We share unique insights about college football. Be the smartest fan at the tailgate.
Southeast, USA
- Tweets 49,354
- Following 576
- Followers 55,111
- Likes 23,268
CFB rankings should be a measure of resume more than quality, right?
So why do we rank teams based on their “ranked wins” if rankings don’t reflect the quality of who they played?
No other sport does that.
Rank teams on resume. Determine resume based on opponent power ratings.
22
3
75
6,823
College basketball measures resume based on power rating quartiles.
The NFL/NBA don’t do rankings, at all.
This whole argument of “of course the SEC has so many ranked teams, it’s so they can say they have more ranked wins” is an artifact of a uniquely bad way to measure teams.
1
1
24
2,574
To address the uproar, this has proven to be statistically necessary in a lot of modeling systems. Our system already does this under the hood - completely determined by in-season data. When testing our model, we quickly discovered that you needed a discrete control for at least P4 vs G6 results or you tended to badly overrank G6 teams.
With so few inter-conf data points, if you don't do this you tend to overinflate teams in rather weak conferences because their domination of bad teams in-conference is very hard to account for in relation to teams showing warts in better ones.
A great example was that last year Texas Tech played no P4 out of conference. Due to dominating in-conference, they ended up FPI/FEI #6, and I believe climbed as high as #3 at one point.
But that was, generally speaking, proven a mirage in the playoffs. Their offense was not capable of scaling versus better competition.
Most all model schemes really struggle with scaling performances versus wildly disparate competition. I know Bill Connelly said some years ago he had to adjust SP+ because it was overrating G5 teams for this reason.
In our case, we look at each conference's results in OOC games, compare predicted results from the modeling data to the actual game results, and provide a minor offset to force them to better match. Without that offset, we found that the better G6 teams consistently get modeled to be more competitive vs major P4 teams (due to generally dominating their G6 competition) than was reflected in the actual games.
For example, Ole Miss beating Tulane 45-10 in the regular season gets treated as an outlier, and the playoff game predicted a good bit closer, when in reality the playoff game showed it wasn't an outlier at all and should have carried more weight (Ole Miss won 41-10).
So, yes, you do need an "inside baseball" conference rating stat to give some context for teams with dramatically easier schedules in easier conferences (and often with no P4 OOC opponents). This isn't an SEC vs B1G thing nearly as much as giving a ballpark for what being #1 in the B12 or ACC means vs the B1G.
This is an “inside baseball” type stat that won’t trump quality wins, schedule strength and record strength and what the committee sees on film. But it will put a number to answer the question: how tough is the daily grind in the each league? It’s not even equal within them.
48
15
184
40,355
I should add that the offset in our model is self-generating based on iteratively comparing outputs to real world results.
We found doing it on a team-by-team basis wasn’t enough because it’s limited to just your schedule.
You need to rerun it as a conference set to adjust for silo’d differences in conf quality.
7
1,517
While the depth is different, I get the distinct impression that people have forgotten 2010-2014 Malzahn era Auburn. Constant long full speed motion was a major component for both their NCG teams (see reply for examples).
I believe this motion concept has the potential to turn NFL and college football upside down.
Line a player up 15 yards deep. Give him room to accelerate toward the formation. Then have him bend left or right so he’s moving parallel to the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped.
A running start, with two directions still available.
I’ve always been drawn to gray areas in football. We have incredible offensive coaches finding new ways to use motion, but I think the depth from which a player starts his motion remains an enormous opportunity.
Some of you may have seen Lafayette line up a player 15 yards deep for a pass play a couple weeks ago. They didn’t motion him, but it was a great reminder that there’s no rule preventing a player from lining up that deep.
Now imagine using that space to build speed before the snap.
Watch the 2010 Winnipeg Blue Bombers clip below. Two players begin deep behind the quarterback and bend their paths sideways before the snap. You cannot bring the two player version to the NFL or college football, but watch the path each player takes and imagine an offensive package built around one player doing it.
A key aspect of this would be practicing the timing and execution, ensuring that the player is no longer moving toward the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped. For this concept, he must have completed his bend and be traveling parallel at the snap.
Over my time in the league, I asked a dozen different officials about this exact idea. They confirmed it could be done legally.
We were seriously exploring it, and there were coaches I worked with who wanted to implement it in a game.
As we looked into it, I dug into the NFL player tracking data going back to 2017. My summary found:
• Just 3 total snaps with a WR moving above 19 mph at the snap
• Just 3 total snaps with a RB moving above 18 mph at the snap
• Just 5 total snaps with a TE moving above 17 mph at the snap
Players in these position groups are capable of running significantly faster than those thresholds (in some cases, 3-plus mph faster). Giving them more room to accelerate could create opportunities to reach those speeds far more consistently and easily exceed them.
The potential advantage is significant, especially when you combine it with uncertainty about which direction the player is going.
