Is Mississippi State a Top 20 Football Program?

[ShotgunDawg]

With polls starting to come out, it looks like we'll be safely in the top 25 in most polls &, since we should start 4-0 before going Auburn, it's highly likely we'll be in the top 15 for that game.

If that comes to be, Mississippi State will have been ranked in the top 20 8 of the last 10 years & top 15 5 of the last 10 years.

So, is MSU a top 20 program? If not, why & what will it take to get there?

[BuckyIsAB****]

I'll put it like this, if we were in the ACC right now we would beat everyone except Clemson. If we were in the B10 we probably beat everyone except Ohio St and Michigan is a toss up. Probably a W. If we traded places with basically anyone except for those 3 teams in those leagues they would all have less wins and less bowls than we do. So yes, we are a top 20 program.

But the problem is, so is mostly every other team in this league right now and just about all of them are able to be a top 20 program except for Vandy

[ShotgunDawg]

I'll put it like this, if we were in the ACC right now we would beat everyone except Clemson. If we were in the B10 we probably beat everyone except Ohio St and Michigan is a toss up. Probably a W. If we traded places with basically anyone except for those 3 teams in those leagues they would all have less wins and less bowls than we do. So yes, we are a top 20 program.

But the problem is, so is mostly every other team in this league right now and just about all of them are able to be a top 20 program except for Vandy

Agree Kentucky was in the top 20 last year, Arkansas was under Petrino, OM has been there as well, Tennessee has flirted with it, but we've sustained it pretty well. Not many teams can say they've been ranked in the top 20 8 of the last 10 years.

My guess is that there are tiers of top programs, top 5, top 10, top 15, & then 16-30 kind of fluctuate & that's the group we are in.

[BuckyIsAB****]

Agree Kentucky was in the top 20 last year, Arkansas was under Petrino, OM has been there as well, Tennessee has flirted with it, but we've sustained it pretty well. Not many teams can say they've been ranked in the top 20 8 of the last 10 years.

My guess is that there are tiers of top programs, top 5, top 10, top 15, & then 16-30 kind of fluctuate & that's the group we are in.

Missouri and South Carolina can be there as well.

[MetEdDawg]

I would say right on the cusp. Teams ahead of us based on results or perception:

Alabama
Clemson
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Florida State
USC
LSU
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Notre Dame
Texas A&M
Stanford
Texas
Wisconsin
Oregon
Miami

They may not have performed better than us over the last decade but perception wise they are ahead of us all things equal. You can make a case for around 10 other programs too I think. But those 19 right there I think on the national stage are ahead of us.

[BuckyIsAB****]

I would say right on the cusp. Teams ahead of us based on results or perception:

Alabama
Clemson
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Florida State
USC
LSU
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Notre Dame
Texas A&M
Stanford
Texas
Wisconsin
Oregon
Miami

They may not have performed better than us over the last decade but perception wise they are ahead of us all things equal. You can make a case for around 10 other programs too I think. But those 19 right there I think on the national stage are ahead of us.

Most people are on the same page now that Miami is a dead program compared to what it used to be. They dont even fill up a quarter of the stadium they play in

[ShotgunDawg]

I would say right on the cusp. Teams ahead of us based on results or perception:

Alabama
Clemson
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Florida State
USC
LSU
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Notre Dame
Texas A&M
Stanford
Texas
Wisconsin
Oregon
Miami

They may not have performed better than us over the last decade but perception wise they are ahead of us all things equal. You can make a case for around 10 other programs too I think. But those 19 right there I think on the national stage are ahead of us.

Just depends on how you define "top 20 program"

We have been better over the past decade than some of these teams. We've beaten A&M 3 years in a row

[msstate7]

I would say right on the cusp. Teams ahead of us based on results or perception:

Alabama
Clemson
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Florida State
USC
LSU
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Notre Dame
Texas A&M
Stanford
Texas
Wisconsin
Oregon
Miami

They may not have performed better than us over the last decade but perception wise they are ahead of us all things equal. You can make a case for around 10 other programs too I think. But those 19 right there I think on the national stage are ahead of us.

Add Washington

[MetEdDawg]

Add Washington

They were one I toyed with because they did make the playoff. They were pretty ho hum before Peterson but you are probably right. They are consistently a Top 3 team in the Pac 12 now.

[MetEdDawg]

Just depends on how you define "top 20 program"

We have been better over the past decade than some of these teams. We've beaten A&M 3 years in a row

True, but that's why I put perception in my classification. TAMU has a crap ton of money and that equals power and perception. They recruit better than us every single year because of that. They underperform with that talent, but their perception is they are better.

We have a perception problem because we still have a comparatively small stadium in conference, don't spend as much money, and don't make national headlines with virtually anything we do.

[WPS]

True, but that's why I put perception in my classification. TAMU has a crap ton of money and that equals power and perception. They recruit better than us every single year because of that. They underperform with that talent, but their perception is they are better.

We have a perception problem because we still have a comparatively small stadium in conference, don't spend as much money, and don't make national headlines with virtually anything we do.

A&M has been all hype for decades. I'll believe they can get on the level of an LSU or Auburn when I see it. They have a loyal (albeit freakishly weird) fanbase and great facilities but outside of that not sure what the draw for recruits is there.

