BINGO!! This right here. We are there defensively but offensively we need an elite QB, RB and WR. Period. End of story. No need for any computers. Now, this last step is the hardest step, especially getting the elite QB play. We’ve addressed part of the problem with J Johnson and Tyree coming in next season but the QB issue still remains.
It's Amazing what some really easy games on the schedule can do for the perception of the program
- Thread starter chaseball
- Start date
Do you even watch the games or do you just stare at F&P on your screen and wait for it to change?
This isn't good enough for ND to compete with playoff quality teams or be a regular playoff contender (top 5 or so).
I must be mistaken in thinking that Notre Dame just competed with Georgia in Athens at night in possibly the most hostile environment in college football.
Right now there are 5 programs I would put above Notre Dame: Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia, and Oklahoma and Notre Dame is very close to those last 2 since they have yet to win anything lately.
You saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.
Really. I’ve asked you this before and you had no good response. If this model, plus total talent rankings, is the best predictor of future performance.....why have a CFP committee??? Why do those 13 people spend all that time together, travel across the country to meet up every week and discuss the “4 best teams”? Why not just use this model? Are you saying you are smarter than the entire NCAA and all of the committee members since you are the only one that is pounding the table for this model?
This is hot garbage just like FP. Just a terrible system. Flawed. It has zero credibility to me. Trash
It is not irrelevant, but it is more of the fact that it is just too flawed to make an impact, nor is the comparative analysis a good representation of who is currently the best or even of who will be the best EOY.
Point blank it does not carry enough substance to be meaningful, like I have said especially in the middle of the season.
It is so flawed that it makes it irrelevant. If your system puts bama over Clemson after Clemson was 15 and 0 and just beat bama by 28 points and could have been worse then.... CHANGE YOUR FORMULA. If the formula is so flawed it is IRRELEVANT
100 percent fair, however there are some interesting points to it. I just like to not rule something out entirely based off of me disagreeing, I am always open to see what something has to offer.
But overall I am agreeing with you, I am just saying it is not completely irrelevant is all
This is logically fallacious. I'm not arguing that F&P+ is better than the work the playoff committee does. Nowhere have I made this point. But if we use your logic, why make/read/have any discourse about the quality of teams/programs at all since none of it can possibly compare to the work the playoff committee does?
Last edited:
I don't get this logic at all.
Why does F&P+ have to be perfect for it to be impactful? It has its flaws but any objective algorithm based system will have flaws. The important part is knowing the systems strength and weaknesses so that you can lean on the system where it's strong and use other forms of analysis where it's weak.
F&P+ is a tool that is measuring how teams stack up to one another.
AP Poll has its flaws, win-loss record has its flaws, the eye-ball test has its flaws, F&P+ and other comprehensive metrics like it have their flaws.
I think F&P+ has less flaws than the other mainstream tools currently being used though. And if my money was on the line I'd choose F&P+ over the others.
Last edited:
It's only a tool yet you're using it to tell us where we are as a program. We are in the bottom of the blue blood programs LOL. We're a top 10 program RIGHT NOW. I could care less what your extremely flawed and irrelevant algorithm spits out.
26 and 5 in last 31. Recruiting and developing well. Very good to elite coaching staff. Made the playoffs. We are right there. Closing the gap. Gonna get in another major bowl this year. Double digit wins 3rd yr in a row
You indirectly have stated that this model is better then what the CFP committee does because you say over and over again that this is the best tool to rank teams and is the best predictor of future results. Maybe you’ve never directly mentioned that it is better than the CFP committee but when you make keep making statements about this model being “the best”, what else are we to assume you mean?
I have discussed and explained in exact detail my thoughts, read what I am posting, it gives credit to your FP+ while also challenging the validity and capability of accurately ranking teams. I never, ever once said it has to be perfect. I also said I am open to seeing what things can offer. I just do not think this has enough substance to be as correct as you are implying it is.
I am looking over your posts time and time again and I just do not think you are grasping at all what I am trying to point out here. Personally I do not have or would put any stock in this FP+ algorithm because even in its "strengths" there are too many flaws that refute the facts that it is suggesting
So here are some reasons in clear detail why this thing gives me zero perspective on the rankings.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fplus/2019
These rankings make no sense, I mean you cannot, maybe you personally can, look at these and tell me it is an accurate depiction of the best teams out there. Baylor, Penn State, Missou and Auburn better than ND? I am sorry but I am not buying that. Further more to have Florida and Texas behind UCF is so unimaginable to me that, as others have pointed out gives this algorithm no credibility.
It just is not a useful tool at this time, point blank, maybe good concepts and ideas to start something and evolve but it just is down right wrong.
Last edited:
So let's get this straight...
One post you say it's got nothing to do with records or scoreboard....
Then a prior post you talk about how Alabama through the year did enough to be ahead of Clemson... After losing to Clemson pretty soundly.
How is UGA ranked ahead of Clemson?
How is UGA 31 spots in front of Texas with 1 loss separating them. Texas beating UGA just as badly as Bama got beat
For anyone who wants to see how ridiculous these rankings are... Here is the final 2018 rankings.
Absurd? Worse than that!!!
