|02/27/2019 - 2:02pm||Those are all good points,…||
Those are all good points, but I still think you're being overly pessimistic to make a point.
Moving McKeon to the long-shot category (and changing the long-shot percentage to 5%) and Metellus and Higdon to the maybe category (and changing the maybe category to 40%) STILL gives you an expected percentage drafted of almost double the national average.
And that doesn't even consider guys we're not talking about or who develop better than expected. What would you have set the odds for guys like Rudock, Clark, Chesson, or Ryan Glasgow midway through their careers.
|02/27/2019 - 10:24am||Why is Metellus a maybe?…||
Why is Metellus a maybe? Delano Hill got drafted in the 3rd round after a 2nd-team All-BIG senior year. Metellus was a 2nd-team All-BIG selection last year.
If you assign likelihoods to each tier (e.g., likely draft pick=90%, maybe draft pick=50%, long-shot=10%):
4 likely draft picks (Bush, Hudson, Metellus, Higdon) x 90% = 3.6 draft picks
4 maybe draft picks (Uche, Paye, McKeon, Eubanks) x 50% = 2 draft picks
6 long-shot draft picks (Dwumfour, Steuber, Mason, Jeter, St. Juste, Honigford) x 10% = 0.6 draft picks
You have 6.2 expected draft picks* out of 25. That's an expected draft rate of 25%, which is WAY above the national average. So it feels like you're being overly pessimistic here.
*Note this is also excluding contributors from last year like Gil, Kemp, and Evans. So I think this estimate is actually somewhat conservative.
|11/13/2018 - 3:39pm||It's interesting that in…||
It's interesting that in this diary and Maizer's semi-objective system there's clearly a top tier of 5 teams (Clemson, Alabama, Georgia, ND, and Michigan). I'm honestly surprised that Clemson is so highly rated here, but maybe that's more evidence to support the CFP committee's favoritism towards ACC schools?
|11/12/2018 - 12:03pm||OU losing is our best chance…||
OU losing is our best chance at making the CFP according to 538. Even if we win out 538 still projects we don't make the CFP if Clemson, ND, and OU all win out as well. Surprisingly whether Georgia or Alabama wins out has little effect.
BUT, I think this projection doesn't adequately factor in the chaos that should ensue over the next few weeks. In the past 3 years at least one top 5 team has lost between Weeks 12 and 15, and most years that includes at least one undefeated team.
Right now there are 9 Power 5 teams with 0 or 1 loss (including ND). After Week 12 there were 6 P5 teams with 0 or 1 loss in 2017, 7 in 2016, and 12(!) in 2015. After Week 15 there were only 5 teams with 0 or 1 loss in 2017, 4 in 2016, and 6 in 2015. Those numbers also don't factor in undefeated teams that lost between Weeks 12 and 15 (e.g., Alabama and Wisconsin in 2017) and teams that lost more than 1 game between Weeks 12 and 15 (e.g., Miami in 2017).
So we can probably expect some chaos over the next 3 weeks. There are of course 3 losses on the board with Alabama-Georgia, OU-WVU, and Michigan-Ohio State all playing each other. But it would surprise me if there wasn't at least 1 or 2 other losses hiding in there somewhere, meaning that when it all shakes out we're probably down to 4 or 5 teams with 0 or 1 loss.
|11/05/2018 - 12:15pm||I disagree that "the rest of…||
I disagree that "the rest of the games are unlikely to matter". FiveThirtyEight's CFP prediction model has Michigan with the 5th best odds of making the CFP if they win out and Clemson, ND, plus 1 of Alabama/Georgia and 1 of WVU/Oklahoma. So at least according to that model the Alabama/Georgia game is not the most important outcome. We need at least one of those 6 teams to get upset but still win their conference championship (or in ND's case, just lose at least one game).
|11/05/2018 - 9:14am||But this isn't "local"…||
But this isn't "local" politics. It's information about people running to lead our university. It'd be like you complaining that someone posted something about PTO elections on your kid's school Facebook page.
|11/05/2018 - 9:13am||Does this really count as …||
Does this really count as "politicks" though? I understand the complaint about politics on a sports blog, but this is mostly about picking people to lead the university that we are all here to support. So it feels a *little* different to me.
|11/02/2018 - 11:55am||I'm not an expert, but this…||
I'm not an expert, but this feels like a good week to really break out the RPOs in addition to our developing zone read game. Mesh point with Higdon where Higdon either cuts to a backside hole or Patterson hits a TE or slot receiver who's snuck behind the crashing LBs.
