Not that ESPN is in the playoff committee room, but these two sets of computer ratings from the TV partner of the the college playoff don't look good for East Carolina. They take into account SOS.
Football Power Index
24 Marshall
40 Memphis
46 East Carolina
Team Efficiencies
16 Marshall
24 Memphis
30 East Carolina
FPI is just a prediction tool. It's basically ranking Marshall higher than ECU because the software has predicted that Marshall has a higher chance of winning out. Not necessarily something I would use to tell me who's getting the access bowl slot.
if marshall gets the bid........ they will potentially get blown out of the water like hawaii was. this will ruin any progress that UCF made for the G5. talking heads will then go stating "this is why the G5 should not be on the same level"....... while completely ignoring what happened last year.
all they want is an excuse to ignore it.
SMU is rated really low...hurting ECU's SOS. It will play itself out as the games play out.
This is a predictor mechanism, not a current ranking.
Don't kid yourself. While one predicts records, the other is essentially a power rating.
(10-13-2014 02:35 PM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]Don't kid yourself. While one predicts records, the other is essentially a power rating.
You are right and it is worth just as much as any other computer ranking…What bothers me more about this one if the fact that it does not even tell you how it is calculated. Appears based on the ranking of teams that it is heavy on point differential and SOS. I have a hard time putting much credence in it since it ranks us below Va Tech, a team we beat on the road.
(10-13-2014 02:35 PM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]Don't kid yourself. While one predicts records, the other is essentially a power rating.
Yet the ESPN Power Rankings voted on by real 'experts' (not computers) has ECU at #17 and Marshall is unranked.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/powerrankings
No doubt that the talent at ESPN has been pushing the American for that access bowl slot. Probably because of our attendance and Marshall's crappy schedule. If the talent is representative of management view's, then East Carolina is in great position.
Think about this storyline: East Carolina returns to glory: Back to the Peach 23 years later
(10-13-2014 04:30 PM)NBPirate Wrote: [ -> ]Think about this storyline: East Carolina returns to glory: Back to the Peach 23 years later
I wouldn't count your proverbial chickens until after your date with the reigning champs, although I will concede if we both win out until that game ECU will be favored at home.
I am very surprised to see Memphis ranked ahead of ECU. I bleed blue, but I am suspicious of the ranking's validity.
(10-13-2014 04:50 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ]I am very surprised to see Memphis ranked ahead of ECU. I bleed blue, but I am suspicious of the ranking's validity.
No computer ranking has validity…The only way to know for sure is head to head on the field. There are tons of these computer rankings….There is one site that compiles all these computer rankings for each team. It is crazy the range of rankings there are for most teams. Like ECU for example, there are some rankings that have us almost in the top 10 and there is another computer ranking that has us in the low 60's.
I have never understood why people get so worked up over these computer rankings….For every one that makes you look bad you can find another that makes you look like a National Championship contender.
(10-13-2014 05:52 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 04:50 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ]I am very surprised to see Memphis ranked ahead of ECU. I bleed blue, but I am suspicious of the ranking's validity.
No computer ranking has validity…The only way to know for sure is head to head on the field. There are tons of these computer rankings….There is one site that compiles all these computer rankings for each team. It is crazy the range of rankings there are for most teams. Like ECU for example, there are some rankings that have us almost in the top 10 and there is another computer ranking that has us in the low 60's.
I have never understood why people get so worked up over these computer rankings….For every one that makes you look bad you can find another that makes you look like a National Championship contender.
The NCAA Football Selection Committee will use computer ranking data of some sort. It is the reason people are concerned with computer rankings.
Quote: The committee will have a virtual bank vault full of data at their fingertips, provided by a company called SportSource Analytics, to help them judge teams.
Bartoo is concerned about information overload and the committee using numbers that have not been properly vetted.
"Who is helping with oversight on that?" he said. "Can the playoff committee call me? 'We think this metric is valuable, can you back test it for that?' "
The BCS taught college football fans there is no perfect way of picking the best teams. That won't change with the College Football Playoff.
"They will do the best they can and I'm confident they'll pick the best four teams," Hancock said. "Some other group of 13 people might come up with different teams, but our group will spend a season evaluating teams unlike any other group with fall. More time watching video and analyzing data than any other group.