[msstate7]

A&M has been all hype for decades. I'll believe they can get on the level of an LSU or Auburn when I see it. They have a loyal (albeit freakishly weird) fanbase and great facilities but outside of that not sure what the draw for recruits is there.

I question why you'd wanna go there too, but jimbo is quite a recruiter. He couldn't sell me on that place though

[Ifyouonlyknew]

I question why you'd wanna go there too, but jimbo is quite a recruiter. He couldn't sell me on that place though

Jimbo will recruit slightly higher than Sumlin but only a few spot at the most.

[Pipedream]

Just depends on how you define "top 20 program"

We have been better over the past decade than some of these teams. We've beaten A&M 3 years in a row

Not really. I think we're right on the top 25 line.
Teams that have won the National Title 09-18:
Clemson/FSU/Ohio St./Bama/Auburn/LSU
Teams that have made NC game/CFP 4:
ND/Oklahoma/Michigan St./Oregon/Washington/UGA
Teams that have won a P5 league title:
Virginia Tech/Oklahoma St./TCU/Texas/Penn St./Wisconsin/Stanford/USC
80+ win teams in power conference:
Michigan/Iowa/Utah/Florida/A&M

That's your top 25 right there. We are/were right on the cusp with WVU/Miami/Mizzou at 78 wins. We've been more consistent than those other 3 programs so I'd say we are ~26th if you're evaluating the whole decade.

[ShotgunDawg]

Not really. I think we're right on the top 25 line.
Teams that have won the National Title 09-18:
Clemson/FSU/Ohio St./Bama/Auburn/LSU
Teams that have made NC game/CFP 4:
ND/Oklahoma/Michigan St./Oregon/Washington/UGA
Teams that have won a P5 league title:
Virginia Tech/Oklahoma St./TCU/Texas/Penn St./Wisconsin/Stanford/USC
80+ win teams in power conference:
Michigan/Iowa/Utah/Florida/A&M

That's your top 25 right there. We are/were right on the cusp with WVU/Miami/Mizzou at 78 wins. We've been more consistent than those other 3 programs so I'd say we are ~26th if you're evaluating the whole decade.

I don't in anyway believe Iowa, Ok St, and VT are better programs than us. Judging it on wins doesn't take into account schedule strength. We our recruit those programs by a large margin

[msstate7]

Jimbo will recruit slightly higher than Sumlin but only a few spot at the most.

Sumlin's avg class was 11.2 in the country. Jimbo was 4th last year, which was better than any class sumlin ever had. Right now, jimbo is 9th. I think he'll recruit a good bit better than sumlin, but I consider staying inside the top 10 much better than just jumping in it 2 of 5 years. Jimbo is a much better coach too

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Sumlin's avg class was 11.2 in the country. Jimbo was 4th last year, which was better than any class sumlin ever had. Right now, jimbo is 9th. I think he'll recruit a good bit better than sumlin, but I consider staying inside the top 10 much better than just jumping in it 2 of 5 years. Jimbo is a much better coach too

I didn't count Sumlin 1st year rushed couple of months to put together a class. Just like I don't count Jimbo 2018 class. Sumlin recruited at an avg of 9th per year. I think Jimbo will recruit around 6-7 avg.

[msstate7]

I didn't count Sumlin 1st year rushed couple of months to put together a class. Just like I don't count Jimbo 2018 class. Sumlin recruited at an avg of 9th per year. I think Jimbo will recruit around 6-7 avg.

I have sumlin with...
2013 = 9th
2014 = 5th
2015 = 11th
2016 = 18th
2017 = 13th

That's an avg of 11.2. I may be getting 247 rankings and not composite though by going straight to their commits' page

[Jack Lambert]

I would say right on the cusp. Teams ahead of us based on results or perception:

Alabama
Clemson
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Florida State
USC
LSU
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Notre Dame
Texas A&M
Stanford
Texas
Wisconsin
Oregon
Miami

They may not have performed better than us over the last decade but perception wise they are ahead of us all things equal. You can make a case for around 10 other programs too I think. But those 19 right there I think on the national stage are ahead of us.

Those schools have a lot more good football history. It will take many more years of being above average to get the street cred those schools have. Probably need to get into the play off.

[Leeshouldveflanked]

I would put us Football program wise 20-25th...as an overall Athletic program based on Sports we participate in, maybe 15-18

[Pipedream]

I don't in anyway believe Iowa, Ok St, and VT are better programs than us. Judging it on wins doesn't take into account schedule strength. We our recruit those programs by a large margin

Facts is facts. You're suffering from recency and regional bias I'm afraid. Ok St and VT have both won their league which we haven't, have more wins than us and their average 10 year finish according to S&P+(which adjusts for SOS) are 18.7(OK St.) and 27.1(VT). Not to mention that Ok St. beat us on a neutral field during this decade.

Iowa is really close. Their average S&P+ finish is 32.9 (States is 32.4 btw) over the last decade, but they just beat us head to head on a neutral field with what should have been our best team of the decade. Recruiting doesn't have anything to do with this IMO. Not if you're being objective enough to look at the real results and not the paper BS.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

I have sumlin with...
2013 = 9th
2014 = 5th
2015 = 11th
2016 = 18th
2017 = 13th

That's an avg of 11.2. I may be getting 247 rankings and not composite though by going straight to their commits' page

My math was off you're right. So Jimbo will recruit about 4-5 spots higher. My bad.

