Way Too Early 2018 Conference USA Power Rankings from
sbnation
Code:
# Team Rec-Imp Ret-Prod Rec-Hist S&P+
31 FAU 77 12 107 8.7
62 Marshall 80 46 79 1.9
70 LaTech 86 61 74 -0.4
83 MTSU 93 70 88 -2.9
86 UNT 99 65 113 -3.6
90 WKU 85 98 37 -4.6
91 UAB 117 76 97 -5.0
94 USM 74 97 92 -6.0
104 UTSA 76 106 101 -8.4
114 ODU 122 108 104 -11.5
120 FIU 83 121 126 -12.8
126 Charlotte 112 120 130 -15.2
128 Rice 123 127 111 -16.2
130 UTEP 127 129 127 -20.3
It does not matter in any significant way and should be considered as nothing more than throwing darts blind-folded. It is, however, notable how lowly we are ranked as a conference. Above MAC and SunBelt but below everyone else (which is neither a secret nor a news)
Charlotte's probably about right. I'm guessing the number of starters kept up from being 130.
FIU is coming off an 8-5 season, but is ranked 120th. Okay.
(02-12-2018 05:07 PM)Fish Wrote: [ -> ]FIU is coming off an 8-5 season, but is ranked 120th. Okay.
Yeah I’m surprised by this as well. FIU has recruited well and are clearly under better coaching with the new staff. Do you guys lose Alex McGough? Maybe that’s part of the reasoning?
(02-12-2018 05:07 PM)Fish Wrote: [ -> ]FIU is coming off an 8-5 season, but is ranked 120th. Okay.
Has to do with what they're ranking. Our recruiting Class was #1 in C-USA and #5 G5 (with two of the three 4*'s signed) yet is ranked mid-pack in the conference. Returning Production is looking at loss of starting QB, top receiver and rusher though does not take into consideration 4* red-shirt Soph. transfer from BGSU, our highly regarded returning receivers and our depth at running back. It also weights performance over the last five years, giving no consideration to the new coaching staff or the most recent season.
All in all, this ranking leaves much to be desired. May generally be a good over all index, but has some huge holes in it.
James Morgon has not lived up to his ranking at all.
His completion percentage was under.50 percent last year in 7 games.
FIU lost a lot of talent and I believe will be a year away from competing for the conference.
This has as much meaning as recruiting ranking I read on here in July.
POINTLESS
I don't agree with FIU's low ranking but I can see why they ranked them there, lots of unknowns as far as production for the coming year. Possible to take a step back this year, just to in turn explode the next year........
(02-12-2018 07:40 PM)owlcountry40 Wrote: [ -> ]James Morgon has not lived up to his ranking at all.
His completion percentage was under.50 percent last year in 7 games.
FIU lost a lot of talent and I believe will be a year away from competing for the conference.
My only question is whether he's as strong a QB as Alex McGough in Butch's system. My guess is that he'll be as least as good. As for the rest of the offense, we lost 4 out of 15 on the OL, 1 out of 11 in the receiving corp, 1 of 6 TE's and 1 of 9 at the running back position. It all goes on the QB and I feel confident having a graduate RS-Jr. coming in to run things.
We know the d-line will be stout losing 1 out of 14 and having two 4* JUCO's coming in at the DT position; we lost 4 of 13 LB's and 4 of 19 DB's on a team that finished 8-5.
This team was young and struggled through some early games but I'm looking at a reload this year and an even stronger run.
Can't wait for the Spring game.
I see 11 teams with a chance.
(02-13-2018 04:08 PM)MU ATO Wrote: [ -> ]This has as much meaning as recruiting ranking I read on here in July.
POINTLESS
.
Absolutely, this is just message board fodder. This is just one of more to follow and the common theme is they will be all over the map. The thing I would like to see is what entity comes closes that prognosticates, before a game is played, contrasted to the final results at the end of the regular season.
so you're telling me there's a chance?
(02-12-2018 06:20 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2018 05:07 PM)Fish Wrote: [ -> ]FIU is coming off an 8-5 season, but is ranked 120th. Okay.
Has to do with what they're ranking. Our recruiting Class was #1 in C-USA and #5 G5 (with two of the three 4*'s signed) yet is ranked mid-pack in the conference. Returning Production is looking at loss of starting QB, top receiver and rusher though does not take into consideration 4* red-shirt Soph. transfer from BGSU, our highly regarded returning receivers and our depth at running back. It also weights performance over the last five years, giving no consideration to the new coaching staff or the most recent season.
