I have been doing some research with the past Cygarin Ratings and stumbled upon a bit of an interesting quirk that has an uncanny amount of accuracy. I am far from done doing this research, so I suggest you take it with a bit of an open mind. When the day comes that I have something more substantial and quantifiable, be rest assured I will share.
Based on over fifteen years of Cygarin Ratings, I have come to recognize there is a very simple formula that seems to work for both Iowa and Iowa State almost without fail, and for that matter I have every reason to believe that it will work for any team, anywhere. It is of sorts, a corollary (or at perhaps a refinement) of the Cygarin Ratings Manifesto.
Here it is.....
First of all, it is very important to know that in the vast majority of years, both Iowa and Iowa State have been essentially equal, and more importantly that equality falls with both teams being power ranked within the range of 30th and 70th.
The understanding that Iowa State (and Iowa, for that matter) almost always falls between 30th and 70th is crucial to understanding Iowa State's dilemma with regards to a winning record
Futhermore, it's important to recognize that this is the fat area of the bell curve (30th to 70th) that for all practical purposes.... all teams are relatively equal, and outcomes are essentially toss-ups.
This of course, is the regime that is just under the radar of top-25 teams, and prevailing perception is this regime is held by P-5 teams with bowl eligibility.
For now hold that maligned thought, and let's stray off in a different direction.....
Here is the simple formula that I have come to observe has an uncanny tendency of being able to predict the season record of teams that fall within that 30th to 70th range.........
Season wins (+/- 1) = total number of sub-70 power ranked opponents played X 50% the number of opponent played power ranked between 30th and 70th.
The critical factor here is that the power ranking of the opponent used in the formula is the home field adjusted ranking.
Now that you have seen it, I am sure that most of you would suggest that this is far from rocket science, and therefore not much of a revelation. Indeed first glance suggests this is pretty much a mere application of common sense.
Actually, it is nothing more than a formulated version of breaking down opponents into "virtual loss" games, "virtual win" games, and "toss-up" games.
But lets get back on the original path and discuss maligned perceptions....
As Paul Harvey always expressed: "Now, the rest of the story"........
Contrary to perception, P-5 teams represent only 50% of the teams that reside within the 30-70 power ranking range. Indeed the makeup within the 40-70 range is as follows....
50% P-5 teams
35% mid-majors
15% FCS teams.
Without boring you with details (today) , the issue is the FORMULA is not the issue. What is the issue is the vast (and I am talking massive) disparity of INPUTS to the formula, most particularly for P-5 teams
And I mean HUGE.......
50% of the teams in the 30-70 range are not P-5 teams.
Furthermore 20% of all P-5 teams are ranked lower than 70th, many much lower.
In effect, though P5 teams do indeed dominate the top-30....they do not hold even a majority of the next 40 spots in the power rankings.
And that is profound in making a huge disparity of strengths of schedules among all P-5 teams.
In summary.....
Contrary to conventional thinking....conference play for P-5 teams is loaded with games that are easier than playing non P-5 teams.
And conversely, playing non P5 teams in non-conference play is loaded with teams equal to or tougher than playing P-5 teams.
Thus, win-loss records of P-5 teams is an incredibly pathetic indicator of relative strength and performance.
The only thing that matters in determining the win-loss record is the power ranking of the teams played that apply to the formula.
Lastly.....
For most of you, the notion of using 50% wins in the 30-70 range makes sense. In effect you are splitting the toss-up games.
What is more difficult to understand is why does a full 100% of sub-70 teams seem to work s well? Shouldn't it be a progressive scale?
The reason is quite simple....
There are 252 FBS and FCS teams, which means that there are 182 sub-70 teams that can be played.
The fact of the matter is that for teams that reside in the 30 to 70 range in the first place, the vast majority of them do not merely play sub-70 teams.....but rather teams that are substantially lower than 70th, and generally in the well below sub-100 range. That is.....virtual wins.
Moral of the story....there are 100 top-100 teams, and there are 152 sub-100 teams......schedule the sub-100 teams if you want to guarantee your schedule. And the vast majority of teams do this.
Ok, I get it. I lost most of you. But, all you really need to do is apply the simple formula to any team....and you will have a pretty good idea how any team is going to end up in the win-loss columns.
For what it's worth, in 2015....
Iowa State is anticipated to play...
Sub-70 teams: 1
40th - 70th teams: 6
Iowa is anticipated to play......
Sub-70 teams: 5
40th -70th teams: 5
Feel free to insert the above numbers into the formula yourself. And remember, this is a work in process.
