Bill's work is awesome and generally very good, but some teams don't necessarily fit the same mold. This formula works on the idea that players get better as they get older, young player aren't ready to contribute, etc. It applies to 90% of college football programs. It just doesn't to us outside of massive changes in key positions, generally.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Cheeky Fellow

Brookhaven-Oglethorpe MARTA Station

Member since Jan 2016

1458 posts

Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:11 pm to Cheeky Fellow

This chart can find some teams that have better than expected years, but it doesn't mean every one is going to have a great year (and Bill says that).

Some teams that proved to be undervalued that this noted from last year

#2 - North Carolina (92% O, 81% D, 87% OVR)
#5 - Georgia State (75% O, 94% D, 84% OVR)
#6 - Temple (77% O, 90% D, 83% OVR)
#10 - California (84% O, 79% D, 82% OVR)

Some teams that it didn't quite work for
#1 - UMass (90% O, 90% D, 90% OVR)
#9 - Vanderbilt (74% O, 91% D, 82% OVR)
#10 - Texas Tech (80% O, 83% D, 82% OVR)
#13 - SMU (81% O, 76% D, 78% OVR)
#14 - Colorado (75% O, 80% D, 77% OVR)
#21 - Kentucky (79% O, 72% D, 76% OVR)

#117 - Washington (43% O, 44% D, 44% OVR)
#116 - Alabama (26% O, 64% D, 45% OVR)
#110 - Florida State (38% O, 60% D, 49% OVR)
#103 - Iowa (43% O, 59% D, 51% OVR)
#102 - Clemson (64% O, 40% D, 52% OR)

This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 1:12 pm

0 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board