Rankings Thread ... or, Having Fun and Games with the Colley Matrix

[SoCalPat]

The Colley Matrix has a feature which allows you to change results of games. It's a fun form of torture for teams that have suffered multiple close losses, like Utah.

Anyway, if you change the OSU and UCLA results to wins, Utah would be No. 1. I don't care what anyone says, if you're No. 1 in any of the computer polls at this point in the season, you can put playing for a national title at the top of your goals.

Beating OSU and UCLA, but losing to BYU? Utah slides all the way to 9th, one spot behind (interestingly enough) Stanford.

Utah is currently 26th in Colley, but even if we get the OSU game, Utah rises all the way to 10th.

FWIW, Oregon is only 5th in Colley, but No. 1 in Sagarin. So these computer models can be just as inconsistent as the voters.

How the remaining five BCS computer models have Utah:

Anderson-Hester: 24th

Billingsley: 20th

Massey: 17th

Sagarin: 27th

Wolfe: First rankings don't come out until Oct. 20.

[OrangeUte]

The Colley Matrix has a feature which allows you to change results of games. It's a fun form of torture for teams that have suffered multiple close losses, like Utah.

Anyway, if you change the OSU and UCLA results to wins, Utah would be No. 1. I don't care what anyone says, if you're No. 1 in any of the computer polls at this point in the season, you can put playing for a national title at the top of your goals.

Beating OSU and UCLA, but losing to BYU? Utah slides all the way to 9th, one spot behind (interestingly enough) Stanford.

Utah is currently 26th in Colley, but even if we get the OSU game, Utah rises all the way to 10th.

FWIW, Oregon is only 5th in Colley, but No. 1 in Sagarin. So these computer models can be just as inconsistent as the voters.

How the remaining five BCS computer models have Utah:

Anderson-Hester: 24th

Billingsley: 20th

Massey: 17th

Sagarin: 27th

Wolfe: First rankings don't come out until Oct. 20.

Thanks, Pat. That is very interesting. And, now I am going to go spend the rest of my morning playing with the colley ranking tool while I should be working.

It feels like we could have gotten a little more of a bump from the Stanford win in the voting but we didn't. However, it is possible to make a big jump into the polls with wins the next two weeks.

[jrj84105]

What happens if OSU beats EWU?

[SoCalPat]

What happens if OSU beats EWU?

Good question. Even more interesting answer. If we beat OSU, OSU beats EWU and all else remains the same, Utah is still 10th.

[Utah]

Where does OSU sit if they beat us and EWU and are undefeated right now?

[SoCalPat]

Where does OSU sit if they beat us and EWU and are undefeated right now?

When I tried changing the outcomes of those two games, there was no change. But that's not an accurate description. Colley does not rank individual FCS teams; instead, he places them in various groups. None of his FCS groups were assigned a record higher than 3-3, and even after I had OSU beating "FCS Group 8" (the highest "ranked" FCS team in the Colley), the results still did not change.

My guess is that the "What If?" in the Colley web site does not apply to FCS contests, or that I'm filling out the fields incorrectly.

[Utah]

When I tried changing the outcomes of those two games, there was no change. But that's not an accurate description. Colley does not rank individual FCS teams; instead, he places them in various groups. None of his FCS groups were assigned a record higher than 3-3, and even after I had OSU beating "FCS Group 8" (the highest "ranked" FCS team in the Colley), the results still did not change.

My guess is that the "What If?" in the Colley web site does not apply to FCS contests, or that I'm filling out the fields incorrectly.

Thanks. I'll do this the old fashioned way then.

OSU was #25 to start the season.

USC, Wisc, TCU, Boise, Nebraska, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State have all lost since then. Other teams have lost as well, but we are into top 10 realm and SEC country and an SEC one loss team is always better than a no loss PAC-12 team that started off only ranked #25.

That means that had OSU beaten EWU, they, at worst, would be ranked #14 right now. With how they have been blowing teams out, and Utah beating Stanford and OSU beating Utah, they might even be ranked a little closer to 10.

All because they lost to EWU, OSU is unranked instead of a top 15 program. Crazy.