"But I certainly know that another group of 13 might come up with something different."
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/articl...e-criteria
(10-13-2014 06:28 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 05:52 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 04:50 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ]I am very surprised to see Memphis ranked ahead of ECU. I bleed blue, but I am suspicious of the ranking's validity.
No computer ranking has validity…The only way to know for sure is head to head on the field. There are tons of these computer rankings….There is one site that compiles all these computer rankings for each team. It is crazy the range of rankings there are for most teams. Like ECU for example, there are some rankings that have us almost in the top 10 and there is another computer ranking that has us in the low 60's.
I have never understood why people get so worked up over these computer rankings….For every one that makes you look bad you can find another that makes you look like a National Championship contender.
The NCAA Football Selection Committee will use computer ranking data of some sort. It is the reason people are concerned with computer rankings.
Quote: The committee will have a virtual bank vault full of data at their fingertips, provided by a company called SportSource Analytics, to help them judge teams.
Bartoo is concerned about information overload and the committee using numbers that have not been properly vetted.
"Who is helping with oversight on that?" he said. "Can the playoff committee call me? 'We think this metric is valuable, can you back test it for that?' "
The BCS taught college football fans there is no perfect way of picking the best teams. That won't change with the College Football Playoff.
"They will do the best they can and I'm confident they'll pick the best four teams," Hancock said. "Some other group of 13 people might come up with different teams, but our group will spend a season evaluating teams unlike any other group with fall. More time watching video and analyzing data than any other group.
"But I certainly know that another group of 13 might come up with something different."
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/articl...e-criteria
First of all this does not change anything about the fact that computer rankings can not determine for fact that team A is better than team B.
Secondly the Playoff Committee will not be using computer polls..They have said as much. What they have said is that they are going to look at a teams statistical numbers and that is what this article is talking about.
(10-13-2014 06:51 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 06:28 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 05:52 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 04:50 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ]I am very surprised to see Memphis ranked ahead of ECU. I bleed blue, but I am suspicious of the ranking's validity.
No computer ranking has validity…The only way to know for sure is head to head on the field. There are tons of these computer rankings….There is one site that compiles all these computer rankings for each team. It is crazy the range of rankings there are for most teams. Like ECU for example, there are some rankings that have us almost in the top 10 and there is another computer ranking that has us in the low 60's.
I have never understood why people get so worked up over these computer rankings….For every one that makes you look bad you can find another that makes you look like a National Championship contender.
The NCAA Football Selection Committee will use computer ranking data of some sort. It is the reason people are concerned with computer rankings.
Quote: The committee will have a virtual bank vault full of data at their fingertips, provided by a company called SportSource Analytics, to help them judge teams.
Bartoo is concerned about information overload and the committee using numbers that have not been properly vetted.
"Who is helping with oversight on that?" he said. "Can the playoff committee call me? 'We think this metric is valuable, can you back test it for that?' "
The BCS taught college football fans there is no perfect way of picking the best teams. That won't change with the College Football Playoff.
"They will do the best they can and I'm confident they'll pick the best four teams," Hancock said. "Some other group of 13 people might come up with different teams, but our group will spend a season evaluating teams unlike any other group with fall. More time watching video and analyzing data than any other group.
"But I certainly know that another group of 13 might come up with something different."
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/articl...e-criteria
First of all this does not change anything about the fact that computer rankings can not determine for fact that team A is better than team B.
Secondly the Playoff Committee will not be using computer polls..They have said as much. What they have said is that they are going to look at a teams statistical numbers and that is what this article is talking about.
The salient fact affecting ECU, for better or worse, is the Committee will use computer data to rank teams. It is irrelevant if it is proper or appropriate.
My response was intended to address your specific statement about not understanding "why people get so worked up over these computer rankings." You did not mention computer polls and indeed the OP links did not concern polls and polls were not part of any post made in this thread.
Hopefully, the Committee will use metrics properly placing ECU for the Access Bowl spot. It is important for our new league to continue the credibility won by UCF last year.
