Best Method to Predict Future Strength of a Team

[BeltwayHusker]

Beware, this is a pretty nerdy post.

 

In the process of creating Big 10 divisions with "Competitive Balance", there has been some debate over whether Michigan and Penn State should be considered as competitively elite, due to their long histories of success, or whether the relative strength of Iowa and Wisconsin in recent years should be more heavily weighted. This question interests me, so I did a little bit of research...

 

Here's the method I used: I took the records of teams from 1990-1999, 1975-1999, and all time through 1999, and compared them to the teams' success in 2000 to 2009. I averaged the absolute deviation between each teams winning percentage across the compared periods. As a separate point of comparison, I ranked the winning percentages for all 100 teams (excluding teams that weren't in I-A long enough) and average the absolute deviations in the rankings. Now, I know there are more defensible ways of doing this, statistically (normalizing the data would be a start, since the set with the longer time-horizon naturally has less variance). If anyone for some reason wants to keep playing with this, the data sheet is linked below.

 

The results? In the year 2000, using 25 years of past history would have predicted success in the next ten years better than using data form only the previous 10 years. Interestingly, using rankings, 25 years was also superior to using all-time records, though this was pretty close.

 

On average, a team's winning percentage in the 2000's varied by 0.108 from their 25-year winning percentage prior to 2000. Their ranking (by winning percentage) in the 2000's varied on average by 21.8 spots (out of 100) from their ranking over 1975-1999. The team with the biggest variance? TCU: 5th best winning percentage in the 2000's, 90th in the 25 years prior.

 

So, this would suggest that it's reasonable (though of course no guarantee) to expect Michigan and Penn State to win more than Iowa and Wisconsin over the next 10 years, despite their better records in the last 10 years.

 

If you want to see the data, here it is: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Avzywsc6VKg9dFRaYS1VR0kzakZVLU1Gb0RWREpFTnc&hl=en&authkey=CPea6uAF

 

On a separate note, why can't we have dynamic redistricting, with rivalries protected, every few years, based on a formula?

[General Blackshirt]

This is great ammo to throw at Hawkeye fans whenever they pull the "Who cares that you are Nebraska, what have you done lately?" argument. I can't wait until the next time I hear that

[VA Husker Fan]

This is great ammo to throw at Hawkeye fans whenever they pull the "Who cares that you are Nebraska, what have you done lately?" argument. I can't wait until the next time I hear that

That's too much math for them to comprehend. If they can't do it on their toes and fingers, forget about it.

[Cyclone Sloup]

This is great ammo to throw at Hawkeye fans whenever they pull the "Who cares that you are Nebraska, what have you done lately?" argument. I can't wait until the next time I hear that

That's too much math for them to comprehend. If they can't do it on their toes and fingers, forget about it.

 

Wow... maybe I WILL like the Huskers more when they're in the Big Ten... =P

[kansas husker]

If this turns into science class, I'm not playing anymore, bt seriously good stuff.

[T_O_Bull]

Now that is some kind of first post, but you've got a long way to catch BRI.

T_O_B

[clone]

Beware, this is a pretty nerdy post.

 

 

If you want to see the data, here it is: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Avzywsc6VKg9dFRaYS1VR0kzakZVLU1Gb0RWREpFTnc&hl=en&authkey=CPea6uAF

 

On a separate note, why can't we have dynamic redistricting, with rivalries protected, every few years, based on a formula?

 

 

That's the goofiest stuff I think I've ever seen.

 

tell ya what...

 

EVEN WITH THE FULL VISION OF 20/20 HINDSIGHT and THE SPREADSHEET RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU..

 

show me on those funny charts, where it predicts nebraska falling from grace...

 

where it predicts NU won't beat a top ten team on the road for a decade...

 

or where it predicts Boise State rising to the top ten...

 

or where it predicts USC cheating and getting caught.

 

or where it predicts the future qbs and rbs at LSU and their success.

 

how about where it predicts Bradford's injury and OU falling down?

 

Math CAN'T perdict the football future folks.

 

 

Ain't happening!

 

Seriously....

[maskershake]

Beware, this is a pretty nerdy post.

 

 

If you want to see the data, here it is: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Avzywsc6VKg9dFRaYS1VR0kzakZVLU1Gb0RWREpFTnc&hl=en&authkey=CPea6uAF

 

On a separate note, why can't we have dynamic redistricting, with rivalries protected, every few years, based on a formula?

 

 

That's the goofiest stuff I think I've ever seen.

 

tell ya what...

 

EVEN WITH THE FULL VISION OF 20/20 HINDSIGHT and THE SPREADSHEET RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU..

 

show me on those funny charts, where it predicts nebraska falling from grace...

 

where it predicts NU won't beat a top ten team on the road for a decade...

 

or where it predicts Boise State rising to the top ten...

 

or where it predicts USC cheating and getting caught.

 

or where it predicts the future qbs and rbs at LSU and their success.

 

how about where it predicts Bradford's injury and OU falling down?

 

Math CAN'T perdict the football future folks.

 

 

Ain't happening!

 

Seriously....

 

Dick.

[husker B-rent]

Beware, this is a pretty nerdy post.

