ADVERTISEMENT

Chase and the F+

NDinNJ

NDinNJ

I've posted how many times?
Nov 23, 2018
6,562
4,609
113
Chase hasn't posted the F+ in the past two weeks, and for good reason. It hasn't fit his narrative, and some of it will leave you scratching your head.

1. Ohio State (Lost to Oregon yet two spots above them. Dumb)
2. Texas
3. Oregon (wtf? should be #1)
4. Ole Miss - 3 losses (😂 LMAO)
5. Notre Dame (Chase's narrative blows up about ND)
6. Georgia - 2 losses at #6 (😂 crazy)
7. Alabama - 3 losses (😂 crazier)
8. PSU
9. Miami
10. Tennessee
11. Indiana
12. South Carolina - 3 losses (😂 craziest)

Is F+ The Onion version of college football ratings. 😂
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: BGI User 756, hvillebill and IrishMike409
The BCS proxy is still around but you need a TwitterX account.
 
Chase is a shitbag who takes shots at ND at every turn regardless of the variables involved. He’s shown time and time again that he’s only here to criticize versus commend the program in its entirety every step of the way. He should just go **** himself and realize that he’s apparently confused about what program he should be rooting for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDinNJ, FightingIrish44 and BGI User 756
NDinNJ said:
Chase hasn't posted the F+ in the past two weeks, and for good reason. It hasn't fit his narrative, and some of it will leave you scratching your head.

1. Ohio State (Lost to Oregon yet two spots above them. Dumb)
2. Texas
3. Oregon (wtf? should be #1)
4. Ole Miss - 3 losses (😂 LMAO)
5. Notre Dame (Chase's narrative blows up about ND)
6. Georgia - 2 losses at #6 (😂 crazy)
7. Alabama - 3 losses (😂 crazier)
8. PSU
9. Miami
10. Tennessee
11. Indiana
12. South Carolina - 3 losses (😂 craziest)

Is F+ The Onion version of college football ratings. 😂
Click to expand...
I don’t read any content from chase ball. Same with 4-4-3, 88ND, and savvysassy.

That said, 409 is write, this place needs content no matter how disingenuous it is.

Go Irish.
 
NDinNJ said:
Chase hasn't posted the F+ in the past two weeks, and for good reason. It hasn't fit his narrative, and some of it will leave you scratching your head.

1. Ohio State (Lost to Oregon yet two spots above them. Dumb)
2. Texas
3. Oregon (wtf? should be #1)
4. Ole Miss - 3 losses (😂 LMAO)
5. Notre Dame (Chase's narrative blows up about ND)
6. Georgia - 2 losses at #6 (😂 crazy)
7. Alabama - 3 losses (😂 crazier)
8. PSU
9. Miami
10. Tennessee
11. Indiana
12. South Carolina - 3 losses (😂 craziest)

Is F+ The Onion version of college football ratings. 😂
Click to expand...
NO...

F+Z-B/145 or whatever it's called is utter horseshit.

That ranking became the dumbest rating system ever when the final three rankings for the 2018 season were...
1. Alabama
2. Georgia
3. Clemson

Clemson...won the national title...
obliterated Bama...who beat Georgia...

Moreover Georgia lost it's bowl game to Texas. That score was not indicative of the game. Texas DOMINATED that game and Georgia was lucky it was that close.

Yet they had the darlings...the trendy's, the flavor of the decade...the SEC lovies...ranked higher than the team clearly head and shoulders above the entire college football world.
It was even proven on the field which trumps all measurements.

Just not in the alphabet ranking system
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDinNJ
Fightingirish595 said:
He literally posted a thread the other day that this is the best Notre Dame team going by F+ since 2007
Click to expand...
It very well might be the best Irish team and honestly if we were using a real passing QB and didn't piss the bed against NIU the media would have us ranked #1

Our running game, defense, etc...is better than anything in the top 5.

Our passing is where the wheels come off.

We are not a top 3 passing team. Not top5, 10, nor top 20.
We aren't in the top 50 for passing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDinNJ
Yo
88ND said:
NO...

F+Z-B/145 or whatever it's called is utter horseshit.

That ranking became the dumbest rating system ever when the final three rankings for the 2018 season were...
1. Alabama
2. Georgia
3. Clemson

Clemson...won the national title...
obliterated Bama...who beat Georgia...

