Final *regular season* F+ rankings: ND #10

[chaseball]

1. Michigan, 2.58
2. Oregon, 2.26
3. Georgia, 2.21
4. OSU, 2.18
5. Penn State, 2.05
6. Texas, 1.91
7. Alabama, 1.79
8. Florida State, 1.77
9. LSU, 1.62
10. Notre Dame, 1.61
11. Washington, 1.60

24. Oregon State (NDs Sun Bowl opponent)

The rest: https://www.bcftoys.com/2023-fplus

Some interesting notes:

• Notre Dame's 2023 #10 F+ ranking matches some of Brian Kelly's best seasons at ND but nobody would know it because of the 9-3 record.
• Michigan is the clear favorite and has been a lock at #1 since early on in the season. They are a legit frontrunner/favorite based on their body of work this season.
• Oregon is viewed as the 2nd best team in the country despite multiple 3-pt losses to Washington who is ranked down at #11. Oregon dominated their schedule despite 2 close losses to Washington while Washington has won 7 1-possession games in their last 9. Fortune that can't be counted on to continue.
• Washington is having a playoff run that isn't too dissimilar from the playoff runs ND has had under BK (way higher CFP ranking than F+ ranking). Will be interesting to see how they fair.
• Alabama looks very beatable too at #7. This is the worst F+ ranking Alabama has had this late in the season since 2008 but two playoff wins will put them right back in the top 3 (where they've been a lock since 2009).

Any surprises?

 

[Golson5]

Oregon at 2

🤣🤣🤣

Penn State at 5

🤣🤣🤣

Washington at 11

🤣🤣🤣

A child can rank better than this. What an embarrassment

 

[NDSMC78]

No one cares. You are wasting everyone's time.

 

[Fightingirish595]

SP+ was about 52 percent ATS against early week spreads.

Not too bad for a public power rating system.

 

[Pennick4]

1. Michigan, 2.58
2. Oregon, 2.26
3. Georgia, 2.21
4. OSU, 2.18
5. Penn State, 2.05
6. Texas, 1.91
7. Alabama, 1.79
8. Florida State, 1.77
9. LSU, 1.62
10. Notre Dame, 1.61
11. Washington, 1.60

24. Oregon State (NDs Sun Bowl opponent)

The rest: https://www.bcftoys.com/2023-fplus

Some interesting notes:

• Notre Dame's 2023 #10 F+ ranking matches some of Brian Kelly's best seasons at ND but nobody would know it because of the 9-3 record.
• Michigan is the clear favorite and has been a lock at #1 since early on in the season. They are a legit frontrunner/favorite based on their body of work this season.
• Oregon is viewed as the 2nd best team in the country despite multiple 3-pt losses to Washington who is ranked down at #11. Oregon dominated their schedule despite 2 close losses to Washington while Washington has won 7 1-possession games in their last 9. Fortune that can't be counted on to continue.
• Washington is having a playoff run that isn't too dissimilar from the playoff runs ND has had under BK (way higher CFP ranking than F+ ranking). Will be interesting to see how they fair.
• Alabama looks very beatable too at #7. This is the worst F+ ranking Alabama has had this late in the season since 2008 but two playoff wins will put them right back in the top 3 (where they've been a lock since 2009).

Any surprises?

To think you took the time to look up that garbage....🙄

 

[BGI User 756]

1. Michigan, 2.58
2. Oregon, 2.26
3. Georgia, 2.21
4. OSU, 2.18
5. Penn State, 2.05
6. Texas, 1.91
7. Alabama, 1.79
8. Florida State, 1.77
9. LSU, 1.62
10. Notre Dame, 1.61
11. Washington, 1.60

24. Oregon State (NDs Sun Bowl opponent)

The rest: https://www.bcftoys.com/2023-fplus

Some interesting notes:

• Notre Dame's 2023 #10 F+ ranking matches some of Brian Kelly's best seasons at ND but nobody would know it because of the 9-3 record.
• Michigan is the clear favorite and has been a lock at #1 since early on in the season. They are a legit frontrunner/favorite based on their body of work this season.
• Oregon is viewed as the 2nd best team in the country despite multiple 3-pt losses to Washington who is ranked down at #11. Oregon dominated their schedule despite 2 close losses to Washington while Washington has won 7 1-possession games in their last 9. Fortune that can't be counted on to continue.
• Washington is having a playoff run that isn't too dissimilar from the playoff runs ND has had under BK (way higher CFP ranking than F+ ranking). Will be interesting to see how they fair.
• Alabama looks very beatable too at #7. This is the worst F+ ranking Alabama has had this late in the season since 2008 but two playoff wins will put them right back in the top 3 (where they've been a lock since 2009).

Any surprises?

