Fremeau Efficiency Index

[hfhmilkman]

Greetings. There has been discussion and trolling on which teams are overrated or not by claiming strength of schedule is better or worse by eyeballing records. For starters before this conversation is useful one has to make their case if they think the FEI is remotely accurate and if not what is. Do you really think the AP or the playoff committee is better? One of the things that I like about FEI is its attempting to measure the real caliber of a team minus luck. College football with 9-12 possessions and 12 games is going to have a higher variance than let's say basketball or the worse MLB. If you think FEI stinks interested why, and is there anything better.

What I think is interesting is there is this mantra of "you have not played anyone" If you look at the FEI page they have columns for records verses top10, 20, 30, 40. Of the top20 teams in the FEI, only 4 have beaten a top10 team. Part of this may be statistics. If your target team is a top10 team, threre are only nine others to play. Any team your team beats is going to have their statistics degraded by playing your team regardless of strength of schedule adjustments. The only teams in the top10 FEI with wins over other top10 teams are ND-->UM, Bama-->LSU, LSU-->Georgia. This low rate of play continues for the FEI top 20. The number of times a top 20 team has played another top 20 team is 34 times with the record being 17 wins and 17 losses. After 11 games the average number of times a top 20 team has faced another comparable team is a little over a game and a half.

What does this mean? If good football teams follow a normal distribution this makes sense. Most teams can't be great. If a group of good teams do get clustered, beating each other up at a rate of a .500 winning percentage will drag them all down.

In conclusion any power index system is a self fulfilling prophecy because of the nature of the low sample space. Good teams in a win are more likely to drop their defeated opponents. Even if that is mitigated by strength of schedule, there are not that many good teams. Random distribution says any team would only meet up to 2-4 even if the best teams are distributed in a few power conferences.

The reality of college football is that unlike the PRO game most of your time is spent beating up on overmatched opponents presuming you have a top10 team. Nobody in the top10 of the FEI has a great schedule as the majority of their games regardless of which team we look at, feasted on cupcakes. If anyone can name a team that has walked a college gauntlet to get where they are I'm interested in the counter example.

 

[NotreDomer1]

ND = 4 wins over Top25 teams. No one else can presently say the same.

 

[NotreDomer1]

The number of times a top 20 team has played another top 20 team is 34 times with the record being 17 wins and 17 losses.

Pure gold as no other outcome would’ve been possible. Definitely enhances your talking points though. Lol

 

[FriedmanIP]

Greetings. There has been discussion and trolling on which teams are overrated or not by claiming strength of schedule is better or worse by eyeballing records. For starters before this conversation is useful one has to make their case if they think the FEI is remotely accurate and if not what is. Do you really think the AP or the playoff committee is better? One of the things that I like about FEI is its attempting to measure the real caliber of a team minus luck. College football with 9-12 possessions and 12 games is going to have a higher variance than let's say basketball or the worse MLB. If you think FEI stinks interested why, and is there anything better.

What I think is interesting is there is this mantra of "you have not played anyone" If you look at the FEI page they have columns for records verses top10, 20, 30, 40. Of the top20 teams in the FEI, only 4 have beaten a top10 team. Part of this may be statistics. If your target team is a top10 team, threre are only nine others to play. Any team your team beats is going to have their statistics degraded by playing your team regardless of strength of schedule adjustments. The only teams in the top10 FEI with wins over other top10 teams are ND-->UM, Bama-->LSU, LSU-->Georgia. This low rate of play continues for the FEI top 20. The number of times a top 20 team has played another top 20 team is 34 times with the record being 17 wins and 17 losses. After 11 games the average number of times a top 20 team has faced another comparable team is a little over a game and a half.

What does this mean? If good football teams follow a normal distribution this makes sense. Most teams can't be great. If a group of good teams do get clustered, beating each other up at a rate of a .500 winning percentage will drag them all down.

I conclusion any power index system is a self fulfilling prophecy because of the nature of the low sample space. Good teams in a win are more likely to drop their defeated opponents. Even if that is mitigated by strength of schedule, there are not that many good teams. Random distribution says any team would only meet up to 2-4 even if the best teams are distributed in a few power conferences.