Most of the debates about the selection committee are probably off base from how they will actually conduct business. It will be interesting to see their first published poll in a couple of weeks.
(10-13-2014 07:40 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 06:51 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 06:28 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 05:52 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2014 04:50 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ]I am very surprised to see Memphis ranked ahead of ECU. I bleed blue, but I am suspicious of the ranking's validity.
No computer ranking has validity…The only way to know for sure is head to head on the field. There are tons of these computer rankings….There is one site that compiles all these computer rankings for each team. It is crazy the range of rankings there are for most teams. Like ECU for example, there are some rankings that have us almost in the top 10 and there is another computer ranking that has us in the low 60's.
I have never understood why people get so worked up over these computer rankings….For every one that makes you look bad you can find another that makes you look like a National Championship contender.
The NCAA Football Selection Committee will use computer ranking data of some sort. It is the reason people are concerned with computer rankings.
Quote: The committee will have a virtual bank vault full of data at their fingertips, provided by a company called SportSource Analytics, to help them judge teams.
Bartoo is concerned about information overload and the committee using numbers that have not been properly vetted.
"Who is helping with oversight on that?" he said. "Can the playoff committee call me? 'We think this metric is valuable, can you back test it for that?' "
The BCS taught college football fans there is no perfect way of picking the best teams. That won't change with the College Football Playoff.
"They will do the best they can and I'm confident they'll pick the best four teams," Hancock said. "Some other group of 13 people might come up with different teams, but our group will spend a season evaluating teams unlike any other group with fall. More time watching video and analyzing data than any other group.
"But I certainly know that another group of 13 might come up with something different."
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/articl...e-criteria
First of all this does not change anything about the fact that computer rankings can not determine for fact that team A is better than team B.
Secondly the Playoff Committee will not be using computer polls..They have said as much. What they have said is that they are going to look at a teams statistical numbers and that is what this article is talking about.
The salient fact affecting ECU, for better or worse, is the Committee will use computer data to rank teams. It is irrelevant if it is proper or appropriate.
My response was intended to address your specific statement about not understanding "why people get so worked up over these computer rankings." You did not mention computer polls and indeed the OP links did not concern polls and polls were not part of any post made in this thread.
Hopefully, the Committee will use metrics properly placing ECU for the Access Bowl spot. It is important for our new league to continue the credibility won by UCF last year.
Semantics…Computer Rankings and Computer Polls are the same thing and you know it. The bottom line is that the Playoff Committee has stated that they will not use Computer Rankings/Polls, human or computer, as part of their decision making process. All we can do at this point is take them at their word but we all know it is only human nature to be swayed by these things. See below for the "data" that will be used by the Committee taken directly from the Official Playoff Committee website:
"Data
Selection Committee members will have a wealth of information including review of video, statistics and their own expertise to guide them in their deliberations. They will emphasize obvious factors like win-loss records, strength of schedule, conference championships won, head-to-head results and results against common opponents. The playoff group has retained SportSource Analytics to provide the data platform for the committee’s use. While the details of the platform have not been finalized, it is anticipated that it will include countless pieces of statistical information for every Football Bowl Subdivision team. It will also include general information such as each team’s opponents’ record and opponents’ opponents’ records. The platform will allow the committee members to compare and contrast every team on every level possible.
It should be noted that the committee will not use a single data point such as the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) that is used for NCAA championships."
(10-13-2014 07:50 PM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]Most of the debates about the selection committee are probably off base from how they will actually conduct business. It will be interesting to see their first published poll in a couple of weeks.
Waiting until a decent amount of information about the teams is the only legitimate way to conduct a poll. I'd be very interested in comparing the polls for the first couple of weeks versus what we have now or, better, two weeks from now. I suspect more than a few teams would have made dramatic moves.
(10-13-2014 12:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]Not that ESPN is in the playoff committee room, but these two sets of computer ratings from the TV partner of the the college playoff don't look good for East Carolina. They take into account SOS.
Football Power Index
24 Marshall
40 Memphis
46 East Carolina
Team Efficiencies
16 Marshall
24 Memphis
30 East Carolina
They must not care about SOS too much. Marshall has one of the weakest schedules of any FBS team in the last decade.