mGrowOld

April 18th, 2023 at 10:33 AM ^

Same FPI that predicted this last year: (so close)

Alabama             5

Ohio State          3

Georgia              1

Clemson            12

Notre Dame       18

Texas                 25

Michigan            3

Oklahoma          Unranked

Pittsburgh          22

Auburn               Unranked

Buy Bushwood

April 18th, 2023 at 11:26 AM ^

Either I'm blind or you didn't quote that correctly at all.  It looks to me like last year's predicted Bama to win, OSU #2, UM #7, Georgia #3, among others.  So, no, not actually that close at all.  Also, last year's had ND #5 and Texas #6, so LMFAO inaccurate.  

Also, this year Texas reappears at #6.  So, let me go into my- the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results- w/r to Steve Sarkisian, one of the most mediocre coaches in football, the Rick Neuheisel of his generation.  Sarkisian has 9 full years in the books at 3 blue-blood programs and never had to prove his way up (like Neuheisel).  In 9 years his best record is 9-4 which he achieved exactly one time.  He reached 8 wins two times. His teams have finished in the consensus top-20 zero times, but did manage an AP 20/Coaches 21 once.  His average record in his 9 seasons is 6.6 wins, 5.4 losses.  But, sure, in year 10 he'll finally have a contender.  Is there literally any coach in history who had that shitty a record for that long and then suddenly became a great coach?  

BoFan

April 18th, 2023 at 5:26 PM ^

No idea why the media is still sold on Steve Sarkisian given his long and dismal track record. Sark should hang it up.  He’d clearly be more successful as a cult leader or politician. 

jdib

April 19th, 2023 at 12:21 AM ^

Texas is a blue blood school that is in the hottest of hot beds for recruiting talent and not to mention the historical pedigree they have. 

They SHOULD be in the conversation every year with a somewhat competent coach. 

I guess the media *thinks* Sarkisian is somewhat competent. 

CityOfKlompton

April 18th, 2023 at 12:55 PM ^

Incorrect. They are quite literally not predicting anything. However, what they have done is project the likelihood of certain events. You may notice the many percentages and "chances" littered throughout the article.

Literally nowhere do they say "OSU will win the national championship," though they do say the model sees the Buckeyes as having the best chance to win it all.

bronxblue

April 18th, 2023 at 1:50 PM ^

FPI is, as you said, a discrete event percentage calculator; famously last year they said Texas was favored in all their games say I think Bama but didn't obviously claim they'd go 11-1 or whatever.  But that also makes it a somewhat useless preseason prognostication - it's saying "these are quality teams" against some metric but seemingly doesn't want you to actually weigh teams against each other with said metric.

It's weird to me now that they have SP+ that they still use FPI because they tend to contradict each other both at the season as well as per-game instances.

TrueBlue2003

April 18th, 2023 at 2:02 PM ^

Last year wasn't grossly inaccurate.  It was actually very accurate.

It predicted that Bama, UGA and OSU would be the best teams.  And they were the best teams, give or a take a Michigan which they thought would be the 7th best team so they weren't far off.

Outcomes have a bit of noise, so Alabama lost two games by four points combined on the road to top ten teams and hence were eliminated from the playoff but they were a top 3 team.

Similarly, just because TCU won a bunch of lucky games doesn't mean they were actually that good.  Hence the complete joke of a national title game. 

TrueBlue2003

April 19th, 2023 at 1:05 AM ^

It is by definition an unbiased statistical model.  It's literally the least biased college football content on ESPN (along with SP+ which are somewhat redundant). The only human input is recruiting rankings but that's because those have proven to be quite predictive.

The hot take articles and talking heads are for clicks.  And of course FPI is for clicks because all content hopes to get clicks but it's not meant to produce crazy results.  It's quite boring in fact.  It follows closely with recruiting rankings and past performance (with some element of returning starters and some other factors).

Blue Vet

April 18th, 2023 at 1:41 PM ^

Not exactly. 

People use "the" before some words, including "university." "We visit the hospital." "We went to the fire station." "We attend the University of Michigan." It's normal usage

However, for other university names, there's no "the." No one says "We go to the Stanford," "We attend the Northwestern," "We enjoy ourselves at the Purdue."

It's simply the way people speak English. (England varies, not using a "the" before "university.")

So what Ohio State is doing—I"m assuming after paying big bucks to some consulting firm—is trying to SEEM special by adding this nonsensical and pretentious "the." 

It's like calling yourself "The Maestro." 

 

Blue Vet

April 18th, 2023 at 10:45 PM ^

Really? 

If that's accurate, I'll stop using it. 

As I mentioned elsewhere, I genuinely didn't understand why this annoys any Michigan fan, much less LOTS of the board. 

Again, it seemed obvious mockery to me because their stupidly pretentious use requires all initial caps, The Ohio State University, so a small "t' undermined that. Mocked it.

But if they're doing the same thing, it may be time to change. 

The Toeshoes? (aka, tosu.) The THEES? 

Unfortunately, the very worst thing we could call them, they wouldn't understand as mockery: Ohio State.