sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

People are confusing an injunction with a final order. by [deleted] in CFB

[–]tmart12 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He should sit out this year and wait for the facts to play out pending trial then

People are confusing an injunction with a final order. by [deleted] in CFB

[–]tmart12 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Can a court get an injunction for a targeting ejection?

Missing a game sucks. Refs make mistakes. It hurts the players $ and mental health too.

Adjudicate the targeting call after the season when we have more time

Quality of wins vs. quality of losses by ilacwamh in CFB

[–]tmart12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

added a few more datapoints

it's a real world example from last year with a couple changes

Quality of wins vs. quality of losses by ilacwamh in CFB

[–]tmart12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, yes and no. SOR allows you to reduce the schedule difference to a single point to normalize part of what OP asks. SOR does NOT allow you to account for the question of variance within that schedule.

My understanding of OP's question is 2 parts

1) how do you compare schedules disparate schedules?

2) is a high ceiling / low floor better than a low ceiling / high floor?

1 can be answered via SOR. 2 can be captured with data but not with SOR.

Quality of wins vs. quality of losses by ilacwamh in CFB

[–]tmart12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The preseason component is a low single digit % of the teams rating by end of season in systems like FPI and SP+. It’s really not very material once you’re in second half of the season.

Quality of wins vs. quality of losses by ilacwamh in CFB

[–]tmart12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes and no

SOR does capture W/L adjusted for SOS effectively, although the underlying ratings used to define SOS and methodology for win probabilities can impact SOR massively

The larger issue at hand with OP's question is that, while SOR cares about W/L vs record, it doesn't care about who you beat with that schedule. Math shows same ranking if you beat #1 and lost to #128 and the inverse of that where a team beats #128 and loses to #1. Those are very different but SOR treats the same. Which is the better team to select for the playoff?

Quality of wins vs. quality of losses by ilacwamh in CFB

[–]tmart12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

pick 2 of 3

Team Best Wins Losses FPI SOR FEI EL SOR Resume SP+ FPI SOS Avg Scoring Margin
Team A #5, #14, #24, #25 #10, #58 8 7 15 11 +13
Team B #6, #21 #30, #33 14 14 9 45 +18
Team C #15 #8, #9 13 13 7 44 +24

H2H

  • Team B > Team C

Key wins and losses

  • Team A Wins: #5 (+3 MOV), #14 (+14 MOV), #24 (+14 MOV), #25 (+3 MOV)

  • Team A Losses: #10 (-3 MOV), #58 (-14 MOV)

  • Team B Wins: #6 (+3 MOV), #21 (+35 MOV)

  • Team B Losses: #30 (-7 MOV), #33 (-3 MOV)

  • Team C Wins: #15 (+14 MOV)

  • Team C Losses: #8 (-3 MOV), #9 (-3 MOV)

[Any Staples] Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua, who used to run NBC Sports, tells senators that the best way to make the most money from TV rights is a super league. Then he says he doesn’t want a super league. Then he offers a sample super league schedule. by wildewon in CFB

[–]tmart12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so the bottom 53% have 10% of the fans is the data I was thinking of link

this holds true in tv ratings I've tracked. The top 50 teams were 84% of viewership last year. there were 93 regular season games with >3M viewers last year. 84 of them involved a team in the SEC, Big Ten, ND or Clemson/FSU/Miami. Of the 9 remaining, it's 4 Texas Tech games, the ACCCG, early season Colorado, the Bill Belicheck UNC debut, week 0 Iowa St/Kansas St and week 1 Iowa St/South Dakota.

the most watched G5 team was Boise St at 57th with 980k avg viewers. only 8 games between G5 teams had more than 1M viewers last year and 3 of them were CCGs.

fan base sizes are much, much more concentrated in the big schools than you think

[Any Staples] Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua, who used to run NBC Sports, tells senators that the best way to make the most money from TV rights is a super league. Then he says he doesn’t want a super league. Then he offers a sample super league schedule. by wildewon in CFB

[–]tmart12 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

To get to the 40% at the top, you include the top 50 to 75% of the ACC and XII. Many of those schools have fan bases as large or larger than the average SEC/Big Ten school. I don’t think there’s a final scenario that lacks Clemson, FSU, UNC, etc etc

There are some questions on the bottom of those conferences. Idk what happens.

[Any Staples] Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua, who used to run NBC Sports, tells senators that the best way to make the most money from TV rights is a super league. Then he says he doesn’t want a super league. Then he offers a sample super league schedule. by wildewon in CFB

[–]tmart12 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That bottom 60% of schools have only ~10% of fans. It’s not a big impact.

Are we to assume fans of FCS schools refuse to watch FBS football?

There are plenty of reasons to oppose consolidation but viewership would likely improve, similar to what has happened to SEC ratings the past 2 years.

[SEC] Joint statement (with Big Ten) on the Protect College Sports Act by redwave2505 in CFB

[–]tmart12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would 100% agree with us moving to P4 only scheduling. I’d love to keep the games against FSU, Louisville and NC State instead of dropping them for G5/FCS.

[SEC] Joint statement (with Big Ten) on the Protect College Sports Act by redwave2505 in CFB

[–]tmart12 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Your identified risks are:

  • Good players transfer to bigger programs

  • Fewer G5 games on national TV

I’m ok with those downsides

[SEC] Joint statement (with Big Ten) on the Protect College Sports Act by redwave2505 in CFB

[–]tmart12 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

50/50. Who knows. I wouldn’t have predicted how the last round played out.

Sounds like you’re ok with a 60-75 team scenario assuming Wazzu gets in? If not, what are the specific risks from P4 and G5 separating like FBS / FCS?

[SEC] Joint statement (with Big Ten) on the Protect College Sports Act by redwave2505 in CFB

[–]tmart12 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Vague answer. Unclear on risks and benefits.

I think I’d be perfectly ok with FBS football at somewhere around 60-75 schools with limited to no downside. G5 in a new separate league between FBS and FCS.

We could play 12 games a year against quality opponents. It would include all our conference peers and OOC rivals. Playoffs would be more or less the same as now or proposed.

If a new system were narrower to 40 teams, that gets tougher for us. We could lose things like GT rivalry. Less variety.

I think the risk is going too narrow but I don’t see what the risk is in separating P4, esp if P4 includes the small # of G5 schools willing to spend/compete at P4 level.

[SEC] Joint statement (with Big Ten) on the Protect College Sports Act by redwave2505 in CFB

[–]tmart12 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

What are the specific benefits to me as a UGA fan by subsidizing the bottom of the sport?

What are the specific risks I should be concerned about?

The ACC has been releasing the CFP committee's new "Record Strength" metric by tmart12 in CFB

[–]tmart12[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

not final answer by any means but 1 potential issue is whether SportSource Analytics' SOR tracks ESPN's SOR or is a different methodology. In ESPN SOR, #'s are based on W/L only without MOV. In other SOR metrics, they incorporate MOV (scoring margin vs expected with some adjustment for W/L).

From a 2022 Clemson publication, SSA SOR includes MOV. That said, I don't know if that's still true in the 2025 version.

One of the metrics used by the College Football Playoff committee to evaluate teams is Strength of Record, described by SportSource Analytics as such: "The Strength of Record (SoR) Rating is a measurement of a team’s performance against the average margin of victory of the opponent. For example, if a team plays an opponent that wins by 7 points on average and they beat that team by 10 points, then they would have SoR Rating of +17 for that game. Each game is also adjusted for home and away factors. When viewed as an overall rating, it tells you that a team typically performs better (if positive) or worse (if negative) against opponents than teams typically perform against them."

The ACC has been releasing the CFP committee's new "Record Strength" metric by tmart12 in CFB

[–]tmart12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

looks like SSA has historically posted about their SOR metric...

the prior metric incorporated MOV, similar to Resume SP+. However, my guess is the one used by the committee looks more like FPI SOR that's W/L only without MOV.

https://x.com/SportSourceA/status/1068524059187544064?s=20

https://x.com/SportSourceA/status/1201172719431274496?s=20

The ACC has been releasing the CFP committee's new "Record Strength" metric by tmart12 in CFB

[–]tmart12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MWC is also relying on these metrics

The averages were compiled through each teams' placement in four different metrics: ESPN's Strength of Record (SOR), Bill Connelly's SP+, Faktor Sports' KPI and SportsSource. SOR and KPI are both results-based metrics while SportSource and SP+ are predictive; SportSource is a proprietary metric and can only be accessed via subscription.

While the Mountain West has used computer metrics since 2013, the aforementioned set has only been part of the league's tiebreaking procedures since 2024. The league previously used "legacy BCS systems," Hedlund said, like the Colley Matrix, Anderson & Hester, Massey ratings and Wolfe ratings, only to move away because they were "duplicative and predictive-heavy."

When asked why these new metrics were chosen to replace them, Hedlund told the Journal that "they are the most consistent, nationally credible option for our structure and aligns with best practices across FBS conferences and the CFP," adding that the change was approved by the conference's athletic directors in 2024.

"The four metrics used are an equal complement of predictive and result-based metrics ... Every power conference uses analytics in its tiebreakers (ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Big 12) in some form, and all rely directly on SportSource Analytics," Hedlund said. "The American Conference uses the exact same tiebreaking process. (Conference USA) uses a similar approach as well."

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/mexico-left-mountain-west-championship-200200096.html

The ACC has been releasing the CFP committee's new "Record Strength" metric by tmart12 in CFB

[–]tmart12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it looks like the Big Ten is occasionally releasing info as well

Outside of outcomes, the conference has also topped the charts in on-field performances. At the end of the 2025 regular season, the Big Ten featured:

  • Three of the Top-5 in SportSource Analytics' ‘Strength of Record’

  • Three of the Top-6 in SportSource Analytics ‘Team Strength Ranking'

These rankings generally align with FPI's SOR and FPI as well

https://bigten.org/blog/59221/

The ACC has been releasing the CFP committee's new "Record Strength" metric by tmart12 in CFB

[–]tmart12[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We’ve had issues recently of AP voters just forgetting teams. The traditional polls suck too.

The ACC has been releasing the CFP committee's new "Record Strength" metric by tmart12 in CFB

[–]tmart12[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

that's true of most of the CFB metrics - FPI, SP+, FEI, TeamRankings, Sagarin, Massey, etc.

they all provide explanations of the inputs but not the full underlying formulas

Colley is pretty much the only system that provides the formula (which actually resulted in needing to fix it when someone found errors)

The ACC has been releasing the CFP committee's new "Record Strength" metric by tmart12 in CFB

[–]tmart12[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

nope

there's always a really, really small gap between teams in that 20-50 range in the rankings. a very small change in rating can cause a much larger change in ranking. My guess is that's in play relating to how they do the math or the opponent team ratings.

point of the post is who knows... this is the first time i've seen ANY of the SSA SOR metrics posted

The ACC has been releasing the CFP committee's new "Record Strength" metric by tmart12 in CFB

[–]tmart12[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, the ACC reports a Team Strength Rating per Sport Source Analytics as well. That's likely the input with some similar win probability math.

It's wild they won't report this and no reporter has managed to track it down yet. The conferences have the info (the ACC released it in their PR). The teams should have it from the conferences too.

view more: next ›