BCMoore Rankings: Final

[bcmoore87]

BCMoore Rankings

Comments are welcome.

Notes:
1. Congratulations to Regina!
2. Rankings are unbiased.
3. Comments are welcome.


R Team Conf ( W- L) Mod Str Sched Rank Off Ave Def Ave
1 Iowa City Regina 1A-6 (14- 0) 185.69 14W 148.60 ( 2) 40.07 ( 3) 8.43 ( 1)
2 Fort Dodge St Edmond 1A-2 (13- 1) 171.48 1L 143.11 ( 12) 32.71 ( 8) 9.00 ( 2)
3 Wilton 1A-6 ( 9- 2) 171.11 1L 142.11 ( 15) 40.91 ( 2) 15.64 ( 10)
4 North Fayette Valley 1A-4 (11- 2) 165.28 1L 135.59 ( 37) 39.62 ( 4) 13.31 ( 8)
5 South Winneshiek 1A-4 ( 9- 3) 163.17 1L 144.05 ( 9) 44.00 ( 1) 23.42 ( 30)
6 Dike-New Hartford 1A-3 (10- 1) 162.16 1L 135.79 ( 34) 39.45 ( 5) 10.73 ( 5)
7 Manson NW Webster 1A-2 ( 8- 3) 161.11 1L 144.10 ( 8) 31.64 ( 14) 16.45 ( 13)
8 Guttenberg CR 1A-5 ( 9- 2) 159.03 1L 132.98 ( 43) 31.82 ( 13) 10.36 ( 3)
9 South O'Brien 1A-1 (10- 2) 157.10 1L 144.87 ( 7) 27.50 ( 26) 15.83 ( 12)
10 Van Meter 1A-7 (12- 1) 157.04 1L 134.12 ( 40) 32.69 ( 9) 10.54 ( 4)
11 Maquoketa Valley 1A-5 (11- 1) 156.29 1L 143.60 ( 10) 27.58 ( 25) 15.08 ( 9)
12 CB St Albert 1A-8 (10- 1) 155.72 1L 131.32 ( 48) 38.45 ( 6) 15.82 ( 11)
13 Mount Ayr 1A-7 ( 8- 3) 154.65 1L 132.74 ( 44) 30.18 ( 16) 12.27 ( 6)
14 Holstein Ridge View 1A-2 ( 9- 2) 152.43 1L 141.96 ( 16) 32.18 ( 11) 21.27 ( 24)
15 SumnerFredericksburg 1A-4 ( 6- 4) 151.03 1L 138.40 ( 28) 28.20 ( 21) 17.80 ( 15)
16 West Branch 1A-6 ( 6- 4) 149.85 1L 143.17 ( 11) 31.30 ( 15) 24.90 ( 33)

 

[GoEagles23]

glad to see you actually have the team that won state as the #1 team at the end of the season this year.
FDSE is NOT the 2nd best team in the state i don't care what the brackets offered. Regina played 2-3 teams in its own district that were tougher than what I saw from FDSE. And Maq Valley was a better team as well

 

[CP84]

I realize this is your opinion but making a judgement based on observation from one game doesn't doesn't have a high degree of statistical significance. An unbiased observer who watched Regina-Solon and Regina-Sigourney would walk away thinking Sigourney would handle Solon 9 out of 10 times.

Sure Maquoketa Valley played Regina closer than SE and Solon but how was the rest of the body of work: Tipton (21-14), Monticello (20-16) and only beat Belleveu (26-13). Not exactly the type of wins that are going to to benefit you in a statistical analysis.

If you look at college football last year Notre Dame lost to Alabama by a 28 point margin. 7-6 Ole Miss lost by only a 19 point margin and scored more points than ND. Does that mean 2012 ND would lose to Ole Miss?

This year in the NFL the 49ers got killed by Seattle 29-3. Meanwhile Houston, Tampa Bay and St Louis lost close games to Seattle. Does that mean the 49ers would get beat routinely by those teams?

Any one of those top 5 teams could have a legit argument for number two but it's difficult to prove with absolute certainty.

Comprehensive statistical analysis doesn't provide a definitive answer but it does provide a good starting point for debate. As you pointed out last year sometimes it doesn't always work out the way it should but the overall prediction average is pretty solid. The reason E-Berg managed the #1 spot last year despite a semi-final loss was due to having a stronger strength of schedule and having a much better net points total than Regina. E-berg ended up losing to CBSA despite nearly doubling them in total yards (289-153). It would have been interesting to see a Regina vs E-Berg finals but that's the way it goes sometimes.
This post was edited on 11/24 12:46 AM by CP84

 

[ghost80]

Regina is on top and that is not disputable. They have enough of a strangle hold on 1A I don't know if anything below really matters. Trying to rank a bunch of teams below one as dominant as Regina seems like an exercise in MM.

I have got to agree with Go Eagles. I don't see much to support St Ed's being able to lay claim on #2 over some of the other teams.

 

[CP84]

Of course you don't. Only a week ago you were predicting Van Meter being better than SE so take that with a grain of salt.
This post was edited on 11/25 7:35 AM by CP84

 

[DarkThunder#61]

Originally posted by CP84:
Of course you don't. Only a week ago you were predicting Van Meter being better than SE so take that with a grain of salt.
This post was edited on 11/25 7:35 AM by CP84

 

[ghost80]

Thunder monkey,

I think the person you and CP should be applauding is Go Eagle and maybe 10 other people in the 3A pickem poll. Go Eagle did beat "statistical analysis" and beat the computer in the 1A Pickem poll. That must be a fluke... a human beating the computer?

Let's look at the 3A Pickem contest results. The computer got 84% of the playoff games right. Congratulations that must be really good!! Hardly. Out of 19 full time entries (plus the computer) 10 BEAT the computer and Moore tied for 11th place and only managed to beat 8 people. So much for statistical analysis's superiority. It was clearly, soundly beaten by humans.

I'm not doubting St Eds should be ranked #2 just because Go Eagle doubts their ranking. The numbers just don't add up to warrant ranking them there.

When you look at the teams that Go Eagle thinks could beat St Eds I just don't see how you can doubt they wouldn't win. They do afterall have a common opponent and that is Regina. They did all mange to have a more competative game against Regina then St Eds did. Here is a little secret. SInce these are 1A Rankings if you were to look at the teams that Regina mercied how many of them do you suppose had a winning record against fellow 1A teams? Only 1 .. St Eds. Yup. your supposed #2 team was the only team with a winning record who got mercied by Regina.

See I think the computer gets too caught up in analyzing games that are too far away from a single direct common opponent (like Regina is to these teams) to really be of any value. This and a overweighting to strength of schedule (SOS) is how it can place teams with losing records in it's final top 16 rankings while teams with winning records who beat them remain unranked.

Here is an example of how meaningless the SOS apparently is. St Ed's arrived at the Dome with an SOS of #28. When you consider there is 56 teams in 1A that is dead middle average. (Confirming what Coach Tighe said about not having a hard road this year). SE's win over Van Meter (which I did miss) raised the St Ed's SOS to #24. After getting demolished 35-0 (with Regina calling the dogs off in the 3rd) their SOS suddenly rockets up to #12. Something seems wrong....they suddenly double their SOS rating and move from the middle third to the top quarter in just one single game that yet were clearly overmatched in??. What does the SOS really mean and what really is it's value?

Bottom line I'll stand behind what I said. I see absolutely nothing which could remotely make a case that would dispute GO EAGLES claims that SE is NOT the #2 ranked team. Afterall, he should know.....he proved he's a better predictor than the computer.



This post was edited on 11/25 11:10 PM by ghost80

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by ghost80:
Thunder monkey,

I think the person you and CP should be applauding is Go Eagle and maybe 10 other people in the 3A pickem poll. Go Eagle did beat "statistical analysis" and beat the computer in the 1A Pickem poll. That must be a fluke... a human beating the computer?

Let's look at the 3A Pickem contest results. The computer got 84% of the playoff games right. Congratulations that must be really good!! Hardly. Out of 19 full time entries (plus the computer) 10 BEAT the computer and Moore tied for 11th place and only managed to beat 8 people. So much for statistical analysis's superiority. It was clearly, soundly beaten by humans.

Let's actually dig into the data besides once again cherry picking a fraction of the story and pretending to know something about stats.

Here are BCMoores misses:

1st round:
Waverly Shell Rock vs. Boone. He had Boone favored by 1.7 points. Essentially a tossup game.
(WSR won 33-7, his only prediction he missed by a wide margin. And Boone had just beaten Grinnell and DC Grimes the two games prior to the playoffs- both teams won first round playoff games).


Crestwood vs. Maquoketa. He had Crestwood by 4.12 points. Once again essentially a statistical tossup.
(Maquoketa won 19-13 in OT)

2nd round:
Carroll vs Harlan. He had Carroll favored by 0.41 points. Once again a tossup and Carroll won earlier in the year by 7.
(Harlan won 21-18)

Dallas Center Grimes vs Grinnell. He had DCG favored by 3.5. Is this getting boring yet?
(Grinnell ended up winning 28-21)

3rd round:
Decorah vs Solon. He had Decorah favored by 7.37.
(Solon won 28-20)


So what have you proven? That BCMoore predicted a few statistical tossups incorrectly? Oh boy that's sure sound proof you've got there. If anything it's impressive that he predicted all of these games would be decided by 1 score and only one fell outside that margin.



This post was edited on 11/26 1:07 AM by CP84

 

[CP84]

When you look at the teams that Go Eagle thinks could beat St Eds I just don't see how you can doubt they wouldn't win. They do afterall have a common opponent and that is Regina. They did all mange to have a more competative game against Regina then St Eds did. Here is a little secret. SInce these are 1A Rankings if you were to look at the teams that Regina mercied how many of them do you suppose had a winning record against fellow 1A teams? Only 1 .. St Eds. Yup. your supposed #2 team was the only team with a winning record who got mercied by Regina.

Funny you limited this to 1A and left off 3A semi finalist Solon. Guess that didn't support your argument so you chose to ignore it. Cherry picking, how typical of you...


But I suppose teams like Clayton Ridge only losing 35-3 means they are significantly better?
CR was outgained 398 to 198.

