Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Paging all metrics doogs
PostGameOrangeSlices
Member Posts: 27,213
https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/35375426/college-football-sp+-rankings-bowl-games
This article has a paywall, but it's the updated SP+ football rankings.
Of note...the DAWGS finish #15...behind #11 Oregon...and FUCKING #8 TEXAS
Someone take this stupid ass computer and throw if off the Aurora Bridge.
This article has a paywall, but it's the updated SP+ football rankings.
Of note...the DAWGS finish #15...behind #11 Oregon...and FUCKING #8 TEXAS
Someone take this stupid ass computer and throw if off the Aurora Bridge.
Comments
-
I took @MetricsConsensus to task earlier this season.
Coaching adjustments don't exist. If a key variable can't be quantified it is ignored entirely.
Invalid.
Delete. -
Not enough data points to mean much in college football.
-
Dude...this dumb ass has Oklahoma at #18. They finished 6-7Doogles said:Not enough data points to mean much in college football.
-
I’ve never given a shit about the metrics. I remember in 2014, Florida State went 12-1 and was ranked behind 6-6 Arkansas. A team that had way more talent and made the playoff was somehow worse than Arkansas because they played Alabama to the wire. They are fucking stupid.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Dude...this dumb ass has Oklahoma at #18. They finished 6-7Doogles said:Not enough data points to mean much in college football.
Texas at #8 over UW…. 11-2 to 8-5 and the 8-5 team got beat (rather easily). That makes sense. -
Metrics are for losers. And fags. Abundance.
-
How do we compare with Clemson? Are we leveling up? Natty in our? future? Is 2024 looking special?
