RTT BlogPoll Computer Rankings: Week 10 Draft

by Hooper on Nov 8, 2009 6:00 PM EST in College Football Comment 24 comments

Here are the raw computer rankings for week 10. This is, as always, a draft for the RTT BlogPoll Ballot. Explanations and the full computer data follow after the jump. Human intervention will be applied based solely on feedback. I have my thoughts, but I'm hesitant to apply any changes without verification. This late in the season, it's pretty well certain I won't change a number without support.

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Florida
2	Texas
3	TCU
4	Alabama
5	Boise State	1
6	Cincinnati	1
7	Ohio State	9
8	Penn State	1
9	Georgia Tech	1
10	Iowa	5
11	Arizona	4
12	Oregon	4
13	Pittsburgh
14	Southern Cal	2
15	Miami (Florida)	4
16	Brigham Young	2
17	Virginia Tech
18	LSU	7
19	Utah	5
20	Oregon State
21	Wisconsin	1
22	Nebraska	1
23	Oklahoma State	1
24	West Virginia	3
25	Oklahoma	5
Last week's ballot

Dropped Out: Notre Dame (#25).

Thoughts

TCU Horned Frogs As you'll see in the numbers below, TCU is only ahead of Alabama by a sliver. The biggest difference is that TCU is significantly more successful on offense on third downs. (If you're looking for evidence that Greg McElroy is not as good as some suppose, check his performance in must-pass situations.) But otherwise it's indistinguishable here. Texas really isn't ahead by much either. But as always, the BCS championship game appears to belong to undefeated Texas and Florida/Alabama first, and our computers tend to agree.
Ohio State Buckeyes, Penn State Nittany Lions, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, and Iowa Hawkeyes These four teams are clustered together in a virtual tie. In fact, the difference between Ohio State at #7 and Iowa at #10 is roughly half that between TCU and Alabama. Talk to me. I'm listening.
Arizona Wildcats They just feel weird this high up. But again, the heart of their schedule is yet to come. They'll be either validated or destroyed in short order.
Oklahoma Sooners They don't feel like they should be in the top 25 at this point. This is why I want feedback on...
...Houston Cougars This team officially breaks the model. We've known for a while now that offense is underrepresented in our rankings (an issue we'll address in the offseason). The thing is, most teams aren't so significantly different between the two units as to be affected. Houston, however, has a +3.46 for Total Offense (Yow!) and a -1.82 for Total Defense. Depending on how you would want to go about estimating this, reversing those two numbers (and their corresponding passing and rushing metrics) would have them in the top 25. They probably should have lost to Tulsa this last weekend, but they didn't. Help me figure out where they should go. Even though they're at #43 in our computers, I want to move them in the top 25 and drop Oklahoma out. I just need the verification.

Computer Data

Here is all of the data for all 120 teams. If you're one who likes to play with the numbers, here is the chart in Excel 2003 form and in Excel 2007 form.