Wilton was down 38-7 in the 3rd before they were able to score against many of Regina's second string. Wilton did manage 427 yards (mostly in the 4th) while Regina had 597 including 415 yards rushing.

Maquoketa Valley only lost 24-7 because Regina fumbled the ball 5 times with MV's lone score coming from a 90 yards fumble return for a TD. That game could have very easily gotten ugly had Regina taken better care of the ball.

NFV had two good drives to start the game and then fell apart going down 35-14 at half. They managed only 234 yards of total offense.

SE was outgained 312 to 431. So SE wasn't able to capitalize on any of their 3 first half redzone trips nor recover Regina's several fumbles at the same rate MV did. I don't know with certainty who would win between all these teams nor does it really matter. The bottom line is it's an exercise in futility to try to say one is definitively better than the other. If you look at BCMoore's points spread he has SE, Wilton and NFV all within the margin of error and CR and MV just a hair below.

You don't seem to understand the SOS point. I'm not simply referring to SOS rankings listed by Moore. SOS matters when computing individual games throughout the season. For example a close win against a bad team hurts a good team more than a loss against a good team. All that is factored into the prediction model.


This post was edited on 11/26 12:57 AM by CP84

 

[DarkThunder#61]

Originally posted by ghost80:

 

[ghost80]

CP,

I left off 3A Solon for the same reason I left off wins over A teams. They are not relevant to a thread about 1A rankings. Even though Moore tries to compensate for out of class games they have no bearing. Just because Solon was mercied by Regina too means nothing in comparing 1A teams against other 1A teams. If you would like to boast that 1A Saint Eds can beat 3A Solon be my guest. You can do it here or on the 3A board and I won't argue with you.

It's funny how now suddenly on a thread which deals with rankings based solely on 1 data point (compiled scores) starts having other data points interjected (yards ect). These are all unimportant in Moore's universe remember? Even your argument that some of the other teams scores were helped because Regina let up on them in the second half is a very weak excuse. First, it is an irrelevant argument and a known flaw in Moore's system. When you use 1 data point (scores) it does not compensate for teams which either do or don't run up scores. Secondly even if your argument were relevant I've already already acknowledged that Regina clearly called the dogs off St Eds as well in the 3rd quarter. Other teams may have very well have received mercy from Regina...they showed mercy upon St Eds.

As far as calling the computer's failure to finish in the top half of the 3A predictors being nothing more than a bunch of "toss up" games it got on the wrong side off...remember those were only toss up games in the computers (and your) mind....since so many humans correctly guessed those games it must not have been a "toss up" to them.

I guess it doesn't matter if you are talking about a real game, a fantasy game, or a cyber generated ranking system. When people lose too often they have one thing in common. They make excuses. At least when I missed the prediction and picked Van Meter to beat St Ed's I made no excuses. I simply acknowledged that I made a mistake and overestimated VM and underestimated St Eds.

 

[bcmoore87]

Here is an example of how meaningless the SOS apparently is. St Ed's arrived at the Dome with an SOS of #28. When you consider there is 56 teams in 1A that is dead middle average. (Confirming what Coach Tighe said about not having a hard road this year). SE's win over Van Meter (which I did miss) raised the St Ed's SOS to #24. After getting demolished 35-0 (with Regina calling the dogs off in the 3rd) their SOS suddenly rockets up to #12. Something seems wrong....they suddenly double their SOS rating and move from the middle third to the top quarter in just one single game that yet were clearly overmatched in??. What does the SOS really mean and what really is it's value?


1. Strength of schedule is computed after team strengths are discovered. It is not an input to the model in any way.
2. Strength of schedule is currently computed as the average of all opponent's team strengths.
3. I have brought up in the past that I am not terribly comfortable with this calculation of SOS. Does anyone have ideas? Since it is calculated after team strengths are discovered, it is a peripheral calculation (not automatically useful, but can add understanding).



It's funny how now suddenly on a thread which deals with rankings based solely on 1 data point (compiled scores) starts having other data points interjected (yards ect). These are all unimportant in Moore's universe remember? Even your argument that some of the other teams scores were helped because Regina let up on them in the second half is a very weak excuse. First, it is an irrelevant argument and a known flaw in Moore's system. When you use 1 data point (scores) it does not compensate for teams which either do or don't run up scores. Secondly even if your argument were relevant I've already already acknowledged that Regina clearly called the dogs off St Eds as well in the 3rd quarter. Other teams may have very well have received mercy from Regina...they showed mercy upon St Eds.


What exactly is the known flaw? I've read your paragraph twice and am not coming up with the answer.


Thank you very much for your posts. They are very much appreciated!
Edit: fixed formating
This post was edited on 11/26 8:20 AM by bcmoore87

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by bcmoore87:



















What exactly is the known flaw? I've read your paragraph twice and am not coming up with the answer.

First you have to realize he has no idea what he's talking about. There are no "known" flaws he can point to. Using scores alone is wholly appropriate and no different than methodologies used by all BCS compuer models including Sagarin. The law of averages rues the day.

The reason I injected yards was due to Ghost's subjective argument that SE was worse than other teams based on a single game comparison.

