OSU # 1 In Sagarin, And They Should Be

[Fryowa]

Said it before and I’ll say it again, this is the best metric in college football. But people still like a ranking decided by a bunch of website bloggers with AP membership, who only follow and report on one team themselves. It’s basically figure skating judging.

http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm

 

[hawkinn3]

I love to see little red get massacred

 

[archiehawk]

OSU is the best team in America

 

[EstronHawkKing]

Not sure if I would want to face them in the Big 10 title game. I bet they destroy Wisky in a few weeks in Columbus. Be curious to see how Taylor does against that OSU defense

 

[Hawkboys]

Said it before and I’ll say it again, this is the best metric in college football. But people still like a ranking decided by a bunch of website bloggers with AP membership, who only follow and report on one team themselves. It’s basically figure skating judging.
http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm
http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm

Sagarin is really good starting midway thru season but garbage early.

 

[STILLBUSTER]

Sagarin is really good starting midway thru season but garbage early.

Agree. I use Sagarin against the line, especially starting about this past week. Have some visual on what teams look like and then use his objective #'s to tease winners!

My problem is getting too greedy with that 1 extra parlay leg ...

 

[HawkGold]

And they have proved this by clobbering Cincinnati.

OK

 

[PCHawk]

We beat our team worse than they beat theirs. I wonder what would happen if our 2 opponents played each other. It would probably be a dog fight.

 

[Fryowa]

Sagarin is really good starting midway thru season but garbage early.

Prove it?

With facts or statistics and not opinion?

 

[dirtwrap]

I glanced at the Sagarin ratings, and while largely it seems the rankings match the eye test, there is certainly a part of the ranking that is based on assumption so it is not entirely empirical. For instance Michigan at 17. Take those players out of those uniforms and look at their resume, and they are not 17. Minnesota and Wake Forest, way down in the rankings like in the 50's, have better wins than Michigan by far and haven't lost. So there is no way these rankings are based purely on unbiased data. No way.

 

[hwk23]

Prove it?

With facts or statistics and not opinion?

It’s actually the opposite. FWIW, I’ve been following the sagarin line vs the Vegas spread for about 5 years. Looking at 10 games a week, Sagarin is well above 50% early in the season but we’ll below 50% later in the season, every year. I think it’s because Vegas is more accurate later in the season. Sagarin is below 50% every season for the year. When there’s a big difference I always go the opposite of sagarin cause it usually means Vegas knows something.

For example, that App State vs North Carolina -3 game this year. Sagarin showed North Carolina -9. App State won the game and I bet everyone bet NC.

 

[Fryowa]

It’s actually the opposite. FWIW, I’ve been following the sagarin line vs the Vegas spread for about 5 years. Looking at 10 games a week, Sagarin is well above 50% early in the season but we’ll below 50% later in the season, every year. I think it’s because Vegas is more accurate later in the season. Sagarin is below 50% every season for the year. When there’s a big difference I always go the opposite of sagarin cause it usually means Vegas knows something.

For example, that App State vs North Carolina -3 game this year. Sagarin showed North Carolina -9. App State won the game and I bet everyone bet NC.

My reasoning is that even if it floats above or below expected wins, it’s still more accurate and (more importantly) objective than sportswriter polls.

 

[Fryowa]

It’s actually the opposite. FWIW, I’ve been following the sagarin line vs the Vegas spread for about 5 years. Looking at 10 games a week, Sagarin is well above 50% early in the season but we’ll below 50% later in the season, every year. I think it’s because Vegas is more accurate later in the season. Sagarin is below 50% every season for the year. When there’s a big difference I always go the opposite of sagarin cause it usually means Vegas knows something.

For example, that App State vs North Carolina -3 game this year. Sagarin showed North Carolina -9. App State won the game and I bet everyone bet NC.

Also, not saying you’re wrong, but do you have a data set to look at? I’d love to check that out. Bias vs reality is super interesting to me.

 

[ssckelley]

I still have a tough time ranking them ahead of Clemson and Alabama. It was surprising to see Clemson struggle against North Carolina but they were able to push them around when the game got serious, it was their wake up call IMO. Alabama hasn't played anybody yet but that's typical. I still think these 2 teams are in a class above everyone else.

 

[hwk23]

My reasoning is that even if it floats above or below expected wins, it’s still more accurate and (more importantly) objective than sportswriter polls.

Yes I agree. A lot of the time Sagarin is pretty close to Vegas and that wouldn’t happen if it wasn’t a valid model.

 

[Fryowa]

I glanced at the Sagarin ratings, and while largely it seems the rankings match the eye test, there is certainly a part of the ranking that is based on assumption so it is not entirely empirical. For instance Michigan at 17. Take those players out of those uniforms and look at their resume, and they are not 17. Minnesota and Wake Forest, way down in the rankings like in the 50's, have better wins than Michigan by far and haven't lost. So there is no way these rankings are based purely on unbiased data. No way.

I don’t claim that it’s totally empirical, but it removes any and all homerish biases and that alone makes it a better benchmark.

The formula may not be 100% perfect, but it removes the human factor and any objective system is better than humans making a popularity list

 

[hwk23]

Also, not saying you’re wrong, but do you have a data set to look at? I’d love to check that out. Bias vs reality is super interesting to me.

I wish I did. This is just my own observation from following 10 games a week for 5+ years. It’s the same every year. Actually, since Sagarin always ends up under 50% on the year, I pick the opposite of sagarin, to get above 50% slightly. But I’d be well over 50% if I’d go with Sagarin for the 1st 6 games and opposite the last 6 games.

 

[Xerxes]

Ohio St looked great but they've beaten up on 4 bad teams. I'll give their D credit for dominating a good offense last night. If they work over MSU like that, then I'll agree they're #1

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

I glanced at the Sagarin ratings, and while largely it seems the rankings match the eye test, there is certainly a part of the ranking that is based on assumption so it is not entirely empirical. For instance Michigan at 17. Take those players out of those uniforms and look at their resume, and they are not 17. Minnesota and Wake Forest, way down in the rankings like in the 50's, have better wins than Michigan by far and haven't lost. So there is no way these rankings are based purely on unbiased data. No way.

My response to this would be that his model is probably still weighing each of those team’s performance last year. I’m not sure when that is fully dropped from the model.

 

[EstronHawkKing]

Ohio St looked great but they've beaten up on 4 bad teams. I'll give their D credit for dominating a good offense last night. If they work over MSU like that, then I'll agree they're #1

MSU stinks!, they almost lost to IU