 

 

If you want to see the data, here it is: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Avzywsc6VKg9dFRaYS1VR0kzakZVLU1Gb0RWREpFTnc&hl=en&authkey=CPea6uAF

 

On a separate note, why can't we have dynamic redistricting, with rivalries protected, every few years, based on a formula?

 

 

That's the goofiest stuff I think I've ever seen.

 

tell ya what...

 

EVEN WITH THE FULL VISION OF 20/20 HINDSIGHT and THE SPREADSHEET RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU..

 

show me on those funny charts, where it predicts nebraska falling from grace...

 

where it predicts NU won't beat a top ten team on the road for a decade...

 

or where it predicts Boise State rising to the top ten...

 

or where it predicts USC cheating and getting caught.

 

or where it predicts the future qbs and rbs at LSU and their success.

 

how about where it predicts Bradford's injury and OU falling down?

 

Math CAN'T perdict the football future folks.

 

 

Ain't happening!

 

Seriously....

 

seriously, do you just get on here to tell people they are wrong??? sounds like the definition of a troll to me....

[BeltwayHusker]

 

 

EVEN WITH THE FULL VISION OF 20/20 HINDSIGHT and THE SPREADSHEET RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU..

 

show me on those funny charts, where it predicts nebraska falling from grace...

...

 

Math CAN'T perdict the football future folks.

 

 

Ain't happening!

 

Seriously....

 

Gee, and here I thought I'd stumbled upon a flawless way to see into the future!

 

Obviously, this (and any similar) approach is pretty useless for actually predicting the success of these teams. But here's all I was trying to say:

 

1) "Competitive balance" is allegedly being used as a factor in making the divisions for the Big 10.

2) This necessitates determining the likely success of the teams.

3) Past success does have some correlation with future success. (Though this is common sense, math can, in fact, prove it.)

4) Various commentators have relied upon a longer time horizon (Mich, OSU, PSU, and Neb as the best teams) or a shorter time horizon (adding Iowa and Wisconsin, and diminishing Michigan, PSU) to determine the predicted competitiveness of proposed divisions.

5) I was curious to test the difference between the two approaches, using a recent but testable point in time.

 

It's just food for thought. The original post acknowledges that the deviations are pretty big.

 

If "math can't predict the future", then I guess we're stuck between a)the conventional wisdom and unsupported opinions of columnists and AD's and b)abandoning any attempt to seek "competitive balance." Granted, when Delaney says "competitve balance", he probably just means "most profitable alignment." In which case, nevermind I guess!

[notherplace93]

clone=Troll (closest thing to a troll emoticon)

[HUSKER 37]

Beware, this is a pretty nerdy post.

 

 

If you want to see the data, here it is: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Avzywsc6VKg9dFRaYS1VR0kzakZVLU1Gb0RWREpFTnc&hl=en&authkey=CPea6uAF

 

On a separate note, why can't we have dynamic redistricting, with rivalries protected, every few years, based on a formula?

 

 

That's the goofiest stuff I think I've ever seen.

 

tell ya what...

 

EVEN WITH THE FULL VISION OF 20/20 HINDSIGHT and THE SPREADSHEET RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU..

 

show me on those funny charts, where it predicts nebraska falling from grace...

 

where it predicts NU won't beat a top ten team on the road for a decade...

 

or where it predicts Boise State rising to the top ten...

 

or where it predicts USC cheating and getting caught.

 

or where it predicts the future qbs and rbs at LSU and their success.

 

how about where it predicts Bradford's injury and OU falling down?

 

Math CAN'T perdict the football future folks.

 

 

Ain't happening!

 

Seriously....

I blame the shape of the football.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I just had a flashback to stats class in college. I'm crying now..............THANKS ALOT!

[huKSer]

 

Math CAN'T perdict the football future folks.

 

 

Ain't happening!

 

Seriously....

Actually

Psychohistory depends on the idea that, while one cannot foresee the actions of a particular individual, the laws of statistics as applied to large groups of people could predict the general flow of future events.

 

Link

 

It's from the interwebs so it must be true.

[General Blackshirt]

Math CAN'T perdict the football future folks.

 

It can if you are intelligent enough to know what you're talking about.

 

Events happen for a reason, and if you can prove that the same reason (other than luck) consistently is linked to an event, it's fairly easy to understand that the two are related (ie, correlated). It doesn't matter one bit WHY two things correlate, as most logical hypotheses (in this case) don't attempt to discover how something happens, but what the implications of its occurance are.

 

Like in our case, we have three variables: Success over the pasat 25 years, Success over the past 10 years, and Success over the next 10 years. 25 year success happens to correlate more with future success than 10 year success does; who cares why, it does. There's plenty of reasons one could guess are to attribute to this (good leadership within the coaches and athletic department, facilities, tradition), but that isn't what the math is even intending to prove. That's a lot more subjective and complicated.

 

And no, statistics could not have proved that Bradford would get injured, but again, you prove you do not understand enough about the subject to have a reasonable opinion. Statistics can only answer what happens to a set of data on average, not on an individual basis. The average life expectancy for females is about 7% longer than male life expectancy. Does that mean that when a husband outlives his wife that the world is full of crap? Of course not. Look at the big picture instead of pointing out every insignificant detail and maybe you'll understand more about how things work.