final S&P+ ratings
Comments
-
Fucking bullshit. In what world are we 12th?
This crap is so stupid.
I seriously applaud the attempt to get more sophisticated metrics of football, but fucking come on. -
Maybe the formula doesn't account for your dumb fuck HC losing so many close, winnable games.Dennis_DeYoung said:Fucking bullshit. In what world are we 12th?
This crap is so stupid.
I seriously applaud the attempt to get more sophisticated metrics of football, but fucking come on. -
That's okay. Everyone knows this was a throw-away season.ThomasFremont said:
Maybe the formula doesn't account for your dumb fuck HC losing so many close, winnable games.Dennis_DeYoung said:Fucking bullshit. In what world are we 12th?
This crap is so stupid.
I seriously applaud the attempt to get more sophisticated metrics of football, but fucking come on. -
12 sounds about right. Per Aubs latest power ranking Stanford and UW are the top teams in the Pac12 and it's not even close.Dennis_DeYoung said:Fucking bullshit. In what world are we 12th?
This crap is so stupid.
I seriously applaud the attempt to get more sophisticated metrics of football, but fucking come on. -
Quite frankly, our record wasn't indicative of how good we? really were this season.Baseman said:
12 sounds about right. Per Aubs latest power ranking Stanford and UW are the top teams in the Pac12 and it's not even close.Dennis_DeYoung said:Fucking bullshit. In what world are we 12th?
This crap is so stupid.
I seriously applaud the attempt to get more sophisticated metrics of football, but fucking come on. -
This crap about Ws and Ls don't matter is a horrible direction for the 'advanced metrics' crowd to take.
-
OFFSEASON NATTYTTTTTTTTTTTTTTYYYYYYYYYYYYYY BITCHES
AND POINT DIFFERENTIAL NORTHWEST CHAMPIONSHIP! -
Wins and losses matter.
But at the same time, it's also not impossible to ignore the fact that we were an extremely young team on offense this year and really as a team with very few experienced playmakers when it came to making plays in tight spots.
What you hope you see out of this team going forward is that they learn from some of their mistakes in close games this year about the importance of every single play, being smart about avoiding bad penalties, the importance of protecting the football, etc. There was improvement in these areas throughout the year.
Most smart people said before the year that we'd be much better the back half of the year compared to the front and that there'd be games that we'd lose in the front half that we'd never lose as the season progressed. That happened. Nothing about this season was particularly surprising to me. -
These stats are very useful for evaluating the potential of a team. What they don't account for is the intangible ability to win close games, or "clutchness", for lack of a better term, which is of course critical in a sport like college football where anything more than one loss effectively eliminates you from national championship contention.
The S&P numbers more or less mirror what any rational fan could see this year; our team was good enough to match up with anyone on our schedule, we just fucked ourselves consistently and lost too many games because of it. Folks like Auburndoog are adamant that this is 100% due to youth, and that improvement in the "clutchness" department will be linear as our players gain experience. Of course he completely ignores the possibility that our lack of "clutchness" stems from the coaching staff, and that this problem will not fade away with time. Next year will answer that question. A single-digit win season will mean our coaches have failed to develop a roster that has that intangible ability. -
This is a very good post that probably should be pinned as a response for people like @ThomasFremont that will pop off for the next 9+ months about something that can't be determined one way or another until next season.GreenRiverGatorz said:These stats are very useful for evaluating the potential of a team. What they don't account for is the intangible ability to win close games, or "clutchness", for lack of a better term, which is of course critical in a sport like college football where anything more than one loss effectively eliminates you from national championship contention.
The S&P numbers more or less mirror what any rational fan could see this year; our team was good enough to match up with anyone on our schedule, we just fucked ourselves consistently and lost too many games because of it. Folks like Auburndoog are adamant that this is 100% due to youth, and that improvement in the "clutchness" department will be linear as our players gain experience. Of course he completely ignores the possibility that our lack of "clutchness" stems from the coaching staff, and that this problem will not fade away with time. Next year will answer that question. A single-digit win season will mean our coaches have failed to develop a roster that has that intangible ability. -
I do agree we got better, but we lost to a declining Utah at home and mediocre ASU team in the 2nd half of the season.Tequilla said:Wins and losses matter.
But at the same time, it's also not impossible to ignore the fact that we were an extremely young team on offense this year and really as a team with very few experienced playmakers when it came to making plays in tight spots.
What you hope you see out of this team going forward is that they learn from some of their mistakes in close games this year about the importance of every single play, being smart about avoiding bad penalties, the importance of protecting the football, etc. There was improvement in these areas throughout the year.
Most smart people said before the year that we'd be much better the back half of the year compared to the front and that there'd be games that we'd lose in the front half that we'd never lose as the season progressed. That happened. Nothing about this season was particularly surprising to me. -
I've already stated multiple times that I have seen enough out of Petersen. He's not a championship coach at this level, imho. Any statistical model this out of touch with reality (12th nationally vs 4th in our own division) is seriously pressing. But latch onto it if it makes you feel better about 7 wins.Tequilla said:
This is a very good post that probably should be pinned as a response for people like @ThomasFremont that will pop off for the next 9+ months about something that can't be determined one way or another until next season.GreenRiverGatorz said:These stats are very useful for evaluating the potential of a team. What they don't account for is the intangible ability to win close games, or "clutchness", for lack of a better term, which is of course critical in a sport like college football where anything more than one loss effectively eliminates you from national championship contention.
