(01-15-2020 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Here's the data. Shared earlier this season, but some refuse to accept it.

Since the inception of the CFP,
comparing the movement of teams between the final AP ranking from one season,
to the preseason ranking the following season:

P5 teams move up an average of 3 spots;
G5 teams move down an average of 4 spots.

This is complete data looking at 68 different teams who were ranked between 2014-2019. It covers 884 data points. So you can talk about a quarterback being injured if you continue to choose to die on that hill, but the results are much more conclusive than 1 quarterback.

I have the data by team and by conference and am willing to share as much as anyone would like to see.

How much of that is that directly affected by the recruiting class?

(01-15-2020 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Here's the data. Shared earlier this season, but some refuse to accept it.

Since the inception of the CFP,
comparing the movement of teams between the final AP ranking from one season,
to the preseason ranking the following season:

P5 teams move up an average of 3 spots;
G5 teams move down an average of 4 spots.

This is complete data looking at 68 different teams who were ranked between 2014-2019. It covers 884 data points. So you can talk about a quarterback being injured if you continue to choose to die on that hill, but the results are much more conclusive than 1 quarterback.

I have the data by team and by conference and am willing to share as much as anyone would like to see.

Thanks for this info right here. I always felt that was the case, but did not really have anything to back it up.

(01-15-2020 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Here's the data. Shared earlier this season, but some refuse to accept it.

Since the inception of the CFP,
comparing the movement of teams between the final AP ranking from one season,
to the preseason ranking the following season:

P5 teams move up an average of 3 spots;
G5 teams move down an average of 4 spots.

This is complete data looking at 68 different teams who were ranked between 2014-2019. It covers 884 data points. So you can talk about a quarterback being injured if you continue to choose to die on that hill, but the results are much more conclusive than 1 quarterback.

I have the data by team and by conference and am willing to share as much as anyone would like to see.

(01-15-2020 05:06 PM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Here's the data. Shared earlier this season, but some refuse to accept it.

Since the inception of the CFP,
comparing the movement of teams between the final AP ranking from one season,
to the preseason ranking the following season:

P5 teams move up an average of 3 spots;
G5 teams move down an average of 4 spots.

This is complete data looking at 68 different teams who were ranked between 2014-2019. It covers 884 data points. So you can talk about a quarterback being injured if you continue to choose to die on that hill, but the results are much more conclusive than 1 quarterback.

I have the data by team and by conference and am willing to share as much as anyone would like to see.

How much of that is that directly affected by the recruiting class?

Current year recruiting classes for football rarely have an impact on the upcoming season. Sure, prior recruiting classes over 2-4 years will have an impact. But I think you give AP voters way too much credit if you think they are researching classes over the past 2-4 years for 40ish programs before casting their votes.

This much data with such clearly distinctive results indicate more of a systemic issue. Whether intentional or not, the current process and lack of accountability simply make it too easy to devalue G5 programs. With ESPN hype on the P5s, and the knowledge that G5s should not be included in the playoffs, this is what you get.

Seems data causes internet tough guys to turtle.

(01-15-2020 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Here's the data. Shared earlier this season, but some refuse to accept it.

Since the inception of the CFP,
comparing the movement of teams between the final AP ranking from one season,
to the preseason ranking the following season:

P5 teams move up an average of 3 spots;
G5 teams move down an average of 4 spots.

This is complete data looking at 68 different teams who were ranked between 2014-2019. It covers 884 data points. So you can talk about a quarterback being injured if you continue to choose to die on that hill, but the results are much more conclusive than 1 quarterback.

I have the data by team and by conference and am willing to share as much as anyone would like to see.

This is going to be much too complicated for you, so just read the last paragraph. For everyone else, here is the actual data since the end of 2014.

Not your original point, but I will respond because it is still mostly idiotic.
P= Preseason poll
F= Final poll
(season record)

Memphis
2016 F - UR (8-5)
2017 P - UR
2017 F - #25 (10-3)
2018 P - UR
2018 F - UR (8-6)
2019 P - UR
2019 F - #17 (12-2)
2020 P - #15

We keep losing our bowl games and keep losing key players while recruiting in the 50-70 range. We got screwed this year because of Temple, but in the end, except for getting screwed the entire year this year, the preseason polls have been accurate...including the ones right now that all have us ranked going into next season.

