Final "Consensus" Top 25

[JohnStOnge]

Massey's final FCS College Football Ranking Comparison at http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Average of 45 power ratings and polls for each team. I recognize only three as polls and if I missed any it's not many so it's mostly the average of power ratings. Note that North Dakota State had to beat #6, #7, #3, and #2 to get the title. That, my friends, is earning it.

1. North Dakota State
2. Sam Houston State
3. Georgia Southern
4. Montana State
5. Eastern Washington
6. South Dakota State
7. Wofford
8. Central Arkansas
9. Cal Poly SLO
10. Old Dominion
11. Illinois State
12. Eastern Kentucky
13. Appalachian State
14. Youngstown State
15. Towson
16. Indiana State
17. Stony Brook
18. Southern Illinois
19. Villanova
20. Tennessee Martin
21. Northern Iowa
22. Northern Arizona
23. Richmond
24. Samford
25. McNeese State

[Screamin_Eagle174]

MSU above EWU....

[SuperHornet]

MSU above EWU....

[gocats]

Where is suckstate in that list.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[uofmman1122]

Where is suckstate in that list.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Montana isn't in there, either, but that doesn't mean I can't call bullshit on the Cats being #4.

[SuperHornet]

Where is suckstate in that list.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Montana isn't in there, either, but that doesn't mean I can't call bullshit on the Cats being #4.

[SACCAT]

We will stay at #4 or better as long as we never play anyone good...

[JohnStOnge]

MSU above EWU....

MSU ended up with a slightly better winning percentage and also did not have any really "bad" losses such as the one Eastern Washington had to Southern Utah. The loss to Washington State was also probably worse as far as power ratings go than any loss Montana State had. Montana State had two losses...one head to head to Eastern Washington and one to Sam Houston State. If you look at the Sagarin ratings as an example, that translates into losses to the 63rd and 88th rated teams among all Division I schools. Eastern Washington's three losses were to the 63rd, 104th, and 144th rated teams. In Sagarin Eastern Washington is rated slightly higher than Montana State but it's very close (64.51 vs. 64.28). And I'm sure it's very close between the two in most if not all power rating systems due to the fact that the qualities of Eastern Washington losses aren't as good. Power ratings look at the whole picture comprehensively; considering all wins and losses by all teams simultaneously. And usually when you really look at things they make sense. You may not agree with them but there's an argument.

One thing's for sure: The fact that one team beat another one head to head is not automatic, slam dunk proof that the winning team in that one matchup is the better team or should be rated higher. If that was the case we should be saying Southern Utah was better than Eastern Washington.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

MSU above EWU....

MSU ended up with a slightly better winning percentage and also did not have any really "bad" losses such as the one Eastern Washington had to Southern Utah. The loss to Washington State was also probably worse as far as power ratings go than any loss Montana State had. Montana State had two losses...one head to head to Eastern Washington and one to Sam Houston State. If you look at the Sagarin ratings as an example, that translates into losses to the 63rd and 88th rated teams among all Division I schools. Eastern Washington's three losses were to the 63rd, 104th, and 144th rated teams. In Sagarin Eastern Washington is rated slightly higher than Montana State but it's very close (64.51 vs. 64.28). And I'm sure it's very close between the two in most if not all power rating systems due to the fact that the qualities of Eastern Washington losses aren't as good. Power ratings look at the whole picture comprehensively; considering all wins and losses by all teams simultaneously. And usually when you really look at things they make sense. You may not agree with them but there's an argument.

One thing's for sure: The fact that one team beat another one head to head is not automatic, slam dunk proof that the winning team in that one matchup is the better team or should be rated higher. If that was the case we should be saying Southern Utah was better than Eastern Washington.

Head to head, went further in the playoffs, EWU's 3 losses were by a combined 10 points, MSU's two losses were by a combined 21. Not only do you look at wins and losses, but you look at how close the wins and losses were.

[Ibanez]

Coastal Carolina is showing a ranking of 24 in the FCS Coaches poll.

[kalm]

MSU ended up with a slightly better winning percentage and also did not have any really "bad" losses such as the one Eastern Washington had to Southern Utah. The loss to Washington State was also probably worse as far as power ratings go than any loss Montana State had. Montana State had two losses...one head to head to Eastern Washington and one to Sam Houston State. If you look at the Sagarin ratings as an example, that translates into losses to the 63rd and 88th rated teams among all Division I schools. Eastern Washington's three losses were to the 63rd, 104th, and 144th rated teams. In Sagarin Eastern Washington is rated slightly higher than Montana State but it's very close (64.51 vs. 64.28). And I'm sure it's very close between the two in most if not all power rating systems due to the fact that the qualities of Eastern Washington losses aren't as good. Power ratings look at the whole picture comprehensively; considering all wins and losses by all teams simultaneously. And usually when you really look at things they make sense. You may not agree with them but there's an argument.

