re: Question About Ags being “Overrated”

quote:

---

quote:
If they do a repeat of last year this year, are they still overrated then?

Because neither out come is certain. On one hand last year seems like an anomaly but in the other there are reasons for said outcome (new coach and such).

I’m just wondering what trend of data influences this opinion? Two 1 loss season. Three? Four?

Or is this an opinion that will never be fairly evaluated on recent data?


Well its the case of Bayesian Probability. Your coach and fan base talk about how y'all are going to win a national championship, "Beat Alabama's arse" per Jimbo, and exaggerate your seasons accomplishments. For instance, last year. Y'all think y'all had an amazing season! Y'all beat Vandy by 5, didn't even get a sip of Gatorade before you lost to Bama, pulled an upset of Fla you should have lost like LSU., and beat the dumpster fire that was LSU last year. It was a good season yes. But you showed all season that you were very vulnerable and if you played a decent team you would lose. Thats overrated. Every fall, you start the season playing next to no one. Like this year. You should be undefeated by the time you get to Bama. Your team will barely make it through the first games, make Colorado fans believe they have a have decent team, etc. But the networks will give you a top 10 rating. You will lose 3 games this year, bank on it. Jimbo is overrated (look at FSU after you lose an NFL QB, WR, RB, S, etc.). And before you talk about Coach O, just remember you started the thread about A&M being overrated, not LSU or Coach O. The verdict is this year for Coach O.

I digress about Bayesian Probability. Its the probability of what you perceive should happen. Every year, your team's fanbase, coaches and sometimes the polls, put up high expectations of winning probability. Others, change the perception of this and start noticing you and rate you has a potential great team. Your team flounders and fails when they shouldn't to teams that are underrated. So at the beginning of every season until September, people think a lot of you when really you are just a middle of the road SEC team (look at your past SEC records). Until you break through, you don't deserve to be considered over GA (also traditionally overrated but wins divisions), Auburn, Florida, or LSU. You are the 3/4/5 best team in the West.

LSU is different, you win a Natty, your fan base always remembers that championship year. To me, I would rather go winless for 9 years and win a championship 1. GA and A&M, your fans don't have that year. Until you do, you are at best a gate keeper. Thus being overrated. When something or at least be in the conversation for more than one year and you will meet expectations.

Just the opinion of a statistician.

---

Okay. That makes sense to a large degree. But it still doesn’t answer the question I have. Does repeating last year this year change this analysis? I understand the probability based on perception is a real thing, but so is probability based on actual games played over a statistically significant period. As a statistician, what is this period. How many games won?

quote:

---

I agree with some of this. Data more than 3 years ago is irrelevant and actually many times opposed to betting odds. So your system is opposed to itself.

---

Not at all, the case. You gather probabilities on past evidence. Thats Bayesian! There are externalities that play a factor in those probabilities more than just three years or the current football staff. Look at Texas, they are seen as underachieving because of their past. I think that is your issue in this. You are seeing only three years when everyone else is seeing a decade of evidence. Same with GA. For years both teams have been saying they are a top tier team but have very little to prove it. Every year people look at their recruiting, but nothing to show. A&M's best shots where with Manziel and a STOUT offensive line. Nothing. Last year you had a great defense and the most experienced QB in the league. Last year was your year. Nothing. Until you show that you can win something, a la LSU 2003, the betting odds are that you won't. Even with the talent you have. You won't.

There is your answer, win a Championship with your talent and highly priced coach. Until then, you are the same Texas A & M from the last 10 years. Maybe its culture, facilities, location, or the fact that some athletes cant get attendance. All of which play a factor.

quote:

---

Do scientists feel like they have to state they’re a scientist repeatedly?

---

Lol. Probably. I’m just trying to keep not on topic. I was seeking legitimate responses and that’s my to ensure that. Although it’s clearly not always successful. But good take.

quote:

---

As a statistician, what is this period. How many games won?

---

You're asking for us to make a judgement based on a time period that you have dictated (since Jimbo was hired). You're also asking that if you all repeat results of a year raped by Covid, does it make ya'll relevant.

Honestly what do you expect us to say?

Your fixed time period has the following results:

2018 - 9-4
2019 - 8-5 (ya'll regressed)
2020 - 9-1 (Covid year)

2020 is an outlier/asterisk season of college football. Anyone who argues otherwise is delusional.

So based on Jimbo's results at A&M, we have VERY GOOD reason to believe that ya'll are overrated this year. But again, only results on the field will prove anyone right or worng.

quote:

---

Win something. A division. A conference. A natty. Anything.

---

You’ve personally won none of these

quote:

---

Question About Ags being “Overrated”

---

How many more of these threads before the season starts? I’m sure they are either over rated or underrated. I’m sure the raters didn’t get it exactly right.

quote:

---

I’m just wondering because when Texas was in their glory years from 2005-2011 and won a natty during that time, we beat them 3 times during that period.

---

So Texas glory years included their shite seasons in 2010 and 2011 where you split a pair of games, and the Horns record was a combined 13-12?

Texas glory years didn’t include 2001 to 2004 where they went 43-8 (3-1 in bowls) and had 3 top 10 finishes? Are those not included because they beat aggy each year?

You could include the beginning of the Mack Brown tenure, since the years from 1998 to 2000 they went 27-11. Not great, but it includes a South Division title. Again, that’s better than the 2010-11 stretch you included. Are these three seasons exempted because Texas was 2-1 against aggy?

If you take Mack Brown’s entire 16 year tenure at Texas, he played aggy 14 times and won 10.

Only a fool would think a 5-7 season is part of your glory years but 11-1 and 11-2 seasons are not.

This is a bad look for a mathematical guru like yourself.

quote:

---

You’ve personally won none of these

---

Wtf is this shite?

You’ve personally won zilch also.

quote:

---

LOL, now you are discussing a often debated area about sample size so touché my friend. Typically around 20 is a good sample size, but with Bayesian you cant go that far because so much changes so quickly. From a personal point, I would have to say you should be in the hunt for a championship (no matter how small) for at least 3 years. Ex. You lose just to Alabama for those three years. Or you break through.

---

So three years or a natty. Thank you sir. I would agree with that. My next question is do you think the playoff committee will snub the Aggies twice? So essentially, which comes first. Assuming of course that they continue, which I grant you, is far from certain. But assuming they do, which comes first.