(09-05-2020 01:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 01:41 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 12:51 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 08:15 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 04:16 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong....

in your formula its a huge plus on having returning starters and returning qb? So if that's the case and since you mentioned returning starters for Western and Marshall, I assume its important.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ction-2020


Tech is 120th in returning starting production. 46% overall and that includes 61% on offense and 31% on defense. Tech is replacing a 3 year starter at qb

FAU 109, 51% overall, 59% on offense and 43% on defense. FAU is replacing a 2 year starter at qb

Marshall (with Green's stats)and Western are 40th and 41st both returning 71% of production both replacing a starting qb.

Marshall 78% on offense and I assume Marshall offensive % would be a lot lower in this ranking if Greens numbers were taken out. Same with their overall ranking. On defense Marshall returns 63% (64th in nation)

Western returns 53% on offense (90th) and 89% on defense (6th)

So the only thing I can take from your ranking....you are putting a high value on something other than returning starters production and returning QB. What else could be more valuable than returning production on winning programs, last year?

You say you are not using your opinion, so do you care to share what you are using?

A returning QB is an important factor, but not necessarily huge. A proven transfer can be a much better situation than returning a QB that was pure trash the season before, and the formula evaluates that.

In my formula, returning a high percentage of successful starters in certain units is much more valuable than just the QB position. The talent level of new players in the two-deep is also important.

I won't elaborate, but I will say there are other variables you are not considering. In reality, the odds are my formula fails to hit 90% accuracy again, and I'm reworking it next off-season. But, if I finish the season with higher than a 72.189% accuracy, it will be an improvement. I can build on that.

Why want you just say I'm using X, Y, Z? If you are using "new players" into the system....

you are in fact putting your opinion into this rating. Its your rating and anyone if they wanted to spend the time could do their own ranking. Have no problem with where you want to rank any team. But to debate it, which I assume that what you want? Its important to know what you base it off of since you are using a formula.


Or at least so next year? And do it earlier because at least it gives something to debate.

Because I put the time into building it, and see no reason why I should hand it over. It is mine. If you want to know it, have fun trying to reverse engineer it.

No opinions in my rankings. If there were, I would have North Texas higher than 10th. I did what I could to eliminate the "Homer Factor". Everyone's fate was decided by the data used in the formula. I can't make it more honest than that.

Like I said its your ranking so put the teams in the order you want them. My other disagreement was with the data you seem to be using not being carried over to each team. But since we dont know what data you are using....


Well that's your choice but it kind of makes it hard to debate the rankings. I assume that is the reason you put in the time doing this. For the debate. Oh, well, season has started and hopefully we know the outcome in Dec.

Atta boy Guns. Roll with it. He has a point though... he’d have put UNT higher than 10th if he was homering. Agree. Or no?