The reality of college football is that unlike the PRO game most of your time is spent beating up on overmatched opponents presuming you have a top10 team. Nobody in the top10 of the FEI has a great schedule as the majority of their games regardless of which team we look at, feasted on cupcakes. If anyone can name a team that has walked a college gauntlet to get where they are I'm interested in the counter example.

ND has good wins

Michigan does not

/thread

 

[NDlb46]

Greetings. There has been discussion and trolling on which teams are overrated or not by claiming strength of schedule is better or worse by eyeballing records. For starters before this conversation is useful one has to make their case if they think the FEI is remotely accurate and if not what is. Do you really think the AP or the playoff committee is better? One of the things that I like about FEI is its attempting to measure the real caliber of a team minus luck. College football with 9-12 possessions and 12 games is going to have a higher variance than let's say basketball or the worse MLB. If you think FEI stinks interested why, and is there anything better.

What I think is interesting is there is this mantra of "you have not played anyone" If you look at the FEI page they have columns for records verses top10, 20, 30, 40. Of the top20 teams in the FEI, only 4 have beaten a top10 team. Part of this may be statistics. If your target team is a top10 team, threre are only nine others to play. Any team your team beats is going to have their statistics degraded by playing your team regardless of strength of schedule adjustments. The only teams in the top10 FEI with wins over other top10 teams are ND-->UM, Bama-->LSU, LSU-->Georgia. This low rate of play continues for the FEI top 20. The number of times a top 20 team has played another top 20 team is 34 times with the record being 17 wins and 17 losses. After 11 games the average number of times a top 20 team has faced another comparable team is a little over a game and a half.

What does this mean? If good football teams follow a normal distribution this makes sense. Most teams can't be great. If a group of good teams do get clustered, beating each other up at a rate of a .500 winning percentage will drag them all down.

In conclusion any power index system is a self fulfilling prophecy because of the nature of the low sample space. Good teams in a win are more likely to drop their defeated opponents. Even if that is mitigated by strength of schedule, there are not that many good teams. Random distribution says any team would only meet up to 2-4 even if the best teams are distributed in a few power conferences.

The reality of college football is that unlike the PRO game most of your time is spent beating up on overmatched opponents presuming you have a top10 team. Nobody in the top10 of the FEI has a great schedule as the majority of their games regardless of which team we look at, feasted on cupcakes. If anyone can name a team that has walked a college gauntlet to get where they are I'm interested in the counter example.

In summary...college football is subjective

Word limit is something to embrace. Clarity is often closely tied with brevity.

 

[SiberianKnightmare]

Still two weeks to go. Judging strength of schedule by how many ranked teams you bet can be fickle. Right now, ND has Michigan, Syracuse, Pitt and Northwestern. Michigan will stay ranked no matter what. But Pitt and NW will likely lose their CCG which may drop them out of the rankings with 5/6 losses. Syracuse may lose this weekend, which would drop them out of the rankings. Michigan gets OSU this weekend.

It's entirely possible both Michigan and ND wind up with just 1 win over ranked opponents.

That's why rankings effecting SOS are stupid. It should be based on wins/losses totals of your opponents.

 

[NotreDomer1]

That's why rankings effecting SOS are stupid. It should be based on wins/losses totals of your opponents.

Disagree. If all of my opponents were FCS schools that went on to win their conference, I don’t believe wins/loses should matter.

 

[Shulkswagen]

128 FBS teams playing 12 games each = a lot of subjectivity

 

[Bumpdaddy]

Greetings. There has been discussion and trolling on which teams are overrated or not by claiming strength of schedule is better or worse by eyeballing records. For starters before this conversation is useful one has to make their case if they think the FEI is remotely accurate and if not what is. Do you really think the AP or the playoff committee is better? One of the things that I like about FEI is its attempting to measure the real caliber of a team minus luck. College football with 9-12 possessions and 12 games is going to have a higher variance than let's say basketball or the worse MLB. If you think FEI stinks interested why, and is there anything better.

What I think is interesting is there is this mantra of "you have not played anyone" If you look at the FEI page they have columns for records verses top10, 20, 30, 40. Of the top20 teams in the FEI, only 4 have beaten a top10 team. Part of this may be statistics. If your target team is a top10 team, threre are only nine others to play. Any team your team beats is going to have their statistics degraded by playing your team regardless of strength of schedule adjustments. The only teams in the top10 FEI with wins over other top10 teams are ND-->UM, Bama-->LSU, LSU-->Georgia. This low rate of play continues for the FEI top 20. The number of times a top 20 team has played another top 20 team is 34 times with the record being 17 wins and 17 losses. After 11 games the average number of times a top 20 team has faced another comparable team is a little over a game and a half.

What does this mean? If good football teams follow a normal distribution this makes sense. Most teams can't be great. If a group of good teams do get clustered, beating each other up at a rate of a .500 winning percentage will drag them all down.

In conclusion any power index system is a self fulfilling prophecy because of the nature of the low sample space. Good teams in a win are more likely to drop their defeated opponents. Even if that is mitigated by strength of schedule, there are not that many good teams. Random distribution says any team would only meet up to 2-4 even if the best teams are distributed in a few power conferences.

The reality of college football is that unlike the PRO game most of your time is spent beating up on overmatched opponents presuming you have a top10 team. Nobody in the top10 of the FEI has a great schedule as the majority of their games regardless of which team we look at, feasted on cupcakes. If anyone can name a team that has walked a college gauntlet to get where they are I'm interested in the counter example.

You have a lot written here but I think the answer to your ultimate question is this:

There is no Holy Grail when it comes to a specific computer/metrics system.

If you go back to the BCS era, the individual computer rankings always had significant differences. Sagarin rankings were usually different from Colley. Colley's rankings were usually different from Massey, and so on. If you looked at any singular system it almost always had some crazy outlier where you'd see a 4-loss team ranked ahead of a respected undefeated team (I'm just using that as an example - there might have been a good reason that 4-loss team was ranked higher, but most times there wasn't and that is only one example of an outlier). If we ranked teams based on a singular metrics system - and you could pick any one system that happens to be your favorite - the result would be the same. There would be at least one or two crazy outliers that would quickly nullify any confidence in the system. Right now, Fremeau has 6-5 Michigan State ranked 12th overall and has Northwestern, a team that beat them by 10 pts and one that has a better record, ranked 13 spots lower at 25. Now, I'm sure that ranking disparity makes total sense within Fremeau's metrics and the value Fremeau places on those metrics, but they don't make any sense in the real world. The same is true for any other computer/metrics rating system out there. Individually, they each have some crazy outliers that nullify any confidence you can justifiably have in their system.

Having said all that, there is value in computer/metrics systems, but only when you aggregate the results. That's what the BCS rating system did, and most of the time those aggregated results reflected the real world rankings. So for me, I don't much care how any singular computer/metrics system ranks teams, but if you aggregate those results with other computer/metrics systems I'll probably pay attention.

 

[Shakin' Down the Thunder]

You have a lot written here but I think the answer to your ultimate question is this:

There is no Holy Grail when it comes to a specific computer/metrics system.

If you go back to the BCS era, the individual computer rankings always had significant differences. Sagarin rankings were usually different from Colley. Colley's rankings were usually different from Massey, and so on. If you looked at any singular system it almost always had some crazy outlier where you'd see a 4-loss team ranked ahead of a respected undefeated team (I'm just using that as an example - there might have been a good reason that 4-loss team was ranked higher, but most times there wasn't and that is only one example of an outlier). If we ranked teams based on a singular metrics system - and you could pick any one system that happens to be your favorite - the result would be the same. There would be at least one or two crazy outliers that would quickly nullify any confidence in the system. Right now, Fremeau has 6-5 Michigan State ranked 12th overall and has Northwestern, a team that beat them by 10 pts and one that has a better record, ranked 13 spots lower at 25. Now, I'm sure that ranking disparity makes total sense within Fremeau's metrics and the value Fremeau places on those metrics, but they don't make any sense in the real world. The same is true for any other computer/metrics rating system out there. Individually, they each have some crazy outliers that nullify any confidence you can justifiably have in their system.