Western Michigan
2015 F - UR (8-5)
2016 P - UR
2016 F - #15
2017 P - UR (6-6)

Western Michigan went 8-5 in 2015 so there was no reason to rank them going into 2016. They ended up going 6-6 in 2017 so there was no reason to rank them preseason 2017.

Utah State
2017 F - UR (6-7)
2018 P - UR
2018 F - 22 (11-2)
2019 P - UR (7-6)

Again, very straightforward. Utah State's record of 6-7 did not warrant them being ranked preseason 2018, and they ended up 7-6 in 2019, so it turned out that they didn't deserve to be ranked in the preseason in 2019.

Army
2017 F - UR (10-3, Ohio State, Tulane, North Texas)
2018 P - UR
2018 F - #19 (11-2)
2019 P - UR (5-8)

I suppose that Army could have been ranked preseason 2018 based on their 10-3 record, but they are somewhat similar to Boise State. They don't beat a lot of great teams and sometimes lose to bad ones. Army ending 2018 ranked #19 and not being ranked going into 2019 isn't a result of bias, since they ended up going 5-8.

Boise State
2014 F - 20
2015 P - 23
2015 F - UR
2016 P - UR (10-3)
2016 F - UR
2017 P - UR
2017 F - #22 (11-3)
2018 P - #22 (10-3)
2018 F - #23
2019 P - UR (12-2)
2019 F - #23
2020 P - #16

Boise is an interesting case. They always have a good record but they have been playing a very easy schedule and often lose to mediocre teams, including this season. They haven't been ranked higher than #22 to end the last 5 seasons, so they haven't been making huge drops from one year to the next. The pollsters have been very accurate.

Cincinnati
2017 F - UR (4-8)
2018 P - UR
2018 F - #24 (11-2)
2019 P - UR
2019 F - #24 (11-3)
2020 P - #16

You can make the case that Cincinnati should have been ranked preseason 2019, but they finished at #24, so it's not like they were dropped from the top 10. They are ranked going into 2020.

USF
2015 F - UR (8-5)
2016 P - UR
2016 F - #19 (11-2)
2017 P - #19
2017 F - #21 (10-2)
2018 P - UR (7-6)

South Florida was 8-5 in 2015, so it made sense that they weren't ranked preseason 2016, their end of 2016 to preseason 2017 rankings were identical, and they ended that season below their preseason ranking. They were not ranked to start 2018 and they finished 7-6. Perfectly reasonable at every level.

Navy
2014 F - UR (7-5)
2015 P - UR
2015 F - #18 (11-2)
2016 P - UR
2016 P - UR (9-5)
2017 F - UR (7-6)
2018 F - UR (3-10)
2019 P - UR
2019 F - #20 (11-2)
2020 P - UR

Navy hasn't been ranked any preseason, but followed up their 2015 season when they were 11-2 but going 9-5 and ending the following season unranked. They went 3-10 in 2018 so there is no surprise at them not being ranked to start 2019. I have no idea what they have coming back for next season.

Houston
2014 F - UR (8-5)
2015 P - UR
2015 F - #8 (13-1)
2016 P - #15
2016 F - UR (9-4)
2017 P - UR
2017 F - (7-5)

Houston probably got screwed a few spots to end 2015 and to start 2016, but they ended up not being ranked at the end of the season.

UCF
2016 F - UR (6-7)
2017 P - UR
2017 F - #6
2018 P - #21
2018 F - #11 (11-2)
2019 P - #17
2019 F - #24
2020 P - UR

UCF could not have been ranked preseason 2017 because they finished 2016 at 6-7; so that makes sense. They got screwed preseason 2018 because too much value was placed on them losing Frost. They were ranked #11 to start 2018 and finished at #24 for 2019. They are probably getting screwed by not being ranked to start 2020.

So in the end, your data is stupid, because it doesn't tell the entire story. Almost all of the teams that were ranked preseason ended that season ranked lower than their preseason ranking.

We do agree that on the whole, there is bias with how non P5 are ranked, but it has nothing to do with preseason rankings.

Nobody in their right mind can expect teams having 1 great season out of 10 like Appalachian State, Western Michigan, Fresno State, Western Kentucky, and Utah State to maintain their end of season rankings into the following season.

Quote:P5 teams move up an average of 3 spots;
G5 teams move down an average of 4 spots

So in summary, your entire point is stupid. All of the teams listed above are going to drop like stones, and they will likely be replaced by P5 teams, it's common sense.

