Thursday Stick in the Eye: Current FEI rankings
October 11th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
Cold War and several others are still backing Hoke.
RR has proven at AZ and WV (and earlier) that he is one of the better coaches in the game. He was in the process of proving it at Michigan when DB undermined him.
October 9th, 2014 at 8:45 PM ^
Don't even bother Wahoo. The deulsion is strong in this one. He somehow thinks Rich Rod would have magically turned around the defense in year 4 because the "personnel deficit" would have been fixed (nevermind the fact that Arizona is currently starting 5 freshmen or sophomores on defense and MIchigan was starting 1 in 2010).
October 9th, 2014 at 8:51 PM ^
So you've resorted to flat out lying. Nicely done.
October 9th, 2014 at 8:55 PM ^
Quibble all you want over whether the number was 1, 2, or 3 depending on the game, but either way it was fewer than what Arizona has right now.
October 9th, 2014 at 9:11 PM ^
We had the youngest secondary in the nation in 2010.
October 9th, 2014 at 9:16 PM ^
Senior, Junior, RS Junior, Sophomore, RS Sophomore, Senior, RS Freshman, RS Sophomore, RS Sophomore, Senior, RS Freshman.
That is 8 guys with at least 3 years in the program. It wasn't even close to the nation's youngest.
October 9th, 2014 at 9:34 PM ^
I don't know where you're getting that from. You're probably counting Woolfolk and Williams, for one. There were most definitely not three seniors, a RS junior, and a junior in that secondary. I don't believe there was a single RS sophomore, either. It was the youngest.
October 9th, 2014 at 9:39 PM ^
I accidentally read your comment as the nation's youngest defense, but we didn't have the nation's youngest secondary either.
October 9th, 2014 at 9:41 PM ^
Yeah, sorry. I accidentally typed that initially and neglected to change the subject after I realized what I had done.
Anyway, our secondary was senior converted WR James Rogers and the rest all first and second year guys.
October 9th, 2014 at 11:08 PM ^
Remember that awful offense we put on the field last year? The one that was so bad that the majority of people here wouldn't take youth as an adequate excuse?
They were #42 in the country at Fremeau.
RR's 2010 defense was #109.
In a schedule- and tempo-adjusted metric, they were the 12th-worst defense in all of FBS. I repeat, schedule-adjusted, they were worse than:
- every power-5 team except Wazzoo
- every team in the MAC except EMU
- every team in the Sun Belt
- every team in the WAC except New Mexico St. and San Jose St.
The defense was worse than 1-10 Akron, 1-11 New Mexico, 2-10 Bowling Green, 2-9 Central Michigan, 2-10 Western Kentucky, 1-10 Buffalo...and that's after you adjust for the fact that those awful teams were playing MAC/SBC-quality schedules.
October 9th, 2014 at 11:54 PM ^
Uh huh? And? Tell me more stuff I already know, please.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:12 AM ^
Our hope is that you'll actually apply it.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:21 AM ^
Apply what? The 2010 defense was terrible. It was one of the worst in the country. Show me where I've said otherwise.
October 9th, 2014 at 11:54 PM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 12:24 AM ^
Because offensive FEI statistics haven't come out yet. Those numbers are unadjusted--adjusted numbers actually useful for analysis aren't released until next week.
Opponent-adjusted OFEI and OSOS data will be published after Week 7. Teams listed below are ranked by unadjusted offensive efficiency.
October 10th, 2014 at 9:11 AM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
The average unadjusted DEI of the opponents so far is -.076 (zero is average by definition and negative scores are good); that's enough to bump the ranking up to #73 if everyone else stayed put (they won't, of course, though they will on average so this is probably close).
October 10th, 2014 at 1:05 AM ^
Arizona isn't starting 5 freshman or sophomores on D. They are starting 2 or 3. Now that Bondurant is starting and basically playing linebacker the only first or second year players that are really starting much are Scooby Wright and Jarvis McCall. Wright is a true soph and McCall a RS freshman.
I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything though.