Moreover Georgia lost it's bowl game to Texas. That score was not indicative of the game. Texas DOMINATED that game and Georgia was lucky it was that close.

Yet they had the darlings...the trendy's, the flavor of the decade...the SEC lovies...ranked higher than the team clearly head and shoulders above the entire college football world.
It was even proven on the field which trumps all measurements.

Just not in the alphabet ranking system
Click to expand...
You don’t understand how it works because you don’t understand math
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: chaseball and NIN Irish
Fightingirish595 said:
Yo

You don’t understand how it works because you don’t understand math
Click to expand...
I understand it perfectly fine. It's garbage. It doesn't reward any head to head games near enough. Nor penalize losses near enough.
When you rank an undefeated team @15-0 after the season 3rd...
Behind the team you just obliterated and the team who lost to the team you obliterated...
That's 2+2 = 7 kind of math
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chitown11, NIN Irish and NDinNJ
88ND said:
It very well might be the best Irish team and honestly if we were using a real passing QB and didn't piss the bed against NIU the media would have us ranked #1

Our running game, defense, etc...is better than anything in the top 5.

Our passing is where the wheels come off.

We are not a top 3 passing team. Not top5, 10, nor top 20.
We aren't in the top 50 for passing.
Click to expand...
We wouldn't be ranked over Oregon
 
NDinNJ said:
ok Chase.
Click to expand...

88ND said:
I understand it perfectly fine. It's garbage. It doesn't reward any head to head games near enough. Nor penalize losses near enough.
When you rank an undefeated team @15-0 after the season 3rd...
Behind the team you just obliterated and the team who lost to the team you obliterated...
That's 2+2 = 7 kind of math
Click to expand...
It’s a forward facing predictive model. Just like every other statistical power ratings model used by professional bettors. Just because x beats y doesn’t mean x is going to be power rated above y.

No model is 100 percent accurate. It’s literally impossible.

Ohio state will likely be favored over Oregon if they play again. The lines are efficient
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NIN Irish
If you want a scatter shot ranking system that averages a lot of contrasting stats, the BCS approximation is still out there. The PC has usually followed it.
 
Fightingirish595 said:
It’s a forward facing predictive model. Just like every other statistical power ratings model used by professional bettors. Just because x beats y doesn’t mean x is going to be power rated above y.

No model is 100 percent accurate. It’s literally impossible.

Ohio state will likely be favored over Oregon if they play again. The lines are efficient
Click to expand...
Piss on your little soybean futures...

I understand what the model it's trying to be...but apparently you aren't understanding this...
The 2018 games had already been played.
Clemson had beaten everyone including two playoff teams.
They beat us 30-3
Not close.
Then one week later beat Alabama and that was equally lopsided.
Clemson finished the season unblemished @ 15-0

The final alphabet ranking comes out and has Bama 1, Georgia 2, Clemson 3

Any system that puts such low emphasis or none on head to head is pure garbage.

If I simply watched the first 6 weeks of the season I could give you a more accurate "future" projection ranking system. Balanced with potential, deserved and the most important, reality!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NIN Irish and NDinNJ
  • Like
Reactions: NDinNJ, NIN Irish and banmate6
88ND said:
Piss on your little soybean futures...

I understand what the model it's trying to be...but apparently you aren't understanding this...
The 2018 games had already been played.
Clemson had beaten everyone including two playoff teams.
They beat us 30-3
Not close.
Then one week later beat Alabama and that was equally lopsided.
Clemson finished the season unblemished @ 15-0

The final alphabet ranking comes out and has Bama 1, Georgia 2, Clemson 3

Any system that puts such low emphasis or none on head to head is pure garbage.

If I simply watched the first 6 weeks of the season I could give you a more accurate "future" projection ranking system. Balanced with potential, deserved and the most important, reality!
Click to expand...
Alabama would’ve been favored over Clemson again after the 44-16 game.

You don’t understand how this works because you don’t understand probability and math
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: BGI User 756, NDinNJ and NIN Irish
I program a range of stats in my job. I've discussed here ELO type ranking systems, which I know very well. I'm just curious about the general methodology of what F+ does?

