beorach

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

You don't say? p.s. - By the numbers, Nebraska did have below average passing offense overall...though it was practically average statistically. The interceptions were the problem. Touchdowns and yards per game were good stats for NU, particularly relative to what other B1G teams were doing - MSU's stat is comparable for TD/G but only Indiana is close for both categories. Here are Nebraska's z-scores from comparison to national averages and standard deviations calculated for all FBS teams in games against other FBS teams only: completions per game 0.300 percentage -0.331 yards per attempt 0.233 touchdowns per game 0.793 interceptions per game -2.200 rating -0.028 yards per game 0.694 For those who haven't read my posts explaining these figures, the z-score is the difference from the national average for a category expressed as a number of standard deviations for the given statistic. At a z-score of -2, you're in the bottom 2.3% of all the data. You can see a good explanation, with pictures, here: http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algtrig/ats2/normallesson.htm What I'd think we'd need to also look at is what TA offers in the running game, though, if we were really going to be fair...to see how much of a tradeoff there is w/r/t the turnovers through the air. From my recollection, it sure didn't seem to look like it in our last game.

I shared a similar sentiment about Herman this season. When your team's best wins are against Navy and Memphis...now Temple, too...it's a bit of a jump to assume the guy would be a slam dunk hire for a P5 school. There was also that loss to UCONN. The dice have been rolled here too recently anyway, of course.

We've got some legendary coaches' quotes in here and I thought I saw something resembling this one (so I figured we needed to give another the credit he's due): "We tell all of our men that the first and foremost requisite of a good football player is that he must have a burning desire to play the game. There is absolutely no substitute for this." ---Coach Frank Leahy

I'd be interested if we pick against the spread.

This. And yet, why is it that some folks do not want to accept this and deal with this? They all believe they know what's going on at Nebraska. Some won't even stop "Bolieving" despite its irrelevance to this timeline we're all sharing (insofar as I can perceive reality).

When just hitting the plus for this is not enough... C'mon, guys - let's try to read, comprehend, and live in the now. Nobody's happy about the record but some of us can still hope and even some who can't (hope) still manage to refrain from regularly attacking their peers.

Maybe FBS/Div. I should have been used instead of P5?

I hate Michigan more than I hate Ohio State...but I hate Meyer and respect Harbaugh (partly for how he called out Michigan for not doing right by their kids academically - that whole business about him being discouraged from pursuing a degree in history). A rival is someone whose resume is similar to your own...someone who's right there at the finish line with you... You go back and forth in terms of taking the same honors. There can be animosity between you and your rival but not necessarily. The deal with Iowa just has to do with geographical bragging rights.

To be more accurate, I should have said that your conclusions and interpretations of the numbers aren't very valid, IMO. Just because you can quantify something doesn't make it a good measurement. You have 2+2 apples, and I have 4. But you have good healthy apples, and mine are undersized, bruised and going bad. Does 2+2=4? Not if you're trying to do any kind of evaluation of the apples. Thanks for eventually clearing the numbers from judgment in your last post. That I don't think Iowa is worthy to be in a hypothetical 8-team playoff doesn't mean I "disagree" with the quality of their statistics. Furthermore, I'm perfectly fine with your not feeling that greatness should be determined by these calculations. There's no question these numbers the Hawkeyes put up are much, much greater than the average ones is all I was getting at. Taking the other thread's discussion here was largely the issue, I suppose. All I posted here for was to share information and generate discussion over what conferences have done relative to national averages. We've got a lot of teams and not enough games. That's why stats matter. It's hard to get a really clear picture of what's going on (as I opined in the OP). Henry's probably not the best player in the nation but his stats, his team, and early marketing got him that trophy. I wonder how many voters didn't even watch many games involving the finalists and just looked at stats. I.e., I get that stats can be a problem. What's a bigger problem is we don't have enough out-of-conference games that matter to really know whether a team that looks good against its conference foes is really great. That's why I ran these calculations on conferences - there was simply not enough to see on the field to really determine one conference is much greater than another. As for the playoff committee, I don't think it's fair to be judging the numbers too harshly with respect to their seeding. Look at the spreads from Vegas. I've got the "right" order above, in terms of who the first round favorites are... The short money is on Alabama beating Oklahoma in the championship game, if you've paid attention.

