Preseason Power Index Rankings

[AngryHusker88]

 

Michigan being rated ahead of Nebraska at all (at this point) is laughable. Nice game against the Wildcats....

 

 

Considering it took us until the final 2 minutes to beat a Michigan team that had the atrocious Devin Gardner at QB I don't think it's laughable at all.

 

Since Devin Gardner is still their starting QB, your argument against my statement contradicts itself...

[NUpolo8]

Michigan being rated ahead of Nebraska at all (at this point) is laughable. Nice game against the Wildcats....

 

Considering it took us until the final 2 minutes to beat a Michigan team that had the atrocious Devin Gardner at QB I don't think it's laughable at all.

So thats reason enough to put them that far ahead of us. Got it.

 

Well. Explain then.

Theyre so bad that they lost to us. Yet theyre so much better than us. Am i missing something? From your infinite wisdom, please elaborate as to why Michigan shod be ahead of us at this point in any way, shape, or form.

Except for the fact that Bo Pelini is our coach....

Definitely take Pelini over Hoke.

 

Concrete evidence that the "anti Bo" guys don't interject our coach into every thread, this thread is.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

 

Michigan being rated ahead of Nebraska at all (at this point) is laughable. Nice game against the Wildcats....

 

Considering it took us until the final 2 minutes to beat a Michigan team that had the atrocious Devin Gardner at QB I don't think it's laughable at all.

So thats reason enough to put them that far ahead of us. Got it.

 

Well. Explain then.

Theyre so bad that they lost to us. Yet theyre so much better than us. Am i missing something? From your infinite wisdom, please elaborate as to why Michigan shod be ahead of us at this point in any way, shape, or form.

Except for the fact that Bo Pelini is our coach....

Definitely take Pelini over Hoke.

 

Concrete evidence that the "anti Bo" guys don't interject our coach into every thread, this thread is.

 

Now, can we get back to Count's question to suh_fan93 because I cannot understand his reasoning either?

[Count 'Bility]

Michigan being rated ahead of Nebraska at all (at this point) is laughable. Nice game against the Wildcats....

 

Considering it took us until the final 2 minutes to beat a Michigan team that had the atrocious Devin Gardner at QB I don't think it's laughable at all.

So thats reason enough to put them that far ahead of us. Got it.

 

Well. Explain then.

Theyre so bad that they lost to us. Yet theyre so much better than us. Am i missing something? From your infinite wisdom, please elaborate as to why Michigan shod be ahead of us at this point in any way, shape, or form.

Except for the fact that Bo Pelini is our coach....

Definitely take Pelini over Hoke.

 

Concrete evidence that the "anti Bo" guys don't interject our coach into every thread, this thread is.

That was gonna be his answer in some form anyway. Which explains his silence. It left him speechless.

 

All that aside Polo, be honest. Do YOU think Michigan deserves to be ranked ahead of us in any way?

[NUpolo8]

Well, here's their methodology.....

 

"• The previous year’s EPA generally matters more than EPA from the prior years, though sometimes the most recent year matters less if the team’s head coach or several starters on that side of the ball are not returning.

 

• That said, performance from years prior to the most recent one still does have a significant effect. A college football team plays only a dozen or so games in a season, so having additional data from prior years, even if it matters less than information from the most recent year, helps make the ratings more accurate.

 

• Having more returning starters helps on both sides of the ball, sometimes even if the team wasn’t that good the previous year. A returning starting quarterback helps the most, accounting for a boost of more than three points of offensive EPA per game versus having a new starter (all else equal).

 

• The presence of a new head coach generally decreases correlation between the previous season and the coming one (relative to returning the same head coach), which intuitively makes sense. A new head coach hurts a team’s projection if it was good in one of the components (offense, defense, special teams) the prior season, but it can help the projection if it was poor in those aspects.

