I didn't say anything different - I added context.

I made the statement that we're not the third best team in the country. Given our total body of work, this seems obvious to me. Drfinitely third in the SEC right now, and probably second, but not nationally.We're probably in the 6-9 range overall based upon my watching 5-6 games a week.

It's ok if you disagree.

Relax. KFord is a predictive model. That's all.

beerad12man said:

---

Depends on your definition. Most have us around 7 in terms of efficient metrics. ESPN fei, bcftoys, etc. that's borderline elite. If not on the top tier this year because quite frankly, no one looks unbeatable.

Also, we dominated Auburn. Way more so than Georgia or Oklahoma did. It took a goal line stand (and arguably terrible call) for Georgia to win. It took basically a 14 point swing interception when we were driving to make it close for us to win. Yes, advanced metrics realize that stuff.

It's not like Iowa is any better than Auburn (don't care about the records) and number 2 Indiana beat them by 5. They also beat old dominion by 13. If we did that, most on here would say we were overrated at #2.

So many advanced metrics actually do take all of that into account. The advanced metrics. Most say we have played around 7. And I think we can actually play better. Some of the teams ahead of us do not look any better. It would be a pick em on a neutral field. ND is one of those teams and we beat them at their place.

---

I agree with most of what you wrote except for the idea that there is a significant difference between #7 and #11 in a power rating system. In general, once you get outside the top handful or so of teams, there tends to be a drop off. There is a 10-point gap between us an Ohio State in FPI (17.4 vs. 27.2), a 7-point gap in SP+ (20.2 vs. 27.8), a 0.6-point per-possession gap (0.94 vs. 1.51) in FEI, and Sagarin seems to have a roughly similar drop. I don't call that elite, but I guess that is up to you.

I do agree with you on Notre Dame. I'm guessing the biggest problems there is that most models do not track coaching changes and therefore see us beating a team 45-42 that Notre Dame beat 56-13.

Its as bad as a predictive tool as it is a ranking

Few things at play here.

Arguably, we are not the 3rd best team in the country at this point. I do think we are a year away, but we are vastly better than last year and headed in the right direction. We may be in the top 3 by the end of the year.

Working in analytics tells me models can be incredible at forecasting, and they can be complete trash if you are focused on the wrong metrics. Without looking under the hood, I do not know how K-Ford is weighted. At a glance, the outputs do not align with my intuition overall. I also do not have a historical accuracy measurement of this model to know if it is worth a **** or not.

What these models do a good job at is predicting how close matchups are or are not. There is a HUGE factor they cannot measure and that is knowing how to win. At the very least, Elko has this team learning how to do just enough to win.

Time will tell and I think the next 3 weeks should be a good indicator.

Truth be told...........We just aren't the third best team in college football

If this is a ranking of "who is the best team" Kford loses all credibility with texas being in the Top10. Anemic in every game except OU, and struggling against an awful Kentucky. Lets not forget being down 29-14 until minutes left against Florida.

Yeah yeah the transitive property doesnt work in football, but really thats about Ws and Ls, having like opponents is valid for comparison especially when its back-to-back. (Massive improvements/regressions dont occur in the span of 7 days).

Texas is bad and kford should feel bad.

Outside of osu, Indiana and Bama, im not sure who would have a claim to be considered better than we are

If both the offense and defense play to their top potential then #3. If one doesn't then #11 seems reasonable.

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

We're not as good as many think we are.

For those who've been watching, that seems obvious.

---

So you think we have a 36% chance, today, that we beat Texas?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Outside of osu, Indiana and Bama, im not sure who would have a claim to be considered better than we are

---

I'd put us on par with Oregon and texas tech

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

We're not as good as many think we are.

For those who've been watching, that seems obvious.

---

Yeah and USC, Texas, and Tech are all way better than everyone thinks. OK

ElephantRider said:

---

Make it make sense

---

They can't. This is a great example of rat poison.
Look at the AP having the horns ranked preseason #1 after losing so much talent and having an untested QB as the Heisman favorite. It would be an interesting study of critical thinking to get inside the head of anyone who thought that was a good idea. Couple that along with Clemson and Penn St being preseason NC favorites. It's all just opinions. Just keep winning. It's really that simple.

Tech isnt in our league. I've watched their games. They the tallest midget over there but will likely still chalk up a couple more losses before the season is done.

Oregon might be but they dont play anyone to judge them by and the one team they did beat them at home. Turns out Penn St is **** this year.

Just win Baby!

I must have missed our loss last week lol.

I think a lot of these models aren't holding up in the NIL world. It was a lot easier when several teams stockpiled deep rosters. Now whatever roster talent advantage seem to create a lot of out of whack power ratings.

ANY MODEL that has the sips in the top 10 after that abomination last week should be summarily dismissed.

Ugly said:

---

ElephantRider said:

---

Make it make sense

---

This is a power rating, not a ranking. We've played 3-4 Auburn and 2-5 Arkansas to one-score games, plus had some less-than-impressive G5 wins. Most power ratings don't really have us as an elite team, and it is not that surprising.

As our schedule worked out, we have also played only one of our 4 toughest games (on paper) so far, but any power rating system worth its salt will have us projected somewhere between 1-2 wins for the set of @LSU, @Mizzou, and @tu. Given how much our conference opponents have tanked our SOS, we're going to lose tie-breakers with Georgia. That means that at least one of these three things have to happen for us to play in Atlanta: we have to go undefeated, Georgia has to lose one of their remaining three conference games, or Alabama has to lose two of its remaining four conference games. There is definitely a chance of those things happening, but the more likely case (at least according to the numbers) is that we miss out on the SEC championship game and get an at-large playoff berth.

---

Imagine the Ags finish 3rd in the SEC and 8th or higher in the cfp rankings. Watch Bama and uga bash each other's heads in the sec ccg (e.g. lose a QB like last year), while A&M rests in advance of a home playoff game at Kyle. Yes please!

Vepp said:

---

If both the offense and defense play to their top potential then a national championship #3. If one doesn't then #11 top 6 seems reasonable as were one of 6 remaining undefeated teams.

---

We're also the only undefeated team playing a ranked opponent this week. Not to mention on the road. So don't tell me about strength of schedule.

• BYU = 2 ranked teams left (Tech and Cincy)
• Georgia Tech = only has Georgia
• Indiana = no ranked teams
• Navy = 2 ranked teams left (Notre Dame and South Florida)
• Ohio State = only Michigan
• Ags = 3 (LSU, Missouri, tu)

Notre Dame, Texas, USC are way too high

Let's look at teams that in theory look like top 5 teams. Here's the ranked teams they've played and bold is remaining to play.

#1Ohio State = tu, Illinois, Michigan
#2Indiana = Illinois, Oregon
#3Aggies = Notre Dame, LSU, Missouri, tu
#4Alabama = Georgia, Vandy, Missouri, Tenn, LSU, OU
#5Georgia = Tenn, Bama, Ole Miss, tu, Georgia Tech
#6Oregon = Penn State, Indiana (LOSS)
#7Georgia Tech = Georgia

So tell me again who other than Bama and Georgia can argue they deserve a top 3 ranking more? I can't see based on reality how anyone can say we don't deserve to be a top 4 team at worst.

Funny how strength of schedule is only bein used against us when well play more ranked teams than Ohio State, Oregon, and Georgia Tech

AgFan1974 said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Is it a bump up or down in ratings for having The Grateful Dead on the uniform

---

Bump

---

I went into the Duck Store by Autzen Stadium a few weeks ago and saw the Grateful Ducks merch. I wanted to buy a shirt but couldn't justify $45 just for a funny shirt.

Most everyone is completely not understanding his "rankings"

These are not rankings. These are projections based on every teams remaining schedule and his % chance they win those games.

i.e. he is projecting we will end the season at #11 with 2 losses. This is because he has the following games as basically toss ups and expects we most likely drop 2 of 3.

LSU - Ags 46% chance to win
MIZ - Ags 49% chance to win
tu - Ags 36% chance to win (this seems way off based on eye test)

It is a useful projection to look at.

Heres how I see it as it stands today. You could make an argument for each of these teams to be as high as 1 or 2 or as low as you want as each team has its strengths and weaknesses or has a questionable schedule:

Top tier- osu, iu
Second tier- tamu, Bama, oregon, uga
Third tier- ND, Ole miss, g tech, Miami, Vanderbilt, tech, byu

Notre Dame's remaining schedule:
Bye Week
Boston College
Navy
Pitt
Syracuse
Stanford

This dipwad moved us DOWN; after we beat Notre Dame.

It's. A. Predictive. Model.

For the whole season.

We moved down because we had a far more difficult schedule.

harge57 said:

---

Most everyone is completely not understanding his "rankings"

These are not rankings. These are projections based on every teams remaining schedule and his % chance they win those games.

i.e. he is projecting we will end the season at #11 with 2 losses. This is because he has the following games as basically toss ups and expects we most likely drop 2 of 3.

LSU - Ags 46% chance to win
MIZ - Ags 49% chance to win
tu - Ags 36% chance to win (this seems way off based on eye test)

It is a useful projection to look at.

---

36% at tu is ridiculous. Yes, they have a good defense but their offense is absolutely atrocious. Manning isn't that good and he's scared to death behind that offensive line. tu has averaged less than 17 ppg against 4 P4 opponents.

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Most everyone is completely not understanding his "rankings"

These are not rankings. These are projections based on every teams remaining schedule and his % chance they win those games.

i.e. he is projecting we will end the season at #11 with 2 losses. This is because he has the following games as basically toss ups and expects we most likely drop 2 of 3.

LSU - Ags 46% chance to win
MIZ - Ags 49% chance to win
tu - Ags 36% chance to win (this seems way off based on eye test)

It is a useful projection to look at.

---

36% at tu is ridiculous. Yes, they have a good defense but their offense is absolutely atrocious. Manning isn't that good and he's scared to death behind that offensive line. tu has averaged less than 17 ppg against 4 P4 opponents.

---

Not to mention those chances to win make zero sense in other ways. We're ranked higher than those teams. Vegas has us favored to win over those teams. Those teams have looked worse and done worse than us.

I don't know how good we are which is the same for every other team. i do believe we still have a much higher ceiling for how we can play compared to the other top 10 teams.

All I know for sure is based on 7 wins and no losses we deserve be ranked where we are and as of today are favored against our remaining schedule by the people who actually bet on games.

Do I expect us to win out? No.

Would I be surprised if we did? No.

Do I expect us to make the playoffs? Yes.

Do we deserve a top 5 ranking? Absolutely.

Nothing else matters today.

harge57 said:

---

Most everyone is completely not understanding his "rankings"

These are not rankings. These are projections based on every teams remaining schedule and his % chance they win those games.

i.e. he is projecting we will end the season at #11 with 2 losses. This is because he has the following games as basically toss ups and expects we most likely drop 2 of 3.

LSU - Ags 46% chance to win
MIZ - Ags 49% chance to win
tu - Ags 36% chance to win (this seems way off based on eye test)

It is a useful projection to look at.

---

Close, but not quite. There are three metrics that people constantly want to combine that measure three different things:

• Rankings: These should measure what you have done, compared to what others have done. It is reasonable for us to be #3 in this category.
• Ratings: This measures how good of a team you area using whatever data the computer in programmed to look at. This is what you use as a predictor. There is a decent chance that we will be underdogs on the road at Mizzou unless we blow out LSU this week or Mizzou looks terrible against Vandy, despite the fact that we are, and should be, ranked above them.
• Projections: Using the ratings and schedule, how are you likely to finish the year. There are always lower rated teams with a weak SOS that finish with a better record than a higher rated team with a harder SOS.

As of now, Texas A&M pretty consistently has a ranking of #3 across most polls, a rating of #7-11 (as discussed earlier), and a projection of about 10-2 with a high chance of missing the SEC Championship game but making the playoffs. That projected outcome probably results in us being about where our rating is (coincidentally) by the end of the year.

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

It's. A. Predictive. Model.

For the whole season.

We moved down because we had a far more difficult schedule.

---

a more difficult schedule... after we beat a ranked team.

tu might be 'others receiving votes' after this weekend.

Metrics don't win games?!?

If you have ever wondered how Vegas comes up with point spreads (that sometimes don't make sense on the surface), it is with power ratings. Auburn at 3-4 would be favored at home against 7-0 Georgia Tech, yet that line would confuse a lot of people and the response would be "Vegas must know something". It is very difficult for us to be objective because we see the records, the polls, and our own biases that affect our perception.

I think a lot of people have a hard time with the idea in college football that if two teams played each other 10 times and Team A was expected to win 7 times and Team B 3 times, then Team B is actually the better team if they win in the one game that is played. That makes perfect sense for resume purposes and it's how the CFP rankings should work, but it doesn't necessarily tell you who would be favored in a repeat matchup.

I think the polls influence our perception quite a bit. No one thinks the Broncos are better than the Eagles despite having the same record and Denver having recently beat Philadelphia, but that's not how we think with college football.

With that said, the methods can have some serious flaws. SP+ uses the previous season and recruiting as factors in their formula, which skews the ratings heavily for certain teams. Texas is highly rated across multiple methods due in large part to the amount of talent on their roster and the success they had last year. Penn State, too.

🚨Week 9 Most Deserving Rankings Top 30🚨 pic.twitter.com/GzFM3hua4V

— Kelley Ford (@KFordRatings) October 21, 2025

Never heard of her, but she seems pretty mediocre at this. Lol