Having said all that, there is value in computer/metrics systems, but only when you aggregate the results. That's what the BCS rating system did, and most of the time those aggregated results reflected the real world rankings. So for me, I don't much care how any singular computer/metrics system ranks teams, but if you aggregate those results with other computer/metrics systems I'll probably pay attention.

Good post.

 

[Quest4Twelve]

In summary...college football is subjective

Word limit is something to embrace. Clarity is often closely tied with brevity.

 

[tbonesays]

I recall Fremeau rates teams on how hard they work to get the points. I suppose 80 yd plays are preferable but teams can be inefficient and with long burn drives.

 

[zonairish]

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei

 

[irish4life888]

Still two weeks to go. Judging strength of schedule by how many ranked teams you bet can be fickle. Right now, ND has Michigan, Syracuse, Pitt and Northwestern. Michigan will stay ranked no matter what. But Pitt and NW will likely lose their CCG which may drop them out of the rankings with 5/6 losses. Syracuse may lose this weekend, which would drop them out of the rankings. Michigan gets OSU this weekend.

It's entirely possible both Michigan and ND wind up with just 1 win over ranked opponents.

That's why rankings effecting SOS are stupid. It should be based on wins/losses totals of your opponents.

Another cloaked troll post to minimize ND and try to pump up UCF. Pretty pathetic lol.

 

[irish4life888]

Disagree. If all of my opponents were FCS schools that went on to win their conference, I don’t believe wins/loses should matter.

UCF troll secretly pimping his own teams resume lol.

 

[hfhmilkman]

ND has good wins

Michigan does not

/thread

Yet you say it as a point of subjectivity. I will be the first to admit UM had it easier since MSU and PSU QB's were not 100%. Yet I can make the case based on how those games turned out the outcome would have been the same. McSorely could have had the game of his life and maybe PSU loses only by 15. PSU conceded the running game after the 1st series and McSorely was running for his life on every passing down.

You have a lot written here but I think the answer to your ultimate question is this:

There is no Holy Grail when it comes to a specific computer/metrics system.

If you go back to the BCS era, the individual computer rankings always had significant differences. Sagarin rankings were usually different from Colley. Colley's rankings were usually different from Massey, and so on. If you looked at any singular system it almost always had some crazy outlier where you'd see a 4-loss team ranked ahead of a respected undefeated team (I'm just using that as an example - there might have been a good reason that 4-loss team was ranked higher, but most times there wasn't and that is only one example of an outlier). If we ranked teams based on a singular metrics system - and you could pick any one system that happens to be your favorite - the result would be the same. There would be at least one or two crazy outliers that would quickly nullify any confidence in the system. Right now, Fremeau has 6-5 Michigan State ranked 12th overall and has Northwestern, a team that beat them by 10 pts and one that has a better record, ranked 13 spots lower at 25. Now, I'm sure that ranking disparity makes total sense within Fremeau's metrics and the value Fremeau places on those metrics, but they don't make any sense in the real world. The same is true for any other computer/metrics rating system out there. Individually, they each have some crazy outliers that nullify any confidence you can justifiably have in their system.

Having said all that, there is value in computer/metrics systems, but only when you aggregate the results. That's what the BCS rating system did, and most of the time those aggregated results reflected the real world rankings. So for me, I don't much care how any singular computer/metrics system ranks teams, but if you aggregate those results with other computer/metrics systems I'll probably pay attention.

In the case of MSU and NW I think I understand. NW had some awful losses early in the season. The 2nd issue with NW is they have no statistic impressive wins. In fact there were "wins" where they were statistically outplayed. NW had no 42 to 10 games to rack up stats. But I think this is accurate. My prediction is NW will get clobbered in the CCG be it UM or OSU. I have watched a ton of NW games because they are one of my favorite teams. But they really have done it with smoke & mirrors. They have a nice front seven that keeps them in games MSU style. However, none of their skill players have any explosion. Thorson is an incredibly inefficient QB. The 2nd half play by play against UM is telling. Once UM adjusted to the slant fest NW longest drive was 5 plays 16 yards with the exception of the last drive that only had 34 seconds and ended in a sack. That was also Shea Patterson's worst game from an accuracy and judgement grading. If I had money on either OSU or UM I take the spread against NW. I think NW is as bad as FEI states.