(01-15-2020 08:59 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 05:06 PM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Here's the data. Shared earlier this season, but some refuse to accept it.

Since the inception of the CFP,
comparing the movement of teams between the final AP ranking from one season,
to the preseason ranking the following season:

P5 teams move up an average of 3 spots;
G5 teams move down an average of 4 spots.

This is complete data looking at 68 different teams who were ranked between 2014-2019. It covers 884 data points. So you can talk about a quarterback being injured if you continue to choose to die on that hill, but the results are much more conclusive than 1 quarterback.

I have the data by team and by conference and am willing to share as much as anyone would like to see.

How much of that is that directly affected by the recruiting class?

Current year recruiting classes for football rarely have an impact on the upcoming season. Sure, prior recruiting classes over 2-4 years will have an impact. But I think you give AP voters way too much credit if you think they are researching classes over the past 2-4 years for 40ish programs before casting their votes.

This much data with such clearly distinctive results indicate more of a systemic issue. Whether intentional or not, the current process and lack of accountability simply make it too easy to devalue G5 programs. With ESPN hype on the P5s, and the knowledge that G5s should not be included in the playoffs, this is what you get.

Quote:Current year recruiting classes for football rarely have an impact on the upcoming season. Sure, prior recruiting classes over 2-4 years will have an impact. But I think you give AP voters way too much credit if you think they are researching classes over the past 2-4 years for 40ish programs before casting their votes.

Your dumbest point yet. Appalachian State, Western Michigan, Utah State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Western Kentucky and Navy are never going to recruit at a high level. Us, Houston, Cincinnati, Boise, USF and UCF will get into the 40-60's so even those schools aren't recruiting at a super high level. It makes it tougher to figure out when they will have good teams moving forward to the next season, and more than likely, they will skip many seasons being ranked.

If you have teams that are constantly in the top 25 they have a better chance at being ranked. If you have teams that are never in the top 25, the likelihood of them being ranked is much lower.

It's common sense.

lol
You just try so hard, but can't quite put it together.
Tell us some more stories. Write a book. Just shut-up when it comes to data.

I see where you go wrong, but I'm going to let someone else tell you.
Nah. I can't wait.

You are getting confused about the premise of which years to pair. We're not talking about preseason coming off of BAD years in which a team was not ranked. We're talking about the preseason following a good year in which they were ranked. For example, you say:
"Utah State's record of 6-7 did not warrant them being ranked preseason 2018, and they ended up 7-6 in 2019, so it turned out that they didn't deserve to be ranked in the preseason in 2019."

That makes no sense in the scope of what we're looking at. What we're looking at is, what were they preseason 2019, coming off the year finished in the top 25? And you can't use final year results to say in hindsight "welp, they didn't deserve it" unless you apply those same optics to all teams - including P5. (I actually have that data too, but I'm not going to waste time sharing it with you - other than to say you would be very disappointed in the results.)

That and you're missing A LOT of data points (like Memphis ranking 2014 & 2015, Fresno State, SD State, Marshall, Western Ky, and every single ranked P5 school), choosing instead to just give us some silly narrative - a lot of which actually makes my point and not yours.

So you cherry pick, and have a conflux of data, but not the sophistication to interpret it wholistically. I'm done with you here. Go for the last word like you must.

(01-15-2020 04:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Here's the data. Shared earlier this season, but some refuse to accept it.

Since the inception of the CFP,
comparing the movement of teams between the final AP ranking from one season,
to the preseason ranking the following season:

P5 teams move up an average of 3 spots;
G5 teams move down an average of 4 spots.

This is complete data looking at 68 different teams who were ranked between 2014-2019. It covers 884 data points. So you can talk about a quarterback being injured if you continue to choose to die on that hill, but the results are much more conclusive than 1 quarterback.

I have the data by team and by conference and am willing to share as much as anyone would like to see.

Quote:So you can talk about a quarterback being injured if you continue to choose to die on that hill, but the results are much more conclusive than 1 quarterback.

AGAIN, this is incredibly dumb. How is it possible that a human being can't tell the difference in the odds between...

