Bill Connelly's Georgia Tech Preview

[85Escape]

They always have some excuse like that every year. And every year they’re wrong. Hopefully they keep their streak alive of ooking stupid. Although eventually the odds are they’ll be right once at some point.

Yes, they are just the sports-version of fortune-tellers and horoscope writers. We make jokes about weather forecasters but they are way more accurate than sports prognosticators! Here, let me try:

Clemson will win the ACC. Alabama will beat Georgia, again. Ga Tech will be around .500. Miami will underuse a lot of talent, but will somehow beat us again. Wanna buy my magazine?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

As a reminder, Bill Connelly published this same thing a year ago. He said we should beat Alcorn State, Bowling Green, Duke, and Virginia. He landed on 5 wins, so I guess he figured we'd upset his numbers once. But once again he picked us to have one of our worst years in recent years and to finish at the bottom of the ACC. We ended up (in contradiction of his predictions) beating Virginia Tech, Louisville, Miami, and North Carolina (in addition to Virginia) and finishing 4th in the ACC. LOL @ him.

 

[orientalnc]

I thought the article was OK, but 2018 numbers do not project well when a transition as drastic as we are seeing at GT happens. We may actually run the ball a lot more this year than people are expecting. The new balance for 2019 might be 70/30 run/pass, at least early in the season. Let's face it, we SHOULD be able to run the ball better than pass. Defensively, I think we might be a bit better than last year, even with our personnel losses.

Except for the Clemson game, our early schedule is not bad. USF, Citadel, and Temple are all teams we can beat based on personnel alone. USF is projected to be a middle of the pack AAC team, The same is probably true for Temple. Both of these teams will be able to throw the ball, but I think our secondary will match up well. If I am correct, we may be OK to this point. OK being 3-1. Clemson could be ugly.

Then we face UNC and Duke. Just on paper, UNC looks like they are about like us. A new coach and new offensive and defensive schemes will be tough to adjust to at times. We get UNC at home, so I hope this will be all the edge we need. Duke has to find someone to replace Daniel Jones. and how well Quentin Harris does will be the key to their offense. We're playing in Durham and this could be a tough game. We should be happy if we split these two games and be 4-2 at the half way point.

Except for Pitt, the next five games will a struggle. I hope our guys will be more comfortable in the Collins mold and be out of the "transition" by this time. If I am right, we should win three of the next five, beating Pitt, either Uva or VT, and NC State. Miami on the road will be tough. I think they are the class of the coastal this year.

If we don't crap on ourselves at home against uga, we lose that game by 2-3 scores and maybe finish 7-5. I will be happy with that.

 

[lv20gt]

As a reminder, Bill Connelly published this same thing a year ago. He said we should beat Alcorn State, Bowling Green, Duke, and Virginia. He landed on 5 wins, so I guess he figured we'd upset his numbers once. But once again he picked us to have one of our worst years in recent years and to finish at the bottom of the ACC. We ended up (in contradiction of his predictions) beating Virginia Tech, Louisville, Miami, and North Carolina (in addition to Virginia) and finishing 4th in the ACC. LOL @ him.

His formula's predicted we'd finish with 5.3 wins. we finished with 6. So far off.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

His formula's predicted we'd finish with 5.3 wins. we finished with 6. So far off.

Huh? We won 7. He was off by 2 wins, 40%, and predicted we’d go 2-6 in the ACC.

 

[link3945]

Not really. If you’re going to predict an extreme outlier, you should have reasons why. Showing some math formula predictor that has never predicted correctly before doesn’t seem like a valid source of information. They’re not looking at the Coastal, the lack of Bye Weeks, and other things. If every year I make a prediction about GT I’m wrong, I might eventually slow down and rethink myself for a minute. We finished 4th last year in the ACC and we were predicted something like 11th in the preseason using a lot of these same arguments.

He's not just looking at Tech, he's making predictions about 130 FBS teams. Of course he's not going to be right on every single one, and some teams don't rate well with his formula. But he's almost always in the ballpark, and his analysis is good.

This is a systemic way to look at all 130 teams and figure out how they'll look next year. You cannot just start picking and choosing teams to adjust because "well, historically, this team just does good". It tries to look at what matters and what correlates year to year, and treats each team the same. The second you start putting in adjustments for each team, you've lost the systemic model.

 

[RonJohn]

This is a systemic way to look at all 130 teams and figure out how they'll look next year. You cannot just start picking and choosing teams to adjust because "well, historically, this team just does good". It tries to look at what matters and what correlates year to year, and treats each team the same. The second you start putting in adjustments for each team, you've lost the systemic model.

The only real data he has is from what happened in previous years. A returning starter can be an asset, or you could have a QB recruit like Trevor Lawrence who does much better than the returning starter. A highly ranked recruit might do well(like Trevor Lawrence), but he might also not contribute. The teams performance data from last year isn't going to have much of an impact if a lot of starters leave the team. The data isn't exact. Basing a prediction on several sets of data that are imperfect is going to create further imperfection. Predictions by formula at a maximum are only as good as the data available.

Predictions either by formula or by prognosticators are fine for entertainment and even for driving discussion. They have no value for anything else.

 

[Techster]

He's not just looking at Tech, he's making predictions about 130 FBS teams. Of course he's not going to be right on every single one, and some teams don't rate well with his formula. But he's almost always in the ballpark, and his analysis is good.

This is a systemic way to look at all 130 teams and figure out how they'll look next year. You cannot just start picking and choosing teams to adjust because "well, historically, this team just does good". It tries to look at what matters and what correlates year to year, and treats each team the same. The second you start putting in adjustments for each team, you've lost the systemic model.

Another way to look at it:

I'd rather the "professionals" say we won't do well, and give our guys motivation. We all know GT can't have nice things, and we tend to play below expectations when everyone predicts we'll have a good season.

 

[Lotta Booze]

As a reminder, Bill Connelly published this same thing a year ago. He said we should beat Alcorn State, Bowling Green, Duke, and Virginia. He landed on 5 wins, so I guess he figured we'd upset his numbers once. But once again he picked us to have one of our worst years in recent years and to finish at the bottom of the ACC. We ended up (in contradiction of his predictions) beating Virginia Tech, Louisville, Miami, and North Carolina (in addition to Virginia) and finishing 4th in the ACC. LOL @ him.

And the year before he "predicted" 6.6 wins and we won 5. Sometimes we outperform and sometimes we underperform

 

[Deleted member 2897]

He's not just looking at Tech, he's making predictions about 130 FBS teams. Of course he's not going to be right on every single one, and some teams don't rate well with his formula. But he's almost always in the ballpark, and his analysis is good.

This is a systemic way to look at all 130 teams and figure out how they'll look next year. You cannot just start picking and choosing teams to adjust because "well, historically, this team just does good". It tries to look at what matters and what correlates year to year, and treats each team the same. The second you start putting in adjustments for each team, you've lost the systemic model.

I guess then the point is when does he work on his model? I just finished going through his top 20 predictions from last year. He had teams like Auburn, Wisconsin, Miami, TCU, Florida State, Michigan State, and Stanford in his top 20 who didn't even finish within 30 positional rankings of where he had predicted at the end of the season. And he had some that were wildly off in the other direction like LSU finishing #6 when he had them ranked 17. As you go further down you see a lot of the same things. Its like throwing darts at the board. If you just picked the same order as the rankings from the year before, you'd probably be more accurate than using his guidance.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

And the year before he "predicted" 6.6 wins and we won 5. Sometimes we outperform and sometimes we underperform

We also didn't get to play a full season, so there's that. And also, his predictions that year BY FORMULA had us rated as a higher chance to win than our opposition in 8 games. But then he himself only picked us to win 6. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

 

[85Escape]

I just finished going through his top 20 predictions from last year. He had teams like Auburn, Wisconsin, Miami, TCU, Florida State, Michigan State, and Stanford in his top 20 who didn't even finish within 30 positional rankings of where he had predicted at the end of the season. And he had some that were wildly off in the other direction like LSU finishing #6 when he had them ranked 17. As you go further down you see a lot of the same things. Its like throwing darts at the board. If you just picked the same order as the rankings from the year before, you'd probably be more accurate than using his guidance.

Great point! If I wasn't so lazy (or busy) I'd do the statistics. I'm betting his prediction accuracy versus just repeating the previous year's results is poor.

 

[slugboy]

We also didn't get to play a full season, so there's that. And also, his predictions that year BY FORMULA had us rated as a higher chance to win than our opposition in 8 games. But then he himself only picked us to win 6. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

He's doing it right. You don't take every game you have a 51% chance to win and mark them as a win. You add up all the percentages (and convert to a regular number) and that's your expected number of wins. If you have a 60% chance of winning, he adds 3/5ths of a win to your total and 2/5ths of a loss. That tells you what to expect.

You might really overachieve or you might not, but that tells you what the midpoint of what to look for is.

If you had a 33% chance to win each game and played 3 games, you'd expect to win 1.

Great point! If I wasn't so lazy (or busy) I'd do the statistics. I'm betting his prediction accuracy versus just repeating the previous year's results is poor.

Overall, it did 53% against the spread last season, so it just beat the spread against all teams (which should be pretty good, since the spread should force you close to 50% with that many games).
He doesn't just take into account the players you lose--he also takes into account the rating of your recruiting class. So, if you have some outrageously good players coming in, that boosts your forecast. The S&P+ forecast vs just repeating last year's results is going to be good.

 

[Technut1990]

All this talk and his results are inconsistent. 1-11 by his probabilities yet he calls for 4 possible wins.

The slant on CPJ will be proven very wrong, we will see that he did recruit athletes and athletes play every style of ball. We have the size and speed at WR, We have a QB battle and our defense is stacked talent wise.

The triple option does not mean our players are disabled it means they adapted to play a unique style to begin with, which means their athletic abilities have been proven already !!!

 

[slugboy]

The math here is killing me.
The S&P+ numbers are based on last season, minus a weighted factor for the starters we lost, plus a weighted factor for the recruiting class we gained. There's no magic mojo formula adjustment for a new offensive scheme. He'd have made the same prediction if there wasn't a coaching change (and if we'd ended up with the same recruiting class, but that opens up another subject that's not on topic).

(I hope this pastes ok)

Opponent (Proj. Rk)           Date          Proj. Margin           Win Prob.
at Clemson (3)                29-Aug                 -35.9                       2%
USF (71)                            7-Sep                      -1.9                     46%
The Citadel (NR)            14-Sep                   20.7                     88%
at Temple (66)                28-Sep                    -8.1                    32%
North Carolina (61)          5-Oct                    -4.1                     41%
at Duke (65)                      12-Oct                   -8.9                    30%
at Miami (19)                    19-Oct                  -19.9                    13%
Pittsburgh (59)                 2-Nov                    -4.7                     39%
at Virginia (41)                  9-Nov                   -13.8                   21%
Virginia Tech (30)           16-Nov                  -11.6                    25%
N.C. State (47)                  21-Nov                   -7.3                    34%
Georgia (2)                        30-Nov                   -31.6                   3%
3.7

2% + 46% + 88% + 32% + 41% + 30% + 13% + 39% + 21% + 25% + 34%+ 3% = 370% = 3.7 wins or about 4 wins.
Not 1 win. Not 8. It's 4 wins. He did his math correctly.
He'd have predicted the same with CPJ. That's the nature of what he's doing.
We lost a lot of starting players. Other teams lost fewer starters. That leads to bad matchups.

As an example, last year he said we had a 50/50% shot against USF. We lost and it was close. Around here, most of the people thought we'd blow them out of the water. Similar for the other games. He was better at forecasting us last year than we were.

