THE PAC 12 THREAD v.3

[Not Neutral]

2010: Three PAC teams spend any time in the top 10 all season (Arizona was 9th for one week)...and only two are present in the top 25 in the final polls. The same year 5 Bix XII teams spend time in the top 10 that season (Missouri for one week), and 5 are included in the final year's polling.

2011: Three PAC teams spend any time in the top 10 all season, and only two are again present in the final top 25. Four BigXII schools spend time in the top 10 that season, with 4 present in the final year's polling.

2012: PAC four teams spend time in the top 10, three are ranked in the top 25 at the end of the season. Four Bix XII teams spend time in the top 10, 3 present in the final top 25.

Much of the same last year, with the PAC finally having more teams in the final top 25 than the Big XII.

So....yeah, my comments weren't very far off. Save TWO teams from the PAC, it definitely appears that recent history would back up my claim that the PAC is a two-team show for the most part.

Seems like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth as you mention (offhand) that last year the PAC had more teams than the Big XII in the top 25, your most recent "history". Most "experts" (I'm excluding you) feel that the PAC 12 is still up and coming while the Big XII is fighting a losing battle for its existence. When comparisons are made its usually the PAC 12 v. the SEC. Slanting "facts" to cover your arguments is indeed the worst kind of trolling, no doubt brought on by your lucky win at the SB. Most fans feel, and you know it too, the PAC 12 > Big XII by a wide margin.

 

[boxedlunch]

Ok, then give us a link with those findings.

There are teams that do better after a bye than others. If you don't agree then let's see your data/links.

There are teams that do better without a bye. How do you know what specific impact a bye has just because of that? It's sometimes hard to tell.

I will say, since 2000, in conference games of the major conferences, teams playing coming of a bye week win 48.4% of their games against teams not coming off a bye week. If it's a big advantage, why do these teams have a losing record? If you adjust for the strength of opponent, it looks better and indicates a slight advantage, but very slight and not enough to indicate that having a bye week is only a very slight advantage. Hardly enough to even consider.

 

[WizardHawk]

There are teams that do better without a bye. How do you know what specific impact a bye has just because of that? It's sometimes hard to tell.

I will say, since 2000, in conference games of the major conferences, teams playing coming of a bye week win 48.4% of their games against teams not coming off a bye week. If it's a big advantage, why do these teams have a losing record? If you adjust for the strength of opponent, it looks better and indicates a slight advantage, but very slight and not enough to indicate that having a bye week is only a very slight advantage. Hardly enough to even consider.

And at the end of every week 50% of all teams that played won.

Saying how many won as a total gives NO indication what so ever if there are indeed teams that do better than others. All it says is add them up and it's near 50%.

Odds makers track history of how teams fair ATS after a bye week and those folks are in the business of knowing and tracking trends that matter.

There are literally dozens of sites that talk about this part of the game for both pro and college.
College Football Bye Weeks
Says it can, and does, actually hurt many teams because it throws them out of their rhythm and suggests it's a good option to bet against a heavily favored road team after a bye.

How NFL Teams Fare After Bye Weeks
This one is about the pros, but you said it doesn't impact it at any level so...

What many people are surprised about at first is that different teams fare very differently after bye weeks than one another. Ultimately, it depends on the quality of the team and how good they are, but it also depends on the quality of the coaching staff and how well that staff can game plan, and use their time accordingly to get their team ready.

So, now it's your turn to put up something that resembles a fact or simply say this is your opinion and move on. It is not factually correct to say there is no overall impact of bye weeks statistically.

 

[boxedlunch]

And at the end of every week 50% of all teams that played won.

Saying how many won as a total gives NO indication what so ever if there are indeed teams that do better than others. All it says is add them up and it's near 50%.

Odds makers track history of how teams fair ATS after a bye week and those folks are in the business of knowing and tracking trends that matter.

There are literally dozens of sites that talk about this part of the game for both pro and college.
College Football Bye Weeks
Says it can, and does, actually hurt many teams because it throws them out of their rhythm and suggests it's a good option to bet against a heavily favored road team after a bye.

How NFL Teams Fare After Bye Weeks
This one is about the pros, but you said it doesn't impact it at any level so...



So, now it's your turn to put up something that resembles a fact or simply say this is your opinion and move on. It is not factually correct to say there is no overall impact of bye weeks statistically.

Um, hello. Are you paying attention? Major conference teams have a losing record in conference games coming off a buy, slightly. When measured against opposition, it equals a slight advantage, not enough to note. What about that fact is not a fact to you? Basically the win/loss record of is .500 when playing equal opponents, ie, the cumulative advantage of having a bye is basically nill. Don't waste my time if you're not going to read my stuff.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Whizzer in a war of wits again...imagine that...


You can sure "pick em" whiz...GL2U

 

[trojanfan12]

Whizzer in a war of wits again...imagine that...


You can sure "pick em" whiz...GL2U

He will crush them under a wall of words.

 

[WizardHawk]

Um, hello. Are you paying attention? Major conference teams have a losing record in conference games coming off a buy, slightly. When measured against opposition, it equals a slight advantage, not enough to note. What about that fact is not a fact to you? Basically the win/loss record of is .500 when playing equal opponents, ie, the cumulative advantage of having a bye is basically nill. Don't waste my time if you're not going to read my stuff.

Um, Hello, Are you paying attention? If Vegas says bet against road favorites against the spread and the overall win loss is still near 50% then it stands to reason some teams are better at using this to their advantage than others.

You once again fail to provide even one link or stat and instead start getting negative.

Find some facts or go the fuck away. One or the other.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

^ SQUASHED!

