odds of starting 7-0?
the 7 games stretch we have at the beginning of the season has to be where we rack up some key wins
we beat western
we will see what notre dame is made off next
eastern and indiana are almost gimmies
then our little brother...we will have to see how good they really are
iowa looked like crap but its still early
and delaware state should be another gimme
Can we pull out 7 straight wins? and hopefully pick up a few more wins in the last 5
September 6th, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^
2,317 to 1 is my guess. But I defer to jamiemac.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:08 PM ^
at this point in time w/ toss-ups against ND, @MSU, and @Iowa (0.50 * 0.50 * 0.50). (Trying not to be a homer with only one game observed.) The homer in me says it's more likely than that.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
this is 7 to 1
September 6th, 2009 at 12:59 PM ^
Very low.
But, it no longer looks impossible, and that's all we can ask for right now.
September 6th, 2009 at 12:59 PM ^
This is ridiculous. We beat Western. A good win but Western didn't look too good. Let's win against ND. To answer the question though, about a 1 in 10 chance.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
until after the Notre Dame game. Next week will be a real challenge. But if we can handle them, the next five are certainly no better than Notre Dame.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^
I think assessments of "very low" and "ridiculous" are, well, ridiculous. Were we watching the same game yesterday? I know we have to temper our enthusiasm because it was just the first game, but there is no doubt that this team is not the same team we watched last year. No doubt that they are vastly improved. No doubt that we have more weapons than we saw yesterday (e.g., Minor). No doubt that they will continue to improve. Barring any bad luck (which I hope we have exhausted by now) they will really only be really tested by 2 or 3 teams (ND, MSU, and perhaps Iowa). I would say they have at least a 50/50 shot at going 7-0. Well above 'very low' or 10%.
EDIT - There you go again, negging me for an opinion. That is not the point of negging. While I obviously disagreed with above posters (and simply re-used one's assertion that the OP's opinion was "ridiculous") I did not neg any of them. I voiced my opposition instead.
September 6th, 2009 at 2:52 PM ^
There's three toss-ups, say, and three games where we might be expected to win but it's not 100%. Let's say 90%
So the chances of going 7-0 are
.5x .5 x .5 x .9 x.9 x .9 = 9.11% chance which gives about 10 to 1 odds.
Of course, we could do it the right way statistically and just say "what are the odds of any 1-0 team going 7-0" Last year 50% of team went 1-0 by definition.
Teams who went 7-0: Penn State, Utah, Ball State, Texas, Alabama, Okalahoma, Texas Tech, Tulsa, Boise State. 9 teams out of 60 who went 1-0 subsequently went 7-0. That's 15%.
So I'd say the chances are somewhere between 9 and 15 at best. It will be less if we play with the odds for each game, but there's no way it's more than 15% based on the MATH (not opinion).
September 6th, 2009 at 3:55 PM ^
Its my opinion (or should that be 'OPINION'?) that you are infusing waaaaaay too many assumptions into your argument (and leaving out way too many other aspects), rendering a static assessment based on math alone informative but ultimately pretty useless.
Any competent assessment must be based on more than your simple variables, and must be based on more than math - it must be qualitative as well as quantitative, it must be dynamic as well as static. For example, does your 3rd .5 remain .5 if we win the first 3 games? Does any .5 stay at .5 if Cissoko or another key player is out for a while? What about learning and evolution? You fail to account for any process - a static assessment of a dynamic and world is of little value in my opinion, as is a strictly quantitative assessment of a both quantitative and qualitative world.
My 50/50 assessment, though numerical, was mostly qualitative (trying to infuse learning and process in there). My prediction is admittedly worth about as much as yours and most other's - not much.
September 6th, 2009 at 5:18 PM ^
I respectually disagree. It's not actually static, but stochastic. The fact that we don't know for sure what the chances of winning a given game are (.5 or .4 or .6), does not mean we know little about the probability of winning multiple games. It just makes the prediction fuzzier - I calcalulated the compound probability at 9%, but the factors you mention mean it might be 4, or it might be 20. But there's no way it's high; even if this miracle actually HAPPENS it doesn't make sense to say it's LIKELY to happen.
How do we know this? Because when we look at ALL teams, historically speaking, we see that regardless of the kind of factors you mention, only 9 of 60 teams go from 1-0 to 7-0. That's 15%.
If we win the first three games, the question "will we start 7-0" is really only a question of whether we will go 4-0 over the next four games. Last year about 19 teams of 120 went 4-0 to start. So one way to think about it is there's about a 1/6 chance of a team going 4-0.
But we could also look at the current Michigan schedule in particular. Let's be easy and call MSU Iowa and Penn State "toss-ups" (.50 chance) and Delaware State an easy win (.9). So the chances of going 7-0 with a 3-04 start is
.5 x .5 x .5 x .9 = 11.25%
which, come to think of it, is not much different from 9%.
