it doesn’t really predict performance, what’s the point? Would any sane person place bets based on FPI? If not, what does that say about its predictive value?
Ohhhh absolutely not!!! It's the laughingstock of metrics on CFB Twitter.

It's truly something the SEC has pushed into college playoff metrics to propagate more of their own teams making it into the playoff.

All you have to do is see Texas at #1 after losing to the #3 and you know it's a complete joke.
I get it--home game and whatnot. But on top of losing to Ohio State, your once in a generation/Heisman frontrunner (supposedly) looked absolutely mediocre. AFTER his recruitment rankings put him as 1.00....NO NOT .99 like most 5 star QBs. This was can't miss day 1 starter according to rankings.

So in ONE GAME. Everything FPI is based off of has became a total failure. (Obviously, don't get me started on Alabama) As the whole country, notes that this ISN'T Saban's Bama... FPI is still showing them as a barn burner.


BAD WEEK FOR ESPN. 😂
 
#365      
Seems like giving all the major conference teams a salary cap has brought parity to the game. You don’t have the Alabamas anymore hoarding talent in their 2/3 Deep and even the top guys are more likely to go wherever the most money is instead of wherever the most historical prestige is
 
#366      
Ohhhh absolutely not!!! It's the laughingstock of metrics on CFB Twitter.

It's truly something the SEC has pushed into college playoff metrics to propagate more of their own teams making it into the playoff.

All you have to do is see Texas at #1 after losing to the #3 and you know it's a complete joke.
I get it--home game and whatnot. But on top of losing to Ohio State, your once in a generation/Heisman frontrunner (supposedly) looked absolutely mediocre. AFTER his recruitment rankings put him as 1.00....NO NOT .99 like most 5 star QBs. This was can't miss day 1 starter according to rankings.

So in ONE GAME. Everything FPI is based off of has became a total failure. (Obviously, don't get me started on Alabama) As the whole country, notes that this ISN'T Saban's Bama... FPI is still showing them as a barn burner.


BAD WEEK FOR ESPN. 😂
I have no good things to say about FPI. It seems like by far the worst advanced metric.

But — SP+ did have Ohio St’s post game win expectancy at just 18%. By far the lowest of any team who won in week one.
 
#367      
I have no good things to say about FPI. It seems like by far the worst advanced metric.

But — SP+ did have Ohio St’s post game win expectancy at just 18%. By far the lowest of any team who won in week one.
I'm not a huge metrics guy but ESPECIALLY NOT in football. Anything that requires tight unit cohesion, execution, and explosive short bursts of violence is not meant to be projected by a spreadsheet (my opinion alone).

If you want to use any projected value for recruiting...I'd suggest instead utilizing Coach weighted value. I think guys like Kirk Ferentz, Bret Bielema, etc who have proven year after years that they can win with 3 and low 4 stars holds as much weight towards a win over what 247 Sports classified your Cornerback as.

If Bama was being rated #10 after a loss AND Saban was the coach...think we would collectively agree that holds more value in a given ranking than a conglomeration of Stars given to 17 years olds multiple years prior.
 
#371      
I'm not a huge metrics guy but ESPECIALLY NOT in football. Anything that requires tight unit cohesion, execution, and explosive short bursts of violence is not meant to be projected by a spreadsheet (my opinion alone).

If you want to use any projected value for recruiting...I'd suggest instead utilizing Coach weighted value. I think guys like Kirk Ferentz, Bret Bielema, etc who have proven year after years that they can win with 3 and low 4 stars holds as much weight towards a win over what 247 Sports classified your Cornerback as.

If Bama was being rated #10 after a loss AND Saban was the coach...think we would collectively agree that holds more value in a given ranking than a conglomeration of Stars given to 17 years olds multiple years prior.
I agree the FPI metric would be immeasurably more meaningful with objective coaching factor rather than recruiting rankings poisoned by prestige assumptions.

However, metrics like SP+ are hugely beneficial for comparing teams across wildly different schedules and outcomes. Ohio State won the game yesterday, but Texas was the better team for much of the game. They got the 4th down stops they needed and Arch was off on open receivers, and that was enough in a sloppy game.

It's largely successful as a predictive measure as well, exemplified by its Illinois prediction this weekend, 52-6.
 
#372      
I didn't think ND would drop below Illinois with a loss tonight, but if they continue to look this bad then maybe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back