Phil Steele Preseason Power Poll

[footballfanatic77]

7. Georgia

14. Auburn

19. Tennessee

31. Missouri

37. Louisville

38. Mississippi St

40. Florida

56. South Carolina

58. Kentucky

http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JULY15/DBJuly23.html

I think it's interesting that he basically has Kentucky & South Carolina as equals. That's going to be an interesting game for sure.

 

[The Public Enemy]

And the Florida game is at Home...get those two beat Vandy you will head into the Governor Cup playing for a Better Bowl Slot

 

[Smashcat]

Have to beat Florida. Have to this time.

 

[footballfanatic77]

And the Florida game is at Home...get those two beat Vandy you will head into the Governor Cup playing for a Better Bowl Slot

Yup, in my opinion if UK wins all three of Florida, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt it will be the be at least a 7 win season.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

So imo Mizzou, SC, Louisville, Florida, and Miss St. are right there for the taking. 3 are at home. What if we sweep at home and go 1-1 on the road? Add in a win at Vandy and that would put us at 4-4 in the SEC and 8-4 overall. I like that. I like that alot.

 

[screwduke]

Have to beat Florida. Have to this time.

Yep I agree. If we can't end that god awful streak this year I don't know if we ever will. Florida won't be down forever.

 

[Bigblueforever]

Yep I agree. If we can't end that god awful streak this year I don't know if we ever will. Florida won't be down forever.

True!

 

[jnewc2]

No SEC team outside of Vandy should be ranked lower than 40..silly, just silly..you go find me 50 teams that you can justify being better than Kentucky & USC (who can both beat any team in the nation on a given night)..these are two teams that consistently bring in recruiting classes ranked in the top-25 to 30, yet somehow they're ranked in the 50's? Come on..I thought Phil would be smart enough to know that a 5-win SEC team would be an 8-win team in ANY other conference

Go find me 50 teams that can play toe to toe with the #1 team in the nation..find me 50 teams that can beat the Georgia Bulldogs and go into Auburn's backyard and be an INT away from beating them..Steele is being a slave to the numbers..when you play in the SEC the numbers are just skewed that's all there is to it

 

[CatPatrick]

plus 1 jnewc2

 

[WildcatofNati]

No SEC team outside of Vandy should be ranked lower than 40..silly, just silly..you go find me 50 teams that you can justify being better than Kentucky & USC (who can both beat any team in the nation on a given night)..these are two teams that consistently bring in recruiting classes ranked in the top-25 to 30, yet somehow they're ranked in the 50's? Come on..I thought Phil would be smart enough to know that a 5-win SEC team would be an 8-win team in ANY other conference

Go find me 50 teams that can play toe to toe with the #1 team in the nation..find me 50 teams that can beat the Georgia Bulldogs and go into Auburn's backyard and be an INT away from beating them..Steele is being a slave to the numbers..when you play in the SEC the numbers are just skewed that's all there is to it

If you think No. 58 is being underrated, and I tend to agree, then don't buy the USA Sports Weekly college football preview. I went through the roof when I saw that ranking, and not just because of the number, but because of the many midmajors ranked ahead. Had I perused it before buying, and saw that, I would have saved myself 5 dollars and a very foul mood after reading it.

 

[hmt5000]

Most of the rankings are based on records. Just have to win more to get respect. If we win 7 this year we will be top 25ish next year.. 6 wins and a good bowl performance probably gets us in as well.

 

[footballfanatic77]

I don't entirely agree with Phil Steele, though it's relatively fair. I would say it's better at predicting ranges than actual spots. UK may as high as 45 or as low as 55. I'd be really surprised if UK couldn't beat Cincinnati or Marshall or Colorado even, but as Coach Stoops says "nobody is going to give you anything at UK" ..especially when you are UK football.

 

[BigBlueFan1963]

You can flip flop where he has UK and Smellville ranked right now.

 

[Blue Decade]

If you think No. 58 is being underrated, and I tend to agree, then don't buy the USA Sports Weekly college football preview. I went through the roof when I saw that ranking, and not just because of the number, but because of the many midmajors ranked ahead. Had I perused it before buying, and saw that, I would have saved myself 5 dollars and a very foul mood after reading it.

