Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.
Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.
Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
Talk about pressing. Try a break for real world shit baabs. Fed your persian gato's lately? Make sure to swab your phone with alcohol thoroughly. Wipe-post-wipe-post-stroke-post-jerk-post-jiz on phone-post...
Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
You keep talking about Arkansas but I never said anything about Arkansas.
FSU sucked and was severely overrated when sorting by W/L and was more accurately rated by the metrics that was my only point and I don't give a fuck about Arkansas or your grandma's red suspenders.
Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
Couldn't agree more.
By the way, 2002 Ohio State eked out more than a few wins by small margins but went on to beat a fantastic Miami team in the Fiesta Bowl to win a MNC. And 37 of the 43 starters on that team were eventually drafted into the NFL. Bottom line, margin of victory can be vastly misleading.
Talk about pressing. Try a break for real world shit baabs. Fed your persian gato's lately? Make sure to swab your phone with alcohol thoroughly. Wipe-post-wipe-post-stroke-post-jerk-post-jiz on phone-post...
Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
Couldn't agree more.
By the way, 2002 Ohio State eked out more than a few wins by small margins but went on to beat a fantastic Miami team in the Fiesta Bowl to win a MNC. And 37 of the 43 starters on that team were eventually drafted into the NFL. Bottom line, margin of victory can be vastly misleading.
That is your best example of a team that luckboxed its way to a national championship? A team with an all-time great defense and a limited offense led by Craig Krenzel and his 12TD-7INT statline?
No shit they won a lot of close games.
But they won them 13-9 and 10-6 not 37-35 or 30-26. The only team to score 20+ on them before the MNCG was in the season opener against Mike Leach's Red Raiders.
That was a great defense that controlled every game they were in. And nobody takes the air out of the ball and sits on a one-score lead like Jim Tressel- that is why its called Tresselball.
Oh by the way SRS of course loved that '02 Buckeye defense ranking them #1 in the nation by a wiiiiiiiiiiide margin.
This argument is ridiculous. Next the revenge of the nerds crowd is going to tell me that Iowa was really good all year last year due to their lofty w/l record. They fucking sucked and if you didn't make $$$ betting against them in the Rose Bowl then you should kill yourself.
Every single year at least a team or two manage to cheat fate and keep a false mirage of a good record going until late in the year. That is just one clear example of why the metrics will always be more predictive of future results than past w/l record- pointing out one possible mis-ranking of some Arkansas team that everyone else forgot about two years ago in one of the rating systems that one specific faggot loved to spout doesn't invalidate the entire idea of using more specific statistics to rank teams when there are far more mistakes when ranking purely by w/l or any human attempt to sort based on the eye test as proven by every AP poll ever.
Does that mean that a high SRS or FPI or F/+ ranking means shit for accomplishments? Of course not you jackass. Past vs. future. Try to see the difference.
Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
Couldn't agree more.
By the way, 2002 Ohio State eked out more than a few wins by small margins but went on to beat a fantastic Miami team in the Fiesta Bowl to win a MNC. And 37 of the 43 starters on that team were eventually drafted into the NFL. Bottom line, margin of victory can be vastly misleading.
That is your best example of a team that luckboxed its way to a national championship? A team with an all-time great defense and a limited offense led by Craig Krenzel and his 12TD-7INT statline?
No shit they won a lot of close games.
But they won them 13-9 and 10-6 not 37-35 or 30-26. The only team to score 20+ on them before the MNCG was in the season opener against Mike Leach's Red Raiders.
That was a great defense that controlled every game they were in. And nobody takes the air out of the ball and sits on a one-score lead like Jim Tressel- that is why its called Tresselball.
Oh by the way SRS of course loved that '02 Buckeye defense ranking them #1 in the nation by a wiiiiiiiiiiide margin.
This argument is ridiculous. Next the revenge of the nerds crowd is going to tell me that Iowa was really good all year last year due to their lofty w/l record. They fucking sucked and if you didn't make $$$ betting against them in the Rose Bowl then you should kill yourself.
Every single year at least a team or two manage to cheat fate and keep a false mirage of a good record going until late in the year. That is just one clear example of why the metrics will always be more predictive of future results than past w/l record- pointing out one possible mis-ranking of some Arkansas team that everyone else forgot about two years ago in one of the rating systems that one specific faggot loved to spout doesn't invalidate the entire idea of using more specific statistics to rank teams when there are far more mistakes when ranking purely by w/l or any human attempt to sort based on the eye test as proven by every AP poll ever.
Does that mean that a high SRS or FPI or F/+ ranking means shit for accomplishments? Of course not you jackass. Past vs. future. Try to see the difference.
Comments
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
#offseasonnatty #Metricchamp
Talk about pressing. Try a break for real world shit baabs. Fed your persian gato's lately? Make sure to swab your phone with alcohol thoroughly. Wipe-post-wipe-post-stroke-post-jerk-post-jiz on phone-post...
FSU sucked and was severely overrated when sorting by W/L and was more accurately rated by the metrics that was my only point and I don't give a fuck about Arkansas or your grandma's red suspenders.
HTH.
By the way, 2002 Ohio State eked out more than a few wins by small margins but went on to beat a fantastic Miami team in the Fiesta Bowl to win a MNC. And 37 of the 43 starters on that team were eventually drafted into the NFL. Bottom line, margin of victory can be vastly misleading.
No shit they won a lot of close games.
But they won them 13-9 and 10-6 not 37-35 or 30-26. The only team to score 20+ on them before the MNCG was in the season opener against Mike Leach's Red Raiders.
That was a great defense that controlled every game they were in. And nobody takes the air out of the ball and sits on a one-score lead like Jim Tressel- that is why its called Tresselball.
Oh by the way SRS of course loved that '02 Buckeye defense ranking them #1 in the nation by a wiiiiiiiiiiide margin.
This argument is ridiculous. Next the revenge of the nerds crowd is going to tell me that Iowa was really good all year last year due to their lofty w/l record. They fucking sucked and if you didn't make $$$ betting against them in the Rose Bowl then you should kill yourself.
Every single year at least a team or two manage to cheat fate and keep a false mirage of a good record going until late in the year. That is just one clear example of why the metrics will always be more predictive of future results than past w/l record- pointing out one possible mis-ranking of some Arkansas team that everyone else forgot about two years ago in one of the rating systems that one specific faggot loved to spout doesn't invalidate the entire idea of using more specific statistics to rank teams when there are far more mistakes when ranking purely by w/l or any human attempt to sort based on the eye test as proven by every AP poll ever.
Does that mean that a high SRS or FPI or F/+ ranking means shit for accomplishments? Of course not you jackass. Past vs. future. Try to see the difference.