No surprises

It remains a flawed system and these rankings prove it. You supporting it is also remaining the same

 

[Golson5]

Oregon at 2

🤣🤣🤣

Penn State at 5

🤣🤣🤣

Washington at 11

🤣🤣🤣

A child can rank better than this. What an embarrassment

Don't like my shit NDinNJ. I dont know shit remember

 

[chaseball]

To think you took the time to look up that garbage....🙄

This exercise is pretty revealing in a fascinating way. It's all data/science based, and humans are heavily flawed/prone to their biases. Which makes the information F+ reveals consistently less prone to error. This ranking system filters all the noise and lets us get to the information that is accurate and provides us with information that matters.

 

[Golson5]

This exercise is pretty revealing in a fascinating way. It's all data/science based, and humans are heavily flawed/prone to their biases. This data looks beyond all the noise and focuses in on the signal (shutout to Nate Silver/fivethirtyeight)

And the players play on the field

Washington beat Oregon twice.

This is a joke ranking system

Even flawed humans are much superior

 

[NDSMC78]

This exercise is pretty revealing in a fascinating way. It's all data/science based, and humans are heavily flawed/prone to their biases. Which makes the information consistently less prone to error vs listening to an individual human speak about the hierarchy of teams in college football. This data looks beyond all the noise and focuses in on the signal (shutout to Nate Silver/fivethirtyeight).

Blah, blah, blah.

 

[chaseball]

Even flawed humans are much superior

You are proving my point with this quote and you don't even realize it.

 

[Golson5]

You are proving my point with this quote and you don't even realize it.

I dont care.

Your system sucks

 

[Granite45]

This exercise is pretty revealing in a fascinating way. It's all data/science based,

The analysis is not science.

 

[chaseball]

The analysis is not science.

I meant the data the F+ system provides is scientifically objective (not prone to human error/bias) and thus far more accurate consistently than some individual's opinion. This is the best public information we have to work off of if you want an educated perspective of the hierarchy of the national picture in college football IMO.

 

[Granite45]

I meant the data the F+ system provides is scientifically objective (not prone to human error/bias) and thus far more accurate consistently than some individual's opinion. This is the best public information we have to work off of if you want an educated opinion of the hierarchy of the national picture in college football IMO.

Statistical, possible. Scientific, No. No experiments involved. No testing of hypothesis.

It is all based on an algorithm that is accepted by the users and followers. There is no objective studying/testing of the basic parameters being used. Just a model that some people accept.

 

[chaseball]

I would much rather be having conversations about what the data is revealing than about the credibility of the data itself. Took many years for it to become general consensus that the recruiting rankings were right with the crowd on this site. It's taking about that long for the board to come around to this data being correct as well.

If we hypothetically agreed on the credibility of the system, it's actually not bad for ND. Brian Kelly hasn't had an F+ ranking higher than 10th at any point in his ND career. Marcus Freeman matched that 10th F+ ranking in 2023 (an improvement up from a mid-20s final F+ ranking just last year). Could be a sign of more improvement to come.

 

[Granite45]

I would much rather be having conversations about what the data is revealing than about the credibility of the data itself. Took many years for it to become general consensus that the recruiting rankings were right with the crowd on this site. It's taking about that long for the board to come around to this data being correct as well.

If for arguments sake we just pretend this is good/credible data, it's actually not bad for ND. Brian Kelly hasn't had an F+ ranking higher than 10th at any point in his career. Marcus Freeman matched that 10th F+ ranking in 2023 an improvement up from a late 20s ranking just last year. Could be a sign of more improvement to come.

This is not real data; was not collected by any experiment. just values assigned by some model which is not verifiable or even testable.

Recruiing evaluations are more accepted by many becaue anlaysts have become trusted based on verifying that their predictive values proved valuable. Rankings are not scientific and are not very reliable; consider the number of 5-star QBs that did not prove out, especially when there are so few 5-star evaluations given. And recruiting rankings mean even less now when so many players tarnsfer so readily. Do any of these analysts review/revise the rankings once players leave their initial school destination. I have not seen any doing so making the recent years' rankings meaningless when some people try to compare teams' rosters based on their ranking.

 

[Golson5]

I think we're all grateful that no one on cfb cares about F-

 

[chaseball]

This is not real data; was not collected by any experiment. just values assigned by some model which is not verifiable or even testable.

Recruiing evaluations are more accepted by many becaue anlaysts have become trusted based on verifying that their predictive values proved valuable. Rankings are not scientific and are not very reliable; consider the number of 5-star QBs that did not prove out, especially when there are so few 5-star evaluations given. And recruiting rankings mean even less now when so many players tarnsfer so readily. Do any of these analysts review/revise the rankings once players leave their initial school destination. I have not seen any doing so making the recent years' rankings meaningless when some people try to compare teams' rosters based on their ranking.

The data is real: the F+ system uses the most predictive drive by drive and play by play data in football to formulate its rankings. They do mathematical studies to determine what the most predictive data in college football is and then create a weighted formula based on that information.

The data is sourced from a credible place, the methodology makes theoretical sense, it's proven to be accurate through retroactive studies on how the system performs, and there's no better alternative available to the public that i know of. So what is the problem?

