ESPN releases initial FPI ratings for 2016 season

[admo]

Okay let me see if I can decipher this here..

FPI stands for Football Power Index (?) or Predictor Index, and the percentile is an indicator of the chance at winning (prediction).

Big12: OU (65%), OSU (13%)

ACC: FSU (44%), Clemson (31%)

SEC: LSU (39%), Tennessee (28%), Alabama (13%)

PAC: USC (30%), Washington (23%)

B1G: Michigan (29%), OSU (23%)

Hmmm. I haven't looked at schedules (yet) and rosters of who was lost or added (yet). So this is just a quick opinion on it. First, I really like this Tennessee team. Been following them from a distance the past few years. I hope they win the SEC, but I think they're just a team to make some noise until I see them beat the old guard dogs first (Bama, LSU)... Washington had a good season, but are they really the 2nd best? Over Oregon, UCLA and Stanford? I don't know about all that. And I've seen USC ranked in the top 10 at the start of several seasons to only fizzle out. Lots of talent and new coach, and I think they could win the PAC, but right now it's more of a "wait and see" for the Trojans. So I don't think they would be a smart favorite. And Michigan over OSU? While I like the immediate turnaround the Wolverines had, it just doesn't seem right for them to be the favorite. OSU & Michigan State are still top dogs in my opinion in the B1G. As for the Big 12, OU should be the slight favorite, but OSU, TCU, Baylor will all be in the mix and anything goes in that conference. And finally, in the ACC, I really like what's going on at Clemson. I would have them as the slight favorite over FSU.

I'm sure they (ESPN, which I still enjoy) use metrics with a lot of variables that provides them a better gauge than myself and other college football fans......but some of us fans aren't that far down on our college football mad skills either (tuning in every Saturday year after year, reading up in the offseason, etc), so I guess we will just have to wait and see. I have OU, Clemson, Ala, Oregon, OSU.

 

[Redux]

How are we mentioned as easiest with trips to tOSU, Wiscy, Iowa and a home game against Oregon. Yet Iowa doesn't even have a marquee ooc matchup and isn't mentioned?

 

[JJ Husker]

How are we mentioned as easiest with trips to tOSU, Wiscy, Iowa and a home game against Oregon. Yet Iowa doesn't even have a marquee ooc matchup and isn't mentioned?

That's kind of what I was thinking.

Our conference games are about a wash compared to them, except they have their toughest ones at home and ours are away.

Doesn't seem quite right.

 

[knapplc]

How are we mentioned as easiest with trips to tOSU, Wiscy, Iowa and a home game against Oregon. Yet Iowa doesn't even have a marquee ooc matchup and isn't mentioned?

That's kind of what I was thinking.Our conference games are about a wash compared to them, except they have their toughest ones at home and ours are away.

Doesn't seem quite right.

Because if you mention Iowa in your article or tweet it doesn't move the needle, in Iowa or nationally.

If you mention Nebraska it moves the needle both here and nationally, and you get a bunch of irate Nebraska fans tweeting back at you about their schedule, which moves the needle even further.

 

[Redux]

How are we mentioned as easiest with trips to tOSU, Wiscy, Iowa and a home game against Oregon. Yet Iowa doesn't even have a marquee ooc matchup and isn't mentioned?

That's kind of what I was thinking.Our conference games are about a wash compared to them, except they have their toughest ones at home and ours are away.

Doesn't seem quite right.

Because if you mention Iowa in your article or tweet it doesn't move the needle, in Iowa or nationally.

If you mention Nebraska it moves the needle both here and nationally, and you get a bunch of irate Nebraska fans tweeting back at you about their schedule, which moves the needle even further.

Oh yeah. Silly me, I forgot that sports writers don't actually report factual data.

Accurate as that is, it's still nonsense. Iowa has another cream puff schedule by comparison. They must be expecting tOSU and Wiscy to have down years (I actually expect that too).

 

[Saunders]

SPN’s Sports Analytics Team released its preseason Football Power Index last week, and the Big Ten took a bit of whooping.

Only three conference teams landed in the Top 25 of the rankings. The highest was Michigan at No. 11 -- significantly further down the food chain than most early preseason rankings expect the Wolverines to be.

Poor rankings led to poor schedule strength. The five weakest schedules among Power 5 schools next season belong to Big Ten teams, according to the FPI. Only four Big Ten schedules are ranked in the Top 50 (none higher than

Ohio State at No. 31) despite an East Division with three playoff contenders and some marquee non-conference games like Wisconsin vs. LSU and Ohio State vs. Oklahoma.

It’s important to remember the FPI is a statistical ranking determined by numbers and not people, but it does beg the question:

Why do the numbers hate the Big Ten?

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132157/why-does-the-fpi-hate-the-big-ten

 

[huskerfan2000]

they have us at 25th after the poor season last year? maybe they think Nebraska has turned a corner and is on an upswing?

Turned a corner? I think you mean pulled out of a ditch that was last season.

NU was probably around the same last preseason (and underperformed based on the metrics) and has been in that range probably most of the past 15 years. Many fans think we should fire coaches who have us in the 9/10 win, ~50% division titles, and 15-30 ranking range.

To me, that's the interesting debate. If RIley matches but doesn't outperform the last staff in terms of on the field performance, should we fire them in 7 years? I don't think so. But that's probably for another thread.

Anyway, it could be moot as Riley will likely be retiring in about 7 years regardless.

chuckle, you must have found your soapbox! I remember husker fans used to give KSU crap for hanging a hat on a division title, now some huskers fans do it.

 

[mrandyk]

That they have preseason FPI rankings shows just how garbage of a metric it really is.

 

[cm husker]

they have us at 25th after the poor season last year? maybe they think Nebraska has turned a corner and is on an upswing?

Turned a corner? I think you mean pulled out of a ditch that was last season.

NU was probably around the same last preseason (and underperformed based on the metrics) and has been in that range probably most of the past 15 years. Many fans think we should fire coaches who have us in the 9/10 win, ~50% division titles, and 15-30 ranking range.

To me, that's the interesting debate. If RIley matches but doesn't outperform the last staff in terms of on the field performance, should we fire them in 7 years? I don't think so. But that's probably for another thread.

Anyway, it could be moot as Riley will likely be retiring in about 7 years regardless.

chuckle, you must have found your soapbox! I remember husker fans used to give KSU crap for hanging a hat on a division title, now some huskers fans do it.

And arguably their patience paid off, because they have two conference championships during the last 10 years of Snyder's tenure.

Of course there was a period when KSU chased the "pro style" approach and brought in Ron Prince for gods sake (remember when he was the next hot coach?). They didn't have any winning seasons during those years, despite the B12N being way down.

 

[cm husker]

That they have preseason FPI rankings shows just how garbage of a metric it really is.

I think preseason rankings are silly. However, this ranks by prediction of games won. Not how the teams will actually end up ranked.

I think that's the case.

 

[Mavric]

SPN’s Sports Analytics Team released its preseason Football Power Index last week, and the Big Ten took a bit of whooping.

Only three conference teams landed in the Top 25 of the rankings. The highest was Michigan at No. 11 -- significantly further down the food chain than most early preseason rankings expect the Wolverines to be.

Poor rankings led to poor schedule strength. The five weakest schedules among Power 5 schools next season belong to Big Ten teams, according to the FPI. Only four Big Ten schedules are ranked in the Top 50 (none higher than

Ohio State at No. 31) despite an East Division with three playoff contenders and some marquee non-conference games like Wisconsin vs. LSU and Ohio State vs. Oklahoma.

It’s important to remember the FPI is a statistical ranking determined by numbers and not people, but it does beg the question:

Why do the numbers hate the Big Ten?

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/132157/why-does-the-fpi-hate-the-big-ten

 

[Landlord]

How are we mentioned as easiest with trips to tOSU, Wiscy, Iowa and a home game against Oregon. Yet Iowa doesn't even have a marquee ooc matchup and isn't mentioned?

That's kind of what I was thinking.Our conference games are about a wash compared to them, except they have their toughest ones at home and ours are away.

Doesn't seem quite right.

Because if you mention Iowa in your article or tweet it doesn't move the needle, in Iowa or nationally.

If you mention Nebraska it moves the needle both here and nationally, and you get a bunch of irate Nebraska fans tweeting back at you about their schedule, which moves the needle even further.

The FPI is a junk mathematical formula, but that is all it is. Nobody's adding insight or opinions into the rankings, they were fed out of a computer and reported as such. Then again, maybe ESPN has created fully autonomous AI machines that have personal dislikes of Nebraska.

 

[huskerfan2000]

they have us at 25th after the poor season last year? maybe they think Nebraska has turned a corner and is on an upswing?

Turned a corner? I think you mean pulled out of a ditch that was last season.

NU was probably around the same last preseason (and underperformed based on the metrics) and has been in that range probably most of the past 15 years. Many fans think we should fire coaches who have us in the 9/10 win, ~50% division titles, and 15-30 ranking range.

To me, that's the interesting debate. If RIley matches but doesn't outperform the last staff in terms of on the field performance, should we fire them in 7 years? I don't think so. But that's probably for another thread.

Anyway, it could be moot as Riley will likely be retiring in about 7 years regardless.

chuckle, you must have found your soapbox! I remember husker fans used to give KSU crap for hanging a hat on a division title, now some huskers fans do it.

And arguably their patience paid off, because they have two conference championships during the last 10 years of Snyder's tenure.

Of course there was a period when KSU chased the "pro style" approach and brought in Ron Prince for gods sake (remember when he was the next hot coach?). They didn't have any winning seasons during those years, despite the B12N being way down.

The two situations are not even close to being comparable!

 

[cm husker]

The arrogance of some husker fans still astounds me.

 

[mrandyk]

That they have preseason FPI rankings shows just how garbage of a metric it really is.

I think preseason rankings are silly. However, this ranks by prediction of games won. Not how the teams will actually end up ranked.

I think that's the case.

My point is that the FPI, BPI, and whatever other garbage PIs ESPN puts out are supposed to be mathematical formulas. You can't have data when zero games have been played because there is no data to go off of except last year's results, which if we are going off of those then why not just re-post the final rankings from last year? Garbage metric.