Time will tell if our team is being underrated. I suspect we are. But every magazine and service that offers these ratings is using last year's performance as their basis for this year's prediction. When we look back on this at the end of the season, teams that turn out to be underrated will be the teams whose players improve the most. These tend to be younger teams with deeper rosters. Younger players have more room for improvement. Our team fits this description.

 

[UKWinsAgainYep]

Yup, in my opinion if UK wins all three of Florida, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt it will be the be at least a 7 win season.

No way we win all 3 of those games. If we win 1 of those 3, i'll be happy.

 

[Deeeefense]

But every magazine and service that offers these ratings is using last year's performance as their basis for this year's prediction.

Steele uses a multitude of factors and the Power Poll he publishes is actually a composite of nine different power polls he has run through his computers. Many of the best power polls actually use the last 4 years of performance in their evaluation, but that is by no means the only criteria they use. As a somewhat biased UK fan I think using the last 4 years of performance to evaluate this years team would result in a significant undervaluing.

 

[Blue Decade]

Steele uses a multitude of factors and the Power Poll he publishes is actually a composite of nine different power polls he has run through his computers. Many of the best power polls actually use the last 4 years of performance in their evaluation, but that is by no means the only criteria they use. As a somewhat biased UK fan I think using the last 4 years of performance to evaluate this years team would result in a significant undervaluing.

The mags mainly predict future performance based on past performance, and usually underestimate the importance of redshirts and new arrivals. This generally works because redshirts and new arrivals have less impact on ranked teams with lots of good returning players. Fans mainly predict future performance with their hearts, overestimating their own new players and underestimating the quality of other teams on their schedule. Every year, there will be some teams that improve more than Phil Steele and the other mags anticipate. These are generally young teams with a wave of quality and depth rising up in their freshman and sophomore classes. This description fits Kentucky. But it doesn't take into account injuries or difficulty of the schedule. Largely because of the maturing 2014 class, Kentucky has a chance this year to show improvement in excess of what Steele and other mags are predicting. It could happen. We could see 7 or even 8 wins, but there are a lot of unpredictable moving parts to this.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

No way we win all 3 of those games. If we win 1 of those 3, i'll be happy.

I wouldn't say 'no way'. All 3 are teams that are vulnerable, and a UK team that plays like they did against say Miss St can win all 3. 2 of those teams we beat just last year with a less talented team. We had Florida beaten last year, at the Swamp mind you, so there is hope that we can win at home. While 1-2 is quite possible, 2-1 is also quite possible. 3-0 may be a stretch but 1. SC is probably worse than they were last year and 2. We are due against Florida, it's a night game and this may be their least talented team in decades.

I'm thinking 2-1, beating SC at their place is a tall order, but we SHOULD beat them. If we want to move up the ladder they have to be a team we beat more often than not.

Vandy, Miss St and SC are games we need to win over 50% of the time to take that next step.

 

[WildcatofNati]

Time will tell if our team is being underrated. I suspect we are. But every magazine and service that offers these ratings is using last year's performance as their basis for this year's prediction. When we look back on this at the end of the season, teams that turn out to be underrated will be the teams whose players improve the most. These tend to be younger teams with deeper rosters. Younger players have more room for improvement. Our team fits this description.

It's understandable if our rating is based on the 2014 performance, but the magazine that I referred to apparently based it on our 2013 or even 2012 performance. I don't recall the exact rank, but it was around 85th or something like that and a few spots behind Ohio, a team that we soundly beat last year. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Blue Decade]

It's understandable if our rating is based on the 2014 performance, but the magazine that I referred to apparently based it on our 2013 or even 2012 performance. I don't recall the exact rank, but it was around 85th or something like that and a few spots behind Ohio, a team that we soundly beat last year. That's just ridiculous.

I guess my point is that Kentucky, having a strong sophomore class plus the pieces to score lots of points, is the kind of team that typically gets underrated.

