Best Method to Predict Future Strength of a Team

[Igetbored216]

statistics for the geniuses out there are numbers from the past. how many yards rushing did player X get, team x get, etc.

 

even those are flawed, because they don't account for home field, weather, turnovers, injuries or strength of opponents.

 

using them to predict future events, especially years out, when players, coaches, schedules, injuries and countless other unknowns can't possibly be factored in is....

 

<sarcasm> BRILLIANT!! CARRY ON! </sarcasm>

 

 

tell ya what...

 

please provide the AP top ten as they will finish in 2010.

 

when ya crunch those numbers, please provide the AP top ten as they will finish in 2011 and 2012.

 

let's see how accurately the OPs spreadsheets are.

 

predict (perdict) away.

 

if laughing at something as preposterous as trying to predict how teams will fare in the future using stats ...

 

is trolling

 

you folks need some help.

 

Please show where the original poster or anyone in this thread said they could predict the AP top ten for the end of years 2010 to 2012. Can you do that? Didn't think so, because no one ever said that. You don't have any ability to comprehend what you are reading apparently, and you also don't know how to use paragraphs correctly either; so your ten sentence post takes up half a page.

 

If you don't like the conversation, then get out of here. It's that simple. You don't have to bash on someone's work because you don't agree with it or you aren't smart enough to understand what they are doing. And it's quite obvious you have no knowledge on stats or even its basic foundation, so why are you even in here? To scoff at people trying to do something that you aren't able to do or understand yourself? That's awesome man. Carry on ass...carry on.

[clone]

Carry on ass...carry on.

 

classy.

 

BTW- I've been here nearly five years. through the cally debacle. I'm going nowhere soon.

 

most boards are for voicing opinions.

 

the op may or may not have expected a dissenting opinion on th evalue of stats to predict future strength of a program.

 

opinions vary. I hope dissenting opinions still get to be expressed here, no matter how unpopular they may be.

[husker B-rent]

all you post is "dissenting" opinions though....

[clone]

all you post is "dissenting" opinions though....

 

 

I dissent!!

[zoogs]

Carry on ass...carry on.

 

Three things...

 

1) No more name calling...it's completely unnecessary.

 

2) There's nothing wrong with never agreeing

 

3) clone, you're wrong

 

yup. and I bet ya didn't need a spreadsheet. you picked a pretty obvious comparison!!

 

but if you say that texas will be more successful for the next twenty years than Boise st or Ohio St or Nebraska....

 

ya just might be wrong.

 

Yea - for something like that, you don't need a spreadsheet. But models are for the less obvious things in life. You don't need any math or science to predict that it'll snow this winter in New York, but you do need historical trends to predict how many inches of precipitation Los Angeles will get this year. And while that can change from year to year and trend up or down unexpectedly over the decades, past data is some of the best stuff you've got to predict the future.

 

Thing is nobody is trying to say that Texas "WILL" be more successful; it's only a prediction that "it is more reasonable to expect" this to be the case. You can criticize how the model works, but to criticize the using of a model in general...don't get it!

[BeltwayHusker]

 

Also I'm no statistician but those look like REALLY weak R^2 values, which you'd probably expect from the small sample size...

 

 

True that the values are weak, but I actually don't think it's due to the sample size. The problem is I only used one variable, omitting many others (coaching continuity, spending, recruiting, conference strength, etc.) Past success does correlate with future success in football, but alone, it'll never match up to an extremely high degree, no matter how big the sample. There are just too many other variables at play. Since that's true, it's not surprising the R^2 with only the one variable (past success) is in the 25% range.

 

If the other factors were easier to quantify, you could certainly build a more complicated model and isolate the impacts of the different factors...

[Igetbored216]

classy.

 

BTW- I've been here nearly five years. through the cally debacle. I'm going nowhere soon.

 

most boards are for voicing opinions.

 

the op may or may not have expected a dissenting opinion on th evalue of stats to predict future strength of a program.

 

opinions vary. I hope dissenting opinions still get to be expressed here, no matter how unpopular they may be.

 

It's okay to have differing opinions.