[Jack Lambert]

My math was off you're right. So Jimbo will recruit about 4-5 spots higher. My bad.

He is gong to recruit about the same. He will probably cheat a lot more and now he has a AD that will let him cheat but Texas is becoming strong again and they are probably cheating their ass off. Add in the fact they have a better chance of winning the Big 12 and getting to the play off then A&M has of winning the SEC is going to lower his recruiting class. Plus the shine of being in the SEC has worn off a little for A$M. Also I think the high school coaches and athletes are going to start reading through his bull shit. I am not buying the hype on Jimbo.

[BrunswickDawg]

He is gong to recruit about the same. He will probably cheat a lot more and now he has a AD that will let him cheat but Texas is becoming strong again and they are probably cheating their ass off. Add in the fact they have a better chance of winning the Big 12 and getting to the play off then A&M has of winning the SEC is going to lower his recruiting class. Plus the shine of being in the SEC has worn off a little for A$M. Also I think the high school coaches and athletes are going to start reading through his bull shit. I am not buying the hype on Jimbo.

The thing about A&M cheating is it is about like us cheating - their in-state rival will pounce on them and get them on probation. You can bet Texas is on Jimbo and his game fast. It only took a few months at A&M for people to start making accusations against Jimbo - https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tamu-football/jimbo-fisher-texas-am-staff-draw-ncaa-scrutiny-after-explosive-report-from-usa-today/

[MStateDawg]

I would say right on the cusp. Teams ahead of us based on results or perception:

Alabama
Clemson
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Florida State
USC
LSU
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Notre Dame
Texas A&M
Stanford
Texas
Wisconsin
Oregon
Miami


I don't think I would've included A&M on this list. Other than the 1 year with Manziel, they haven't done anything special in my lifetime.

These are other programs that I would concede are better than ours:
Virginia Tech
Michigan State
Iowa
Nebraska
Boise State
Washington

[ShotgunDawg]

I don't think I would've included A&M on this list. Other than the 1 year with Manziel, they haven't done anything special in my lifetime.

These are other programs that I would concede are better than ours:
Virginia Tech
Michigan State
Iowa
Nebraska
Boise State
Washington

You really think VT, Boise, & Iowa are better programs than us?

WTF do you guy watch on football Saturdays? You surely aren't watching the game if you believe this.

[MStateDawg]

You really think VT, Boise, & Iowa are better programs than us?
In the past 20 years, we've had two 10-win seasons (our only 2 ever). In that same timespan, Virginia Tech has 12, Boise State has 16 and Iowa has 5.



WTF do you guy watch on football Saturdays? You surely aren't watching the game if you believe this.
I certainly watched the Outback Bowl

[msstate7]

You really think VT, Boise, & Iowa are better programs than us?

WTF do you guy watch on football Saturdays? You surely aren't watching the game if you believe this.

Iowa has been a good program for a while. Since 2000, they've won the big 10 twice, played in the championship game twice, 1 rose bowl, 2 orange bowls, 1 capital one, 6 outback bowls, and many others

[ShotgunDawg]

In the past 20 years, we've had two 10-win seasons (our only 2 ever). In that same timespan, Virginia Tech has 12, Boise State has 16 and Iowa has 5.



I certainly watched the Outback Bowl

You guys are just talking about wins which is an apple to oranges conversation due to schedule strength.

Again, just depends on how you define "better program"

I think MSU is far more likely to produce an NFL player than any of those programs & would beat all of them 6+ times if they played 10 times

The Outback bowl? They had like 150 total yards. We beat ourselves in that one & everyone knows it.

[Bothrops]

Top 25, I'd argue with anyone on that.

[MetEdDawg]

I don't think I would've included A&M on this list. Other than the 1 year with Manziel, they haven't done anything special in my lifetime.

These are other programs that I would concede are better than ours:
Virginia Tech
Michigan State
Iowa
Nebraska
Boise State
Washington

TAMU has a perception of being better because their generate around double the revenue we do. This concept is why it's so hard for our fan base to truly understand how much we've overperformed. TAMu is better than us in every conceivable way except in one thing. On field results.

But guess what? When you are fighting for 8-9 wins a year, no one cares about results. They care about perception. And the perception is that TAMU is better. We have beaten them more than they have beaten us. Mullen is better than Sumlin and we beat them a bunch and have finished ahead of them multiple times in the division. Why do they still out recruit the hell out of us?? Two reasons: Perception and $$$$.

TAMU is a Top 20 program because of perception. If they played decent football they are easily a Top 10 program.

[Pipedream]

Wins matter man. It’s really the only thing that matters. But even adjusted for SOS VT is superior and Iowa is dead even and they just beat us. Not sure on Boise I’ll have to look that one up. A&M has had a better decade as well. It’s fun to argue but the data is there if you want the truth. They’ve won more games and had better finishing positions than us. Now if we can have a really strong next 5 years we can definitely jump in the top 20 convo bc our 2014-2018 seasons averaged out nicely.

