+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Sagarin final conference rankings (/thread-839751.html)
Sagarin final conference rankings - bullet - 01-10-2018 01:52 PM
http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm
SEC West toughest division, but SEC #4 overall. Missouri Valley ranks ahead of 3 FBS conferences, but those 3 had a decent gap over the rest of FCS.
1. Big 12 78.45
2. ACC 78.29
3. Big 10 78.25
4. SEC 77.12
5. Pac 12 76.07
6. AAC 66.26
7. MWC 61.88
8. MVC 60.72
9. MAC 59.83
10. CUSA 56.90
11. SB 54.80
12. Colonial 50.67
13. Big Sky 49.90
14. Southern 47.74
15. Ivy 42.93
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - MWC Tex - 01-10-2018 02:08 PM
CUSA still ranks over the Sunbelt I see...that is going to upset quite a few SB fans.
If I'm not mistaken, this is used to rank the G5 conferences for the performance bonus that is set aside from the dedicated $10 million per conference.
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - jaredf29 - 01-10-2018 02:25 PM
PAC 12?
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - leofrog - 01-10-2018 02:31 PM
(01-10-2018 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote: http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htmSo, the "P6" AAC is closer to the 10th conference than the 5th. I guess it should be more like "P10" then. ?
SEC West toughest division, but SEC #4 overall. Missouri Valley ranks ahead of 3 FBS conferences, but those 3 had a decent gap over the rest of FCS.
1. Big 12 78.45
2. ACC 78.29
3. Big 10 78.25
4. SEC 77.12
5. Pac 12 76.07
6. AAC 66.26
7. MWC 61.88
8. MVC 60.72
9. MAC 59.83
10. CUSA 56.90
11. SB 54.80
12. Colonial 50.67
13. Big Sky 49.90
14. Southern 47.74
15. Ivy 42.93
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - JRsec - 01-10-2018 02:41 PM
Sagarin has had a built in bias in the programming since its inception. Nothing new here to see. S.o.S.
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - ken d - 01-10-2018 02:44 PM
I have calculated a 3 year trailing average for each conference as it is now constituted. That is, I used the ratings for each team presently in each conference over the past 8 years, regardless of what conference they may have been in previously. So, improvements or declines are not a result of changes in conference membership - only performance by current members.
The first year for which I had 3 years of data was 2012. The last column in the table below shows the improvement (+) or decline (-) since 2012.
Conf...2017...2016...2015...2014...2013...2012...diff
SEC....79.0....81.0.....81.7...82.0....81.4...81.2....-2.2
ACC....77.7....76.4....75.0....74.4...73.3...73.0...+4.7
B12....76.7....76.5....76.9....77.8...79.7...79.4....-2.7
PAC....76.3....76.8....78.8....78.1...77.4...77.1...-0.8
B1G....75.8....75.0....74.8....74.4...74.0...74.4...+1.4
AAC....66.7....64.5....64.0....64.2...66.8...67.7...-1.0
MWC...62.3...62.2....62.4....63.5....64.3...65.7...-3.4
MAC....59.5...58.6....58.1....59.3....61.2...61.1...-1.6
SBC....57.7...58.8....57.9....58.6....57.2...57.2...+0.5
CUSA..56.7...59.4....59.2....60.0....59.2...60.1...-3.4
The use of the three year trailing average is a smoothing technique meant to minimize distortion in trend analysis caused by a single anomalous year. An improvement or decline from year to year doesn't make a trend. That is just normal variation found in all data. Three consecutive years, or four out of five years, of movement in the same direction is probably a trend.
By that measure, the ACC is clearly trending up, with five consecutive years of improvement. And the MWC is clearly trending down.
As in all previous data we have seen, the demarcation between the P5 conferences and the G5 conferences is clear and consistent. And the gap among P5 conferences is getting smaller - parity is here.
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - Crump1 - 01-10-2018 05:19 PM
(01-10-2018 02:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: CUSA still ranks over the Sunbelt I see...that is going to upset quite a few SB fans.I believe you are mistaken on the bonuses. This system has always been garbage. They rate an FCS conference ahead of 3 FBS conferences and they mix in FCS teams as if they play the same type of schedule.
If I'm not mistaken, this is used to rank the G5 conferences for the performance bonus that is set aside from the dedicated $10 million per conference.
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - ken d - 01-10-2018 05:26 PM
(01-10-2018 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote: Sagarin has had a built in bias in the programming since its inception. Nothing new here to see. S.o.S.
If you look at my post immediately after yours, it would seem that if there is bias, it has consistently favored the SEC, don't you think?
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - Michael in Raleigh - 01-10-2018 05:28 PM
(01-10-2018 02:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: CUSA still ranks over the Sunbelt I see...that is going to upset quite a few SB fans.
If I'm not mistaken, this is used to rank the G5 conferences for the performance bonus that is set aside from the dedicated $10 million per conference.