ELO emphasizes strength of schedule. You get more points getting results off higher ranked opponents. And some factors might be weighed more or less...it depends.

For example, ranking soccer nations is an ELO type system. It has 1 major flaw. The USA and Mexico in CONCACAF are ranked high enough. Playing each other to maintain a high ranking than they objectively deserve.

Croatia in contrast has to play higher ranked European teams in UEFA. There is no weighting for conference strength. There should be...just like they should for college football. Yes, controversial as it sounds, a higher ranked SEC team usually > higher ranked ACC team, so a weight on make the model more accurate.

You could write this a variation of y = mx + b formula, with many more coefficients. Winding up with a score of total points, determining rank.

What is F+ in this context?
 
banmate6 said:
I program a range of stats in my job. I've discussed here ELO type ranking systems, which I know very well. I'm just curious about the general methodology of what F+ does?

ELO emphasizes strength of schedule. You get more points getting results off higher ranked opponents. And some factors might be weighed more or less...it depends.

For example, ranking soccer nations is an ELO type system. It has 1 major flaw. The USA and Mexico in CONCACAF are ranked high enough. Playing each other to maintain a high ranking than they objectively deserve.

Croatia in contrast has to play higher ranked European teams in UEFA. There is no weighting for conference strength. There should be...just like they should for college football. Yes, controversial as it sounds, a higher ranked SEC team usually > higher ranked ACC team, so a weight on make the model more accurate.

You could write this a variation of y = mx + b formula, with many more coefficients. Winding up with a score of total points, determining rank.

What is F+ in this context?
Click to expand...
F+ is half SP+ and FEI.

I’m less familiar with FEI. SP+ is Brian Connellys power ratings. So a team that as rated a 24 is 24 points better than the average team on a neutral field.

F+ is then represented as a standard deviation. So a teams that’s 2.5 is 2.5 standard deviations above the mean
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NIN Irish
Fightingirish595 said:
F+ is half SP+ and FEI.

I’m less familiar with FEI. SP+ is Brian Connellys power ratings. So a team that as rated a 24 is 24 points better than the average team on a neutral field.

F+ is then represented as a standard deviation. So a teams that’s 2.5 is 2.5 standard deviations above the mean
Click to expand...
And you claim to not be chase.😂 No one cares about f+, except chase, ever.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NDinNJ
Fightingirish595 said:
F+ is half SP+ and FEI.

I’m less familiar with FEI. SP+ is Brian Connellys power ratings. So a team that as rated a 24 is 24 points better than the average team on a neutral field.

F+ is then represented as a standard deviation. So a teams that’s 2.5 is 2.5 standard deviations above the mean
Click to expand...
FEI is authored by an ND alum and the webmaster of http://www.bcftoys.com Brian Fremeau. Anyway, here's AIs take on FEI:

The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI), created by Brian Fremeau, is a sophisticated college football rating system that measures team performance based on opponent-adjusted drive efficiency. Here are the key components and calculations used in the FEI:

Core Components
  • Possession Efficiency: The FEI analyzes approximately 20,000 possessions annually in FBS vs. FBS games1. It focuses on non-garbage time possessions, filtering out first-half clock-kills and end-of-game garbage drives and scores1.
  • Opponent Adjustments: The system applies adjustments based on the quality of opponents faced, with special emphasis on performances against good teams, regardless of win or loss1.
  • Game Efficiency (GE): This unadjusted measure represents net success on non-garbage possessions1.
Calculation Factors
  • Field Position: The FEI takes into account the starting field position of each drive, recognizing that it impacts the difficulty of scoring2.
  • Opponent Strength: The system evaluates the relative strength of offenses and defenses to provide context for each team's performance2.
  • Adjusted Possession Advantage: This metric represents the scoring advantage a team would be expected to have on an average possession against an average opponent on a neutral field3.
Additional Metrics
  • The FEI system also incorporates several other metrics to provide a comprehensive evaluation:
  • FEI Offense Ratings: Measures the scoring advantage an offense would expect to have per non-garbage possession against an average defense on a neutral field3.
  • FEI Defense Ratings: Calculates the scoring advantage a defense would expect to have per non-garbage possession against an average offense on a neutral field3.
  • FEI Special Teams Ratings: Evaluates the scoring advantage a team's non-offensive and non-defensive units would expect to have per non-garbage possession against an average opponent on a neutral field3.
  • Strength of Schedule: The FEI uses a unique approach to calculate strength of schedule, though the specific methodology is not detailed in the provided search results.
By combining these components and adjusting for various factors, the FEI aims to provide a more accurate representation of team strength than traditional ranking systems. It allows for comparisons between teams that may not have played each other directly and accounts for the varying levels of competition each team faces throughout the season.
 