[Coach34]

Our perception is not Top 20. It's top 30-35

Our actual results the last decade says that yes we are Top 20. Will probably take another decade to raise the perception

[99jc]

[QUOTE=MStateDawg;1130595]In the past 20 years, we've had two 10-win seasons (our only 2 ever). In that same timespan, Virginia Tech has 12, Boise State has 16 and Iowa has 5.

Yeah put their ASS in the SEC west and see what you get.

[msstate7]

[QUOTE=MStateDawg;1130595]In the past 20 years, we've had two 10-win seasons (our only 2 ever). In that same timespan, Virginia Tech has 12, Boise State has 16 and Iowa has 5.

Yeah put their ASS in the SEC west and see what you get.
If they were in the sec west, they'd probably have more money (better facilities) and recruit better. Being in the sec isn't an anchor on us... hell, it's a hot air balloon up our butt.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Yes, we are top 20 over the past 8-10 years. Especially when you consider we have done it from the middle.of the pack SEC West.

[TUSK]

No.

However, MSU is well within the group of the cats in the discussion...

Top 30 to 40, currently is an easy call.

[Todd4State]

I think we're a top 20 program but our fans don't believe it because many of us were raised with "MSU will never do anything in football."

That's why MSU put up with Dan's BS for so long as well if we're all honest with ourselves.

[msstate7]

How many top 20 finishes do we have in the last 20 years?

[Jarius]

Well we don't have the advantage of playing 8 creampuff conference games a year which has already been mentioned. Yes, being in the SEC gives you advantages in the quality players you get, but our team is a top 25 caliber team more years than not over the past decade. The only reason they don't finish ranked in the top 25 is because of schedule. What someone else would be able to recruit if they had SEC advantages is irrelevant in regards to the quality of team they are currently putting out. We put out a team that is better than all but about 25 others most of the time (since Mullen arrived), regardless of what the polls say.

[msstate7]

S&P+ takes popularity out of it, and our avg finish since 2009 is 32.4

[Todd4State]

How many top 20 finishes do we have in the last 20 years?

How many does Syracuse have?

[Coach34]

S&P+ takes popularity out of it, and our avg finish since 2009 is 32.4

Saw this the other day:

In the college football playoff era- State is 3rd in the SEC in weeks ranked.

[msstate7]

How many does Syracuse have?

Not following... I think we're a better program than Syracuse the last decade

[msstate7]

Saw this the other day:

In the college football playoff era- State is 3rd in the SEC in weeks ranked.

Good stat. Now if you change the sample size from a decade to 5 years (playoff period), our avg s&p+ finish goes to 22.8. The 22.8 is a little deceiving bc 2016 skews the heck out of it.

[Jarius]

S&P+ takes popularity out of it, and our avg finish since 2009 is 32.4

That is extremely flawed. If you believe that there were 32 teams better than us on average for the past decade then you are wrong and I don't care what S&P says. Go look at the teams ahead of us and tell me you would bet on the bottom 7 ahead of us each year to beat us. I guarantee you that the majority of the time you would not.

[ShotgunDawg]

No.

However, MSU is well within the group of the cats in the discussion...

Top 30 to 40, currently is an easy call.

30-40? Uh no

[ShotgunDawg]

How many top 20 finishes do we have in the last 20 years?

That's another wins debate which is apples to oranges

[ShotgunDawg]

S&P+ takes popularity out of it, and our avg finish since 2009 is 32.4

Wins debate

[ShotgunDawg]

Saw this the other day:

In the college football playoff era- State is 3rd in the SEC in weeks ranked.

Which means your a top 20 program right?

[msstate7]

That's another wins debate which is apples to oranges

You don't wanna use wins, polls, or advanced stats. What exactly do you want us to use to determine your original question?

[Jarius]

How about some common sense. A poll that had Ole Miss ranked 33rd in the country last year (and us 8th) is a joke. It also may help our standing in their poll if they actually had our correct record in 2010. Instead of 8-5 and ranked 35th in the country (what a joke), maybe 9-4 and in the top 15 would pull their rankings up. Just a thought.

[ShotgunDawg]

You don't wanna use wins, polls, or advanced stats. What exactly do you want us to use to determine your original question?

I'm fine using advanced stats, so long as wins/losses aren't a primary criteria. I'm also fine using polls but why are you just using post season polls, that again are completely based on wins/losses?

Why not consider NFL production? Isn't the ability to produce high caliber NFL part of what makes a program good?

[msstate7]

I'm fine using advanced stats, so long as wins/losses aren't a primary criteria. I'm also fine using polls but why are you just using post season polls, that again are completely based on wins/losses?

Why not consider NFL production? Isn't the ability to produce high caliber NFL part of what makes a program good?

I think just producing nfl picks is better to look at. Producing high caliber nfl players has a lot to do with where the players end up in the nfl. For example, should tenn get credit for Alvin kamara being a great nfl talent? Dude was a huge waste of talent at tenn, but Sean Payton extracted that massive talent. Tenn should only get credit for getting him there

[Todd4State]

Not following... I think we're a better program than Syracuse the last decade

They are historically better than us- but we are a better program now. The question is are we a top 20 program now as we speak. The current trends and polls suggest yes. So going 10-20 years out isn't reflective of what we are now.