I thought Fournette looked ready for the pros last season. CM didn't have a big game against ND is the only puzzling thing with him...considering how little defense there was... I thought Stanford was fortunate to get a few calls to go their way in the passing game that night. E.g., one of their WR's started to catch a pass (read: didn't have control of the ball) on a third and long and was knocked back a yard and a half from the marker before completing the catch...but was given forward progress nevertheless.

I'm not going to waste any more time with a lot of what you wrote but figured I should clarify one thing, based on your quote below. You can have whatever problem you like with me and my conclusions, opinions, et cetera - that's a big part of what message boards are all about after all. The z-scores I've shared for college football statistics were accurately calculated, though (and I even divided appropriate figures by the number of games against FBS teams a team played to normalize figures and level the playing field - the average number of games played by FBS teams against FBS teams was barely over 11 (with Nebraska playing 12 but Alabama only playing 11, to give two examples)). There is absolutely nothing that requires higher math to do this. You take the difference between a statistic and the national average for it...and then divide by the standard deviation for that sample set of statistics from all the FBS teams. I took the average of all the z-scores in nine categories to come up with nine "ratings" for those categories. I then averaged those nine figures to come up with an overall rating for every FBS team. When I considered a standard deviation off the average for that overall rating to be a good indicator that a team could fairly be considered great, that's just a matter of statistical significance. The average plus/minus one standard deviation encompasses 2/3 of your data in a normal distribution, as I recall from the most basic of stats instruction. I failed in describing that marker as a percentile last week because the 2/3 is in that range and the amount of data to the left is equal to the amount of data to the right...such that having exceeded the rating at the average plus one standard deviation means you're in the top sixth. We're then talking about the 83rd percentile. Iowa is one of 22 teams that put up numbers that are, to the statistically significant degree I just described, different than the national averages. These numbers were not adjusted in any way to reflect strength of schedule nor winning percentage. No category was given any more weight than another. The numbers are exactly what I described such that they cannot be valid or invalid. Is the sum of 2 and 2 valid? 4 is just the result of correctly calculating the sum. Team overall Oklahoma 1.156 Baylor 1.008 Ohio State 0.973 Alabama 0.962 Clemson 0.938 Houston 0.931 San Diego State 0.853 Western Kentucky 0.839 Southern Mississippi 0.838 Iowa 0.813 Appalachian State 0.796 Bowling Green 0.776 Georgia Southern 0.761 North Carolina 0.742 Navy 0.734 Boise State 0.693 Wisconsin 0.692 Florida State 0.655 Toledo 0.610 Michigan 0.593 West Virginia 0.588 Florida 0.588 I messed up the quote by editing it but here's what I was responding to: 'VA Husker Fan: "...or acknowledged that your numbers aren't really too valid."'

How many ways can we post about being unhappy with the current staff?

Okay, it would seem we're not being friendly anymore (or maybe we never were and I just didn't realize it until now?). That's cool. I obviously hope you're wrong about the future of college football given that I agree wholeheartedly with the 'win your conference or you're out of contention for the national title' argument but everyone's entitled to his opinion. Michigan State had one-score wins against two out of the three bottom feeders of the B1G plus they lost to us. Their stats put them below an average z-score that would translate to their being at the 67th percentile level among FBS teams - that's all I was ever sharing aside from my thoughts on those stats. My issue with Iowa is entirely about schedule (given that they're not a conference champion - my favorite dead horse to wallop). Of the teams that were in the mix for playoff consideration down the stretch, their schedule was dramatically different. If you don't want to trust my SOS calculation, you can find them all over the internet. The first one that comes up has Iowa's schedule at 54th: https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other I don't understand why some folks are hostile toward me for doing little more than sharing stats...projecting that I must think they're all that matter and that they represent the absolutely precise quality of all teams. I've had people insinuate that I don't watch college football. I'm totally fine with this (what I largely contribute here) not being everyone's cup of tea but I don't get why that preference needs to be expressed so extremely. p.s. - I doubt we're so far apart as it may seem. As I've shared today, I think it would make sense to have half of the FBS be its own division and not allow its teams to play teams from any lower one. That would give us real data to look at instead of having all these cupcake game stats interspersed with those from games between the P5 conference teams. The reality now is you still have the little guy in the mix even if it may seem ridiculous to have them in the postseason mix...given their schedules not measuring up.

There are 128 FBS teams and half of them are in P5 conferences. I think that we should jettison half the division and force all the P5 teams to only play teams at their level if we're going to get a better picture as to what teams and conferences are good, great, etc. p.s. - I responded to you in the other thread we were working yesterday, VA, with respect to some of what we left off discussing here...