All in all, this ranking leaves much to be desired. May generally be a good over all index, but has some huge holes in it.
If that were the case, don't think they'd have FAU where they are.
clt says UNT does well despite its small size.
(02-20-2018 12:46 PM)va-eagle Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2018 06:20 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2018 05:07 PM)Fish Wrote: [ -> ]FIU is coming off an 8-5 season, but is ranked 120th. Okay.
Has to do with what they're ranking. Our recruiting Class was #1 in C-USA and #5 G5 (with two of the three 4*'s signed) yet is ranked mid-pack in the conference. Returning Production is looking at loss of starting QB, top receiver and rusher though does not take into consideration 4* red-shirt Soph. transfer from BGSU, our highly regarded returning receivers and our depth at running back. It also weights performance over the last five years, giving no consideration to the new coaching staff or the most recent season.
All in all, this ranking leaves much to be desired. May generally be a good over all index, but has some huge holes in it.
If that were the case, don't think they'd have FAU where they are.
The only discernable difference between the two programs according to this ranking is 'returning production', the other two categories are relatively the same (5 year winning % = 42% v. 36%, even with FAU's 11-3 season last year).
And as I explained, I don't see a 90 spot difference in the 'production' category between the two; esp. given our last two recruiting classes. That's the point I was trying to make, 'returning production' can't create that great a disparity. It's a rather lazy index.
(02-20-2018 06:17 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]The only discernable difference between the two programs according to this ranking is 'returning production', the other two categories are relatively the same (5 year winning % = 42% v. 36%, even with FAU's 11-3 season last year).
And as I explained, I don't see a 90 spot difference in the 'production' category between the two; esp. given our last two recruiting classes. That's the point I was trying to make, 'returning production' can't create that great a disparity. It's a rather lazy index.
These rankings are only based on S&P+ ratings. Thus, when he says recent history, he means the previous 5 years of S&P+ data; wins/losses are not factored into it. Even though we might've had a worse record than you in the past 5 years, we actually ranked higher than you for every year in S&P+. And the returning production is based off last year's S&P+ rating (90th) coupled with S&P+ returning production (50% offensive, 37% defensive, 43% overall). That's a really low overall as most teams are returning roughly 70-80% of S&P+ production. So, you've got to look at last year's 90th ranked S&P+ production and then you're only returning 43% of it. And while Southern Miss and UTSA are only returning an overall 37% and 40% respectively, their S&P+ ratings last year were 40th and 56th; so they're returning significantly more S&P+ production than FIU.
Bill also gives a breakdown as to how each factor is weighted:
Recruiting is about 25%
Returning production is a little more than 50%
Recent history is just under 20%
I wouldn't call what Bill does and his S&P+ ratings lazy. It's very methodical and analytical. He's one of the best college football statisticians out there.
(02-20-2018 07:17 PM)thefaU Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2018 06:17 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]The only discernable difference between the two programs according to this ranking is 'returning production', the other two categories are relatively the same (5 year winning % = 42% v. 36%, even with FAU's 11-3 season last year).
And as I explained, I don't see a 90 spot difference in the 'production' category between the two; esp. given our last two recruiting classes. That's the point I was trying to make, 'returning production' can't create that great a disparity. It's a rather lazy index.
These rankings are only based on S&P+ ratings. Thus, when he says recent history, he means the previous 5 years of S&P+ data; wins/losses are not factored into it. Even though we might've had a worse record than you in the past 5 years, we actually ranked higher than you for every year in S&P+. And the returning production is based off last year's S&P+ rating (90th) coupled with S&P+ returning production (50% offensive, 37% defensive, 43% overall). That's a really low overall as most teams are returning roughly 70-80% of S&P+ production. So, you've got to look at last year's 90th ranked S&P+ production and then you're only returning 43% of it. And while Southern Miss and UTSA are only returning an overall 37% and 40% respectively, their S&P+ ratings last year were 40th and 56th; so they're returning significantly more S&P+ production than FIU.
Bill also gives a breakdown as to how each factor is weighted:
Recruiting is about 25%
Returning production is a little more than 50%
Recent history is just under 20%
I wouldn't call what Bill does and his S&P+ ratings lazy. It's very methodical and analytical. He's one of the best college football statisticians out there.
+2, you're absolutely correct.