[SoCalPat]

Utah State moved into the Top 40 of the Sagarin rankings this week. This is significant because that puts 10 of Utah's 11 FBS opponents in the Top 40 (If you're a critic of Kyle who is looking for change and don't acknowledge this, you're not entitled to have anyone take you seriously). If USU wins out, it's likely this distinction sticks. Even if No. 34 Wazzu loses out, it will likely stay in the Top 40 because of its No. 3 SOS. The outlier, Colorado, still ain't half-shabby at No. 81.

Utah has 7 games against Top 30 teams, the most of anyone in the country. Only a handful of teams (all in the Pac-12 and SEC have six). In fact, Utah's 7 games vs. Top 30 opponents is more than the Nos 1-3 teams (Florida State, Alabama, Baylor) COMBINED.

The lowest ranked team with a win vs. a Top 30 opponent is No. 97 Virginia. (Snicker ...)

Unless Wisconsin gets to Pasadena, I predict a Pac-12 slaughter of either Ohio State or Michigan State, both of whom have combined for one game against the top 30 (OSU's win against Michigan). From a power/computer perspective, the Big 10 is the new/old MWC, when it had Utah, TCU and BYU.

[sancho]

(If you're a critic of Kyle who is looking for change and don't acknowledge this, you're not entitled to have anyone take you seriously).

I would go one step further and say if you're a critic of Kyle, you're not entitled to have anyone take you seriously.



Unless Wisconsin gets to Pasadena, I predict a Pac-12 slaughter of either Ohio State or Michigan State

Why any different for Wisconsin? All they do is lose Rose Bowls.

[SoCalPat]

I would go one step further and say if you're a critic of Kyle, you're not entitled to have anyone take you seriously.

Why any different for Wisconsin? All they do is lose Rose Bowls.

Kyle ain't perfect and his flaws deserve scrutiny. There's plenty of middle ground between myopia and mass hysteria.

I think Wisconsin will give a better game than either OSU or Michigan State, and the recent past has bourne that out.

[Utah]

I would love to see Ohio St get creamed by Oregon. They could bring their 24 game winning streak in...and get crushed.

[justaute]

hmmm...I thought this place would be better than UFN in that there would be less emotional reaction and more intellectually honest discussions. I may have to reconsider.

Although I think Kyle deserves some latitude and at least another year, he certainly has his share of shortcomings. btw...I don't need to say IMO. If I said it, of course it's my opinion.

[LA Ute]

hmmm...I thought this place would be better than UFN in that there would be less emotional reaction and more intellectually honest discussions. I may have to reconsider.

Although I think Kyle deserves some latitude and at least another year, he certainly has his share of shortcomings. btw...I don't need to say IMO. If I said it, of course it's my opinion.

Hang in with us. This is a good place.

[justaute]

Agreed, LA. Collectively, this place is much more civil. I guess I just can't stand name-calling or the my-way-or-you-are-an-idiot type of discussions. My tolerance for idiocy is next to none.


Hang in with us. This is a good place.

[sancho]

Although I think Kyle deserves some latitude and at least another year, he certainly has his share of shortcomings.

I am confused by your reaction. If you want harsher opinions toward Kyle, utefans is the perfect place for you. There are a number of fans there who would have fired him a long time ago.

You want more intellectually honest discussion? I can't give you intellectual, but I can give you my honest opinion. Kyle is the guy for this job. There are either few or none others who could win coach of the year at Utah and stick around. We have someone who (1) can coach and (2) doesn't want this job as a stepping stone. When you find that rare combo, you keep it.

Look at comparable schools in BCS conferences: Mississippi, Mississippi State, ASU, Arizona, Boston College, NCState, Iowa State, Minnesota, etc, etc. What do they all have in common? They can't keep a coach for more than 4-5 years. Either the coach is successful and leaves or the coach is unsuccessful and gets canned. Rinse and repeat.

Why are some people demanding Kyle's head? (1) MMQB syndrome (we should run this play more, can't believe we went for it there, etc). This is, of course, just fan talk. Few to none of us know more about football than the coaches on staff, and there is no pattern of inexcusable mistakes in this area. (2) The difficulties with QBs. This is bad luck, pure and simple. We lost Wynn, we lost Wilson - everyone else was just filling in. I guess there was some expectation that we should have star QBs laying around on our bench in case of injury. (3) The lack of offensive identity. This goes back to the Norm Chow hire, which we all thought was a good idea at the time. Turned out to be a horrible idea, but how can we hold that against Kyle?

