SportsHoopla Top 25 Week 7 Discussion thread

[4down20]

Exactly what the hell do you guys think "projecting" is?

Because knowing that teams play in the future and are going to knock each other out is projecting. And it's generally not hard to do. It becomes even easier as the year goes on, with the difficulty in predicting the matchups getting harder due to closer matchups.

But it's not hard to predict with great certainty a good amount of the future schedule for teams. Alabama right now for example has basically 2 question mark games in the future. This weekend vs Texas A&M and LSU in November. The other games can be said with decent certainty that Alabama will win.

It's more ignorant to sit around and pretend like you don't know Alabama is going to beat teams like Tennessee, Auburn, Miss St in the future than it is figure they will win those games. The data is out there. It's not a blind guess. It's an educated guess of which has high odds to be correct.

It's like playing poker. You can sit there and claim all you want that 7-2 off suited hand shouldn't be projected to be a loser. But the odds say that more times than not - you are incorrect for playing that hand, it is most likely going to lose. You have to be a complete moron to treat a 7-2 off suited hand as being equal to pocket Aces before the hand. It's all "projecting", but it's all done based on knowledge.

Maybe that 7-2 hand will hit. Maybe Alabama will lose all the games I mentioned above. But the odds are extremely against it. Just as when I say Tennessee is likely to only have 1 more loss this year - they may lose more, but the odds are against it.

Putting Northwestern #1 was much like playing 7-2 offsuit when you aren't even allowed to bluff.

It's not a refusal to project, it's a willingness to ignore data and apply the patterns to the future.

And btw, this whole thing about how somehow if you project the games themselves don't matter is total bullshit. Every week the games get played, the data gets update, what people know about teams becomes greater and a new outlook(or projecting as you like to call it) on the future of the season begins

 

[rmilia1]

Projecting is fine, stupid but fine. However when your projection is wrong and you don't penalize teams accordingly for their loss then your projecting ceases to be projecting and just starts to be biased nonsense. Also when you don't apply your projection rankings to all teams equally then you aren't really practicing what you preach. I'd assume right now that Baylor or TCU have the best win out percentage amongst the unbeatens so you should, by your own standards, have them rated 1-2.

 

[4down20]

Projecting is fine, stupid but fine. However when your projection is wrong and you don't penalize teams accordingly for their loss then your projecting ceases to be projecting and just starts to be biased nonsense. Also when you don't apply your projection rankings to all teams equally then you aren't really practicing what you preach. I'd assume right now that Baylor or TCU have the best win out percentage amongst the unbeatens so you should, by your own standards, have them rated 1-2.

This is all assumptions on your part.

The overwhelming majority of time the projections are correct. It's not hard to predict the overwhelming majority of college football games. That's the reason when you bet, there is usually a spread. Because it would be extremely easy otherwise and nobody would ever bet on the other teams for obvious reasons.

When they aren't - shit gets fixed the next week. You know, that thing you keep pretending is only a benefit you get.

Why is it called an upset to begin with? Oh because 1 team was projected to beat the other.

I had Clemson #1 in my top25. You know, SEC bias and all that. And I don't even use projections that much in my rankings, you guys just keep bringing it up because you ignorantly assume a bunch of stupid shit while being completely clueless to the reality.

 

[rmilia1]

Dude you said you use projections. You said that weeks ago. Then you said you use advanced stats. Then you said you only watch "relevant" teams and that's why you "don't waste your time on low tier B10 teams like Iowa" which of course ignores the fact that projections and advanced stats would have Iowa as a 10 plus win team if not more. Your argument is ever changing and not applied to all CFB teams which means bias.

 

[4down20]

Dude you said you use projections. You said that weeks ago. Then you said you use advanced stats. Then you said you only watch "relevant" teams and that's why you "don't waste your time on low tier B10 teams like Iowa" which of course ignores the fact that projections and advanced stats would have Iowa as a 10 plus win team if not more. Your argument is ever changing and not applied to all CFB teams which means bias.

I'm pretty sure I said I use advanced stats to get an idea of the power of teams, to which I then use to at times look at the future schedule to predict how well they will do over the course of the year.

And it was more in talks of the philosophy behind rankings and how I did them with a computer - where I was actually able to do such a thing for all teams equally. Where as these days, I mostly do it towards what the future has in store for conference teams, as the majority of the games that matter for conferences happen late in the year.

