It has no pre season bias unlike predictive models used by gamblers, it's strictly who beat who.
Pitt #6 in the country in the Colley Ranking
- Thread starter MarshallGoldberg
- Start date
It has no pre season bias unlike predictive models used by gamblers, it's strictly who beat who.
This is a "best" vs "deserved" argument.
Pitt "deserves" to be a Top 6-10 team based on resume. For example, Pitt's resume is probably better than Penn State's. However, Pitt is most likely not one of the 20 "best" teams using predictive/Vegas metrics. College Basketball has gone to a Vegas model and Pitt got left out because of it. College Football uses more of a resume model.
Yes. And, Sagarin's #31 "Strong Recent" rating is probably also a more realistic assessment than any of the "beauty contest" ratings if one is coldly analytical about the reality.
It is? We have two common opponents with Penn State.
Pitt 38 - WVU 34
PSU 34 - WVU 12
Pitt 55 - Kent State 24
PSU 56 - Kent State 0
Then you're looking at:
UNC
Cincy
Cal
Youngstown State
vs
UCLA
USC
Illinois
Bowling Green
So I'm not sure why you think ours is a better resume.
PSU has better players. They are "better." I would argue we "deserve" to be ranked higher based on resume. Also, I dont factor in point differentials. Vegas does and that's partly why PSU is better than us.
Both beat WVU. PSU was on the road but whatever. That's a push.
Both beat Kent State.
PSU beat BGSU. We beat YSU. Advantage PSU but how much, really?
We won at 4-2 Cincy. PSU won at 3-3 USC. USC stinks. Advantage Pitt.
PSU won vs 5-1 Illinois. We won vs 3-3 Cal. Illinois stinks. Probably even here.
PSU beat a horrific UCLA team, who will probably go 1-11 at home. We beat a 6-6ish UNC team on the road. Major advantage Pitt.
You can certainly make a case that PSU has the better resume but it wouldn't be by much. That's why our SOR is higher.
I watched them play against Illinois, and they probably won the line of scrimmage 92% of the plays, if not more. I don't think their offense clicks entirely, which is basically what plagues them every season, as they should have won that game by 100 points with the way they moved Illinois around in the trenches. But they looked like a pretty tough out. Wouldn't surprise me if they got far in the playoffs.
I know you're not taking the eye test into account here, but I just don't see us ahead of them in any metric, honestly.
College basketball is allowing recency bias back in for the 2025 NCAA tournament. Maybe one year late for Pitt, but worth noting they specifically will allow it now.
PSU is better than us and would be favored by 10-14. Im saying our resume is better.
Isn't the measurement you're proposing (no point differentials/advanced analytics taken into account) just strength of schedule? They are 52nd and we are 96th so far.
Last edited:
So you consider a 7-6 win the same as a 72-0 win in your imaginary ranking system that undoubtedly changes depending on which argument you want to make?
The Massey composite has almost 60 rankings tracked and only mCubed has Pitt ranked higher. There are as many rankings that have Pitt outside the top 50 as have them above PSU. Many of them don't even have Pitt in the top 30. So no, I don't think it's close right now.
PSU has wins over the #16, #55, #75, & #95 ranked F+ teams, on top of beating common opponents much more decisively than Pitt.
Pitt has wins over the #41, #43, #57, and a 2-5 FCS team that doesn't have an F+ but is #178 on Sagarin.
So let's just enjoy what we have without needing to compare us against other teams.
It's the fallacy that many of this board suffer from: the "get off the bus and go 10-2" misnomer. If Penn State plays the #35 team in the nation, it's shrugged off as an automatic win and a cakewalk. If Pitt plays a team of that caliber, it's a tough game. And both of those things are probably true, but zero consideration is given to the fact that it's usually because they're the better team.