 

• Recruiting rankings, not just from the most recent class but over the previous couple, are definitely helpful in predicting offensive and defensive performance. There isn’t a big difference at all between having the 12th-ranked and 15th-ranked recruiting classes, but the difference between the 12th-ranked one and the 80th-ranked one can be substantial. We used a survey of various recruiting ranks to avoid being reliant on any single rank. Special thanks to Phil Steele for providing us information on returning starters and head coaches for 2014 and historical seasons.

 

From a big picture perspective, the method behind these rankings is fairly similar to how a knowledgeable writer might go about constructing his or her own top 25: look at which teams were successful last season or have been good over the past few years, account for what each team has coming back, and assess teams’ recruiting classes over the past couple of seasons."

 

I would say, outside of the fact that Nebraska beat them last year and they had a rough year, by that rubric, you can't get mad at Michigan being ranked ahead of Nebraska.

 

You can get mad and cry "OMG! Teh bias!" Or you can file this under another method of proof that things that being used to judge Nebraska's achievements, and I'm not saying it here but it commonly has a hashtag and rhymes with "Fine fins" don't hold much water outside of our fanbase.

[Excel]

What the heck has Michigan shown to warrant an eighteen? Maryland and Indiana above Northwestern and Nebraska?

 

This list is confusing.

[Count 'Bility]

Well, here's their methodology.....

"• The previous year’s EPA generally matters more than EPA from the prior years, though sometimes the most recent year matters less if the team’s head coach or several starters on that side of the ball are not returning.

• That said, performance from years prior to the most recent one still does have a significant effect. A college football team plays only a dozen or so games in a season, so having additional data from prior years, even if it matters less than information from the most recent year, helps make the ratings more accurate.

• Having more returning starters helps on both sides of the ball, sometimes even if the team wasn’t that good the previous year. A returning starting quarterback helps the most, accounting for a boost of more than three points of offensive EPA per game versus having a new starter (all else equal).

• The presence of a new head coach generally decreases correlation between the previous season and the coming one (relative to returning the same head coach), which intuitively makes sense. A new head coach hurts a team’s projection if it was good in one of the components (offense, defense, special teams) the prior season, but it can help the projection if it was poor in those aspects.

• Recruiting rankings, not just from the most recent class but over the previous couple, are definitely helpful in predicting offensive and defensive performance. There isn’t a big difference at all between having the 12th-ranked and 15th-ranked recruiting classes, but the difference between the 12th-ranked one and the 80th-ranked one can be substantial. We used a survey of various recruiting ranks to avoid being reliant on any single rank. Special thanks to Phil Steele for providing us information on returning starters and head coaches for 2014 and historical seasons.

From a big picture perspective, the method behind these rankings is fairly similar to how a knowledgeable writer might go about constructing his or her own top 25: look at which teams were successful last season or have been good over the past few years, account for what each team has coming back, and assess teams’ recruiting classes over the past couple of seasons."

I would say, outside of the fact that Nebraska beat them last year and they had a rough year, by that rubric, you can't get mad at Michigan being ranked ahead of Nebraska.

You can get mad and cry "OMG! Teh bias!" Or you can file this under another method of proof that things that being used to judge Nebraska's achievements, and I'm not saying it here but it commonly has a hashtag and rhymes with "Fine fins" don't hold much water outside of our fanbase.

Yes Polo i understand all that. And it all makes it even more stupid. Which is kinda my point. And it'd be one thing if they were ranked a spot or three agead of nebraska. But 25? Its a crock of bs. But for some reason Hoke continues to get more of a fee pass than bo even though hoke has been pn a clear downward spiral since year one, and despite very stellar recruiting classes.

[Dr. Strangelove]

What the heck has Michigan shown to warrant an eighteen? Maryland and Indiana above Northwestern and Nebraska?

 

This list is confusing.

As Polo stated, the rubric they used relies heavily on recruiting which Michigan has been successful with.

 

Personally, I think Nebraska is a team that deserves a high 20s to low 30s ranking. Until we learn to play consistently, develop a passing game (improved QB play), limit turnovers and actually field a punt properly we don't deserve to be ranked inside of the top 20.

