Replies: 49
| visibility 1
|
Editor [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43447
Joined: 12/12/12
|
FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI
Jan 12, 2017, 12:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1761]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2022
Joined: 8/22/99
|
Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI
Jan 12, 2017, 12:17 PM
|
|
Shocking, I tell you. The bias is crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16646]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9354
Joined: 11/1/14
|
Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI
Jan 12, 2017, 12:17 PM
|
|
Louisville's rank de-legitimizes the FPI...not that it was legitimate to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1808]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 1171
Joined: 8/7/07
|
Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI
Jan 12, 2017, 4:08 PM
|
|
I agree, but it was de-legitimized WAY before this latest poll.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10343]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12798
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI
Jan 12, 2017, 12:17 PM
|
|
LMAO! OK ESPN whatever helps you sleep at night. lol
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 199
Joined: 1/14/09
|
Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI
Jan 12, 2017, 12:17 PM
|
|
My rating for the FPI is 0
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2584]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 3562
Joined: 11/30/98
|
WHAT A JOKE! ... FAKE NEWS!
Jan 12, 2017, 12:18 PM
|
|
SURE GLAD WE HAVE A PLAYOFF NOW!
IN THE OLD SYSTEM CLEMSON WOULD NOW GET THE NC FROM EsecPN with both having the same 14-1 record!
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [867]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 767
Joined: 2/12/16
|
Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI
Jan 12, 2017, 12:22 PM
|
|
You are right ESPN. We'll give back the trophy.
What a joke that is.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5079]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3609
Joined: 2/21/04
|
Well boys, the Championship was fun while it lasted. Time to return it.***
Jan 12, 2017, 12:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3968]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3228
Joined: 10/20/11
|
Meh...
Jan 12, 2017, 12:29 PM
|
|
You don't get trophies for being first in "FPI".
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
People do understand that this is just a formula
Jan 12, 2017, 12:30 PM
|
|
that is for entertainment purposes only, to generate discussion, not something that has an actual impact on a championship? Right?
I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape over this stuff. Nobody in the entire universe thinks this in any way invalidates anything Clemson accomplished.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12942]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6228
Joined: 1/26/16
|
until Alabama hangs a "#1" banner up in their stadium***
Jan 12, 2017, 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Yeah, you know they wouldn't do that. No one would.***
Jan 12, 2017, 12:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1105]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 1354
Joined: 2/20/11
|
SCAR would*******
Jan 12, 2017, 12:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2829]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3050
Joined: 2/2/11
|
Re: Yeah, you know they wouldn't do that. No one would.***
Jan 12, 2017, 1:12 PM
[ in reply to Yeah, you know they wouldn't do that. No one would.*** ] |
|
You know Bama already claims 4 or 5 NC that no one else recognizes. This is just another case where ESecPN tries to push their agenda that the SECheat is the best. Go Tigers. 2016 National Champions.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [123]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 149
Joined: 8/23/05
|
Re: People do understand that this is just a formula
Jan 12, 2017, 12:58 PM
[ in reply to People do understand that this is just a formula ] |
|
It's annoying because it is something that is propped up by ESPN on every college football show. Almost everyone of their analysts even think that it's a joke.
No one worries about it invalidating our championship, this is just another example of how big of a joke this really is.
Obviously this formula needs tweaking.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Maybe it does need tweaking...but sometimes
Jan 12, 2017, 1:02 PM
|
|
you just have to recognize that metrics like this are not perfect, and never will be, no matter how much tweaking you do. You can tweak 'til kingdom come, and someone will see something wrong with it. When talking about which teams are better, some people like to look at numbers like this. For two teams which are one spot apart, where the "lesser" team won head to head, of course people are going to go with the head to head over the metric. For teams that are farther apart, like Clemson and Pitt, people will realize that the season numbers take precedence over head-to-head.
It's OK that numbers aren't perfect. That's why they play the games.
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 492
Joined: 11/13/07
|
I understand that this system means nothing
Jan 12, 2017, 1:11 PM
|
|
But the difference between Clemson and Alabama is 3.6 points, two teams with the same record, and the lower ranked team won head to head. By the way, 3.6 points is greater than 10% of the total points Bama earned.
The difference between Clemson and Michigan is 0.6 points. Clemson won 4 more games and lost two less, that doesn't make much sense.
The difference betweenness Clemson and Ohio State, who has 3 less wins and one more pass than Clemson is 1.6. How can a team with more losses than Clemson, who lost handily to Clemson, be closer to Clemson in total points than Clemson is in total points to Alabama.
I don't think anyone takes this seriously, but when it's gonna #### people off when it says across the bottom that according to the FPI Clemson has a 16.7% chance to beat Alabama.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I don't believe wins and losses are a factor in FPI.
