Week 1 Games

Status
Not open for further replies.
#401      
1970 John
Predicting college football scores likely ranks up there with weather forecasting. USA Today's predictions/actual results.

Predicted/Actual

Rutgers 27, Ohio 10; Rutgers 34, Ohio 31

Minnesota 31, Buffalo 14; Minnesota 23, Buffalo 10

Wisconsin 28, Miami (Ohio) 13; Wisconsin 17, Miami (Ohio) 0

Illinois 42, Western Illinois 17; Illinois 52, Western Illinois 3

Ohio State 34, Texas 27; Ohio State 14, Texas 7

Purdue 20, Ball State 13; Purdue 31, Ball State 0

Maryland 20, FAU 14; Maryland 39, FAU 14

Indiana 34, Old Dominion 13; Indiana 27, Old Dominion 14

Penn State 48, Nevada 17; Penn State 46. Nevada 11

Iowa 28, Albany 14; Iowa 34, Albany 7

Tulane 21, Northwestern 20; Tulane 23, Northwestern 3

Nebraska 27, Cincinatti 20; Nebraska 20, Cincinnati 17

Michigan State 28, Western Michigan 20; Michigan State 23, Western Michigan 6

Oregon 42, Montana State 17; Oregon 59, Montana State 13

Michigan 23, New Mexico 10; Michigan 34, New Mexico 17

USC 31, Missouri State 14; USC 73, Missouri State 13

Washington 35, Colorado State 13; Washington 38, Colorado State 21

Utah 23, 23, UCLA 20; Utah 43, UCLA10
 
#402      
Illini in Italy
1970 John said:
Predicting college football scores likely ranks up there with weather forecasting. USA Today's predictions/actual results.

Predicted/Actual

Rutgers 27, Ohio 10; Rutgers 34, Ohio 31

Minnesota 31, Buffalo 14; Minnesota 23, Buffalo 10

Wisconsin 28, Miami (Ohio) 13; Wisconsin 17, Miami (Ohio) 0

Illinois 42, Western Illinois 17; Illinois 52, Western Illinois 3

Ohio State 34, Texas 27; Ohio State 14, Texas 7

Purdue 20, Ball State 13; Purdue 31, Ball State 0

Maryland 20, FAU 14; Maryland 39, FAU 14

Indiana 34, Old Dominion 13; Indiana 27, Old Dominion 14

Penn State 48, Nevada 17; Penn State 46. Nevada 11

Iowa 28, Albany 14; Iowa 34, Albany 7

Tulane 21, Northwestern 20; Tulane 23, Northwestern 3

Nebraska 27, Cincinatti 20; Nebraska 20, Cincinnati 17

Michigan State 28, Western Michigan 20; Michigan State 23, Western Michigan 6

Oregon 42, Montana State 17; Oregon 59, Montana State 13

Michigan 23, New Mexico 10; Michigan 34, New Mexico 17

USC 31, Missouri State 14; USC 73, Missouri State 13

Washington 35, Colorado State 13; Washington 38, Colorado State 21

Utah 23, 23, UCLA 20; Utah 43, UCLA10
Click to expand...
When I use Formician Logic with this data set (laying all the numbers out on the Formica countertop), it shows that USA Today picked the winners 100%, even picking the tOSU/Texas game and the Tulane/Northworstern games correctly. Scores are always tough to hit, but they picked all the winners - for week one. Let's see how they do as the conference schedules heat up and no one is playing cupcakes any more . . . .
Good post for perspective, thanks.
 
#404      
Ander1345
Piotyr said:
Oh right we're still in week 1 because UNC and TCU had to play tonight.

Anyway, Connelly has updated SP+ with game data thus far, and Illinois has jumped to 21, ahead of SMU, Clemson, Michigan, Iowa and Indiana.

Georgia is 1, as OSU slips to 2 despite winning because they were not the better team in that game, mostly because their offense couldn't do much. Texas dropped 9 spots because their offense was stinky despite getting more yardage. Bama dropped 13 spots, Boise dropped 17 spots (they were already behind Illinois), Notre Dame dropped 11 spots ( their game came out nearly even).
Click to expand...
Idk about other people but to my eyes OSU looked far and away the better team.
 