Conversely MSU is probably better than their record. I will be on record that I am enjoying MSU's suffering because for years Dantonio lived a blessed coaching life as everything always worked out. Now there have been two out of the last three years where MSU has had some unlucky misfortune. MSU could not run the ball this year. Last year they just needed some pedestrian pass offense to win games as that defense is dominant. When the QB and every starting WR got hurt, the offense tanked. Since FEI is based on yards you are getting on yards you are getting no contribution from half the team.

The MSU<>NW game was strange. NW scored 3 TD's on 7 plays which did not happen all year. It also helped one of Dantonio's risks failed when he went for it on 4th and 1 from the 11. As much as I hate MSU I think they win this game 8 times out of 10.

All said I think NW is what FEI says. Look at the ND<>NW game. It was the same thing as the NW<>UM game. ND comes out flat. NW has some surprising wrinkles in this case they are on defense instead of offense. In the 2nd half ND adjusts and NW gets smoked. The score gets close only because ND lets up a bit and lets some plays happen. If NW and ND were to play in some kind of bowl game I would call it ND 40 NW 13. NW has lived the charmed life and done just enough to win 51 percent to 49 percent. Might work against a weak Big10 west division, but not elite teams.

Is summary there are going to be teams that are lucky or unlucky. There are going to be teams that win more or lose more than they should have because the games are played. Are the Detroit Lions a real 4-6 team or should they be 2-8 because 2 wins occurred because kickers had massive brain farts? FEI would properly measure the Lions because 2 of their victories should have been losses. They might pick up a 5th victory because the best team in the division does not have a viable backup QB.

I would say that an index that has no outliers is flawed because we know that the best team does not always win. There is always going to be luck and unluck especially when the sample space is small. The entire point of an index is to identify lucky verses unlucky because we are interested in true capability not that a team has more W's or L's because of weird fate.

 

[NDlb46]

*sigh*

 

[NIN Irish]

Greetings. There has been discussion and trolling on which teams are overrated or not by claiming strength of schedule is better or worse by eyeballing records. For starters before this conversation is useful one has to make their case if they think the FEI is remotely accurate and if not what is. Do you really think the AP or the playoff committee is better? One of the things that I like about FEI is its attempting to measure the real caliber of a team minus luck. College football with 9-12 possessions and 12 games is going to have a higher variance than let's say basketball or the worse MLB. If you think FEI stinks interested why, and is there anything better.

What I think is interesting is there is this mantra of "you have not played anyone" If you look at the FEI page they have columns for records verses top10, 20, 30, 40. Of the top20 teams in the FEI, only 4 have beaten a top10 team. Part of this may be statistics. If your target team is a top10 team, threre are only nine others to play. Any team your team beats is going to have their statistics degraded by playing your team regardless of strength of schedule adjustments. The only teams in the top10 FEI with wins over other top10 teams are ND-->UM, Bama-->LSU, LSU-->Georgia. This low rate of play continues for the FEI top 20. The number of times a top 20 team has played another top 20 team is 34 times with the record being 17 wins and 17 losses. After 11 games the average number of times a top 20 team has faced another comparable team is a little over a game and a half.

What does this mean? If good football teams follow a normal distribution this makes sense. Most teams can't be great. If a group of good teams do get clustered, beating each other up at a rate of a .500 winning percentage will drag them all down.

In conclusion any power index system is a self fulfilling prophecy because of the nature of the low sample space. Good teams in a win are more likely to drop their defeated opponents. Even if that is mitigated by strength of schedule, there are not that many good teams. Random distribution says any team would only meet up to 2-4 even if the best teams are distributed in a few power conferences.

