CFN.com Bowl Projections: Week 12

[AE 87]

@potatohead and @up state jacket, Gentlemen, I apologize if my previous post came off as pedantic. I had not been understood and was trying to clarify in order to overcome misunderstanding. From @up state jacket's last post, it seems that I was unsuccessful. I agree with the assessment of my point by @ibeattetris if that was more clear.

With respect to stats, facts and opinions, I think that there are areas of agreement and disagreement. First, some some stats are facts. For example, saying that a team has averaged so many yards/play or points/game are facts. These raw stats are facts but, as @up state jacket rightly pointed out, they could be skewed by the quality of the opposition. For example, Marshall is #2 in scoring offense, pts/game and #13 in total offense, yds/game. However, they have not played a single game against a team from a power 5 conference. So, that's one reason why I typically don't refer to ranking based only on these raw stats.

I also agree with y'all that as soon as you begin to make judgments beyond the raw stats that you are no longer dealing with facts but inferences from facts. However, a team that regularly scores more efficiently than its opponents' other opponents probably has a better offense than its opponents other opponents. And a team that keeps its opponents from scoring more efficiently than its opponents other opponents probably has a better defense than its opponents opponents. When the degree of this probably better is compared against all the opponents' opponents, than independent rankings of the offense and defense can be calculated.

It's on the basis of one such ranking, from footballoutsiders.com, that I made the claim which was initially challenged by @up state jacket
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feidef
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff

 

[Squints]

Oh, good god, shut up. You are so pedantic. All the guy is saying is if Tech was in Pac or SEC, Tech would have more losses and worse stats. It his opinion, that's it. If he took the time, wanted to super smart on a message board like you, he could search the internet and find statistics that back his position. I guarantee it. You might not like those statistics, but arguing over stats is stupid and fruitless. It's one of the few (only?) sciences that two experts with the same data can draw different conclusions.

I could say the same to you after this rant. He was explaining to the guy how an opponent adjusted stat works. What a jerk.

"facts"..people keep using this word when referring to statistics..does not compute.

Go check out sagarin ratings, GT is ranked 30th with 10 SEC teams ahead of us.

Sagarin ratings are irrelevant to what they're talking about.

 

[up state jacket]

prob·a·bil·i·ty
ˌpräbəˈbilədē/
noun
noun: probability

1. the extent to which something is probable; the likelihood of something happening or being the case.
   "the rain will make the probability of their arrival even greater"
   synonyms: likelihood, prospect, expectation, chance, chances, odds
   "the probability of winning"
   • a probable or the most probable event.
     plural noun: probabilities
     "for a time, revolution was a strong probability"
     synonyms: probable event, prospect, possibility, good/fair/reasonable bet
     "relegation is a distinct probability this season"
   • Mathematics
     the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible.
     "the area under the curve represents probability"
   Using the word probably or if or may or should is not the same as is or will or has or done or doing. So stop insulting my intelligence. Your point is taken. You live in probabilities I'll live in reality. The point of all this is you have your opinion and I have mine. It's just that mine is based on reality not could of's.

 

[up state jacket]

And up state jacket has been added to my ignore list. Where are we getting these people? forum was better without all the trolls.

You break my heart.

 

[ibeattetris]

Using the word probably or if or may or should is not the same as is or will or has or done or doing. So stop insulting my intelligence. Your point is taken. You live in probabilities I'll live in reality. The point of all this is you have your opinion and I have mine. It's just that mine is based on reality not could of's.

Unless I'm mistaken, we haven't played any SEC or PAC teams. So when you claim we would not perform as well against them, is this a statement based on reality or probability? The whole premise of the conversation was "GT's stats would look worse against SEC teams". This entire conversation is based around "could of's (sic)". We just happens to draw our conclusions from something more than "eye test" and what ESPN is telling us.

 

[Minawreck]

What world of reality do you live in that tells you how we would perform against PAC and SEC teams? It's about to come on Saturday and we'll see what happens but prior to that you're just basing your opinions in your own estimates of how we'd match up.

 

[up state jacket]

Unless I'm mistaken, we haven't played any SEC or PAC teams. So when you claim we would not perform as well against them, is this a statement based on reality or probability? The whole premise of the conversation was "GT's stats would look worse against SEC teams". This entire conversation is based around "could of's (sic)". We just happens to draw our conclusions from something more than "eye test" and what ESPN is telling us.

No argument with that statement. I'm of the mind that when opinions are being used, you can agree or disagree, but don't dismiss either. I've probably been to 300 hundred Tech games in my life and seen way more than that on TV, so I'm basing my statements on what I've seen. In my older years I've tried to ease the heart breaks by taking a slightly more negative outlook on the team's performances.

What world of reality do you live in that tells you how we would perform against PAC and SEC teams? It's about to come on Saturday and we'll see what happens but prior to that you're just basing your opinions in your own estimates of how we'd match up.

You're right that is exactly what I'm doing. No one likes to hear or see that there opinion is being dismissed as irrelevant or viewed as less than someone else's. I respect what you're saying and AE is saying. I just don't agree with the concepts. I all ask is the same in return.

 

[potatohead]

I could say the same to you after this rant. He was explaining to the guy how an opponent adjusted stat works. What a jerk.



Sagarin ratings are irrelevant to what they're talking about.

That's BS, he was incredibly arrogant and insulting to that poster. And yes, Sagarin is relevant in that statistics, and how they're compiled and displayed, can be used to illustrate opposing positions. Sagarin can be used to determine of teams that don't play each other, who would hypothetically win. How is that not relevant? OPs position was that Tech would have far less success in the SEC, and if i just looked at football outsiders, I'd probably disagree...but football outsiders isn't the only website that rates teams. Using sagarin's rating, you can hypothetically determine that tech would lose to nearly every SEC team on a neutral field, how does that not support his position? Granted, sagarin is less granular than footballoutsiders, but they still create an overall ranking just like sagarin, and they look very different in some spots.

What is so hard to understand? Why beat someone up over a statistical model that a group of people put together? Why be so arrogant? The poster said it was his opinion and how he felt about it, AE brought in stastistics to prove him wrong, but it doesn't prove him wrong, it just proves that one method rates tech higher with adjusted opposition (based on its methodology). That's my point.

I'm not saying it isn't valid or should be disregarded. I'm saying you could have two very valid models with different results, or contrary results. You've got Sagarin and Football outsiders that both have models/methodology, made by intelligent folks, that result in different overall ratings.

But debating stats and stat models is stupid, so i'm done. frankly its embarrassing that a group of posters pile on someone who states their opinion. and the littler ring leader, super poster arrogantly "backs it up" with statistics and gets all preachy like she's the only one on here with a brain.

Hell, I disagree with his opinion but the way you all carry on is ridiculous.

 

[AE 87]

That's BS, he was incredibly arrogant and insulting to that poster. And yes, Sagarin is relevant in that statistics, and how they're compiled and displayed, can be used to illustrate opposing positions. Sagarin can be used to hypothetically determine if a team that doesn't play each other would beat that team. How is that not relevant? OPs position was that Tech would have far less success in the SEC, and if i just looked at football outsiders, I'd probably disagree...but football outsiders isn't the only website that rates teams. Using sagarin's rating, you can hypothetically determine that tech would lose to nearly every SEC team on a neutral field, how does that not support his position? Granted, sagarin is less granular than footballoutsiders, but they still create an overall ranking just like sagarin, and they look very different in some spots.

What is so hard to understand? Why beat someone up over a statistical model that a group of people put together? Why be so arrogant? The poster said it was his opinion and how he felt about it, AE brought in stastistics to prove him wrong, but it doesn't prove him wrong, it just proves that one method rates tech higher with adjusted opposition (based on its methodology). That's my point.

I'm not saying it isn't valid or should be disregarded. I'm saying you could have two very valid models with different results, or contrary results. You've got Sagarin and Football outsiders that both have models/methodology, made by intelligent folks, that result in different overall ratings.

Actually, the conversation began by @up state jacket making a claim about the ranking of CU's D being simply a matter of their competition.

Clemson's defense is ranked so high because of the ACC schedule. Playing wake, nc state, boston college's of the world tend to skew stats. We saw what ugag did to them in their early season matchup. Not trying to be a buzz kill, but the offenses in the ACC don't scare anyone. Tech scares people because of the scheme yes, but history is not kind to Tech's offense in bowl games when good teams have time to pick up big and small tendencies of the offense.

So, his original point was not about who would win games in what conference but about how good CU's D is. Then, when I posted a ranking of CU's D adjusted for whom they played (labelled, opponent-adjusted D), he responded by talking about putting CU in a different conference. He then asserted his position and declared, "I don't think anyone can argue with that." I didn't call him arrogant or pedantic for dismissing my post like that. Instead, I tried to explain what I meant.

In other words, I never brought in statistics to prove him wrong on his opinion about whether GT or CU would have different w-l records in other conferences. I only tried to explain that the rankings to which I referred were rankings of offense and defense independently and adjusted for opposition. Remember, his initial point was to say CU's D wasn't that good, not that CU would have a worse w-l record playing somewhere else. Since games are not played by offenses and defenses independently, these independent rankings for offense and defense are insufficient to say who would win games or which complete teams (offense and defense and special teams) would be ranked higher than the other.

So, the points that you still don't seem to understand (and I'm trying to be straight forward, not pedantic) is that when @Squints says Sagarin doesn't address the issue I raised it is simply a fact that Sagarin isn't trying to. The Sagarin rankings to which you refer are for teams, not offenses and defenses independently, which, again, is what the conversation was originally about.

If you want to call me arrogant for trying to explain my opinion when I perceive it is being misunderstood, well okay. I don't think it's arrogant to believe that I know my own opinion. But please don't accuse me of doing something that I was not doing.

 

[UgaBlows]

Sure thing, WNE.

lMAO!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Actually, the conversation began by @up state jacket making a claim about the ranking of CU's D being simply a matter of their competition.



So, his original point was not about who would win games in what conference but about how good CU's D is. Then, when I posted a ranking of CU's D adjusted for whom they played (labelled, opponent-adjusted D), he responded by talking about putting CU in a different conference. He then asserted his position and declared, "I don't think anyone can argue with that." I didn't call him arrogant or pedantic for dismissing my post like that. Instead, I tried to explain what I meant.

In other words, I never brought in statistics to prove him wrong on his opinion about whether GT or CU would have different w-l records in other conferences. I only tried to explain that the rankings to which I referred were rankings of offense and defense independently and adjusted for opposition. Remember, his initial point was to say CU's D wasn't that good, not that CU would have a worse w-l record playing somewhere else. Since games are not played by offenses and defenses independently, these independent rankings for offense and defense are insufficient to say who would win games or which complete teams (offense and defense and special teams) would be ranked higher than the other.

So, the points that you still don't seem to understand (and I'm trying to be straight forward, not pedantic) is that when @Squints says Sagarin doesn't address the issue I raised it is simply a fact that Sagarin isn't trying to. The Sagarin rankings to which you refer are for teams, not offenses and defenses independently, which, again, is what the conversation was originally about.

If you want to call me arrogant for trying to explain my opinion when I perceive it is being misunderstood, well okay. I don't think it's arrogant to believe that I know my own opinion. But please don't accuse me of doing something that I was not doing.

You have logically made the case that their is more evidence for the OPINION that Tech would be effective offensively in any conference as opposed to the OPINION which that Tech would not be effective offensively in another conference.

For some reason a conversation of Jesus comes to mind, something about pearls before swine. Or to spin it a different way, don't over explain to people who have already dismissed your opinion.

 

[alaguy]

Capital One Orange Bowl

Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens, FL
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 8:00 ET ESPN
ACC champion or highest-ranked ACC vs. highest-ranked Big Ten, Notre Dame or SEC
Prediction: Georgia Tech vs. Oregon

cfn.scout.com/2/1481468.html

The last time Ted Roof was the Defensive Coordinator of a team that played against Oregon in a Bowl game was when Auburn shut them down for their National Championship win (I think).

Oregon?
not in Big10,SEC or not N Dame
don't get it

 

[Squints]

That's BS, he was incredibly arrogant and insulting to that poster.

And you responded the exact same way. Nice. To be honest I didn't read it that way but I try not to read that kind of stuff when we're talking about text only. Borders on mind reading.

And yes, Sagarin is relevant in that statistics, and how they're compiled and displayed, can be used to illustrate opposing positions. Sagarin can be used to determine of teams that don't play each other, who would hypothetically win. How is that not relevant?

I get how statistics work. However I believe the conversation was about a specific statistic and how it works. You're not wrong about Sagarin but I don't think anyone was talking about the statistics in that context. For one Sagarin is a team rating and what they were talking about were rankings of the offense and defense alone. That's a pretty big difference.

OPs position was that Tech would have far less success in the SEC, and if i just looked at football outsiders, I'd probably disagree...but football outsiders isn't the only website that rates teams. Using sagarin's rating, you can hypothetically determine that tech would lose to nearly every SEC team on a neutral field, how does that not support his position? Granted, sagarin is less granular than footballoutsiders, but they still create an overall ranking just like sagarin, and they look very different in some spots.

I've got no issues what anything you're saying here. Except that I think OP was trying to have an entirely different conversation than you do.

What is so hard to understand? Why beat someone up over a statistical model that a group of people put together? Why be so arrogant? The poster said it was his opinion and how he felt about it, AE brought in stastistics to prove him wrong, but it doesn't prove him wrong, it just proves that one method rates tech higher with adjusted opposition (based on its methodology). That's my point.

