Uncategorized

FEI Week 14 Ratings

FEI Week 14 Ratings Brian Fremeau 09 Dec 2020, 02:26 pm

BYU Cougars wide receiver Neil Pau'u

In what may eventually be remembered as the “most 2020 ” game of the 2020 season, undefeated BYU traveled to undefeated Coastal Carolina to play on Saturday in a game that had not been on the books as of the writing of this article last Wednesday. The competition did not disappoint, with the two teams trading both figurative and literal blows over 21 non-garbage properties, concluding with a spectacular 81 -yard possible game-winning drive by BYU that was stopped 1 garden balk of the end zone with a game-saving tackle by the Chanticleers. The recreation encapsulated everything we love about college football and then some, with unusually high-profile stakes attached to what would have been a very low-profile game on paper at the start of the year, doused in the absurd importance of 54-hours-notice-game-of-the-year vibes.

The College Football Playoff committee, however, wasn’t expected to give the game much more than a enact gesture, and they didn’t. Coastal Carolina and BYU simply swopped positions in the CFP higher-rankings this week — BYU put from 13 th to 18 th, and Coastal jumped from 18 th to 13 th. I don’t know if that is at all inconsistent with how the playoff committee has plowed Ability 5 teams in similar standings over its first year, but there are plenty of indications that have shown that both BYU and Coastal Carolina should already ought to have higher leader into the game, and that a close loss by either team should not have been an albatross.

Consider the Power 5 crews currently ranked in the CFP top 12 that have suffered only one loss to date this season. No. 3 Clemson had a 47 -4 0 double-overtime loss to No. 2 Notre Dame on the road. No. 5 Texas A& M had a 52 -2 4 loss to No. 1 Alabama on the road. No. 6 Florida had a 41 -3 8 loss to No. 5 Texas A& M on the road. No. 10 Miami had a 42 -1 7 loss on to No. 3 Clemson on the road. No. 12 Indiana had a 42 -3 5 loss to No. 4 Ohio State on the road.

FEI has all of the same squads graded the coming week among its top 17. But it also has BYU hanging in at No. 4 following its 22 -1 7 loss to No. 10 Coastal Carolina on the road.

This isn’t to suggest that FEI is a better playoff ranking structure than the choices committee, and I’ve been very quick to admit that the FEI formula this year may struggle to see the relative concentrations of units in particular due to the lack of interconnectivity between forums. But I do want to underscore that the reason BYU and Coastal Carolina are both buoyed by the FEI system is similar to the same logic that floats Clemson in relation to Notre Dame; Florida and Texas A& M in relation to Alabama; and Indiana in relation to Ohio State. When two elite, good, or median units play one another, especially in a tightly rivalry sport, logic therefore seems that they are still elite, good, or median teams on the other side of that outcome.

And in BYU’s case, even after sustain its first loss of the season and composing simply 17 times, they still lead the commonwealth in every fresh cyberspace efficiency list I track. Is their planned concentration on equivalence with the Power 5 one-loss squads coming passion? No, but it isn’t way worse. For precedent, an society squad( two standard deviation better than average) would be expected to lose 0.29 more recreations against Florida’s schedule to date than against BYU’s schedule to date. A good unit( one standard deviation better than average) would be expected to lose 0.83 more sports against Clemson’s schedule to date than against BYU’s schedule to date. And an average team would be expected to lose 0.62 more sports against Indiana’s schedule to date than against BYU’s schedule to date. Those schedule-strength discrepancies need to be balanced against raw efficiency, and it’s a challenge to find the right balance. My biggest objection with the committee is that they seem to treat the relative planned strengths of Group of 5 teams as far worse than they actually are.

There’s something else interesting that the big game upshots reputation thus far point to, and that’s home-field advantage. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, there are reduced capacity armies at every boast episode, and for several units and conferences , no love in attendance at all. This has led to speculation that home-field advantage may be at an all-time low-toned, or potentially even a non-factor in game outcomes. It’s more selective a sample to point to the road losses by BYU, Clemson, Florida, Texas A& M, Miami, and Indiana as indicators that home-field advantage is as strong as it has ever been, but it drew me wonder.

A deeper study of home-field advantage could certainly be developed to explore this hypothesis, but I thought it would be interesting to simply calculate the average margin of victory of home squads in conference games from 2007 to present. Conference recreations aren’t a altogether neutral data set, properly speaking, but we would expect to find more symmetry between rivals( as opposed to strong squads almost entirely representing multitude to weak teams in non-conference competitions) in such a sample. If 2020 is an outlier due to dangerously lessened populaces, conference-game home-field advantage data should reveal that impact.

Image 1

Home-field advantage in conference games in 2020 by this computation is only + 1.9 qualities per game, a full 0.9 times less than the + 2.8 sites per game average over the 14 -year span. This could be the indicator of the impact of hordes on home-field advantage that we hypothesized, but there are other recent seasons with comparably small-minded home-field advantages drawn from the data. In 2018, the documents of the conference activity home-field advantage was only +2.0 extents per sport, and in 2014 the conference play home-field advantage was at an “all-time”( since 2007) low, at simply +1.8 stages per sport. Neither of those two seasons , nor any of the other plays in the straddle, had any self-evident systemic factors such as COVID to suggest home-field advantage is advisable to dramatically impacted. And the relatively steady betting line trend over the last seven seasons therefore seems that the knowledge of armies has been picking up not on a precipitous change in home-field advantage, but on something more like a year-over-year trend.

This is just the start of a deeper dive I’d like to take on the subject in the offseason. For one thing, I may be using these overall trends to fix insidious changes in the manner in which I apply home-field advantage to FEI ratings and FEI game juttings. There are also sample-size changes to consider, but it would be well worth exploring the degree to which these changes are or are not consistent across individual gatherings — perhaps especially in the wake of conference realignment shake-ups that have happened over the span.

Are there any other possibilities to consider? We’ve been situation to treat the packed and electric feeling of an 80,000 -seat stadium as an scare environment that can be a difference-maker in a big game. But I’ve been skeptical over the years of how much the crowd itself truly matters in comparison to the other factors in play related to home versus street scenarios — the travel, dislocations to chores, opennes with the facilities, weather, etc. BYU and Coastal Carolina played in front of simply 5,000 devotees. Would a full house of 20,000 or more have made a bigger gap, were the unique travel circumstances of this recreation a bigger factor, or was home field not actually much of a factor in Conrad, South Carolina, at all?

The same questions apply to Clemson and Notre Dame on November 7, and Indiana and Ohio State on November 21, and in every tournament this season. The biggest activities remaining will almost entirely be hosted at neutral-site spots, in conference championship sports, bowl games, and ultimately, playoff semifinals and finals. And it may be a long time, hopefully not too long, before we’ll repopulate stadiums with full houses and gather more data to indicate whether this is an outlier or a trend.

2020 FEI Ratings( through Week 14)

FEI ratings( FEI) represent the per-possession scoring advantage a crew would be expected to have on a neutral realm against an average opponent. Offense ratings( OFEI) and defense ratings( DFEI) represent the per-possession scoring advantages for each crew cell against an average opponent force. FEI, OFEI, and DFEI ratings are based on a combination of opponent-adjusted ensues to date and preseason projections.

Net points per drive( NPD) represents the difference between degrees tallied per offensive drive and moments stood per foe offensive drive. Net accessible yards percentage( NAY) is the difference between offensive available yards percentage and rival offense available grounds percentage. Net gardens per comedy( NPP) represents the difference between drive grounds per offensive play-act and drive grounds let per opponent onslaught movement. Three different planned persuasivenes ratings for sports toy to date are provided, based on current FEI ratings, representing such expected number of damages an society squad two standard deviations better than average would have against the made team’s schedule( ELS ), the expected number of losses a good team one standard deviation above average would have against the following schedule( GLS ), and the expected number of damages an average team would have against the schedule( ALS ).

Ratings and corroborating data are calculated from the results of non-garbage self-possessions in FBS vs. FBS games .

Rk Team Rec FEI OFEI Rk DFEI Rk NPD Rk NAY Rk NPP Rk ELS Rk GLS Rk ALS Rk 1 Alabama 9-0 1.54 2.49 1. 72 12 2.70 2. 323 2 3.66 2 1.14 32 3.12 15 5.68 10 2 Ohio State 5-0 1.19 1.85 2. 66 14 1.77 10. 262 4 1.57 13. 54 80 1.53 78 2.90 79 3 Clemson 8-1 1.11 1.25 7 1.33 1 2.16 4. 253 6 1.92 8 1.11 34 2.80 29 5.11 23 4 BYU 8-1 1.09 1.60 4. 73 11 2.83 1. 373 1 4.04 1. 78 61 1.97 64 3.89 60 5 Notre Dame 10 -0 .89 1.20 9. 74 10 1.91 6. 267 3 2.05 7. 98 44 2.48 46 4.70 38 6 Florida 8-1 .88 1.61 3. 28 38 1.86 7. 239 8 2.37 3 1.07 38 2.70 37 4.89 27 7 Wisconsin 2-2 .88. 59 27 1.11 4 1.00 27. 136 22. 47 42. 65 71 1.57 77 2.62 87 8 Georgia 6-2 .81. 65 23. 93 6. 86 30. 113 29. 63 39 1.59 7 3.07 16 4.98 24 9 Oklahoma 6-2 .78 1.03 11. 50 24 1.41 12. 189 15 1.27 20. 92 52 2.41 47 4.41 47 10 Coastal Carolina 9-0 .74 1.05 10. 65 15 1.98 5. 230 10 1.23 22. 87 56 2.19 53 4.21 55 11 Cincinnati 7-0 .73. 39 41 1.14 3 1.83 9. 221 12 2.15 6. 46 86 1.49 80 3.14 75 12 Iowa 5-2 .70. 21 51. 84 8 1.02 26. 115 28. 80 35. 64 72 2.01 62 4.00 58 13 Indiana 6-1 .69. 42 38 1.00 5 1.20 18. 071 43. 36 46 1.44 14 2.82 28 4.51 43 14 Texas A& M 7-1. 62 .82 16 .53 22 1.12 22 .137 21 .87 32 1.53 8 2.91 21 4.66 40

15 Iowa State 8-2 .61. 97 12. 56 18 1.42 11. 143 18 1.34 18 1.14 31 3.05 17 5.59 12 16 Washington 3-1 .60. 87 14. 61 16 1.36 15. 257 5 1.43 15. 24 104. 86 106 1.89 106 17 Miami 8-1 .55. 77 17. 39 30 1.04 25. 104 32. 99 28 1.09 37 2.63 40 4.88 28 18 USC 4-0 .55. 68 21. 55 19 1.40 13. 213 14. 30 49. 40 91 1.18 93 2.26 95 19 Texas 6-3 .52. 74 18. 21 42. 77 35. 050 49. 60 41 1.01 41 2.71 36 4.98 25 20 Northwestern 5-1 .48 -. 18 79 1.18 2. 83 31. 027 56 -. 02 65. 91 53 2.16 56 3.73 64 21 Oregon 3-2 .47. 72 19. 09 46. 46 47. 057 47 1.69 10. 43 89 1.44 83 2.91 78 22 Utah 1-2 .46. 04 68. 85 7 -. 66 89 -. 019 69 -. 22 71. 52 83 1.22 92 2.02 103 23 UCF 6-3 .42 1.21 8 -. 19 71 1.16 19. 123 24. 86 34. 63 73 2.00 63 4.25 52 24 Northward Carolina 6-3. 42 1.43 6 -.33 83 1.08 23 .151 17 1.41 16 .78 62 2.30 49 4.64 41

25 Louisiana 9-1 .38. 51 29. 33 34. 92 29. 106 31 1.49 14. 97 46 2.52 44 4.77 33 26 Auburn 5-4 .38. 49 32. 05 49 -. 09 65 -. 022 71 -. 31 77 1.80 4 3.48 6 5.60 11 27 Appalachian State 6-3. 34 .27 47 .53 21 1.06 24 .172 16 1.26 21 .74 66 1.87 68 3.71 65

28 Oklahoma State 6-3. 32 -.01 71 .58 17 .17 55 .069 44 .28 51 1.12 33 2.84 27 5.16 20

29 Boise State 4-1. 31 .43 37 -.02 55 .61 41 .049 50 .15 59 .62 74 1.34 87 2.32 93

30 Penn State 2-5 .30. 10 60. 54 20 -. 31 73. 031 55. 04 62 1.38 18 3.00 18 4.81 31 1

I kind of goggle at Iowa …

I kind of goggle at Iowa State still having a playoff fortune, when Louisiana is sitting there with a better record and street victory over Iowa State that wasn’t close.

Can they just supplement a “state” to their name and trick the committee into thinking they are in the SEC and therefore deserves an auto-bid?

2

BYU 4? Wisconsin 7 ?

I think there needs to be a review of the formula is this is the result. I get that its hard to compare teams with zero non bunko game, but come on .. Wisconsin scored 13 extents in their two hardest activities.

3

Wisconsin emphatically remains out, but this has more to do with

In reply to by zmillard

the manner in which preseason data is phased out based on plays toy; preseason estimates account for 47% of Wisconsin’s rating, but simply 5% of Notre Dame’s rating this week as a analogy. That and the Badgers’ defense has been even stronger than projected. I don’t enjoy how FEI has been slow to react to Wisconsin( and LSU, Penn State, and Michigan …) this year, but I decided not to fiddle with the formula as this season progresses.

4

makes sense, thank you for the …

In reply to by Brian Fremeau

makes sense, thanks for the response. not having the non seminar competitions likewise tangles things up. in comparison with other formulas, yours seems to accurately had pointed out that the big-hearted 12 was debris in non convention. things should sure up by the end of the season regardless, but as an iu follower i am bewildered that squads like isu, miami and ou are ahead of the hoosiers.

5

It’s amusing that originally …

In reply to by Brian Fremeau

It’s amusing that primarily we were critical of FEI not penalizing PSU for the Indiana game; now that game is doing most of the buoying of PSU’s rating!

Read more: footballoutsiders.com