Give me your wins

#203
#203
volleyvol said:
Again, I'm not surprised a Georgia fan reads on a 3rd grade level.
Click to expand...

Well...he is the same dude who argued me till he was blue in the face that Sal Sunseri is a good DC, we idiot UT fans didn't give him enough time.

Point being...you're wizzing into the wind with this guy.
 
#204
#204
daj2576 said:
Is this how you work with your peers as you produce data? Do you simply shout them down, tell them to "stfu", or to produce peer reviewed articles when you don't believe their results?

I will be happy to talk to anyone who has concern or interest or even conflicting data about what my very unsophisticated evaluations might show. I am not going to get involved in a very unsophisticated conversation with someone whose best argument is "prove it or stfu".
Click to expand...

Fine. At least tell us what variables you used to conduct the analysis. Give me something to go on here. Did you just use recruiting rankings? How did you account for player attrition? Does the coach get blamed for that? What about strength of schedule?
 
#205
#205
fade route said:
Phil Steele is no better at predicting college football than the Bleacher Report.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He recently said, based on some sort of metrics that he looks at, that Vandy is a national title contender in his mind. Let that stupidity sink in for a minute.........credibility gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#206
#206
AFL2008 said:
Fine. At least tell us what variables you used to conduct the analysis. Give me something to go on here. Did you just use recruiting rankings? How did you account for player attrition? Does the coach get blamed for that? What about strength of schedule?
Click to expand...

Without accounting for anything you mentioned specifically, this is a mid 60% correlation in the SEC within a one game window per season and has predicted about 90% of BCS championship games since 2005.

If any of the things you mention have an effect on the outcome and I had the time to quantify that and sharpen the prediction, one would imagine this system would only get better, not worse.

As I said, generally this works over seasonal timelines. When it fails, generally coaches are singled out who many had assumed were either good or bad. The surprising thing was the coaches who showed an ability to consistently over achieve by a margin of 3 or 4 games. It is hard to explain away overachieving without pointing directly at a coach. People always make excuses for the coaches who under achieve on the same magnitude and tell me that this fails because it doesnt account for some specific variable they want included. It doesnt fail because it works 60 or more % of the time. Until it works 100% of the time, it is imperfect. But only failing 30% of the time would be acceptible within a system you believe is so complex, yes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#208
#208
the low is 5 high probably 7 but who knows who they are its college football and we have a guys who gets it as HC not we need some players to stepup
 
#209
#209
RichRollin said:
Well...he is the same dude who argued me till he was blue in the face that Sal Sunseri is a good DC, we idiot UT fans didn't give him enough time.

Point being...you're wizzing into the wind with this guy.
Click to expand...

You wiz into the wind? :crazy:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top