I'm not saying it isn't valid or should be disregarded. I'm saying you could have two very valid models with different results, or contrary results. You've got Sagarin and Football outsiders that both have models/methodology, made by intelligent folks, that result in different overall ratings.

But they aren't measuring the same thing. I'm cool with Sagarin but IIRC no one was talking about team rankings. That's where I'm coming from when I say it's irrelevant. What is so hard to understand about that?

But debating stats and stat models is stupid, so i'm done. frankly its embarrassing that a group of posters pile on someone who states their opinion. and the littler ring leader, super poster arrogantly "backs it up" with statistics and gets all preachy like she's the only one on here with a brain.

Hell, I disagree with his opinion but the way you all carry on is ridiculous.

Ah ok. So basically it all boils down to is you've got a personal issue with @AE 87 's posting style. I could care less on that front.

 

[up state jacket]

Read what I said, I did not mention anything about wins and losses. I simply saying you put Tech in a conf where defenses are better Tech doesn't rank as high and put Clemson in a conf where the offenses are better their defense also wouldn't be ranked as high. The damn ACC is the reason for the lofty rankings. Freaking A babies. That's it. So all the name callers can run to their basements now get permission from the mommas and start trashing me again. I know why tech people are the social laughing stocks. You guys are soooooo smart, but when it rains you don't have the common sense to go inside.

 

[Squints]

Read what I said, I did not mention anything about wins and losses. I simply saying you put Tech in a conf where defenses are better Tech doesn't rank as high and put Clemson in a conf where the offenses are better their defense also wouldn't be ranked as high. The damn ACC is the reason for the lofty rankings. Freaking A babies. That's it.

Except the statistics other people are talking about are normalized and adjusted for all that so what you're talking about is mitigated to an extent. It's really not that complicated to understand.

So all the name callers can run to their basements now get permission from the mommas and start trashing me again. I know why tech people are the social laughing stocks. You guys are soooooo smart, but when it rains you don't have the common sense to go inside.

And others wonder why people are piling on you.

 

[UgaBlows]

Upstate just ceased to exist in my world

 

[up state jacket]

Upstate just ceased to exist in my world

Little man let me inform u of this, you and I have never existed in the same world's. That hateful comment just proves that your glasses are thicker than your skin.

 

[Minawreck]

Read what I said, I did not mention anything about wins and losses. I simply saying you put Tech in a conf where defenses are better Tech doesn't rank as high and put Clemson in a conf where the offenses are better their defense also wouldn't be ranked as high. The damn ACC is the reason for the lofty rankings. Freaking A babies. That's it. So all the name callers can run to their basements now get permission from the mommas and start trashing me again. I know why tech people are the social laughing stocks. You guys are soooooo smart, but when it rains you don't have the common sense to go inside.

well in reality UVA (a good ACC defense) did play a vaunted Pac XII team in UCLA and allowed 7 offensive points (3 defensive TD's scored by UCLA) versus allowing 35 against us.

UCLA has one of the Pac XII's most prolific offenses in conference.

It may challenge the perception, but the ACC claimed several personal award winners last season and won both its BCS bowls including the National Championship. The ACC also boasts wins over Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, Ohio State and Southern Cal this season alone, with Thanksgiving Weekend yet to play.

 

[up state jacket]

Except the statistics other people are talking about are normalized and adjusted for all that so what you're talking about is mitigated to an extent. It's really not that complicated to understand.



And others wonder why people are piling on you.

Do you actually think I care what people on this board think about me? This board is place I come to check out recruiting info, team info and what inside knowledge Eric is willing to give up. The reaction the majority of the posters have expressed to my opinion only shows the lack of openness you guys really want on this forum. That is truly sad because in retrospect that is what is happening in our Fed gov and other social programs in this country. Yeah, I may have should have taken the high road, but trashing my opinion and calling me names and telling to leave is picking a fight.

 

[Squints]

This board is place I come to check out recruiting info, team info and what inside knowledge Eric is willing to give up. The reaction the majority of the posters have expressed to my opinion only shows the lack of openness you guys really want on this forum. That is truly sad because in retrospect that is what is happening in our Fed gov and other social programs in this country. Yeah, I may have should have taken the high road, but trashing my opinion and calling me names and telling to leave is picking a fight.

It's not your opinion it's the way you expressed it which is pretty key around here. And there were maybe two posts that were borderline in your direction and they could have been tongue in cheek. And opinions are worthless without some form of substantiation. Yours didn't have very much outside of an "appeal to common sense." If you're going to throw out an opinion and not really support it very well it's going to get attacked. I wouldn't take it personal it's an internet message board.