Ranked 6th In Bill Connelly's S&P Rankings

Why do we care more about the AP & Coaches Poll than we do about polls like this?

Think about that for just a second. We care more about what the Sally's & fat media guys that don't watch the games think than we do about objective, data driven rankings with a predictive quality. Why?

Anyway, just food for thought. We are ranked 6th.

Of note, the S&P rankings don't like Auburn & I find that interesting. Makes me wonder if Auburn may not be the team we think they are.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...gs-2018-week-3

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SBN_BillC/status/1038826915572973573[/tweet]

I agree that S&P is better than polls, but being 100% data driven does lead to wild inaccuracies when there's little data, ie early in the season. I start looking at Bills stuff at like week 4-5. I mean Michigan at 9? BC at 13? Auburn all the way down at 19? This early it's not more accurate than the AP poll, though at least there's a reason for the rankings beyond "hur dur what's the logo??"

Boise State at 5? Based on 2 games TAM should be higher too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

I agree that S&P is better than polls, but being 100% data driven does lead to wild inaccuracies when there's little data, ie early in the season. I start looking at Bills stuff at like week 4-5. I mean Michigan at 9? BC at 13? Auburn all the way down at 19? This early it's not more accurate than the AP poll, though at least there's a reason for the rankings beyond "hur dur what's the logo??"

---

Yeah, I can see that. If you read the links in the article about how S&P works, he does try to get rid of the small sample size problem as best as he can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

Boise State at 5? Based on 2 games TAM should be higher too.

---

It's an objective formula. You thinking A&M should be higher is based on your opinion & not the formula. He's trying to get rid of that

Notice that the S&P doesn't like Clemson as much as the media. That's why A&M isn't higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

It's an objective formula. You thinking A&M should be higher is based on your opinion & not the formula. He's trying to get rid of that

---

I am going by the eye test (without a dark shade of bulldog maroon glasses on). And the fact that Venebles is DC for Clemson with a ton of talent.

Is Boise State 5?

The "formula" is never totally objective. It's only as good as the algorithm developed by some person, which is subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

I am going by the eye test (without a dark shade of bulldog maroon glasses on). And the fact that Venebles is DC for Clemson with a ton of talent.

Is Boise State 5?

The "formula" is never totally objective. It's just as good as the algorithm developed by some person, which is subjective.

---

Agree that a formula is subjective but it can be better because it ignores helmet logos & is the same for everyone.

Also, what if Clemson's just isn't as good as the media told us they were? Lot of tweets like this one over the last few days talking about how scouts don't agree that their DL is unreal.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JohnMiddlekauff/status/1035289349644931072[/tweet]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

It's an objective formula. You thinking A&M should be higher is based on your opinion & not the formula. He's trying to get rid of that

Notice that the S&P doesn't like Clemson as much as the media. That's why A&M isn't higher.

---

Wouldn't the objective data be a lot different without the strange call on the ball through the endzone? Looked to me like it was out of bounds and should have been A&M's ball on the 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Agree that a formula is subjective but it can be better because it ignores helmet logos & is the same for everyone.

Also, what if Clemson's just isn't as good as the media told us they were? Lot of tweets like this one over the last few days talking about how scouts don't agree that their DL is unreal.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JohnMiddlekauff/status/1035289349644931072[/tweet]

---

That could be. Tough to say yet. What if we aren't too? A Sumlin team would've folded last night IMO.

Mond was 23/40 for 403/3 tds no picks. And there is no arguing how vastly superior Clemson's D is to the 2 Ds we just played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

That could be. Tough to say yet. What if we aren't too? A Sumlin team would've folded last night IMO.

Mond was 23/40 for 403/3 tds no picks. And there is no arguing how vastly superior Clemson's D is to the 2 Ds we just played.

---

Why do you think a Sumlin team would've folded?

A&M beat South Carolina last year, lost to Bama 27-19 in a tight game, & beat an ok Ole Miss team.

I wasn't aware that A&M was as shitty under Sumlin as most of you want to say they were.

Please explain your stance that A&M would've folded last year

The only difference I can veritably see between A&M this year vs last year is that Mond is a year older & a year better due to natural progression. Anything more than that & you probably need to go work for an NFL team or you're just seeing what you want to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Why do you think a Sumlin team would've folded?

A&M beat South Carolina last year, lost to Bama 27-19 in a tight game, & beat an ok Ole Miss team.

I wasn't aware that A&M was as shitty under Sumlin as most of you want to say they were.

Please explain your stance that A&M would've folded last year

---

A) South Carolina is getting Muschamp love since he comes off Saban tree. I saw the beatdown coming yesterday. We much better than USCe IMO.
B) Sumlin teams are soft as Charmin. Give up easily too.
C) Bama can have an off game every so often. Saban probably didn't want Jimbo at TAM, so he trying to help keep Sumlin there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

A) South Carolina is getting Muschamp love since he comes off Saban tree. I saw the beatdown coming yesterday. We much better than USCe IMO.
B) Sumlin teams are soft as Charmin. Give up easily too.
C) Bama can have an off game every so often. Saban probably didn't want Jimbo at TAM, so he trying to help keep Sumlin there.

---

None of these reasons tell me why A&M would've folded last night if Sumlin was coaching.

What if Clemson had a bad night? What if Clemson is not really that good?

IDK, but some of you are just seeing what you want to see & are now acting like Kevin Sumlin was garbage at A&M.

Do you realize that A&M won 8.5 games per year under Sumlin & almost 8 games per year after Manzel. They played a Bama team that is far better than Clemson's team this year, last year to the wire.

Other than saying that Mond is better & a year older, I'm not seeing this drastic evidence, after last night, that A&M is all the sudden much better & has a new culture.

LOL ... you the one that sees what they want to see. You had Key as the GOAT at MSU after one 11/20 for 127 no TD performance in a bowl game.

We'll see if TAM keeps it up, but last night was a good start for TAM. I don't think they'll be a walk in the park for us and they have a bye that week. Jimbo is a good coach and they have talent. Can we beat them? It'll be very tough IMO even if we can get our passing game figured out. If we don't get it figured out, I don't think we'll win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

LOL ... you the one that sees what they want to see. You had Key as the GOAT at MSU after one 11/20 for 127 no TD performance in a bowl game.

We'll see if TAM keeps it up, but last night was a good start for TAM. I don't think they'll be a walk in the park for us and they have a bye that week. Jimbo is a good coach and they have talent. Can we beat them? It'll be very tough IMO even if we can get our passing game figured out. If we don't get it figured out, I don't think we'll win.

---

I see your argument is running out of steam when you feel it necessary to belittle my credibility instead or arguing your point.

All I just did was rattle off facts while you gave a subjective opinion.

Yes, I did think KT was really good & still do think he'll be really good. However, he is a little behind where I thought he'd be at this point. Does that ruin my credibility? Not understanding your point.

I do agree that they won't be a walk in the park, but, other than that, I'm failing to see your point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

I see your argument is running out of steam when you feel it necessary to belittle my credibility instead or arguing your point.

All I just did was rattle off facts while you gave a subjective opinion.

Yes, I did think KT was really good & still do think he'll be really good. However, he is a little behind where I thought he'd be at this point. Does that ruin my credibility? Not understanding your point.

I do agree that they won't be a walk in the park, but, other than that, I'm failing to see your point

---

You's a trip. What "facts" have you rattled off exactly? You say I'm seeing what I want to see but in reality it is you seeing what you want to see. I rattled off "facts". 23/40 for 470 and 3 Tds 0 picks against Clemson's D. On top of that he was very mobile while keeping his eyes down the field finding receivers. And in reality I think the ball out of the endzone play went out of bounds first, so TAM probably wins if that call is different. Now I'm not ready just yet to claim TAM a Natty title contender, but they showed me something last night. Could they come apart as season goes along ... maybe and it has happened before. But same can be said about us too.

Some of the "facts" you rattled off going back to the twitter post. The guy said they had 1 top ten (not 3) but still 3 1st rounders and then maybe a 3rd rounder. That's still a helluva a Dline.

My point is mainly not to discount anyone. And we still have some things to clean up. We have played just ok so far, although the D seems on track for most part. We ran the ball real well yesterday too. Some folks want to belittle the play of TAM and say Clemson is overrated yada, yada, while at same time saying "Whoo hoo" Kylin will be the GOAT as MSU based on 1 performance against what will probably be a substandard Big 12 team. I guarantee you Kylin don't go for 200 yesterday against Bama. Is Kylin really good? Yea he is.

I'm also not quite ready to anoint us as a top 10 team just yet or if so, just barely. I haven't seen the overall (meaning everywhere) speed and physicality or QB/WR/CB play from us that I saw from UGA yesterday or Clemson/TAM last night.

We have to play Bama at TTown, LSU at BR (and their D will be good), AU, TAM. Right now I think that is 4 very good teams that will be tough to play. We don't need to sleep on Ky or OM either. And while FL didn't look good, Dan will do his best before coming to the Ville.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgday166

You's a trip. What "facts" have you rattled off exactly? You say I'm seeing what I want to see but in reality it is you seeing what you want to see. I rattled off "facts". 23/40 for 470 and 3 Tds 0 picks against Clemson's D. On top of that he was very mobile while keeping his eyes down the field finding receivers. And in reality I think the ball out of the endzone play went out of bounds first, so TAM probably wins if that call is different. Now I'm not ready just yet to claim TAM a Natty title contender, but they showed me something last night. Could they come apart as season goes along ... maybe and it has happened before. But same can be said about us too.

Some of the "facts" you rattled off going back to the twitter post. The guy said they had 1 top ten (not 3) but still 3 1st rounders and then maybe a 3rd rounder. That's still a helluva a Dline.

My point is mainly not to discount anyone. And we still have some things to clean up. We have played just ok so far, although the D seems on track for most part. We ran the ball real well yesterday too. Some folks want to belittle the play of TAM and say Clemson is overrated yada, yada, while at same time saying "Whoo hoo" Kylin will be the GOAT as MSU based on 1 performance against what will probably be a substandard Big 12 team. I guarantee you Kylin don't go for 200 yesterday against Bama. Is Kylin really good? Yea he is.

I'm also not quite ready to anoint us as a top 10 team just yet or if so, just barely. I haven't seen the overall (meaning everywhere) speed and physicality or QB/CB play from us that I saw from UGA yesterday or Clemson/TAM last night.

We have to play Bama at TTown, LSU at BR (and their D will be good), AU, TAM. Right now I think that is 4 very good teams that will be tough to play. We don't need to sleep on Ky or OM either. And while FL didn't look good, Dan will do his best before coming to the Ville.

---

Fair enough. Bill Connolly think we are better than you do. We'll see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Agree that a formula is subjective but it can be better because it ignores helmet logos & is the same for everyone.

Also, what if Clemson's just isn't as good as the media told us they were? Lot of tweets like this one over the last few days talking about how scouts don't agree that their DL is unreal.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JohnMiddlekauff/status/1035289349644931072[/tweet]

---

So is our d line over hyped because we only have two potential first rounders and not 3? Having 3 guys on either side of the ball good enough to go in the first round is incredible much less having 3 in one position group.

That DL is one of the best units in the country. And that unit played well last night. I think what people potentially missed with Clemson so the fact that their QB situation isn?t great and their offense is probably just a tick above average.

Their defense isn?t the reason that game was close. Many of the media questioned Clemson?s offense coming into the season. Bottom line is anyone not named bama is more than beatable and I?m not sold bama isn?t fairly beatable.

Winning on the road against a decent team is hard to do. If that game is played at Clemson Clemson probably wins by 10-14 points. Disregard t linking not sure why it’s doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

None of these reasons tell me why A&M would've folded last night if Sumlin was coaching.

What if Clemson had a bad night? What if Clemson is not really that good?

IDK, but some of you are just seeing what you want to see & are now acting like Kevin Sumlin was garbage at A&M.

Do you realize that A&M won 8.5 games per year under Sumlin & almost 8 games per year after Manzel. They played a Bama team that is far better than Clemson's team this year, last year to the wire.

Other than saying that Mond is better & a year older, I'm not seeing this drastic evidence, after last night, that A&M is all the sudden much better & has a new culture.

---

Sumlin was 16-20 vs the sec west. 12 of those 16 came against Arkansas or happened when he had manziel.

41 of his 51 wins weren’t good ones. 17 were against non power 5 teams. 6 came against Arkansas. 18 came against teams that finished no better than 8-5. 9 of those 18 were against teams that finished below 500.

If that doesn’t scream mediocre I don’t know what does.

I’ve also seen you be hard on some state teams for finishing with 7-8 wins.

Judging your version of good seems like you should be happy with a coach at state who wins 7-8 games and has one good season every 6 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BB30

Sumlin was 16-20 vs the sec west. 12 of those 16 came against Arkansas or happened when he had manziel.

41 of his 51 wins weren?t good ones. 17 were against non power 5 teams. 6 came against Arkansas. 18 came against teams that finished no better than 8-5. 9 of those 18 were against teams that finished below 500.

If that doesn?t scream mediocre I don?t know what does.

I?ve also seen you be hard on some state teams for finishing with 7-8 wins.

Judging your version of good seems like you should be happy with a coach at state who wins 7-8 games and has one good season every 6 years.

---

Nice facts.

Only one poll that matters and it has always been good to us.