Jan 12, 2017, 1:17 PM
|
|
I think it uses in-game factors. The fact that Alabama and Michigan were so dominant in games, not just winning, but gaining way more yards than their opponent, etc....is why their FPI is so high. And that's OK. Sometimes great teams don't have to be dominant all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43532
Joined: 11/17/03
|
Do you mean like the 150 yards or so, that we gained MORE
Jan 13, 2017, 12:08 AM
|
|
than BAMA gained. Those type of stats.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Alabama was more dominant most of the year
Jan 12, 2017, 1:06 PM
[ in reply to Re: People do understand that this is just a formula ] |
|
as a result, they have some high numbers in these computer models. Is that such a horrifying thing? Clemson was better, anyway, and proved it.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12942]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6228
Joined: 1/26/16
|
how do you define "dominant"?
Jan 12, 2017, 1:21 PM
|
|
seems to be subjective
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
It certainly is. A formula like FPI tries to quantify it.
Jan 12, 2017, 1:24 PM
|
|
I mean, just in a really simple way, it's a fact that Alabama outscored their opponents by more points than Clemson did this season. Obviously FPI goes way deeper than that, but that's just an example.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12942]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6228
Joined: 1/26/16
|
I get that... but I would argue that you cannot say Alabama
Jan 12, 2017, 1:26 PM
|
|
was "more dominant" than Clemson
way too many factors to make that statement
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Sure you can say it. And if you like, you can bring
Jan 12, 2017, 1:29 PM
|
|
facts in to debate your point with someone who disagrees. And that person would probably be armed with their own facts. That's the fun of it.
What you can't say is that Clemson is anything but National Champions.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22353
Joined: 4/24/04
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Yep, that's not coincidence. Or bias.
Jan 12, 2017, 1:25 PM
|
|
It says something about the two teams and what they did during the season. Clemson proved that it didn't matter, and won anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3357
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Yep, and they're probably on the money as a trend predictor
Jan 12, 2017, 3:33 PM
[ in reply to We are #2 in almost every advanced metric I've seen. It's ] |
|
If we played Alabama 100 more times with the same two teams, does Clemson win every one of those games? Probably not. Might be Clemson wins some, loses some, but overall loses by 3 points on average.
The important thing of course is that we one the one real game they will play!
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
It doesn't invalidate anything, but people who love Clemson
Jan 12, 2017, 1:14 PM
[ in reply to People do understand that this is just a formula ] |
|
get bent out of shape when the most powerful, influential sports media outlet in the world comes out with just one more thing in a long line of things that flies in the face of facts and reason and feeds into the false narrative that Clemson has battled all year.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
So what would you prefer ESPN had done?
Jan 12, 2017, 1:19 PM
|
|
When they put the numbers in, and Alabama was still #1, should they have chosen not to publish the FPI post-bowl? Or do you think they should have modified their formula before posting it, to make sure Clemson was #1? Or do you think they should just not have FPI at all?
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
They are free to publish it, but it should be accompanied
Jan 12, 2017, 1:45 PM
|
|
with a formal apology to all sentient, thinking beings, and probably a giant, red-faced "embarrassed" emoji.
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [453]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 865
Joined: 2/9/99
|
While I agree
Jan 12, 2017, 1:58 PM
[ in reply to People do understand that this is just a formula ] |
|
It's just a culmination of statistical metrics to rank teams regardless of the playoff outcome it does have an inherent problem...
Go back and look at the pre-season rankings each season they've had this poll. I point to these because they are the basis for the end of season rankings as who you beat is a component of the calculation...
2014 - 9 SEC Teams in top 25 preseason / 7 in final playoff rankings 2015 - 9 SEC Teams in top 25 preseason (+Mizzou at #26) / 5 in final playoff rankings 2016 - 8 SEC Teams in top 25 preseason / 5 in the final playoff rankings
My point is that this poll, while based on quantifiable data, still starts is basis in ESECPN's bias and attempt to prop up its investment in the SEC. The SEC is ALWAYS overrated in the preseason rankings and those rankings do factor into output of the poll.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2340]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2597
Joined: 9/5/05
|
Re: While I agree
Jan 12, 2017, 4:14 PM
|
|
Based upon the information published about the methodology used, the preseason rankings are only used for a certain amount of time with their weight diminishing throughout the year until preseason rankings are not used at all.
This formula, like other "power rankings" are typically based on a wide variety of inputs, including things seemingly as minor as distance travelled to a game and changes in time zone. These factors have been shown to have a quantifiable predictive influence.
