|10/20/2014 - 3:58pm||Trend Model Predicts||
Trend model predicts we'll score 18 points (R-sq = .86). I think I would actually be okay with this offensive output.
|02/04/2014 - 3:54pm||More like 0.1%||
More like 0.1% or 0.2% if you want probability of "at least 7 of 8".
THE NUMBERS HURT
|01/17/2014 - 7:47pm||Oh wow||
Haven't heard that name in a while
|09/04/2013 - 12:07pm||17-14 Blue||
Beat those Fig Things!
|08/29/2013 - 2:04pm||24 - 9 Blue||
|01/09/2013 - 6:25pm||In the words of Gus Johnson...||
|10/24/2012 - 11:45am||Mich 35 Neb 14||
|10/17/2012 - 11:16am||24-21 Michigan||
298 rushing yards.
|03/29/2012 - 2:51pm||Closer to Boulder?||
Conor O'Neil's in Boulder is a much more low key version of Lodo's experience. Much better food too!
1922 13th Street, Boulder, CO
|05/17/2011 - 12:36pm||"the turnover margin they||
"the turnover margin they enjoy one year has virtually zero predictive value for the turnover margin they will enjoy the next year. That means that on average, teams with substantially positive margins will see major decline in margin the next year, and teams with substantially negative margins will see major improvement the next year."
This is just plain wrong. If there was no predictive value for year over year turnover margin, then how can we predict major declines or improvement for teams with substantial margins? That would imply a high negative correlation. No correlation (or low as is 12%) means that it is random and unpredictable.