VA - I appreciate the convo even if we're confusing each other some. I suppose you're right that there is a path with the current system. I felt like I had explained my reasoning for what I had shared well enough to not have it called ridiculous is all. To give you a little grief back, do you realize you made opposite arguments in two different threads yesterday? In one, you were arguing that I needed to recognize that MSU is a great team (when I'm not doing anything except sharing stats and drawing some conclusions - the standard deviation thing is just saying they're not exceeding the 67th percentile (rounded up)). That would mean I prioritize their late season performance and the CCG, though. I was stressing that I was looking at the whole season and not a subset. That was the other thread. In this thread, you were arguing that I'm looking at a subset of games and needed to look at the whole season. Just looking at the B1G, you have less than a third of out-of-conference games that were played against P5 teams...and that was the second toughest scheduling for any P5 conference (with the ACC at 38%). http://www.mcall.com/sports/mc-college-football-big-ten-scheduling-20150903-story.html Moiraine - I appreciate the ideas. I'd like to do something like that and come up with some rankings. Incorporating strength of schedule is another stumbling block I have to overcome before I could, though. For now, I'm just sharing figures that I feel indicate some level of consistency in performance. There are certainly things the stats miss. E.g., Northwestern looks pretty weak on paper but they've come up with some quality wins. On a final note, I did stop looking at field goals the way we had talked about before...and I just consider touchdowns and total points (both per game to even things out when some teams didn't play so many FBS teams as others).

If that subset wasn't, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the only meaningful portion of a team's resume, I might agree. The fact is that most teams don't play anyone outside their conference. Alabama had Wisconsin. Oklahoma had Tennessee. Michigan State had Oregon. Clemson had Notre Dame. One game does not a substantial subset make. Add in the FCS portion of most teams' resumes and that consideration unravels further... Back to the smaller programs' involvement in the playoff, you're ignoring a simple fact. We can't just change the rules every season to allow for the possibility of an undefeated "Boise State." Allowing for them to get in might mean we get a 1-loss Marshall last season, a 1-loss Houston and 2-loss WKU in this one (if you had to find 8 based on the criteria I know there has been popular support for in the past and recounted twice above).

I think my eyeballs failed me when I looked at my spreadsheet is all. MTSU is just one line below Michigan State. I'll update that - thanks! As for this being ridiculous, these are the highest-ranked conference champions from outside the P5. Do you think Boise State never deserved to play for a title, too? I think it's silly we don't have two separate divisions when there are 64 in the P5 and 64 outside the P5 to make up the FBS but, for now, that's what we have. A playoff of five is not ideal, either, but the OP called for eight so I wasn't going to diverge. I think you're skimming what I've written and then responding. To repeat, I'm trying to satisfy two venerable arguments with a playoff scenario: 1) a team that didn't win its conference shouldn't play for a national title; and 2) a team from outside the BCS/P5 should be able to play for the national title. Now, I'll grant you that we don't have as deserving a field as we have in other seasons...but I don't think anyone expects that a playoff participant selection process can be flexible enough to adjust to any possible season.

It's a fact that MSU, over the course of a season, didn't perform like a great team. Their passing defense numbers are pretty average. Their rushing offense numbers are below average. Total offense is another below average category for them. I suppose my wording could be better. I tried to explain this but was probably too verbose and that obscured the overall message. I used the standard deviation as the cutoff because that means you're in the top third of the bell curve. When that's where you are for the average rating of all nine categories I considered, I thought it was fair to call those team performances great. Getting back to the B1G champ, MSU's average overall z-score was 0.536 compared to the standard deviation of 0.579. We're talking about hundredths as the difference but Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, and Wisconsin managed to exceed that for their respective averages over the course of the season (considering only their games against other FBS teams). p.s. - Vandy is at a -0.358 so they were close. South Carolina's value was -0.347. For our bad teams, Purdue and Rutgers have the same -0.697 while Maryland's was -0.607.

