Pitt's Value in Realignment
- Thread starter NCPitt
- Start date
It's not wrong because it ultimately decides tie breakers early on by those projections that are biased. Nothing can ever really catch up from there because there never is a truly meaningful sample size. None of these power teams play each other out of conference on a regular basis.
Well I guess we are arguing the same thing then haha. I'm ok with that. Would rather agree than disagree all in all
I’m still not understanding your argument.
Computer rankings are purely statistical inputs put through a formula.
Certain formulas value certain inputs a little more. Some grade based on down to down success rate. Some on value of the drive as a whole. Etc.
Forget the CFP playoff rankings . Forget the human voting side of it.
I’m simply asking:
Why is it that the computers also show an SEC bias?
Putting aside teams that are now in the SEC, F+ (which is a composite of two separate analytic models) has the following rankings for the SEC:
2023:
2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18.
2022:
1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 18, 23
2021:
1, 2, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 24.
So about a third of the analytic Top 25 is made up of SEC teams, not counting UT or OU in that. And that’s with one of their powers, UF, being really down during that time.
What’s the explanation for this? It can’t be media bias, because that literally isn’t a part of these rankings.
Hey, analytics have shown the mountain west was the best basketball conference in the world out there this year. No need to play games.
Analytics only reflect the opinions of people that develop them.
CrazyPaco beat me too it. At the end of the day all these programs weight teams first based off a subjective formula to start. Especially when there isn't a lot of head to head early in the season.
Yes, every mathematical formula has some type of bias in regards to how much it weighs certain inputs.
But how does a bias to “down to down success rate” vs “outcome of the overall drive” mean an SEC bias?
And why does every model favor the SEC?
Last edited:
Actually the NET rankings had the Mountain West as the 7th best basketball conference this year.
Another POV from the same article:
Because somewhere in all that math, exists the human subjective rankings. And when the top 25 rankings come out, the SEC has 5 or 6 teams, as does the Big 10. It has to figure into it somehow as there has to be an initial starting point.
You guys are trying too hard to purposely not understand this.
Yes, there is a subjective element to it. That subjective element is what weight you want to give to a particular category of inputs?
So let’s say you input turnovers when assessing the quality of a team. If you think there’s a lot of luck to turnovers, then you might not weigh that so heavily in the formula. *That* is the human bias.
I’m asking how do you do that and skew it to the SEC?
There is no *subjective* team ranking put into the analytic formula when it spits out the end of the year quality power rankings. So there is no biased starting point as it relates to the logo on the helmet.
Honestly, analytics aside, they eye test says the SEC has the most talent. NFL tends to agree. Other than the conference footprint being talent rich, a school like Arkansas getting nice classes is a byproduct of kids just wanting to play in a conference that they believe allows them to play against the best talent every week. It's a residual effect of having a seat at the table but that's just how it goes.
There has to be. There is no way when you start these computer rankings, every team is 0-0 and 0 rankings and 0 weight. There has to be some basis to determine why a win against a 0-0 Mississippi over a win against say 0-0 North Carolina State is more meaningful.
2023 NFL draft picks by conference:
SEC - 62
Big Ten - 55
ACC - 32
Big 12 - 30
Pac 12 - 27
AAC - 10
Sun Belt - 9
Independents - 7
MAC - 7
MW - 5
CUSA - 3
FCS/D2 - 12
2022 NFL draft picks by conference:
SEC - 65
Big Ten - 48
PAC 12 - 25
Big 12 - 25
ACC - 21
AAC - 19
MW - 11
MAC - 6
CUSA - 6
Sun Belt - 6
Independents - 5
FCS/D2 - 23
Clearly, the NFL is also biased in favor of the SEC.
As was said yesterday on the basketball board, there absolutely does NOT have to be a starting rating, and in fact the NET rankings for basketball do NOT use a starting ranking. Literally, everyone actually does start out at zero.
A win over 0-0 Mississippi isn't more meaningful in a system like that after the first week. But I have to ask, do people really think that these ranking systems just look at the team at the time that the game was played, and then never go back and recalculate the numbers again after week two, and week three, and week four, etc? Because in most computer rankings, that just isn't right either.