Team Conf. Rec. 2ndO Wins
(Diff) S&P+
(Pctile) S&P+
(Rating) Rk Off. S&P+ Rk Def. S&P+ Rk ST S&P+ Rk SOS Rk
Alabama SEC 14-1 13.8 (-0.2) 99.5% 36.3 1 50.9 2 14.2 7 -0.4 85 0.795 11
Georgia SEC 11-3 11.5 (0.5) 99.0% 32.9 2 45.9 3 14.2 8 1.3 20 0.794 9
Clemson ACC 15-0 14.0 (-1.0) 98.2% 29.7 3 43.0 5 12.6 3 -0.6 95 0.912 63
Oklahoma Big 12 12-2 11.7 (-0.3) 95.9% 24.9 4 54.0 1 30.0 84 1.0 32 0.909 61
LSU SEC 10-3 9.1 (-0.9) 95.4% 24.2 5 34.8 30 13.4 5 2.7 3 0.750 1
Ohio State Big Ten 13-1 10.9 (-2.1) 95.3% 24.1 6 44.4 4 21.2 26 0.8 38 0.899 51
Auburn SEC 8-5 8.2 (0.2) 94.9% 23.6 7 36.9 19 14.1 6 0.7 43 0.761 3
Mississippi State SEC 8-5 8.7 (0.7) 94.6% 23.2 8 34.6 32 10.5 1 -0.9 101 0.791 8
Florida SEC 10-3 9.7 (-0.3) 94.4% 23.0 9 38.6 15 17.4 17 1.7 11 0.813 14
Michigan Big Ten 10-3 10.3 (0.3) 93.6% 22.0 10 35.5 25 14.3 9 0.9 36 0.867 26
Texas A&M SEC 9-4 9.0 (0.0) 93.2% 21.6 11 40.3 10 19.8 21 1.1 28 0.761 4
Missouri SEC 8-5 9.3 (1.3) 92.4% 20.8 12 41.3 8 21.0 25 0.5 51 0.794 10
Notre Dame Ind 12-1 10.3 (-1.7) 92.3% 20.7 13 34.6 33 14.5 10 0.6 45 0.905 55
Washington Pac-12 10-4 10.9 (0.9) 91.4% 19.9 14 34.5 34 12.7 4 -1.9 117 0.880 34
Penn State Big Ten 9-4 9.7 (0.7) 90.4% 19.0 15 33.9 36 14.6 11 -0.3 77 0.868 29
Fresno State MWC 12-2 12.1 (0.1) 88.1% 17.4 16 33.5 37 15.5 12 -0.6 94 0.944 91
Utah Pac-12 9-5 9.2 (0.2) 87.3% 16.8 17 31.9 45 18.1 19 3.0 1 0.887 38
Central Florida AAC 12-1 10.6 (-1.4) 86.7% 16.5 18 39.9 11 25.2 47 1.8 10 0.954 107
Wisconsin Big Ten 8-5 8.7 (0.7) 85.0% 15.5 19 39.3 12 21.6 29 -2.3 125 0.899 50
South Carolina SEC 7-6 5.8 (-1.2) 84.0% 14.9 20 36.4 21 23.6 40 2.0 7 0.788 7
Utah State MWC 11-2 10.0 (-1.0) 82.7% 14.2 21 36.3 22 22.5 35 0.4 55 0.956 110
Oklahoma State Big 12 7-6 7.6 (0.6) 82.1% 13.8 22 42.0 7 28.9 71 0.7 42 0.892 46
Iowa Big Ten 9-4 8.8 (-0.2) 81.0% 13.3 23 30.3 54 17.7 18 0.7 44 0.911 62
West Virginia Big 12 8-4 7.5 (-0.5) 80.8% 13.2 24 41.1 9 29.2 76 1.3 18 0.888 39
Kentucky SEC 10-3 7.8 (-2.2) 80.5% 13.1 25 29.5 64 16.3 15 -0.1 72 0.806 12
Stanford Pac-12 9-4 8.4 (-0.6) 80.4% 13.0 26 35.4 26 24.3 43 1.8 8 0.877 33
Miami-FL ACC 7-6 8.8 (1.8) 79.8% 12.7 27 29.3 66 15.8 14 -0.8 97 0.922 72
Boise State MWC 10-3 8.9 (-1.1) 78.8% 12.2 28 37.1 18 22.8 38 -2.0 121 0.905 56
Appalachian State Sun Belt 11-2 11.0 (0.0) 78.0% 11.9 29 30.0 56 19.0 20 1.0 34 0.961 116
Michigan State Big Ten 7-6 7.5 (0.5) 77.1% 11.5 30 22.0 112 10.8 2 0.3 61 0.867 28
Washington State Pac-12 11-2 9.7 (-1.3) 76.8% 11.3 31 38.8 13 27.3 59 -0.2 74 0.903 53
Texas Big 12 10-4 8.3 (-1.7) 76.6% 11.3 32 35.3 27 24.4 44 0.4 59 0.865 24
Ole Miss SEC 5-7 5.9 (0.9) 73.2% 9.8 33 42.1 6 31.2 90 -1.2 103 0.786 6
USC Pac-12 5-7 7.0 (2.0) 72.9% 9.7 34 31.7 46 22.5 34 0.5 50 0.892 44
NC State ACC 9-4 8.3 (-0.7) 72.2% 9.4 35 35.1 29 26.7 54 1.1 27 0.917 65
Memphis AAC 8-6 9.6 (1.6) 71.6% 9.2 36 38.8 14 30.5 87 0.8 39 0.931 80
Texas Tech Big 12 5-7 6.2 (1.2) 70.4% 8.7 37 36.2 23 29.8 81 2.4 6 0.885 36