Unless we're going to have 16 or 32 teams make it, I don't want a college football playoff that features more than one team from any conference. It'd be one thing if Ohio State and Michigan State had been destroying everyone else on their schedules but having Iowa in there also is just plain ridiculous. I think the best team they played ahead of the CCG was Wisconsin such that you'd have to look at other one-loss teams that played tougher schedules. I don't understand why college football fans seem placated with what we have. I'm thrilled there has been progress but I think it's fair to point out that the BCS did some things better and I've already gone into that in other threads. The more we think a few pundits have figured out, in terms of what teams/conferences are the best, the more likely it is we'll be waiting longer than we should for a simpler and better solution to the question of who deserves the national title. My 8 would look like this (though I haven't gone into much detail - I'm just using the AP Top 25 and favoring conference champs unless an independent exists that looks "unequivocally" better): #1 Clemson versus #8 Western Kentucky #2 Alabama versus #7 Houston #3 Michigan State versus #6 Notre Dame #4 Oklahoma versus #5 Stanford A team that can't win its conference shouldn't be playing for the national title and a non-P5 team should still have a chance to play for it. That's all I'm trying to satisfy. You can't tell me that anyone who's not a fan of a particular team in that situation (P5 team without a conference championship to its name) would want that team in the mix when spots are at a premium. Finally, it should be noted that Notre Dame played 5 teams from the current Top 25. Clemson played 3 (including CCG). Western Kentucky played 1. Alabama played 4 (including CCG). Houston played 2 (including CCG). Michigan State played 4 (including CCG). Oklahoma played 3. Stanford played 3 (including CCG).