One thing's for sure: The fact that one team beat another one head to head is not automatic, slam dunk proof that the winning team in that one matchup is the better team or should be rated higher. If that was the case we should be saying Southern Utah was better than Eastern Washington.

Head to head, went further in the playoffs, EWU's 3 losses were by a combined 10 points, MSU's two losses were by a combined 21. Not only do you look at wins and losses, but you look at how close the wins and losses were.

Both human polls and computers have warts and this is a great example of the computer's. Two teams, from the same conference, with almost identical records and the one that wins the head to head on the road, with the clearly superior schedule, and makes it further in the playoffs is ranked lower.

[JohnStOnge]

Head to head, went further in the playoffs, EWU's 3 losses were by a combined 10 points, MSU's two losses were by a combined 21. Not only do you look at wins and losses, but you look at how close the wins and losses were.

I agree. But power ratings do look at all those things. The better ones do anyway. They do consider margin of victory.

It could be that if you only looked at power ratings where margin of victory is considered Eastern Washington would do better. But I think it would still be close. Like Sagarin considers margin of victory and I referenced how close the two teams are rated in that one. Massey's ratings that consider margin of victory also have Eastern Washington rated higher but only by one spot (89th vs. 90th). The two were, I think, very close. In any case it's not nearly as bad as human polls which do things like have Bethune Cookman rated in the final 2012/2013 top 25. Human polls put too much emphasis on won loss record. At least that's the case if what you're looking for is a ranking of the best 25 teams.

Like Northern Iowa is a good example. In that "consensus" ranking that's mostly based on power ratings the Panthers were a top 25 team even though they finished with a losing record while Bethune Cookman was not. By human polls Bethune Cookman was a top 25 team. Is there anybody reading this on this board that would have picked Bethune Cookman to beat Northern Iowa had the two teams played? I hope nobody says, "yes."

[BlackFalkin]

How Msu ends up higher than Eastern Washington is just pure hate for the red turf, 8.6k stadium. If EWU had a 20k stadium, they'd be #3 or #4. Ironically Msu is not above gsu. Better than one semi final participant. But not better than a different semi final participant. Okay.

[89Hen]

Never gets old for me. Let's build a Top 25 cherry picking computers...

1. Harvard (Bassett)
2. Albany (Nolan)
3. Ark P-B (DWI)
4. UNI (Reid)
5. Cal Poly (Born)
6. Villanova (Dolphin Pred)
7. UT-Martin (Pugh)
8. Richmond (Daniel Curry Index)
9. Colgate (Pointshare)
10. Maine (Bassett)
11. Sam Houston (Realtime)
12. Bethune-Cookman (Dwiggins)
13. Tennessee State (Donchess Inference)
14. Brown (Pointshare)
15. Coastal Carolina (Cottonwood)
16. Dartmouth (Pointshare)
17. Montana State (Bassett)
18. Alcorn St (Nolan)
19. San Diego (Smart)
20. Eastern Washington (Bassett)
21. Murray St (Sagarin Elo)
22. Montana (Born)
23. ODU (Graves-Reese)
24. Missouri State (Smart)
25. Southern Utah (Massey MOV)

Yes, I know they drop the high and low outlier but you CAN'T put garbage in and get anything but garbage out. The computers suck ass.

[JohnStOnge]

Yes, I know they drop the high and low outlier but you CAN'T put garbage in and get anything but garbage out. The computers suck ass.

I think what you did does compromise the credibility of the average rankings; though I do think that the average rankings themselves appear credible. Nothing that's totally out of whack like Harvard being ranked number 1.

To my knowledge they don't drop the outliers in this average. However, I don't think that any of the rankings you listed are based on what I'd call the better power ratings except for Southern Utah with the Massey MOV. And I don't think having Southern Utah at 25 is unreasonable. "Sagarin" appears in there but it's Sagarin ELO. And if you read Sagarin's web site he says that the ELO is the worst of his three systems. It's the "politically correct" version that doesn't consider margin of victory.

In any case, if there is a problem with any power rating system, it's not a "garbage in" problem. What goes in is the outcomes of all the games.

[89Hen]

In any case, if there is a problem with any power rating system, it's not a "garbage in" problem. What goes in is the outcomes of all the games.

I'm talking about the Massey itself. It is putting in garbage computer rankings. Massey will defend the computer models until the day he dies and all he does is make himself look like an ass. I've exchanged e-mails with him where he tried to belittle me because I suggested that the computers often self-implode on their data (ie, a conference is falsely ranked high to start the season which makes them higher as the season wears on). You look at this and tell me I'm wrong...

1. Harvard
4. Princeton
13. Penn
14. Brown
16. Dartmouth

Hmm, would seem it valued the Ivy a little stronger than normal? If you agree, would you not agree that it could happen in any model? The problem is not enough data. Any good computer programmer would LAUGH at the notion that an 11 game regular season is enough to compare 110 teams, especially given that a majority of the teams play one of those 11 games against a I-A team.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

With a net loss of 2 starters for the Bison, '13 should be another good year.