Started By
Message
3
Posted on 2/9/16 at 4:49 pm to OKtiger
According to that chart, LSU, UCF, Syracuse, and Kent State goes to the College Football Playoff.
Posted on 2/9/16 at 4:55 pm to jatebe
quote:
According to that chart, LSU, UCF, Syracuse, and Kent State goes to the College Football Playoff.
You are a fricking moron if that is what you took away from those stats
Posted on 2/9/16 at 4:58 pm to PBD4BAMA
quote:
so, instead of Bama winning by 14 next season, Bama wins by only 3?
That's what the algorithm says.. I would think it will be another closely contested game in Death Valley
Posted on 2/9/16 at 5:14 pm to OKtiger
So what is it NYU or L5U.
Posted on 2/9/16 at 5:28 pm to OKtiger
This may be the most probalistic and irrelevant statistic about college football ever. LAST year, using this statistic Alabama ranked 114 in nation and Clemson ranked 103rd. That should give proper perspective to this math exercise.
Given this stat's historical irrelevance, help me understand why it is worthy of being taken seriously? It isn't going to fill gaping question marks at key positions. If I posted something like this about Alabana it would be laughed at...by Alabama commentators...well...maybe grasping at straws is an offseason tradition around here.
Given this stat's historical irrelevance, help me understand why it is worthy of being taken seriously? It isn't going to fill gaping question marks at key positions. If I posted something like this about Alabana it would be laughed at...by Alabama commentators...well...maybe grasping at straws is an offseason tradition around here.
This post was edited on 2/9/16 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 2/9/16 at 5:31 pm to Jacknola
quote:
This may be the most probalistic and irrelevant statistic about college football ever. LAST year, using this statistic Alabama ranked 114 in nation and Clemson ranked 103rd. That should give proper perspective to this math exercise.
It has been, this was widely discussed on a post last week and it ended after people looked at Alabama's ranking last year.
Posted on 2/9/16 at 5:39 pm to OKtiger
How is the "weak minded players give up after 1 defeat" quotient figured into these rankings?
Posted on 2/9/16 at 5:43 pm to OKtiger
quote:
If there was any year to win it, it would be this one.
It's all on Miles' shoulders.
Why does this sound familiar? I'm setting more realistic expectations this year. Just don't lose to fricking Arkansas again
Posted on 2/9/16 at 5:46 pm to Grim
That's not realistic......
Posted on 2/9/16 at 5:46 pm to OKtiger
So no excuses then right?
Posted on 2/9/16 at 5:47 pm to lefty08
It's starting to not feel like it
Posted on 2/9/16 at 5:57 pm to OKtiger
quote:
Mizzou will still likely be pretty bad
Meh. If we had even fielded a below avg offense last year we win 8-9 games before a bowl.
Any improvement from Heupel, Lock and co and we could have a nice bounce back season.
Posted on 2/9/16 at 6:39 pm to Jacknola
quote:
This may be the most probalistic and irrelevant statistic about college football ever. LAST year, using this statistic Alabama ranked 114 in nation and Clemson ranked 103rd. That should give proper perspective to this math exercise.
It's not saying if you are ranked 114 that you are going to have a bad year. Like I mentioned in the OP, you have a predicted -1.6 PPG change. Why do you automatically assume the stats say you are going to have a bad year? Why don't you comprehend what it's actual purpose is.
(You literally are the dumbest poster out of any Gump on this board)
Posted on 2/9/16 at 6:41 pm to Jacknola
quote:
Given this stat's historical irrelevance, help me understand why it is worthy of being taken seriously? It isn't going to fill gaping question marks at key positions.
Historical irrelevance? You never read the article
Gaping question marks at key positions?
Posted on 2/9/16 at 7:06 pm to Jacknola
quote:
This may be the most probalistic and irrelevant statistic about college football ever. LAST year, using this statistic Alabama ranked 114 in nation and Clemson ranked 103rd. That should give proper perspective to this math exercise.
Ever?!!?!
Returning experience is a very important aspect of MOST good teams. That was an historical fluke that had to do with great recruiting and great coaching. Alabama returned their front 7 and Derrick Henry which are the reasons you were so dominant. Clemson returned Watson and their D Line. The reasons they were so dominant.
Alabama has the best coach and the best talent. Teams like that are almost immune to this kind of shite.
I'm sure every single fan would rather their team be near the top of this list instead of the bottom.
ETA:
And data needs more than 2 pts (Bama/Clemson). The other teams reflected experience much moreso.
quote:
With just one year at my disposal (2014) when I wrote the original post, I wasn't able to draw any lasting conclusions, but the potential was obvious. I put together a rough formula that posited that teams like North Carolina (87 percent of production returning), Ohio (85 percent), and Temple (83 percent) were among the most experienced in the country, then watched as those teams improved from a combined 18-9 to a combined 29-12.
quote:
Meanwhile, the five that returned less than 40 percent of their production -- Kansas, UTEP, Wyoming, UCF, and UL-Lafayette -- fell from a combined 32-31 to 11-49.
This post was edited on 2/9/16 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 2/9/16 at 7:16 pm to TexasAg13
quote:
Yep, all your players are experienced at getting their arse handed to them by Bama
And like a knight in shining armor, aggie swoops in to suck elephant cock
. Death.
Taxes.
Aggie riding that crimson tide dick.
Posted on 2/9/16 at 7:18 pm to Jacknola
quote:
Jacknola
And also Jacknola getting rustled in an LSU thread.
Posted on 2/9/16 at 7:33 pm to PBD4BAMA
Just expect L6U until proven otherwise. That way you win. I will believe it when I see it.
Posted on 2/9/16 at 7:40 pm to OKtiger
LSU fans trying hard to validate next season.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News