Measuring UT's Performance via Sagarin since 2007

#1
DiderotsGhost

DiderotsGhost

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
4,497
Likes
22,683
#1
I've become a big fan of the Sagarin Ratings. The primary reason being that the human pollsters do an extremely poor job of factoring in strength of schedule and Sagarin is very good with this. The issue continues to get worse every year as the SEC is light years ahead of some of the other major conferences in terms of talent.

In spite of this, human pollsters insist on treating an 11-0 Marshall team that hasn't beat anyone of note as better than say an 8-3 Louisville or 6-5 Arkansas. To provide perspective, Marshall's highest quality win was Louisiana Tech, which is 7-4 and ranked #62 in Sagarin. Whereas, Arkansas will face 8 teams on its schedule rated higher than that. There are some downsides to computer rankings and they are a bit imprecise, but when it comes to picking the #15, #24, or #37 teams in the nation, the computers are much closer to being "correct" IMO than humans.

Tennessee is 5-6 in 2014. Unfortunately, that's not a huge improvement on paper from 4-7 at the same time last year or in some other recent years, but Sagarin tells a very different story.

Here are our Sagarin Rating performances since 2007.

2007: #15
2008: #58
2009: #36
2010: #63
2011: #50
2012: #56
2013: #60
2014: #28

Based on Sagarin, the 2014 UT team is the best since 2007, and even a slight bit ahead of the 2009 team. This becomes easier to understand once you start to look at Tennessee's schedule:

#1 Alabama
#2 Georgia
#7 Ole Miss
#9 Oklahoma
#19 Missouri
#20 Florida
#32 South Carolina
#51 Utah State
#52 Kentucky
#81 Arkansas State
#85 Chattanooga
#108 Vanderbilt

One thing to note here is that not only does Sagarin suggest that the humans have underrated Tennessee, but humans have also underrated most of Tennessee's opponents (most notably Georgia, Ole Miss, Oklahoma, and Florida). You might also note that Vanderbilt is the worst opponent we will face all year (worse than I-AA Chattanooga). Our schedule has played out fairly neatly thus far. We've beaten all the teams rated lower than us and we've lost to all the teams rated higher. Our closest games (South Carolina and Florida) are the two teams we're ranked closest to.

Overall, the SEC has 10 teams in the top 20 of the Sagarin ratings this year. We are the 11th best of the 14 SEC teams according to Sagarin:

#1 Bama
#2 UGA
#5 Miss State
#6 Auburn
#7 Ole Miss
#12 LSU
#17 Arkansas
#18 Texas A&M
#19 Missouri
#20 Florida
#28 Tennessee
#32 South Carolina
#52 Kentucky
#108 Vanderbilt

By comparison, here are the 2013 ratings of the SEC teams. We were 12th out of 14.

#3 Alabama
#4 Auburn
#7 Missouri
#10 South Carolina
#15 LSU
#22 Texas A&M
#26 Georgia
#27 Ole Miss
#31 Miss State
#36 Vanderbilt
#53 Florida
#60 Tennessee
#77 Arkansas
#104 Kentucky

So according to Sagarin, we've gained immensely relative to the rest of the NCAA, but only slightly relative to the rest of the SEC. In other words, UT has made huge strides in Year #2, but it doesn't necessarily show on paper because most of the rest of the SEC has also gotten much better, as well.

You may notice our 2014 profile doesn't look that dissimilar from Ole Miss or Miss State in 2013. Ole Miss went 8-5 and was #27 in Sagarin and Miss State went 7-6 and was #31 in Sagarin. Doesn't mean we'll be like either team next year, but it's at least interesting when you view this through the lens that we have a very young team that has shown its inexperience at times.

I know none of this is a consolation when we're 5-6 and in a must-win situation vs Vanderbilt to make a bowl game. Yet, it does showcase why simply looking at wins and losses is very flawed. This is probably UT's toughest schedule in history and we played it with a team that is basically in rebuilding mode. We've managed to limit our number of "embarrassing defeats" down to one (Ole Miss), a huge improvement over the past few years. Our worst defeats IMO have all come against teams with excellent pass rushes (Ole Miss, Oklahoma, Mizzou, etc) that were able to take advantage of our inexperienced and thin O-line.

Based on everything that has happened this year, we've taken a big step forward even if we don't show a dramatic improvement in terms of wins and losses.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 33 people
#4
#4
EXCELLENT post. That's why it feels like we're betting better but not seeing it.

Another recruiting class or two and we'll be over the hump.
 
#6
#6
I'm not saying the coaching staff isn't flawed but this team is only a few pcs and experience away from being contenders next year. We didn't expect 9 wins but improvement and a bowl which it appears we will have both goals.
 
#7
#7
Bowl game still attainable and these rankings give us an idea of how valued each team is. They are cool but we need Ws and those come with time.
 
#8
#8
2for2VOL said:
Or rankings based on facts and stats, not AP hype and preferences.
Click to expand...

I guess whatever makes you feel better...

RIB1-PAR.jpg



Last I checked...programs were judged by Wins vs Losses (Loses)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9
#9
TAF said:
I guess whatever makes you feel better...

RIB1-PAR.jpg



Last I checked...programs were judged by Wins vs Losses (Loses)
Click to expand...

It takes time to build a program up from the ground. Butch is doing it faster than just about anyone else could. Go follow Kentucky or Vandy until we're back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#12
#12
Great post, but, I'm more a follower of wins and losses. That's how I size up a team.

GO VOLS!
 
#14
#14
Anybody who cannot see we are a better team than the last few years is simply blind. CBJ had to essentially start from scratch. We have to give him time to get the recruits and depth he wants into the program. I'm as impatient as the next Vol fan and I hate losing, but CBJ is the right coach to get us there. We will be a powerhouse in college football again in the not too distant future, and not just a flash in the pan for a season or two.

