Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

CU was the 5th Most "Unlucky" Team in the Country in 2014

Darth Snow

Darth Snow

Hawaiian Buffalo
Club Member
Junta Member
I've been on the lookout for this, and wanted to see where we ended up with all those close losses (and one close win).

At least, according to the rough draft.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/12/16/7398531/college-football-ratings-second-order-wins

My new ratings are based on margins in categories related to my Five Factors: efficiency, explosiveness, field position, finishing drives, turnovers/luck. As I flesh the system out with previous years of data, I'm able to basically use these margins to determine both what was your most likely scoring margin in a given game and, based on the plays that took place, your likelihood of winning a given game.

To further explain the second part of that last sentence, it basically says "If you took all the plays in this game, tossed them up in the air, and had them land in a random order, you'd win this game XX% of the time." It is a single-game win likelihood concept, and with it, we can look at wins and losses not as zeroes and ones, but as percentages. And if you're winning a lot of "You'd have won this game 60 percent of the time" games, you're probably getting a little bit lucky. And as with everything else, that luck is likely to change over time.
So who's been particularly fortunate or unfortunate in 2014? Let's take a look.
Click to expand...

Notable "Lucky" teams:

FSU at #128 = luckiest team in the nation. Followed by Arizona. weird.

Utah is # 4 at 125.

Colorado State comes in at 116, or just outside the top 10 luckiest. Sparkles did good and got out.

Notable "Unlucky" teams:

STanford at #7, UMass (haha) at #6. Florida!! at #8. Pitt was #1.

And of course, CU at # 5. (should have won 1.5 more times)
  • The 13 schools with a difference between plus-1 and plus-2 saw their win percentage increase by an average of 0.094.
Click to expand...

I look at these rankings, and I wonder if these really show "luck" or are more likely to show coaching errors late in games. Because I don't think our close losses were all that unlucky. It felt like we earned them.

One thing: positive "expected wins" v actual wins means the team probably improved. Progression via regression!
 
In these types of things, doesn't "luck" mean deviation from what the stats would predict for wins?

Anyway, this confirmed our impressions.

Unfortunately, just because it came up tails last time doesn't mean we won't see tails next time.
 
Yes, I'm sure it's a little of both. Bad calls by notoriously terrible P12 officials, poor coaching decisions and clock management and player mistake (RB going the wrong way on 4th and goal in 2OT vs Cal comes to mind).
 
I think there was a cumulative effect in the close losses that resulted in lack of confidence, which can resemble bad luck. If Tedric's fumble-6 at Cal stands (and we go up 28-7 in that game), or if Oliver makes just one of those FGs in that game, I think we would have won 2-3 more games during the season simply because the team would have had confidence to pull out wins in subsequent weeks (Oregon St., UCLA, Utah).
 
I have a problem with mixing in turnovers with luck. Good defenses create turnovers and bad defenses don't. While many turnovers are luck, many aren't. I don't think anyone would consider Peanut Tillman's success at causing turnovers to be lucky.
 
The bogus PI call on Crawley and then the non call on Spruce against OSU still irks me.
 
chipwich said:
The bogus PI call on Crawley and then the non call on Spruce against OSU still irks me.
Click to expand...

Yep, not to mention overturning the INT by Terrell Smith in the Utah game. A few calls and plays here or there in the Cal, OSU, UCLA and Utah games, and you're looking at a 6 win, bowl eligible team. That doesn't include a 2nd half collapse against CSU either.
 
chipwich said:
Yep. That was the game where Mac lost it and went after the refs.
Click to expand...

I was critical of MM the week before against CAL when he lost it arguing a PI call and was flagged. Had no problem with him chasing the refs off the field that day though.
 
Fate can be a fickle friend or foe. I can't help but to wonder how our season would've gone with a win in one of our first two conference games.
 
Last edited:
We also ranked #1 for the past decade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So using second-order wins and the trend for teams with a difference between 1.0 and 2.0 of increasing their win% by 0.094, or 5 wins in 2015.
 
'Tini said:
So using second-order wins and the trend for teams with a difference between 1.0 and 2.0 of increasing their win% by 0.094, or 5 wins in 2015.
Click to expand...

Numbers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
'Tini said:
So using second-order wins and the trend for teams with a difference between 1.0 and 2.0 of increasing their win% by 0.094, or 5 wins in 2015.
Click to expand...

So you're going to go against your own numbers and expect more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top