What's irrelevant is his single game comparison because a single game comparison is never appropriate or provides a valid statistical benchmark. If his logic had any value, Sigourney would not only be better than SE but also Solon, NFV and Clayton Ridge. We know that's not true. That's why you need multiple games of evidence to have a valid model. It's called sample size.
This post was edited on 11/26 8:42 AM by CP84

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by ghost80:

As far as calling the computer's failure to finish in the top half of the 3A predictors being nothing more than a bunch of "toss up" games it got on the wrong side off...remember those were only toss up games in the computers (and your) mind....since so many humans correctly guessed those games it must not have been a "toss up" to them.

This is so funny it's hard not to laugh. The game may have not been a tossup to humans? Let's see one game went to OT, and 3 of the other 4 were decided by one score or less including Carroll losing to Harlan whom they previously beat. If those weren't "toss-ups" I want to know your definition of what is? The only one you can make that argument about is Boone-WSR and if you go through the list of predictions about half the participants picked Boone (i.e. tossup). Had the OT game and one of the other 3 games decided by less than 1 score, BCMoore would suddenly be in the top three of all participants in this game. That's a pretty thin argument to try to hinge yourself on in attacking a model's credibility.

The fact that BCMoore said 4 of his 5 misses would be decided by less than one score is more impressive than the fact that the teams he gave the favored odds to the one that didn't win. What that shows me is his points predictions have a high degree of accuracy. When you look inside the details of the 3A pickum contest I came away more impressed with his system than I was before. If that success ratio carried over to predicting 1A teams outcomes it shows me that he has an 80% chance of predicting scores within a 12 point range. That bodes well for SE and looks bad for your argument that they cleary can't be competitive for the #2 spot.

 

[Don'tReadThis]

Wow. Are you guys really arguing about who should be in 2nd and 3rd?

The ONLY place that matters is FIRST. Period. End of discussion.

 

[CP84]

It's actually a discussion about the validity of BCMoore's model. SE just gets interjected because Ghost and Spook like to slam them.

 

[Pinehawk]

When you have a computer picking games that have an estimated margin of around 3 points or less, it's going to be pretty limited. With games that close, that is where a human can take into account the vast amount of information that the computer ranking can't.
Weather, injuries, team chemistry, rivalries, which teams pile up scores when games are over, and which teams turn the games over to the reserves in the 2nd half, etc...
All those factors can't be accounted for in a relatively limited computer model. And, that's a big part why quite a few people were able to predict game winners better than a computer model.

People should just accept the limitations of the model for what they are, but it's not a big deal. The model is fun and helps make for some good discussion.

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by Pinehawk:
When you have a computer picking games that have an estimated margin of around 3 points or less, it's going to be pretty limited. With games that close, that is where a human can take into account the vast amount of information that the computer ranking can't.
Weather, injuries, team chemistry, rivalries, which teams pile up scores when games are over, and which teams turn the games over to the reserves in the 2nd half, etc...
All those factors can't be accounted for in a relatively limited computer model. And, that's a big part why quite a few people were able to predict game winners better than a computer model.

People should just accept the limitations of the model for what they are, but it's not a big deal. The model is fun and helps make for some good discussion.

That's a good point. Just look at the Vegas odds for week 12 of the NFL.

Detroit -10 Tampa
Houston -10 Jacksonville
Kansas City -4.5 San Diego
Cleveland -2 Pittsburgh
NY Giants -2.5 Dallas
Oakland -1 Tennessee
Green Bay -4.5 Minnesota
Denver -2.5 New England

So in other words the Vegas odds makers missed 8 out of 14 games. By Ghost's logic Vegas would be discredited over this and their future predictions would be invalid. I'm sure I could have found a number of humans who guessed better than 6 right from this week.

The point is BCMoore like BCS, Sagarin, Vegas doesn't always predict the correct score and upsets can throw their predictions into a mess. The point is more often than not it's a reliable tool based on historical evidence that typically has a high success rate.


My good friend Ghost is ripping on BCMoore converting >80% of his picks right as "flawed" because some humans managed to get a higher score. BCMoore in these pick'em games throughout the past several has a composite score of >80%. To me that's a reliable tool to work with with a high rate of success. I really don't care that he missed 4 tossup games and only 1 blowout in greater than 20 games. So in other words Ghost you are arguing against a tool because there is roughly only a 20% it will be incorrect and the majority of those misses will be within the margin of error (i.e. 1 score).
This post was edited on 11/26 2:24 PM by CP84

 

[Superbee922]

Originally posted by CP84:

Originally posted by Pinehawk:
When you have a computer picking games that have an estimated margin of around 3 points or less, it's going to be pretty limited. With games that close, that is where a human can take into account the vast amount of information that the computer ranking can't.
Weather, injuries, team chemistry, rivalries, which teams pile up scores when games are over, and which teams turn the games over to the reserves in the 2nd half, etc...
All those factors can't be accounted for in a relatively limited computer model. And, that's a big part why quite a few people were able to predict game winners better than a computer model.

People should just accept the limitations of the model for what they are, but it's not a big deal. The model is fun and helps make for some good discussion.

