Phil Steele has Vols In "Bear Market"

#26
#26
ALGator said:
The SMI formula is a joke. All it accounts for are wins/losses from the previous seasons.

What about new talent being brought in?
New coaching hires?
What about injuries?
Players graduating?

I think you have to look at much more than just W's and L's to make a prediction of how a team is going to do.
Click to expand...

Coming from a guy whose team is minus 5 lol

Edit -0.5.
 
Last edited:
#28
#28
Every season is new and has very little to do with the previous year.... but folks need jobs and this creates several....
 
#29
#29
to me, all this is really doing is accounting for just a few games from each season.

most bigger programs that are in that 8-9 win range have, usually 6-7 gimmie games a year. so the formula is really trying to decide how those teams are doing, have been doing, against those 3-5 teams that are either peers or that are better than that team.

and if your track record is beating them regularly, a la Alabama, then your index probably doesn't move much. it's a staple stock.

if you lose to them regularly, your smi dosen't move much

however if you're inconsistent, and have spikes, that's when it becomes a bit of a gamble....a la Tennessee. we beat two peers last year, and lost to two "gimmies". projecting that for this year, when by all accounts we could have/should have had 10/11 wins, but didn't, and still having to play those same peers....it is what it is.

it's not magic, and it's not really a surprise that it has a 65/35 success rate.
 
#30
#30
VFL-82-JP said:
Phil's SMI formula applied to the Vols just before each of the past three seasons:

Before 2014 season: SMI would've predicted we would win 5 ... we won 7 (off by 2)
Before 2015 season: SMI would've predicted we would win 5 ... we won 9 (off by 4)
Before 2016 season: SMI would've predicted we would win 6 ... we won 9 (off by 3)

The largest, most glaring weakness of the SMI is that it assumes a team will do about as well in the future as it has in the recent past (last 3 years).

That doesn't work well at all for a team climbing out of its Dark Ages, nor for one falling into ruin.

There's a reason the formula is wrong about a third of the time...because about a third of teams are going through some kind of transition, and this formula denies the existence of transition periods.

Get this: even if you're one of the folks who believe Butch has peaked at 8-9 wins, this formula isn't even right for you. Because it's still looking back at the period when we were winning less than that. Because of the 3-year time span of its backward look, we haven't even reached that potential steady state yet. If you're among those who believe it's possible Butch hasn't yet peaked, the formula is an even worse mis-match.

So take it for what it's worth: very little, as applied to our current program.

Go Vols!
Click to expand...

The 2017 calculation for UT at -1, points to a historical 63.6% chance under SMI that we go 9-4 or worse, with a 36.4% chance that we go 10-3 or better.

His prediction doesn't seem that off-the-wall.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
TNnative said:
I don't know. I was trying to compare stock trading to football and I have no idea how cheesy science fiction plays into it. Let's give him a few centons to explain that.

Just guessing but it seemed like that T shirt that reads:

My doctor says I have ADD but,....Hey, look a chicken.
Click to expand...

It's from the tv show The Office. Sorry for getting off topic
 
#33
#33
BeardedVol said:
The 2017 calculation for UT at -1, points to a historical 63.6% chance under SMI that we go 9-4 or worse, with a 36.4% chance that we go 10-3 or better.

His prediction doesn't seem that off-the-wall.
Click to expand...

So you're saying he has a 63.6% (actually, his chart says 62.6%, but we'll go with your number instead) + a 36.4% chance = total 100% chance of being right in there somewhere. We'll either do better, or we'll do the same, or we'll do worse, and the chances are somewhat better than we do the same or worse, than that we do better.

Okay, really appreciate that particular insight. :)

Stats are like cabbage: you boil them down enough,and they're just a worthless, gooey mass that smells terrible, staring at you from the bottom of the pot.

But if you try to get anything like a solid prediction from him, as I highlighted by applying the formula to our past three years, it can be badly wrong when it comes to teams in transition.

*shrug* it's just not a very good tool for use in these conditions. Every tool has some value, and some weaknesses, you gotta know when to apply it. The Vols coming out of the Dark Ages (or any team in transition) is not a good time to apply SMI. Phil Steele would be the first to admit that, I think.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#34
#34
BeardedVol said:
The 2017 calculation for UT at -1, points to a historical 63.6% chance under SMI that we go 9-4 or worse, with a 36.4% chance that we go 10-3 or better.

His prediction doesn't seem that off-the-wall.
Click to expand...

his math basically says we'll lose to GA, FL, Bama and LSU. and that we might lose one other tame outside that....GT, KY, USCe...most likely. 8/4-7/5.

it's a shocker that that's what they're coming up with.

it's not magic. and by using his 3 years, he's generally going to have the same basic talent pool to deal with team to team, and by going back 3 years, if there is an improvement/decline in the talent, by the time you include the previous year, that adjustment takes care of itself in those #'s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
jakez4ut said:
his math basically says we'll lose to GA, FL, Bama and LSU. and that we might lose one other tame outside that....GT, KY, USCe...most likely. 8/4-7/5.

it's a shocker that that's what they're coming up with.

it's not magic. and by using his 3 years, he's generally going to have the same basic talent pool to deal with team to team, and by going back 3 years, if there is an improvement/decline in the talent, by the time you include the previous year, that adjustment takes care of itself in those #'s.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any individual game predictions, only the likelihood of having the same or worse overall record.

A 9-4 record could be one of several scenarios. Could lose the GT game, but go 5-3 in the SEC and win the other 3 OOC games, and a bowl. Could beat GT, go 5-3 in SEC play, win the other 3 OOC games and then lose a bowl game, and be 9-4 as well.
 