I stopped collecting stats ahead of the CCG weekend and here are the results... Conference Ratings by Average Overall Z-Score SEC: 0.204 B1G: 0.117 Big XI:- 0.108 ACC: 0.101 Pac-12: 0.070 These numbers represent the average z-score for nine categories (pass d/o, rush d/o, scoring d/o, total d/o, and turnover margin). I took the average z-score of all the individual stats within each of these nine categories and then took the average for all those average z-scores to come up with the average overall z-scores for each team. I averaged all of a conference's teams' average overall z-scores to get the conference rankings. For SOS, I took the average of all the conference teams' opponents average z-scores. You get it, right? I took a lot of averages! To clarify, the z-score is just the difference from the national average in terms of the number of standard deviations. A z-score of 1 means the stat is a full standard deviation better than the national average figure. I only considered games played between the 128 FBS teams to determine means and standard deviations for statistical comparisons and I tried to normalize things...meaning I'd always divide figures by the number of games played... Conference Ratings by Average Strength of Schedule SEC: 0.141 ACC: 0.105 B1G: 0.080 Big XII: 0.061 Pac-12: 0.041 Conference Ratings by Average Defensive Category Z-score SEC: 0.566 B1G: 0.384 ACC: 0.373 Pac-12: -0.198 Big XII: -0.438 Conference Ratings by Average Offensive Category Z-score Big XII: 0.619 Pac-12: 0.325 B1G: -0.132 SEC: -0.149 ACC: -0.158 Conference Ratings by Average Passing Offense Z-score Pac-12: 0.440 Big XII: 0.357 ACC: -0.103 SEC: -0.133 B1G: -0.204 Conference Ratings by Average Rushing Offense Z-score Big XII: 0.514 Pac-12: 0.076 SEC: -0.001 B1G: -0.022 ACC: -0.108 I'm going to dump all the B1G stuff for the above categories now... BIG Team over Ohio State 0.973 Iowa 0.813 Wisconsin 0.692 Michigan 0.593 Michigan State 0.536 Penn State 0.159 Northwestern 0.101 Nebraska 0.012 Illinois -0.054 Minnesota -0.082 Indiana -0.105 Maryland -0.607 Rutgers -0.697 Purdue -0.697 BIG Team def Wisconsin 1.702 Michigan 1.439 Ohio State 1.407 Iowa 1.040 Northwestern 1.039 Penn State 0.771 Michigan State 0.676 Minnesota 0.405 Illinois 0.362 Nebraska 0.069 Maryland -0.468 Purdue -0.974 Indiana -1.012 Rutgers -1.087 BIG Team off Ohio State 0.748 Indiana 0.642 Iowa 0.476 Michigan State 0.243 Nebraska 0.207 Michigan 0.036 Wisconsin -0.198 Rutgers -0.423 Purdue -0.474 Minnesota -0.503 Penn State -0.513 Maryland -0.565 Illinois -0.616 Northwestern -0.908 BIG Team SOS Maryland 0.438 Purdue 0.277 Illinois 0.204 Minnesota 0.190 Penn State 0.133 Northwestern 0.109 Indiana 0.079 Nebraska 0.077 Michigan State 0.072 Rutgers 0.052 Michigan -0.056 Ohio State -0.061 Iowa -0.181 Wisconsin -0.212 BIG Team po Indiana 0.624 Michigan State 0.426 Michigan 0.181 Iowa 0.179 Ohio State 0.129 Nebraska -0.077 Penn State -0.110 Wisconsin -0.153 Rutgers -0.246 Minnesota -0.254 Illinois -0.299 Purdue -0.451 Northwestern -1.175 Maryland -1.628 BIG Team ro Ohio State 1.629 Iowa 0.992 Maryland 0.416 Indiana 0.264 Nebraska 0.075 Michigan -0.065 Michigan State -0.156 Wisconsin -0.197 Northwestern -0.406 Rutgers -0.440 Minnesota -0.445 Penn State -0.572 Purdue -0.619 Illinois -0.788 PAC-12 Pac-12 Team over California 0.036 Oregon 0.264 Oregon State -1.008 Stanford 0.524 Washington State 0.046 Washington 0.324 Arizona -0.296 Arizona State 0.040 USC 0.508 Utah 0.383 UCLA 0.369 Colorado -0.348 Pac-12 Team off California 0.620 Oregon 1.339 Oregon State -0.781 Stanford 0.811 Washington State 0.399 Washington -0.208 Arizona 0.517 Arizona State 0.448 USC 0.713 Utah -0.030 UCLA 0.511 Colorado -0.437 Pac-12 Team def California -0.551 Oregon -0.845 Oregon State -1.392 Stanford 0.402 Washington State -0.278 Washington 0.790 Arizona -0.995 Arizona State -0.385 USC 0.167 Utah 0.733 UCLA 0.304 Colorado -0.322 Pac-12 Team SOS California 0.198 Oregon 0.089 Oregon State 0.164 Stanford -0.076 Washington State -0.128 Washington 0.123 Arizona 0.041 Arizona State 0.109 USC 0.116 Utah -0.018 UCLA -0.066 Colorado -0.066 Pac-12 Team ro California -0.358 Oregon 1.529 Oregon State -0.022 Stanford 1.030 Washington State -1.458 Washington -0.381 Arizona 0.490 Arizona State -0.061 USC 0.169 Utah 0.096 UCLA 0.591 Colorado -0.715 Pac-12 Team po California 1.158 Oregon 0.828 Oregon State -1.115 Stanford 0.792 Washington State 1.614 Washington 0.011 Arizona 0.280 Arizona State 0.510 USC 1.114 Utah -0.095 UCLA 0.267 Colorado -0.088 Big XII Big XII Team over Baylor 1.008 Oklahoma 1.156 Kansas -1.506 TCU 0.507 Oklahoma State 0.368 Texas -0.121 West Virginia 0.588 Texas Tech 0.050 Iowa State -0.515 Kansas State -0.456 Big XII Team off Baylor 2.035 Oklahoma 1.580 Kansas -1.290 TCU 1.156 Oklahoma State 0.821 Texas 0.019 West Virginia 0.501 Texas Tech 1.683 Iowa State -0.092 Kansas State -0.226 Big XII Team def Baylor 0.111 Oklahoma 0.839 Kansas -2.020 TCU 0.000 Oklahoma State -0.316 Texas -0.448 West Virginia 0.577 Texas Tech -1.552 Iowa State -0.827 Kansas State -0.746 Big XII Team sos Baylor -0.145 Oklahoma 0.013 Kansas 0.208 TCU -0.037 Oklahoma State 0.048 Texas -0.001 West Virginia 0.110 Texas Tech 0.054 Iowa State 0.274 Kansas State 0.082 Big XII Team ro Baylor 1.709 Oklahoma 1.221 Kansas -1.756 TCU 0.663 Oklahoma State -0.498 Texas 1.095 West Virginia 1.014 Texas Tech 1.370 Iowa State 0.125 Kansas State 0.193 Big XII Team po Baylor 1.519 Oklahoma 1.421 Kansas -0.684 TCU 0.982 Oklahoma State 1.232 Texas -0.580 West Virginia -0.442 Texas Tech 1.200 Iowa State -0.259 Kansas State -0.821 ACC ACC Team over Clemson 0.938 Miami (Florida) -0.152 Florida State 0.655 North Carolina 0.742 Duke 0.084 Louisville 0.160 Pittsburgh 0.305 Virginia Tech 0.011 Boston College -0.114 North Carolina State 0.525 Georgia Tech -0.166 Virginia -0.354 Syracuse -0.587 Wake Forest -0.631 ACC Team off Clemson 0.879 Miami (Florida) -0.218 Florida State 0.369 North Carolina 1.238 Duke -0.007 Louisville -0.202 Pittsburgh -0.124 Virginia Tech -0.503 Boston College -1.675 North Carolina State 0.492 Georgia Tech -0.245 Virginia -0.359 Syracuse -0.606 Wake Forest -1.253 ACC Team def Clemson 1.256 Miami (Florida) -0.397 Florida State 1.042 North Carolina 0.284 Duke 0.228 Louisville 0.684 Pittsburgh 0.719 Virginia Tech 0.422 Boston College 1.421 North Carolina State 0.449 Georgia Tech 0.088 Virginia -0.318 Syracuse -0.759 Wake Forest 0.108 ACC Team sos Clemson 0.060 Miami (Florida) 0.184 Florida State 0.024 North Carolina -0.078 Duke -0.114 Louisville 0.133 Pittsburgh 0.106 Virginia Tech 0.104 Boston College 0.210 North Carolina State -0.036 Georgia Tech 0.221 Virginia 0.180 Syracuse 0.245 Wake Forest 0.236 ACC Team ro Clemson 0.636 Miami (Florida) -0.972 Florida State 0.623 North Carolina 1.903 Duke -0.042 Louisville -0.369 Pittsburgh -0.237 Virginia Tech -1.051 Boston College -1.095 North Carolina State 0.939 Georgia Tech 0.766 Virginia -0.567 Syracuse -0.453 Wake Forest -1.589 ACC Team po Clemson 0.861 Miami (Florida) 0.504 Florida State 0.551 North Carolina 0.737 Duke -0.019 Louisville -0.123 Pittsburgh 0.302 Virginia Tech -0.203 Boston College -1.715 North Carolina State 0.138 Georgia Tech -1.060 Virginia -0.153 Syracuse -0.480 Wake Forest -0.775 SEC SEC Team over Vanderbilt -0.358 Tennessee 0.385 South Carolina -0.347 Mississippi State 0.157 Mississippi 0.513 Missouri -0.221 Texas A&M 0.118 Kentucky -0.127 Georgia 0.468 Auburn -0.076 Alabama 0.962 Florida 0.588 Arkansas 0.282 LSU 0.512 SEC Team off Vanderbilt -1.315 Tennessee 0.372 South Carolina -0.595 Mississippi State 0.212 Mississippi 0.809 Missouri -1.554 Texas A&M -0.189 Kentucky -0.391 Georgia -0.235 Auburn -0.182 Alabama 0.364 Florida -0.352 Arkansas 0.533 LSU 0.432 SEC Team def Vanderbilt 0.614 Tennessee 0.510 South Carolina -0.310 Mississippi State 0.255 Mississippi 0.351 Missouri 1.078 Texas A&M 0.496 Kentucky 0.093 Georgia 1.197 Auburn -0.110 Alabama 1.694 Florida 1.472 Arkansas 0.013 LSU 0.568 SEC Team sos Vanderbilt 0.304 Tennessee 0.194 South Carolina 0.147 Mississippi State 0.245 Mississippi 0.094 Missouri 0.142 Texas A&M 0.077 Kentucky -0.042 Georgia 0.026 Auburn 0.206 Alabama 0.193 Florida 0.046 Arkansas 0.209 LSU 0.137 SEC Team ro Vanderbilt -0.997 Tennessee 0.820 South Carolina -0.393 Mississippi State -0.726 Mississippi 0.258 Missouri -1.339 Texas A&M -0.476 Kentucky 0.318 Georgia 0.333 Auburn 0.357 Alabama 0.646 Florida -0.660 Arkansas 0.259 LSU 1.586 SEC Team po Vanderbilt -1.340 Tennessee -0.047 South Carolina -0.484 Mississippi State 1.055 Mississippi 0.955 Missouri -1.193 Texas A&M -0.069 Kentucky -0.840 Georgia -0.279 Auburn -0.400 Alabama 0.118 Florida 0.086 Arkansas 0.889 LSU -0.318 When I look at the statistical distribution for the overall ratings, 0.578 is the standard deviation. By that rationale, the following conferences have the following number of great/terrible teams: B1G has 4 great teams and 3 terrible teams SEC has 2 great teams and no terrible team ACC has 3 great teams and 2 terrible teams Big XII has 3 great teams and 1 terrible team Pac-12 has no great teams and 1 terrible team This has nothing to do with talent nor W-L records. It's just the relation of teams' statistical performances relative to the averages set by all 128 FBS teams in games against other FBS teams. I may cut half the teams out next time and just go with the P5 teams but this is enough "work" for now... I think this is enough to question the eyeball test of even our playoff committee experts. There just aren't enough games between FBS teams from different conferences to really know what's what. I can't tell whether a team is a contender or a pretender but deviations from statistical trends are easily tracked and provide a factual basis, at least.