Iowa State Big 12 8-5 8.1 (0.1) 68.5% 7.9 38 29.9 59 21.5 28 -0.4 83 0.885 37
Vanderbilt SEC 6-7 7.1 (1.1) 67.6% 7.6 39 35.6 24 27.1 57 -0.9 100 0.812 13
Syracuse ACC 10-3 8.5 (-1.5) 67.4% 7.5 40 32.1 44 27.4 60 2.8 2 0.898 49
Oregon Pac-12 9-4 7.6 (-1.4) 66.7% 7.3 41 34.7 31 25.8 50 -1.7 111 0.909 59
Virginia ACC 8-5 8.9 (0.9) 66.4% 7.1 42 29.7 62 22.0 31 -0.6 93 0.941 88
TCU Big 12 7-6 7.1 (0.1) 65.8% 6.9 43 25.7 91 16.9 16 -1.8 115 0.865 25
Purdue Big Ten 6-7 7.5 (1.5) 64.5% 6.5 44 37.2 17 30.8 88 0.0 67 0.867 27
Minnesota Big Ten 7-6 6.9 (-0.1) 64.1% 6.3 45 28.2 75 22.8 39 1.0 31 0.884 35
BYU Ind 7-6 8.1 (1.1) 63.8% 6.2 46 28.9 72 22.3 33 -0.4 86 0.896 47
San Diego State MWC 7-6 7.6 (0.6) 63.3% 6.0 47 25.6 92 21.0 24 1.4 16 0.934 83
Tennessee SEC 5-7 4.3 (-0.7) 61.7% 5.5 48 33.4 38 28.9 72 1.0 30 0.759 2
Nebraska Big Ten 4-8 6.7 (2.7) 61.6% 5.4 49 32.7 42 26.9 55 -0.4 80 0.868 30
Cincinnati AAC 11-2 9.6 (-1.4) 61.4% 5.4 50 28.3 74 22.6 36 -0.4 82 0.955 108
Duke ACC 8-5 6.8 (-1.2) 60.5% 5.0 51 30.5 52 25.0 46 -0.5 87 0.901 52
Arizona State Pac-12 7-6 6.3 (-0.7) 60.5% 5.0 52 33.9 35 30.4 86 1.5 14 0.892 45
Arkansas SEC 2-10 3.4 (1.4) 58.8% 4.5 53 29.7 61 25.7 49 0.5 52 0.777 5
Ohio MAC 9-4 8.9 (-0.1) 57.6% 4.0 54 38.2 16 35.0 107 0.8 40 0.974 127
Virginia Tech ACC 6-7 5.7 (-0.3) 57.2% 3.9 55 32.8 41 29.4 77 0.4 57 0.921 71
California Pac-12 7-6 6.5 (-0.5) 57.1% 3.9 56 18.3 118 15.6 13 1.2 25 0.909 58
Wake Forest ACC 7-6 7.4 (0.4) 56.4% 3.6 57 31.2 48 28.1 64 0.5 49 0.890 42
Arizona Pac-12 5-7 5.3 (0.3) 56.2% 3.6 58 32.3 43 29.0 74 0.3 63 0.918 67
Maryland Big Ten 5-7 5.3 (0.3) 54.6% 3.0 59 27.6 80 25.9 51 1.3 21 0.861 20
Temple AAC 8-5 8.5 (0.5) 54.4% 2.9 60 28.1 76 23.9 42 -1.3 106 0.951 102
Pittsburgh ACC 7-7 6.8 (-0.2) 53.8% 2.7 61 29.0 71 26.6 53 0.4 60 0.849 17
Troy Sun Belt 10-3 8.8 (-1.2) 53.4% 2.6 62 26.4 89 25.6 48 1.8 9 0.961 115
Boston College ACC 7-5 6.2 (-0.8) 52.9% 2.4 63 26.5 88 22.1 32 -1.9 118 0.896 48
Houston AAC 8-5 8.1 (0.1) 52.6% 2.3 64 36.7 20 34.9 106 0.6 47 0.961 113
North Texas C-USA 9-4 9.8 (0.8) 51.9% 2.1 65 29.2 67 29.5 78 2.4 5 0.981 130
Toledo MAC 7-6 7.1 (0.1) 51.6% 2.0 66 35.2 28 34.4 102 1.1 26 0.953 106
Baylor Big 12 7-6 6.9 (-0.1) 51.5% 2.0 67 33.1 39 30.3 85 -0.8 99 0.889 41
Northwestern Big Ten 9-5 6.2 (-2.8) 51.4% 1.9 68 25.5 94 21.6 30 -2.0 120 0.854 19
Wyoming MWC 6-6 6.3 (0.3) 51.2% 1.9 69 25.1 95 23.7 41 0.4 56 0.907 57
Indiana Big Ten 5-7 4.7 (-0.3) 50.4% 1.6 70 30.2 55 29.1 75 0.4 54 0.861 21
Florida State ACC 5-7 4.4 (-0.6) 49.8% 1.4 71 25.0 97 22.8 37 -0.8 96 0.850 18
Arkansas State Sun Belt 8-5 8.7 (0.7) 49.2% 1.2 72 29.9 57 27.9 62 -0.8 98 0.926 75
Marshall C-USA 9-4 9.2 (0.2) 48.7% 1.0 73 22.0 113 20.5 22 -0.5 88 0.971 124
Georgia Tech ACC 7-6 5.8 (-1.2) 46.6% 0.3 74 33.0 40 33.9 100 1.2 24 0.864 23
UAB C-USA 11-3 10.1 (-0.9) 44.9% -0.3 75 24.1 104 24.4 45 0.0 68 0.961 114