Now you can keep separating that if it makes you feel better I guess, but it's not really that hard of a concept to follow.

And correct, I am not interested in watching the lower tiers of the Big10 on TV over other games. Play on a Tuesday night if you want to change that. I'll be spending my time watching the teams from the top of the conferences and games that actually matter. You know, like when top10 teams play other good teams.

As for Iowa specifically:

With the S&P predictions you are predicted to have 1 loss this year currently. This weekend.

2015 Iowa advanced statistical profile

However, you notice that little "S&P" rank next to each team? You have yet to beat a single top25 team on it, and the only top25 team you play the entire year is this weekend, which you are predicted to lose.

And that top25 for Iowa(25th in the S&P) isn't likely to stick as high as it is. While advanced stats are great and reduce the problem way more than anything else - early in the year they often over-rank teams that have played easier schedules. Maybe if Iowa wins this weekend you'll get a little more respect, but I'm betting more likely Northwestern would get a lot less respect.

And the ESPN FPI predicts 2 losses for you. This weekend and Nebraska.

If you want to cry because Iowa isn't relevant, feel free to do so. Your best hope for the season is to win the West and get killed in the conference championship game by whatever team the East puts up.

 

[TigerBait1971]

I use stats and projections to determine who will win based on whose mascots would win in a fight in real life.

 

[4down20]

I use stats and projections to determine who will win based on whose mascots would win in a fight in real life.

Elephants > Tigers

 

[uncfan103]

Exactly what the hell do you guys think "projecting" is?

Because knowing that teams play in the future and are going to knock each other out is projecting. And it's generally not hard to do. It becomes even easier as the year goes on, with the difficulty in predicting the matchups getting harder due to closer matchups.

But it's not hard to predict with great certainty a good amount of the future schedule for teams. Alabama right now for example has basically 2 question mark games in the future. This weekend vs Texas A&M and LSU in November. The other games can be said with decent certainty that Alabama will win.

It's more ignorant to sit around and pretend like you don't know Alabama is going to beat teams like Tennessee, Auburn, Miss St in the future than it is figure they will win those games. The data is out there. It's not a blind guess. It's an educated guess of which has high odds to be correct.

It's like playing poker. You can sit there and claim all you want that 7-2 off suited hand shouldn't be projected to be a loser. But the odds say that more times than not - you are incorrect for playing that hand, it is most likely going to lose. You have to be a complete moron to treat a 7-2 off suited hand as being equal to pocket Aces before the hand. It's all "projecting", but it's all done based on knowledge.

Maybe that 7-2 hand will hit. Maybe Alabama will lose all the games I mentioned above. But the odds are extremely against it. Just as when I say Tennessee is likely to only have 1 more loss this year - they may lose more, but the odds are against it.

Putting Northwestern #1 was much like playing 7-2 offsuit when you aren't even allowed to bluff.

It's not a refusal to project, it's a willingness to ignore data and apply the patterns to the future.

And btw, this whole thing about how somehow if you project the games themselves don't matter is total bullshit. Every week the games get played, the data gets update, what people know about teams becomes greater and a new outlook(or projecting as you like to call it) on the future of the season begins

If you want to project then project. But i don't agree with the poker comparison. Northwestern started the season with the best hand after 5 weeks, so I had them as number 1 accordingly. In your scenario, Alabama might be the best poker player, but they didn't have a better hand then northwestern.

I'm going to reward teams for the season they've had and when they win games that other people projected them to win or win games they were projected to lose, lose games they should or shouldn't then my rankings will reflect that. My polls will never be a ranking of the best teams, but instead a ranking of who has had the best season to this point. Being given credit for wins acrrued instead of wins that are on their schedule.

 

[uncfan103]

This is all assumptions on your part.

The overwhelming majority of time the projections are correct. It's not hard to predict the overwhelming majority of college football games. That's the reason when you bet, there is usually a spread. Because it would be extremely easy otherwise and nobody would ever bet on the other teams for obvious reasons.

When they aren't - shit gets fixed the next week. You know, that thing you keep pretending is only a benefit you get.

Why is it called an upset to begin with? Oh because 1 team was projected to beat the other.