Untitled Document

Rank	Team	WL	SOS	PED	RD	3DO	TD	PEO	OPPG	TO	3DD	SCORE
1	Florida	1.951	0.390	2.173	1.097	0.840	2.190	1.712	2.015	1.039	1.974	148.938
2	Texas	1.951	0.035	1.692	2.093	1.139	2.218	0.967	1.692	0.905	2.646	144.361
3	TCU	1.951	0.203	1.650	1.291	0.437	2.053	2.089	1.861	1.385	1.760	139.435
4	Alabama	1.951	0.805	1.922	1.792	-0.388	2.025	0.165	1.784	0.621	1.382	136.679
5	Boise St.	1.951	-0.426	1.486	1.001	-0.144	1.530	2.019	1.199	1.112	1.300	110.070
6	Cincinnati	1.951	-0.130	0.842	0.460	0.550	0.547	2.417	1.138	1.803	-0.029	104.053
7	Ohio St.	1.110	0.259	1.691	1.391	0.252	1.825	0.023	1.864	-0.091	1.200	95.594
8	Penn St.	1.110	-0.177	1.469	1.085	1.384	1.648	0.599	1.919	0.475	1.122	95.571
9	Georgia Tech	1.531	1.348	-0.881	0.435	2.050	0.154	1.222	-0.035	1.109	-0.395	95.229
10	Iowa	1.531	0.490	1.709	0.614	0.263	1.190	-0.332	1.213	-0.509	0.329	94.059
11	Arizona	0.900	1.150	0.337	1.144	1.321	1.073	0.368	0.367	1.212	0.572	90.806
12	Oregon	1.017	1.905	1.298	0.205	-0.590	0.652	0.165	0.521	0.675	0.655	88.272
13	Pittsburgh	1.484	-0.153	0.181	0.892	1.270	0.866	1.801	1.045	0.512	0.620	88.188
14	Southern Cal	1.017	1.928	1.017	0.711	-1.182	0.483	0.206	0.922	0.497	0.733	85.604
15	Miami (FL)	1.017	1.353	0.275	0.516	0.807	0.585	1.182	0.198	0.400	0.238	85.208
16	BYU	1.017	-0.037	-0.403	0.929	3.122	0.459	2.215	0.383	1.385	-0.594	83.556
17	Virginia Tech	0.550	1.994	1.601	-0.098	-0.322	0.842	0.807	0.999	-0.225	0.816	83.306
18	LSU	1.017	1.096	1.072	0.555	0.220	0.870	0.414	1.553	-1.078	0.158	83.280
19	Utah	1.484	-0.813	1.413	0.356	0.257	1.061	0.673	1.138	0.563	1.831	72.058
20	Oregon St.	0.550	1.488	-0.260	1.043	0.993	-0.038	0.865	0.136	0.569	0.355	67.925
21	Wisconsin	1.017	0.343	-0.091	0.986	1.243	0.846	0.052	0.306	0.429	0.431	66.515
22	Nebraska	0.550	-0.116	1.963	1.180	-0.102	1.489	-0.164	1.984	-0.558	0.974	64.605
23	Oklahoma St.	1.017	-0.167	0.583	1.190	0.346	0.521	1.079	0.506	0.507	0.667	63.982
24	West Virginia	1.017	-0.104	0.652	0.807	0.868	0.525	0.426	0.521	0.253	0.701	62.100
25	Oklahoma	0.083	0.565	1.354	1.359	-0.047	1.617	-0.081	1.707	0.590	0.935	61.491
26	Clemson	0.550	0.858	1.406	0.320	-0.373	1.208	-0.401	1.014	-0.296	0.645	58.720
27	Stanford	0.550	1.369	-0.526	0.151	0.667	-0.451	1.257	0.013	1.114	-0.031	50.917
28	Tennessee	0.083	0.616	1.332	0.607	-0.159	1.133	0.557	0.798	0.373	1.030	50.369
29	Navy	0.690	0.005	0.098	0.358	1.394	0.456	0.564	0.450	-0.389	1.287	47.217
30	North Carolina	0.550	-0.135	1.324	1.245	-0.433	1.903	-1.262	1.292	-1.475	1.341	46.856
31	Mississippi	0.550	-0.088	1.395	0.200	-0.107	0.759	-0.194	1.229	0.296	2.067	44.163