(In my opinion.)
This post was edited on 4/4 7:10 AM by Cygarin
Based on over fifteen years of Cygarin Ratings, I have come to recognize there is a very simple formula that seems to work for both Iowa and Iowa State almost without fail, and for that matter I have every reason to believe that it will work for any team, anywhere. It is of sorts, a corollary (or at perhaps a refinement) of the Cygarin Ratings Manifesto.
Here it is.....
First of all, it is very important to know that in the vast majority of years, both Iowa and Iowa State have been essentially equal, and more importantly that equality falls with both teams being power ranked within the range of 30th and 70th.
The understanding that Iowa State (and Iowa, for that matter) almost always falls between 30th and 70th is crucial to understanding Iowa State's dilemma with regards to a winning record
Futhermore, it's important to recognize that this is the fat area of the bell curve (30th to 70th) that for all practical purposes.... all teams are relatively equal, and outcomes are essentially toss-ups.
This of course, is the regime that is just under the radar of top-25 teams, and prevailing perception is this regime is held by P-5 teams with bowl eligibility.
For now hold that maligned thought, and let's stray off in a different direction.....
Here is the simple formula that I have come to observe has an uncanny tendency of being able to predict the season record of teams that fall within that 30th to 70th range.........
Season wins (+/- 1) = total number of sub-70 power ranked opponents played X 50% the number of opponent played power ranked between 30th and 70th.
The critical factor here is that the power ranking of the opponent used in the formula is the home field adjusted ranking.
Now that you have seen it, I am sure that most of you would suggest that this is far from rocket science, and therefore not much of a revelation. Indeed first glance suggests this is pretty much a mere application of common sense.
Actually, it is nothing more than a formulated version of breaking down opponents into "virtual loss" games, "virtual win" games, and "toss-up" games.
But lets get back on the original path and discuss maligned perceptions....
As Paul Harvey always expressed: "Now, the rest of the story"........
Contrary to perception, P-5 teams represent only 50% of the teams that reside within the 30-70 power ranking range. Indeed the makeup within the 40-70 range is as follows....
50% P-5 teams
35% mid-majors
15% FCS teams.
Without boring you with details (today) , the issue is the FORMULA is not the issue. What is the issue is the vast (and I am talking massive) disparity of INPUTS to the formula, most particularly for P-5 teams
And I mean HUGE.......
50% of the teams in the 30-70 range are not P-5 teams.
Furthermore 20% of all P-5 teams are ranked lower than 70th, many much lower.
In effect, though P5 teams do indeed dominate the top-30....they do not hold even a majority of the next 40 spots in the power rankings.
And that is profound in making a huge disparity of strengths of schedules among all P-5 teams.
In summary.....
Contrary to conventional thinking....conference play for P-5 teams is loaded with games that are easier than playing non P-5 teams.
And conversely, playing non P5 teams in non-conference play is loaded with teams equal to or tougher than playing P-5 teams.
Thus, win-loss records of P-5 teams is an incredibly pathetic indicator of relative strength and performance.
The only thing that matters in determining the win-loss record is the power ranking of the teams played that apply to the formula.
Lastly.....
For most of you, the notion of using 50% wins in the 30-70 range makes sense. In effect you are splitting the toss-up games.
What is more difficult to understand is why does a full 100% of sub-70 teams seem to work s well? Shouldn't it be a progressive scale?
The reason is quite simple....
There are 252 FBS and FCS teams, which means that there are 182 sub-70 teams that can be played.
The fact of the matter is that for teams that reside in the 30 to 70 range in the first place, the vast majority of them do not merely play sub-70 teams.....but rather teams that are substantially lower than 70th, and generally in the well below sub-100 range. That is.....virtual wins.
Moral of the story....there are 100 top-100 teams, and there are 152 sub-100 teams......schedule the sub-100 teams if you want to guarantee your schedule. And the vast majority of teams do this.
Ok, I get it. I lost most of you. But, all you really need to do is apply the simple formula to any team....and you will have a pretty good idea how any team is going to end up in the win-loss columns.
For what it's worth, in 2015....
Iowa State is anticipated to play...
Sub-70 teams: 1
40th - 70th teams: 6
Iowa is anticipated to play......
Sub-70 teams: 5
40th -70th teams: 5
Feel free to insert the above numbers into the formula yourself. And remember, this is a work in process.
(In my opinion.)
This post was edited on 4/4 7:10 AM by Cygarin
