hawg1
Well-Known Member
You forgot to power adjust.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Bowl Games (other than ours) and associated silliness 2024 Plus the Playoffs
- Thread starter MtnBuff
- Start date
This site defines upsets as seeds that are 5 seeds apart (8/9 or 4/5 matchups aren’t really upsets). They say on average there are 8.5 “upsets” per tournament out of 67 total games (12%). So, translating to the CFP and that means there should be roughly 1.3 upsets.
Here's how to pick March Madness men's upsets, according to the data
Here is how many upsets you should pick in the NCAA tournament, based on data since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985.
www.ncaa.com
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Good stuff yak. Agree 4/5 and 8/9 are coin flips. So far 0/4. More to play. These will be the kind of data the Committee will need to use.This site defines upsets as seeds that are 5 seeds apart (8/9 or 4/5 matchups aren’t really upsets). They say on average there are 8.5 “upsets” per tournament out of 67 total games (12%). So, translating to the CFP and that means there should be roughly 1.3 upsets.
Here's how to pick March Madness men's upsets, according to the data
Here is how many upsets you should pick in the NCAA tournament, based on data since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
The selection process and seeding, notwithstanding conference bias, needs to be examined in an effort to improve the product. That may mean 16, 6, reseeding, advanced analytics to better measure conferences, more data on SOS and unbalanced schedules.
Robert Sorell
Well-Known Member
hawg1
Well-Known Member
When looking a multiple sets of information, you should always adjust the result based on relevant factors, in this case, I suggest SOS.
It’s the fundamental basis of all the various Power Ratings models used across the industry, especially Vegas. Regression analysis can tell you which factors by which you should adjust and by how much. Many factors can be considered simultaneously in the same model. SOS, home field, production missing due to injuries, whatever.
Thus is not voodoo. It’s an accepted statistical approach used across many, many industries.
Dare I say, it’s multivariate analysis.
What rule would've prevented them getting their ass beat last night?
Absolutely.
College football if your team, especially on defense, has a weakness good teams will see it and exploit it.
This years CU team was a perfect example. Buffs had the best player in college football (arguably the best at his position on both sides of the ball,) and the best QB in college football, plus a number of other players who if not this year in the next few years will be highly drafted into the NFL. Despite this opponents found the weak points on the defenses, exploited the weakness of the offense in terms of the running game, and CU is going to a secon tier bowl game.
Basketball is entirely different. A couple of outstanding players, a few "good" players, and some guys who will play defense and rebound and you can win. Even the good tourney teams usually only go 7-9 players deep.
Classid example is the Larry Bird Indiana State team. One guy who is one of the best all time, one guy who was a marginal player in the NBA (Carl Nicks,) and a bunch of guys who wouldn't have started for most of the other top 25 teams but complimented the two stars well enough to win a championship.
Basketball is interesting because we do occasionally see a 15 seed beat a 2. Even then though those lower seeds don't end up in the final four, and in fact it is big news if a team lower than a 4 seed ends up in the final four.
In football we will continue to hear calls for a bigger and bigger playoff number but while there will eventually be some upsets we aren't going to see a lower seed go all the way. What we will do is see a top team lose key players to injury or otherwise get knocked out meaning that the eventual winner won't be the team that was actually best that year.
According to SM, Tennessee shouldn't have had to go to Columbus because ASU or BSU should have.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
None. Outclassed.
Different approach to seeding might have provided a more competitive game for Tenn. I think oSU is clearly a Too 4 team. Maybe a Top 2
Didn't realize Mercer made the playoffs!
I don't hate the idea of removing the conferences champion bye. What I was talking about was how the complaints from a certain subset of college football switched tack from IU and SMU don't belong to the seeding system being unfair.
Three things the NCAA tournament has taught us that you're never going to get rid of: people bitching about who got in and got left out, people complaining about seeding, and mismatches.
The only thing that is unique to the CFP at least for now is home field advantage, which I think we found out this weekend is a big deal.
I think the demands for overhaul are to be expected but also premature. One thing the SEC fans really seem to have missed that I think is obvious to the objective SEC observer is that the SEC seemed to be down this year. Alabama is breaking in a new coach. Georgia doesn't seem dominant. LSU is MIA from the top of the conference. Texas came in and competed for the conference crown but seems flawed as well.
That's probably, or almost certainly, not going to remain the case. I don't know that a major conference being down and finding out HFA is a big deal is reason of major overhaul one year in. I'd actually prefer conference scheduling overhauls over CFP overhaul.