 

[Pennick4]

This exercise is pretty revealing in a fascinating way. It's all data/science based, and humans are heavily flawed/prone to their biases. Which makes the information F+ reveals consistently less prone to error. This ranking system filters all the noise and lets us get to the information that is accurate and provides us with information that matters.

It is 90 percent crap. If you find that fascinating, that is your problem.

 

[sjb75]

1. Michigan, 2.58
2. Oregon, 2.26
3. Georgia, 2.21
4. OSU, 2.18
5. Penn State, 2.05
6. Texas, 1.91
7. Alabama, 1.79
8. Florida State, 1.77
9. LSU, 1.62
10. Notre Dame, 1.61
11. Washington, 1.60

24. Oregon State (NDs Sun Bowl opponent)

The rest: https://www.bcftoys.com/2023-fplus

Some interesting notes:

• Notre Dame's 2023 #10 F+ ranking matches some of Brian Kelly's best seasons at ND but nobody would know it because of the 9-3 record.
• Michigan is the clear favorite and has been a lock at #1 since early on in the season. They are a legit frontrunner/favorite based on their body of work this season.
• Oregon is viewed as the 2nd best team in the country despite multiple 3-pt losses to Washington who is ranked down at #11. Oregon dominated their schedule despite 2 close losses to Washington while Washington has won 7 1-possession games in their last 9. Fortune that can't be counted on to continue.
• Washington is having a playoff run that isn't too dissimilar from the playoff runs ND has had under BK (way higher CFP ranking than F+ ranking). Will be interesting to see how they fair.
• Alabama looks very beatable too at #7. This is the worst F+ ranking Alabama has had this late in the season since 2008 but two playoff wins will put them right back in the top 3 (where they've been a lock since 2009).

Any surprises?

This exercise is pretty revealing in a fascinating way. It's all data/science based, and humans are heavily flawed/prone to their biases. Which makes the information F+ reveals consistently less prone to error. This ranking system filters all the noise and lets us get to the information that is accurate and provides us with information that matters.

You are proving my point with this quote and you don't even realize it.

I meant the data the F+ system provides is scientifically objective (not prone to human error/bias) and thus far more accurate consistently than some individual's opinion. This is the best public information we have to work off of if you want an educated perspective of the hierarchy of the national picture in college football IMO.

I would much rather be having conversations about what the data is revealing than about the credibility of the data itself. Took many years for it to become general consensus that the recruiting rankings were right with the crowd on this site. It's taking about that long for the board to come around to this data being correct as well.

If we hypothetically agreed on the credibility of the system, it's actually not bad for ND. Brian Kelly hasn't had an F+ ranking higher than 10th at any point in his ND career. Marcus Freeman matched that 10th F+ ranking in 2023 (an improvement up from a mid-20s final F+ ranking just last year). Could be a sign of more improvement to come.

The data is real: the F+ system uses the most predictive drive by drive and play by play data in football to formulate its rankings. They do mathematical studies to determine what the most predictive data in college football is and then create a weighted formula based on that information.

The data is sourced from a credible place, the methodology makes theoretical sense, it's proven to be accurate through retroactive studies on how the system performs, and there's no better alternative available to the public that i know of. So what is the problem?

Garbage.

 

[graceh90]

SP+ was about 52 percent ATS against early week spreads.

Not too bad for a public power rating system.

Is this true?

If so, it’s neither good nor bad, but it is about useful a prediction model as a coin toss

 

[Fightingirish595]

Is this true?

If so, it’s neither good nor bad, but it is about useful a prediction model as a coin toss

Yes. It’s true. And 2 percent is significant. It’s good because it’s a public power rating.

 

[BGI User 756]

The data is real: the F+ system uses the most predictive drive by drive and play by play data in football to formulate its rankings. They do mathematical studies to determine what the most predictive data in college football is and then create a weighted formula based on that information.

The data is sourced from a credible place, the methodology makes theoretical sense, it's proven to be accurate through retroactive studies on how the system performs, and there's no better alternative available to the public that i know of. So what is the problem?

It’s garbage in, garbage out.

 

[savvyandsassier]

So when you do think AI will take over play-calling? Can large language models handle that?

 

[Holycrossover3]

This exercise is pretty revealing in a fascinating way. It's all data/science based, and humans are heavily flawed/prone to their biases. Which makes the information F+ reveals consistently less prone to error. This ranking system filters all the noise and lets us get to the information that is accurate and provides us with information that matters.

It’s fascinating you put so much weight behind these rankings, and continually post knowing this board laughs at the analysis. Could you imagine if the committee used these terrible rankings?

These rankings are simply an aggregate of what happened over the season. Do they take into account FSU no longer having their starting QB? Or a player who played a game hurt and wasn’t as effective due to injury?

Oregon over Washington by 9 spots or Georgia over Alabama. I mean, with these rankings, why even play the games?