Bowl season aside, the SBC had a horrible non conference record. This ranking serves as no surprise
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - Attackcoog - 01-10-2018 05:29 PM
(01-10-2018 02:31 PM)leofrog Wrote:(01-10-2018 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote: http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htmSo, the "P6" AAC is closer to the 10th conference than the 5th. I guess it should be more like "P10" then. ?
SEC West toughest division, but SEC #4 overall. Missouri Valley ranks ahead of 3 FBS conferences, but those 3 had a decent gap over the rest of FCS.
1. Big 12 78.45
2. ACC 78.29
3. Big 10 78.25
4. SEC 77.12
5. Pac 12 76.07
6. AAC 66.26
7. MWC 61.88
8. MVC 60.72
9. MAC 59.83
10. CUSA 56.90
11. SB 54.80
12. Colonial 50.67
13. Big Sky 49.90
14. Southern 47.74
15. Ivy 42.93
Barely. The real surprise to me was that the all 5 power conferences were bunched within a narrow 2.38 point range. Thats a MUCH tighter range than last year.
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - Attackcoog - 01-10-2018 05:36 PM
(01-10-2018 02:44 PM)ken d Wrote: I have calculated a 3 year trailing average for each conference as it is now constituted. That is, I used the ratings for each team presently in each conference over the past 8 years, regardless of what conference they may have been in previously. So, improvements or declines are not a result of changes in conference membership - only performance by current members.
The first year for which I had 3 years of data was 2012. The last column in the table below shows the improvement (+) or decline (-) since 2012.
Conf...2017...2016...2015...2014...2013...2012...diff
SEC....79.0....81.0.....81.7...82.0....81.4...81.2....-2.2
ACC....77.7....76.4....75.0....74.4...73.3...73.0...+4.7
B12....76.7....76.5....76.9....77.8...79.7...79.4....-2.7
PAC....76.3....76.8....78.8....78.1...77.4...77.1...-0.8
B1G....75.8....75.0....74.8....74.4...74.0...74.4...+1.4
AAC....66.7....64.5....64.0....64.2...66.8...67.7...-1.0
MWC...62.3...62.2....62.4....63.5....64.3...65.7...-3.4
MAC....59.5...58.6....58.1....59.3....61.2...61.1...-1.6
SBC....57.7...58.8....57.9....58.6....57.2...57.2...+0.5
CUSA..56.7...59.4....59.2....60.0....59.2...60.1...-3.4
The use of the three year trailing average is a smoothing technique meant to minimize distortion in trend analysis caused by a single anomalous year. An improvement or decline from year to year doesn't make a trend. That is just normal variation found in all data. Three consecutive years, or four out of five years, of movement in the same direction is probably a trend.
By that measure, the ACC is clearly trending up, with five consecutive years of improvement. And the MWC is clearly trending down.
As in all previous data we have seen, the demarcation between the P5 conferences and the G5 conferences is clear and consistent. And the gap among P5 conferences is getting smaller - parity is here.
Its a short window---but since the formation of the AAC in 2013, it does appear the AAC has been slowly pulling away from the rest of the G5 and has stopped losing ground to the P5. The later data would suggest it may even be closing the gap with the P5---but its still a little early to know if thats a real trend or just a meaningless fluctuation in the data.
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - Kittonhead - 01-10-2018 05:50 PM
I have not followed the Sagarin ratings much this decade.
I can tell you that in a bad year Big East 2.0 was about 70 in the Sagarins and it a good year 75.....equal or slightly better than the ACC. The ACC had to kill of Big East 2.0 for a reason.
To be honest the AAC sagarin ratings look a lot like CUSA 2.0 which is surprising given how good they've been at the top.
MWC looks like crap. They aren't even as strong as WAC 2.0 without the front range schools in it. I think the addition of Utah/Colorado to the PAC has sucked what existed of the recruiting away.
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - quo vadis - 01-10-2018 06:12 PM
(01-10-2018 05:50 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: I have not followed the Sagarin ratings much this decade.
I can tell you that in a bad year Big East 2.0 was about 70 in the Sagarins and it a good year 75.....equal or slightly better than the ACC. The ACC had to kill of Big East 2.0 for a reason.
To be honest the AAC sagarin ratings look a lot like CUSA 2.0 which is surprising given how good they've been at the top.
Yes, e.g., in 2009, the AQ6 ranged from 80 (SEC) to 73.7 (Big 10) ... the Big East was 2nd at 77.33.
The top non-AQ was the MWC, at 70.92.
The next year, 2010, when the Big East fell to 6th among the AQ, it's rating was 73.27.
RE: Sagarin final conference rankings - Tom in Lazybrook - 01-11-2018 11:34 AM
(01-10-2018 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote: Sagarin has had a built in bias in the programming since its inception. Nothing new here to see. S.o.S.
That is true. I did an analysis of Sagarin predictors for Sun Belt versus other conferences a while back. Sagarin routinely missed on its predictions of how the Belt team would perform, and it was usually against the Sun Belt team.