1 of 1- DuckInTheMountains
- Member
Offline - Registered: 9/06/2021
- Posts: 212
ESPN's FPI doesn't like us
"and past committee behavior suggests the Ducks shouldn't be as close to the playoff as they appear to be."
My view -- past committee behavior pays attention to when players are out, and potentially to when a play-calling OC is out as well. FPI doesn't pay any attention to that.
Pretty much everyone agrees that KT is one of the very best, perhaps top 5, players in the country. I think anyone with a brain says we're a much better team with him than without him and he missed most of the Fresno game, all of the tOSU game, all of Stony Brook, all of Arizona, the last drive against Stanford when you really wanted your pass rush, and half of the Cal game. Does anyone think our FPI ratings would be better if he'd been healthy and playing in those games? We've had some other guys out with injuries that are now back, too.
Does anyone think we'd have lost to Stanford if our OC had been there? The playcalling, by comparison, was extremely poor.
The committee says they do take things like that into consideration, and so they should. It's fine for stat geeks to write articles about their stats but they really ought to acknowledge that there are non-stat considerations which the committee is specifically on record as factoring into their decisions, especially when taking aim at a particular team where those considerations apply.
- oldretiredguy
- Moderator
Offline
- Registered: 12/29/2019
- Posts: 2,244
Re: ESPN's FPI doesn't like us
DuckInTheMountains wrote:
"and past committee behavior suggests the Ducks shouldn't be as close to the playoff as they appear to be."
My view -- past committee behavior pays attention to when players are out, and potentially to when a play-calling OC is out as well. FPI doesn't pay any attention to that.
Pretty much everyone agrees that KT is one of the very best, perhaps top 5, players in the country. I think anyone with a brain says we're a much better team with him than without him and he missed most of the Fresno game, all of the tOSU game, all of Stony Brook, all of Arizona, the last drive against Stanford when you really wanted your pass rush, and half of the Cal game. Does anyone think our FPI ratings would be better if he'd been healthy and playing in those games? We've had some other guys out with injuries that are now back, too.
Does anyone think we'd have lost to Stanford if our OC had been there? The playcalling, by comparison, was extremely poor.
The committee says they do take things like that into consideration, and so they should. It's fine for stat geeks to write articles about their stats but they really ought to acknowledge that there are non-stat considerations which the committee is specifically on record as factoring into their decisions, especially when taking aim at a particular team where those considerations apply.
My opinion of ESECPN is that they try and make the news, instead of report it. I also am not a stat person: you can't measure heart. I agree, with Joe at Stanford, I think we win easily. I still think if we win out, we're in..so we'll see what happens Saturday 
- DucksReign
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 12/29/2019
- Posts: 1,289
Re: ESPN's FPI doesn't like us
I am sorry but the "if" approach to validating or not validating the outcomes of games already played is ridiculous. It serves no purpose because there is no way to prove it.
I am sure luckeye fans believe IF they played Oregon tomorrow instead of when QB CJ Stroud was making like the second start of his college career(vs 6-year senior Anthony Brown) they would win given the way Stroud is playing now.
Or WSU faithful may believe IF their head coach and 4 assistants were not fired midway through the season, they would be in contention for winning the North Division.
Heck, IF it were not for a handful of interceptions by the defense and a couple of runs by AB, Oregon might be a .500 team right now.
If if if...on and on it goes and EVERY team has a book they could write with examples...some of which, if you ask our opponents, would have had Oregon as the losing team this season.
Oregon's poor execution on the plays called and the head coach's questionable game / clock management had everything to do with Oregon's loss to Stanford than Joe Moorhead in abstentia did.
IF Oregon had beaten Stanford then the narrative would have been, "Wow they won without their OC. That is the sign of a good football team." But they lost so now it(no OC) is an excuse.
If = excuses.
- Phil
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 12/29/2019
- Posts: 2,065
Re: ESPN's FPI doesn't like us
At the end of the article it mentioned the model does not take into account the current committee rankings. Like DITM said the committee might have taken into account injuries and losing JM right before the Stanford game. Perhaps even the lousy play calling.
I have know idea if the committee gave any weight to Oregon going on the road to face Ohio State in non conference. I think teams should be encouraged not just to schedule non-conference cupcakes in hopes of going undefeated.
If Oregon wins out they can prove they can win the big games on the road like today's game, which is a lot more relevant than efficiency stats.
ESPN reporters never like the West Coast anyone. Even if you don't like Cazano you still gotta like him calling out ESPN for their 2nd rate camera coverage setup last week. I got a chuckle with how much that ruffled their feathers.
Tweet