AGS Top 25 - How They Fared - Week 11, Fall 2022

[Preferred Walk-On]

Without further ado, I present to you this week's How They Fared.

CLICK HERE (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ojEIZtRqSXLrx2Jg4pzEaS4Ue7yMNUwisfBJQZMkOxA/edit?usp=sharing) to see the results of games involving the top 25, others receiving votes, and even those that at one time or another this season were listed among the better teams. As always, within the sheet are links to team schedules, box scores, other rating systems, and even the discussion of the AGS poll from the past week.

Happy voting!

[uofmman1122]

The "VS AGS TOP 25" tab seems off?

Montana is listed at 0-2, but we're 0-3. Weber is listed at 3-2, but they're 1-2.

I suppose it might be correct if it's that the teams were top 25 when they played, but if they aren't now, that seems kind of silly? Why give Weber credit for beating a severely over-ranked EWU team at the beginning of the year?

Not trying to nit-pick here, but I know a lot of voters use this to help them decide resumes, and so I thought I'd bring it up.

[gofurman]

Go Furman. Congrats to all the winners today.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The "VS AGS TOP 25" tab seems off?

Montana is listed at 0-2, but we're 0-3. Weber is listed at 3-2, but they're 1-2.

I suppose it might be correct if it's that the teams were top 25 when they played, but if they aren't now, that seems kind of silly? Why give Weber credit for beating a severely over-ranked EWU team at the beginning of the year?

Not trying to nit-pick here, but I know a lot of voters use this to help them decide resumes, and so I thought I'd bring it up.

We've went over this for a decade plus now. You get what you get when you play the teams and what they were ranked at that time. I mean, unless you want to go back and reset each teams stats based on each week's occurrences. Trust me, the task is big enough with how it is done now let alone adding that retro activity to it.

I think the voters all know how it works and can give it a proper weighting in individual cases. Now, if somebody wants up some AI or any programs that will do it for us I'm all for it but there is only so much work anyone should ask of people doing it all for free.xthumbsupx

By the way the team Weber played in EWU was much better than the team we played today. Does that mean Weber deserves the extra style point? No, but all the same it isn't that big of a pivot point.

[dewey]

We've went over this for a decade plus now. You get what you get when you play the teams and what they were ranked at that time. I mean, unless you want to go back and reset each teams stats based on each week's occurrences. Trust me, the task is big enough with how it is done now let alone adding that retro activity to it.

I think the voters all know how it works and can give it a proper weighting in individual cases. Now, if somebody wants up some AI or any programs that will do it for us I'm all for it but there is only so much work anyone should ask of people doing it all for free.xthumbsupx

By the way the team Weber played in EWU was much better than the team we played today. Does that mean Weber deserves the extra style point? No, but all the same it isn't that big of a pivot point.

I agree it should count as to where the team was ranked when they played. Some teams like EWU are ranked high early and are later found out to be not good but other teams have injuries after they were ranked that affect the team going forward.

Rankings early in the season are tough. We all know that.

Kudos to PWO for putting this crucial voting document together week after week.

Dewey

[uofmman1122]

We've went over this for a decade plus now. You get what you get when you play the teams and what they were ranked at that time. I mean, unless you want to go back and reset each teams stats based on each week's occurrences. Trust me, the task is big enough with how it is done now let alone adding that retro activity to it.

I think the voters all know how it works and can give it a proper weighting in individual cases. Now, if somebody wants up some AI or any programs that will do it for us I'm all for it but there is only so much work anyone should ask of people doing it all for free.xthumbsupx

By the way the team Weber played in EWU was much better than the team we played today. Does that mean Weber deserves the extra style point? No, but all the same it isn't that big of a pivot point.
Fair enough, it is a pretty huge lift to update that every week. I suppose I'd probably just ignore the column completely, though.

[MSUBobcat]

Fair enough, it is a pretty huge lift to update that every week. I suppose I'd probably just ignore the column completely, though.

I think most of the AGS voters are pretty aware of the resumes of the Top 35ish regardless of what the win-loss vs. Top 25 teams says. Our voters know their ****.

[wapiti]

I think most of the AGS voters are pretty aware of the resumes of the Top 35ish regardless of what the win-loss vs. Top 25 teams says. Our voters know their ****.

Some of the ags voters are buying the hype of Jackson State. They are at best a top 30 team. Which means they may not even be in orv. So not all ags voters know their ****.

[Preferred Walk-On]

The "VS AGS TOP 25" tab seems off?

Montana is listed at 0-2, but we're 0-3. Weber is listed at 3-2, but they're 1-2.

I suppose it might be correct if it's that the teams were top 25 when they played, but if they aren't now, that seems kind of silly? Why give Weber credit for beating a severely over-ranked EWU team at the beginning of the year?

Not trying to nit-pick here, but I know a lot of voters use this to help them decide resumes, and so I thought I'd bring it up.

I can appreciate this point to an extent (and yes, ursus' description is exactly why it looks the way it looks). The amount of effort to go back and re-do this based on the current week's ranked teams is unrealistic. Also, does one remove wins against then-ranked teams, or do you keep them too? It is too subjective...but then so is the poll, no matter what data are provided to help make the poll.

