|
Replies: 12
| visibility 1,024
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6980
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Most important factors in ranking teams
Nov 11, 2015, 11:00 AM
|
|
If you were completing a list of factors to rank teams, what would be on your list and what priority?
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [119578]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54419
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Number of balloons released should be #1
Nov 11, 2015, 11:06 AM
|
|
definitely
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24687]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42355
Joined: 7/31/10
|
#1. Won/Loss record...
Nov 11, 2015, 11:09 AM
|
|
#2. Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI)
#3. S&P+ Ratings
#4. Massey Ratings Composite
... or we could just go with the "eye test". ;~)
Message was edited by: SOLOS®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14488]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11103
Joined: 4/2/12
|
Whoever has the most "quality losses"
Nov 11, 2015, 11:11 AM
|
|
Shood definitely factor into the equation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [48]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51
Joined: 10/25/04
|
Teams with an Oculus...
Nov 11, 2015, 11:12 AM
|
|
or multiple Oculi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [45]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 103
Joined: 9/29/11
|
Re: Most important factors in ranking teams
Nov 11, 2015, 11:13 AM
|
|
Height.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Re: Most important factors in ranking teams
Nov 11, 2015, 11:26 AM
|
|
1. Win-loss record, obviously
2. Quality of opponents
3. Game performance (a la scoring margin, stats)
4. Subjective factor (opinion)
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
How is #2 established?***
Nov 11, 2015, 11:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
A litany of different ways.
Nov 11, 2015, 11:32 AM
|
|
Really, it's the same list, applied to the opponents. In other words, what is the opponent's 1. W-L record, 2. quality of opponents, 3. game performance, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
I understand, but at some point, you get into a circle
Nov 11, 2015, 11:38 AM
|
|
Plus, there are always poor games played, for any possible reason. Is Miami really 58 points worse than Clemson at home? Is Bama only 5 points better than Tenn at home, yet 14 better than LSU on the road? These aren't always measurable, unless you get into isolating each game against the rest of the games played, and seeing if the performance remained consistent, which gets you into deeper rabbit holes
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Well, no one said it was an exact science.
Nov 11, 2015, 11:39 AM
|
|
It's hard. But it's fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22353
Joined: 4/24/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22353
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Win/loss record is and should be #1, but a lot of people
Nov 11, 2015, 11:38 AM
|
|
tend to focus almost exclusively on that and fail to acknowledge anything else. 9-0 teams aren't always better than 8-1 teams. Even their resumes aren't always better. In cases where win/loss records are close (like 1 game difference), other factors SHOULD be taken into consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 12
| visibility 1,024
|
|
|
50
