Mavric Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 This article was linked in another thread but I think it's interesting to look at as a kind of preview for the year. They used the average class ranking on the 247 Composite over the last five years to rank the teams. 247 also does one where they look at the talent actually on the roster which helps adjust for attrition and transfers so I think that's a little bit better look but this gives a decent idea when trying to compare "talent." For our purposes, I'll list the Huskers and this year's opponents (5 year average) 2 - Ohio State (4.2) 19 - Oregon (19.4) 29 - Nebraska (28.4) 43 - Wisconsin (41.6) 44 - Maryland (42.0) 48 - Indiana (50.8) 50 - Northwestern (51.8) 52 - Iowa (52.6) 56 - Minnesota (58.6) 58 - Illinois (60.8) 64 - Purdue (65.0) Not Listed - Fresno State, Wyoming 3 Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Big Ten 2 = OSU 15 = Mich 26t = MSU 26t = PSU 29 = Neb 43 = Wisc 44 = Maryland 48 = Ind 49 = Rutgers 50t = North 52t = Iowa 56 = Minn 58 = Illinois 64 = Purdue Bolded is the west division. 1 Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Do they indicate whether they (or 247) do any weighting based on class year? For example, a senior class ranked 15th may offset a freshman class ranked 30th in a way that the weighted average strength of roster is, say, 18th? My chief concern in all of these rankings, though, is the false perception created by the sequential rankings. For example, a spread of 10 points may separate 25th from 35th, but 100 points may separate 1st from 5th. It's all pretty amusing stuff... kind of like all rankings systems, it's really about click throughs from fans, and for CFB, monetizing the off season. 1 Quote Link to comment
NUance Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Do they indicate whether they (or 247) do any weighting based on class year? For example, a senior class ranked 15th may offset a freshman class ranked 30th in a way that the weighted average strength of roster is, say, 18th? My chief concern in all of these rankings, though, is the false perception created by the sequential rankings. For example, a spread of 10 points may separate 25th from 35th, but 100 points may separate 1st from 5th. It's all pretty amusing stuff... kind of like all rankings systems, it's really about click throughs from fans, and for CFB, monetizing the off season. Ha ha! That would be more accurate. But no. They don't even account for attrition in this article. (Mavric says another article does, though.) btw, Accounting for attrition would make this ranking *much* more believable. I mean, think about tOSU. Their nine guys who declared early for the 2016 NFL draft count against them in this article. That's just absurd. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 This article was linked in another thread but I think it's interesting to look at as a kind of preview for the year. They used the average class ranking on the 247 Composite over the last five years to rank the teams. 247 also does one where they look at the talent actually on the roster which helps adjust for attrition and transfers so I think that's a little bit better look but this gives a decent idea when trying to compare "talent." For our purposes, I'll list the Huskers and this year's opponents (5 year average) 2 - Ohio State (4.2) 19 - Oregon (19.4) 29 - Nebraska (28.4) 43 - Wisconsin (41.6) 44 - Maryland (42.0) 48 - Indiana (50.8) 50 - Northwestern (51.8) 52 - Iowa (52.6) 56 - Minnesota (58.6) 58 - Illinois (60.8) 64 - Purdue (65.0) Not Listed - Fresno State, Wyoming Yep, that looks about right. In the B1G... well... the top 4 teams are all in the East division and the bottom 5 teams are all in the west division. Hmmm... Quote Link to comment
TGHusker Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 This article was linked in another thread but I think it's interesting to look at as a kind of preview for the year. They used the average class ranking on the 247 Composite over the last five years to rank the teams. 247 also does one where they look at the talent actually on the roster which helps adjust for attrition and transfers so I think that's a little bit better look but this gives a decent idea when trying to compare "talent." For our purposes, I'll list the Huskers and this year's opponents (5 year average) 2 - Ohio State (4.2) 19 - Oregon (19.4) 29 - Nebraska (28.4) 43 - Wisconsin (41.6) 44 - Maryland (42.0) 48 - Indiana (50.8) 50 - Northwestern (51.8) 52 - Iowa (52.6) 56 - Minnesota (58.6) 58 - Illinois (60.8) 64 - Purdue (65.0) Not Listed - Fresno State, Wyoming Yep, that looks about right. In the B1G... well... the top 4 teams are all in the East division and the bottom 5 teams are all in the west division. Hmmm... Yep, getting to be like Big 12 North. We need OU to join the league and become a west div member. That would restore the real day after thanksgiving game and bring back a quality rival and build up the west - NU, OU, Wisc and occasionally Iowa or NW would bring some respect to the division. Of course I'd like Kansas to join for basketball but you know it is a negative for football. I'd even take Mo back into our division. The BG 10 got Rutgers and Maryland for the TV sets but they bring very little else. We need to get some more quality football teams in the league and into our schedule. Besides OU, I'm not sure who could come into the west div and be of help to beef it up. I like Oklahoma State, living here in Tulsa, but I don't see the conf offering them a spot (I'd love to see OU and OSU join the west - so I can see the Husker locally again). Any ACC type team would go to the east and then they would push Indiana over to our side - which isn't much. Maybe Norte Dame could come to the west- but I think they are dead set against joining the Big 10. I don't see the conference raiding the deep south - GA Tech for example. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted July 13, 2016 Author Share Posted July 13, 2016 Do they indicate whether they (or 247) do any weighting based on class year? For example, a senior class ranked 15th may offset a freshman class ranked 30th in a way that the weighted average strength of roster is, say, 18th? My chief concern in all of these rankings, though, is the false perception created by the sequential rankings. For example, a spread of 10 points may separate 25th from 35th, but 100 points may separate 1st from 5th. It's all pretty amusing stuff... kind of like all rankings systems, it's really about click throughs from fans, and for CFB, monetizing the off season. Ha ha! That would be more accurate. But no. They don't even account for attrition in this article. (Mavric says another article does, though.) btw, Accounting for attrition would make this ranking *much* more believable. I mean, think about tOSU. Their nine guys who declared early for the 2016 NFL draft count against them in this article. That's just absurd. Yeah, 247 did their own last year that was just the guys currently on the roster. I haven't seen that for this year but I'm assuming they'll do that again. If I get bored tonight I might dump that data into a spreadsheet so I can weight the classes because that would be interesting to see if it changes much. Not sure how to weight them though. Even the oldest class should probably be devalued some because the only guys left from that class would be fifth-year seniors so most of the best players in that class are already gone. And not a lot of this year's freshman would be major contributors. Off the cuff, I'd guess something like 18-26-24-20-12 would probably be about right. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 This article was linked in another thread but I think it's interesting to look at as a kind of preview for the year. They used the average class ranking on the 247 Composite over the last five years to rank the teams. 247 also does one where they look at the talent actually on the roster which helps adjust for attrition and transfers so I think that's a little bit better look but this gives a decent idea when trying to compare "talent." For our purposes, I'll list the Huskers and this year's opponents (5 year average) 2 - Ohio State (4.2) 19 - Oregon (19.4) 29 - Nebraska (28.4) 43 - Wisconsin (41.6) 44 - Maryland (42.0) 48 - Indiana (50.8) 50 - Northwestern (51.8) 52 - Iowa (52.6) 56 - Minnesota (58.6) 58 - Illinois (60.8) 64 - Purdue (65.0) Not Listed - Fresno State, Wyoming Yep, that looks about right. In the B1G... well... the top 4 teams are all in the East division and the bottom 5 teams are all in the west division. Hmmm... Yep, getting to be like Big 12 North. We need OU to join the league and become a west div member. That would restore the real day after thanksgiving game and bring back a quality rival and build up the west - NU, OU, Wisc and occasionally Iowa or NW would bring some respect to the division. Of course I'd like Kansas to join for basketball but you know it is a negative for football. I'd even take Mo back into our division. The BG 10 got Rutgers and Maryland for the TV sets but they bring very little else. We need to get some more quality football teams in the league and into our schedule. Besides OU, I'm not sure who could come into the west div and be of help to beef it up. I like Oklahoma State, living here in Tulsa, but I don't see the conf offering them a spot (I'd love to see OU and OSU join the west - so I can see the Husker locally again). Any ACC type team would go to the east and then they would push Indiana over to our side - which isn't much. Maybe Norte Dame could come to the west- but I think they are dead set against joining the Big 10. I don't see the conference raiding the deep south - GA Tech for example. Agree...good comment. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Do they indicate whether they (or 247) do any weighting based on class year? For example, a senior class ranked 15th may offset a freshman class ranked 30th in a way that the weighted average strength of roster is, say, 18th? My chief concern in all of these rankings, though, is the false perception created by the sequential rankings. For example, a spread of 10 points may separate 25th from 35th, but 100 points may separate 1st from 5th. It's all pretty amusing stuff... kind of like all rankings systems, it's really about click throughs from fans, and for CFB, monetizing the off season. Ha ha! That would be more accurate. But no. They don't even account for attrition in this article. (Mavric says another article does, though.) btw, Accounting for attrition would make this ranking *much* more believable. I mean, think about tOSU. Their nine guys who declared early for the 2016 NFL draft count against them in this article. That's just absurd. Yeah, 247 did their own last year that was just the guys currently on the roster. I haven't seen that for this year but I'm assuming they'll do that again. If I get bored tonight I might dump that data into a spreadsheet so I can weight the classes because that would be interesting to see if it changes much. Not sure how to weight them though. Even the oldest class should probably be devalued some because the only guys left from that class would be fifth-year seniors so most of the best players in that class are already gone. And not a lot of this year's freshman would be major contributors. Off the cuff, I'd guess something like 18-26-24-20-12 would probably be about right. The Elite Player Metric has been 100% accurate for the last 12 years in a row... and it doesn't take any of that other stuff into account. Quote Link to comment