Last edited:
  • SP+ is far more granular than FEI (its the micro approach to evaluation) pretty much ignores the final score in games and evaluates teams by their play by play performance.
  • FEI is more of a macro evaluation of teams by assessing their drive by drive performance
Both systems adjust for luck (by mitigating it in the formula) and for opponent quality.

F+ is a combination of both systems (its the holistic view of a team's performance and how a team stands in relation to all other teams) no other ranking system comes close in terms of the number of components that are involved.

Last I heard from an old study that i can't find (talking 10+ years ago) F+ was one of the most accurate out of all advanced ranking systems with a 55%+ accuracy against the spread.
 
Last edited:
Fightingirish595 said:
F+ is half SP+ and FEI.

I’m less familiar with FEI. SP+ is Brian Connellys power ratings. So a team that as rated a 24 is 24 points better than the average team on a neutral field.

F+ is then represented as a standard deviation. So a teams that’s 2.5 is 2.5 standard deviations above the mean
Click to expand...
chaseball said:
FEI is authored by an ND alum and the webmaster of http://www.bcftoys.com Brian Fremeau:

The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI), created by Brian Fremeau, is a sophisticated college football rating system that measures team performance based on opponent-adjusted drive efficiency. Here are the key components and calculations used in the FEI:

Core Components
  • Possession Efficiency: The FEI analyzes approximately 20,000 possessions annually in FBS vs. FBS games1. It focuses on non-garbage time possessions, filtering out first-half clock-kills and end-of-game garbage drives and scores1.
  • Opponent Adjustments: The system applies adjustments based on the quality of opponents faced, with special emphasis on performances against good teams, regardless of win or loss1.
  • Game Efficiency (GE): This unadjusted measure represents net success on non-garbage possessions1.
  • Calculation Factors
  • Field Position: The FEI takes into account the starting field position of each drive, recognizing that it impacts the difficulty of scoring2.
  • Opponent Strength: The system evaluates the relative strength of offenses and defenses to provide context for each team's performance2.
  • Adjusted Possession Advantage: This metric represents the scoring advantage a team would be expected to have on an average possession against an average opponent on a neutral field3.
Additional Metrics
  • The FEI system also incorporates several other metrics to provide a comprehensive evaluation:
  • FEI Offense Ratings: Measures the scoring advantage an offense would expect to have per non-garbage possession against an average defense on a neutral field3.
  • FEI Defense Ratings: Calculates the scoring advantage a defense would expect to have per non-garbage possession against an average offense on a neutral field3.
  • FEI Special Teams Ratings: Evaluates the scoring advantage a team's non-offensive and non-defensive units would expect to have per non-garbage possession against an average opponent on a neutral field3.
  • Strength of Schedule: The FEI uses a unique approach to calculate strength of schedule, though the specific methodology is not detailed in the provided search results.
By combining these components and adjusting for various factors, the FEI aims to provide a more accurate representation of team strength than traditional ranking systems. It allows for comparisons between teams that may not have played each other directly and accounts for the varying levels of competition each team faces throughout the season.
Click to expand...
Chase, you have no shame. You continue this charade, talking to yourself like an idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGI User 756
Fightingirish595 said:
F+ is half SP+ and FEI.

I’m less familiar with FEI. SP+ is Brian Connellys power ratings. So a team that as rated a 24 is 24 points better than the average team on a neutral field.

F+ is then represented as a standard deviation. So a teams that’s 2.5 is 2.5 standard deviations above the mean
Click to expand...
And those are two completely opposite in perspective systems.


FEI means efficiency which is a completely backwards looking stat that measures how a drive ended up, not how it went. I.e. if a team drives 99 yards and fumbles the ball, they are inefficient.


S&P is an average of several stats that tries to predict a team's success rate. It is closer to what Vegas does but not as good.