That's a good point. Just look at the Vegas odds for week 12 of the NFL.

Detroit -10 Tampa
Houston -10 Jacksonville
Kansas City -4.5 San Diego
Cleveland -2 Pittsburgh
NY Giants -2.5 Dallas
Oakland -1 Tennessee
Green Bay -4.5 Minnesota
Denver -2.5 New England

So in other words the Vegas odds makers missed 8 out of 14 games. By Ghost's logic Vegas would be discredited over this and their future predictions would be invalid. I'm sure I could have found a number of humans who guessed better than 6 right from this week.

The point is BCMoore like BCS, Sagarin, Vegas doesn't always predict the correct score and upsets can throw their predictions into a mess. The point is more often than not it's a reliable tool based on historical evidence that typically has a high success rate.

Actually, Vegas odds makers are not predicting the winners of these games (and the margins of victory). They are trying to find a spread that will induce half of the bettors to bet the favorite and half the bettors to bet the underdog. If they succeed in doing this, the bookies using this line will make money no matters which team wins, as the losing betters will have to pay the bookies their bet, plus a 10% fee (the juice).

Betting 101

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by Superbee922:

Originally posted by CP84:

Originally posted by Pinehawk:
When you have a computer picking games that have an estimated margin of around 3 points or less, it's going to be pretty limited. With games that close, that is where a human can take into account the vast amount of information that the computer ranking can't.
Weather, injuries, team chemistry, rivalries, which teams pile up scores when games are over, and which teams turn the games over to the reserves in the 2nd half, etc...
All those factors can't be accounted for in a relatively limited computer model. And, that's a big part why quite a few people were able to predict game winners better than a computer model.

People should just accept the limitations of the model for what they are, but it's not a big deal. The model is fun and helps make for some good discussion.

That's a good point. Just look at the Vegas odds for week 12 of the NFL.

Detroit -10 Tampa
Houston -10 Jacksonville
Kansas City -4.5 San Diego
Cleveland -2 Pittsburgh
NY Giants -2.5 Dallas
Oakland -1 Tennessee
Green Bay -4.5 Minnesota
Denver -2.5 New England

So in other words the Vegas odds makers missed 8 out of 14 games. By Ghost's logic Vegas would be discredited over this and their future predictions would be invalid. I'm sure I could have found a number of humans who guessed better than 6 right from this week.

The point is BCMoore like BCS, Sagarin, Vegas doesn't always predict the correct score and upsets can throw their predictions into a mess. The point is more often than not it's a reliable tool based on historical evidence that typically has a high success rate.

Actually, Vegas odds makers are not predicting the winners of these games (and the margins of victory). They are trying to find a spread that will induce half of the bettors to bet the favorite and half the bettors to bet the underdog. If they succeed in doing this, the bookies using this line will make money no matters which team wins, as the losing betters will have to pay the bookies their bet, plus a 10% fee (the juice).

Betting 101

Even odds (i.e. determined points spread) is by definition an estimate in which team will be favored to win. Sure the purpose is to induce betters to split their betting between both teams. When that is accomplished it can be taken as a prediction on which team will be favored to win. So if the Chargers are -7.5 over the Browns you can take that as a determination that the odds makers believe the Chargers by a touchdown is the point at which half the voters will select the Browns. If they didn't have the line and it was even up the majority of betters would select the Chargers because the voting public agrees they are the better team. So -7.5 is therefore as much a prediction of the favored team as it is betting patterns as the two are almost always intertwined.
This post was edited on 11/26 2:23 PM by CP84

 

[Superbee922]

Even odds (i.e. determined points spread) is by definition an estimate in which team will be favored to win. Sure the purpose is to induce betters to split their betting between both teams. When that is accomplished it can be taken as a prediction on which team will be favored to win. So if the Chargers are -7.5 over the Browns you can take that as a determination that the odds makers believe the Chargers by a touchdown is the point at which half the voters will select the Browns. If they didn't have the line and it was even up the majority of betters would select the Chargers because the voting public agrees they are the better team. So -7.5 is therefore as much a prediction of the favored team as it is betting patterns as the two are almost always intertwined.

This post was edited on 11/26 2:23 PM by CP84

You have done a nice job of making your point.

So I wonder what percent of the time (on average) professional odds makers pick the correct winner in NFL and BCS college games over the course of an entire season?

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by Superbee922:

Even odds (i.e. determined points spread) is by definition an estimate in which team will be favored to win. Sure the purpose is to induce betters to split their betting between both teams. When that is accomplished it can be taken as a prediction on which team will be favored to win. So if the Chargers are -7.5 over the Browns you can take that as a determination that the odds makers believe the Chargers by a touchdown is the point at which half the voters will select the Browns. If they didn't have the line and it was even up the majority of betters would select the Chargers because the voting public agrees they are the better team. So -7.5 is therefore as much a prediction of the favored team as it is betting patterns as the two are almost always intertwined.

This post was edited on 11/26 2:23 PM by CP84

You have done a nice job of making your point.

So I wonder what percent of the time (on average) professional odds makers pick the correct winner in NFL and BCS college games over the course of an entire season?