The reality of college football is that unlike the PRO game most of your time is spent beating up on overmatched opponents presuming you have a top10 team. Nobody in the top10 of the FEI has a great schedule as the majority of their games regardless of which team we look at, feasted on cupcakes. If anyone can name a team that has walked a college gauntlet to get where they are I'm interested in the counter example.

Yet you say it as a point of subjectivity. I will be the first to admit UM had it easier since MSU and PSU QB's were not 100%. Yet I can make the case based on how those games turned out the outcome would have been the same. McSorely could have had the game of his life and maybe PSU loses only by 15. PSU conceded the running game after the 1st series and McSorely was running for his life on every passing down.


In the case of MSU and NW I think I understand. NW had some awful losses early in the season. The 2nd issue with NW is they have no statistic impressive wins. In fact there were "wins" where they were statistically outplayed. NW had no 42 to 10 games to rack up stats. But I think this is accurate. My prediction is NW will get clobbered in the CCG be it UM or OSU. I have watched a ton of NW games because they are one of my favorite teams. But they really have done it with smoke & mirrors. They have a nice front seven that keeps them in games MSU style. However, none of their skill players have any explosion. Thorson is an incredibly inefficient QB. The 2nd half play by play against UM is telling. Once UM adjusted to the slant fest NW longest drive was 5 plays 16 yards with the exception of the last drive that only had 34 seconds and ended in a sack. That was also Shea Patterson's worst game from an accuracy and judgement grading. If I had money on either OSU or UM I take the spread against NW. I think NW is as bad as FEI states.

Conversely MSU is probably better than their record. I will be on record that I am enjoying MSU's suffering because for years Dantonio lived a blessed coaching life as everything always worked out. Now there have been two out of the last three years where MSU has had some unlucky misfortune. MSU could not run the ball this year. Last year they just needed some pedestrian pass offense to win games as that defense is dominant. When the QB and every starting WR got hurt, the offense tanked. Since FEI is based on yards you are getting on yards you are getting no contribution from half the team.

The MSU<>NW game was strange. NW scored 3 TD's on 7 plays which did not happen all year. It also helped one of Dantonio's risks failed when he went for it on 4th and 1 from the 11. As much as I hate MSU I think they win this game 8 times out of 10.

All said I think NW is what FEI says. Look at the ND<>NW game. It was the same thing as the NW<>UM game. ND comes out flat. NW has some surprising wrinkles in this case they are on defense instead of offense. In the 2nd half ND adjusts and NW gets smoked. The score gets close only because ND lets up a bit and lets some plays happen. If NW and ND were to play in some kind of bowl game I would call it ND 40 NW 13. NW has lived the charmed life and done just enough to win 51 percent to 49 percent. Might work against a weak Big10 west division, but not elite teams.

Is summary there are going to be teams that are lucky or unlucky. There are going to be teams that win more or lose more than they should have because the games are played. Are the Detroit Lions a real 4-6 team or should they be 2-8 because 2 wins occurred because kickers had massive brain farts? FEI would properly measure the Lions because 2 of their victories should have been losses. They might pick up a 5th victory because the best team in the division does not have a viable backup QB.

I would say that an index that has no outliers is flawed because we know that the best team does not always win. There is always going to be luck and unluck especially when the sample space is small. The entire point of an index is to identify lucky verses unlucky because we are interested in true capability not that a team has more W's or L's because of weird fate.

Boring

 

[burmafrd1943]

Just how many services out there that does schedule rankings?

 

[FriedmanIP]

Yet you say it as a point of subjectivity. I will be the first to admit UM had it easier since MSU and PSU QB's were not 100%. Yet I can make the case based on how those games turned out the outcome would have been the same. McSorely could have had the game of his life and maybe PSU loses only by 15. PSU conceded the running game after the 1st series and McSorely was running for his life on every passing down.