 

But back them up with substance...not because you don't understand it.

 

I haven't read anything from you of substance as it relates to the spreadsheet the OP provided.

 

Did you even look at it?

 

Probably not, would be my guess.

 

So how can you scoff or or disagree with something you don't even understand or look at?

 

Sure, it won't be 100% accurate, but the OP also stated that several times as well as many others throughout the thread.

 

You chose to ignore all of that.

 

And yeah, boards are for voicing your opinion.

 

However, when your opinion doesn't have any logic attached with it, it probably will get flamed.

 

I'm sure dissenting opinions will still be allowed here, but again, put some thought into what you are saying.

 

If you don't know anything about the subject, maybe you shouldn't post stuff flaming it.

 

How can you form an opinion about something you know little to nothing about?

 

It

 

just

 

doesn't

 

make

 

any

 

sense

 

to

 

me

[clone]

classy.

 

BTW- I've been here nearly five years. through the cally debacle. I'm going nowhere soon.

 

most boards are for voicing opinions.

 

the op may or may not have expected a dissenting opinion on th evalue of stats to predict future strength of a program.

 

opinions vary. I hope dissenting opinions still get to be expressed here, no matter how unpopular they may be.

 

It's okay to have differing opinions.

 

But back them up with substance...not because you don't understand it.

 

I haven't read anything from you of substance as it relates to the spreadsheet the OP provided.

 

Did you even look at it?

 

Probably not, would be my guess.

 

So how can you scoff or or disagree with something you don't even understand or look at?

 

Sure, it won't be 100% accurate, but the OP also stated that several times as well as many others throughout the thread.

 

You chose to ignore all of that.

 

And yeah, boards are for voicing your opinion.

 

However, when your opinion doesn't have any logic attached with it, it probably will get flamed.

 

I'm sure dissenting opinions will still be allowed here, but again, put some thought into what you are saying.

 

If you don't know anything about the subject, maybe you shouldn't post stuff flaming it.

 

How can you form an opinion about something you know little to nothing about?

 

It

 

just

 

doesn't

 

make

 

any

 

sense

 

to

 

me

 

 

we'll agree to disagree on this one.

[sd'sker]

the point of statistics is that it accounts for the aggregate. and there is a common thread, NU, PSU, Michigan, TU, OU all have, which is a lot of money to put into their programs and a sense of entitlement to be an elite program. it is why CU won a championship and then never did anything again, they really don't care. it is why NU, OU, and now MU get down, but not out. also, it seems that Iowa's and Wisconsin's successes are cyclical and form a trend.

 

thanks for the interesting insight OP, good stuff.

[808Husker in KCMO]

Interesting read. Thanks, OP

[knapplc]

the point of statistics is that it accounts for the aggregate. and there is a common thread, NU, PSU, Michigan, TU, OU all have, which is a lot of money to put into their programs and a sense of entitlement to be an elite program. it is why CU won a championship and then never did anything again, they really don't care. it is why NU, OU, and now MU get down, but not out. also, it seems that Iowa's and Wisconsin's successes are cyclical and form a trend.

 

thanks for the interesting insight OP, good stuff.

 

Exactly. All stats do is point us in a direction. They give us a sense of what's likely to happen, not what will happen. They're a useful tool and they're fun to screw around with, but anyone expecting a crystal ball is fooling themselves.

[Igetbored216]

Exactly. All stats do is point us in a direction. They give us a sense of what's likely to happen, not what will happen. They're a useful tool and they're fun to screw around with, but anyone expecting a crystal ball is fooling themselves.

 

I've already tried to explain this to him. He still disagrees...

 

we'll agree to disagree on this one.

[SanDiegoBuckeye]

Interesting research and post - Thanks!

 

I really believe that competitive balance is also weighed with branding, fan-bases that travel well, national level of following.

 

If a B10 conference champ game is in the works, a goal would be to maximize the possibility of two of the big four teams (UM, tOSU, UNL, PSU) playing each other. So it wouldn't make sense to put three together. Just my opinion.

 

[bleedNUred]

Agreed.^