I just don't get it...

[maroonmania]

the difference in the view of OM and MSU with the media? Bill Connelly's 'stability' rankings for ESPN has OM at 32 and us at 110???? I don't know about roster stability but in coaching stability and performance stability it makes no sense that there could be this kind of disparity in what, I guess, is supposed to be an objective ranking. From Freeze to Luke to Kiffin gets them a 10.0 coaching stability while Mullen to Moorhead to Leach get us an 8.0? Plus going forward I think Leach is here for the duration of his career while who in the heck knows what Kiffin will do given he has historically jumped around like a grasshopper. But the real kicker is performance stability where OM gets a 7.9 and we somehow get a 5.4?????? This is supposedly a roughly 5 year window but somehow OM, who last year had their first non-losing season in quite a while (still was only break even), gets a significantly higher rating? We have been decisively better over the past 5 years than them even with Moorhead. None of this type crap really matters when all is said and done except that the bias towards them in the media types gets really old. Just like us getting voted last in the SEC West again for this season by the media after SEC media days about like we were in 2014 and 2015 preseason polls. Same old same old.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31871083/college-football-2021-stability-rankings-rating-all-130-fbs-teams-coaches-roster-performance

[BrunswickDawg]

If you read their scoring metrics, it's not that hard to understand:
Coaching 20% - based off of turnover the past 5 years of HC and Coords. In 5 years we have had 3 HC (technically 4 if you count Knox), 4 OC and 3 DC.
Roster 20% - based on returning production and # of players in the portal since the start of the 2020 season - nuff said about that one
Performance Stability - based on S&P rating - we have been all over the map on that one.

If you look at it objectively, our past 5 years has been pretty unstable after a long period of relative stability. 3 staffs. JoeMO lost a ton of coaches after year 1. Transfers have boomed first with JoeMo and then the Purge.

[Quaoarsking]

Who cares where we rank on a list that puts Wyoming #1 and programs like Army, Eastern Michigan, and Miami OH in the top 10?

This formula is just measuring how similar you are from year to year. We could be higher if we'd sucked every year like Ole Miss has.

[QuadrupleOption]

The criteria are laid out in the article.

2017-2021 coaches - same tenure, but we've had 3 and they've had 2. So they'll get more points for that.
Roster stability - not sure. I thought we were returning the bulk of our productivity on Offense this year, but they may be as well.
Performance Stability - we've gone from 9-4 -> 8-5 -> 6-7 -> 4-7. I don't care to look up their records but they have been very consistently a 5-6 win team. Oddly this hurts us but we are on a downward trend over the last 4 years.

So that's why. I think it's an excellent example of data that doesn't mean a whole lot being used to create a metric that doesn't mean a whole lot.

Alabama is at #23. Alabama. You know, that behemoth program to the East of us that wins or finishes 2nd pretty much every year. That tells you all you need to know about this rating.

[Hot Rock]

Who cares where we rank on a list that puts Wyoming #1 and programs like Army, Eastern Michigan, and Miami OH in the top 10?

This formula is just measuring how similar you are from year to year. We could be higher if we'd sucked every year like Ole Miss has.

^^^^^This^^^^^

[maroonmania]

So that's why. I think it's an excellent example of data that doesn't mean a whole lot being used to create a metric that doesn't mean a whole lot.



This is certainly an accurate statement. I mean Matt Luke coached an entire season but somehow he doesn't factor in the metric because he had 'interim' by his name? And somehow OM 'performance' stability is better because their S&P was 'consistently' bad and thereby more stable while ours was up and down? Just shows the whole article is garbage.

[Captain Falcon]

Wyoming is No. 1 on that list and they have a losing record overall since 2014. Not really sure what the point of this article was.

[Quaoarsking]

This is certainly an accurate statement. I mean Matt Luke coached an entire season but somehow he doesn't factor in the metric because he had 'interim' by his name? And somehow OM 'performance' stability is better because their S&P was 'consistently' bad and thereby more stable while ours was up and down? Just shows the whole article is garbage.

Agrees, but to be fair the article wasn't billed as "These are the real best programs" or even "You want your team to be high on the list." I read it as a throwaway random list of "these are the most similar from year to year, regardless of whether that's good or bad."

[BiscuitEater]

Who cares where we rank on a list that puts Wyoming #1

Stability, like losing every year with the same coaches and players, is valued more than an occasional 10 or 11 win season!

[Hot Rock]

Plus, that list is what was... not what will be.

I have a feeling things in Starkville are about to become very stable in all the important categories.

[was21]

It's actually easy to get....State has been and always will be marginalized by the media, for the most part. We ain't purty.

[Tbonewannabe]

the difference in the view of OM and MSU with the media? Bill Connelly's 'stability' rankings for ESPN has OM at 32 and us at 110???? I don't know about roster stability but in coaching stability and performance stability it makes no sense that there could be this kind of disparity in what, I guess, is supposed to be an objective ranking. From Freeze to Luke to Kiffin gets them a 10.0 coaching stability while Mullen to Moorhead to Leach get us an 8.0? Plus going forward I think Leach is here for the duration of his career while who in the heck knows what Kiffin will do given he has historically jumped around like a grasshopper. But the real kicker is performance stability where OM gets a 7.9 and we somehow get a 5.4?????? This is supposedly a roughly 5 year window but somehow OM, who last year had their first non-losing season in quite a while (still was only break even), gets a significantly higher rating? We have been decisively better over the past 5 years than them even with Moorhead. None of this type crap really matters when all is said and done except that the bias towards them in the media types gets really old. Just like us getting voted last in the SEC West again for this season by the media after SEC media days about like we were in 2014 and 2015 preseason polls. Same old same old.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31871083/college-football-2021-stability-rankings-rating-all-130-fbs-teams-coaches-roster-performance

And that was only because they used the Covid rules to duck A&M whereas we manned up and played with 40-50 guys on the regular down the stretch.