Coog2088:
UT beat NW (above average), UGA (average), and BGU (average) but lost to 2 average teams in UF and Arky, while Navy beat USF (average), Memphis (average), and Pittsburgh (average), but only lost to 2 of the best 2015 teams in CFB in UH and ND (although they were blown out in each).
T-Moar:
You’re doing a huge disservice to UT’s schedule here. Taking OU into 2OT and leading Bama late in the 4th both count for a lot in my book – maybe they shouldn’t, but I have yet to be convinced of that. Likewise, Northwestern was better than “above average” – going into the bowl game (where Tennessee obliterated them), their resume was comparable to that of UH. And putting UGA, Florida, BGSU, and Pitt all on the same level kind of suggests that your analysis is willfully ignorant.
Coog2088:
Who did UGA beat this year? The SEC east was very bad this year. Looking back at the schedule UF had a better year than I thought. UGA wins = ULM 2-11, Vandy 4-8, USCe 3-9, Southern FCS, Mizz 5-7, UK 5-7, AUB 7-6, Georgia Southern 9-4 in OT (best win), GTech 3-9, PSU 7-6…… Explain to me why I cannot put UGA, BGU, and Pitt in the same category of average cfb teams for 2015. Average means beating the bad teams and losing to the good teams right?
Coog2088:
Steven Taylor blocking a field goal is not luck. Adrian McDonald catching an interception versus dropping one is not luck, it is a skill that he possesses. The players executed, plain and simple. Saying they SHOULD have regressed to the mean is irrelevant to the 2015 and 2016 Cougars, and not a reason to downgrade them.
T-Moar:
You’re responding to a different argument than the one that I’m making here. I’m not making a regression to the mean argument – my argument is that the Cougars made a couple of high-leverage plays, specifically in the Memphis and Louisville games, that had a disproportionately large effect on the perception of their season and that weren’t necessarily probable.
Coog2088:
Who cares if it was probable or not? It happened. UH made the right plays at the right time, which is a key component of championship caliber teams. One play can make or break a season, so of course a field goal at the end of a close game is disproportionate.
T-Moar:
Essentially, UH can block the same number of Field Goals and Intercept all the same passes, but if those two blocks are made against, say, Tulane instead, the season’s outcome is dramatically different. Essentially, while blocking a Field Goal isn’t luck, blocking those two specific Field Goals probably is. Let’s say, for the sake of simplicity, that the rate at which UH blocked Field Goals last year (2/17, unless you have better statistics that you’d like me to use – I can’t find very good stats on blocks) is exactly equal to the probability that UH would block any given Field Goal last year, and that the probability of a kicker making a Field Goal is equivalent to that kicker’s FG% from the range at which the kick was attempted minus the block that UH made.
Under this (admittedly oversimplified) model the probability that FG outcomes in those two games result in as good of a result for UH is
(1 - (15/17)^2 + (15/17) * (3/11) + (15/17) * (1/2)) * (1 - (15/17)^3) = about 28.28%
Admittedly, that’s a higher number than I intuitively thought, but it’s still not great. It’s certainly not a thing you can expect to happen repeatedly. So unless you have a particularly persuasive reason for me to believe that UH should be expected to execute better on game-tying/winning kicks in particular, I’m going to chalk that up to luck.
Coog2088:
Why are you combining the season as if it were one game? Each game is independent of the other because the opponent is different. What UH did against UL does not carry over to the next opponent. For 2015, we made the plays we had to make, when we had to make them. I don’t care if you run the simulation 4 times and we only block the kick once. Each play in a season is not weighed the same. Example, when Kyrie Irving hit the 3pt’er to win the Finals was it luck? He only hits 40% of those shots. NO it’s not luck. The specific play is not lumped together with the other plays in that season, or even that game.
Regarding the 2015 UH Football team:
We stopped the run, ran the ball, and made smart football plays. We did not turn the ball over (which is NOT luck. An opposing team’s DB dropping a pick is not luck. He was not good enough to catch it) and we FORCED turnovers (which is also not luck because the same players did over multiple years=skill).
When predicting the 2016 season:
- Our returning starters played very well last year.
- Our coaches have proven they know how to put the players in the best position to achieve and win games (albeit a small sample size). The only reason I could see someone doubting the upcoming season is because we have so few returning starters compared to other teams. But IMO a returning Heisman candidate QB cancels a lot of other positional players’ mistakes.
That’s all that goes into the model.