32	Auburn	0.690	0.215	0.935	-0.578	0.300	0.022	1.012	-0.270	1.241	1.013	42.278
33	South Fla.	0.900	-0.878	0.939	0.336	-0.039	0.786	1.200	0.973	0.098	0.148	42.196
34	Central Mich.	1.017	-1.233	0.361	0.636	1.189	0.382	0.745	1.075	0.187	0.266	41.334
35	South Carolina	0.270	0.844	0.598	-0.013	0.025	0.954	-0.136	0.589	-0.199	0.115	38.746
36	Notre Dame	0.550	0.697	-0.484	-0.088	0.081	-0.405	1.809	0.244	1.474	-0.121	36.907
37	Air Force	0.270	-0.897	1.530	0.199	0.650	1.663	0.302	1.628	-0.655	1.533	36.786
38	California	0.550	1.082	-0.682	0.874	-0.341	-0.364	0.216	0.214	0.477	0.034	35.775
39	Texas Tech	0.550	-0.412	0.367	0.519	0.397	0.112	1.209	0.168	1.654	-0.137	34.814
40	Fresno St.	0.550	0.150	-0.034	-0.575	1.418	-0.357	1.024	0.306	1.106	0.589	34.216
41	Boston College	0.550	0.390	0.358	0.742	-0.899	0.547	-0.052	0.722	-0.709	1.098	33.743
42	Georgia	0.083	1.394	-0.401	0.563	-0.167	0.510	0.056	-0.202	-0.606	0.715	30.808
43	Houston	1.484	-0.785	-0.654	-1.752	1.553	-1.816	1.653	-0.756	3.463	-0.742	21.700
44	Michigan St.	-0.150	0.355	-0.357	1.018	-0.024	0.483	1.013	0.340	0.696	-0.122	20.461
45	UCLA	-0.384	2.115	0.462	-0.277	-1.120	0.060	-0.664	0.229	-0.985	0.501	15.412
46	Kansas	0.083	-0.463	0.183	0.638	0.462	0.292	0.439	0.060	0.915	0.173	13.886
47	Arizona St.	-0.384	0.548	0.673	1.343	-1.374	1.189	-1.070	0.861	-0.440	1.290	13.072
48	Northwestern	0.270	-0.978	-0.119	0.652	1.521	0.336	-0.103	0.187	-0.068	0.492	11.447
49	Wake Forest	-0.571	1.299	-0.047	-0.552	0.731	-0.140	0.853	0.090	0.170	-0.587	11.031
50	Missouri	0.083	0.066	-0.084	1.001	-0.681	0.371	0.191	0.029	0.135	-0.380	10.747
51	Rutgers	0.900	-1.834	0.544	0.893	-0.756	0.664	-0.125	0.991	-0.597	0.896	9.600
52	Troy	1.017	-1.298	-0.379	0.260	-0.097	-0.473	0.826	-0.202	1.377	0.221	9.391
53	Kentucky	0.083	0.562	1.064	-1.008	0.120	0.069	-1.132	0.274	-0.577	-0.338	8.588
54	Texas A&M	0.083	-0.282	-0.351	-0.246	1.852	-0.717	0.652	-0.819	1.716	0.626	7.716
55	Idaho	0.690	-0.601	-1.186	-0.247	1.615	-0.802	1.346	-0.894	1.013	-2.877	6.521
56	Arkansas	0.083	1.015	-1.222	0.208	-1.035	-0.760	1.295	-0.202	0.963	0.222	5.141
57	Kansas St.	0.270	-0.379	-0.046	0.983	-0.876	0.410	-0.288	0.298	-0.422	-0.236	3.958
58	Florida St.	-0.384	1.928	-1.676	-1.036	1.546	-1.227	0.967	-0.865	1.025	-0.545	3.898
59	La.-Monroe	0.083	-0.841	0.110	1.118	0.445	0.185	0.105	-0.449	0.354	-0.421	3.806
60	Temple	1.017	-1.606	0.003	0.895	-0.764	0.549	-0.725	0.413	-1.041	0.356	2.917
61	Washington	-0.851	2.614	-1.285	-0.453	1.556	-1.094	-0.397	-0.618	-0.200	-0.492	2.889
62	Northern Ill.	0.550	-2.181	-0.094	0.939	0.833	0.741	0.241	1.091	-0.250	0.151	2.595