IMO, this column is more for reference and comparison amongst teams to help with separation. I think the extremes and sample size are often much more telling than the "tweeners". For example, if a team is 3-0 or 0-3 vs. AGS Top 25 teams (in the weeks when they were ranked), this is more suggestive of the actual strength of the team than a 1-2 or 3-2 record. Extremes with a 2-3 game sample size indicate that teams consistently beat really good teams or consistently lost to really good teams. That is maybe where this column matters. There are even posts (I can think of a few even this year) where this data is conveniently "framed" (IMO) to either favor or disfavor a team(s).

Take from it what you will, but walk down the list, and make a determination about what this column means for each team. NDSU is 0-1 (which I think clearly reflects that their schedule was a bit on the lighter side). Sac St, SDSU, and MSU are at least 2-0 (which indicates consistently beating good teams). Jackson St is 0-0, and we all know what that means.

One could make an argument for or against a few teams, like Elon (2-0), as they did lose to URI and UNH (when neither was ranked). So they really should be 2-2? I totally get it, but when they played, our voters did not even think URI or UNH should be ranked - so including them in the vs. AGS Top 25 retroactively actually helps Elon, as it looks better if they lost to "ranked" teams as opposed to two "unranked" teams, right? Or alternatively, it makes them look worse, as it might indicate that they cannot consistently beat the better teams of the FCS. It is all in the eye of the beholder. At the end of the day, Elon did beat two other "ranked" teams at the time (and I believe they are both still ranked), so...subjectiveness abounds. One may use/ignore the column as they wish, but it is there as a data point, nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I appreciate the insight, but we really need 3-4 incarnations of this column then: (1) vs. Top 25 teams (ranked the week they played), (2) vs. Top 25 teams (ranked current week), (3) vs. Top 25 (ranked at any point during the season), and/or (4) vs. Top 25 (ranked when they played and current week). Who decides what the best criteria is for this column, as it could be described as "silly" for some teams in any and all forms. I know you appreciate the time that goes into this sheet, so I am sure you will understand that it must remain as is until somebody can figure out a way to automate it or is willing to re-review all weeks of the season, after every single week of the season, to update this/these columns. I unfortunately do not have the time to do this, but I am hopeful this column is at least somewhat useful to more people than not.

[MSUBobcat]

Some of the ags voters are buying the hype of Jackson State. They are at best a top 30 team. Which means they may not even be in orv. So not all ags voters know their ****.

I'm quite certain the voters know Jackson's resume. Just because their opinion differs from yours or mine doesn't negate that.

[Daytripper]

Abilene Christian should be getting some love this week. They have a solid resume with their only losses being a respectable showing at Missouri, an inexplicable loss to SFA, and a close loss to North Dakota. They walloped Sam Houston in Huntsville Saturday (although that's pretty easy to do this season).

[dewey]

I'm quite certain the voters know Jackson's resume. Just because their opinion differs from yours or mine doesn't negate that.

Completely agree. A lot of AGS voters are all over on Jackson State but I would not be clamoring that I am right and everyone else is wrong....but that is my opinion.

Dewey

[Catbooster]

Thanks for doing this once again PWO.

This week's ballot quandary for me is:
UC Davis beats Idaho beats Montana. Trying to decide how far to raise UCD/drop UI/adjust UM.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Fair enough, it is a pretty huge lift to update that every week. I suppose I'd probably just ignore the column completely, though.

Not really, it still serves as a tool for me in looking at it. I know that, as you pointed out that Weber might have been lofted a bit due to an EWU win that wasn't as shiny as it looked. So when UM played Weber at Weber I was not surprised that the game was a toss up. I think that knife cuts both ways if you pay any sort of attention at all to what is going on and I tell you that AGS voters really do. They don't really have a choice. Discussions like this do that for them whether they wanted it or not.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Thanks for doing this once again PWO.

This week's ballot quandary for me is:
UC Davis beats Idaho beats Montana. Trying to decide how far to raise UCD/drop UI/adjust UM.

It's really hard with UM. We are two different teams. We have not been at our best when playing our top competition and as such we have fallen short...barely. But the team is really tough when Lucas Johnson is in the driver's seat.

What we are depends on the pilot in the seat. If LJ is in the seat and you beat us, you are one hell of a team. I grant you that.

UC Davis is peaking hard right now though. They are probably #2 or 3 in the BSC right now. Damn good looking team right now.

[MSUBobcat]

It's really hard with UM. We are two different teams. We have not been at our best when playing our top competition and as such we have fallen short...barely. But the team is really tough when Lucas Johnson is in the driver's seat.

What we are depends on the pilot in the seat. If LJ is in the seat and you beat us, you are one hell of a team. I grant you that.

UC Davis is peaking hard right now though. They are probably #2 or 3 in the BSC right now. Damn good looking team right now.

What is the status of Johnson? He came up a bit lame but was able to leave under his own power, IIRC. Then he was on crutches on the sideline. The game was out of hand, so I get not putting him back out in the 2nd half, but was surprised to see the crutches.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

What is the status of Johnson? He came up a bit lame but was able to leave under his own power, IIRC. Then he was on crutches on the sideline. The game was out of hand, so I get not putting him back out in the 2nd half, but was surprised to see the crutches.

Yeah, you wonder if it was gamesmanship but why not just have him inside working on recovery stuff early...who knows on that one I guess. I would think he will play but maybe it was something that got to him after coming off the field.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Voters you have about a 1/2 hr. so get your votes in.