Started By
Message
Bill Connelly : Overall projection scoring margin change per team (15 to 16)
Posted on 7/29/16 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 7/29/16 at 12:07 pm
Based on who is staying/leaving from 2015 to 2016
Scoring Margin Change Per Team : CFB
1. LSU +9.4
12. Tennessee +5.9
29. Georgia +4.4
35. Missouri +3.9
40. Vanderbilt +3.3
67. Texas A&M +1.4
73. Arkansas +1.3
81. South Carolina +0.2
81. Ole Miss +0.2
85. Auburn +0.1
90. Kentucky -0.2
94. Florida -0.4
101. Mississippi State -1.3
104. Alabama -1.6
Nationally
Top 5
1. LSU +9.4
2. UCF +9.0
3. Syracuse +8.5
4. Kent State +8.2
5. Charlotte +7.8
Bottom 5
124. California -6.4
125. Louisiana Tech -7.2
126. Arizona State -8.2
127. Ohio State -9.9
128. UMass -11.5
Scoring Margin Change Per Team : CFB
1. LSU +9.4
12. Tennessee +5.9
29. Georgia +4.4
35. Missouri +3.9
40. Vanderbilt +3.3
67. Texas A&M +1.4
73. Arkansas +1.3
81. South Carolina +0.2
81. Ole Miss +0.2
85. Auburn +0.1
90. Kentucky -0.2
94. Florida -0.4
101. Mississippi State -1.3
104. Alabama -1.6
Nationally
Top 5
1. LSU +9.4
2. UCF +9.0
3. Syracuse +8.5
4. Kent State +8.2
5. Charlotte +7.8
Bottom 5
124. California -6.4
125. Louisiana Tech -7.2
126. Arizona State -8.2
127. Ohio State -9.9
128. UMass -11.5
This post was edited on 7/29/16 at 12:13 pm
7
Posted on 7/29/16 at 12:07 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Get your shite together
Posted on 7/29/16 at 12:09 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Damnit George.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 12:49 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Top 5
1. LSU +9.4
2. UCF +9.0
3. Syracuse +8.5
4. Kent State +8.2
5. Charlotte +7.8
I always feel like these types of things are inherently misleading.
UCF, Syracuse, Kent State, and Charlotte combined didn't win 10 games last year. By this logic, they are going to automatically be better because they bring back shitty players.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 12:54 pm to UAtide11
quote:
I always feel like these types of things are inherently misleading. UCF, Syracuse, Kent State, and Charlotte combined didn't win 10 games last year. By this logic, they are going to automatically be better because they bring back shitty players.
Well, his isn't exactly "they return a bunch of players". It is based on who they return, how they contributed, expectations of improvement for certain age guys.
So, just because somebody returns 10 guys, it matters where those guys are and how much they produced.
Still isn't science, but it's better than just "returning starters". He also admits that certain elite recruiting schools (Alabama, Ohio State, Florida State, etc) are going to be able to whether the "production losses" better than 90% of CFB, so and they are almost always going to be near the bottom.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 12:55 pm to UAtide11
quote:
By this logic, they are going to automatically be better because they bring back shitty players.
This is the logic followed by alot of teams.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 12:56 pm to SummerOfGeorge
He's looking at the data in a vacuum and not ignoring too many important factors for this to be a good statistic. Nice effort thought. I appreciate these type of things.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 12:59 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
He's looking at the data in a vacuum and not ignoring too many important factors for this to be a good statistic. Nice effort thought. I appreciate these type of things.
Yea, so many moving parts it is tough to create a model that equates for all the unique things going on with roster management in CFB.
From certain schools having ready depth to take over to other schools with transfers at key positions (A&M with Knight), etc, it's tough to get something that encompasses all that for sure.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 1:04 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
From certain schools having ready depth to take over to other schools with transfers at key positions (A&M with Knight), etc, it's tough to get something that encompasses all that for sure.
One of the points I was making.
Coaching changes aren't considered.
Then you look at returning starters. Some sites say A&M is returning 7 starters on defense when I am pretty sure the "back up" DTs played more and were more effective.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 1:09 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
One of the points I was making. Coaching changes aren't considered. Then you look at returning starters. Some sites say A&M is returning 7 starters on defense when I am pretty sure the "back up" DTs played more and were more effective.
Yep - and some teams return lots of starters, like the poster above was saying, but those starters really weren't very good to begin with and their ceiling isn't very high.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 1:41 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
It is based on who they return, how they contributed, expectations of improvement for certain age guys.
Be that as it may, UCF returning 92% of the production that went 0-12 last year doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be considerably better this year.
I'm saying this is a useless stat. Kansas, Wake Forest, Ball State, Rutgers. The top of this list is full of shitty teams.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 1:58 pm to UAtide11
I don't see the relevance in this stat. Even so, it basically helps four teams in the SEC and substantially only two. The bottom ten are basically the same as last year. Yes this stat is worthless and doesn't account for any players on a team last year that have breakout years this year or any newcomers period. I admit I didn't study how this stat was produced, but I cannot see much use for it.
To me returning contributors would mean more in the context of how their team performed last year. Like all predictions still kind of a crap shoot.
To me returning contributors would mean more in the context of how their team performed last year. Like all predictions still kind of a crap shoot.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 2:00 pm to SummerOfGeorge
These numbers seem really important. 
Posted on 7/29/16 at 2:01 pm to UAtide11
sonofabitch, Bama at #104. Saban is outofhere.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 2:16 pm to NotRight37
There is just no objective way to quantify roster talent, especially in terms of predictive value.
This ranking fails for the same reason that returning starters fails. 9 times out of 10 a returning starter at Ball State is going to be worse than a first time starter at a place like Georgia.
Though more useful, aggregate recruiting rankings fail to take into account attrition or development. Plus they are entirely based on subjective evaluations.
This ranking fails for the same reason that returning starters fails. 9 times out of 10 a returning starter at Ball State is going to be worse than a first time starter at a place like Georgia.
Though more useful, aggregate recruiting rankings fail to take into account attrition or development. Plus they are entirely based on subjective evaluations.
Posted on 7/29/16 at 2:18 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:Goodness gracious
1. LSU +9.4
Posted on 7/29/16 at 2:19 pm to UAtide11
quote:
Be that as it may, UCF returning 92% of the production that went 0-12 last year doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be considerably better this year. I'm saying this is a useless stat. Kansas, Wake Forest, Ball State, Rutgers. The top of this list is full of shitty teams.
Sure - and some of those teams will be shitty again. But some of them are in year 2-3 of a new regime and played a lot of young players the last few years.
Wake is a perfect example of that. A lot of people who know them and that league think they will be much better this year (much better being relative at 6-6 or so).
Posted on 7/29/16 at 2:38 pm to SummerOfGeorge
LSU OFFENSE IS BACK!
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News