Respect the former Knight & Husker - he played opposite the Sandman once upon a time.

There was one statistically great offense in the SEC this season and that belonged to Ole Miss. Arkansas and LSU posted numbers that put them (a distant) second and third. Defensively, though, the SEC put up some sick defensive figures. Who's to say how much it has to do with lousy offense? The Big XII had offensive numbers that separated themselves from the FBS national averages as much as the SEC's defensive ones. Their defensive ones were much worse than the SEC's offensive ones, though. I'm just speaking of average ratings, too, to be clear.

I'm with Creed. Jeff Long said this (MSU jumping OU) was about wins against top ten teams and the win over Iowa. He could have chosen his words in such a way as to obscure the issue over a lack of consistency but he didn't. MSU already had the advantage in wins over top ten teams last week and jumping a team ahead of you for beating a team ranked below the team you jumped...if you follow...is ludicrous. If Long had just said something along the lines of, "The win over Iowa made Michigan State's body of work superior to that of Oklahoma's..." instead of what I'll paste below, I might have been less suspicious. “Great discussion, great debate,” College Football Playoff Committee chairman Jeff Long said of the choice between Michigan State and Oklahoma. “Both conference champions, both four wins over Top 25 teams, but what it came down to was really Michigan State with two top 10 wins and then adding the win over last week’s No. 4-ranked team. I think when you looked at the body of work, the complete resume, that’s what pushed Michigan State just slightly ahead of Oklahoma.”’ In the interest of full disclosure, I got some long odds on Oklahoma (+700) and Clemson (+280) to win the whole thing a few weeks back such that I was mostly just disappointed they'd be playing early. The lack of consistency and credibility for this playoff committee is still disheartening. That we're used to funny business in college football doesn't make it okay.

Total Appearances in the AP Final Poll : 2000 to 2015 RK Team App* Pct* Avg RK High RK 1. Oklahoma 13 86.7% 8.23 1 2. Ohio State 12 80.0% 5.92 1 LSU 12 80.0% 9.33 1 Georgia 12 80.0% 11.67 2 Florida State 12 80.0% 13.92 1 6. USC 11 73.3% 7.73 1 Oregon 11 73.3% 7.73 2 Texas 11 73.3% 8.09 1 Virginia Tech 11 73.3% 13.55 6 10. Boise State 10 66.7% 11.40 4 TCU 10 66.7% 13.40 2 Wisconsin 10 66.7% 15.40 7 13. Alabama 9 60.0% 5.44 1 Florida 9 60.0% 8.44 1 Auburn 9 60.0% 10.78 1 Michigan 9 60.0% 13.56 6 Clemson 9 60.0% 17.78 8 18. Nebraska 8 53.3% 17.75 8 19. Miami (FL) 7 46.7% 8.14 1 Louisville 7 46.7% 14.29 6 West Virginia 7 46.7% 15.86 5 22. South Carolina 6 40.0% 12.50 4 Kansas State 6 40.0% 12.50 7 Notre Dame 6 40.0% 13.83 4 25. Stanford 5 33.3% 9.00 4 Iowa 5 33.3% 10.20 7 Michigan State 5 33.3% 11.40 3 Penn State 5 33.3% 12.00 3 Missouri 5 33.3% 12.00 4 Utah 5 33.3% 13.20 2 Tennessee 5 33.3% 13.80 4 Georgia Tech 5 33.3% 16.80 8 Oregon State 5 33.3% 17.60 4 Boston College 5 33.3% 18.00 10 BYU 5 33.3% 18.40 12 Texas Tech 5 33.3% 18.60 12 p.s. - This is really just through 2014 because the poll isn't final yet for 2015.