63	East Carolina	0.083	-0.242	-0.091	0.516	0.546	0.035	-1.106	0.383	-0.635	-0.017	0.160
64	Duke	0.083	-0.750	0.453	0.135	-0.288	0.658	0.369	0.151	-0.161	-0.395	-0.624
65	Mississippi St.	-0.384	0.968	0.408	-0.056	-1.210	0.174	-0.866	0.013	0.098	0.662	-3.360
66	Purdue	-0.571	0.886	0.771	-0.655	0.003	-0.123	-0.365	-0.575	0.092	-0.436	-4.685
67	Connecticut	-0.384	0.656	-0.795	0.257	-0.139	-0.066	-0.105	0.151	0.520	0.370	-6.045
68	Minnesota	-0.150	1.084	-0.409	-0.489	-0.024	-0.589	-0.314	-0.326	-1.171	-1.989	-7.000
69	North Carolina St.	-0.384	-0.699	-0.385	0.646	0.993	0.482	0.768	-0.680	0.665	-0.451	-7.226
70	Nevada	0.375	-0.694	-1.900	0.718	1.052	-1.031	0.612	-0.759	2.183	-0.300	-7.868
71	Southern Miss.	0.083	-1.508	-0.288	0.617	0.518	0.002	1.067	0.105	0.863	0.222	-8.590
72	Marshall	0.083	-0.125	0.405	-0.401	-0.050	-0.443	-0.790	0.506	-0.927	-0.519	-8.861
73	UCF	0.083	-0.703	-0.762	1.390	-0.517	0.155	-0.127	0.506	-1.097	-0.667	-10.968
74	Ohio	0.550	-1.673	1.144	-0.124	-1.075	0.499	-0.637	0.567	-1.109	0.771	-11.738
75	SMU	0.083	-0.118	0.749	-0.266	-1.773	-0.265	-0.060	-0.633	-0.126	-0.580	-14.966
76	Middle Tenn.	0.550	-1.489	0.721	-0.243	-1.285	-0.143	-0.708	-0.064	0.739	0.777	-18.976
77	Virginia	-0.851	1.329	1.057	-0.505	-1.469	0.208	-1.783	-0.064	-2.017	0.382	-21.798
78	San Diego St.	-0.384	-0.221	-0.054	-0.437	0.516	-0.169	0.080	-0.741	-0.720	-1.139	-23.092
79	Baylor	-0.384	0.001	0.186	-0.365	-0.504	-0.561	-0.077	-0.003	-0.351	-0.738	-24.155
80	Iowa St.	-0.150	-0.041	-0.485	-0.578	0.371	-0.711	-0.936	0.270	-0.215	-0.519	-24.511
81	Bowling Green	-0.384	-0.044	0.051	-1.663	0.494	-0.479	-0.035	-0.525	0.336	1.083	-27.794
82	Michigan	-0.150	-0.827	-0.193	-0.310	0.120	-0.525	-0.093	-0.242	0.435	0.283	-28.058
83	Tulsa	-0.384	-1.261	-0.305	0.555	-0.648	-0.349	1.102	0.183	0.462	0.329	-32.253
84	Louisville	-0.851	0.756	-1.104	-0.121	-0.118	0.024	-0.838	-0.248	-0.325	0.049	-33.404
85	Buffalo	-0.851	-1.083	0.282	0.148	0.675	0.142	0.077	-0.202	0.555	-0.742	-34.653
86	Illinois	-0.851	0.604	-0.513	-0.401	0.219	-0.561	-0.818	-0.265	-0.169	-1.198	-34.924
87	Louisiana Tech	-0.851	-0.596	0.016	-0.793	0.813	-0.432	-0.109	-0.202	-0.244	0.025	-43.115
88	Indiana	-0.571	-0.004	-0.651	-0.359	-0.401	-0.820	-0.214	-0.533	-0.380	-1.434	-44.012
89	Kent St.	-0.150	-1.815	0.372	0.512	-1.530	0.116	-0.576	0.464	-0.587	0.066	-44.636
90	Colorado	-0.851	0.369	-0.551	-0.152	-0.288	-0.317	-1.491	-0.741	-1.326	0.852	-46.073
91	La.-Lafayette	0.083	-1.806	-0.391	-0.412	0.513	-0.507	-0.622	-0.664	-0.465	-0.990	-47.278