[NUpolo8]

 

Well, here's their methodology.....

"• The previous year’s EPA generally matters more than EPA from the prior years, though sometimes the most recent year matters less if the team’s head coach or several starters on that side of the ball are not returning.

• That said, performance from years prior to the most recent one still does have a significant effect. A college football team plays only a dozen or so games in a season, so having additional data from prior years, even if it matters less than information from the most recent year, helps make the ratings more accurate.

• Having more returning starters helps on both sides of the ball, sometimes even if the team wasn’t that good the previous year. A returning starting quarterback helps the most, accounting for a boost of more than three points of offensive EPA per game versus having a new starter (all else equal).

• The presence of a new head coach generally decreases correlation between the previous season and the coming one (relative to returning the same head coach), which intuitively makes sense. A new head coach hurts a team’s projection if it was good in one of the components (offense, defense, special teams) the prior season, but it can help the projection if it was poor in those aspects.

• Recruiting rankings, not just from the most recent class but over the previous couple, are definitely helpful in predicting offensive and defensive performance. There isn’t a big difference at all between having the 12th-ranked and 15th-ranked recruiting classes, but the difference between the 12th-ranked one and the 80th-ranked one can be substantial. We used a survey of various recruiting ranks to avoid being reliant on any single rank. Special thanks to Phil Steele for providing us information on returning starters and head coaches for 2014 and historical seasons.

From a big picture perspective, the method behind these rankings is fairly similar to how a knowledgeable writer might go about constructing his or her own top 25: look at which teams were successful last season or have been good over the past few years, account for what each team has coming back, and assess teams’ recruiting classes over the past couple of seasons."

I would say, outside of the fact that Nebraska beat them last year and they had a rough year, by that rubric, you can't get mad at Michigan being ranked ahead of Nebraska.

You can get mad and cry "OMG! Teh bias!" Or you can file this under another method of proof that things that being used to judge Nebraska's achievements, and I'm not saying it here but it commonly has a hashtag and rhymes with "Fine fins" don't hold much water outside of our fanbase.

Yes Polo i understand all that. And it all makes it even more stupid. Which is kinda my point. And it'd be one thing if they were ranked a spot or three agead of nebraska. But 25? Its a crock of bs. But for some reason Hoke continues to get more of a fee pass than bo even though hoke has been pn a clear downward spiral since year one, and despite very stellar recruiting classes.

I mean, do I think Michigan is that much better than Nebraska? Probably not. But I can't get too much in a twist over it. Michigan has had more recent success than Nebraska. And Hoke, valid or not, still has the good coach vibe from SDSU and his BCS bowl. That can all change, sure. But what I'm taking away from this is this another sign of how much Nebraska has slipped.

 

Win in 2014, this probably all changes.

[Scratchtown]

 

 

Well, here's their methodology.....

"• The previous year’s EPA generally matters more than EPA from the prior years, though sometimes the most recent year matters less if the team’s head coach or several starters on that side of the ball are not returning.

• That said, performance from years prior to the most recent one still does have a significant effect. A college football team plays only a dozen or so games in a season, so having additional data from prior years, even if it matters less than information from the most recent year, helps make the ratings more accurate.

• Having more returning starters helps on both sides of the ball, sometimes even if the team wasn’t that good the previous year. A returning starting quarterback helps the most, accounting for a boost of more than three points of offensive EPA per game versus having a new starter (all else equal).

• The presence of a new head coach generally decreases correlation between the previous season and the coming one (relative to returning the same head coach), which intuitively makes sense. A new head coach hurts a team’s projection if it was good in one of the components (offense, defense, special teams) the prior season, but it can help the projection if it was poor in those aspects.

