Jump to content

Magus Ossis

Full Members
  • Posts

    2407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Magus Ossis

  1. It sounds to me, and correct me please where I have missed or misinterpreted your reply, as though you grudgingly admit you think S&P+ is too low in its 2019 win projection and offer no rebuttal to anything else I argue in the other rhetorical questions. And yet you sarcastically put down Texas fans’ rationality. I suppose we are irrational for agreeing with Vegas and virtually every major college football expert that Texas is likely to be at or near the top of the Big12 next year.
  2. How much would you bet on the under for Texas wins next year if we set the O/U at 7.5? Because S&P+ says we are most likely to win only 7. Or do you think we “defy math” when we win? Or that we objectively look like we shouldn’t even be in the 6 or 7 teams outside the polls “also receiving votes” to start next year? Or that our wins, as opposed to the ones he expected, were more characterized by luck last year? Connelly, as your second quotation from him in this post of yours shows, still doesn’t truly acknowledge that his model is missing something. With one breath he will say one modest thing about his model and with the next he will ascribe all its failings to “luck.”
  3. If OL don’t really come into their own until year 3, our timeline for Herman’s non-transition recruits to be ready would be something like: 2020 Angilau, Ghirmai, Jones, Moore (plus Cosmi, Kerstetter, Okafor, ?Urquidez) = Hopefully 7 developed guys 2021 Johnson, Hookfin, Shepherd (plus 2020 guys, plus Cosmi) = maybe upwards of 8 developed guys 2022 Parr, Majors, ?Lindberg, ?Garth, ?OLTBNL (plus 2020/2021 guys) = maybe upwards of 12 developed guys Even assuming a high hit rate, we look like going after grad transfers may be a good idea even as late as 2021 to make sure we have quality depth. One year rentals are great in that they don’t clog depth charts or scholarship charts but often plug holes nicely.
  4. Tate lawyer to tOSU: tell NCAA to grant my transfer, and tell them it is for my health, but there are sensitive issues involved. tOSU: ¿Mande? Lawyer: What happens in Zach Smith tOSU practices stays in Zach Smith tOSU practices, amirite? tOSU to NCAA: let him play. Seriously.
  5. Richmond is a poor man’s Anderson.
  6. AZ would be fools to draft him. Part of what Kliff is supposed to deliver is identifying/developing QBs. If you have to spend a high 1st round pick on a QB, you are admitting Kliff isn’t all that.
  7. We criticize Connelly and his S&P+ because he makes statements implying it is more than it is. He acts defensive when it is publicly noted to have an area of weakness rather than acknowledge failings. Huck doesn’t spout off making excuses for his adjusted stats when they fail to model everything about future contests. It isn’t complicated— the stronger claims one makes, the more strongly he should expect them reviewed.
  8. 105 limit in off-season. No limit during season.
  9. Yeah. Tough break, but he did have some part in it. You feel for a guy who is going to have to play out his eligibility behind bars or for OU, though.
  10. MENSA gets a lot of play. MENSA will take anyone who scores in the top 2%ile on a recognized test. The UT student population is largely top 7% of top 90% of their original school class (top 6.3). 75th percentile SAT at UT is 1410, and 98th nationally (MENSA level) is ~1480. So chances are that most of us Surly idoits had MENSA-level classmates in pretty much every course we took (not counting our own 15% or whatever MENSA). Of course, Surly may be biased in favor of the far-below-7% outliers.
  11. Yeah 5th in coaches, tied for 5th in AP. Not in top 4.
  12. His system necessarily uses proxies because of the components he incorporates. Blake Gideon was a starter on our defense, and in a hypothetical universe in which he was replaced by Sterns, the S&P+ would have punished us for it. It would also have rewarded us for recruiting Gilbert, and for returning him to the line-up (versus penalty had we picked up a stud grad transfer). Generally speaking, returning production is a proxy for producing needed yards/points (offense) or stops (defense) in the future. He chooses proxies which have shown positive correlation in pooled data, and they likely show correlation because of some true connection. When proxies do not align as well with the true values as one would desire, the answer is not to criticize the truth for failing to follow the model. There are teams that tend to underperform S&P+ predictions in various ways, teams that cluster nicely in the hump of the curve, and teams that tend to over perform it. Texas will win 2+ (4 would be unsurprising, frankly) more games than predicted next year, and Connelly will call it a fluke or luck. Eventually, as the young talent at Texas becomes mature talent, our on-field results will result in a higher S&P+ and hence smaller delta between predicted and final outcomes. Connelly will then note that even the "Herman luck" ran out, never admitting that his model rather finally caught up closer to reality.
  13. EDIT: I meant to quote my own question about accuracy ATS. The answer I found was NFL, not NCAA, but the home dog coverage rate was 51.7% Cover.com So the S&P+ can achieve win percentage predictions similar to always picking the favorite and similar results ATS as always picking home dogs. Based on accuracy of this magnitude, he attributes to “luck” what his model gets wrong. Clearly his model does somewhat correlate to real life and therefore has some predictive power. He far overestimates the science in what he does, however.