Good question and it would be interesting to see data on that. I'd have to assume the success rate varies from level (i.e. college vs pro) and sport significantly. There's more parity between teams in the NFL than NCAA so the success rate is probably much higher picking the correct teams over the course of a season in college. Then you have other sports like baseball and basketball where it's even more of a crap shoot. I bet the odds for picking the right NFL winner is in the 60-70 percent range and closer to 80% for college games.

 

[tm3308]

I didn't walk out of the Dome feeling like the second best team got there. Watching that game (and the semifinal), it wasn't hard to figure out how SE had never gotten to the Dome before. They're way too one-dimensional (even by high school standards) to be a true title contender. Which is crazy, IMO. When you have a receiver as good as Peed, I'd think you would tweak the offense to give him a bigger role and give your offense more balance. I was more impressed with Wilton when I saw them against Regina than I was with SE. Regina controlled that game from the start, but they also balled out and played maybe their best game of the year that night. When they play at their best, there isn't anyone who can even hope to touch them; not in 1A, anyway.

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by tm3308:
I didn't walk out of the Dome feeling like the second best team got there. Watching that game (and the semifinal), it wasn't hard to figure out how SE had never gotten to the Dome before. They're way too one-dimensional (even by high school standards) to be a true title contender. Which is crazy, IMO. When you have a receiver as good as Peed, I'd think you would tweak the offense to give him a bigger role and give your offense more balance. I was more impressed with Wilton when I saw them against Regina than I was with SE. Regina controlled that game from the start, but they also balled out and played maybe their best game of the year that night. When they play at their best, there isn't anyone who can even hope to touch them; not in 1A, anyway.

They'd never gotten to the Dome before because they've typically run into a team ranked #1 or #2 like E-Berg or AP when they've had their better teams. Wilton didn't make the Dome this season and they were a top 5 team. Sometimes it's as much about luck of the draw as anything else. That said, SE has been in the top 10 several times in the past decade so it's hard to argue against a run system that has worked for SE and even more so for AP and E-Berg throughout the last decade.

In 08-09 SE lost to #2 AP 40-35 in the playoffs and had led eventual champion E-berg 7-6 through 4 qtrs to wind up losing 18-7. The same style has worked with success for many teams. E-Berg and AP have almost always been a heavy run team. In 2011-12 E-berg threw only 61 passes all season and went 12-1. That same year 10-2 AP only had 642 yards passing.

The point is your and Ghost's arguments are based on anecdotal evidence comparing one game to another one or two games. I have no problem with that. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm simply saying that doesn't always leave a good impression (i.e. Solon-Regina).

My point is Ghost seems to also be conflating BCMoore's prediction model with a subjective statement (i.e. SE is better than Wilton or vice versa). Basically the way BCMoore model works is saying that flipping a coin 100 times he is predicting 50 heads and 50 tails. That doesn't mean it will turn out that way but he has probability on his side. What Ghost has done by contrast is saying using limited data from a couple games (i.e. flipping the coin 4 times) and then when it comes up 3 tails and 1 heads he's saying BCMoore's model is flawed because he predicted 2 heads 2 tails while some other humans guessed it right.

BCMoore isn't saying SE is clearly better or even marginally better than Wilton. He's simply predicting that if SE and Wilton played 100 times he thinks SE will win ~51 and Wilton will win ~49. He's essentially calling it a toss up game based on a year of data.

This whole debate originated because on the prediction thread with SE vs. VM I said I was taking predicting SE due to BCMoore's ranking system. Ghost then tried arguing one way or another how it's flawed and then proceded to pick VM by a TD.



This post was edited on 11/26 5:51 PM by CP84

 

[Pinehawk]

Originally posted by tm3308:
I didn't walk out of the Dome feeling like the second best team got there. Watching that game (and the semifinal), it wasn't hard to figure out how SE had never gotten to the Dome before. They're way too one-dimensional (even by high school standards) to be a true title contender. Which is crazy, IMO. When you have a receiver as good as Peed, I'd think you would tweak the offense to give him a bigger role and give your offense more balance. I was more impressed with Wilton when I saw them against Regina than I was with SE. Regina controlled that game from the start, but they also balled out and played maybe their best game of the year that night. When they play at their best, there isn't anyone who can even hope to touch them; not in 1A, anyway.

I totally agree about Peed. I left that game thinking it was pretty poor coaching to have a receiver that good...and then only pass 45 times on the season. Talk about recruiting...that kid should go to a team that will actually utilize his talents. His skills are wasted in that one-dimensional offense.
They could have been passing to him all season and been a much better team.

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by Pinehawk:

Originally posted by tm3308:
I didn't walk out of the Dome feeling like the second best team got there. Watching that game (and the semifinal), it wasn't hard to figure out how SE had never gotten to the Dome before. They're way too one-dimensional (even by high school standards) to be a true title contender. Which is crazy, IMO. When you have a receiver as good as Peed, I'd think you would tweak the offense to give him a bigger role and give your offense more balance. I was more impressed with Wilton when I saw them against Regina than I was with SE. Regina controlled that game from the start, but they also balled out and played maybe their best game of the year that night. When they play at their best, there isn't anyone who can even hope to touch them; not in 1A, anyway.