UCLA Pac-12 3-9 3.3 (0.3) 44.7% -0.4 76 30.7 50 32.4 97 1.3 19 0.844 15
Nevada MWC 8-5 6.5 (-1.5) 44.3% -0.5 77 27.5 83 28.0 63 0.1 66 0.940 87
Kansas State Big 12 5-7 5.6 (0.6) 44.3% -0.5 78 27.2 84 27.5 61 -0.2 75 0.863 22
Miami-OH MAC 6-6 5.9 (-0.1) 43.6% -0.7 79 26.2 90 28.4 66 1.5 12 0.966 119
Colorado Pac-12 5-7 5.4 (0.4) 43.6% -0.7 80 27.0 85 27.2 58 -0.5 89 0.904 54
Florida Atlantic C-USA 5-7 6.6 (1.6) 43.4% -0.8 81 30.8 49 29.9 82 -1.8 114 0.931 78
Buffalo MAC 10-4 9.5 (-0.5) 42.6% -1.1 82 31.3 47 29.9 83 -2.5 126 0.974 126
South Florida AAC 7-6 6.7 (-0.3) 42.2% -1.2 83 29.1 69 29.8 80 -0.5 91 0.955 109
Army Ind 11-2 8.1 (-2.9) 41.3% -1.5 84 29.4 65 28.7 70 -2.2 123 0.942 90
Air Force MWC 5-7 6.1 (1.1) 40.5% -1.8 85 29.2 68 31.2 91 0.2 65 0.945 93
Eastern Michigan MAC 7-6 8.5 (1.5) 39.9% -2.0 86 25.5 93 26.1 52 -1.5 109 0.970 122
Georgia Southern Sun Belt 10-3 7.9 (-2.1) 38.9% -2.4 87 27.9 78 31.6 92 1.4 17 0.934 82
North Carolina ACC 2-9 3.8 (1.8) 38.6% -2.5 88 29.9 58 31.9 95 -0.5 90 0.926 77
Northern Illinois MAC 8-6 7.4 (-0.6) 37.8% -2.7 89 19.1 117 20.8 23 -1.0 102 0.939 86
Tulane AAC 7-6 6.6 (-0.4) 35.7% -3.5 90 23.8 106 28.3 65 0.9 35 0.931 79
Middle Tennessee C-USA 8-6 8.3 (0.3) 34.9% -3.8 91 24.4 103 28.7 68 0.5 53 0.919 69
Southern Miss C-USA 6-5 6.2 (0.2) 31.8% -5.0 92 16.6 122 21.4 27 -0.3 76 0.951 101
SMU AAC 5-7 4.9 (-0.1) 30.7% -5.4 93 24.0 105 29.7 79 0.3 62 0.916 64
Louisiana Tech C-USA 8-5 7.1 (-0.9) 26.9% -6.9 94 22.0 111 27.0 56 -1.8 116 0.925 74
UL-Lafayette Sun Belt 7-7 7.0 (0.0) 26.8% -6.9 95 30.5 53 38.9 116 1.5 15 0.889 40
Florida International C-USA 9-4 7.4 (-1.6) 25.6% -7.4 96 26.7 86 34.7 105 0.6 46 0.971 123
Illinois Big Ten 4-8 3.9 (-0.1) 24.3% -7.9 97 29.1 70 38.6 115 1.5 13 0.909 60
Louisville ACC 2-10 1.7 (-0.3) 21.8% -9.1 98 24.5 102 33.6 99 0.0 70 0.844 16
New Mexico MWC 3-9 4.0 (1.0) 20.8% -9.5 99 23.8 107 35.7 109 2.4 4 0.917 66
Kansas Big 12 3-9 2.8 (-0.2) 19.9% -10.0 100 21.9 114 31.9 94 0.0 71 0.890 43
Navy AAC 3-10 3.4 (0.4) 19.4% -10.2 101 27.5 82 38.3 114 0.6 48 0.921 70
Colorado State MWC 3-9 3.6 (0.6) 19.2% -10.3 102 27.6 81 36.7 110 -1.2 104 0.918 68
Hawaii MWC 8-6 7.2 (-0.8) 19.1% -10.4 103 29.5 63 39.5 118 -0.4 81 0.941 89
Western Michigan MAC 7-6 6.4 (-0.6) 18.4% -10.7 104 29.8 60 37.4 112 -3.1 130 0.944 92
UL-Monroe Sun Belt 6-6 5.4 (-0.6) 18.1% -10.9 105 26.5 87 35.4 108 -2.0 119 0.946 96
UNLV MWC 4-8 4.1 (0.1) 17.6% -11.1 106 30.7 51 38.9 117 -2.9 128 0.934 84
Tulsa AAC 3-9 4.4 (1.4) 17.5% -11.2 107 22.9 109 32.3 96 -1.7 113 0.949 99
Rutgers Big Ten 1-11 1.8 (0.8) 15.5% -12.3 108 15.0 123 28.5 67 1.2 23 0.869 31
Old Dominion C-USA 4-8 4.1 (0.1) 12.5% -14.1 109 24.9 98 39.7 119 0.7 41 0.977 129
East Carolina AAC 3-9 3.8 (0.8) 11.3% -14.9 110 18.3 119 34.2 101 1.0 33 0.936 85
Oregon State Pac-12 2-10 1.8 (-0.2) 9.9% -16.0 111 28.8 73 43.4 126 -1.3 107 0.875 32
Absurd? Worse than that!!!
Team Conf. Rec. 2ndO Wins
(Diff) S&P+
(Pctile) S&P+
(Rating) Rk Off. S&P+ Rk Def. S&P+ Rk ST S&P+ Rk SOS Rk
Alabama SEC 14-1 13.8 (-0.2) 99.5% 36.3 1 50.9 2 14.2 7 -0.4 85 0.795 11
Georgia SEC 11-3 11.5 (0.5) 99.0% 32.9 2 45.9 3 14.2 8 1.3 20 0.794 9
Clemson ACC 15-0 14.0 (-1.0) 98.2% 29.7 3 43.0 5 12.6 3 -0.6 95 0.912 63
Oklahoma Big 12 12-2 11.7 (-0.3) 95.9% 24.9 4 54.0 1 30.0 84 1.0 32 0.909 61
LSU SEC 10-3 9.1 (-0.9) 95.4% 24.2 5 34.8 30 13.4 5 2.7 3 0.750 1
Ohio State Big Ten 13-1 10.9 (-2.1) 95.3% 24.1 6 44.4 4 21.2 26 0.8 38 0.899 51
Auburn SEC 8-5 8.2 (0.2) 94.9% 23.6 7 36.9 19 14.1 6 0.7 43 0.761 3
Mississippi State SEC 8-5 8.7 (0.7) 94.6% 23.2 8 34.6 32 10.5 1 -0.9 101 0.791 8
Florida SEC 10-3 9.7 (-0.3) 94.4% 23.0 9 38.6 15 17.4 17 1.7 11 0.813 14
Michigan Big Ten 10-3 10.3 (0.3) 93.6% 22.0 10 35.5 25 14.3 9 0.9 36 0.867 26
Texas A&M SEC 9-4 9.0 (0.0) 93.2% 21.6 11 40.3 10 19.8 21 1.1 28 0.761 4
Missouri SEC 8-5 9.3 (1.3) 92.4% 20.8 12 41.3 8 21.0 25 0.5 51 0.794 10
Notre Dame Ind 12-1 10.3 (-1.7) 92.3% 20.7 13 34.6 33 14.5 10 0.6 45 0.905 55
Washington Pac-12 10-4 10.9 (0.9) 91.4% 19.9 14 34.5 34 12.7 4 -1.9 117 0.880 34
Penn State Big Ten 9-4 9.7 (0.7) 90.4% 19.0 15 33.9 36 14.6 11 -0.3 77 0.868 29
Fresno State MWC 12-2 12.1 (0.1) 88.1% 17.4 16 33.5 37 15.5 12 -0.6 94 0.944 91
Utah Pac-12 9-5 9.2 (0.2) 87.3% 16.8 17 31.9 45 18.1 19 3.0 1 0.887 38
Central Florida AAC 12-1 10.6 (-1.4) 86.7% 16.5 18 39.9 11 25.2 47 1.8 10 0.954 107
Wisconsin Big Ten 8-5 8.7 (0.7) 85.0% 15.5 19 39.3 12 21.6 29 -2.3 125 0.899 50
South Carolina SEC 7-6 5.8 (-1.2) 84.0% 14.9 20 36.4 21 23.6 40 2.0 7 0.788 7
Utah State MWC 11-2 10.0 (-1.0) 82.7% 14.2 21 36.3 22 22.5 35 0.4 55 0.956 110
Oklahoma State Big 12 7-6 7.6 (0.6) 82.1% 13.8 22 42.0 7 28.9 71 0.7 42 0.892 46
Iowa Big Ten 9-4 8.8 (-0.2) 81.0% 13.3 23 30.3 54 17.7 18 0.7 44 0.911 62
West Virginia Big 12 8-4 7.5 (-0.5) 80.8% 13.2 24 41.1 9 29.2 76 1.3 18 0.888 39
Kentucky SEC 10-3 7.8 (-2.2) 80.5% 13.1 25 29.5 64 16.3 15 -0.1 72 0.806 12
Stanford Pac-12 9-4 8.4 (-0.6) 80.4% 13.0 26 35.4 26 24.3 43 1.8 8 0.877 33
Miami-FL ACC 7-6 8.8 (1.8) 79.8% 12.7 27 29.3 66 15.8 14 -0.8 97 0.922 72
Boise State MWC 10-3 8.9 (-1.1) 78.8% 12.2 28 37.1 18 22.8 38 -2.0 121 0.905 56
Appalachian State Sun Belt 11-2 11.0 (0.0) 78.0% 11.9 29 30.0 56 19.0 20 1.0 34 0.961 116
Michigan State Big Ten 7-6 7.5 (0.5) 77.1% 11.5 30 22.0 112 10.8 2 0.3 61 0.867 28
Washington State Pac-12 11-2 9.7 (-1.3) 76.8% 11.3 31 38.8 13 27.3 59 -0.2 74 0.903 53
Texas Big 12 10-4 8.3 (-1.7) 76.6% 11.3 32 35.3 27 24.4 44 0.4 59 0.865 24
Ole Miss SEC 5-7 5.9 (0.9) 73.2% 9.8 33 42.1 6 31.2 90 -1.2 103 0.786 6
USC Pac-12 5-7 7.0 (2.0) 72.9% 9.7 34 31.7 46 22.5 34 0.5 50 0.892 44
NC State ACC 9-4 8.3 (-0.7) 72.2% 9.4 35 35.1 29 26.7 54 1.1 27 0.917 65
Memphis AAC 8-6 9.6 (1.6) 71.6% 9.2 36 38.8 14 30.5 87 0.8 39 0.931 80
Texas Tech Big 12 5-7 6.2 (1.2) 70.4% 8.7 37 36.2 23 29.8 81 2.4 6 0.885 36
Iowa State Big 12 8-5 8.1 (0.1) 68.5% 7.9 38 29.9 59 21.5 28 -0.4 83 0.885 37
Vanderbilt SEC 6-7 7.1 (1.1) 67.6% 7.6 39 35.6 24 27.1 57 -0.9 100 0.812 13
Syracuse ACC 10-3 8.5 (-1.5) 67.4% 7.5 40 32.1 44 27.4 60 2.8 2 0.898 49
Oregon Pac-12 9-4 7.6 (-1.4) 66.7% 7.3 41 34.7 31 25.8 50 -1.7 111 0.909 59
Virginia ACC 8-5 8.9 (0.9) 66.4% 7.1 42 29.7 62 22.0 31 -0.6 93 0.941 88
TCU Big 12 7-6 7.1 (0.1) 65.8% 6.9 43 25.7 91 16.9 16 -1.8 115 0.865 25
Purdue Big Ten 6-7 7.5 (1.5) 64.5% 6.5 44 37.2 17 30.8 88 0.0 67 0.867 27
Minnesota Big Ten 7-6 6.9 (-0.1) 64.1% 6.3 45 28.2 75 22.8 39 1.0 31 0.884 35
BYU Ind 7-6 8.1 (1.1) 63.8% 6.2 46 28.9 72 22.3 33 -0.4 86 0.896 47
San Diego State MWC 7-6 7.6 (0.6) 63.3% 6.0 47 25.6 92 21.0 24 1.4 16 0.934 83