Three things the NCAA tournament has taught us that you're never going to get rid of: people bitching about who got in and got left out, people complaining about seeding, and mismatches.
The only thing that is unique to the CFP at least for now is home field advantage, which I think we found out this weekend is a big deal.
I think the demands for overhaul are to be expected but also premature. One thing the SEC fans really seem to have missed that I think is obvious to the objective SEC observer is that the SEC seemed to be down this year. Alabama is breaking in a new coach. Georgia doesn't seem dominant. LSU is MIA from the top of the conference. Texas came in and competed for the conference crown but seems flawed as well.
That's probably, or almost certainly, not going to remain the case. I don't know that a major conference being down and finding out HFA is a big deal is reason of major overhaul one year in. I'd actually prefer conference scheduling overhauls over CFP overhaul.
One problem I see with removing the bye for conference champions is that
a) this would even further devalue the conference championship games, which I already thought were fairly lackluster affairs this year compared to years past as the stakes just used to be significantly higher
b) we would fairly commonly have the top 4 solely consist of usual suspect P2 teams and I just don't think that those two conferences and teams, that already enjoy all advantages you can ask for and have the odds stacked in their favour, need to have the rules altered in their favour even more.
a) this would even further devalue the conference championship games, which I already thought were fairly lackluster affairs this year compared to years past as the stakes just used to be significantly higher
b) we would fairly commonly have the top 4 solely consist of usual suspect P2 teams and I just don't think that those two conferences and teams, that already enjoy all advantages you can ask for and have the odds stacked in their favour, need to have the rules altered in their favour even more.
Wait until you encounter XII fans who think playing 9 conference games puts them at a disadvantage and advocate forcing other conferences to do the same.
My feelings on that matter are if we're talking about teams being chosen for the same tournament, there should probably be some standardization. Perhaps number of conference games, number of G5 opponents allowed, number of FCS opponents allowed (if at all).
But there should be some attempts at evening conference schedules, as well, so teams like IU and SMU can't rack up double digit wins while avoiding almost every other good team in their conference.
That is a good point. What I don't know how can get rid of is the inherent, baked-in favoritism that those usual suspect schools enjoy, but you are right, at least this way you make some of them work a little harder to get to the quarterfinals.
I think the 4 teams who advanced this weekend will have an additional advantage in the next round for having played easy warm up games. I expect them to come out sharper than bye teams while still having plenty of time to recover and prepare. My only hope is that Oregon and BSU get destroyed. I can't believe I'm rooting for PSU and OSU, but so be it. I also hate the idea of ASU winning the NC, though the anger of the Oregon fans over ASU having a NC before them might make it the optimal outcome. But I think ND gets the win.
I think that we can agree that it is a disadvantage for the Big XII to have 8 more conference losses per season than the SEC.
Agreed,
Also don't overlook the huge advantage gained by the SEC schools in the late season game they schedule against a lower G5 or FCS opponent.
While schools in other conferences are busy beating themselves up playing a conference opponent the SEC schools get an easy win on their record and a week that is almost like a bye week. Starters play a quarter or two then rest, anyone with a lingering injury sits and recovers, key depth guys get more live playing time making them sharper.
I'm not there, no. Based on this year's CFP selection, I don't see an overly persuasive argument that the ACC or SEC had an advantage with their 8 game schedules.
But irrespective of that, voluntarily adopting a policy that is believed to be harmful, and then responding by insisting others do the same instead of reversing said policy, seems absurd.
Consider when Notre Dame had their "no redshirt policy", or when the Pac and B1G had higher academic standards than required by the NCAA. I'm sure there were fans of those teams that wanted those policies forced on everyone else, but it got no traction. Those schools eventually realized they were shooting themselves in the foot.
Also for context, the main reason for going to 9 conference games was to keep more revenue within the conference. Trading post season opportunities for regular season revenue is a choice.
And since I'm on my soapbox, I think 9 game schedules for the power conferences further drives a divide between them and everyone else by depriving the G5s of opportunities to build a better SOS.
Don't you use that brovariate nonsense here!
FWIW, Notre Dame had a redshirt policy that I wish CU would implement. They didn't redshirt their freshman. Then after 4 years, if they wanted the guy around for another year, they would grab that year of eligibility if the guy didn't see the field one of his seasons. It wasn't a "no redshirt policy" it was a "we expect you to graduate in 4 years and aren't committing up-front to pay for a 5-year scholarship".