I think it is easier to look at Indiana as our peer in this case who is currently ranked #16 while PITT is #20. I think PITT is ranked correctly as we have not played very good teams. That same line of thought makes me think the only reason Indiana is ranked #16 is because of the BIG 10 bias. Their strength of schedule is #71 (SOS) while PITT is #59. I think all of it will shake out in the end...Indiana will lose to Washington, Michigan, and tOSU. It is annoying to see the bias so blatantly.
Yes. Point differentials dont matter to me if I am picking teams for a tournament. A win is a win. I don't think we should be picking tournaments based on Vegas metrics. The NCAA Tournament does that and that's so wrong. Win the game. That's it.
I agree that is a much more apt comparison. Possibly a little Big Ten voting bias combined with the fact that they've blown the doors off everyone.
FIU: 31-7
Western Illinois: 77-3
UCLA: 42-13
Charlotte: 52-14
Maryland: 42-28
Northwestern: 41-24
So if you're not going to play anybody, I guess the least you can do is beat them all by at least two touchdowns.
As you said, though, it will work itself out. No senses even arguing this stuff when we're still in the portion of the schedule where the bulk of it for most teams is comprised of OOC games, which could be vastly different by team.
Indiana's closest margin of victory is 17 points, so they have very favorable efficiency rankings for those that value that highly.
So which float were you on for the 2017 UCF National Champions Parade? You know, the team that was ranked #1 at the end of the season by Colley because all it cares about is Wins and Losses.
Point differentials have been tie breakers forever. That's isn't a "Vegas metric." You have 130+ teams playing drastically different schedules, and only 12 games or so for comparison. So bring on the efficiency metrics, SoS rankings, and any other point of comparison that can be used to sort out the most deserving teams.
They also have the 101st ranked defense and the team that has played them the closest is the #41 ranked offense (Maryland). Not exactly murderers row of a schedule. Meanwhile PITT has played the #23 (Cinci), #34 (UNC), and #49 (WVU).
Colley cares about Strength of Schedule as well as your wins and loses. That said, the strength of schedule is determined by wins and losses of those opponents. It's true it doesn't use margin of victory, because that would be trying to measure something else, more predictive and less resume based.
I don't think it's likely UCF was the #1 team in the country in 2017 but they should have finished higher in the AP poll than #6 at 13-0 and probably would have if pre-season rankings didn't exist (they started unranked.) They did beat Auburn in their bowl game, who had beaten #1 Alabama and #2 Georgia.
Colley's list of champions has been the same as the CFP result every year since UCF as well:
2023 Michigan
2022, 2021 Georgia (who had a loss in 2021)
2020 Alabama
2019 LSU
2018 Clemson
And it's been the same as the CFP or BCS bowl winner result in something like 21 of the last 25 seasons.
It does look funky earlier in the years since it's a small sample size but usually looks pretty normal by the end.
Based on that system..... *ALL* of Pitt's remaining games are against Top 50 teams.
That's a real gauntlet.
To point 1. Yes, Colley uses Strength of Schedule but the disagreement we were having concerned win/loss vs margin of victory in determining rankings/resume. It's obviously all a matter of opinion, but I don't understand why some people continue to discredit margin of victory as something greater or less relevant for a "resume." Even without going into efficiencies or anything else, intuitively anyone will understand that there is likely a fundamental difference in performance and team ability between a team that won by 40 and a team that won by 3 vs a common opponent. This isn't the NFL where there is scheduling parity and virtually every team vying for shared playoffs spots have played identical schedules where a simple win/loss ratio can be simple enough to determine the team that has earned their placement.
Point 2. The vast majority of ranking systems eliminate any preseason data points by week 9 or 10 of the regular season. Many of those are considered in the Massey Composite where UCF finished...6th.
Point 3. 99% of the rankings have had the same champions as the CFP every year since UCF. That doesn't mean the ranking's flaws weren't exposed with UCF National Champtionship, a not-top-10 efficiency team in a mediocre league that played 1-2 above-mediocre teams all season but yet still scheduled an FCS and lower G-5 opponent.
Similar threads