92	Wyoming	-0.384	-0.121	-0.357	-0.160	-1.373	-0.479	-1.638	-0.265	-1.324	0.124	-49.243
93	Toledo	-0.384	-0.995	0.033	-0.764	-0.266	-1.058	0.464	-1.772	1.072	-1.404	-50.381
94	Syracuse	-0.851	0.697	-1.825	0.900	-1.876	-0.237	-0.472	-0.525	-1.210	-0.009	-50.556
95	Hawaii	-0.851	-0.249	-1.087	-1.308	1.378	-1.103	0.442	-1.187	1.439	-1.214	-51.747
96	Colorado St.	-0.991	0.609	-1.140	-0.020	-1.077	-0.559	-0.226	-0.907	-0.526	-3.045	-55.440
97	Maryland	-1.318	0.532	-0.914	0.091	-0.228	-0.479	-0.639	-1.064	-1.038	0.044	-55.983
98	Vanderbilt	-1.411	0.502	0.399	-0.968	-0.643	0.152	-2.310	0.298	-1.063	0.227	-59.323
99	UNLV	-0.571	-0.200	-1.515	-1.544	1.615	-1.435	-0.496	-1.018	-0.443	-1.864	-60.294
100	Western Mich.	-0.571	-0.862	-0.707	-0.832	0.281	-1.374	-0.367	-0.658	-0.067	-0.188	-62.507
101	UAB	-0.384	-0.675	-1.492	-0.093	-0.778	-1.887	0.021	-1.142	0.321	-1.869	-68.170
102	Arkansas St.	-1.201	-1.337	-0.228	0.750	-1.268	0.267	-0.696	0.644	-0.830	-0.579	-70.613
103	Army	-0.851	-1.433	0.112	0.568	-1.878	1.209	-2.389	0.090	-1.821	-0.009	-72.131
104	Utah St.	-1.318	0.066	-0.454	-1.676	-0.697	-1.497	0.552	-1.172	1.021	-0.815	-77.591
105	Miami (OH)	-1.832	0.721	-0.418	-0.949	-0.781	-0.255	-0.850	-1.198	-0.606	-0.530	-77.674
106	Tulane	-0.851	-0.298	-1.799	-1.531	0.788	-1.002	-0.316	-1.772	-0.887	-2.510	-81.312
107	Akron	-1.318	-0.717	0.091	-0.497	-1.593	0.084	-0.996	-0.156	-1.523	-1.020	-82.752
108	San Jose St.	-1.651	2.066	-0.927	-2.279	-1.908	-1.535	-0.954	-1.453	-1.769	-0.749	-89.943
109	UTEP	-0.851	-0.759	-0.950	-1.539	0.157	-1.775	-0.980	-1.449	0.236	-1.426	-90.469
110	Fla. Atlantic	-1.201	-0.729	-1.250	-2.166	0.941	-1.545	0.199	-1.711	1.253	-0.348	-91.625
111	Memphis	-1.318	-0.587	-0.920	-1.072	-0.576	-1.197	-0.537	-1.187	-0.147	0.154	-94.092
112	North Texas	-1.318	-1.358	-0.342	-1.101	0.257	-1.236	-0.239	-1.895	0.512	-0.076	-94.766
113	New Mexico St.	-0.851	-0.990	0.082	-1.290	-1.112	-0.479	-2.750	-0.726	-2.545	-0.872	-96.613
114	Washington St.	-1.785	2.133	-1.772	-1.949	-2.484	-2.439	-1.135	-1.927	-1.866	-0.204	-113.046
115	FIU	-1.318	-0.545	-0.496	-2.283	-0.582	-2.131	-1.197	-1.295	-0.857	0.221	-113.680
116	Ball St.	-1.785	-1.717	-1.209	-0.290	-0.783	-0.338	-2.068	-0.587	-1.210	0.222	-130.110
117	New Mexico	-2.252	-0.172	-1.425	-0.608	-1.924	-1.135	-1.150	-1.650	-1.212	-1.691	-137.847
118	Rice	-2.252	0.283	-2.422	-1.215	-0.919	-1.551	-1.675	-2.666	-1.337	-0.786	-147.105
119	Eastern Mich.	-2.252	-0.459	-0.756	-3.447	-0.794	-1.242	-1.750	-1.958	-1.982	-1.027	-160.721
120	Western Ky.	-2.252	-0.815	-2.847	-2.801	-1.083	-2.559	-1.127	-2.759	-1.039	-2.678	-195.269