#36
#36
BeardedVol said:
I didn't see any individual game predictions, only the likelihood of having the same or worse overall record.

A 9-4 record could be one of several scenarios. Could lose the GT game, but go 5-3 in the SEC and win the other 3 OOC games, and a bowl. Could beat GT, go 5-3 in SEC play, win the other 3 OOC games and then lose a bowl game, and be 9-4 as well.
Click to expand...

i know it doesn't specifically say which games, but we all know by looking at the schedule what those 4-5 games would likely be.

this math only really cares about 3-4 games per schedule, relative to the team it's being applied to.

i was basically agreeing with you.
 
#37
#37
Never read any college football analysis between mid-January and mid-August. It's all clickbait.
 
#38
#38
ALGator said:
The SMI formula is a joke. All it accounts for are wins/losses from the previous seasons.

What about new talent being brought in?
New coaching hires?
What about injuries?
Players graduating?

I think you have to look at much more than just W's and L's to make a prediction of how a team is going to do.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's actually kind of embarrassing to even pitch a "formula" for it.
 
#39
#39
VFL-82-JP said:
So you're saying he has a 63.6% (actually, his chart says 62.6%, but we'll go with your number instead) + a 36.4% chance = total 100% chance of being right in there somewhere. We'll either do better, or we'll do the same, or we'll do worse, and the chances are somewhat better than we do the same or worse, than that we do better.

Okay, really appreciate that particular insight. :)

Stats are like cabbage: you boil them down enough,and they're just a worthless, gooey mass that smells terrible, staring at you from the bottom of the pot.

But if you try to get anything like a solid prediction from him, as I highlighted by applying the formula to our past three years, it can be badly wrong when it comes to teams in transition.

*shrug* it's just not a very good tool for use in these conditions. Every tool has some value, and some weaknesses, you gotta know when to apply it. The Vols coming out of the Dark Ages (or any team in transition) is not a good time to apply SMI. Phil Steele would be the first to admit that, I think.
Click to expand...

i don't think he would because he goes back 3 years, which, i'm sure in his mind, is accounting for talent improvement/decline, coaching changes....etc...

and he would probably then show you that 34% of the time it's wrong, so no, it's not perfect, and he'd move on.

just like we probably should, agree?
 
#44
#44
ALGator said:
The SMI formula is a joke. All it accounts for are wins/losses from the previous seasons.

What about new talent being brought in?
New coaching hires?
What about injuries?
Players graduating?

I think you have to look at much more than just W's and L's to make a prediction of how a team is going to do.
Click to expand...

It is even worse than that. It basically rewards teams that have a bad season more than teams that are trending upward. It makes no sense to me.
 
#46
#46
ALGator said:
The SMI formula is a joke. All it accounts for are wins/losses from the previous seasons.

What about new talent being brought in?
New coaching hires?
What about injuries?
Players graduating?

I think you have to look at much more than just W's and L's to make a prediction of how a team is going to do.
Click to expand...

Agree. Now, if he could come up with a rating system for impactful returning players who missed games LY which were L's, unique-event in-game coaching snafu's causing L's, success probability of incoming QB's, and impact of new staff members (good or bad), maybe it would be more close to correct. Best tool is to ask Vegas...somehow, they usually seem more spot on than anyone?
 
#48
#48
As explained by VFL-82-JP and others, Steele's formula is totally arbitrary and dumb. I'd put far more stock in formulas like ESPN's Football Power Index, which more directly depend on a team's recent performance, strength of schedule, and roster composition, or even subjective media polls which at least account for important but hard-to-measure factors like coaching changes or players returning from injury.

By the way, ESPN's power index has us ranked 19th, projecting an 8-4 record for 2017. For a team with our recruiting success but inexperience at most of our offensive skill positions (QB, RB, WR), that sounds about right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#49
#49
BeardedVol said:
I didn't see any individual game predictions, only the likelihood of having the same or worse overall record.

A 9-4 record could be one of several scenarios. Could lose the GT game, but go 5-3 in the SEC and win the other 3 OOC games, and a bowl. Could beat GT, go 5-3 in SEC play, win the other 3 OOC games and then lose a bowl game, and be 9-4 as well.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I read it like that. You can't be in the business of predicting which games Butch will win or lose. He's totally capable of losing games that are unfathomable to anyone who watches football. The best you can do is stick your finger in the wind and say that there is no way this guy wins more than X games. You pick the games, I just know it won't be more than X.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#50
#50
VFL-82-JP said:
So you're saying he has a 63.6% (actually, his chart says 62.6%, but we'll go with your number instead) + a 36.4% chance = total 100% chance of being right in there somewhere. We'll either do better, or we'll do the same, or we'll do worse, and the chances are somewhat better than we do the same or worse, than that we do better.

Okay, really appreciate that particular insight. :)

Stats are like cabbage: you boil them down enough,and they're just a worthless, gooey mass that smells terrible, staring at you from the bottom of the pot.

But if you try to get anything like a solid prediction from him, as I highlighted by applying the formula to our past three years, it can be badly wrong when it comes to teams in transition.

*shrug* it's just not a very good tool for use in these conditions. Every tool has some value, and some weaknesses, you gotta know when to apply it. The Vols coming out of the Dark Ages (or any team in transition) is not a good time to apply SMI. Phil Steele would be the first to admit that, I think.
Click to expand...

Do you know why it's hard to get a solid prediction out of him? Because coaches lose games they have no business losing that not a single human being, not even the fans of those teams would predict. The teams that are easy to predict are the teams that take care of business every week. They don't lose mind boggling games and they don't win mind boggling games. They just take care of business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top