Football Outsiders (Per ESPN) predict 7 losses for UM ($)
I think Football Outsiders are on drugs. Among their many strange predictions are the following margins of victory/losses
CMU + 19, ND - 10, Akron + 33, UConn -5, MINN + 13, PSU -11, IND + 9, MSU -16, NEB -7, NW - 11, IOWA -8, OSU -13.
It also claims that we will have the #31 Defense.
Of course, ESPN turns around and ranks us #14.
Link
Edit:
Football Outsiders has had a good record in predicting NFL games. But their methodology may not translate well to the college level. Can anyone explain their Efficiency Rating?
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/
Added Iowa
August 7th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
I've been huffing ether since Saturday, though, so take what I think with a grain of salt.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
Edit: Can't read.
IOWA -8 !!!
That makes it 8 losses predicted, right?
August 7th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
my 401k and house against this non-sense.
Travesty, Shame and a Mockery
traveshamockery
August 7th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
This amuses me.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
When I was in college, I knew a guy who liked guns. he went to a very public place, after sunset, pointed his gun into the air, fired all the bullets in the gun, then ran away to hide as he watched the police show up to "investigate." He proceeded to giggle his ass off as he saw the collection of people look around as if they were going to figure out why this happened.
I would relate this report as that type of situation...they posted 7 losses and they're sitting back giggling as we MGoFreakout on the story. I say we let the moron be and prove it on the field. He'll get his due sooner rather than later.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 12:45 PM ^
Yes! Another vote for batshit.
Use your math formula from last year to create the over/under on batshit.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
For instance, if the home team is -5 they predict that the home team will lose by 5. If the home team is +10, the home team will win by 10. It can be confusing when you look at it from one teams point of view.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
If that's what they're doing it's a lot more plausable but still a bit strange. That would have us losing only to Notre Dame, Nebraska (by a little) and Ohio (by a lot). A reasonable middle-of-the-road prediction.
It would suggest that we're supposed to handle Sparty @ MSU much more easily than Indiana at home, which is very strange... plus the UConn thing doesn't make sense no matter which way you put the +/-.
A home team at -5 means that the home team is GIVING 5 points, meaning they are FAVORED by 5. If that were true in this case, the Akron and CMU games would be the ones in which we were the biggest underdgogs. It is not the correct interpretation of the +/-.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
Except on recruiting, then they are the best. This year.
Hey, Butterfield, I think there are some falsehoods you said about me that you might want to defend.
http://mgoblog.com/content/fall-roster-overanalysis-2013#comment-2120063
Yikes.
Butterfield? It's time to go home now, Butterfield.
August 8th, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^
Hey Magnus.
I think there isn't a single falsehood that I said about you. In fact, everything I said in that thread was a 100 percent accurate summary of what you wrote in this thread: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/rb-recruiting-2014
To summarize, per Magnus (as stated in that thread), Shallman wasn't a running back because of a combination of the following elements:
1) He was too tall: "You do realize that 6'2" is tall for a running back, right? And that any increment above 6'2" is farther outside of the norm? "
2) He was too heavy: " Yes, you're right that some guys in the NFL are approaching 225 lbs....and most of those guys were about 200-210 lbs. coming out of high school. What you seem to be forgetting is that guys typically bulk up in college, which you're not accounting for."
3) He didn't have the athleticism and measurables: "Nobody's saying he's not ATHLETIC. What people are saying is that he's athletic ENOUGH to play TAILBACK at a school like Michigan.
Except:
1) Matt Forte, Leveon Bell, and Stephen Jackson are three examples of highly drafted, and in Forte and Jackson's cases, highligh accomplished, running backs listed at 6'2". If someone thinks that a single inch is a barrier to success, fine, but Magnus insisted 1 inch wasn't his determinent.
2) Green is now 240 lbs. So either you no longer believe that weight will inhibit success, or you think Green is suited for fullback.
3) Shallman's reported 4.7 forty time would have put him right in the middle of the 2013 NFL combine RB class, his reported 38" vertical towards the top, so is it really the athleticism, Magnus? http://walterfootball.com/combine2013RB.php
August 8th, 2013 at 12:00 PM ^
I don't think you read what you said. YOU said that I claimed no running back would play for Michigan who was 240 lbs. And despite all of your blathering, you haven't found a single shred of evidence I ever said that.
What I have said is the stuff you linked above - he's likely too tall, too heavy, and too slow to be a feature back at the college level. Yes, you found some 6'2" running backs...which has nothing to do with 6'3" running backs. Green is a guy who's already being talked about (by Borges) as a guy who might need to shed weight. And if you really believe all the high school forty times that get reported out there, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...
And what you've failed to realize throughout all of this is that in my comments about Shallman, I said that *if* indeed Shallman is already the 245-250 lbs. that he was listed at in high school (here, here), then that doesn't bode well for him playing running back. Furthermore, surely you realize that forty times aren't the only thing involved with playing running back. Some guys run slow on the track and fast on the field, some guys run fast on the track and slow on the field, etc. Let's assume for a second that his 4.7 forty time is accurate - that doesn't mean he plays as fast as the guys at the NFL Combine.
So you DID relay something false about me, and furthermore, you have failed to provide any evidence that being 6'3" is an advantage for him in the race for the running back position. Your argument is simply this: "Well, Magnus might be wrong." Well, duh. Thanks for enlightening us that predicting the future isn't 100% accurate.