I had Clemson #1 in my top25. You know, SEC bias and all that. And I don't even use projections that much in my rankings, you guys just keep bringing it up because you ignorantly assume a bunch of stupid shit while being completely clueless to the reality.

You said yourself their not right an overwhelmingly majority of the time, so which is it?

 

[uncfan103]

You said yourself they're not right an overwhelmingly majority of the time, so which is it?

Fixed it for me.

 

[4down20]

You said yourself their not right an overwhelmingly majority of the time, so which is it?

When?

If I did it was a typo. I told you before computers are usually right about 75% of the time on average.

 

[TigerBait1971]

Elephants > Tigers

My computer models say you should SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE! !!

 

[4down20]

If you want to project then project. But i don't agree with the poker comparison. Northwestern started the season with the best hand after 5 weeks, so I had them as number 1 accordingly. In your scenario, Alabama might be the best poker player, but they didn't have a better hand then northwestern.

I'm going to reward teams for the season they've had and when they win games that other people projected them to win or win games they were projected to lose, lose games they should or shouldn't then my rankings will reflect that. My polls will never be a ranking of the best teams, but instead a ranking of who has had the best season to this point. Being given credit for wins acrrued instead of wins that are on their schedule.

The problem is you are unable to properly evaluate the strength of the teams to say who has the best season. It's always about the best season, but you need the strength of the teams to understand the value of the games.

 

[4down20]

My computer models say you should SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE! !!

Does your commodore 64 do screen shots?

 

[ericd7633]

You are shifting the argument from talent to overall team strength using all MAC teams to make your point. I've never argued that Iowa St has a better team than every single MAC school every single year. I've only argued they have more talent on a year in and year out basis and it is a tougher yearly game than playing any of the MAC schools on a year in and year out basis. Iowa St is 4-1 playing the MAC the last 5 times they've played them. That includes a win over an 11 win Northern Illinois team. That is the premiere MAC program. In fact 3 of those 5 games are against the top two programs in the MAC. Northern Illinois and Toledo. Toledo appears to be unusually strong this season for a MAC school and beat two power 5 school already including Iowa St. They are ranked in my top 25 and a very solid team. They still could only beat Iowa St by one score...

Iowa St is 11-4 against MAC schools since moving to the Big 12. During that same time period, Notre Dame is 25-5 against the service academies. Now we all know that Notre Dame is 10x the program with 10x the talent as Iowa St but even they occasionally lose to non power 5 opponents. It happens. Especially when your program is struggling. Culture of losing is hard to overcome.

Again, I've said Iowa State is slightly more talented overall than the MAC. I've said that from the beginning. But they don't have superior talent to the rest of the MAC, as evidenced by the number of draft picks they have in the last decade(2006-2015). Also, they've had the benefit of playing a majority of those games against the MAC at home. They are 2-3 against the MAC on the road during that time frame.

 

[uncfan103]

When?

If I did it was a typo. I told you before computers are usually right about 75% of the time on average.

And again, I wouldn't say that's an overwhelming large number. It's right on par with humans.

 

[rmilia1]

4D.... man you are an arrogant asshat. "The problem is you are unable to properly evaluate the strength of a team" as if you have some kind of superior skill on team evaluation. For Christ's sake just a week ago you were telling how MTSU was superior to Minnesota, talk about a whiff. And you are on record saying you don't watch games of teams that aren't "relevant" so explain how exactly it is that you evaluate teams with your superior skill when you don't even watch them play?? And here's the thing...even if we assume you're right on everything you write you are still wrong on this discussion because the people you're arguing with don't do their polls the same way you do. You're arguing your styles points not the points for someone who doesn't do it your way

 

[UNA Lion]

There are only about 10-15 teams that will EVER be able to make the CFP with a loss and we all know who they are

All the more reason to move to a 16-team playoff ... as the rest of college football ... and most of the sports world ... has been doing for decades.

 

[uncfan103]

The problem is you are unable to properly evaluate the strength of the teams to say who has the best season. It's always about the best season, but you need the strength of the teams to understand the value of the games.

And you don't think people that watch college football or read or look at box scores could possibly know which teams are/aren't good?

 

[4down20]

And again, I wouldn't say that's an overwhelming large number. It's right on par with humans.

75% is not an overwhelming majority to you?

You need less % to pass an amendment to the constitution.