Atomic Picks Us to Go 9-3

[Augusta_Jacket]

It projects 9-3 at the top but predicts us winning 10 games at the bottom with the only predicted losses being UNC and uga. Anyone know how accurate they have historically been?

 

[GTNavyNuke]

It projects 9-3 at the top but predicts us winning 10 games at the bottom with the only predicted losses being UNC and uga. Anyone know how accurate they have historically been?

Last year that I saw stats for (2012) Atomic was 74.5% accurate at predicting the winner, while the best system out there was 76.8% accurate. But against the line, Atomic wasn't as good. http://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?year=12 Picking against the line is more important when betting is picking against the latest line and that site shows how few systems get more than a percent or two above 50%.

Here's how they do the estimating: http://www.knology.net/jashburn/football/af-ratings.html So they really do predict we will win 9 even though we are favored in 10 games.

The problem is that no one can be accurate in predicting how a football team is going to play on a certain day when the skill levels are close. That's why there is such a large variance on what the Vegas line (usually one of the best indicators but really only once you have played a few games in the season and get within a week of game time) predicts and what happens. I wish football results were as predictable as quantum tunneling or radioactive decay. (tic)

 

[jeffgt14]

Yes, Clempson has good athletes. Yes, they'll put talent on the field again. Yes, they'll probably do ok.

But … having Watkins and Boyd on the field at the same time was like it would have been for us with Joe Hamiliton and Calvin on the same team. You simply don't lose once in a generation talent at two main skill positions without your performance suffering. I think that suffering will be a good deal greater then people anticipate. We'll run the experiment directly.

No, no, no, no, no, no, and 30 more no's. Boyd was ridiculously overrated. Kid wasn't bad but he lived off the talent around him.

 

[tugdog235]

No, no, no, no, no, no, and 30 more no's. Boyd was ridiculously overrated. Kid wasn't bad but he lived off the talent around him.

I agree. He also side-arms his throws (much like I was afraid JT did), and I just don't believe you can be an elite QB doing that.

 

[Eric]

I also think Boyd wasn't as good as many thought...but the kid was lights out against us last year. I mean he was on the $$$...could have been his best game ever.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I also think Boyd wasn't as good as many thought...but the kid was lights out against us last year. I mean he was on the $$$...could have been his best game ever.

Aren't you confusing Boyd with Logan Thomas? (tic) Another QB who would have one of his best games of the season when playing us. http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/player/742/1026854/total/gamelog.html

You just can't predict accurately these things happening which is what makes the games so fun.

 

[Eric]

Logan Thomas always played his best against us...glad he's gone.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Last year that I saw stats for (2012) Atomic was 74.5% accurate at predicting the winner, while the best system out there was 76.8% accurate. But against the line, Atomic wasn't as good. http://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?year=12 Picking against the line is more important when betting is picking against the latest line and that site shows how few systems get more than a percent or two above 50%.

Here's how they do the estimating: http://www.knology.net/jashburn/football/af-ratings.html So they really do predict we will win 9 even though we are favored in 10 games.

The problem is that no one can be accurate in predicting how a football team is going to play on a certain day when the skill levels are close. That's why there is such a large variance on what the Vegas line (usually one of the best indicators but really only once you have played a few games in the season and get within a week of game time) predicts and what happens. I wish football results were as predictable as quantum tunneling or radioactive decay. (tic)

Thanks for the reply. I had never seen Atomic's predictions before. Is there a way to review their previous yearly predictions?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I also think Boyd wasn't as good as many thought...but the kid was lights out against us last year. I mean he was on the $$$...could have been his best game ever.

He put at least 2, and maybe 3, deep passes right on the money to a covered receiver in that game last year. You can't really defend a perfectly thrown ball.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

No, no, no, no, no, no, and 30 more no's. Boyd was ridiculously overrated. Kid wasn't bad but he lived off the talent around him.

Bottom line: Clemson has won 32 games in the last 3 years, beat LSU, beat Ohio State, beat Georgia. Boyd or no Boyd, we are not in the same galaxy with them right now. I will leave it to others to identify the reasons.