Tennessee SEC 5-7 4.3 (-0.7) 61.7% 5.5 48 33.4 38 28.9 72 1.0 30 0.759 2
Nebraska Big Ten 4-8 6.7 (2.7) 61.6% 5.4 49 32.7 42 26.9 55 -0.4 80 0.868 30
Cincinnati AAC 11-2 9.6 (-1.4) 61.4% 5.4 50 28.3 74 22.6 36 -0.4 82 0.955 108
Duke ACC 8-5 6.8 (-1.2) 60.5% 5.0 51 30.5 52 25.0 46 -0.5 87 0.901 52
Arizona State Pac-12 7-6 6.3 (-0.7) 60.5% 5.0 52 33.9 35 30.4 86 1.5 14 0.892 45
Arkansas SEC 2-10 3.4 (1.4) 58.8% 4.5 53 29.7 61 25.7 49 0.5 52 0.777 5
Ohio MAC 9-4 8.9 (-0.1) 57.6% 4.0 54 38.2 16 35.0 107 0.8 40 0.974 127
Virginia Tech ACC 6-7 5.7 (-0.3) 57.2% 3.9 55 32.8 41 29.4 77 0.4 57 0.921 71
California Pac-12 7-6 6.5 (-0.5) 57.1% 3.9 56 18.3 118 15.6 13 1.2 25 0.909 58
Wake Forest ACC 7-6 7.4 (0.4) 56.4% 3.6 57 31.2 48 28.1 64 0.5 49 0.890 42
Arizona Pac-12 5-7 5.3 (0.3) 56.2% 3.6 58 32.3 43 29.0 74 0.3 63 0.918 67
Maryland Big Ten 5-7 5.3 (0.3) 54.6% 3.0 59 27.6 80 25.9 51 1.3 21 0.861 20
Temple AAC 8-5 8.5 (0.5) 54.4% 2.9 60 28.1 76 23.9 42 -1.3 106 0.951 102
Pittsburgh ACC 7-7 6.8 (-0.2) 53.8% 2.7 61 29.0 71 26.6 53 0.4 60 0.849 17
Troy Sun Belt 10-3 8.8 (-1.2) 53.4% 2.6 62 26.4 89 25.6 48 1.8 9 0.961 115
Boston College ACC 7-5 6.2 (-0.8) 52.9% 2.4 63 26.5 88 22.1 32 -1.9 118 0.896 48
Houston AAC 8-5 8.1 (0.1) 52.6% 2.3 64 36.7 20 34.9 106 0.6 47 0.961 113
North Texas C-USA 9-4 9.8 (0.8) 51.9% 2.1 65 29.2 67 29.5 78 2.4 5 0.981 130
Toledo MAC 7-6 7.1 (0.1) 51.6% 2.0 66 35.2 28 34.4 102 1.1 26 0.953 106
Baylor Big 12 7-6 6.9 (-0.1) 51.5% 2.0 67 33.1 39 30.3 85 -0.8 99 0.889 41
Northwestern Big Ten 9-5 6.2 (-2.8) 51.4% 1.9 68 25.5 94 21.6 30 -2.0 120 0.854 19
Wyoming MWC 6-6 6.3 (0.3) 51.2% 1.9 69 25.1 95 23.7 41 0.4 56 0.907 57
Indiana Big Ten 5-7 4.7 (-0.3) 50.4% 1.6 70 30.2 55 29.1 75 0.4 54 0.861 21
Florida State ACC 5-7 4.4 (-0.6) 49.8% 1.4 71 25.0 97 22.8 37 -0.8 96 0.850 18
Arkansas State Sun Belt 8-5 8.7 (0.7) 49.2% 1.2 72 29.9 57 27.9 62 -0.8 98 0.926 75
Marshall C-USA 9-4 9.2 (0.2) 48.7% 1.0 73 22.0 113 20.5 22 -0.5 88 0.971 124
Georgia Tech ACC 7-6 5.8 (-1.2) 46.6% 0.3 74 33.0 40 33.9 100 1.2 24 0.864 23
UAB C-USA 11-3 10.1 (-0.9) 44.9% -0.3 75 24.1 104 24.4 45 0.0 68 0.961 114
UCLA Pac-12 3-9 3.3 (0.3) 44.7% -0.4 76 30.7 50 32.4 97 1.3 19 0.844 15
Nevada MWC 8-5 6.5 (-1.5) 44.3% -0.5 77 27.5 83 28.0 63 0.1 66 0.940 87
Kansas State Big 12 5-7 5.6 (0.6) 44.3% -0.5 78 27.2 84 27.5 61 -0.2 75 0.863 22
Miami-OH MAC 6-6 5.9 (-0.1) 43.6% -0.7 79 26.2 90 28.4 66 1.5 12 0.966 119
Colorado Pac-12 5-7 5.4 (0.4) 43.6% -0.7 80 27.0 85 27.2 58 -0.5 89 0.904 54
Florida Atlantic C-USA 5-7 6.6 (1.6) 43.4% -0.8 81 30.8 49 29.9 82 -1.8 114 0.931 78
Buffalo MAC 10-4 9.5 (-0.5) 42.6% -1.1 82 31.3 47 29.9 83 -2.5 126 0.974 126
South Florida AAC 7-6 6.7 (-0.3) 42.2% -1.2 83 29.1 69 29.8 80 -0.5 91 0.955 109
Army Ind 11-2 8.1 (-2.9) 41.3% -1.5 84 29.4 65 28.7 70 -2.2 123 0.942 90
Air Force MWC 5-7 6.1 (1.1) 40.5% -1.8 85 29.2 68 31.2 91 0.2 65 0.945 93
Eastern Michigan MAC 7-6 8.5 (1.5) 39.9% -2.0 86 25.5 93 26.1 52 -1.5 109 0.970 122
Georgia Southern Sun Belt 10-3 7.9 (-2.1) 38.9% -2.4 87 27.9 78 31.6 92 1.4 17 0.934 82
North Carolina ACC 2-9 3.8 (1.8) 38.6% -2.5 88 29.9 58 31.9 95 -0.5 90 0.926 77
Northern Illinois MAC 8-6 7.4 (-0.6) 37.8% -2.7 89 19.1 117 20.8 23 -1.0 102 0.939 86
Tulane AAC 7-6 6.6 (-0.4) 35.7% -3.5 90 23.8 106 28.3 65 0.9 35 0.931 79
Middle Tennessee C-USA 8-6 8.3 (0.3) 34.9% -3.8 91 24.4 103 28.7 68 0.5 53 0.919 69
Southern Miss C-USA 6-5 6.2 (0.2) 31.8% -5.0 92 16.6 122 21.4 27 -0.3 76 0.951 101
SMU AAC 5-7 4.9 (-0.1) 30.7% -5.4 93 24.0 105 29.7 79 0.3 62 0.916 64
Louisiana Tech C-USA 8-5 7.1 (-0.9) 26.9% -6.9 94 22.0 111 27.0 56 -1.8 116 0.925 74
