quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-16-2019 02:45 PM)stxrunner Wrote: (10-16-2019 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-16-2019 01:55 PM)stxrunner Wrote: (10-16-2019 10:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-16-2019 10:32 AM)stxrunner Wrote: You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this doesn't really have a basis in any comparative analysis we have.
SOS ratings for Cincinnati:
Sagarin - 34
ESPN - 27
ESPN SOR - 13
Massey - 11
Team Rankings - 15
I put more stock in the top 2 than the others, but I don't think that can be considered a soft schedule.
Indiana lost by 41, while FAU was down 28 points 10 minutes into the game. I don't think touting those performances as better is a real strong argument. If you want to point at the zero on the scoreboard, that's fine, but I don't think there is a single performance against OSU this year that I would call competitive at all. They are #1 in most of the metrics one can find.
I get the perception that the OSU game has and it will be a factor in the NY6 race, but there is no objective basis that UC has just loaded up on soft opponents this year. Their SOS at the end of the year will likely be in the top 2 or 3 of the G5, and it won't just be because of the OSU game.
Also, TAMU has played a pretty brutal schedule, but also wasn't that competitive in their 3 losses. All 3 involved scoring points at the end with the game well in hand, and only the Auburn home game ended up being within a couple scores. Struggling with Arkansas on their home field isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of their quality either.
How much of Cincy's schedule is Ohio State? Probably something significant.
As for TAMU, they were a lot more competitive in all three of their tough games than Cincy was in their one tough game.
Seriously, if Cincy were playing TAMU next week and you had to bet straight up, would you pick Cincy? Really?
Ah, so we can put all the judgement of UC's team quality on their performance in the OSU game, but when it comes to evaluating their schedule, that game can be dismissed? I don't have the ability to see what their SOS would be without the OSU game, but it couldn't drop so far to make the argument that they loaded up on a soft schedule correct.
TAMU would likely be favored by a point or two on a neutral field based on the predictive rankings I've seen. But you are inventing an argument that I wasn't making. It isn't 'Who is better, UC or TAMU?' It was that you were excusing the performance of TAMU in their elite games while holding UC's against them. I was pointing out your selective reasoning and using the data to do it.
Again, you are welcome to have your opinion, but the data we have says your argument that UC has an inflated record based on their schedule isn't backed up.
What? Your opinion that Cincy's SOS wouldn't change much if we subtracted out Ohio State, well, we don't know that, it's an opinion: And an important one, because your whole response seems to be based on a faulty assumption, namely that I was including Ohio State when I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule. Obviously I wasn't, as I had already referred to Ohio State as a very strong team.
So to be clear: When I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule, i was referring to sans Ohio State. And i was referring to it that way in comparison to TAMU's schedule. That should have been obvious, sorry if it wasn't. That was my whole point: Cincy is benefiting from having played games vs 5 winnable opponents whereas TAMU has only played 3. The other three have been monsters.
And as I noted, TAMU wasn't whacked by any of their monsters nearly as bad as Cincy was by their one monster.
I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.
Your original statement is that UC has played a soft schedule, and that has allowed them to rack up wins. Except, that isn't true as I already pointed out. If you subtract out OSU from UC's schedule, then you'd have to do something similar with these other 'P5' (or G5!) teams you mentioned in order to have a legitimate comparison. The fact that UC didn't play an FCS team and had two of the decently rated AAC teams early makes their schedule look solid so far, but it also doesn't jive with your argument just based on schedule. TAMU is a pretty big outlier as far as schedules go so far because it is so bipolar between great teams and awful teams. I think you'd struggle to find another comparison.
The comparison to TAMU specifically came later, and now you are clutching onto that pearl while the rest of your argument falls apart, as it was one small part of the original point you were trying to make. I feel like this is your MO when someone actually presents data that doesn't work with your argument. Single out one small part that was correct and hold on for dear life.
Your entire argument boils down to 'UC got killed by OSU', so they suck. Back to opinions, I think that proves UC isn't at all a Top 10 type team, but that's all it proves considering how the season has gone thus far.
You are really digging a deep hole. First, I never said that because UC got killed by OSU that UC sucks. Not once. FWIW, I don't think Cincy sucks, I think they are about a #30 - #35 type team, and that is far from sucking.
Second, my original statement about UC's soft schedule, the one you bolded, contained in the very same sentence the reference to TAMU.
I think what happened was, you are a Bearcat fan, the phrase about Cincy's schedule raised your ire, so you selectively latched on to that without appreciating the context. The irascible Bearcat in you doesn't want to let go, even after I acknowledged that I should have been clear that when I referred to Cincy's soft schedule, I was thinking sans Ohio State.
I don't think that is generally your MO, but it appears to have happened here.
And no, that is not a 'small part' of my argument, it is the only argument i was making, LOL. What else was i saying, but that Cincy was ranked and TAMU wasn't because TAMU played more monster teams than Cincy?
You have no pearls to clutch on to, just a Bearcat fan's defensiveness. So I'll say it again for you:
I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2019 03:15 PM by quo vadis.)
|
|