 

[Eric]

Bottom line: Clemson has won 32 games in the last 3 years, beat LSU, beat Ohio State, beat Georgia. Boyd or no Boyd, we are not in the same galaxy with them right now. I will leave it to others to identify the reasons.

We beat them once over those three years.

Was a sweet win.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Bottom line: Clemson has won 32 games in the last 3 years, beat LSU, beat Ohio State, beat Georgia. Boyd or no Boyd, we are not in the same galaxy with them right now. I will leave it to others to identify the reasons.

In 2011, which is the last time Clemson had a schedule that was ranked tougher than ours, we beat them. We are in the same galaxy with Clemson, and for that matter, uga. We just haven't beaten them lately. Big difference. Also, two straight road trips to Clemson didn't help matters.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

We beat them once over those three years.

Was a sweet win.

It was a great win, the kind of win that we, as Tech fans, have had to cling to year after year. Being satisfied with one or two BIG wins every now and then in lieu of the BIG SEASON. It's the equivalent of making birdie on the 18th hole that keeps you from selling your clubs and never golfing again. And, dare I say, even a blind hog finds and acorn now and then.

 

[takethepoints]

I hate to be a heretic around here, but, when it comes to it, Joe Hamilton wasn't all that great either. He was a great college player who never made it in the pros. What Joe had in common with Boyd is that a) they both are the career passing leaders at their schools and b) they both won a lot of football games. Missing your career leading passer and your best WR ever almost defines a gaping hole in your O. And, I might add, from what I saw last year Clempson doesn't have a Godsey waiting in the wings.

But, like the physicists say, why think when you can experiment? We'll start running that right soon now.

 

[GTpdm]

But, like the physicists say, why think when you can experiment? We'll start running that right soon now.

But an actual physicist (and I am one) would reply that the best experiments are often thought experiments.

 

[GTJake]

I'll disagree about Lil Joe, whether it was his knowledge of Friedgen's offense or his QB ability I would have to call him a great QB. He should have won the Heisman, but all the Big10 Conference schools and newspapers campaigned hard for Dayne and our very own AJC did basically nothing. He knew the offense and where the recievers would be and he put the ball right there. I was in Tallahasee when he went 22-23 for +300 yds, he was unstoppable.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It is unreasonable to refuse the term "great" to Hamilton based on whether he made it as a NFL QB. You can't possibly think that Tech fans love Hamilton and consider him great because of what he did after leaving Tech, can you? Then why try and knock him on grounds that wholly isolate your opinion from every other Tech fan?

Runners-up to Heisman's are frequently the very greatest of the great, just as a nominated "best picture" film can be far superior to the film that actually won the Oscar. The winner too often wins based on "politics" just as Dayne did when he was given the Heisman. Hamilton was a superior college talent and player to Dayne and had a superior college career to him as well. And they are still both college HOF'ers. In other words, Joe Hamilton was great.

 

[IronJacket7]

I don't know anyone that witnessed Lil Joe in person and didn't use the word great. He was more than great.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I'll disagree about Lil Joe, whether it was his knowledge of Friedgen's offense or his QB ability I would have to call him a great QB. He should have won the Heisman, but all the Big10 Conference schools and newspapers campaigned hard for Dayne and our very own AJC did basically nothing. He knew the offense and where the recievers would be and he put the ball right there. I was in Tallahasee when he went 22-23 for +300 yds, he was unstoppable.

Joe Hamilton was a great COLLEGE quarterback. No shame in not being a great pro. It is such a different game. The NFL landscape is littered with great college careers like Tebow, Spurrier, Terry Baker,
Pat Sullivan, Torretta, Zeier, Andre Ware, John Huarte, Wuerffel. Hamilton is right there with these guys. If you don't have the measurables to start with, you will be severely handicapped in the pros. That doesn't take away anything that you accomplished in college.

 

[cyptomcat]

Another prognosticator:

Link:
http://thepowerrank.com/cfb-preseason-win-probabilities-2014/