Spurrier said it best when he stated really good athletic directors (which obviously excludes Mike Hamilton) hire coaches based on a ten-year outlook. Instability in our coaching staff is a major reason we are where we are today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
TAF said:
I guess whatever makes you feel better...

RIB1-PAR.jpg



Last I checked...programs were judged by Wins vs Losses (Loses)
Click to expand...

True, but if you're 12-0 and your best win is a team ranked 80th, are you really better than a 10-2 team with two losses to top 10 teams? Probably not.. why do you think Marshall is 11-0 and nobody cares? Tennessee at 5-6 could probably smash a couple of top 25 teams.
 
#20
#20
TAF said:
Had a chance last night...

Got "smashed"....

jack.jpg
Click to expand...



You're looking more and more foolish with every post. If you think wins and losses are the only way to evaluate a team in year 2 that has been through what we have been through then you clearly don't have the 1st clue about how college football works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#21
#21
I prefer the Sagarin ranking too, at least this year; according to that we're #20 and FSU is #16... UAr at 6-5 is only 1 spot behind that 11-0 FSU team at #17.

I like the man's SOS rankings, but those overall rankings seem a bit off.
 
#22
#22
DiderotsGhost said:
I've become a big fan of the Sagarin Ratings. The primary reason being that the human pollsters do an extremely poor job of factoring in strength of schedule and Sagarin is very good with this. The issue continues to get worse every year as the SEC is light years ahead of some of the other major conferences in terms of talent.

In spite of this, human pollsters insist on treating an 11-0 Marshall team that hasn't beat anyone of note as better than say an 8-3 Louisville or 6-5 Arkansas. To provide perspective, Marshall's highest quality win was Louisiana Tech, which is 7-4 and ranked #62 in Sagarin. Whereas, Arkansas will face 8 teams on its schedule rated higher than that. There are some downsides to computer rankings and they are a bit imprecise, but when it comes to picking the #15, #24, or #37 teams in the nation, the computers are much closer to being "correct" IMO than humans.

Tennessee is 5-6 in 2014. Unfortunately, that's not a huge improvement on paper from 4-7 at the same time last year or in some other recent years, but Sagarin tells a very different story.

Here are our Sagarin Rating performances since 2007.

2007: #15
2008: #58
2009: #36
2010: #63
2011: #50
2012: #56
2013: #60
2014: #28

Based on Sagarin, the 2014 UT team is the best since 2007, and even a slight bit ahead of the 2009 team. This becomes easier to understand once you start to look at Tennessee's schedule:

#1 Alabama
#2 Georgia
#7 Ole Miss
#9 Oklahoma
#19 Missouri
#20 Florida
#32 South Carolina
#51 Utah State
#52 Kentucky
#81 Arkansas State
#85 Chattanooga
#108 Vanderbilt

One thing to note here is that not only does Sagarin suggest that the humans have underrated Tennessee, but humans have also underrated most of Tennessee's opponents (most notably Georgia, Ole Miss, Oklahoma, and Florida). You might also note that Vanderbilt is the worst opponent we will face all year (worse than I-AA Chattanooga). Our schedule has played out fairly neatly thus far. We've beaten all the teams rated lower than us and we've lost to all the teams rated higher. Our closest games (South Carolina and Florida) are the two teams we're ranked closest to.

Overall, the SEC has 10 teams in the top 20 of the Sagarin ratings this year. We are the 11th best of the 14 SEC teams according to Sagarin:

#1 Bama
#2 UGA
#5 Miss State
#6 Auburn
#7 Ole Miss
#12 LSU
#17 Arkansas
#18 Texas A&M
#19 Missouri
#20 Florida
#28 Tennessee
#32 South Carolina
#52 Kentucky
#108 Vanderbilt

By comparison, here are the 2013 ratings of the SEC teams. We were 12th out of 14.

#3 Alabama
#4 Auburn
#7 Missouri
#10 South Carolina
#15 LSU
#22 Texas A&M
#26 Georgia
#27 Ole Miss
#31 Miss State
#36 Vanderbilt
#53 Florida
#60 Tennessee
#77 Arkansas
#104 Kentucky

So according to Sagarin, we've gained immensely relative to the rest of the NCAA, but only slightly relative to the rest of the SEC. In other words, UT has made huge strides in Year #2, but it doesn't necessarily show on paper because most of the rest of the SEC has also gotten much better, as well.

You may notice our 2014 profile doesn't look that dissimilar from Ole Miss or Miss State in 2013. Ole Miss went 8-5 and was #27 in Sagarin and Miss State went 7-6 and was #31 in Sagarin. Doesn't mean we'll be like either team next year, but it's at least interesting when you view this through the lens that we have a very young team that has shown its inexperience at times.

I know none of this is a consolation when we're 5-6 and in a must-win situation vs Vanderbilt to make a bowl game. Yet, it does showcase why simply looking at wins and losses is very flawed. This is probably UT's toughest schedule in history and we played it with a team that is basically in rebuilding mode. We've managed to limit our number of "embarrassing defeats" down to one (Ole Miss), a huge improvement over the past few years. Our worst defeats IMO have all come against teams with excellent pass rushes (Ole Miss, Oklahoma, Mizzou, etc) that were able to take advantage of our inexperienced and thin O-line.

Based on everything that has happened this year, we've taken a big step forward even if we don't show a dramatic improvement in terms of wins and losses.
Click to expand...
Uhh...all posts are supposed to be negative on here today. I suggest that you quit trying to calm the children down and start criticizing ASAP.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top