- Member for
- 6 years 3 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|6 weeks 6 days ago||It is to entice more bets onto MSU.||
This isn't a huge shock, and something many people predicted. Almost every computer model I've seen has the spread at ~15 points. Now, preseason expectations still tamper that a good deal, but this isn't something particularly weird either. In most cases (but certainly not all) the spread matches the computers reasonably closely.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||In re: Sagarin||
Sagarin hasn't said lately what his ratings are based on, but you can generate something with approximately a 0.98 R^2 using just points scored/points allowed. My guess is the 0.02 remaining is a question of the "decay" factor he's using to weigh previous games less (something like 0.95^[weeks ago]).
It's pretty safe to say he's just using points.
(To compare, S&P+ and FEI give about a 0.8 R^2 with pure points)
|1 year 32 weeks ago||There is an excellent discussion of the flaws in this paper||
They make a number of errors as detailed in that thread. Their result is largely implausible.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||This is correct - KenPom is already SOS adjusted||
So this has the effect of double counting strength of schedule, while is why Kansas (#1 SOS on KenPom) jumps to the top.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||It's a Mississippi thing||
You need to be 21 to sign legally binding contracts there. As result, rather than have two LOI forms, the NCAA just adopted the MS rules.
|2 years 11 weeks ago||I know everyone is going nuts||
By FEI, Michigan is 15th and MSU is 34th.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Notre Dame||
FWIW, Irish fans feel pretty confident he's their's. Is he at a catholic school or something?
|2 years 23 weeks ago||I accidentally upvoted myself||
Which seems like poor form, so I downvoted to cancel it out.
|2 years 37 weeks ago||Margin of victory & strength of schedule don't balance here||
Michigan has outscored opponents by an average of 13 points per game. Florida has outscored opponents by an average of 19 points per game. So Michigan is about 6 points worse to start.
Then add in strength of schedule: Michigan's average opponent has been about 1 point per game stronger than Florida's per Sagarin (that's what the 79.70 vs. 78.56 is - strength of schedule scaled to a points per game metric).
Florida has been 6 points per game better in Margin of Victory, but 1 point worse in strength of schedule. To wit, they should rate about 5 points better than Michigan.
Michigan's predictor ranking is 89.38; Florida's is 94.26. In other words, Florida would be favored on a neutral court (per Sagarin) by 5 points.
It adds up. The reason it seems fishy is just that Sagarin thinks the strength of schedule is much closer (only 1 point) than the margin of victory (6 points).
|2 years 44 weeks ago||How long since...||
Michigan football or basketball was ranked #1?
|3 years 13 weeks ago||There's a better way to do this||
Just off the top of my head, you can use Matt Hinton's findings.
Using those weightings (which are based on making All American teams - a flawed, but decent metric), you get that a 5 star recruit is about 2.6 times more likely to be a star than a 4 star recruit, who is in turn around 4.2 times more likely to be a star than a 3 star recruit.
Now star power isn't the only thing that matters, but I don't see any reason to think the distribution for "role player" or "starter" is all that different.
|3 years 17 weeks ago||You think UM is losing a popularity contest here?||
I think that's a pretty aggressive interpretation of what's going on here. UM has as many fans as anyone, and they're as affluent as anyone.
It has more to do with the fact that they Florida has 19 4/5* commits to UM's 17, and of the top six recruits, Florida has five of them. I wouldn't trade UM's class for Florida's, but there's nothing wrong with this ranking.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||The Irish||
Notre Dame's turnover differential was pretty epic. They were -1.1 turnover per game relative to their opponents, and a lot of that was in the red zone (where the value of those turnovers is heightened). In spite of that, they ranked around 20th in strength of schedule adjusted point differential.
They went 8-5 with really terrible turnover results, and below average performance in close games.
I hate to say it, but the "sharp" action is gonna be on Notre Dame in a lot of these games. That team is primed for a major turnaround.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Gonna be a doozy||
Maxwell's obviously the wild card, but wiht the depth that they've built up in East Lansing, I suspect most of their attrition due to the draft/graduation will be surprisingly non-existent.
If Maxwell can play, they're probably the 2nd best team on the schedule after Alabama. If he can't, well then, uh, yeah.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||A bit a of a head scratcher||
But honestly, not super different from using a scholarship on a fullback. It means we might finish 3rd in the Rivals rankings rather than 1st, but scorekeeping aside, it's not a big deal.
You can afford to use 1/85th the roster on a bit of a redundancy.
|3 years 30 weeks ago||Averaging||
For all these analyses, I'm always curious to know whether the quality of the results would be improved by averaging ESPN/Scout/Rivals. In a lot of other fields, that's obviously invaluable, and my suspicion is it would be here as well.
|3 years 30 weeks ago||It's not a different ranking system||
It's ranking different things. UM is 13 on their list overall, with the undergraduate part of the school ranking 28th nationally. The implication (and the correct one) is that UM has especially strong graduate programs, which boost it to 13th overall.
The disparity between the 13th and the 28th rankings is no more surprising than UM ranking 1st in recruiting rankings right now, but finishing outside the top 10 in the polls. They're measuring different things.
|3 years 34 weeks ago||This might not b the case||
They might just draft fewer busts, and more of the NBA's total revenue would go to established veterans rather than speculative bets on 19 year olds.
Not that that's a good idea in and of itself, but in terms of the number of dollars going towards unproductive players, it could help.
|3 years 35 weeks ago||Luck's a bad word for it||
The term that should be used is "not repeatable", which isn't quite the same thing. And even more specifically, it's "not repeatable at the D1 level."
If you have Michigan play against a high school team, I'd very much so expect UM to recover 70%+ of fumbles. And if you had UM play against an NFL team, I'd expect the ratio to be reversed. It's a skill. I don't even think Brian disagrees with that. However, it's a skill everyone who plays at the D1 level is exceptionally good at, so there's a bit of a standstill.
If every D1 football team played 162 games a year, you wouldn't need to regress turnover rate quite so strongly. However, since turnovers are rare, and everyone UM plays against is pretty good at recovering them, it's hard to tell much from which way 30 or so bounces went.
|3 years 36 weeks ago||Decommits||
As we know, the staff tells guys not to commit if they still want to take an official visit to another school. This should generally help with decommits, insofar as it helps Deontay Greenberry to Houston type situations from developing.
It doesn't completely eliminate decommits obviously, and probably slows down getting commits in the first place (Ty Isaac wanting to visit USC first for instance), but it does mean once they're in the class, they're probably not likelyto leave.
|3 years 38 weeks ago||There's never been a player I've more wanted to see tape on||
That said, Jared Gaither is 6'9", so given some random inaccuracy in high school measurement, Orlando Brown might be "only" 6'9" as well. Ryan Mallett's height varied by a couple inches here and there too.
|3 years 38 weeks ago||Rivals ratings||
You're using Rivals ratings right? Have you tried matching up their numeric ratings to likelihood of being drafted? I'm curious if that would help give a more granular result?
I also think it's also interesting to compare this to All-American rankings. While five star players are just under five times more likely to get drafted than three star players per your analysis, Dr. Saturday found that five stars were more than eleven times more likely to make an All-American team than three stars. That's a pretty significant gap. I can speculate about a couple reasons for why, but the most obvious is a preference for placing a 5 star onto such a team over a 3 star (while the draft is more of an obvious meritocracy).
|3 years 39 weeks ago||I've heard it before||
But it's still stunning to see how big March Madness is. Those 67 games generate more ad revenue than the 750 or so college football games do?
|3 years 39 weeks ago||Patriots||
1. Need a center. Prefer smart players over physical beasts. David Molk to the rescue.
2. Need a wide receiver. Love 3 cone drill performers. Junior Hemingway had the best 3 cone result.
Brady and Zoltan get a couple of Michigan teammates. Win a Super Bowl. Done.
|3 years 40 weeks ago||This is basically accurate||
Other than Andre Smith, none of Saban's Alabama O-Linemen are playing significant roles even for bottom feeders in the NFL. (Per Pro-Football-Reference's draft checker).
And even Smith is generally considered to be a bust - just a guy who has a job because of the team he plays for.
|3 years 40 weeks ago||It's an elementary school||
I don't know if that makes it better or worse?
|3 years 40 weeks ago||He's apparently headed back to the school||
Going to announce soon. Per twitter.
|3 years 40 weeks ago||I know quoting rival message boards is lame||
But this nugget from Irish Envy was too good to skip:
"Just stated clearly that Neal wants AU and dad wants ND....come on dad pull the belt out!!"
Something about asking a father to beat a commitment out of his son seems like a very apt summary of the state of Notre Dame Football.
|3 years 41 weeks ago||ESPN notes||
That he previously attended Cypress Ridge HS (Houston suburb) previously. I imagine there's a good chance that in spite of the Cass Tech pipeline, that the Texas schools will be major players in his recruitment.
|3 years 41 weeks ago||Head to head play is misleading||
If you start moving teams around based on head to head play instead of overall resume, then you just end up creating other issues. I didn't see too many posters here complaining about UM being ranked higher than MSU in spite of head to head play.