 

[MrHotDice]

I guess my point is that Kentucky, having a strong sophomore class plus the pieces to score lots of points, is the kind of team that typically gets underrated.

Just win games. These polls are for losers. Winners win football games.

 

[footballfanatic77]

I guess my point is that Kentucky, having a strong sophomore class plus the pieces to score lots of points, is the kind of team that typically gets underrated.

Except when it's Tennessee apparently.

 

[How Blue Can You Get?]

No SEC team outside of Vandy should be ranked lower than 40..silly, just silly..you go find me 50 teams that you can justify being better than Kentucky & USC (who can both beat any team in the nation on a given night)..these are two teams that consistently bring in recruiting classes ranked in the top-25 to 30, yet somehow they're ranked in the 50's? Come on..I thought Phil would be smart enough to know that a 5-win SEC team would be an 8-win team in ANY other conference

Go find me 50 teams that can play toe to toe with the #1 team in the nation..find me 50 teams that can beat the Georgia Bulldogs and go into Auburn's backyard and be an INT away from beating them..Steele is being a slave to the numbers..when you play in the SEC the numbers are just skewed that's all there is to it

Thing is, these guys predict based on where they expect you to finish, which has a lot to do with strength of schedule. No there are not 50 teams that are better than UK or USC, but there are probably 30 teams with crappy schedules that likely get more w's, and end up ranked higher at the end of the year, unless we have a surprise season...which is very possible. Still, prognosticators play it safe. nobody is goin out on a limb for UK except fans.

 

[WildCard]

Steele uses a multitude of factors and the Power Poll he publishes is actually a composite of nine different power polls he has run through his computers. Many of the best power polls actually use the last 4 years of performance in their evaluation, but that is by no means the only criteria they use. As a somewhat biased UK fan I think using the last 4 years of performance to evaluate this years team would result in a significant undervaluing.

The mags mainly predict future performance based on past performance, and usually underestimate the importance of redshirts and new arrivals. This generally works because redshirts and new arrivals have less impact on ranked teams with lots of good returning players. Fans mainly predict future performance with their hearts, overestimating their own new players and underestimating the quality of other teams on their schedule. Every year, there will be some teams that improve more than Phil Steele and the other mags anticipate. These are generally young teams with a wave of quality and depth rising up in their freshman and sophomore classes. This description fits Kentucky. But it doesn't take into account injuries or difficulty of the schedule. Largely because of the maturing 2014 class, Kentucky has a chance this year to show improvement in excess of what Steele and other mags are predicting. It could happen. We could see 7 or even 8 wins, but there are a lot of unpredictable moving parts to this.

IMO, Steele is the best in a very inexact business (i.e., pre-season projections). There will be lots of hits and misses and anyone in this line of work can have a bad year. But, over the long haul, I think Steele is about as good as you can expect in this department. Steele indeed crunches many numbers and, in the final analysis, the difference between two opponents Power Poll ratings when adjusted for home field is the expected spread for the game. His actually Power Poll ratings are not published in his popular magazine, only the rankings. (I believe getting actual Power Poll numbers is a subscription service.)

However, when he makes his Top 40 selections (and his conference finish picks) he considers a number of "subjective" factors that each team will face that will affect their overall success. Furthermore his Top 40 projection is an end of season projection. Likewise, conference projections are based only on conference games.

So his initial Power Poll rankings (basically a pre-season ranking of all teams) do not line up exactly with his Top 40 predictions. For example, he ranks OR #11 despite them being #6 in his initial Power Poll figures. His rationale is the Ducks have 3 very difficult road games this season that will likely keep them out of a top 6 finish.

Another thing he looks for are trends that are "statistically significant". By that I mean trends that have been demonstrated over multiple seasons with a relatively high degree of consistency. These are not individual team performance metrics but much broader conclusions, e.g., 70% of teams that do "this" the previous year are likely to do "this" the following year. I'm pretty sure these consideration enter into his "Most Improved" list. On that point UK fell just outside his Top 15 most likely to improve list (i.e., would have been in next 5 in). The significance here is that about 70% of his "most improved" teams go from a losing or no bowl last season to a winning/bowl season this year.

Peace