The S&P numbers more or less mirror what any rational fan could see this year; our team was good enough to match up with anyone on our schedule, we just fucked ourselves consistently and lost too many games because of it. Folks like Auburndoog are adamant that this is 100% due to youth, and that improvement in the "clutchness" department will be linear as our players gain experience. Of course he completely ignores the possibility that our lack of "clutchness" stems from the coaching staff, and that this problem will not fade away with time. Next year will answer that question. A single-digit win season will mean our coaches have failed to develop a roster that has that intangible ability.
However, I've also been very clear that Pete can shut me the fuck up by winning the North/conference.
-
Well the FEI ratings were just released and we were rated all the way down at 14th
-
ThomasFremont said:
Maybe the formula doesn't account for your dumb fuck HC losing so many close, winnable games.Dennis_DeYoung said:Fucking bullshit. In what world are we 12th?
This crap is so stupid.
I seriously applaud the attempt to get more sophisticated metrics of football, but fucking come on.
Not letting you back on the bandwagon when our "dumb fuck" HC leads us to back to back Rose Bowls in '16 and '17. -
Oh no!PostGameOrangeSlices said:ThomasFremont said:
Maybe the formula doesn't account for your dumb fuck HC losing so many close, winnable games.Dennis_DeYoung said:Fucking bullshit. In what world are we 12th?
This crap is so stupid.
I seriously applaud the attempt to get more sophisticated metrics of football, but fucking come on.
Not letting you back on the bandwagon when our "dumb fuck" HC leads us to back to back Rose Bowls in '16 and '17. -
BlowItUp said:
Well the FEI ratings were just released and we were rated all the way down at 14th
one thing is for sure: UW is the best 7-6 team by either measure
-
We've been the best 7-6 program for 6 years running.
If we play Oregon or Utah on a neutral field tomorrow, I'm still not confident Washington wins. Too many loser decisions on GameDay to win. -
Heads up @Tequilla , doog Baird hacked your account. Time to change yer password
-
I agree with the thread that UW being ranked 12th in anything is FS, but the teams behind us suck too. It doesn't really matter. The teams at the top would plunger us.
-
These rankings also have Western Kentucky ranked ahead of USC, UNC, Oregon and TCU.
Sounds 100% accurate... -
Congratulations on being one of a handful of people here who has an idea of how to properly evaluate.GreenRiverGatorz said:These stats are very useful for evaluating the potential of a team. What they don't account for is the intangible ability to win close games, or "clutchness", for lack of a better term, which is of course critical in a sport like college football where anything more than one loss effectively eliminates you from national championship contention.
The S&P numbers more or less mirror what any rational fan could see this year; our team was good enough to match up with anyone on our schedule, we just fucked ourselves consistently and lost too many games because of it. Folks like Auburndoog are adamant that this is 100% due to youth, and that improvement in the "clutchness" department will be linear as our players gain experience. Of course he completely ignores the possibility that our lack of "clutchness" stems from the coaching staff, and that this problem will not fade away with time. Next year will answer that question. A single-digit win season will mean our coaches have failed to develop a roster that has that intangible ability. -
Yeah, but what does Moodys say?
-
Moody's was going to have them at 14th but S&P forced their hand.PurpleJ said:Yeah, but what does Moodys say?
-
That's okay. Fitch put us in the top 10!doogsinparadise said:
Moody's was going to have them at 14th but S&P forced their hand.PurpleJ said:Yeah, but what does Moodys say?
-
This thread is about whether the objective rating systems are accurate or not. We already know the purple-tinted view is not accurate.Tequilla said:Wins and losses matter.
But at the same time, it's also not impossible to ignore the fact that we were an extremely young team on offense this year and really as a team with very few experienced playmakers when it came to making plays in tight spots.
What you hope you see out of this team going forward is that they learn from some of their mistakes in close games this year about the importance of every single play, being smart about avoiding bad penalties, the importance of protecting the football, etc. There was improvement in these areas throughout the year.
Most smart people said before the year that we'd be much better the back half of the year compared to the front and that there'd be games that we'd lose in the front half that we'd never lose as the season progressed. That happened. Nothing about this season was particularly surprising to me.
Every time we lost (six times) it was particularly surprising to you. -
Obviously wins and losses are everything. Who disagrees?Dennis_DeYoung said:This crap about Ws and Ls don't matter is a horrible direction for the 'advanced metrics' crowd to take.
The question would be how you can predict W/L record going forward because simplistically looking at past or current results doesn't get you very close. -
UW will go 5-4 at best in the Pac 12 next year. I know this by looking at the team we have now.FremontTroll said:
Obviously wins and losses are everything. Who disagrees?Dennis_DeYoung said:This crap about Ws and Ls don't matter is a horrible direction for the 'advanced metrics' crowd to take.
The question would be how you can predict W/L record going forward because simplistically looking at past or current results doesn't get you very close. -
Analytics work great for seasons that have a shit ton of games like basketball and baseball.
In a small sample size they don't really matter, you are what your record says you are. I get that it helps differentiate teams with similar records, but it's all speculation.
Maybe if UW played every FBS team in 1 season they would separate from the rest of the 7-6 pack like the stats suggest. And maybe those overrated teams with better records would slip. But that's not the point. We would still lose to most if not all the teams in the top 15.
Moral victory stats won't change that. -
This is why the player analytics are much more interesting than the team analytics.Doogles said:Analytics work great for seasons that have a shit ton of games like basketball and baseball.
In a small sample size they don't really matter, you are what your record says you are. I get that it helps differentiate teams with similar records, but it's all speculation.
Maybe if UW played every FBS team in 1 season they would separate from the rest of the 7-6 pack like the stats suggest. And maybe those overrated teams with better records would slip. But that's not the point. We would still lose to most if not all the teams in the top 15.
Moral victory stats won't change that. -
here's what connelly said on his twatter regarding UW:
