ESPN releases initial FPI ratings for 2016 season

[cm husker]

We're talking past each other.

And I don't think you're understanding that it's not a ranking, but rather a prediction of win totals for each team, which is based on a lot of data. And then a list of those teams from most to fewest wins.

NU at 8.5 wins seems reasonable, but I'll be surprised if NU finishes ranked with only 8 wins and even with 9 wins against this schedule.

 

[AFhusker]

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.

I agree with you here. Nobody should be ranked until at least week eight. But that doesn't sell tickets or gain viewership for non conference games.

 

[Landlord]

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.

The FPI rankings take into account last year's performance of that team, last year's performance of the team's on the schedule, as well as returning starters and recruiting rankings/position depth, I believe.

 

[Saunders]

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.

That's how metrics work in all sports. And it was correct in picking 78% of games last year, which is pretty good.

 

[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.

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.

That's how metrics work in all sports. And it was correct in picking 78% of games last year, which is pretty good.

Is that pretty good? I wonder what the % is if you drop the "gimmie" games where a team is either out matched or clearly dominant compared to an opponent. Then again, if this includes all of the .500 to .600 teams, which I think it does, then 78% probably is pretty good.

 

[Micheal]

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

These are purely analytical, so not really based on anyone's opinions (other than the weight given to metrics). They're not nearly as good as SBNation's S&P+ rankings IMO, but hey, it's the offseason.

Do you have a link to those? Not familiar with them. Why do you prefer them?

I prefer them because they're more accurate, and less "hand wavey" than ESPN's FPI.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa

Also, Bill Connelly (who created them) is simply a huge CFB dork, and I admire his work. I'm halfway through his first book, and helped kickstart his second.

They do all kinds of analytical studies on CFB at his main SBNation site: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/.

Also, his podcast is pretty good, they've been discussing a "moneyball" approach to CFB lately in regards to non Power 5 teams which has been quite interesting.

Will def check it out. I listen to the Solid Verbal and would like another college fb podcast.

 

[Saunders]

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

These are purely analytical, so not really based on anyone's opinions (other than the weight given to metrics). They're not nearly as good as SBNation's S&P+ rankings IMO, but hey, it's the offseason.

Do you have a link to those? Not familiar with them. Why do you prefer them?

I prefer them because they're more accurate, and less "hand wavey" than ESPN's FPI.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa

Also, Bill Connelly (who created them) is simply a huge CFB dork, and I admire his work. I'm halfway through his first book, and helped kickstart his second.

They do all kinds of analytical studies on CFB at his main SBNation site: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/.

Also, his podcast is pretty good, they've been discussing a "moneyball" approach to CFB lately in regards to non Power 5 teams which has been quite interesting.

Will def check it out. I listen to the Solid Verbal and would like another college fb podcast.

I've got a list of over a dozen CFB podcasts that are pretty good. The Solid Verbal is one of my favorites, and I like Dan and Ty's repertoire. I even bought one of their T-shirts for Avery's DIPG campaign and wear it when i go running. PAPN is more of a CFB "nerd" podcast in that they discuss more than just the Alabama's of the world, which is refreshing. They've had a running Purdue joke because it keeps getting brought up via questions.

 

[admo]

I still haven't read the article because I don't concur with the predictions in the OP. But I will get to it this weekend for better understanding I suppose. I do think there was an interesting point made, that being 78% is very, very good at predicting, but does that include the many, many cupcake matchups across the board as well? Call me curious, because if it does, then the % would seem inflated.

 

[C N Red]

I don't get it. There's no talk of college aged girls in ESPNs FPI. Therefore, it cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Mierin]

The good test of whether 78% is good for 2015 is to look at the 2015 results with one predictor variable; team A is ranked higher than team B in each game.

If you pick the highest rated team to win every game and it gives similar or better than 78% accuracy, then 78% accuracy isn't good. I'm too lazy to do this though.

 

[commando]

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-college-footballs-top-25-toughest-schedules-2016

check out who they say has the 10th toughest schedule

10. Nebraska Oregon's visit to Lincoln highlights the Nebraska non-conference season, but the real fun of the Cornhuskers' 2016 slate begins in the back half. Nebraska draws one of the nation's most brutal stretches, going to Wisconsin, Ohio State and Iowa in three of its final five contests.

i don't think we are at either extreme...but to see the huskers rated at both extremes is interesting.

 

[Redux]

I think it just shows the lazy a$$ who ranked them at ESPN didn't really bother looking at our schedule.

 

[Saunders]

I think it just shows the lazy a$$ who ranked them at ESPN didn't really bother looking at our schedule.

It wasn't done by a person, it's a pre-determined formula. Of course, if the numbers that you used in that formula are garbage, you'll get bad results.

 

[Redux]

I think it just shows the lazy a$$ who ranked them at ESPN didn't really bother looking at our schedule.

It wasn't done by a person, it's a pre-determined formula. Of course, if the numbers that you used in that formula are garbage, you'll get bad results.

Well, there we go. Any formula that ranks Iowa's schedule as easier than ours is a load of crap.

 

[Saunders]

I think it just shows the lazy a$$ who ranked them at ESPN didn't really bother looking at our schedule.

It wasn't done by a person, it's a pre-determined formula. Of course, if the numbers that you used in that formula are garbage, you'll get bad results.

Well, there we go. Any formula that ranks Iowa's schedule as easier than ours is a load of crap.

Uh, Iowa's schedule is easier than ours, and has been for awhile since they've been ducking the East division powers for a few years. At least they play UM and (overrated) PSU this year.