0 recs | Comment 24 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Some initial thoughts

I like the grouping of USC and Miami. Those two teams are almost identical. Look at their resumes. Impossible to pick between them (I was between these two for #12 in my Mumme Poll ballot). However, I would slide them both up because. . .

The Big 10 is way too high. I don’t know why the computers love them so much, but they do. Ohio State is clearly the best of the three. I agree with the computers on that score. But Ohio State lost to Southern Cal, has the same record, and has no superior wins. Because Southern Cal and Miami’s resumes are dead even, and both should be behind Oregon (Oregon obviously should stay above USC), I propose moving the Oregon, USC, Miami trio above the Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa trio.

Also, 10-4 on moving Houston over OU.

by Incipient_Senescence on Nov 8, 2009 6:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

How far up for Houston?

by Hooper on Nov 8, 2009 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The eyeball test

Says they shouldn’t go any higher than Miami at #15. I think you could make an argument for Houston being relatively even with any team after that. Which is not to say I think they should be #16, I just wouldn’t have an argument with anywhere from 16-25, and I do think they belong somewhere in there.

Rocky Top Talk

by Will on Nov 8, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was really hoping that Tulsa would cure my problems.

So close.

That, and a Tulsa win would have helped Boise’s resume, which could have been useful later on down the road for mid-major impudence.

by Hooper on Nov 8, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At first glance: above Oregon State.

I have no rational basis for this, though.

Eric Berry for sending the guy who wins the Heisman spinning 720 degrees in the air at the podium - or for intercepting it and returning it to where it rightfully belongs

by Graysnail on Nov 8, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I know what the problem with the Big 10 is:

They play a bunch of teams that don’t regularly employ this ‘offense’ thing, so their defensive metrics are sky-high. Granted, there is actually a lot of good defensive play in the Big 10 – especially in the top 3 – but there could very well be some skew.

Yet another reason I’d love to apply SOS adjustments to the metrics directly rather than an additive. Part of the offseason project is to see if I can make it work.

As far as USC and Miami, though – having played one fewer game than the teams atop the Big 10 right now, I don’t mind letting them sit back. Once they catch up in terms of the number of games played, I’ll worry about the distinction. USC is particularly bad about it because they play UCLA during conference championship weekend so they can have multiple bye weeks. If they’re going to game the system like that, then they can ride pine until they play the proper number of games.

by Hooper on Nov 8, 2009 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They're behind by a tenth in WL

I don’t really think that accounts for the difference or even comes particularly close. I think that if you look at resumes, you’ll find that Oregon, USC, and Miami* all look better than Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa. Observe:

Wins over top 15 teams: 3 for Oregon, USC, Miami (against USC, Ohio State, GT). 2 for the other group (both against Penn State)
Losses outside the top 30: 1 for Oregon, USC, Miami (@Washington), 2 for other group (HOME vs. Northwestern, @Purdue).
Head to head amongst the two groups: 1-0 for the former group.

