Adam McClintock Ratings

UR1TAZal_400x400.jpg


 
Resurrecting this thread to let everyone know that his August projections are now out.

Cliff's Notes for Nebraska fans: Nebraska is mentioned 19 times.

Scott Frost comes in a #15 on the list of Head Coaches.
Scott Frost comes in at #2 (behind only Chip Kelly) as "Offensive Coordinator" (actually the Playcaller for the team, not necessarily the one with the title of OC).

Chinander comes in at #31 in Power 5 Defensive Coordinators
Nebraska comes in at #27 in All FBS Preseason Rank (just behind Florida and just ahead of Iowa).
He has Nebraska finishing 5th in the Big 10 West at 6-6 behind an undefeated Wisconsin, a 10-2 Iowa, and two 7-5 teams: Northwestern and Minnesota.

Regarding his preseason point spreads, it is interesting to note that he calls Northwestern, Michigan State, and Iowa "Toss Up Games".The Cornhuskers would need to win those three to reach his record ceiling for Nebraska of 9-3 ( record basement of 6-6).

cfbProfessor.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
So this is an analytic geek's number crunching.  I would rather listen to DiNardo's eyeball test.  Was listening to Nick Bahe this morning and he was playing some excerpts from an interview with ole Gerry yesterday.  He thinks it is going to be a Wild West this year in the division and after seeing most thinks Nebraska is right in there.  Very impressed with Nebraska, less impressed with Wisconsin than he thought he would be, and slightly more impressed with Iowa than he thought he would be.   

 
NUinID said:
So this is an analytic geek's number crunching.  I would rather listen to DiNardo's eyeball test.  Was listening to Nick Bahe this morning and he was playing some excerpts from an interview with ole Gerry yesterday.  He thinks it is going to be a Wild West this year in the division and after seeing most thinks Nebraska is right in there.  Very impressed with Nebraska, less impressed with Wisconsin than he thought he would be, and slightly more impressed with Iowa than he thought he would be.   
Click to expand...




The "analytic geek" has predicted a better possible season than most people who are making "educated" guesses.

DiNardo has seen the Huskers up close so his opinion is more important than theirs. But you're writing off the dude that's mentioning 9-3 when most others aren't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
The "analytic geek" has predicted a better possible season than most people who are making "educated" guesses.

DiNardo has seen the Huskers up close so his opinion is more important than theirs. But you're writing off the dude that's mentioning 9-3 when most others aren't.
Click to expand...


Analytics definitely have their place in predicting outcomes of sporting event and records of teams.   I just think there is too many variables to make a prediction about a team with all new coaches.  Analytic indicators are great for established teams.  It is a great predictor of how well Alabama, Clemson, OSU, and even Iowa are going to do.   The coaching factor is huge when paired with a new team.  It can be a great positive or negative.  

I think it is great that he says 9-3 is a possibility, but his computer model says 6-6.   After coaching HS football for 20+ years I am much more of an eyeball guy.  

Besides DiNardo isn't predicting records, he is just saying that he thinks Nebraska will be a much better football team based on what he has seen.  That is all I want to here.  Again there are too many things that can effect the outcome of a football game.   Analytics are for gamblers and I am sure are very useful for that type of  thing. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NUinID said:
After coaching HS football for 20+ years I am much more of an eyeball guy.  
Click to expand...


It takes both. Analytics can give you a macro view and identify patterns, but one big problem in football is quantifying things. Two things anyone around here has heard me talk about is the misunderstood impact of pass/run ratios and time of possession. Why do they get talked about so much? They're in the box score. Neither is in there necessarily because of importance, just intrinsically. Many things you'd want to know, like drive based stats, aren't quantified easily. Most stats involve the ball, most of the game doesn't.

Another important distinction is analytics are best at telling us something happened, but generally poor at telling us why. That's where the tape is invaluable. I would encourage anyone that isn't using analytics to use them, very valuable, but know their limitations. They're a supplement to traditional scouting, not a replacement.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top