Our patience with Whittingham will pay off. It's not going to pay off with Utah turning into USC. It's going to pay off with Utah having great seasons every once in a while.


My tolerance for idiocy is next to none.

Sports fan boards - or the internet in general - might not be for you. All you will ever find are people with opinions that differ from your own.

[U-Ute]

(2) The difficulties with QBs. This is bad luck, pure and simple. We lost Wynn, we lost Wilson - everyone else was just filling in. I guess there was some expectation that we should have star QBs laying around on our bench in case of injury. (3) The lack of offensive identity. This goes back to the Norm Chow hire, which we all thought was a good idea at the time. Turned out to be a horrible idea, but how can we hold that against Kyle?

I think that these two things go hand in hand, but some of it does need to be laid at the feet of Kyle. Back in the MWC, we could just line up and smash people, and who you had behind center didn't matter as much. All they needed to do was manage games, not win games. We can't do that in the PAC-12. But because of our experience in the MWC, I believe Kyle got caught a bit flat footed in recruiting QB's. That being said, if the last two recruiting classes ('13 and who has committed for '14) are any indicator, it appears he learned his lesson.

As for the now, it seems like we got caught in some sort of strange Perfect Storm of football circumstances:



Start with an under-recruited position
Add in a nostalgic love affair fans have with the spread option offense of '04 which has turned into a fad in college football, putting pressure on Kyle to run a spread offense.
Causing an indecisiveness on Kyle's part about what kind of offense he wants to run
Leading to turnover at the OC position as he tries to figure it out
Add in career ending injuries to, potentially, two straight QB's that started as freshmen
And a move to a much more competitive conference as a cherry on top.


That makes for a messed up offensive philosophy: It seems like we have offensive linemen that can play smash mouth football, QB's that were recruited to run the spread offense, fantastic tight ends that can block and catch, and receivers that are undersized, a bit slow, and can't consistently catch the ball.

I get a sense he hasn't fully committed to this spread offense thing. In reality, it seems like we're kind of half and half. We do both things OK, but neither of them great. I'm not sure we can succeed in the long run this way.

To me, it seems like Kyle needs to take this offseason taking a long hard look in the mirror and decide what offense can succeed here, and then commit to it down to his soul no matter what the fans think. Whether we look like Oregon or Wisconsin, if he wins, the fans will be happy.

[justaute]

Not sure what you are inferring that makes you confused. Did I say or imply I want harsher opinions of Kyle? No. Which part of "...I think Kyle deserves some latitude and at least another year,..." is difficult to comprehend?

I'm certainly not ready to give-up on Kyle; at the same time, I'm not ready to bestow upon him the future of Utah in that I believe he's made a few administration errors. We all have our opinions. Not only am I ok with that, I actually enjoy that. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean people have to be a$$ about it. A healthy debate and having differing opinions are fun and entertaining. What's wrong with having a bit of courtesy and respect while doing so? Does being an asshat make one's point more salient or valid?

And, I certainly don't need a rudimentary comment about whether the internet/forum is or isn't for me. Though, clearly, you have the right to express that. Having read your comments on both here and UFN, that's certainly not unexpected.


I am confused by your reaction. If you want harsher opinions toward Kyle, utefans is the perfect place for you. There are a number of fans there who would have fired him a long time ago.

You want more intellectually honest discussion? I can't give you intellectual, but I can give you my honest opinion. Kyle is the guy for this job. There are either few or none others who could win coach of the year at Utah and stick around. We have someone who (1) can coach and (2) doesn't want this job as a stepping stone. When you find that rare combo, you keep it.

Look at comparable schools in BCS conferences: Mississippi, Mississippi State, ASU, Arizona, Boston College, NCState, Iowa State, Minnesota, etc, etc. What do they all have in common? They can't keep a coach for more than 4-5 years. Either the coach is successful and leaves or the coach is unsuccessful and gets canned. Rinse and repeat.