I totally agree about Peed. I left that game thinking it was pretty poor coaching to have a receiver that good...and then only pass 45 times on the season. Talk about recruiting...that kid should go to a team that will actually utilize his talents. His skills are wasted in that one-dimensional offense.
They could have been passing to him all season and been a much better team.

Sure he's a great receiver in a run offense but that's the way it goes sometimes. SE won 13 games playing the way they did. Why overhaul their style of play to accommodate one player especially when they don't have a high level QB. SE didn't lose to Regina because their style of play. In fact they threw more times in that game than all season and Peed had 103 yards receiving. SE lost because Regina is just that good. I don't see how changing their offense would have netted any different result throughout the season and may have been worse.

 

[tm3308]

Originally posted by CP84:

Originally posted by Pinehawk:

Originally posted by tm3308:
I didn't walk out of the Dome feeling like the second best team got there. Watching that game (and the semifinal), it wasn't hard to figure out how SE had never gotten to the Dome before. They're way too one-dimensional (even by high school standards) to be a true title contender. Which is crazy, IMO. When you have a receiver as good as Peed, I'd think you would tweak the offense to give him a bigger role and give your offense more balance. I was more impressed with Wilton when I saw them against Regina than I was with SE. Regina controlled that game from the start, but they also balled out and played maybe their best game of the year that night. When they play at their best, there isn't anyone who can even hope to touch them; not in 1A, anyway.

I totally agree about Peed. I left that game thinking it was pretty poor coaching to have a receiver that good...and then only pass 45 times on the season. Talk about recruiting...that kid should go to a team that will actually utilize his talents. His skills are wasted in that one-dimensional offense.
They could have been passing to him all season and been a much better team.

Sure he's a great receiver in a run offense but that's the way it goes sometimes. SE won 13 games playing the way they did. Why overhaul their style of play to accommodate one player especially when they don't have a high level QB. SE didn't lose to Regina because their style of play. In fact they threw more times in that game than all season and Peed had 103 yards receiving. SE lost because Regina is just that good. I don't see how changing their offense would have netted any different result throughout the season and may have been worse.

How much of this stems from the fact that Tighe knows what offense he wants to run and might not put a lot of emphasis on getting a guy who can throw effectively? As long as he's been there, I can't imagine they've never had quarterbacks who could do more, but they run the same offense.

And saying Peed is a great receiver in a run offense is the understatement of the year. He's the best receiver I saw in person all season, and I feel pretty confident in saying he's the best in 1A. But SE was almost Madrid-like in terms of how run-heavy they were.

 

[CP84]

Just for perspective, records of last year top 15 ranked teams with rushing teams + passing yards:

2012-13
E-Berg: 11-2 5122 546
AP: 9-3 4874 730
CBSA: 12-2 3386 839
WB: 8-3 3308 535
SE: 9-2 3128 599
IKM: 11-1 2786 758
SO: 8-3 2842 580


You could argue that all of these teams were one dimensional and they all had success doing so. In fact from last year's top 10 only Dike, Maquoketa Valley and Regina threw for >1000 yards.


Of the top 20 rushing teams last season only 2 had losing records (both 4-5) and one was (5-5). Of the top 20 passing teams last year 9 had sub .500 records and 3 were at 5-5.

So it's not poor coaching to play to your teams strengths. The stats show it could be worse for SE if they opened up the passing game more especially without a top flight QB. Regina fans have been spoiled with good QB play in recent years with guys like Cook and Ward so I think it's hard to imagine what could go wrong if you don't have a high degree of talent there. Just because you have a talented receiver doesn't mean they should go to him a dozen times a game.

 

[CP84]

How much of this stems from the fact that Tighe knows what offense he wants to run and might not put a lot of emphasis on getting a guy who can throw effectively? As long as he's been there, I can't imagine they've never had quarterbacks who could do more, but they run the same offense.

And saying Peed is a great receiver in a run offense is the understatement of the year. He's the best receiver I saw in person all season, and I feel pretty confident in saying he's the best in 1A. But SE was almost Madrid-like in terms of how run-heavy they were.

SE has opened up more when they've had better QB play. Engler in 2008 was probably the last real solid QB they had and he threw 109 times for 1247 yards and 10 TDs to 2 INTs. Sure that's not Regina-like passing but 1,247 yards is still a solid amount of passing. They also had a RB that averaged 10 yards per carry on 1,300 yards that season so no reason to abandon the run.


I'll make an honest confession. In the past I was critical of Tighe's offense but now I realize you have to consider all the facts. Webster City basically ran Tighe out of there for the same reason. Fans complained that he didn't pass enough. So where did that get Webster City? After 5 years of Jim Duncan losing games Webster City finally seems to be getting back to where they were under Tighe. Tighe has only had about 5 losing seasons in his entire career. At Webster City he went 375-147. Now at SE he took a team that won something like 2 games in the 4 years before he came to a 55-22 record. You can criticize the lack of passing all you want but the results show he can take bad programs and make them top ten teams. You can argue that "well that style won't get them over the top," but AP and E-Berg have done so in the past. SE may never win a championship under Tighe but as Regina fans know from their days of getting 50 pointed too, it's a lot more fun to be in the running and be talked about on a message board in November than to be irrelevant with a losing record.



