Greatest team in FCS history

[Redbird 4th & short]

I'm not doing it but first thing I'm wondering is how UM and Marshall would have stacked up prior to the NC that year. As always, the Massey stuff means very little and is no more of a signifies of who wins than your average knowledgeable FCS fan that can remove homer glasses anyway.

I realize you are posting that a bit tongue in cheek but wanted to reply to it.

it was partly tongue in cheek, but it's also the only obejective side by side comparsion that can be done with any SOS relativity. My grid is easy to update .. so I'll do the ones you suggested above when I get a chance this week.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

it was partly tongue in cheek, but it's also the only objective side by side comparison that can be done with any SOS relativity. My grid is easy to update .. so I'll do the ones you suggested above when I get a chance this week.

It's not the only one! The ursusey ratings are out there as well.

Would be interesting to see if any predictive quality between a game we know between from that time.

[ElCid]

I take it back .. if you look at each teams top 5, NDSU clearly had 4 of 5 better results against the toughest 5 teams. NDSU clearly out performed in the bottom 5 with bigger margins against slightly tougher teams. In the middle 5, Marshall had bigger margins, but NDSU had tougher schedule ... so slight advantage to Marshall.

Consider above analysis and over all tougher schedule for NDSU, I hereby declare, bequeath, and dubb the 2013 NDSU Bison .. Best FCS Team ever !!!

Next thread !!!

Yeah, a few problems with this. It is relative schedule, not absolute. You can't merely use the ranking because in any given year, the #10 team might be better than the #1 team the next year. If anything, a more accurate comparison would be to the actual rating. But any comparison, using a computer, of teams almost 20 years apart, is pretty inaccurate. They are no where near tied together. I mean, how many degrees of separation? I understand what you did though. You just based it off how they did against the SOS rank for each season. Not a bad way, but still doesn't answer the question.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Yeah, a few problems with this. It is relative schedule, not absolute. You can't merely use the ranking because in any given year, the #10 team might be better than the #1 team the next year. If anything, a more accurate comparison would be to the actual rating. But any comparison, using a computer, of teams almost 20 years apart, is pretty inaccurate. They are no where near tied together. I mean, how many degrees of separation? I understand what you did though. You just based it off how they did against the SOS rank for each season. Not a bad way, but still doesn't answer the question.

mostly agree with your basic point about weaknesses in reliance on computers, except for generalization about "using a computer, of teams almost 20 years apart, is pretty inaccurate". I think only a computer is capable of doing something like this 20 years apart. It's the exact same thing human minds attempt to do when comparing teams .. whether 20 years or 1 year apart .... or even same season, who's conferences don't usually play each other ... but humans do it with a very limited set of data points, and lot more subjectivity and bias. Whereas computers at least are able to do so based completely on a set of facts consisting of virtually and unlimited # of relative data points (i.e. combinations) to support it. So I assume computers are equally as likely to over-rate a team as they are to under-rate one, especially when comparing teams this many years apart.

I think the main flaw in computer rankings is the tendency for strong conferences to cluster at top and weak conferences to cluster at bottom during a single season. So by end of season, I would agree, computers tend to self-perpetuate. Not necessarily wrong, and certainly not entirely wrong, just can get skewed at extremes. Example being, it just becomes hard for a truly great team in an average conference who may have started a little slow to move up against teams in the best conference who play only themselves the last 8 games of season. This is further why I tend to think computer rankings tend to be at their most credible around weeks 6 to 9 .. when prior season (including playoffs) and the current season's 3 non-conf games still carry fair amount of weight still.

Back to my main point ... I rely on Massey mainly for SOS, not for predictive value in any one game. I just wish some polls would give more objective consideration to SOS, and particularly the FCS selection committee. It has improved considerably since 2013 .. still have some work to do.

Not trying to be argumentative ... (it just comes naturally to me ) ... but do hope that clarifies my support and use of Massey.

[Bisonator]

The OP needs to add a poll. We've clearly narrowed it down to 2 teams............I think.

[ElCid]

mostly agree with your basic point about weaknesses in reliance on computers, except for generalization about "using a computer, of teams almost 20 years apart, is pretty inaccurate". I think only a computer is capable of doing something like this 20 years apart. It's the exact same thing human minds attempt to do when comparing teams .. whether 20 years or 1 year apart .... or even same season, who's conferences don't usually play each other ... but humans do it with a very limited set of data points, and lot more subjectivity and bias. Whereas computers at least are able to do so based completely on a set of facts consisting of virtually and unlimited # of relative data points (i.e. combinations) to support it. So I assume computers are equally as likely to over-rate a team as they are to under-rate one, especially when comparing teams this many years apart.

I think the main flaw in computer rankings is the tendency for strong conferences to cluster at top and weak conferences to cluster at bottom during a single season. So by end of season, I would agree, computers tend to self-perpetuate. Not necessarily wrong, and certainly not entirely wrong, just can get skewed at extremes. Example being, it just becomes hard for a truly great team in an average conference who may have started a little slow to move up against teams in the best conference who play only themselves the last 8 games of season. This is further why I tend to think computer rankings tend to be at their most credible around weeks 6 to 9 .. when prior season (including playoffs) and the current season's 3 non-conf games still carry fair amount of weight still.

Back to my main point ... I rely on Massey mainly for SOS, not for predictive value in any one game. I just wish some polls would give more objective consideration to SOS, and particularly the FCS selection committee. It has improved considerably since 2013 .. still have some work to do.

Not trying to be argumentative ... (it just comes naturally to me ) ... but do hope that clarifies my support and use of Massey.

Got it. But my main point was it may be more accurate if you use the "rating" instead of the ranking. Again, the #10 ranked team this year might have the same "rating" that the # 1 ranked team did last year or the # 30 ranked team two years from now. Those examples were exaggerated for illustration. Just using ranking doesn't show the shades of gray. And that could be a lot or a miniscule amount.

[ElCid]

The OP needs to add a poll. We've clearly narrowed it down to 2 teams............I think.

No, we need someone to invent time travel and have each team move forward and back in time, to a neutral time period, and have a game at a neutral site as well, and go at it. That is the only fair way to decide.

Somebody get on that.

[dewey]

No, we need someone to invent time travel and have each team move forward and back in time, to a neutral time period, and have a game at a neutral site as well, and go at it. That is the only fair way to decide.

Somebody get on that.

Neutral site = Frisco (Fargo South) Texas

Dewey

[Redbird 4th & short]

Got it. But my main point was it may be more accurate if you use the "rating" instead of the ranking. Again, the #10 ranked team this year might have the same "rating" that the # 1 ranked team did last year or the # 30 ranked team two years from now. Those examples were exaggerated for illustration. Just using ranking doesn't show the shades of gray. And that could be a lot or a miniscule amount.

Oh ... valid point on Massey opponent "rating" versus ranking .. except each teams schedule of results only shows the opponent ranking .. not the rating. Massey makes it much easier to pull opponent rankings than ratings.

[cx500d]

No, we need someone to invent time travel and have each team move forward and back in time, to a neutral time period, and have a game at a neutral site as well, and go at it. That is the only fair way to decide.

Somebody get on that.

Kind of like Marshall playing for a championship in their own stadium?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk