PonyFans.com

Interesting data driven approach to rankings. More so than the media biased same ol same ol. Worth a look if you take the time to understand his approach.

https://www.sharpcollegefootball.com/

Link works best from PC.

I’ll check it out, but it is kinda hard to believe we’d be ranked ahead of Maryland and TCU.

ponyboy wrote:I’ll check it out, but it is kinda hard to believe we’d be ranked ahead of Maryland and TCU.

I appreciate your candor @Ponyboy. He uses a different approach which essentially quantifies our potential(ceiling) vs the opponents potential. I think we'd all agree if we had played Maryland and TCU cleanly we would have won.....

Also, how many AP/coaches poll teams remain ranked above teams they lost to without the benefit of a rigorous quantitative approach? i.e. Texas and OU...

Interesting metrics. According to this analysis (which I do not pretend to understand but at first glance seems to be a mix of baseball and Wall St analytics), after 4 games, SMU is the best team in the AAC with Cincinnati being a close 2nd and Tulsa being a distant 3rd. Hmm.

It would be nice if it actually plays out this way.

ponywhupp9202 wrote:Interesting metrics. According to this analysis (which I do not pretend to understand but at first glance seems to be a mix of baseball and Wall St analytics), after 4 games, SMU is the best team in the AAC with Cincinnati being a close 2nd and Tulsa being a distant 3rd. Hmm.

It would be nice if it actually plays out this way.

Indeed @ponywhupp0202. Note our Lamar game does not count in his data set as he excludes FCS school matchups for "cleaner" comparisons.

https://www.sharpcollegefootball.com/

Sharp now has UCF at 7, TCU at 10, Maryland at16, SMU at 19, Navy at 51, and Cincinnati at 70.

ponyboy wrote:https://www.sharpcollegefootball.com/

Sharp now has UCF at 7, TCU at 10, Maryland at16, SMU at 19, Navy at 51, and Cincinnati at 70.

But can the Mustangs prove them right?

What’s crazy about this is that if SMU really is #19, all of the other rankings of teams we’ve played make perfect sense.

First of all, I would fully expect Bob Sharp to invent a model that would place us in the top 25.

Second, I provided him a bit of feedback. I like the model, however, special teams carries a bigger weight than it should. Realistically, our FG kicker is giving us a huge boost in the rankings, and the impact really shouldn't be nearly as large.

This is Bob Sharp’s model? Lol. I had no idea. No wonder Brisket Taco is ranked #24.

JasonB wrote:First of all, I would fully expect Bob Sharp to invent a model that would place us in the top 25.

Second, I provided him a bit of feedback. I like the model, however, special teams carries a bigger weight than it should. Realistically, our FG kicker is giving us a huge boost in the rankings, and the impact really shouldn't be nearly as large.

If we used our field goal kicker with maximum effectiveness I might disagree. He is a hell of a kicker that should have been used many more times this season IMHO.

JasonB wrote:First of all, I would fully expect Bob Sharp to invent a model that would place us in the top 25.

Second, I provided him a bit of feedback. I like the model, however, special teams carries a bigger weight than it should. Realistically, our FG kicker is giving us a huge boost in the rankings, and the impact really shouldn't be nearly as large.

Maybe you guys know something I do not? The host of this site goes by the name of Rob Bowron. Are we talking about the same person? Vanderbilt graduate?

Charleston Pony wrote:

ponyboy wrote:https://www.sharpcollegefootball.com/

Sharp now has UCF at 7, TCU at 10, Maryland at16, SMU at 19, Navy at 51, and Cincinnati at 70.

But can the Mustangs prove them right?

Exactly the right question to ask.

The most interesting stat at this point in the season is that our strength of schedule checks in at #4. Auburn, Vanderbilt and Texas Tech are the only teams with a stronger strength of schedule.

Auburn has played Mercer, San Jose State, Penn State, Missouri, LSU, Georgia, and Ole Miss.