He will crush them under a wall of words.

 

[RegentDenali]

4-star OG Cody Creason (Folsom, CA) has committed to Arizona today. This also brings Zona's 2015 commit count to 19 which is amazing considering LOI is still 6 months away.

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Whizzer in a war of wits again...imagine that...


You can sure "pick em" whiz...GL2U

Wiz spot on… BoxW/Olunch, not so much

 

[WizardHawk]

He will crush them under a wall of words.

I think I've been doing a great job of saying more with less lately.


I'll save the diatribes for those 7 Sark posts.

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

I think I've been doing a great job of saying more with less lately.


I'll save the diatribes for those 7 Sark posts.

Hey Now!!

 

[boxedlunch]

Um, Hello, Are you paying attention? If Vegas says bet against road favorites against the spread and the overall win loss is still near 50% then it stands to reason some teams are better at using this to their advantage than others.

You once again fail to provide even one link or stat and instead start getting negative.

Find some facts or go the fuck away. One or the other.

Well, obviously, you're not paying attention. Glad we verified that.

We haven't even got to the beginning of the conversation. You said I offered nothing, when I offered a stat that was far more relevant than anything you brought to the table. There's no chance of a conversation if you're not going to acknowledge that one's even taking place.

Again, since 2000, in conference games of the major conferences, teams playing coming of a bye week win 48.4% of their games against teams not coming off a bye week. Failing to acknowledge that that is a stat is not going contribute to a conversation here.

Also, when measuring "advantage", giving statistics for "advantage against the spread", is not helpful. Among many things that going into figuring the spread is the betting tendencies of people. If people perceive a bye week is an advantage when it is not, then your link might go a long way to prove or disprove that, however, I prefer to look at actual records in order to see if there's an advantage or not. Actual records say no. And please don't pretend that anything NFL tells us about college football.

Now, are some teams better than others? Well, I'd say of course, since that is the case in every situation, whether home or away. However, in order to prove or disprove an advantage in any area for a particular team, you have to compare that team's results in that specific area and isolate that particular stat so that other factors such as home or away or opponent quality are not in the mix. Do you really think that any ten game or so set will give us the ability to do so? Really? Come on.

As for this article, do you really think the proved anything, or even tried to. Basically, it's isolated (and in some cases incorrect) stats that might be interesting, but really tell us nothing. What is mixing bowl games with weeks coming off byes really going to tell us? For instance, Bob Stoops has one of the better record in weeks coming off a bye, but he's played 10 bowl games against top 10 teams that has understandably brought him some losses and puts him at a disadvantage to a guy who spends his post-season at the New Orleans bowl. No thought to level of opponent is given to this list at all, which makes it worthless.

 

[Olyduck]

Horrible defense, that lost it's best player to graduation and their second best player to suspension. Leach ran off the best QB on the team and their O line sucks. There is zero reason to think the team can get better, did you see the bowl game. West was the best player then he made a couple of good run plays then Leach benched him. "How dare a RB look good in my shitty offense"

Fuck Leach right in his smug rugby mouth.

For real?
D was horrible but D line returns majority of 2 deep. LB may take a hit but I dont see them as really worse could go either way there for a little change. DB are a quesstion.
Holliday is good QB for this system I dont see how you can say Apadoca was the best when he barely played.
O line does suck but another year in the system shouldnt get much worse.
as far as better yeah running backs and WR are improved. Rutgers, Nevada, Portland St, Cal all winnable. considering the other wins last season Utah is also doable as is Arizona and im not opposed to the idea of WSU upsetting Oregon State or UW either.

 

[WizardHawk]

Boxedlunch,

I spoke to your 'stat' at least 3 times. You either didn't understand it, or ignored it.

Saying the overall win percentage after a bye is somewhere around 48% and change in no way, shape, or form speaks to the standard deviation within the data set. You sir clearly have no idea about statistical probability analysis. Within any set of data lies standard deviations and that is the case here.

I didn't just present the article that has been your personal crusade to refute (still with no evidence), but also grabbed just the first two pages I found doing a quick search. You? Nothing.

The odds makers at the sports books very much track and use performance after a bye when setting their odds. This is pure fact. If you would like more links supporting that then speak up because that's easy to present. If you agree they do track it and use it in their spread odds then you MUST also agree that some teams then do better with that time off than others.

All your 48% says is there are slightly more teams that get thrown off in their rhythm than those who take great use of that time. That's it. Nothing more. And that is exactly what that first article was speaking to. The list of coaches you least want to face after they are coming off a bye. That there are less that actually can use that time to teach and implement a more refined game plan than those that are thrown out of rhythm and are hurt by it is not surprising in the least. It does speak to the case for coaching actually mattering.

Now, I'm going to say this for the last time in a nice way, either present something of substance or go troll a different thread. We will not tolerate outsiders going off on tangents on our thread. We do a fine job of derailing our thread without the need for help.

Consider yourself warned.

 

[trojanfan12]

Wiz spot on… BoxW/Olunch, not so much

Maybe he should change his name to Outtolunch.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think I've been doing a great job of saying more with less lately.


I'll save the diatribes for those 7 Sark posts.

LEAVE SARK ALOOOOONE!!

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Mamba ALERT?

Did he survive? To many IPAs? Bedded down with the wrong gal..again?

WHAT?

 

[WizardHawk]

Mamba ALERT?

Did he survive? To many IPAs? Bedded down with the wrong gal..again?

WHAT?

He's going to come back and see a page and a half of a cluster fuck and tell us how he can't leave the place without it falling apart.

You watch.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

"Sam Smith is ghey, but the beer was fantastic!"...Mamba