»
Topic: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI
Replies: 49   Last Post: Jan 13, 2017, 12:17 AM by: ninetytwotiger®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 49  

FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:15 PM
 

 
Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI

Read Update »



Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:17 PM
 

Shocking, I tell you. The bias is crazy.


Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:17 PM
 

Louisville's rank de-legitimizes the FPI...not that it was legitimate to begin with.

2020 orange level member

Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 4:08 PM
 

I agree, but it was de-legitimized WAY before this latest poll.

military_donation.jpg

Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:17 PM
 

LMAO! OK ESPN whatever helps you sleep at night. lol

badge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:17 PM
 

My rating for the FPI is 0


WHAT A JOKE! ... FAKE NEWS!

[3]
Posted: 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!

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:22 PM
 

You are right ESPN. We'll give back the trophy.

What a joke that is.


Well boys, the Championship was fun while it lasted. Time to return it.***


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:28 PM
 




Meh...

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:29 PM
 

You don't get trophies for being first in "FPI".




People do understand that this is just a formula

[2]
Posted: 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.


until Alabama hangs a "#1" banner up in their stadium***

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:41 PM
 



2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Yeah, you know they wouldn't do that. No one would.***


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:49 PM
 




SCAR would*******

[2]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:50 PM
 



2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Yeah, you know they wouldn't do that. No one would.***


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:12 PM
 

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.

military_donation.jpg

Re: People do understand that this is just a formula

[2]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:58 PM
 

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.


Maybe it does need tweaking...but sometimes

[1]
Posted: 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.


I understand that this system means nothing

[1]
Posted: 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.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


I don't believe wins and losses are a factor in FPI.

[1]
Posted: 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.


Do you mean like the 150 yards or so, that we gained MORE


Posted: Jan 13, 2017, 12:08 AM
 

than BAMA gained. Those type of stats.


Alabama was more dominant most of the year

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:06 PM
 

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.


how do you define "dominant"?


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:21 PM
 

seems to be subjective

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


It certainly is. A formula like FPI tries to quantify it.

[1]
Posted: 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.


I get that... but I would argue that you cannot say Alabama

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:26 PM
 

was "more dominant" than Clemson


way too many factors to make that statement

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Sure you can say it. And if you like, you can bring


Posted: 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.


We are #2 in almost every advanced metric I've seen. It's


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:23 PM
 

not just FPI, it's also S&P+, FEI, F/+, Sagarin's Predictor, Colley Matrix, and probably many others.

2020 white level member

Yep, that's not coincidence. Or bias.


Posted: 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.


Yep, and they're probably on the money as a trend predictor


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 3:33 PM
 

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!

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

It doesn't invalidate anything, but people who love Clemson

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:14 PM
 

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.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


So what would you prefer ESPN had done?


Posted: 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?


They are free to publish it, but it should be accompanied

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:45 PM
 

with a formal apology to all sentient, thinking beings, and probably a giant, red-faced "embarrassed" emoji.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


While I agree

[3]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:58 PM
 

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.


Re: While I agree


Posted: 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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Not buying that


Posted: 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.


Re: While I agree


Posted: 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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes #2 in ESPN's final FPI

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:39 PM
 

Well, Bama DID have to play us. We only had to play Bama :)

2020 white level member

Clemson


Why validate SCAR's existence by mentioning them in this


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 12:44 PM
 

post?

Nice trolling attempt by 4x4 smh

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Aspiring member of the TigerNet Sewer Dwellers


So, they are admitting failure? Fair enough, I guess, but

[1]
Posted: 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.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


whatever***


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:15 PM
 



badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Consider this

[1]
Posted: 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.


and the winner of every national chanpionship for the last


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:27 PM
 

7 years (Auburn,FSU,OSU, AL)


Almost as meaningless as the Heisman vote

[2]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:25 PM
 

for the 2nd straight year.


Clemson plays (beats) half the Top 10

[1]
Posted: 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.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Polls are for Trolls...


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 1:45 PM
 

Trophies are for Champs!


Thanks for the FAKE NEWS eSECpn !***

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 2:11 PM
 



2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

I recall Oklahoma being ranked above us last year in FPI too


Posted: 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.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Bama got #17 after all***


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 4:07 PM
 



2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Two Words For ESPN - EAT "D"***

[1]
Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 10:11 PM
 



2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: FB Update: Clemson finishes IT - the missing variable


Posted: Jan 12, 2017, 11:58 PM
 

The missing factor in their formula, variable "i".
The "IT" factor.
GO TIGERS!!!

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

People are dumb


Posted: Jan 13, 2017, 12:17 AM
 

FPI is a forward looking metric. People are dumb.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Replies: 49  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: SEASON TICKETS FOR 2021 Lower Deck Section T, row 18, seats 5 & 7, plus a parking pass. $1900

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
5314 people have read this post