CFB Matrix - predictions

[huKSer]

This guy says that up to 80% of all games can be predicted based on just three factors: talent, home/away and coaching, in that order.

Background:

http://cfbmatrix.com/predictions/

B1G predictions:

http://cfbmatrix.com/portfolio/big-ten-conference/gallery/predictions/

Interesting quotes:

I don’t believe in returning starters since the numbers show both kickers back is more valuable than the QB.

The coach who does the least with the most talent gets the:

The Charlie Weis Anti-Coach of the Year was a bit of surprise.

 

[bshirt]

Very, very interesting reads there. Thanks huKSer!

Haha.....Bo didn't rank well with a -3 score. Ouch! But leading the parade of underperformers (relative to their recruiting numbers) was UCLA (skippy, -16), Texas (Brown, -11), TAM (Sherman, -10) & Illinois (Zook, -10). Makes sense to me.

Again, thanks huSKer!

 

[Blackshirt316]

The only thing I don't get is that he factors in last year's recruiting rank but not returning starters. Returning starters, regardless of position are more valuable this season than most new recruits - expecially at a program that redshirts most of them anyways regardless of talent.

 

[bshirt]

The only thing I don't get is that he factors in last year's recruiting rank but not returning starters. Returning starters, regardless of position are more valuable this season than most new recruits - expecially at a program that redshirts most of them anyways regardless of talent.

That's a very good point. That's a big Steele variable and his results have been extremely good. But so has the matrix results. Hmmmmmmm....

I really don't like Matrix's massive emphasis on recruiting as we know TO's 1990's team would have scuttled Matrix's results but for the last decade the numbers don't lie. The recruitniks indeed have a very, very good point going for them. hnoes Oh well.

I do like their emphasis on SOS though. Matrix clearly says teams like Boise St get an extremely easy ride to BCS games and I couldn't agree more. It's pure BS that they can get to an NC game with their lame schedule. Great website!

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't think we lose to UCLA and I don't think we lose to Michigan State.

 

[Mierin]

Most teams play at least 4 completely crappy teams during the season. How hard is it to predict a win over the South Dakota States of the world? (Incidentally, I did the math. Their accuracy not including the 4 crap teams Nebraska plays every year is 70%, which is still pretty good)

That means they'll incorrectly predict 2.4 games. Those will be the UCLA loss and the Michigan State/Penn State loss and the Minnesota win.

(I picked Minnesota because I don't see us losing to Northwestern twice in a row, but we still need to have our one loss to a team we should have easily beat)

 

[VectorVictor]

(I picked Minnesota because I don't see us losing to Northwestern twice in a row, but we still need to have our one loss to a team we should have easily beat)

That, and Kill is trying to get a mobile QB system going in Minnesota IIRC, which seems to be the Achilles heel of our defensive scheming.

Don't think it will happen, especially since we play Minnesota in Lincoln this year...but then again, nothing is shocking anymore.

 

[huKSer]

We have to beat Minnesota seven straight times - just to pull even. This is the biggest deficit to any B1G school. (Which for comparison is the same number of games under 0.500 as Oklahoma) A quick look and the most games under 0.500 is 9 games - to Pitt.

PS - I hate the off season

 

['SkersRule]

This guy says that up to 80% of all games can be predicted based on just three factors: talent, home/away and coaching, in that order.

Background:

http://cfbmatrix.com/predictions/

B1G predictions:

http://cfbmatrix.com...ry/predictions/

Interesting quotes:

I don’t believe in returning starters since the numbers show both kickers back is more valuable than the QB.

The coach who does the least with the most talent gets the:

The Charlie Weis Anti-Coach of the Year was a bit of surprise.

I'm going out on a limb here and willing to predict, with 100% accuracy, the team that scores more points wins. Shocked? So was I.

 

[zoogs]

I don’t believe in returning starters since the numbers show both kickers back is more valuable than the QB.

Correlation =/> causation.

Rather serious oversight, I think.

In the last 4 years, 41 times a team has come off 10 or more regular season wins. Only 18 of those 41 times (43%) has a team gone back to back 10+ wins. Let’s breakdown the numbers of these two groups.

Gotta say, the sample size he uses to start making conclusions doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in the rigor with which he approaches this.

 

[huKSer]

I don’t believe in returning starters since the numbers show both kickers back is more valuable than the QB.

Correlation =/> causation.

Rather serious oversight, I think.

In the last 4 years, 41 times a team has come off 10 or more regular season wins. Only 18 of those 41 times (43%) has a team gone back to back 10+ wins. Let’s breakdown the numbers of these two groups.

Gotta say, the sample size he uses to start making conclusions doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in the rigor with which he approaches this.

Well, its better than the Mizz-who fans' "Yeah, we finally beat you one game last year. You're never gonna beat us again. Give me more meth."

 

[HuskerThor]

I don't think we lose to UCLA and I don't think we lose to Michigan State.

We have never lost to Mich. St. and we won't start this year.

 

[mrandyk]

Anyone else find it hard to picture Penn State getting anywhere near the title game? I guess the computer does not factor in losing their coach, let alone the scandal that's going to keep everyone away from that team.

 

[zoogs]

Maybe someone with a stats background who has read more of this stuff can contradict me, but I remain extremely unimpressed with his methods and how carelessly he starts making conclusions.

This guy, does not appear to have a stats background. Perhaps I've missed it, but his methodology appears to consist entirely of

1) tally up some (small amount) of data

2) use Division. He may also have some subtraction, addition, and multiplication in there.

3) ????

4) ANSWERS!

I could be wrong because I didn't really dig deep into everything. Unless I am missing something here, this all appears to be largely worthless. A lot of reading for some flimsy conclusions and meaningless results.

 

[HuskerThor]

Maybe someone with a stats background who has read more of this stuff can contradict me, but I remain extremely unimpressed with his methods and how carelessly he starts making conclusions.

This guy, does not appear to have a stats background. Perhaps I've missed it, but his methodology appears to consist entirely of

1) tally up some (small amount) of data

2) use Division. He may also have some subtraction, addition, and multiplication in there.

3) ????

4) ANSWERS!

I could be wrong because I didn't really dig deep into everything. Unless I am missing something here, this all appears to be largely worthless. A lot of reading for some flimsy conclusions and meaningless results.

Just Great! A boner busting mod. :thumbs