After the first week of games, a system like that would consider a win over Mississippi exactly the same as a win over North Carolina State. But four or five weeks later, that Mississippi win might look a lot better, and might be helping your ranking a lot more, than that win over North Carolina State. And vise-versa. Depending on how well the teams actually prove themselves to be as the season goes on.
Sauce, they keep underestimating Pitt. The lists that have come out lately are close to the same lists that the eggheads look at from the Big Two (SEC, Big Ten).
28. Pitt -- 181.9
29. Maryland -- 180.6
30. Arkansas -- 180.5
31. Auburn -- 179.5
33. Kentucky -- 172.7
34. Illinois -- 176.1
38. Indiana -- 166.5
39. Purdue -- 165
43. Ole Miss -- 159.5
45. Northwestern -- 158
47. Missouri -- 157.6
49. Rutgers -- 155.5
50. South Carolina -- 153.1
58. Mississippi State -- 130.5
64. Vanderbilt -- 118.4
If there were no conferences and there was a lottery, Pitt would come in at 28. If you include the current conference members of the Big Two, Pitt would be at 41. Some people scoffed at that number when this article came out:
https://www.on3.com/news/how-would-a-college-football-super-league-look/ (Pitt would be included if expansion went to 48.)
You had comments like this: “As for Pitt, I do not see them in a field of 48. Nor do I see the big two agreeing to a number greater than 48.”
They see the same thing these analysts see, which lead to articles like this:
https://www.si.com/college/pittsburgh/news/pitt-panthers-considered-big-10-expansion (Pitt considered for Big Ten Expansion)
But the idiots (cashisking884, jtownknowitall) will still troll and laugh and tell you “no chance”.
Pitt may very well end up as a member of the ACC / Big Ten merger. But when the entire expansion is completed, Pitt will be in a good situation. When that happens, I will be INSUFFERABLE (more than usual, that is).
Last edited:
Yeah they are biased to those 2. But it doesnt mean they all are any good in the NFL. Its one of the reasons Tomlin has the Steelers where they are at. He looks way too much at the Big 10.
I’ve explained this already in this thread.
At the beginning of the year it’s a combination of your returning production, recent analytic rankings/metrics, and recruiting class rankings. Because the sample size isn’t big enough yet, as you point out.
But none of that has anything to do with a subjective valuation based on the creator of the formula just hyping SEC teams. It’s purely a blind exercise. Math goes in, math comes out.
Every week those preseason projected metrics account for a smaller and smaller of the analytic input, as the season’s sample size grows. So have less and less of an impact on the output.
Then at some point that is completely phased out. How you are ranked by the analytics *that season* is completely, 100%, a determined by your stats *that* season.
The preseason projections drop out and the formula recalculates purely on the current season taking place, because the sample size is now big enough.
Sooooooooooo, how is it that the analytics, that have absolutely no SEC factor to them whatsoever, always rank the SEC as a deep conference? Where SEC teams, even when one or two of their traditional powers are down, still account for about a third of the Top 25?
The most simple explanation as to why both the media loves the SEC and some MIT nerd’s computer loves the SEC, is because the SEC is just that good from top to bottom.
Exactly.
The easiest way to think of this as it relates to preseason analytics, while not entirely accurate is:
A computer determines how dominate you are based on 12 games.
Because no games have been played yet, the 12 games are determined by the 12 games from last year, and 0 from this unplayed season. So 12-0.
After week 1 is played, it’s 11 games from last year and one from this year. The computer then recalculates its previous rankings and metrics are based on 11-1 instead of 12-0.
After week 2 is played, it’s 10 games from last year and 2 from this year. And the computer recalculates and reranks.
And this happens every week, until instead of 12-0 with data inputs, it’s 0-12.
So while a win over Miss State might impress the computer in Week 1 if the computer is projecting MSU to be really good based on last season, it will not impress the computer by the end of the season if MSU is exposed as sucking.
And if you struggled to beat them but were rewarded initially for even beating a “good” MSU team, by the end of the year your analytic numbers will be punished for you struggling to beat a horrible MSU team.
I don’t understand why someone who roots for another school spends so much time on here, but I guess those trolls have no life.