RedDenver Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Do they indicate whether they (or 247) do any weighting based on class year? For example, a senior class ranked 15th may offset a freshman class ranked 30th in a way that the weighted average strength of roster is, say, 18th? My chief concern in all of these rankings, though, is the false perception created by the sequential rankings. For example, a spread of 10 points may separate 25th from 35th, but 100 points may separate 1st from 5th. It's all pretty amusing stuff... kind of like all rankings systems, it's really about click throughs from fans, and for CFB, monetizing the off season. Ha ha! That would be more accurate. But no. They don't even account for attrition in this article. (Mavric says another article does, though.) btw, Accounting for attrition would make this ranking *much* more believable. I mean, think about tOSU. Their nine guys who declared early for the 2016 NFL draft count against them in this article. That's just absurd. Yeah, 247 did their own last year that was just the guys currently on the roster. I haven't seen that for this year but I'm assuming they'll do that again. If I get bored tonight I might dump that data into a spreadsheet so I can weight the classes because that would be interesting to see if it changes much. Not sure how to weight them though. Even the oldest class should probably be devalued some because the only guys left from that class would be fifth-year seniors so most of the best players in that class are already gone. And not a lot of this year's freshman would be major contributors. Off the cuff, I'd guess something like 18-26-24-20-12 would probably be about right. The Elite Player Metric has been 100% accurate for the last 12 years in a row... and it doesn't take any of that other stuff into account. 100% accurate at predicting what? Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Do they indicate whether they (or 247) do any weighting based on class year? For example, a senior class ranked 15th may offset a freshman class ranked 30th in a way that the weighted average strength of roster is, say, 18th? My chief concern in all of these rankings, though, is the false perception created by the sequential rankings. For example, a spread of 10 points may separate 25th from 35th, but 100 points may separate 1st from 5th. It's all pretty amusing stuff... kind of like all rankings systems, it's really about click throughs from fans, and for CFB, monetizing the off season. Ha ha! That would be more accurate. But no. They don't even account for attrition in this article. (Mavric says another article does, though.) btw, Accounting for attrition would make this ranking *much* more believable. I mean, think about tOSU. Their nine guys who declared early for the 2016 NFL draft count against them in this article. That's just absurd. Yeah, 247 did their own last year that was just the guys currently on the roster. I haven't seen that for this year but I'm assuming they'll do that again. If I get bored tonight I might dump that data into a spreadsheet so I can weight the classes because that would be interesting to see if it changes much. Not sure how to weight them though. Even the oldest class should probably be devalued some because the only guys left from that class would be fifth-year seniors so most of the best players in that class are already gone. And not a lot of this year's freshman would be major contributors. Off the cuff, I'd guess something like 18-26-24-20-12 would probably be about right. The Elite Player Metric has been 100% accurate for the last 12 years in a row... and it doesn't take any of that other stuff into account. 100% accurate at predicting what? 100% accurate. Only teams that meet the metric can win a college football national championship. This is the most important metric ever discovered in the history of college football. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 A logic failure, RD. What are you afraid of ? Why does reality scare you so much ? Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 A logic failure, RD. What are you afraid of ? Why does reality scare you so much ? Nuclear war. And major logic failures that confuse components of past results with necessary elements of future results. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 A logic failure, RD. What are you afraid of ? Why does reality scare you so much ? Nuclear war. And major logic failures that confuse components of past results with necessary elements of future results. The SBN writer laid out the cold hard FACTS. Brilliant research and writing on his part. All you have is your typical arguing BS. I have no interest in arguing with you. End of discussion. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.