Clemson
Deshaun Watson
Kelly Bryant
Trevor Lawrence

Oklahoma
Baker Mayfield
Kyler Murray
Jalen Hurts

Ohio State
JT Barnett
Dwayne Haskins
Justin Fields

Alabama
Jake Coker
Jalen Hurts
Tua Tagovailoa

Memphis
Paxton Lynch 2*
Riley Ferguson (Iowa State, Arkansas State, Temple, Troy)
Brady White 4*

Navy
Malcolm Perry (0*, Austin Peay offer)
Garrett Lewis
Zach Abey 2*
Keenan Reynolds 0*

Do this simple exercise for every position on offense and defense for the top 25 recruiting classes compared to the top 10 non P5 and it is OBVIOUS why the odds are heavily stacked for the top 25 schools with the top 25 classes to be ranked every year.

So the hanging your hat on an injured quarterback statement is idiotic. The odds of developing a lower ranked recruit into a Paxton Lynch, Keenan Reynolds or Mackenzie Milton is very low compared to P5 schools that regularly sign 4 and 5 star recruits every year.

(01-16-2020 05:58 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  lol
You just try so hard, but can't quite put it together.
Tell us some more stories. Write a book. Just shut-up when it comes to data.

I see where you go wrong, but I'm going to let someone else tell you.
Nah. I can't wait.

You are getting confused about the premise of which years to pair. We're not talking about preseason coming off of BAD years in which a team was not ranked. We're talking about the preseason following a good year in which they were ranked. For example, you say:
"Utah State's record of 6-7 did not warrant them being ranked preseason 2018, and they ended up 7-6 in 2019, so it turned out that they didn't deserve to be ranked in the preseason in 2019."

That makes no sense in the scope of what we're looking at. What we're looking at is, what were they preseason 2019, coming off the year finished in the top 25? And you can't use final year results to say in hindsight "welp, they didn't deserve it" unless you apply those same optics to all teams - including P5. (I actually have that data too, but I'm not going to waste time sharing it with you - other than to say you would be very disappointed in the results.)

That and you're missing A LOT of data points (like Memphis ranking 2014 & 2015, Fresno State, SD State, Marshall, Western Ky, and every single ranked P5 school), choosing instead to just give us some silly narrative - a lot of which actually makes my point and not yours.

So you cherry pick, and have a conflux of data, but not the sophistication to interpret it wholistically. I'm done with you here. Go for the last word like you must.

You are honestly so stupid it is pointless even trying.

Your idiotic data shows that non P5 teams slip in the rankings the following season after being ranked. By what metric should Utah State, Western Michigan, Fresno State, etc have been ranked the following season?

I am showing you why in simple English with easy to read data for an 8 year old to explain why.

Quote:And you can't use final year results to say in hindsight "welp, they didn't deserve it"

Let's say Utah State, Navy, Western Michigan, Fresno State, etc go 12-2 the year AFTER they were ranked. You can 100% look back and say that it was unfair that they weren't ranked to START the season. I included the data (any 8 year old would understand it) to show that any adult with half a brain knows that they didn't merit being ranked the next season.

You will say anything no matter how stupid. It's incredible.

Quote:And you can't use final year results to say in hindsight "welp, they didn't deserve it"

Ok, since you are too dumb to understand that simple concept, let's try another one.

Appalachian State
19 Final 2019 ranking
UR Preseason 2020 ranking
13 out of 22 starters returning

Recruiting Class Ranking
2017 - 107
2018 - 113
2019 - 100
2020 - 78

Texas
25 Final 2019 ranking
14 Preseason 2020 ranking
16 out of 22 starters returning

Recruiting Class Rankings
2017 - 25
2018 - 3
2019 - 3
2020 - 10

Appalachian State is forecasted to drop 7 spots, Texas is forecasted to rise 11 spots. According to your idiotic data, this is a simple case of P5 bias favouring Texas over Appalachian State and nothing else.

Please be the clown that insists that at the end of next year, that in hindsight, there was ZERO validity to ranking Texas ahead of Appalachian State at the beginning of next year.

(01-14-2020 09:50 AM)MemphisMojo Wrote:  https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4420836002

Cincinnati is 16.

The dream—-one of the 4 playoff teams—will always be iffy

BUT.....running the table would be required while climbing the CFP poll and getting lucky for several losses in the top 6

Pat Forde, our favorite Penny fan, just came out with his way too early top 25 in CFB - saw it on TV

Cincy #12
Memphis #17

Fla St #23