I just don't understand why Pitt would get into the Big 10. The Big 10 already has that market. I haven't read all the articles, so maybe I'm not understanding the evaluation of the schools. I hope you're right though, man. I just can't see it.
You don't see it because conferences don't make decisions based on bloggers' click bait.
https://www.si.com/college/pittsburgh/news/pitt-panthers-considered-big-10-expansion (Pitt considered for Big Ten Expansion)
Yes, discussed many times. One of (at least) 12 schools. The Big Ten has looked at Pitt at least 3 or 4 times since the 1980s because they keep a eye on pretty much everyone that fits anywhere near the institutional profile acceptable to their presidents. Pitt has always been in the group of schools that is evaluated every time the Big Ten examines expansion.
However, of the 12 schools listed in the original Yahoo sports article, Pitt, Notre Dame, Stanford, and Cal are the only ones that wouldn't bring new states. Stanford and Cal both got passed on for UW and Oregon despite being two of the most academically prestigious schools playing D1 sports. ND, well, they have turned down the Big Ten multiple times and have no current interest in conference membership, despite being everyone's white whale.
It comes down to one thing: $. Will adding new member make more money for all the other members? For Pitt, the answer is no under the current and prior ways that the Big Ten generates revenue.
And equally important for Pitt, as Gene Smith once said publicly during a booster meeting when discussing the Big Ten evaluating Pitt and other schools back in circa 2009-10, "Pitt has a Penn State problem."
Last edited:
Is Penn State going to take its ball and go home if the Big 10 adds Pitt?
In the past an individual school had a lot more stroke because the threat of them leaving to go join another conference was real, because there were so many conferences of near equal value.
But if the Big 10 added Pitt tomorrow, surely that would only be done as part of a raid of the ACC. And so the ACC would be done.
Where would PSU then go? The only other option is the SEC, and I just don’t see that happening.
We kinda saw the same thing with Texas A&M last year, where the SEC’s traditional “no intrastate adds” unofficial rule was thrown out with the addition of Texas, because what was Texas A&M going to do about it? So who cares about their hurt feelings? “Take the check and shut up or go back to the Big 12.”
Last edited:
After reading this thread, I thought this post from Duke MBB in the middle of the NCAA tournament was interested.
Almost like they're selling themselves to other conferences while all eyes are on basketball.
Yup, it’s pretty simple. But I don’t want to squash the hopes of the dreamers, so let the fantasy live on.
Listen up jack, I didn't write these articles...
So you must be talking about their fantasies, not ours. They have no bias towards Pitt, ZERO.
I post and comment. If you choose not to believe any of it has substance, that's fine.
We may very well end up in a merger with the Big 12, but that won't be the end of it.
The TV people are the ones calling the shots and will end up having the final say regardless of all of these analytics. If Pittsburgh is worth something to them for college sports (football) then I suppose the answer will be evident the first moment that someone can answer it out loud.
The problem:
Pitt < Texas
The SEC didn't take Baylor, or Texas Tech.....they took a behemoth.
And that matters if you think you’re going to lose PSU if you take Pitt. Because then you have to weigh the value of Pitt vs PSU, and is it worth it?
But if the Big Ten wants Pitt, they have to value Pitt to some degree. Even if not to the level it would value Texas.
I just don’t think PSU can stand in the way of Pitt if the Big Ten values Pitt, because what is PSU going to do? There’s no where to go.
On this, we agree.
I am not as convinced as most that Pitt has little chance for the Big10. We do bring value.
Nor am I as convinced that ND will be staying independent for much longer.
On a totally unrelated note, if ND is considering a conference, I would be proactive.....and bring in Navy. Again.....Navy would add a specific value....a ND opponent and political clout to protect the league.
Why do care whose fantasies they are Jamal? And since you brought it up, what is it you see happening after said merger?
I see me laughing and tell people like you, I told you so.
I see a few posters like you, changing their message board names out of embarrassment.
Well I hope you have great laugh on me if Pitt gets in a super two league. I’ll be here to take it.
Who is advocating for Pitt among the Big 10 membership?
Surely you aren't equivocating the addition of Texas to the SEC with what would be an addition of Pitt to the B10. I don't think anyone has to spell out why that is a nonsensical analogy.
Pitt has two hurdles: $ and political.
Similar threads