  14. I didn't see numbers out there for college football, but for the NFL, the favorite wins over 68% of the time. With the greater disparity in talent among college teams (v pro), one would expect a higher fraction of games that are easier to predict. If I wanted a model to tell me with circa 70% accuracy who would win, I could just use the line. The devil is in reliably predicting wins significantly better than the line does. Connelly gets right that he needs to dig deeper than final score. He gets a great deal wrong after that.
  15. He is, as has been stated, not so much modeling in the sense that an expert in a field should be, but rather data mining and "piling on." He asks the question, "what happened last time in 25 words or less?" He then uses aggregate data to get a quick answer to the oversimplified question. He stacks a lot of similar answers together and calls it a model. He then uses it, not to predict what overall winning teams will look like in the future, but rather who will win which games by how much. You could easily make a model yourself with similar accuracy. Use things like internet hits for "coach on hot seat," previous year preseason and final poll rankings, record straight-up and ATS, 4-year running weighted 247 recruiting average, and coach's shoe size. Your model will predict the winner of more games than it will miss, because you have included things that are at least related to how often a given team wins as part of the model. They are by no means causative, but if you judge your model on whether it has some correlation to reality, you don't have to be too picky about being rigorous. The SAT has been shown in the past to correlate better to the income of the subject's parents than to subsequent grades in college. But only a nut or publicity hound would try to track incomes by giving subjects' kids the SAT. Connelly needs some friends who understand statistics and to whom he will actually listen.
  16. It would be interesting to see how S&P+ does against the spread versus some other complex model. I suggest merely picking home underdogs to cover and seeing whether it approximates or surpasses any of his season results.
  17. If Connelly has not understood or modeled something, it is "luck." The sheer audacity/ stupidity of this worldview is astounding. I am not a betting man, but taking the over on his estimation of Texas wins in 2019 seems as close to free money as exists. Doctor Connelly: I gave him penicillin and plenty of intravenous hydration. Just bad luck that he died. Narrator: He had NSC lung cancer that was never resected.
  18. It seems that way. For some reason, I have hope that they will hit most of their astronomical goals.
  19. Unrestricted transfers but choose between no scholarship or no participation (your first year only, in either case) in the new school unless you completed a degree at the old one (or met one of some set of other pre-established criteria). If someone really wants to transfer, fine-- he is free. If he really wants to play, fine-- he is free. If he wants to commit to one school to play based on getting a free ride and then get a free ride elsewhere, he will have to make an opportunity cost decision. Is it more important for him to get a free college education, to play football, to be where he now wants to be, to avoid the need to complete his degree? Rich kids would be less restricted by this plan but only to the degree that people who can afford college tuition are freer in where they attend in general. And the lawyers they get under the current system pretty much sets different rules for the rich guys anyway.
  20. Signing you wasn't the right thing to do. How can we outspend the SEC? If we could, we would give you the league. How can we, when you leave for LSU? You can "pay your own way." Pay your own way You can call it all just fair play You can "pay your own way" Pay your own way
  21. Yeah. Getting locked up might save his life or the life of someone into whose living room he might have otherwise crashed.
  22. Nice work. As you do more of these, please self-scout (or ask for input) regarding continued quality and originality. I only mention it because the great edit you did for Ringo was Joker-themed, too.
  23. It looked like he had a grade I AC separation and then another before he was over the first completely.
  24. Jimbo is not going to tear through a quality SEC, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, a strong SEC top-to-bottom is largely a myth. If Bama struggles with the transition from Saban to its next emperor, there could be a chaotic interregnum similar to 97 and 98. Back when OU, UGA, UF, Nebraska, LSU and Bama played a collective 1 CCG— and we all know *roll left* how that turned out for the Husker dynasty.
  25. I agree that he is no one to fear, but we have to accept that the data suggest that Jimbo is generally a successful coach. His national championship was in his fourth year— pretty much his guys in his system at that point. His win totals, all comers, are 10, 9, 12, 14, 13, 10, 10, 5, 9. His first season (10 wins) followed a 7 win campaign. His last one was at a new school so again he could be compared. He won the same number of games, but improved the mean scoring differential from 1.3 to 7.2, won his (lower tier) bowl in a blowout, and improved the final ranking from NR to 16. He followed that up with aggy’s statistically best recruiting the era of online rankings, grabbing Leal and Wright along the way. Looking at all of that data, the 5-win season looks like a bit of an outlier. Tucked against a 13 and a 12, the 14 looks less like one. For a number of reasons, I think we under Herman will fare much better than aggy under Jimbo. I don’t happen to believe, however, that one of those reasons is, “Jimbo hasn’t accomplished squat without Jameis.” Given that FSU continued to get worse after he left, I think a reasonable summary is that he has the ability to succeed, but that catastrophic program rot after circa 5 years is not unforeseeable.
×
×
  • Create New...