If you want to argue with me, keep it to things I actually said. Good grief, I say enough things on here that you shouldn't have to create an Imaginary Magnus to argue with.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
I'm done arguing back and forth with you. I'm tired of the circles you take me in and I'm starting to get dizzy. So for the sake of moving along, I'll take the MGoBoard version of the Alford plea. I am innocent of all charges, but will plead guilty because the prosecutor will just keep making my life hell.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^
And I've read my share of Yahoo comments (and am assuredly worse off for it).
One prediction is made by someone with reason, the other prediction is made by an algorithm that has some (major) flaws.
just favorited this article. Can't wait to go back to this in december and laugh at them
I have never been very impressed with Football Outsiders, and I don't think Football statistics can say as much as Basketball or even baseball statistics, mainly because of sample size concerns. Not only are there only 13 games, but when you break down the various games into defensive packages, responsibilities, strength of schdule, and even quality of quarterback play, the number of iterations on any player is pretty low and usually doesn't say much other that reinforce the perception of a player-- or maybe offer slightly contrarian perspectives.
All of this is fine, but writers like FBO guys and KC Joyner act like their statisitics are some sort of magic TRUTH REVEALER and end up making rediculous claims like this.
EDIT: I should clarify that most of these conserns have to do with specific players rather than whole teams.
Srsly? After reading about their methodology all I can offer is the following:
I read FOA and I certainly don't agree with their predictions, but take a second to understand what you're criticisizing.
This is a 500 page book about Pro Football that tries to give a VERY brief insight on the major college conferences. The Michigan write up is 1/2 page long and ranks them #28 (in the FOA published version anyways). It does predict 7-5, but as others have pointed out, in between all he comments saying how crazy this is, FOA has a strong belief that teams revert to the mean of their past several seasons. So, for Michigan, this inclues some truly awful years.
It's a pretty sound theory, they are VERY few Boise St. stories where a program comes from nowhere to be excellent and stays there. There are far more tales of teams having a really good year, based partially on luck, and then stepping back in the next season. You know, like going squeeking into a bowl game and getting blown out, to winning the Sugar Bowl the next season.
Also - the Michigan write up says this:
"because the team’s recent history has been only decent and not great, Michigan is projected conservatively. But if blue-chippers in the trenches and elsewhere begin to click pretty quickly this fall, the Wolverines could be a threat to vastly exceed their projection."
Finally - in the Projected Win Probabilities section, they lay it out thusly for UM:
11-1 1%
10-2 3%
9-3 11%
8-4 22%
7-5 28%
6-6 22%
5-7 10%
4-8 3%
Well I guess we have the most pessimistic posible prediction from pontificating pundits. Crazy things like this do create some discussion, though. You have to admit that it's probably generated a ton of hits from Michigan fans wondering what the hell they're thinking. Although they also could have just lost business from every rational B1G fan in the nation. I still see 4 losses being the worst possible outcome. I think Notre Dame, Northwestern, and Ohio are the three tricky games. Nebraska returns three broken twigs and some masking tape on defense. Most people think there is no way they can be worse than last year on that side of the ball, but I think that line of thinking is extrememly flawed. Of course they can be worse, especially if 9 of the starters are new this year.
The FO metrics seem to work better for pro football because, I think, turnover year-to-year is far less pronounced in pro football than college, and as such you have a longer history for predicting a team's performance. With certain college teams, you'll see far more dramatic shifts in performance as players graduate and new recruits come in, oftentimes with real physical growth necessary to be successful (which is less true in the pros, where usually players are physically mature by the time they sign).
The range for UM is 2-5 losses IME, all coming down to a couple of road games and how good ND really is this year. I'm guessing they lose 3, but that's just because the schedule offers opportunities for a young team to lose a close game or two.
7 losses seems about right........for the basketball team. If football loses 7 it would be freaking armageddon. Hard to see how a team that was 8-5 last year drops so much. So many alleged experts seem to know nothing about this team. They look at the fewest returning starters in the B1G and think that's meaningful. Somehow they missed out on the fact that in a number of those positions there will be likely improvement over last year's now-departed starters. But predictions like these are fun since I love seeing so many people be completely wrong while I laugh.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there is no way we lose 7 games. We might not even lose 7 games the next 3 years combined. I have bets with my cousin for 100 buck on the The Game winner and another hundred on whos defense finishes higher in the overall stats. I wish these guys would but their money where their mouth is with an over under bet lol I'd take under all day.
Every year there does seem to be a team that does way worse than everybody thinks they will do, and perhaps the Outsiders think that team will be Michigan this year. Maybe they hope this is their "At the end of the year, we're going to look really smart for this" pick.
It is highly illogical, however.
I tend to consider myself a realist, but wow! 7 losses is unfathomable, even in my mind. ND and OSU are the only highly probably losses on the schedule.
unless they expect half our team to be ruled ineligible. MSU will be lucky to score 16 points, let alone beat us by that much.
in a conference where Michigan is ostensibly ranked higher than every other team besides Ohio. And given that Michigan is still adding to a two-year home victory skein and that UM's two biggest rivalrty games are at home, and Michigan hasn't lost any non-conference matchup other than to last year's BCS final entrants under Hoke, with MSU and Northwestern, the two biggest road foes this year, I'd say this preview is totally full of shit.
UConn beating Michigan? Is anyone taking action on that, straight-up, anywhere?
These guys are high.
If Gardner goes out for the season in week one and Shane Morris starts the next 11, we still win at least five.
I ain't mad at 'em though. I'd rather read about us going 5-7 and laugh about it because it seems absurd than read about ohio going 12-0 and grinding my teeth because there is at least some chance it could actually happen.