This post was edited on 11/26 6:48 PM by CP84

 

[Pinehawk]

Originally posted by CP84:

Just for perspective, records of last year top 15 ranked teams with rushing teams + passing yards:

2012-13
E-Berg: 11-2 5122 546
AP: 9-3 4874 730
CBSA: 12-2 3386 839
WB: 8-3 3308 535
SE: 9-2 3128 599
IKM: 11-1 2786 758
SO: 8-3 2842 580


You could argue that all of these teams were one dimensional and they all had success doing so. In fact from last year's top 10 only Dike, Maquoketa Valley and Regina threw for >1000 yards.


Of the top 20 rushing teams last season only 2 had losing records (both 4-5) and one was (5-5). Of the top 20 passing teams last year 9 had sub .500 records and 3 were at 5-5.

So it's not poor coaching to play to your teams strengths. The stats show it could be worse for SE if they opened up the passing game more especially without a top flight QB. Regina fans have been spoiled with good QB play in recent years with guys like Cook and Ward so I think it's hard to imagine what could go wrong if you don't have a high degree of talent there. Just because you have a talented receiver doesn't mean they should go to him a dozen times a game.

I think you could throw to Peed 12 times a game and he'd probably come up with 10 of them. There is being a rushing team...and then there is only throwing it 45 times over the course of the entire season. One of the lowest in 1A. That isn't even a slightly balanced offense.
And, then have an elite receiver. It didn't make sense to me. They had a great year though. You talk about playing to your team's strengths, Peed was one of those strengths and he wasn't used to the degree that he probably should have been.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Originally posted by CP84:

Just for perspective, records of last year top 15 ranked teams with rushing teams + passing yards:

2012-13
E-Berg: 11-2 5122 546
AP: 9-3 4874 730
CBSA: 12-2 3386 839
WB: 8-3 3308 535
SE: 9-2 3128 599
IKM: 11-1 2786 758
SO: 8-3 2842 580


You could argue that all of these teams were one dimensional and they all had success doing so. In fact from last year's top 10 only Dike, Maquoketa Valley and Regina threw for >1000 yards.


Of the top 20 rushing teams last season only 2 had losing records (both 4-5) and one was (5-5). Of the top 20 passing teams last year 9 had sub .500 records and 3 were at 5-5.

So it's not poor coaching to play to your teams strengths. The stats show it could be worse for SE if they opened up the passing game more especially without a top flight QB. Regina fans have been spoiled with good QB play in recent years with guys like Cook and Ward so I think it's hard to imagine what could go wrong if you don't have a high degree of talent there. Just because you have a talented receiver doesn't mean they should go to him a dozen times a game.

Verducci, Streb, Ward and Cook, not a bad run, something like 100 TD passes with 4 interceptions.

 

[cowpie57]

Engler was the last great quarterback at Se?? The quarterback at st eds lobs the ball up in the air 30 yards down the field 90% of the pass plays. Id say Bocken did a great job of that this year.

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by cowpie57:
Engler was the last great quarterback at Se?? The quarterback at st eds lobs the ball up in the air 30 yards down the field 90% of the pass plays. Id say Bocken did a great job of that this year.

Bocken had Peed to throw to who got a lot of his yards after the catch (you even stated that in another thread). No offense to Joey Flattery but it's not a good comparison. Bocken wasn't bad but he's not a top 20 QB in 1A even if they did air it out more.

Compare the stats:

Engler:
60 of 109 passing
55 completion %
10 TDs
2 INTs
1247 yards


Bocken:
23 of 53 passing
43.4 completion %
7 TDs
2 INTs
597 yards
(stats prior to Regina game)

This post was edited on 11/26 7:18 PM by CP84

This post was edited on 11/26 8:16 PM by CP84

 

[cowpie57]

45% for Engler
What do those stats say? Bocken threw half of the amount of passes that Engler threw and still had good stats. Are you saying Engler was the best because their team passed more?

 

[spook78]

Regina only 35 pointed 2 of their last 6 opponents this year. And one of those 2 games was the championship game. And it happened with over 21 minutes remaining in the game. And I am supposed to believe that that team is the #2 team in the state?
Some people in this world can use their brains. And the rest I guess follow a computer because they can't.
P.s. Did st ed have a great season? yes. Do they have some good athletes? yes. did they do everything they needed to do that was placed in front of them to get to the dome? yes. but are they the second best team in the state. No. No No

 

[CP84]

Engler should have been 60 of 109. My typo.

 

[ghost80]

St. Eds not equal to Number 2.

CP 84 equal to Number 2.

It's as simple as that.

 

[CP84]

Originally posted by ghost80:
St. Eds not equal to Number 2.

CP 84 equal to Number 2.

It's as simple as that.

 

[ghost80]

Wrong boards CP. Hawkeye Report Off Topic is where you go to post pics of wives.

This post was edited on 11/27 7:32 AM by ghost80

 

[bcmoore87]

To all:

Please keep this thread full of insight and respect for your fellow participants. We all love high school football and expressing opinions. It is okay for us to disagree.