Many defenses have rules and reactions for handling jet motion. But those rules become much harder to execute when the player is approaching from depth and can still bend either way. You don’t know whether he’s coming toward your side, but you know he’s going to be moving very fast.
Commit early, and he can go the other direction. Wait for him to declare, and you may be trying to match him from a near standstill.
That creates questions about leverage, pursuit angles, coverage exchanges and timing before the play even begins.
You could give him the ball. Send him across the field. Use him on a clear-out route. Make him a decoy and attack the space the defense vacates. Build complementary plays off the same starting alignment.
The defense can adjust, of course. But what does that adjustment give up elsewhere?
Coming up with a defensive plan for this could be a literal nightmare. You have to account for the speed, both possible directions and everything the offense can build around that motion. An adjustment that takes away one option could open up another.
That’s what makes this so interesting to me. A WR, RB, TE or FB starting from that depth could force defenses to rethink where they line up and when they commit.
It reminds me of baseball’s defensive shifts. An unconventional alignment became a routine part of the game, and eventually MLB changed the rules to restrict it.
I’d love to see an NFL or college staff fully explore the possibilities. Test the starting depth, the acceleration, the turn and the snap timing. Then build the complementary plays.
And no, I don’t want the NFL to ban this one too.
8
1
120
53,461
This quote from a coach on the hot seat irks me; he's misstating what was a coaching error.
The nickel defender is predicting RPO and baiting the throw here. He shows blitz but bails into the RPO throwing lane pre-throw. Not a bust.
This IS a bad read off a predictable call.
Mike Norvell today on Ashton Daniels' first pick against Alabama:
"It was gonna be a touchdown. The nickel, the guy who picked the ball, busted the coverage... Ashton read it so good. It’s what we thought might happen, but crap happens sometimes."
34
36
640
87,901
There's a thousand posts on if this was intentional, but:
Morgan said after the game he knew it was an RPO, "played it wrong", and when he saw the pull he dropped into the lane.
Whether he baited on purpose or not, knowing it was an RPO he knew where to bail to be in the lane.
1
1
23
3,027
I feel bad for Mateer with clips like this.
His pocket isn't clean. No one has separation.
He sees #0 in trail position w his head turned and tries to layer the ball. But #0 gets his head turned and undercuts.
Chambliss took these risks all day vs LSU but his WRs made it work.
Easy explanation... Arch had not one, but two 4th down conversions vs #1 Ohio State
John Mateer has this.
37
2
143
53,443
As someone else noted, the spy subtly gets a finger on the throw, which took velocity off and likely made it fall a bit shorter than intended.
With that in mind, you can't even really fault the ball placement here. This is just tough, tough sledding for Mateer.
1
15
3,202
A subtle take from this tape is that LSU's big transfer safety Benefield (#2) is consistently ineffective.
10s - has double coverage but fails to leave his feet and allows completion
17s - misjudges crosser, going too deep, allowing for the open receiver coming straight across
22s - outside trigger too late to get home, RB is abandoned in coverage (BTW, this play is totally illegal as OL #51 is way downfield and #11 is straight blocking a DB when the pass is thrown pas the LOS)
37s - completely misses the tackle on the WR entering his hook/curl zone allowing for the TD
42s - unrelated to the play but he actually falls down here
57s - has edge responsibility on Chambliss and the angle but gets completely outrun to the corner.
A 1st team MWC transfer, it was expected that he and 5* first time starter DJ Pickett would shore up LSU's secondary after losing a 1st rd CB and 3rd rd S.
Based on the tape, that may not have happened. There appears to be a notable step back in athleticism and cohesion here. Still solid, but not the elite unit that the 2025 squad was.
Ole Miss was the first team they played who has a functional passing game (and an elite one at that), so consider this something to monitor as the season progresses.
Don't be surprised if LSU goes from a big favorite vs Texas A&M's anemic passing attack to a smaller favorite or underdog vs Mississippi State later on.
Trinidad Chambliss looked like a future FIRST OVERALL PICK against LSU.
One NFL scout reportedly believes Chambliss is “so good” that he could be the first QB off the board, despite his age.
The Rebels QB might be Ole Miss’ best QB prospect since Eli Manning 😳🔥
6
57
21,682
Take the *same* dumb logic from last year, and extend it to whoever won Ole Miss vs LSU being auto-anointed a top-4 team.
Florida being FAVORED over Ole Miss is no accident.
Rather, Ole Miss, LSU, SMU, UL , and FSU may all be in the same tier of teams.
Clemson just sucks. 🤷♂️
I'm sorry, but there's zero this-year reason for LSU to be #3.
The only reason LSU is #3 is the preseason AP poll. And it took #14 Clemson from last year and made them #4, and unranked LSU and made them #9.
Team X who is slightly better than Clemson and UF is not a top-5 team.
33
11
258
54,188