To say that it's LIKELY to happen, even with a 3-0 start, even if you count Delaware State at 100% chance of winning, you'd have to conclude we have about a 60% chance of winning Penn State AND MSU AND Iowa.
Anybody think we are going to be favored in those games, even if we win the next two?
September 6th, 2009 at 5:52 PM ^
Again, an informative analysis. But like I said, I think you include too many assumptions (e.g., you assume independence of games, and we know that is not the case - ask the '07 team after their first two games when they played ND. Something qualitative changed the situation between the Oregon and the ND game). Also, you leave out too many variables. For example - look at RR's record of change from year 1 to year 2. That is a gaping hole in your model.
And I never said going 7-0 was 'LIKELY' to happen - not sure where you got that - 50/50 is not 'likely'. My main point was that our chances are better than 'low' or 'ridiculous'- which was the language of the posters I was replying to.
Also, stochastic can be static. You can include a 'random' coefficent in a cross-sectional analysis. Doing multiple cross-sectional anlyses, which is what you are really doing, doesn't make your model dynamic or processual. You need to account for change in time as well as space. And like I said, if you include qualitative variables (which we admittedly cannot do unless we do real research), prediction becomes pretty useless. In short, you do provide a good analysis, perhaps the only sort we can actually do, but I think a strictly qualitative analyses, while interesting, is of little use to us. There are too many intangibles, too many qualitative factors.
And YES, I do think that if we win the next 2 we might be favored against MSU and Iowa (PSU is not relevant to our conversation of the first 7 games, but I would say that who is favored depends on our season and PSU's season - this season, not last season).
September 6th, 2009 at 7:55 PM ^
"How do we know this? Because when we look at ALL teams, historically speaking, we see that regardless of the kind of factors you mention, only 9 of 60 teams go from 1-0 to 7-0."
I just wanted to chime in that "historically" is typically not just one year, and that what happened last year to 9 other 1-0 has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not Michigan can go 7-0.
Besides, Dandy Don says it's 60/40 that Michigan goes 7-0.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:16 PM ^
With any game, Michigan will either win it or lose it. So almost by definition, Michigan has a 50% chance to win any given game. Extending this to 6 more games, each of which Michigan has a 50% chance of winning, the likelihood of going 7-0 is 50/50. E-fact, with a helluva lotta sugarcoating.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:18 PM ^
Well in that case, I defer to your excellent math skills. As long as that includes 100% to beat the dirty Geauxphers.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
keep in mind, this is a very young team. mistakes will be made, and opponents will be less forgiving. 6-1 would be a great start tho, and 5-2 looks likely.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
I am enjoying 1-0 right now. Hopefully we can get to 2-0.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
If we can win next week, I could see us building up momentum and having a season similar to Alabama's last year.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:52 PM ^
Much as I'd love it, UM ain't gonna be ranked #1 for most of the season and go to a BCS bowl game. Let's temper our enthusiasm a bit.
September 6th, 2009 at 2:36 PM ^
It was a poorly expressed opinion on my part. What I had in mind was surprising people and winning a bunch of games in a row, IF we win next game. But yeah, Alabama was not a good analogy.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
You're acting like we went 9-3 last year. There is still much the team needs to improve on. Only time will tell how good we really are...
September 6th, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^
lets calm down abit after a good win. ND looked really good yesterday and so did MSU. Hell even if we go 4-3 we are head of last year. I do think we can start 5-2 with losses to ND and MSU,I'd be happy with that right now.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
after the game yesterday, my buddy and i calculated the odds of us going 13-0, and we came up with 100%.
so the exact odds of us going 7-0 to start the year would be 100%.
:)
in reality, probably not too good. remember, this was western.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:07 PM ^
we actually called one of my buddy's bookies to ask him to come up with a line for a parlay of Michigan National Champs + Tate/Denard co-Heisman.
he hung up on my buddy.
apparently he wasn't as drunk as we were, and had other things to do.
i'd set the fair line for that parlay at about +140 at this point.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
According to my calculations, the odds of us going 7-0 are 97.7%
September 6th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
put down the maize and blue crack pipe and slowly back away.
7-0 discussions can begin 1 second after we achieve a 6-0 record.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
Let's just worry about ND next weekend. Their passing offense looks scary. Boo Boo needs to be healthy and our secondary needs to be on their game. We need to hit Jimmah hard and often.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^
Well, we've started 7-0 three times in the thirty years I have been watching the program.
So, that tells me there is a 10 percent chance.
Love the optimism, though. I'd settle for a big fat juicy 2-0 and take my chances from there!
September 6th, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^
so, yeah, I agree it's not such a good idea (even from a mere fan enjoyment perspective) to start looking past the big game.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:09 PM ^
I wouldn't bet the house on it just yet. There are three tough games there, two on the road. Suppose you are really optimistic and think we have a 55% chance of beating each of those guys, and 95% chance of sweeping the three others combined.