[TUSK]

30-40? Uh no

You're right... that's too low... especially when one considers the conference & division each team plays within...

What would be your criteria for a legit "head to head" type ranking?

Some of my thoughts: End of Season Ranking, Wins vs Ranked Teams (EOS), OA Win%, Post Season Wins, etc.....

[ShotgunDawg]

You're right... that's too low... especially when one considers the conference & division each team plays within...

What would be your criteria for a legit "head to head" type ranking?

Some of my thoughts: End of Season Ranking, Wins vs Ranked Teams (EOS), OA Win%, Post Season Wins, etc.....

It tough Tusk because there are flaws with everything.

- End of the season ranking is too dependent on strength of schedule
- Wins vs ranked teams is too dependent on the other teams' schedule.
- Post season wins depends on the matchup. For example, many times the SEC's #7 team gets matched up against the Big 10's 3rd team.

In a perfect comparison, I think you figure out some algorithm to look at how Vegas would handicap games going back 10 years or so. ESPN FPI would be a pretty good resource as well. Things that take into account the caliber of the team & not just their record

I also think NFL success has to factor in as well since part of the mission of a program is to prepare players for the next level.

[Pipedream]

It tough Tusk because there are flaws with everything.

- End of the season ranking is too dependent on strength of schedule
- Wins vs ranked teams is too dependent on the other teams' schedule.
- Post season wins depends on the matchup. For example, many times the SEC's #7 team gets matched up against the Big 10's 3rd team.

In a perfect comparison, I think you figure out some algorithm to look at how Vegas would handicap games going back 10 years or so. ESPN FPI would be a pretty good resource as well. Things that take into account the caliber of the team & not just their record

I also think NFL success has to factor in as well since part of the mission of a program is to prepare players for the next level.

Including anything about the NFL is a fools errand for evaluating COLLEGE football teams on field success. It is asinine. S&P+ doesn't take wins into effect. Someone quoted the polls and you said "wins debate" then C34 quoted polls and you said "so we are a top 20 team after all" or whatever. Polls are flawed but the final AP Poll matters a lot. Wins matter a lot. But if you want to take the flaws out of the human process, we still aren't a top 25 team this decade. The criteria should be what have you accomplished on the field and the computers get that right more often than not.

[BrunswickDawg]

It tough Tusk because there are flaws with everything.

- End of the season ranking is too dependent on strength of schedule
- Wins vs ranked teams is too dependent on the other teams' schedule.
- Post season wins depends on the matchup. For example, many times the SEC's #7 team gets matched up against the Big 10's 3rd team.

In a perfect comparison, I think you figure out some algorithm to look at how Vegas would handicap games going back 10 years or so. ESPN FPI would be a pretty good resource as well. Things that take into account the caliber of the team & not just their record

I also think NFL success has to factor in as well since part of the mission of a program is to prepare players for the next level.

The FPI pre-season puts us at #15. S&P+ hasn't come out yet for Fall, but had us at #10 in their "early" analysis in February. https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2019/2/11/18219163/2019-college-football-rankings-projections

Both of those factor in a lot of what you are looking for.
So the metrics already put is much higher than most of us view ourselves. We knock ourselves way too much for losing in the toughest division, in the toughest conference, in the country.

[ShotgunDawg]

Including anything about the NFL is a fools errand for evaluating COLLEGE football teams on field success. It is asinine. S&P+ doesn't take wins into effect. Someone quoted the polls and you said "wins debate" then C34 quoted polls and you said "so we are a top 20 team after all" or whatever. Polls are flawed but the final AP Poll matters a lot. Wins matter a lot. But if you want to take the flaws out of the human process, we still aren't a top 25 team this decade. The criteria should be what have you accomplished on the field and the computers get that right more often than not.

Pretty arrogant post with fools errand, should, & speaking in absolutes.

There is no right answer

[Pipedream]

The FPI pre-season puts us at #15. S&P+ hasn't come out yet for Fall, but had us at #10 in their "early" analysis in February. https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2019/2/11/18219163/2019-college-football-rankings-projections

Both of those factor in a lot of what you are looking for.
So the metrics already put is much higher than most of us view ourselves. We knock ourselves way too much for losing in the toughest division, in the toughest conference, in the country.

If the question was "the last 5 years" I think you could say pretty definitively that we have been a top 25 program, but from 09-13 we only had 1 above average season. We are still #10 in the updated S&P+ projections. Massey Composite(an average of a ton of computer models) has State preseason #11.

[ShotgunDawg]

The FPI pre-season puts us at #15. S&P+ hasn't come out yet for Fall, but had us at #10 in their "early" analysis in February. https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2019/2/11/18219163/2019-college-football-rankings-projections

Both of those factor in a lot of what you are looking for.
So the metrics already put is much higher than most of us view ourselves. We knock ourselves way too much for losing in the toughest division, in the toughest conference, in the country.

Agree, but many on here want to relegate us due to other teams playing essentially a G5 level schedule

[Pipedream]

Pretty arrogant post with fools errand, should, & speaking in absolutes.

There is no right answer

You posed a good question and a discussion started. You didn't get the answer you liked from the data so you started moving the goal posts. Arrogance begets arrogance.

[Johnson85]

In the past 20 years, we've had two 10-win seasons (our only 2 ever). In that same timespan, Virginia Tech has 12, Boise State has 16 and Iowa has 5.



I certainly watched the Outback Bowl

Virginia Tech and Iowa are reasonable. Va Tech is a good program in a weak conference and Iowa is a pretty good program in a pretty good conference. If we had played a lot over the last decade, our record would probably be close to even with them?

Boise State is not reasonable. They might would have beat us three times in the last ten years if we had played head to head? And their good years were towards the beginning of that ten year period if that means anything. They are losing to teams like Wyoming, Fresno state, Nevada, Utah State, etc. year in and year out other than a couple of years towards the beginning of the last ten years.

[Pipedream]

Virginia Tech and Iowa are reasonable. Va Tech is a good program in a weak conference and Iowa is a pretty good program in a pretty good conference. If we had played a lot over the last decade, our record would probably be close to even with them?

Boise State is not reasonable. They might would have beat us three times in the last ten years if we had played head to head? And their good years were towards the beginning of that ten year period if that means anything. They are losing to teams like Wyoming, Fresno state, Nevada, Utah State, etc. year in and year out other than a couple of years towards the beginning of the last ten years.

Boise 10 year S&P+ average is 25.4. States was 32.4.

[Johnson85]

Boise 10 year S&P+ average is 25.4. States was 32.4.

If you look at their actual results, that doesn't fly though. We weren't as good as our S&P+ ranking last year. Something similar must be happening with Boise. I suspect it gives too much credit for running up a good record against bad competition, similar to how it gave us too much credit for destroying mediocre and worse competition last year despite the fact that we looked lost against good defenses.

[Pipedream]

If you look at their actual results, that doesn't fly though. We weren't as good as our S&P+ ranking last year. Something similar must be happening with Boise. I suspect it gives too much credit for running up a good record against bad competition, similar to how it gave us too much credit for destroying mediocre and worse competition last year despite the fact that we looked lost against good defenses.

See that's the great thing about opponent strength adjusted algos. It does the same dance with every teams performance so you're still looking apples to apples.

[ShotgunDawg]

See that's the great thing about opponent strength adjusted algos. It does the same dance with every teams performance so you're still looking apples to apples.

I don't know if I trust those SOS adjusted algos because they don't take into account the wear & tear of the SEC. They don't take into account the physicality & how that effects each progressive game.

[Johnson85]

See that's the great thing about opponent strength adjusted algos. It does the same dance with every teams performance so you're still looking apples to apples.

But the apples to apples isn't telling you who is better. It's a very good starting point. Probably the best one there is. But it doesn't change the fact that we got a lot of credit last year for being dominant against mediocre competition. That's good that we were dominant, and that's good information to have, but when you are talking about which teams are better in the sense of who would win the most against a similar schedule against good teams, it's extremely relevant that we were lost on offense against good defenses. If we are gettng too much credit for dominating weak teams, I suspect Boise State has been getting too much credit for going 6-3 to 8-1 against Mountain West competition each year, when that probably translates to 2-6 against a typical SEC West schedule.

[Pipedream]

But the apples to apples isn't telling you who is better. It's a very good starting point. Probably the best one there is. But it doesn't change the fact that we got a lot of credit last year for being dominant against mediocre competition. That's good that we were dominant, and that's good information to have, but when you are talking about which teams are better in the sense of who would win the most against a similar schedule against good teams, it's extremely relevant that we were lost on offense against good defenses. If we are gettng too much credit for dominating weak teams, I suspect Boise State has been getting too much credit for going 6-3 to 8-1 against Mountain West competition each year, when that probably translates to 2-6 against a typical SEC West schedule.

S&P+ is ranked by S&P+ margin. The margin for each team is how much they would be projected to beat an average FBS team on a neutral field. Boise had a great run from 09-12 where they had 4 straight top 30 teams. I'm not saying we currently aren't better than them bc we are. We've been better than them the last 5 years, on average, but over the course of the last 10 seasons, they were the stronger team, on average.

[Jarius]

S&P+ is ranked by S&P+ margin. The margin for each team is how much they would be projected to beat an average FBS team on a neutral field. Boise had a great run from 09-12 where they had 4 straight top 30 teams. I'm not saying we currently aren't better than them bc we are. We've been better than them the last 5 years, on average, but over the course of the last 10 seasons, they were the stronger team, on average.

We would have beaten Boise State at least 7 out of the last 10 years. That model doesn't even have our record correct in 2010.

[Pipedream]

We would have beaten Boise State at least 7 out of the last 10 years. That model doesn't even have our record correct in 2010.

Vegas would have had Boise favored in 5, State favored in 4, and probably 1 pickem if all 10 were played at neutral sites.

[Jarius]

Vegas would have had Boise favored in 5, State favored in 4, and probably 1 pickem if all 10 were played at neutral sites.

18,17,15,14,13, and 10 would have been MSU. Boise would have had a chance in the other ones.

[Tbonewannabe]

But the apples to apples isn't telling you who is better. It's a very good starting point. Probably the best one there is. But it doesn't change the fact that we got a lot of credit last year for being dominant against mediocre competition. That's good that we were dominant, and that's good information to have, but when you are talking about which teams are better in the sense of who would win the most against a similar schedule against good teams, it's extremely relevant that we were lost on offense against good defenses. If we are gettng too much credit for dominating weak teams, I suspect Boise State has been getting too much credit for going 6-3 to 8-1 against Mountain West competition each year, when that probably translates to 2-6 against a typical SEC West schedule.

But you also aren't taking into account, how many teams win top 15 matchups on the road every year? All of those losses were on the road except to UF who ended up with 10 wins and a #7 ranking. Most of those games are the ones that Mullen lost 30-7 or something similar. Hell, just look at 2017 and you see the 2 tough road games we had, we got DESTROYED.

[Pipedream]

18,17,15,14,13, and 10 would have been MSU. Boise would have had a chance in the other ones.

Usually the Vegas spread has been more in line with S&P+ projections from my experience, but I'll give you the end of season Sagarin projected margin for each year just for some variety.
09 Boise -13.31
10 Boise -8.22
11 Boise -10.1
12 Boise -.19
13 MSU -5.05
14 MSU-11.99
15 MSU -6.34
16 Boise -4.43
17 MSU -5.99
18 MSU -8.11

13 would have been a tossup, but people forget that 2010 Boise team was a crazy Kapernick game at Nevada from potentially playing in the National Championship game. They were number 3 in the country when they lost that one. They were really really good. Agree with the rest of your assessment. They'd probably split the 10 games if played on neutral sites.

[Johnson85]

Vegas would have had Boise favored in 5, State favored in 4, and probably 1 pickem if all 10 were played at neutral sites.

If you are arguing about public perception, then the Vegas line is a good stat to argue. 2009 through 2011, Boise St would have probably been better, although 2010 would have been interesting. Startingin 2012 though, they lost to MSU (not a bad loss) and San Diego St. (a bad loss). Their big win was against a 7 win Washington team. That's probably a pickem. We didn't have any losses as bad as San Diego St., but we also didn't beat any particularly good teams.

In 2013, they lost to Washington in a blowout, Fresno State in a close game, BYU in a 17 pt loss, San Diego State in OT, and against Oregon St. We were up and down that year, but overall, we were better.

In 2014, they lost to Ole Miss 35-13 and to Air Force 28-14. Their signature win was I guess Airzona in the bowl game by 8 points. They were pretty good that year, but we're much better.

In 2015, they lost to BYU, Utah State, New Mexico, and Air Force. I think it's safe to say we were solidly better.

In 2016, while we were obviuosly bad, they lost to Wyoming, Air force, and Baylor. They did beat BYU at home where as we lost to them in OT at BYU. Let's say that's another pick em. Probably slight edge to Boise.

In 2017, they lost to Washington State, Virginia at home by 19, and Fresno State by 11. Their signature win was against a 7 win Oregon team. That's a state win.

In 2018, they lost to Ok St., San Diego State, and Fresno State. That's a state win.

So looking back, it's probably 5 years where we were better, 3 where they would have been better, and 2 years that would have been toss ups.

So maybe its flaw in correcting for strength of schedule is relatively small, as they probably benefited from a good margin in 2009 and 2011 that would have given some cushion for all the years where state was better but not by huge margins.

[Pipedream]

If you are arguing about public perception, then the Vegas line is a good stat to argue. 2009 through 2011, Boise St would have probably been better, although 2010 would have been interesting. Startingin 2012 though, they lost to MSU (not a bad loss) and San Diego St. (a bad loss). Their big win was against a 7 win Washington team. That's probably a pickem. We didn't have any losses as bad as San Diego St., but we also didn't beat any particularly good teams.

In 2013, they lost to Washington in a blowout, Fresno State in a close game, BYU in a 17 pt loss, San Diego State in OT, and against Oregon St. We were up and down that year, but overall, we were better.

In 2014, they lost to Ole Miss 35-13 and to Air Force 28-14. Their signature win was I guess Airzona in the bowl game by 8 points. They were pretty good that year, but we're much better.

In 2015, they lost to BYU, Utah State, New Mexico, and Air Force. I think it's safe to say we were solidly better.

In 2016, while we were obviuosly bad, they lost to Wyoming, Air force, and Baylor. They did beat BYU at home where as we lost to them in OT at BYU. Let's say that's another pick em. Probably slight edge to Boise.

In 2017, they lost to Washington State, Virginia at home by 19, and Fresno State by 11. Their signature win was against a 7 win Oregon team. That's a state win.

In 2018, they lost to Ok St., San Diego State, and Fresno State. That's a state win.

So looking back, it's probably 5 years where we were better, 3 where they would have been better, and 2 years that would have been toss ups.

So maybe its flaw in correcting for strength of schedule is relatively small, as they probably benefited from a good margin in 2009 and 2011 that would have given some cushion for all the years where state was better but not by huge margins.

Not arguing perception. The opening Vegas line is based on algos similar to what the public gets access too (S&P+, FPI, Massey, Sagarin to an extent). Where the line goes after the open is based on public money ie. "perception". Not really interested in that as much as what the oddsmakers initially think of the game.

[Jarius]

Usually the Vegas spread has been more in line with S&P+ projections from my experience, but I'll give you the end of season Sagarin projected margin for each year just for some variety.
09 Boise -13.31
10 Boise -8.22
11 Boise -10.1
12 Boise -.19
13 MSU -5.05
14 MSU-11.99
15 MSU -6.34
16 Boise -4.43
17 MSU -5.99
18 MSU -8.11

13 would have been a tossup, but people forget that 2010 Boise team was a crazy Kapernick game at Nevada from potentially playing in the National Championship game. They were number 3 in the country when they lost that one. They were really really good. Agree with the rest of your assessment. They'd probably split the 10 games if played on neutral sites.

Our 2010 team was a dropped interception away from beating the National Champion and a fumble through the end zone in OT from beating #13 Arkansas. We put up 55 points or so on what would have probably been the best or one of the best teams Boise State would have played all year in our bowl game. I feel like we would have beaten their 2010 team more than they beat us on a neutral site. Also, as I have said twice now, the S&P doesn't even have our record correct in 2010, so I highly doubt the rest of it is correct for at least that year. If we played them in a bowl game (or the regular season) in 2013 with a healthy Dak Prescott we would have beaten them rather easily.

[Johnson85]

Not arguing perception. The opening Vegas line is based on algos similar to what the public gets access too (S&P+, FPI, Massey, Sagarin to an extent). Where the line goes after the open is based on public money ie. "perception". Not really interested in that as much as what the oddsmakers initially think of the game.

Oddsmakers aren't making their bets as to who they think will win. They are making their bets as to what line they think will bring in roughly equal money. To the extent the line moved, that usually just means they guessed wrong.

[Pipedream]

Oddsmakers aren't making their bets as to who they think will win. They are making their bets as to what line they think will bring in roughly equal money. To the extent the line moved, that usually just means they guessed wrong.

That's not how the oddsmakers SET the opening line. They do that off of algorithms. From there they will move based on money. This is a common misconception about sports lines. The opening line is a true representation of the relative strength of one team vs the other taking in to account where the game is being played. From there they start the process of moving the line as the volume goes out to attempt to evenly cover their exposure.

[R2Dawg]

You really think VT, Boise, & Iowa are better programs than us?

WTF do you guy watch on football Saturdays? You surely aren't watching the game if you believe this.

What has Nebraska done in 20 years? Yes they have the Osborne years if that is what you are basing it on.

[msstate7]

What has Nebraska done in 20 years? Yes they have the Osborne years if that is what you are basing it on.

Pelini was 67-27 from 2008-2014. That includes winning division 4 times (3 in big12, 1 in big10), 2 gator bowls, 3 holiday bowls, 2 capital one bowls, 3 10-win seasons, 9 in the other 4, finished top 25 in 6 of 7 years in coaches' poll, and finished top 25 in ap in 5 of the 7 years.

[Pipedream]

Pelini was 67-27 from 2008-2014. That includes winning division 4 times (3 in big12, 1 in big10), 2 gator bowls, 3 holiday bowls, 2 capital one bowls, 3 10-win seasons, 9 in the other 4, finished top 25 in 6 of 7 years in coaches' poll, and finished top 25 in ap in 5 of the 7 years.

They've won 80 games in the last 10 years, but their adjusted performance isn't as good. They're right there with State just outside the top 25.

[ShotgunDawg]

They've won 80 games in the last 10 years, but their adjusted performance isn't as good. They're right there with State just outside the top 25.

Again, there you go talking about wins & losses again. I get it, but I just disagree with that being the main criteria here.

If we go 8-4 this season with losses to Bama, LSU, A&M, & Auburn, who are all top 20 teams, & that means we finish ranked 24, how in the world does that insinuate that we aren't a top 20 team or program?

[msstate7]

Again, there you go talking about wins & losses again. I get it, but I just disagree with that being the main criteria here.

If we go 8-4 this season with losses to Bama, LSU, A&M, & Auburn, who are all top 20 teams, & that means we finish ranked 24, how in the world does that insinuate that we aren't a top 20 team or program?

If wins and losses mean nothing to you, why were you upset over last season? We were top 10 in espn fpi and s&p+

[Pipedream]

Again, there you go talking about wins & losses again. I get it, but I just disagree with that being the main criteria here.

If we go 8-4 this season with losses to Bama, LSU, A&M, & Auburn, who are all top 20 teams, & that means we finish ranked 24, how in the world does that insinuate that we aren't a top 20 team or program?

It isn't the MAIN criteria, but once you filter out National title winners, title game and CFP participants, and conference winners, total number of wins has to come into effect somewhere. Herm Edwards says you play to win the game. Nebraska has a slightly higher 10 yr avg S&P+ but its almost the exact same number as State. They won 2 more games in the decade. Take your pick and argue a side, but there's no real discernable difference with the exception of playing in (and losing) 3 different conference championship games. They won a division in a FBS conference 3 times. Which 10 years would you rather have?

[BuckyIsAB****]

Vegas would have had Boise favored in 5, State favored in 4, and probably 1 pickem if all 10 were played at neutral sites.

State would mop the floor with Boise St if they played tomo. Boise St had a great run but that time is over. They got left behind in the conference realignment. Any discussion of them should include the best team they play annually now is their bowl or San Diego St.