(06-11-2021 08:29 PM)owl at the moon Wrote: (06-11-2021 12:25 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: The advantage of the Massey Composite is that it compiles and averages the top computer rating systems. When you have over 100 systems that are compiled, the outliers are swallowed up by the consensus.
Year (Mine/Massey)
2020 (108/98)
2019 (119/119)
2018 (126/128)
2017 (123/127)
2016 (116/124)
2015 (100/103)
There's really not much difference, except for 2016, but is there really much space between the 116th and 124th ranked teams?
Actually there is, at 116 you’re better than twice as many teams as at 124.
Kind of like whether there’s much difference between #8 and #16.
But to the larger point, I’ve never seen anything resembling a Rice “bias” over the years in your rankings and I think they are very well done. And FWIW I remember agreeing with them in 2016, when you had us ranked “twice as high” as the consensus.
I'll say mine differently.... because I'm not talking about a bias towards Rice.
I take no issue with the idea that rankings like WRCs and others that 'smooth the outliers' are more accurate... That entirely misses my point... and that's my fault.
If 'the outliers' are the most often reported (to the general, if not the betting public who are much more interested in accuracy than perception) or are mostly related to TV time like ESPN, then it defeats my purpose in setting the bar for my expectations.
If we change the argument to say that I'd much rather have the outliers rank us in the top 30 like they seem to fairly regularly do with Marshall as opposed to in the bottom 30 like they seem to fairly regularly do with us.
The problem is that we schedule weak teams and then seem to play down to them, even losing to them with some frequency... something Marshall seems to do much less frequently.
What I've also seen us do with some regularity is to play good teams pretty well for a period... #7 A&M with Manziel in 2013 comes to mind.... I mean, we weren't remotely top 10 like they were, but we clearly had some talent.... and then we lose to UH who was also pretty good... and also lose to UNT, who was not bad, but not as good as the other two.... then we snap back and beat an 'over-rated?' Marshall... and are REWARDED with a Miss St game. Had we looked like we did against A&M against Miss St, it could have made a fundamental change in the trajectory of our program. As great as Prescott is/was/may have been, he didn't play defense.... and as an attendee, the game looked like men vs boys... and not simply a very good team against a very solid team.
I've tried to define that using rankings... which doesn't really reflect things for many of the reasons we're discussing...
I'll say it a final way...
If we finish 2021/2022 ranked in the top 50 in consensus sort of polls/ranking systems like yours and nobody knows about it... it doesn't drive up interest in tickets or donations or TV or media interest... then I will STILL have the goal of repeating that feat, but somehow managing to drive up interest in tickets etc etc etc.
We need to create the EXPECTATION that we have a competitive team... Competitive in the entirety of football which I have defined as 'around' the top half. When people think of RIce, they need to think of a team that can (under the right conditions) beat them... and not just the teams towards the bottom.
I apologize if my fervor comes across harshly. That is not my intent. I simply want us all to agree that EVEN AT OUR RECENT BEST (which I would describe as around 2013), it was not enough either in magnitude or in breadth to change the perceptions. And we need to change the perceptions. We can do that through a few REALLY great years... or we can do it through a whole lot of less exceptional, but consistent (and sometimes surprising) years... that avoids collapses.