UL-Lafayette Sun Belt 7-7 7.0 (0.0) 26.8% -6.9 95 30.5 53 38.9 116 1.5 15 0.889 40
Florida International C-USA 9-4 7.4 (-1.6) 25.6% -7.4 96 26.7 86 34.7 105 0.6 46 0.971 123
Illinois Big Ten 4-8 3.9 (-0.1) 24.3% -7.9 97 29.1 70 38.6 115 1.5 13 0.909 60
Louisville ACC 2-10 1.7 (-0.3) 21.8% -9.1 98 24.5 102 33.6 99 0.0 70 0.844 16
New Mexico MWC 3-9 4.0 (1.0) 20.8% -9.5 99 23.8 107 35.7 109 2.4 4 0.917 66
Kansas Big 12 3-9 2.8 (-0.2) 19.9% -10.0 100 21.9 114 31.9 94 0.0 71 0.890 43
Navy AAC 3-10 3.4 (0.4) 19.4% -10.2 101 27.5 82 38.3 114 0.6 48 0.921 70
Colorado State MWC 3-9 3.6 (0.6) 19.2% -10.3 102 27.6 81 36.7 110 -1.2 104 0.918 68
Hawaii MWC 8-6 7.2 (-0.8) 19.1% -10.4 103 29.5 63 39.5 118 -0.4 81 0.941 89
Western Michigan MAC 7-6 6.4 (-0.6) 18.4% -10.7 104 29.8 60 37.4 112 -3.1 130 0.944 92
UL-Monroe Sun Belt 6-6 5.4 (-0.6) 18.1% -10.9 105 26.5 87 35.4 108 -2.0 119 0.946 96
UNLV MWC 4-8 4.1 (0.1) 17.6% -11.1 106 30.7 51 38.9 117 -2.9 128 0.934 84
Tulsa AAC 3-9 4.4 (1.4) 17.5% -11.2 107 22.9 109 32.3 96 -1.7 113 0.949 99
Rutgers Big Ten 1-11 1.8 (0.8) 15.5% -12.3 108 15.0 123 28.5 67 1.2 23 0.869 31
Old Dominion C-USA 4-8 4.1 (0.1) 12.5% -14.1 109 24.9 98 39.7 119 0.7 41 0.977 129
East Carolina AAC 3-9 3.8 (0.8) 11.3% -14.9 110 18.3 119 34.2 101 1.0 33 0.936 85
Oregon State Pac-12 2-10 1.8 (-0.2) 9.9% -16.0 111 28.8 73 43.4 126 -1.3 107 0.875 32
FP+ isn’t a good enough metric to rely on it.
That’s why it had Alabama ranked ahead of the Clemson team that MURDERED them in the national championship game.
It’s only useful to contextualize a record, not replace it.
ND is looking at a Top5 Overall record for the past 3 seasons (2017-2019).
Pretty much agree with that analysis, except I would say Claypool is good enough a player to be a game changing play maker. But no WR can do that without help from QB and O-Line.
Wait. FP+ not only had Bama ahead of Clemson last year, but Georgia too? That's insane.
Great point... And the line seems adequate.
Book doesnt move around the pocket with a sense of feel. He either stands or bails out immediately.
Those extra second or two is when the receivers really get separation.
The hunger for a coronation at ND is almost as intense as that of Sunni extremists for a rebirth of the old Caliphate. And it’s just as belief-driven. But anyone looking at ND objectively – and you have to be either non-partisan or post-partisan to do that – knows that the odds are still long.
Ergo, there’s a reason ND is ranked 10th. Most analytics and power rankings put them there. And it’s because all of the teams ahead of them are powerful enough to beat them. Whereas it would most likely take a flawless game and a lot of luck for ND to beat, say, Ohio State or Alabama.
I would argue that ND would also have extreme difficulty with Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Penn State and LSU. Surely, after watching any of those teams play, who could say that such an outcome wouldn’t be plausible? They’re potent and feature great play makers.
ND is one loss away from playoff consideration. And that’s in an absolute sense. Depending on how the season plays out, though, it may have already disqualified itself in Athens, allowing as it did double penetration into its backfield on the last play of the game, resulting in a schoolyard Hail Mary.
Should ND lose a second game – and analytics suggest that Michigan, Navy and Duke are all capable of mounting a fight – similar to Pitt and Northwestern last year – the rosy recent press coverage would be GONE. Lose the bowl game and those who've argued that 10-3 is ND’s ceiling, not its floor have won this year’s argument.