That is, 0.95 x 0.55 x 0.55 x 0.55
That comes to just under 16 percent. Maybe the win gave you serious maize and blue goggles and you think our odds are 65% in those games. Then the combined odds of going undefeated leap up to... 26 percent.
Total crap stats there in either case - assumptions violated all over, wild simplifications, etc etc - but maybe it gives you some feel for the real difficulty of running to 7-0.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^
"Total crap stats there in either case - assumptions violated all over, wild simplifications, etc etc..."
Thank you for being the only one (or one of few, I should say) to acknowledge the importance of assumptions in this analysis. You cannot use the same statistical analysis to determine our odds of going 7-0 as you would to calculate how many times Heads comes up when flipping a coin (which is what a lot of folks have done on this thread).
+1 to you sir
September 6th, 2009 at 6:01 PM ^
... but most of these outcomes don't really fit any kind of decent statistical model. Predicting football games might be the worst offender, for a bunch of reasons.
But it's fun and mostly harmless, unless anyone actually is thinking about betting their life savings on Michigan going 7-0!
September 6th, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
We looked good, but Notre Dame looked even better...their passing game is scary, and knowing our secondary, it'll be tough to defend.
Based on early evidence, this could very well be Notre Dame's year....They've matured alot.
I think if we can get by Notre Dame (which isn't impossible), then 7-0 might be attainable.
MSU looked good as well, but I think that some of it was their opponent as well. They'll have a difficult time defending the spread when they play us.
Even though we'll be on the road, I think it'll be more likely that we beat MSU than ND. Again, early prediction based on flimsy evidence.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
Given that we're CLEARLY going to win the National Championship this year... What are the odds of defending our title next year? I'd say "excellent", but some have argued for "guaranteed". Thoughts?
[/sarcasm]
September 6th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
i'm more concerned with the odds of being 6-1 or 7-0, both of which would be extremely satisfying
September 6th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
one game at a time... this is still a very young team and we will need a healthy Forcier
September 6th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
I figured a thread like this would popup today. Our true test will ND, and then we'll have a better gauge on our season. We played well against Western Michigan and executed well, but ND's key players are a year older and have more experience than us. Beat ND, and then yeah, very good chance we can go 7-0 into PSU game.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:21 PM ^
If we can start 5-2 I would be ecstatic.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:21 PM ^
...but I really do think we'll lose to Notre Dame next week, especially if Cissoko isn't healthy. If we don't get to Clausen, he's going to pick apart our secondary.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
Agreed about the matchup with Clausen. Cissoko and Warren gives us a puncher's chance there. I do love our front and pressure against ND offensive line. Hopefully we can get enough of that to offset the big plays you know they will get with Clausen and Co.
I like both offenses next week. I think we get the shootout many thought their respective games yesterday would be.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^
I agree about our CBs needing to play well. But I wonder if we can use last year's game in looking at next week's. Last year, we looked to have the superior team even though we lost. Both teams obviously improved over the year. But did ND improve that much more than we did? And if so, why? Because they are older? (genuinely interested in what makes ND that much better this year).
September 6th, 2009 at 1:54 PM ^
Last year they destroyed us with long passes . . . and that was with veterans in the defensive backfield, like Trent, Brown, and Harrison. Both of our safeties are first-year starters, as is Cissoko (or Floyd or Turner, depending on who's healthy and ready). Warren might be able to play with Michael Floyd, but if you think Cissoko can match up with him...take a look at the 2008 Army All-American game. And J.T. Floyd definitely can't run with Golden Tate.
Also, I think Clausen is better than he was last year.
Also, I think Notre Dame's defense will be better this year than last.
I don't think Notre Dame is a ton better than they were last year, but I think they're improved. And at least defensively, I think there are still a lot of question marks for us.
September 6th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
Thanks for the analysis. And I think I get it - it seems they were better than us last year where it really counts for this year.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
Cissoko needs to get to 100% ASAP. JT Floyd is going to get destroyed out there by ND's passing game. JT Turner needs to get game ready quick so he can backup Warren or Cissoko. Never really got a good feel for our secondary depth issues until the 2nd half of the game yesterday. Secondary Backups = the new Death
September 6th, 2009 at 1:39 PM ^
tell me the odds.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:48 PM ^
For the nerd reference...
September 6th, 2009 at 2:16 PM ^
When did quoting a Star Wars line become a "nerd reference"?
Han Solo rulz!!
September 6th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
5-2 or 6-1 would be my guess but I guess we have a chance to go 7-0. They key games are ND, MSU, and Iowa. I think we will lose at least one of those games.
September 6th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
Michigan beat a MAC team that played poorly and their QB had a bad day.
After the ND game, assuming we are 2-0, then ask the question again.
For now the Magic 8 Ball says - Try again later.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^
.00000056795% chance of going 7 and 0. Let's get a win next week and review this topic again.