The book that might end every discussion on Volnation.

#226
#226
BeattieFeathers said:
So? According to rivals?! Again, if Fulmer and spurrier both under achieved, who was over achieving and what did they win? Now we find that saban is under achieving. Do you understand why this is illogical?
More than recruiting ratings, there are several instances where a single player elevated that stature of a football program and contributed to big time winning. Her shell walker,tim tebow,Peyton manning, and cam newton quickly come to mind. Watch what happens to the Aggies this year.
Click to expand...

But, but, but Manziel was "only" a 3 star recruit! :):)

If you strictly go by the recruiting numbers, they would probably show that aTm is "upgrading" the QB position with a 4 or 5*. :ermm::blink::unsure:

There is something to the recruiting rankings but it doesn't tell the whole story, IMO.
 
#227
#227
daj2576 said:
Last year was a bit of a down year in the SEC insofar as predictability. Talent averages still predicted 69.6% of the conference games played. So, you're right in a way. 69.6% is closer to 60% than 70% is.
Click to expand...

Thank you for responding. Which says that the more "talented" team won a little over 70 percent of games involving non conference opponents. Since 75 to 80 percent of non conference games involve patsies, I would have guessed 80 percent of games involving non conference opponents were won by the most talented team.:good!:
 
#228
#228
Boca Vol said:
But, but, but Manziel was "only" a 3 star recruit! :):)

If you strictly go by the recruiting numbers, they would probably show that aTm is "upgrading" the QB position with a 4 or 5*. :ermm::blink::unsure:

There is something to the recruiting rankings but it doesn't tell the whole story, IMO.
Click to expand...

Does it change your opinion of Manziel and aTm if you were told that they have performed basically to talent predictions? Off the top of my head I know they beat bama in 2012 but shouldnt have, and lost to Mizzou in 2013. In other words, in 2 seasons in the SEC they have basically performed to expectations. If Manziel truly had an impact, shouldn't they have done markedly better? Or, perhaps you are saying that aTm should have really under performed and Manziel got them back to the status quo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#229
#229
daj2576 said:
Last year was a bit of a down year in the SEC insofar as predictability. Talent averages still predicted 69.6% of the conference games played. So, you're right in a way. 69.6% is closer to 60% than 70% is.

Over the entire season only 4 of 14 teams (28.6%) won exactly the number of conference games that talent predicted, a total of 9 (64.3%) finished within 1 game of those predictions, and 11 (78.6%) finished within 2 games of those predictions. That is a pretty significant indicator, in my view.

Look at UT. UT'S season was predicted correctly in 10 of 12 games, or 83.3%.
Click to expand...

11 finished within 2 games of the prediction? That means a team predicted to go 4-4 went 2-6 or 6-2? That's a significant difference.

In addition, off the top of my head, I would have guessed that the vols out recruited both vandy and Missouri and were out recruited by Carolina. At most, that would mean 9 of 12?
 
Last edited:
#230
#230
BeattieFeathers said:
Thank you for responding. Which says that the more "talented" team won a little over 70 percent of games involving non conference opponents. Since 75 to 80 percent of non conference games involve patsies, I would have guessed 80 percent of games involving non conference opponents were won by the most talented team.:good!:
Click to expand...

I would say you're largely correct. There is a significant jump in predictability when a top tier recruiting team plays a bottom tier recruiting team.

Even more importantly, this correlation is extremely high in championship games. Going back to 2005, which is as far as my data takes me, the only exception was Texas over USC. That means that 8 of 9 (88.9%) of championship games have been won by the team who recruits better, with Auburn and FSU being the closest averages to have played during that span.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#231
#231
BeattieFeathers said:
11 finished within 2 games of the prediction? That means a team predicted to go 4-4 went 2-6 or 6-2? That's a significant difference.
Click to expand...

In my view, when looking at the stability of the predictions it makes no difference to consider the vector of the uncertainty, only the absolute deviation. I'm not saying that x% under perform and y% over perform, only that the almost 80% finish within 2 games.

Vector becomes important, to me, only when looking at longer term trends of a single team.
 
#232
#232
daj2576 said:
In my view, when looking at the stability of the predictions it makes no difference to consider the vector of the uncertainty, only the absolute deviation. I'm not saying that x% under perform and y% over perform, only that the almost 80% finish within 2 games.

Vector becomes important, to me, only when looking at longer term trends of a single team.
Click to expand...

Jeeeez....I took stats and calculus over 30 years ago. I'm not sure what you mean.
 
#233
#233
BeattieFeathers said:
11 finished within 2 games of the prediction? That means a team predicted to go 4-4 went 2-6 or 6-2? That's a significant difference.

In addition, off the top of my head, I would have guessed that the vols out recruited both vandy and Missouri and were out recruited by Carolina. At most, that would mean 9 of 12?
Click to expand...

Yup, UT out recruited Vandy and Mizzou. UT also out recruited SCAR.

UT had the same average as Oregon, but in this system when faced with that conundrum, I count the home team as the winner. So, to be precise, 9 of 11 (81.8%) games were predicted by talent and adding Oregon combined with the knowledge that when teams are similarly situated, the home team usually wins, makes it 10 of 12 (83.3%).
 
#234
#234
BeattieFeathers said:
Jeeeez....I took stats and calculus over 30 years ago. I'm not sure what you mean.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that by considering if the deviation is positive or negative (+ or - two) you have created a 4 game window, when in fact it doesn't matter if the deviation was positive or negative. You can expect upwards of 80% of the teams to simply finish within 2 games of predictions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#235
#235
daj2576 said:
Yup, UT out recruited Vandy and Mizzou. UT also out recruited SCAR.

UT had the same average as Oregon, but in this system when faced with that conundrum, I count the home team as the winner. So, to be precise, 9 of 11 (81.8%) games were predicted by talent and adding Oregon combined with the knowledge that when teams are similarly situated, the home team usually wins, makes it 10 of 12 (83.3%).
Click to expand...

It's pretty fascinating stuff.....thx
 
#237
#237
daj2576 said:
Does it change your opinion of Manziel and aTm if you were told that they have performed basically to talent predictions? Off the top of my head I know they beat bama in 2012 but shouldnt have, and lost to Mizzou in 2013. In other words, in 2 seasons in the SEC they have basically performed to expectations. If Manziel truly had an impact, shouldn't they have done markedly better? Or, perhaps you are saying that aTm should have really under performed and Manziel got them back to the status quo?
Click to expand...

Manziel wasn't playing on D which gave up 32 points per game last season. UT's D "only" gave up 29!

Yes, I'm saying without Manziel they would have been closer to UT. He wasn't the problem.
 
#239
#239
Boca Vol said:
I think Notre Dame did turn down a bowl bid a few years ago.
Click to expand...


As a matter of institutional policy, they turned down bowl invitations for decades. After their first bowl appearance in 1925, they didn't play in a bowl game again until 1970 (Bowl History for Notre Dame). Ironically, it was then widely believed that arrangements were in place for us to meet Notre Dame in the 1970 Orange Bowl, if only we had taken care of the minor detail of defeating "Archie Who" and the Ole Miss Rebels on Nov. 15, 1969.
 
#240
#240
Volosaurus rex said:
As a matter of institutional policy, they turned down bowl invitations for decades. After their first bowl appearance in 1925, they didn't play in a bowl game again until 1970 (Bowl History for Notre Dame). Ironically, it was then widely believed that arrangements were in place for us to meet Notre Dame in the 1970 Orange Bowl, if only we had taken care of the minor detail of defeating "Archie Who" and the Ole Miss Rebels on Nov. 15, 1969.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I thought it was odd that they had played in relatively few bowl games.
 
#242
#242
Volosaurus rex said:
Here is an article from the dusty archives of Sports Illustrated which explores the factors behind Notre Dame's decision to finally go bowling again after a 45-year hiatus: In 1925 Knute Rockne, Notre Dame's enduring saint, took - 12.22.69 - SI Vault.
Click to expand...

Fun read.

I loved these:

"The logic behind Notre Dame's refusal to participate in postseason play all of this time is known only to those faculty men in South Bend who have been responsible. More than likely it was based on the fact that in the 1920s Rockne's one trip took almost a month, going and coming, by train. But there can hardly be any excuses for the policy existing after World War II when modern transportation, either on the ground or in the sky, made it possible for both the squad and its student fans to attend a bowl and miss no classwork."

"the Fighting Irish may have invented college football glamour, but it seems to have taken them 45 years to discover the airplane."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#243
#243
daj2576 said:
Fun read.

I loved these:

"The logic behind Notre Dame's refusal to participate in postseason play all of this time is known only to those faculty men in South Bend who have been responsible. More than likely it was based on the fact that in the 1920s Rockne's one trip took almost a month, going and coming, by train. But there can hardly be any excuses for the policy existing after World War II when modern transportation, either on the ground or in the sky, made it possible for both the squad and its student fans to attend a bowl and miss no classwork."

"the Fighting Irish may have invented college football glamour, but it seems to have taken them 45 years to discover the airplane."
Click to expand...

It has not been that long that the PAC 12 and Big 10 have played in bowls other than the Rose Bowl. 1973?
 
#244
#244
Beattie, your comment reminds me of a trivia question, the answer for which illustrates extraordinary disparity in home/away winning percentage: What is USC's record, respectively, in Rose Bowl appearances and all other bowls played outside of Los Angeles County?

The answer illustrates the tremendous advantage USC, in particular, enjoyed in hosting the Rose Bowl prior to the advent of transcontinental air travel. In an era when the visiting team was typically the best in the East that year, they spent the better part of a week travelling to the game, whereas USC's team rolls out of bed and takes the bus to the Rose Bowl.
 
#245
#245
Volosaurus rex said:
Beattie, your comment reminds me of a trivia question, the answer for which illustrates extraordinary disparity in home/away winning percentage: What is USC's record, respectively, in Rose Bowl appearances and all other bowls played outside of Los Angeles County?

The answer illustrates the tremendous advantage USC, in particular, enjoyed in hosting the Rose Bowl prior to the advent of transcontinental air travel. In an era when the visiting team was typically the best in the East that year, they spent the better part of a week travelling to the game, whereas USC's team rolls out of bed and takes the bus to the Rose Bowl.
Click to expand...

It was a different era in the 20s and 30s. The wire service polls has already decided the national champions before the bowls were played. But winning the national championship was not that big of a deal back then. In fact, Doug dickey said that even in the 1960's nobody thought that much about it. The goal was winning the sec. More on point, bowl games were exhibitions. I think the vols first bowl game was played in nyc.
 
#246
#246
I agree on the relative value then placed on bowl games, but the AP poll first appeared in 1934 and became a regular feature on the college football landscape in 1936. The Coaches' Poll, by contrast, did not appear until 1950. Most ranking "services" then were either statistical systems or the expressed opinion of one person.
 
#247
#247
Volosaurus rex said:
I agree on the relative value then placed on bowl games, but the AP poll first appeared in 1934 and became a regular feature on the college football landscape in 1936. The Coaches' Poll, by contrast, did not appear until 1950. Most ranking "services" then were either statistical systems or the expressed opinion of one person.
Click to expand...

It took several decades but the AP poll was effectively booted from football for the same flaw it has had since it's inception: it was a poll of journalists who by nature have a conflict when they can create stories simply by voting to make stories.
 
#248
#248
daj2576 said:
It took several decades but the AP poll was effectively booted from football for the same flaw it has had since it's inception: it was a poll of journalists who by nature have a conflict when they can create stories simply by voting to make stories.
Click to expand...

Great description of the 1997 Heisman balloting
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#249
#249
Manziel's impact seems to fit with the chapter that says there is no "I" in team, but there is an "I" in win
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#250
#250
Just finished reading another interesting book.

Stumbling On Wins by Berri and Schmidt.

stumbling on wins.jpg

Lots of interesting stuff in there, especially if you like the NBA.

The point that I believe most of you will like is the further discussion on the inefficiency of coaching decisions, specifically the idea of going for it. Like Scorecasting these authors examined the risk assessment analysis that should be made.

These charts derived from what appears to be more comprehensive data, illustrate basically the same point.

2014-07-09 22.03.55.jpg

Both charts have the position on the field along the X axis (the bottom). The chart on the left shows what score that position equates to (Think of it as the value of that position on the field as the number of points that position is worth. Notice there are negative points the closer you get to your own goal line).

The chart on the right shows the line where "going for it" is appropriate, with yards to go measured along the Y axis (the left). Everything below that line is optimal to go for it. So, on your opponents 33 yard line, the line peaks at about 10. That illustrates that at that point, the most optimal decision is to go for it on 4th and 10.

A key take away from this book was this: In 99% of the time that the numbers suggest you should kick the ball, the coaches kick the ball. Conversely, a coach "goes for it" only 40% of the times that they should.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top