|11/01/2018 - 9:31am||While I agree with this in…||
While I agree with this in theory, UCF's schedule feels potentially historically weak. They have yet to play a team with a winning record and I can't feel too bad for them since they only scheduled two non-conference P5 opponents. I understand that's not entirely their fault (under the current system it feels like a lose-lose for a P5 team to schedule a good G5 team).
|10/31/2018 - 4:40pm||What about looking at the…||
What about looking at the ratio of yards/point to points/play? Mathematically this is just points/play, which is the inverse of your last column (plays/point). But intuitively it feels like a comparison of "how good is your offense at moving the ball" to "how bad (since lower values are better) is your offense at converting yards to points". Michigan's still 3rd in the Big Ten but only slightly ahead of Wisconsin and Maryland.
|10/31/2018 - 4:18pm||If we share the…||
If we share the procrastination then maybe our bosses won't realize we've been goofing off?
|10/31/2018 - 2:32pm||Good job! Just to put these…||
Good job! Just to put these numbers into context, I checked the performance for 4 other ranking systems-- KRACH (since so many people were suggesting it as an alternative), AP poll, ESPN's FPI, and S&P+. Your "semi-objective model" is doing a better job capturing the committee's decision criteria than KRACH (80% accuracy for top-10 and 84% accuracy for top-25), AP poll (90% and 88% respectively), FPI (80% and 68% respectively), or S&P+ (70% and 64% respectively).
For any stats nerds the mean squared error (MSE) for this model was also the best, with an MSE of 7.64 compared to 30.04 (KRACH), 22.04 (AP), 97.16 (FPI), and 157.84 (S&P+).
For non-stats nerds, that means this model's ranking on average was 2-3 positions off relative to where the CFP committee ranked each team. The main difference is that all the other models had a few big misses, whereas your model got every top-25 team within 6 positions of where the committee ranked them.
Yes, I am definitely procrastinating from doing real work right now, but still thought it was interesting.
|10/29/2018 - 2:45pm||Just posted the same thing…||
Just posted the same thing. I am getting the same error on about half the videos.
|10/29/2018 - 2:44pm||Anyone else getting an error…||
Anyone else getting an error message that says "This video requires payment to watch"? It only happens on about half of the videos and I can't see any rhyme or reason why.
|10/26/2018 - 2:35pm||Seems like a key here has…||
Seems like a key here has been identifying under-scouted talent in "unusual" places (Mason, McKeon, Paye, Bell), rather than finding 3-stars in Ohio who OSU didn't want.
|10/26/2018 - 12:48pm||I'm maybe in the minority…||
I'm maybe in the minority but improving our resume for the CFP committee doesn't factor in for me. I am firmly in "take care of your own business and let the rest sort itself out" mode. There are simply two many factors going into the committee's choices. So I will root based on 3 simple rules:
1- Always root against OSU and MSU
2- Always root for the Big Ten except for OSU and MSU
3- Always root for the underdog (except when rule 3 contradicts rules 1 or 2)
The only exception to that would be a situation where a division (or conference) title is on the line. Less relevant this year, but in past years if OSU and PSU were playing and OSU winning would give Michigan a better chance at winning the division, I might consider rooting for OSU.
|10/26/2018 - 11:22am||Agreed with everyone except…||
Agreed with everyone except DPJ. Michigan's only passing the ball ~25 times per game and there have been many opportunities where DPJ is open but Patterson doesn't throw the ball. Add in a few excellent punt returns and I would say he's matched expectations for a top tier sophomore WR.
|10/26/2018 - 11:21am||Agreed with everyone except…||
Agreed with everyone except DPJ. Michigan's only passing the ball ~25 times per game and there have been many opportunities where DPJ is open but Patterson doesn't throw the ball. Add in a couple punt return TDs and I would say he's matched expectations for a top tier sophomore WR.
|10/24/2018 - 10:58am||I can't figure this out…||
I can't figure this out either. Hard to see him going in the first two rounds this year, but next year there are a number of elite QBs who will be draft eligible (Haskins, Tagavailoa, Fromm). So he'd have to have an amazing senior year to move up into the first round.
|10/24/2018 - 10:54am||Maybe I'm reading between…||
Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much here, but it feels like you (and others on this board) are assuming that Shea is the one who is risk averse and Harbaugh is not trying to "re-write [Shea's] instincts". I actually take the opposite perspective. Shea WAS a gunslinger at Ole Miss, as evidenced by his higher INT:TD ratio and willingness to lob the ball up to covered WRs at Ole Miss (see Brian's preseason UFR of Ole Miss-Bama). So he's clearly capable of filling that role. My guess is that Harbaugh is coaching Shea to be more of a game manager, and may have over-corrected slightly.