Why are some people demanding Kyle's head? (1) MMQB syndrome (we should run this play more, can't believe we went for it there, etc). This is, of course, just fan talk. Few to none of us know more about football than the coaches on staff, and there is no pattern of inexcusable mistakes in this area. (2) The difficulties with QBs. This is bad luck, pure and simple. We lost Wynn, we lost Wilson - everyone else was just filling in. I guess there was some expectation that we should have star QBs laying around on our bench in case of injury. (3) The lack of offensive identity. This goes back to the Norm Chow hire, which we all thought was a good idea at the time. Turned out to be a horrible idea, but how can we hold that against Kyle?

Our patience with Whittingham will pay off. It's not going to pay off with Utah turning into USC. It's going to pay off with Utah having great seasons every once in a while.



Sports fan boards - or the internet in general - might not be for you. All you will ever find are people with opinions that differ from your own.

[sancho]

Back in the MWC, we could just line up and smash people, and who you had behind center didn't matter as much. All they needed to do was manage games, not win games. We can't do that in the PAC-12. But because of our experience in the MWC, I believe Kyle got caught a bit flat footed in recruiting QB's.

I don't think this was ever true of the MWC. We had success there whenever we had good QBs, and we struggled whenever we had mediocre QBs.

If I remember correctly, the staff has always tried to land 1-2 QBs in every class. We lost some close battles, and we had a key recruit string us along and then de-commit last minute. I agree with your assessment - it was a perfect storm that led to our QB/offensive failures, and I don't blame the coaches all that much for it. I think for the most part, they made smart decisions that worked out very poorly.

[sancho]

And, I certainly don't need a rudimentary comment about whether the internet/forum is or isn't for me. Though, clearly, you have the right to express that. Having read your comments on both here and UFN, that's certainly not unexpected.

Excuse me, I didn't mean to imply that this board is not for you. Not my intent at all. I simply meant that if you have a low tolerance for idiocy, the internet will only let you down.

[justaute]

sancho....we're cool. Thanks for clarifying.

Plus, the internet/people has never really let me down. I just happen to have very little expectation of people. :)


Excuse me, I didn't mean to imply that this board is not for you. Not my intent at all. I simply meant that if you have a low tolerance for idiocy, the internet will only let you down.

[U-Ute]

sancho....we're cool. Thanks for clarifying.

Plus, the internet/people has never really let me down. I just happen to have very little expectation of people. :)

It'll be close, but I may be able to clear that bar.

[SoCalPat]

Pac-12 toughest conference in nation, according to Sagarin. Seven of the 10 toughest schedules played by Pac-12 teams.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2013/conference/

[sancho]

Pac-12 toughest conference in nation, according to Sagarin. Seven of the 10 toughest schedules played by Pac-12 teams.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2013/conference/

This would have been a nice season to belong to the ACC coastal division, the Big10, or the Big12. Or even the SEC - just to have only 8 conference games. We could have added a 4th non-conf win and maybe gone bowling.

[SoCalPat]

This would have been a nice season to belong to the ACC coastal division, the Big10, or the Big12. Or even the SEC - just to have only 8 conference games. We could have added a 4th non-conf win and maybe gone bowling.

Yep. Let's see how our 9-game Pac-12 slate proponents feel about that.

I have been consistent on this point ever since expansion: Eight league games is the way to go. Finishing No. 1 in SOS is a notable talking point, but I'd rather win 9 or more games and have my SOS in the 30s. We have the precious, nationally reknown rivalry games of USC-Cal and UCLA-Stanford to thank for the 9-game slate.

[sancho]

Yep. Let's see how our 9-game Pac-12 slate proponents feel about that.

I have been consistent on this point ever since expansion: Eight league games is the way to go. Finishing No. 1 in SOS is a notable talking point, but I'd rather win 9 or more games and have my SOS in the 30s. We have the precious, nationally reknown rivalry games of USC-Cal and UCLA-Stanford to thank for the 9-game slate.

You are right. We should not be killing ourselves over those games while the SEC basks in glory. The SEC has mastered the art of the SOS. The ideal SOS is in the 40-60 range. It's high enough that people will let you into a good bowl/playoff, and it's low enough that you can actually win games.