So F+ is an average of a about a dozen stats from different perspectives. I don't know why it is any better than any other group average.
 
tbonesays said:
And those are two completely opposite in perspective systems.


FEI means efficiency which is a completely backwards looking stat that measures how a drive ended up, not how it went. I.e. if a team drives 99 yards and fumbles the ball, they are inefficient.


S&P is an average of several stats that tries to predict a team's success rate. It is closer to what Vegas does but not as good.

So F+ is an average of a about a dozen stats from different perspectives. I don't know why it is any better than any other group average.
Click to expand...
I posted how FEI is measured (above) you are grossly over simplifying

Much of the nuts and bolts of these systems are purposefully not shared for competitive reasons. These systems used to be far more transparent back when they were published on independent statgeek websites which is why i have some general idea of how they are measured beyond what research can find today.

Anyway, SP+ measures play by play performance, FEI measures drive by drive performance (which is why they pair up so nicely but even how these systems are combined exactly isnt entirely known)

Things like turnovers (which are high variance outcomes) are weighted in the formula-- based on the type of turnover involved--and teams are credited for the positive yards in their plays and for the performance in their drives regardless if the drive ultimately ended up in a turnover.
 
Last edited:
BGI User 756 said:
Best line is “adjusts for luck”
Click to expand...
Yes "adjusts" or "neutralizes" for luck

Basically these systems separate 'skill' from 'luck' in the performance by ranking teams as if they were all on the receiving end of the same amount of good or bad luck (which means eliminating the impact luck has on the performance of the team) so that they can better understand what teams are good at football and not just good at being benefactors of a bunch of lucky events that happened to go their way.

As an example lets take two separate teams playing in two separate games:

Team 1 had 70 above average plays, and 6 above average drives, but had 3 unforced turnovers, -30 yards in unforced penalties (roughing the passer, a late hit, etc.), and lost the game

Team 2 had 55 above average plays, and 4 above average drives, but had no turnovers, had a pick 6 on a deflected pass, and was the benefactor of a shanked punt and 2 easy missed field goals and won the game

Team 1s opponent was Alabama
Team 2s opponent was Wisconsin

Team 1 obviously outperformed team 2, but team 2 was just far more lucky so despite Team 1 losing, they might have even increased their F+ rating for the week more than Team 2 did.

This is an oversimplified example, and not all special teams gaffes and turnovers are excused away as bad luck in the formula but i hope you get the point im making regardless
 
Last edited:
chaseball said:
Yes "adjusts" or "neutralizes" for luck

Basically these systems separate 'skill' from 'luck' in the performance by ranking teams as if they were all on the receiving end of the same amount of good or bad luck (which means eliminating the impact luck has on the performance of the team) so that they can better understand what teams are good at football and not just good at being benefactors of a bunch of lucky events that happened to go their way.

As an example lets take two separate teams playing in two separate games:

Team 1 had 70 above average plays, and 6 above average drives, but had 3 unforced turnovers, and lost the game

Team 2 had 55 above average plays, and 4 above average drives, but had no turnovers, had a pick 6 on a deflected pass, and was the benefactor of a shanked punt and 2 easy missed field goals and won the game

Team 1s opponent was Alabama
Team 2s opponent was Wisconsin

Team 1 obviously outperformed team 2, but team 2 was just far more lucky so despite Team 1 losing, they might have even increased their F+ rating for the week more than Team 2 did.

This is an oversimplified example, and not all special teams gaffes and turnovers are excused away as bad luck in the formula but i hope you get the point im making regardless
Click to expand...
No mention of head to head. Garbage system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 88ND and BGI User 756
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NDinNJ

F+ is a complete joke

Replies
46
Views
1K
Under the Dome
FightingIrish44
F
chaseball

CFP committee vs the F+ Top 12

Replies
47
Views
2K
Under the Dome
chaseball
chaseball
chaseball

Best Notre Dame team in the F+ era (since 2007)

Replies
19
Views
724
Under the Dome
NDinNJ
NDinNJ
chaseball

F+ update, ND drops to 9th after week 10 bye

Replies
23
Views
966
Under the Dome
NDinNJ
NDinNJ
chaseball

F+ update | week 4

Replies
28
Views
971
Under the Dome
NDinNJ
NDinNJ
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back