• Recruiting rankings, not just from the most recent class but over the previous couple, are definitely helpful in predicting offensive and defensive performance. There isn’t a big difference at all between having the 12th-ranked and 15th-ranked recruiting classes, but the difference between the 12th-ranked one and the 80th-ranked one can be substantial. We used a survey of various recruiting ranks to avoid being reliant on any single rank. Special thanks to Phil Steele for providing us information on returning starters and head coaches for 2014 and historical seasons.

From a big picture perspective, the method behind these rankings is fairly similar to how a knowledgeable writer might go about constructing his or her own top 25: look at which teams were successful last season or have been good over the past few years, account for what each team has coming back, and assess teams’ recruiting classes over the past couple of seasons."

I would say, outside of the fact that Nebraska beat them last year and they had a rough year, by that rubric, you can't get mad at Michigan being ranked ahead of Nebraska.

You can get mad and cry "OMG! Teh bias!" Or you can file this under another method of proof that things that being used to judge Nebraska's achievements, and I'm not saying it here but it commonly has a hashtag and rhymes with "Fine fins" don't hold much water outside of our fanbase.

Yes Polo i understand all that. And it all makes it even more stupid. Which is kinda my point. And it'd be one thing if they were ranked a spot or three agead of nebraska. But 25? Its a crock of bs. But for some reason Hoke continues to get more of a fee pass than bo even though hoke has been pn a clear downward spiral since year one, and despite very stellar recruiting classes.

I mean, do I think Michigan is that much better than Nebraska? Probably not. But I can't get too much in a twist over it. Michigan has had more recent success than Nebraska. And Hoke, valid or not, still has the good coach vibe from SDSU and his BCS bowl. That can all change, sure. But what I'm taking away from this is this another sign of how much Nebraska has slipped.

 

Win in 2014, this probably all changes.

 

So 11-2, 8-5, and 7-6 with 1-2 bowl record is more recent success than...

 

9-4, 10-4, and 9-4 with a 1-2 bowl record?

 

 

Let me get this straight. 1 BCS bowl appearance followed up by subsequent downward trending seasons garners the viewpoint of "more recent success" even if they have fallen below the success of the team compared the immediate seasons thereafter.

 

You can screw the "good coach vibe" too. 9-4 at ULL isn't worth that claim. You could make an argument for his 1 season at Ball State when they went 12-1. Even then. You really can't. ("YOU" in generalities)

[NUpolo8]

Again, I'm not saying I personally think Hoke is a great coach. I'm just saying I see how they got the results they did. I'm glad NU beat Michigan the past two years, but I see why they get more #relevant status than us.

[Hooked on Huskers]

Only care about Coaches polls and Sagarin ratings from the preseason to final week ....... in particular, Sag's ELO and Predictor columns. Don't care about AP jokers, Harris and Power Index ratings. And I miss BCS (minority voice here). Sunday evening BCS Show ..... R.I.P.

 

Now Committee Selection ..... I say

 

I predict Committee Selection will be worse than BCS flaws. More controversies, guaranteed IMO.

[Redux]

Again, I'm not saying I personally think Hoke is a great coach. I'm just saying I see how they got the results they did. I'm glad NU beat Michigan the past two years, but I see why they get more #relevant status than us.

I dont. Michigan pulls in great classes every year so the holes should be easily plugged after say one year in certain areas. They continue to get worse yet we stay consistent while steadily improving from some viewpoints. Yet Michigan is power material every year? Come on, 1 BCS appearance is not gonna cut it with the Michigan faithful if they continue going 7-5. Isnt that what you preach here every day, expect more out of your coach and program? I understand youre not in Hokes corner or anything but comparatively we have more consistent success than Michigan has enjoyed under Hoke, they have yet to appear in the title game so theirOrange Bowl is moot in the debate.

[NUpolo8]

So....

 

The biggest problem is here isn't talking about Nebraska (the team we all like) and it's slip over the last few years. Rather the biggest problem is another team we don't like and it's slip, and how it's not being talked about as much or as acknowledged as ours?

[Saunders]

Oh, this is the ESPN power index. Let it be known this the same index that was used for their "Predictor" that did such a stellar job last year.