Plus, the press coverage would not only not be rosy, it’d be disdainful. So, be careful it’s all not a setup, with reversal of fortune the climax. If ND falters, those ESPN guys – now, so flirtatious – will POUNCE.
By the way USC, today, and Stanford at Palo Alto could also play spoilers as they have at least the athletes if not in USC’s case, the coach or experience; or in Stanford’s, the usual firepower.
As for schedule strength, ND’s is currently 55th, a reflection of Bowling Green and New Mexico. It will wind up stronger, but it’s by no means anything like what, to date, OSU or Auburn have had to deal with.
The reason ND has improved, while failing to become elite, is simple: recruiting. It doesn’t have the play makers and when it does, seldom in sufficient numbers. Look at how Bama neutralized Manti Te’o. Look what Clemson did to ND’s O-line and, by extension, Book. And look at what Georgia twice did to ND’s run game.
And then look at what all three teams’ skill players did to ND.
The difference – and ALWAYS when it’s counted – has been clear.
ND is ranked 9th, not 10th.
The rest of your post only got more hysterically stupid from there.
if you just want to know the four best teams (power) just as Vegas. Don't be surprised if they are all SEC ones.
A metric that tracks play by play doesn't really care who wins the game. It should treat the entire season as one scrimmage.
You lost me at the Irish having extreme diffilculty with Wisconsin (a team that the Irish always out recruit). The Irish are loaded with playmakers especially on defense. A defense that is better than Alabamas. And LSU is going down tonight. And isn't LSU Notre Dames b*tch? 2012 was a long time ago. Kelly and staff have recruited better athletes and less RKG's since then.
You got it...
And....
Georgia who got beat down by Texas is ranked 31 spots ahead of them AFTER the drubbing.
Their final records..
UGA 11-3
UT 10-4
31 spots ahead.
WTFE
Statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital.
No system will ever be able to predict emotion, effort, spirit, confidence and the will to win ... and those are the reasons we watch sports. USA had no business beating USSR in 1980. Tell
That to Mike Eruzione. Penn State had no business beating Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, tell that to Pete Guftopolous. Buster Douglas, Kirk Gibson, should I continue?
Holtz used to say I don’t need to be the best team in the country I just need to be the best team in the stadium on Saturday.
No system will ever be able to predict emotion, effort, spirit, confidence and the will to win ... and those are the reasons we watch sports. USA had no business beating USSR in 1980. Tell
That to Mike Eruzione. Penn State had no business beating Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, tell that to Pete Guftopolous. Buster Douglas, Kirk Gibson, should I continue?
Holtz used to say I don’t need to be the best team in the country I just need to be the best team in the stadium on Saturday.
Thanks for raising this red flag about the team that has gone 16-2 about to be 17-2 over last 2 seasons spending the better part of that period top 10 to top 5 in the reality rankings.
We should probably hit the panic button now huh?
We should probably hit the panic button now huh?
You apparently don’t understand what a “Vegas” spread is.
Spoiler: It is NOT an evaluation of who the better team is.
This is why record doesn't tell the story and one of the many reasons why a tool like F&P+ is simply far better. You need something that takes into account quality of competition. Like F&P+ does.
The ACC has been terrible in recent years outside of Clemson.
USC has been down
Stanford has been down
That's like 70% of the schedule.
ND has a really nice record the last several years but the peripheral stats don't support the elite record. ND isn't performing good enough against a weak schedule to compare with other 0/1/2 loss type teams. They are benefiting from a lot of external factors that are in their favor.
The problem is you haven’t a clue what mediocrity is, and define it as something else...
And really don’t seem to know shit about football....
But enjoy, we’re gonna kick the shit outta your Trojans today
The problem is you haven’t a clue what mediocrity is, and define it as something else...
And really don’t seem to know shit about football....
But enjoy, we’re gonna kick the shit outta your Trojans today
Yes another "hard fought rivalry game" /close win vs a USC team ranked way down in the 30s to inspire the critical thinking skills lacking "Kelly just wins!" crowd.
Last edited:
You go ahead and beat yourself up over the team not winning with enough style and swag to move the needle on some advanced analytics profile.
ND has beat every team they should have over the past two season and have become more competitive with the more talented teams progressively . I’m going to fully enjoy that considering how low the experience as an ND fan was during the CW/TW era.
Though you may say this chart is reflective of recruiting success. I can guarantee you not a single 5 star recruit reviews that chart to see who’s numbers are trending where prior to making a college decision. Winning and factors where the university will likely always restrict itself to the top of that list being more important. With three 5* lined up in the next two classes I’m of the mind that some of those shackles are loosening even if temporarily, and am willing to wait and see.
In the meantime I would suggest letting possible back to back 12-1 seasons speak for themself.
Again, FP+ is a deeply flawed metric that had Alabama as a better team than the national championship Clemson team.......after Clemson fvcking murdered them!!
Metrics like that are flawed based on an over reliance on irrelevant stats.
They’re useful, but only as a peripheral to contextualize what really matters.....the record.
Same thing with CFB Playoff Committee Rankings, AP Poll Rankings, etc.
Again, ProFootballFocus has grades ND as the #6 team in all of CFB......and they’re the premier commercially available football grading service.
So you’re “point” is completely debunked.
Yes another "hard fought rivalry game" /close win vs a USC team ranked way down in the 30s to inspire the critical thinking skills lacking "Kelly just wins!" crowd.
Critical thinking skills suggest you know the definition of mediocre. To which you’ve displayed it’s a concept too far fetched for you.
Well said, Shulkswagen, I like the cut of your jib! I don't care what all this analytics stuff says, I'm still going to root for the Irish.