October 9th, 2014 at 10:43 PM ^
What I did not know at the time was that supposedly he was being hamstrung by not having the $$ to hire a proper DC. I had seen enough GERG and thought he was the best RR could get.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:11 PM ^
Rosenberg was the first reporter to coerce the NCAA into believing that Michigan deserved to be on probation for bullshit reasons....while Rodriguez was the coach.
FTFY.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:11 AM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
He brought Denard Robinson to the University of Michigan, you gibbering halfwit.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:02 PM ^
...because those numbers aren't yet available. Until next week these are provisional, unadjusted numbers.
These ratings are partially influenced by preseason projections, a function of Program FEI ratings, previous-year FEI and garbage time data, previous-year turnover-neutral, special teams-neutral, and field position-neutral FEI, returning starters, recruiting success, and quarterback reliance. As the season progresses and actual 2014 data continues to be collected, the weight given to projection data will be reduced each week until Week 7, at which point it will be eliminated from the rankings entirely. Offensive and defensive FEI ratings will also debut in Week 7.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:11 PM ^
So what you're saying is this understates Arizona's position and overstates ours?
October 9th, 2014 at 7:16 PM ^
To give you an idea of how unreliable they are before they're adjusted, Cal is #9 in the country on the strength of their 59-56 3OT win over Colorado, a 60-59 win over Washington St. and a 7-point win over Northwestern. 1-4 Washington St. (the system doesn't include their FCS win) is #23. Alabama would be the 7th best team in the PAC. Rutgers, Marshall, Northwestern, Nevada and Colorado St. are all better than MSU.
It's a fine system when enough data is in place but at this point in the season it's a mess.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:23 PM ^
Cal isn't the #9 team in the country but they did score more points in two games that we will the rest of the season.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:22 PM ^
And if had been smart enough to hire a decent D Coordinator, he'd still be here. But don't worry, Zona will drop significantly when they go through their post-Oregon-victory tanking, just like last year.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:54 PM ^
If our AD had not fired him after three seasons we wouldn't be the laughingstock of college football. But I'm sure you predicted Arizona would beat Oregon (both this year and last year), and that Hoke would run Michigan into the ground, so we should totally listen to your predictions and value your input.
October 9th, 2014 at 9:29 PM ^
He was 0-6 against MSU and OSU here. He failed here..end of story.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:08 AM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 11:04 PM ^
You realize he was a really good coach before Michigan as well, right? If turning Arizona around and winning 9, 10 and 11 games regularly at a place like West Virgnia doesn't convince you he is a good coach and that there is a good chance that a toxic environment at Michigan was one of the main reasons he failed here, nothing will convince you. The funny thing is, his start at WV was very similar to his start here (awful first year). I don't know why you think his 3 years at Michigan is the norm for him and not, you know, the entire rest of his coaching career that he has been really good.
October 9th, 2014 at 11:11 PM ^
They had one bad year, the year before he was hired, otherwise they're right where they've been for decades when anyone other than John Mackovic was at the helm. Maybe the record looks a little better than it did before because they've lightened their schedule, but they've been in the 20-40 range nationally for something like 25 years now.
October 9th, 2014 at 11:25 PM ^
This isn't true at all. 2012-2013 is just the fourth time in their program's history that they have won eight or more two years in a row. They've won eight or more games three years in a row once, from 1973-1975. As for the 25 years pre-RR, they were 150-141 for 51.5% winrate. That places them 50th amongst 101 teams who played games every year during that timeframe. They've lost five or more games in a season every year since 1998.
October 9th, 2014 at 11:55 PM ^
Considering Arizona didn't start playing a 13-game schedule until 2008, at which point they immediately won 8 games in back to back seasons, I'm not sure your stat has much validity.
Stoops' last three full seasons were 8-5, 8-5, and 7-6. Yeah, some turnaround Rich Rod has done.
October 9th, 2014 at 11:56 PM ^
WTF are you talking about? When has Arizona ever played a thirteen game schedule?
October 10th, 2014 at 12:17 AM ^
Including bowl game. 12 games excluding bowls. That started in 2006, so let's not act like it's some major historical accomplishment to win 8 games when previous coaches had fewer opportunities. Dick Tomey won 7 or more games 7 times during his tenure at Arizona with much more difficult nonconference schedules and one fewer game than today's coaches have.
October 9th, 2014 at 11:58 PM ^
I thought you weren't "even going to discuss it" lol.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:44 AM ^
I didn't really want to, but when people make bad arguments, I can't resist. The notion the RR did some miracle turnaround at Arizona is utter horseshit.
October 10th, 2014 at 1:20 AM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 6:54 AM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 7:34 AM ^
It's the flip side of the old "Bo never wins a bowl game" argument I used to hear.
The secret is to finish at or just above .500. Have a good season and you get a quality opponent that can beat you., but if you do it right you can get #81 Nevada and call it a bowl win.
It helps to coach at a school whose fans don't travel particularly well, too. Drops you down in the pecking order, gets you a weaker opponent. There's no possible season that gets Michigan sent to the Gildan Bowl--either they aren't bowl eligible, or they get something better.
October 10th, 2014 at 9:20 AM ^
If that's horseshit, the notion that Brady Hoke "turned around" Ball State is one of the biggest lies in sports history.
October 10th, 2014 at 10:18 PM ^
Don, I hate to say it, but it seems you're becoming the king of the strawman. This isn't the first time that I've noticed you respond with a zinger about Hoke after somebody says something less than complimentary about RR. Now I don't know about you, but I haven't seen too many people on this board making the claim that Hoke is a good coach. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that at least 90% of MGoBlog users want to see him canned, so what exactly is your point in bringing up the fact that Hoke sucks?
BTW, I never got back with you on Micheal Q. -- he tried to pay for the rental car with a box of his own records -- in other words, these were records he had recorded himself.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:11 AM ^
Because they've downgraded their non-conference schedule, which used to be brutal. They haven't played a non-conference power-5 team the last three years, but they used to pretty much every year (good ones, too, like LSU when they were on top, and Ohio St. and Wisconsin and the good Iowas) and they often added a top non-qualifier like Utah (the year they were undefeated) or BYU (the year they were 11-2). They've added at least one win/year on schedule alone since RR arrived (I'm not suggesting he had anything to do with it, he's just the innocent beneficiary).
Their EOS ranking at Massey since they got over the Mackovic hangover:
- 31
- 40
- 31
- 35
- 29
- 79
- 36
- 27
Seven years out of eight in the second 20.
Before Mackovic was the same, maybe even a little better but with wider swings:
- 20
- 37
- 31
- 24
- 11
- 35
- 19
- 21
- 40
- 45
- 21
- 5
- 25
- 45
- 41
- 18
- 10
- 54
- 33
RR's 36 and 27 fit right in...maybe even a bit lower than they used to be able to expect, but after Mackovic they know what's possible so I'm sure they don't mind. They're #19 right now--if they're able to hold it it'll be their best season since Tomey but it wouldn't be unprecedented success there.
If Michigan's fans expect more than Arizona's it's not because of anything that's happened on the field in recent years. They were better than us all three years RR was here, and again last year and this year. That's five out of seven.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:35 AM ^
They beat Oklahoma State two years ago.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:40 AM ^
Oklahoma State went 8-5 that year and finished the season unranked.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:43 AM ^
I know. I was merely pointing out that "Arizona has played zero power-five conference teams in the past three years" was not true.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:45 AM ^
Indeed.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:48 AM ^
They finished #20 at Massey though. It was a decent team and I accept the correction.
There's no comparison between that and the 2013 fare of Northern AZ, UNLV and UTSA. We'd be storming the barricades if an AD ever pulled that here.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:42 AM ^
Last year their best non-conference opponent was #82 UTSA; this year it was #68 Nevada.
Going back a decade for comparison's sake--in 2003 they played #1 LSU and #23 Purdue, and in 2004 they played #2 Utah and #22 Wisconsin.