Compare resumes. I have, and I honestly can’t think of a reason to vote for a single team in the latter group over a single team in the former group. I think what this shows us is that the Big 10 defensive metrics are a bit skewed, and we should adjust for them.

Also, in case you want another argument, bumping SOS to 20 jumps Oregon and USC over all three Big 10 teams. Miami has to wait, simply because their defensive metrics aren’t so good.

*I included Miami here to give three teams on each side; I consider them equivalent to USC. Obviously, USC/Oregon vs. the three Big 10s is a natural comparison, but it is uneven.

by Incipient_Senescence on Nov 8, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, shoot.

I didn’t fix the spreadsheets on the ‘no W/L’ tabs.

by Hooper on Nov 8, 2009 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's okay

I covered you on UT’s position.

by Incipient_Senescence on Nov 8, 2009 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bumping SOS to 20 also puts Georgia Tech ahead of Cincinnati.

And it puts Arizona at 9. I’m not sure that balances out much better.

The 0.1 difference in W/L only translates to a 2.5 difference in the final score. I didn’t mean to imply that it was the difference in rankings per se, but that USC and Miami have 60 fewer minutes of football to justify their numbers, and just as they could improve with another win, they can fall with another loss. A part of it it also that I really don’t like the way that USC takes advantage of the PAC-10’s lack of a championship game to get extra bye weeks. I mean, I can’t fault them for doing it. It’s the smart thing to do. But it does give them an inherent advantage over teams of other conferences because USC can make midseason adjustments twice.

In fact the only thing gained by raising their W/L to 1.1 is to move Oregon up one spot. So it alone doesn’t make that big of a difference. The rest of the metrics, however, can. As we saw with UT this week, things like SOS and the performance metrics can swing pretty substantially – especially when your strongest unit places the bench in for the final half of the game, allowing Podunk U. to run stats up.

And if I bump the Big 10 down, I necessarily move Georgia Tech and Arizona up. I don’t have a problem doing that for Tech, but I’m still weirded out by Arizona. And moving USC and Miami up would move Pittsburgh up by association. That’s a lot to take into consideration, and I want to be sure I have all those angles covered.

Believe me, I would love to move the Big 10 teams down like that. I am also predisposed against them, though, and I know that I want to see them move down. That’s why I’m pressing the issue a bit – to see how much water this bucket can hold.

by Hooper on Nov 8, 2009 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Putting GT ahead of Cincy would be bad news

You are correct. And I’m also weirded out by Arizona. But I have no problem with sticking GT at #7 and jumping the Oregon, USC, Miami trio to #8-10, with Arizona coming in behind them (or even behind them and the three Big 10 teams). That’s obviously a strong manual override, which you may be reluctant to do, but I feel like it fits the results so far, even when your computer tells me it doesn’t. The computer seems to be very strong in a lot of things, but this and Houston are spots where I think it’s wrong.

by Incipient_Senescence on Nov 8, 2009 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The offense/defense balance is definitely a fix for the offseason.

I’m still sold on defense outweighing offense on the basis of consistency, but it’s several times greater in importance right now, and that can’t be accurate. But even though it’s a known issue, I don’t like the idea of jimmying the weights around from week to week. This gives us a much clearer idea of where to take things later on.

Thanks again for the feedback, btw. I’m going to ponder over the overrides, for sure.

by Hooper on Nov 8, 2009 11:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On other subjects

Houston keeps winning; I’d put them in the teens.

The weekly “let’s try UT without WL is getting worse and worse.” We only jump to 17 this week. This is partially because our WL is getting better and partially because the Memphis second half ruined the metrics.

by Incipient_Senescence on Nov 8, 2009 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes. The Big 10 (and Houston) would be largely fixed via applying SOS adjustments directly.

We need computative power.

Eric Berry for sending the guy who wins the Heisman spinning 720 degrees in the air at the podium - or for intercepting it and returning it to where it rightfully belongs

by Graysnail on Nov 8, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs