http://www.4down20.com/rankings/2013/
Printable View
Wow. Ranking 33rd and predicting 12-0 for us. Any cred on these guys?
Funny stuff! I would love to beat Tulane and USM by 30.
i believe we will have a top 10 offense. Battle Tulsa for conf USA title. be 9-3 or 10-2. top 35 team. Notre Dame will be overrated and blah blah. cbs/nbc whoever carries them will babble about them foverever and SEC will win national championship game. Tech will be a lot of fun to watch-- hopefully we can get kinks out quickly--took Dykes a few years but Holtz is not playing the wait and see at qb which should help
Yeah they got SJSU ranked 10th. LOL. We aren't going 12-0.
That's some crazy rankings.
I counted 11 teams going 12-0 next year, going to be interesting come BCS time..... :laugh:
Another 21 winning 10 or 11 games, should be some pretty good bowl matchups!
I give no credence at all to these guys.
I like their ranking philosophy (similar to mine).
The prediction algorithms are really odd though...somethings off about them.
Also, major props to our marketing dept for allowing that logo to exist. I might have gone my whole life without retinal bleeding otherwise.
Every little bit of pre-season hype helps regardless of credibilty. This team could go 12-0 or could go 6-6. Many players will have to step up and units must gel.
Our schedule is very weak!
11 undefeated teams with 7 of them being from BCS Conferences. PLEASE GOD LET THIS HAPPEN!!!
Hi, these are my rankings. These are based solely on last years data, there is no human input of anykind outside the formula itself. As such, these rankings pretty much represent what the computer thinks would happen if the teams were the same as last year, but on this years schedule. It will change quite a bit as the teams move around once games start getting played, it recalculates every week. But since it's all based on data, it doesn't know if some team lost all it's players in the offseason and what not.
So, take it with a grain of salt in that manner, I just consider them as being a rough idea, it's right more often than it is wrong I've found historically. Teams change, but they usually stay in the same area, with some big jumps from teams randomly.
As for the number of undefeated teams, teams lose games they shouldn't lose and vice versa all the time. Oklahoma St shouldn't have lost to Iowa St a few years back, but they did. It's a big bunch of over and under achievers every year. How Florida St lost to N.Carolina St last year, I will never know. Nor do I think any prediction software that follows the patterns in the data could see it coming. Extremely unlikely that there will be more than 2 undefeated teams at the end of the year, 4 tops IMO.
I seriously doubt the SJST #10 rank will hold up, nor the BYU #5 rank either. SJST rank is based largely in being in a weaker conference, along with a predicted win over Stanford. Based on names, that Stanford prediction might seem crazy, and it likely is, but SJST did go 11-2 last year, and only lost to Stanford by 3 points. So while we would generally think SJST as being a not even top50 team, it's not completely without merit.
Since you are all LA Tech fans, your prediction of an undefeated season isn't all that crazy either considering it ranks you as having the easiest schedule. Last year you went 10-3, only losing to a team who beat the national champions by 2 points. Your other 2 loses were against teams that were ranked in the top25, not just by my rankings, but by human polls as well. You play none of these difficult teams this coming season. So a 12-0 season is possible, provided your team maintains it's quality and can keep it's focus up. I don't know what your offseason was like, but based on the points I see you put up last year, I don't see why it's crazy to think you won't keep scoring 50-60 points a game.
Anyway, thanks for visiting. I've been doing these rankings for years and just start publishing them in the past few months, I love reading the feedback. At first glance I have the same wth thoughts as many of you, but then when I look deeper I start to see the why's.
Just curious, do you look at returning starters, coaching turnover, and other off the field stuff like that?
No, not at all. I only use the official data that the NCAA gives, and for the preseason I use the previous years data.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
The reason I started doing these rankings is because I didn't want human biases to interfere, so it would be against the general purpose of the rankings to start adding in stuff like coaching changes which is largely based on human bias/opinions. I've tried to remove players from stats if they've moved on, but I found in testing that it's near impossible to predict how well a replacement player is going to be off existing stats, and using the previous years data is actually more accurate. You have teams like Arkansas who go from top10 to the basement last year with new coaches, but most of the time that's not the case.
At the end of the day, it is a preseason ranking, which means very little to nothing. I think it's just an interesting base, and a formula that is applied to all teams evenly and without bias. Many experts thought USC was going to win it all last year, and they went 6-6. Skip Clueless predicted Arkansas to be national champions under John Smith because apparently he thought it was "their turn". I don't think anyone outside Lou Holtz thought Notre Dame was going to go to the championship game(like first time in history Notre Dame wasn't in the top25 preseason). It's all wild speculation.
PS: Love the signature quotes.
Could you change our logo?