He's complimentary in the article. He thinks Collins can do great work. He explains exactly what he means by "identity", especially on offense. I didn't like Temple's offense, but I liked their defense and special teams. It makes sense to me.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The math here is killing me.
The S&P+ numbers are based on last season, minus a weighted factor for the starters we lost, plus a weighted factor for the recruiting class we gained. There's no magic mojo formula adjustment for a new offensive scheme. He'd have made the same prediction if there wasn't a coaching change (and if we'd ended up with the same recruiting class, but that opens up another subject that's not on topic).

(I hope this pastes ok)

Opponent (Proj. Rk) Date Proj. Margin Win Prob.
at Clemson (3) 29-Aug -35.9 2%
USF (71) 7-Sep -1.9 46%
The Citadel (NR) 14-Sep 20.7 88%
at Temple (66) 28-Sep -8.1 32%
North Carolina (61) 5-Oct -4.1 41%
at Duke (65) 12-Oct -8.9 30%
at Miami (19) 19-Oct -19.9 13%
Pittsburgh (59) 2-Nov -4.7 39%
at Virginia (41) 9-Nov -13.8 21%
Virginia Tech (30) 16-Nov -11.6 25%
N.C. State (47) 21-Nov -7.3 34%
Georgia (2) 30-Nov -31.6 3%
3.7

2% + 46% + 88% + 32% + 41% + 30% + 13% + 39% + 21% + 25% + 34%+ 3% = 370% = 3.7 wins or about 4 wins.
Not 1 win. Not 8. It's 4 wins. He did his math correctly.
He'd have predicted the same with CPJ. That's the nature of what he's doing.
We lost a lot of starting players. Other teams lost fewer starters. That leads to bad matchups.

He's complimentary in the article. He thinks Collins can do great work. He explains exactly what he means by "identity".

3.7 wins. Its still dumb no matter how his math or logic is sliced up.

 

[stinger 1957]

I just think we have problems in the trenches, I'm guessing 6 wins regular season.

 

[YJMD]

I guess then the point is when does he work on his model? I just finished going through his top 20 predictions from last year. He had teams like Auburn, Wisconsin, Miami, TCU, Florida State, Michigan State, and Stanford in his top 20 who didn't even finish within 30 positional rankings of where he had predicted at the end of the season. And he had some that were wildly off in the other direction like LSU finishing #6 when he had them ranked 17. As you go further down you see a lot of the same things. Its like throwing darts at the board. If you just picked the same order as the rankings from the year before, you'd probably be more accurate than using his guidance.

How about this: you produce a preseason ranking and record for all 130 teams and come back after the season and see how well you do in comparison. The truth is that the task is a very difficult one and beyond that results are very significantly affected by random variation. A 100% perfect model would still get a lot wrong.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

CPJ also inherited a defense that had an entire DL that was drafted. That DL was a highly ranked unit before CPJ even stepped on campus. All the DBs eventually were either drafted or spent multiple years in the NFL.

There were 2 future NFL OLs (Cord Howard, Andrew Gardner), a future 1st round WR, a 2 time all ACC RB (though argument can be made CPJ's system helped with that) that was drafted and played multiple years in the NFL.

Transition year, YES, but there was still high level talent.

CGC has, IMO, a very talented (but young) defensive backfield, but the front 7 is a huge question mark. Offensively, who would you consider on the caliber of Gardner and Howard on the OL? Dwyer at RB? Demaryius at WR?

I get that GT has often been overlooked, but with a talent level that doesn't match the 2008 team that CPJ had, and new coaches and systems on both sides, I can see where Connolly is coming from. Anyone being objective and fair can relate to what he's saying.

Now, as a GT fan, and knowing how the Coastal is ripe for the taking, if GT does not win at least 6 games I'd be disappointed.

That's why they play the games. We'll see.

Nm

 

[Dustman]

I think he reads this board. Nice factual analysis IMO.