In the case of MSU and NW I think I understand. NW had some awful losses early in the season. The 2nd issue with NW is they have no statistic impressive wins. In fact there were "wins" where they were statistically outplayed. NW had no 42 to 10 games to rack up stats. But I think this is accurate. My prediction is NW will get clobbered in the CCG be it UM or OSU. I have watched a ton of NW games because they are one of my favorite teams. But they really have done it with smoke & mirrors. They have a nice front seven that keeps them in games MSU style. However, none of their skill players have any explosion. Thorson is an incredibly inefficient QB. The 2nd half play by play against UM is telling. Once UM adjusted to the slant fest NW longest drive was 5 plays 16 yards with the exception of the last drive that only had 34 seconds and ended in a sack. That was also Shea Patterson's worst game from an accuracy and judgement grading. If I had money on either OSU or UM I take the spread against NW. I think NW is as bad as FEI states.

Conversely MSU is probably better than their record. I will be on record that I am enjoying MSU's suffering because for years Dantonio lived a blessed coaching life as everything always worked out. Now there have been two out of the last three years where MSU has had some unlucky misfortune. MSU could not run the ball this year. Last year they just needed some pedestrian pass offense to win games as that defense is dominant. When the QB and every starting WR got hurt, the offense tanked. Since FEI is based on yards you are getting on yards you are getting no contribution from half the team.

The MSU<>NW game was strange. NW scored 3 TD's on 7 plays which did not happen all year. It also helped one of Dantonio's risks failed when he went for it on 4th and 1 from the 11. As much as I hate MSU I think they win this game 8 times out of 10.

All said I think NW is what FEI says. Look at the ND<>NW game. It was the same thing as the NW<>UM game. ND comes out flat. NW has some surprising wrinkles in this case they are on defense instead of offense. In the 2nd half ND adjusts and NW gets smoked. The score gets close only because ND lets up a bit and lets some plays happen. If NW and ND were to play in some kind of bowl game I would call it ND 40 NW 13. NW has lived the charmed life and done just enough to win 51 percent to 49 percent. Might work against a weak Big10 west division, but not elite teams.

Is summary there are going to be teams that are lucky or unlucky. There are going to be teams that win more or lose more than they should have because the games are played. Are the Detroit Lions a real 4-6 team or should they be 2-8 because 2 wins occurred because kickers had massive brain farts? FEI would properly measure the Lions because 2 of their victories should have been losses. They might pick up a 5th victory because the best team in the division does not have a viable backup QB.

I would say that an index that has no outliers is flawed because we know that the best team does not always win. There is always going to be luck and unluck especially when the sample space is small. The entire point of an index is to identify lucky verses unlucky because we are interested in true capability not that a team has more W's or L's because of weird fate.

Nothing subjective about it at all.

Notre Dame has Goodwins… Michigan does not.

No matter how long you’re completely in accurate diatribes are… They won’t change that reality.

Condolences on your overrated QB, dumpster fire OL, and Charmin soft defense.

 

[hfhmilkman]

Boring

I'm sorry that I did not post on twitter for you. My point is that it is really hard to beat a top10 team because by beating them they are more likely to not be top10 ten.

 

[NIN Irish]

I'm sorry that I did not post on twitter for you. My point is that it is really hard to beat a top10 team because by what beating them they are more likely to not be top10 ten.

I'm not sure what Twitter has to do with anything. I don't want to use it. Heck, I don't even use facebook. You must be a millennial.

 

[echowaker]

UCF troll secretly pimping his own teams resume lol.

What resume ?

 

[hfhmilkman]

I'm not sure what Twitter has to do with anything. I don't want to use it. Heck, I don't even use facebook. You must be a millennial.

Twitter users find anything longer than a paragraph boring.

 

[burmafrd1943]

Twitter users find anything longer than a paragraph boring.

well you got that beat since you are boring after the first sentence.

 

[hfhmilkman]

well you got that beat since you are boring after the first sentence.

No one told you to read it.

 

[NIN Irish]

Twitter users find anything longer than a paragraph boring.

Especially if it's from a Michigan fan.

 

[francade]

Milk, smoke & mirrors or not, n’western has won something like 14 out of 15 B10 games. They very well could get steamrolled by either osu or Michigan, but chances are they keep it close. Either way, they’re not a team to take lightly.

 

[burmafrd1943]

No one told you to read it.

I like to find idiotic posts and respond as they deserve. Congratulations on having several that put morons to shame.