While these formulas are certainly not perfect, they aren't meant to be. They provide outcomes based on probabilities, and because games are only played once, there is no way to determine objectively if they were technically incorrect about a specific prediction.
These formulas are typically tweaked for several years with their predictive power measured by comparison to actual outcomes.
As others have said, because Alabama won most of their games by large margins with a very efficient offense and defense, the formula predicts them to have the highest win probability.
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [453]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 865
Joined: 2/9/99
|
Not buying that
Jan 12, 2017, 5:07 PM
|
|
Ole Miss at 29 with a 5-7 record and 1 win versus another FPI top 25 team? I'm pretty sure the inflated pre-season SEC rankings are making those close losses look a lot better than if they had played in another conference.
I'd like to see the formula run setting up all teams with the same start ranking (i.e. every team tied for 64th of 128). I'd wager you'd get different results.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2340]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2597
Joined: 9/5/05
|
Re: While I agree
Jan 12, 2017, 4:14 PM
[ in reply to While I agree ] |
|
Based upon the information published about the methodology used, the preseason rankings are only used for a certain amount of time with their weight diminishing throughout the year until preseason rankings are not used at all.
This formula, like other "power rankings" are typically based on a wide variety of inputs, including things seemingly as minor as distance travelled to a game and changes in time zone. These factors have been shown to have a quantifiable predictive influence.
While these formulas are certainly not perfect, they aren't meant to be. They provide outcomes based on probabilities, and because games are only played once, there is no way to determine objectively if they were technically incorrect about a specific prediction.
These formulas are typically tweaked for several years with their predictive power measured by comparison to actual outcomes.
As others have said, because Alabama won most of their games by large margins with a very efficient offense and defense, the formula predicts them to have the highest win probability.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI
Jan 12, 2017, 12:39 PM
|
|
Well, Bama DID have to play us. We only had to play Bama
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96799]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29204
Joined: 9/14/05
|
Why validate SCAR's existence by mentioning them in this
Jan 12, 2017, 12:44 PM
|
|
post?
Nice trolling attempt by 4x4 smh
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
So, they are admitting failure? Fair enough, I guess, but
Jan 12, 2017, 1:09 PM
|
|
instead of advertising the poor predictive value of an index whose only purpose is as a predictor, you'd think they'd keep this quiet and go back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4404]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7760
Joined: 8/3/00
|
whatever***
Jan 12, 2017, 1:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [562]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 461
Joined: 10/7/03
|
Consider this
Jan 12, 2017, 1:20 PM
|
|
We beat 2 of the top 4. We beat 4 of the top 10. And we beat 6 of the top 25.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3519
Joined: 10/15/00
|
and the winner of every national chanpionship for the last
Jan 12, 2017, 1:27 PM
|
|
7 years (Auburn,FSU,OSU, AL)
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1903]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3519
Joined: 10/15/00
|
Almost as meaningless as the Heisman vote
Jan 12, 2017, 1:25 PM
|
|
for the 2nd straight year.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9113
Joined: 1/15/08
|
Clemson plays (beats) half the Top 10
Jan 12, 2017, 1:31 PM
|
|
is one of Top 10 themselves, while playing in the undisputed toughest conference and is behind Bama who did not face Sam Darnold at USC and played in an exposed conference.
It is also funny how Clemson got knocked for some close games, while creating experience depth and Bama played the same guys to blow inferior opponents out for premium season's rankings, which caused an excuse of Bama is not as deep as last, with all their 4/5*s.
Haha, media; you so funny.
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [20]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 68
Joined: 1/2/13
|
Re: Polls are for Trolls...
Jan 12, 2017, 1:45 PM
|
|
Trophies are for Champs!
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18542]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14859
Joined: 12/11/04
|
Thanks for the FAKE NEWS eSECpn !***
Jan 12, 2017, 2:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22935]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16892
Joined: 12/2/00
|
I recall Oklahoma being ranked above us last year in FPI too
Jan 12, 2017, 2:57 PM
|
|
I recognize it's a 'metric', but head-to-head should have a stronger factor especially if a game is dominant.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6132]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6916
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Bama got #17 after all***
Jan 12, 2017, 4:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [36207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21509
Joined: 10/27/03
|
Two Words For ESPN - EAT "D"***
Jan 12, 2017, 10:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1899]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1685
Joined: 6/13/11
|
Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes IT - the missing variable
Jan 12, 2017, 11:58 PM
|
|
The missing factor in their formula, variable "i". The "IT" factor. GO TIGERS!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17754]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16649
Joined: 9/1/12
|
People are dumb
Jan 13, 2017, 12:17 AM
|
|
FPI is a forward looking metric. People are dumb.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 49
| visibility 1
|
|
|