#407      
Ander1345
lstewart53x3 said:
Texas had more yards (336 vs 203), more yards per play (5.0 vs 3.8), and more first downs (16 vs 11).

Texas only lost because they had 5(!) turnovers (4 turnover on downs and an interception).
Click to expand...
Yeah statistically, sure. But I think from a philosophical standpoint OSU helped their QB out a lot more.
 
#410      
fuddrules
lstewart53x3 said:
Texas had more yards (336 vs 203), more yards per play (5.0 vs 3.8), and more first downs (16 vs 11).

Texas only lost because they had 5(!) turnovers (4 turnover on downs and an interception).
Click to expand...
This new turnover on down thing is a turnover....don't follow the nimrods. It never has been and never will be a turnover.

Way too many variables to make that leap. It's not.
 
#411      
TentakilRex
North Carolina has a soft schedule, this with Duke and Syracuse could be the toughest non-Clemson opponent
 
#413      
Piotyr
fuddrules said:
This new turnover on down thing is a turnover....don't follow the nimrods. It never has been and never will be a turnover.

Way too many variables to make that leap. It's not.
Click to expand...
It's not a new thing, it's always been a turnover on downs.

Ohio State got 4 4th down stops and we're lucky they were up against a QB that couldn't hit his targets. Average QB play wins that game for Texas. He was pressured 3 times and sacked once, the running game was better for Texas, Manning just plain lost that game for them.
 
#416      
skyIdub
fuddrules said:
This new turnover on down thing is a turnover....don't follow the nimrods. It never has been and never will be a turnover.

Way too many variables to make that leap. It's not.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Don't be distracted by the silly fact that you are literally turning the ball over to the other team on downs!!

It's clearly a lostover! You lost the ball over on downs! Or maybe a youdonthavetheballanymoreover, because you don't have the ball anymore silly goose!
Or how 'bout a gaveitupover! You gave the ball up doofuses!

jim-carrey-dumb-and-dumber.gif
 
#417      
Piotyr
jamarvelous31 said:
Shouldn't the score be relevant to who is winning the game?
Click to expand...
Which is why Ohio State gets the win yes. However, if those same opportunities play themselves out 100 times between Ohio State and Texas, Ohio State wins 18 times. Saturday just happened to be one of the 18, to their benefit.

However, in terms of predicting team effectiveness going forward, it's more valuable to look at the opportunities generated as that kind of performance is more repeatable.
 
#418      
TentakilRex
Sonny Dykes for CIA director because he can outsmart the best spy organizations in CFB.

Heck hiring those e-Baylor coaches might be virtue for the job, not a vice.
 
#420      
jamarvelous31
Piotyr said:
Which is why Ohio State gets the win yes. However, if those same opportunities play themselves out 100 times between Ohio State and Texas, Ohio State wins 18 times. Saturday just happened to be one of the 18, to their benefit.

However, in terms of predicting team effectiveness going forward, it's more valuable to look at the opportunities generated as that kind of performance is more repeatable.
Click to expand...
But it isn't fantasy football.

OSU had the luxury of playing the way they did because they were ahead. Saying they were dominated when they didn't trail in the game and were leading for most of it is... dumb.
 
#422      
Piotyr
jamarvelous31 said:
But it isn't fantasy football.

OSU had the luxury of playing the way they did because they were ahead. Saying they were dominated when they didn't trail in the game and were leading for most of it is... dumb.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure OSU's defensive strategy wasn't "Let's let them get in the red zone and then count on Manning screwing it up 4x"

It's okay to not understand the metrics, there's no need to be aggressively ignorant about it. Ohio State got the win.
 
#423      
jamarvelous31
Piotyr said:
I'm pretty sure OSU's defensive strategy wasn't "Let's let them get in the red zone and then count on Manning screwing it up 4x"

It's okay to not understand the metrics, there's no need to be aggressively ignorant about it. Ohio State got the win.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the truly indecipherable "yards gained", "first downs", and "points scored" stats are truly innovative metrics beyond me.

If they were dominating, UT must've been ahead in win probability the majority of the game, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back