Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="slugboy" data-source="post: 990788" data-attributes="member: 282"><p>Lots of people are getting hung up on this. It’s simple</p><p></p><p>1. If your standard is “pick the four teams that have the best odds of winning it all on December 1st”, Bama probably wouldn’t make it. Maybe you get UGA, OSU, MICH, ORE. Maybe you swap Washington for Oregon. You could take the top 25 teams and go to Vegas and get the odds. You could use a computer model. They’d be about the same.</p><p>2. If your standard is “pick the four teams that earned their way here as of the selection date”, you get Washington, FSU, Michigan, and Texas. That’s the easiest to figure out</p><p>3. If your standard is “give me the three most compelling games”, you’re going to pick four evenly matched teams—not necessarily 1-4. Heck, we might be one. </p><p></p><p>The process here was Sankey saying “you gotta pick an SEC team”. He might have even told ESPN that he’d take the SEC games to Fox or CBS for all I know. This was the CFP committee being scared to leave the SEC out. </p><p></p><p>I can find a model that liked Washington better than Oregon. The predictive models are going to be the summed value of all the plays (minus garbage time) weighted vs your opponents. The resume models are going to be more focused on wins and losses. </p><p></p><p>The models that are the best predictors of final scores aren’t the same as the ones that measure how much you accomplished at the end of the season, and the rankings come out significantly different. The latter are the ones that focus on who beat who.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="slugboy, post: 990788, member: 282"] Lots of people are getting hung up on this. It’s simple 1. If your standard is “pick the four teams that have the best odds of winning it all on December 1st”, Bama probably wouldn’t make it. Maybe you get UGA, OSU, MICH, ORE. Maybe you swap Washington for Oregon. You could take the top 25 teams and go to Vegas and get the odds. You could use a computer model. They’d be about the same. 2. If your standard is “pick the four teams that earned their way here as of the selection date”, you get Washington, FSU, Michigan, and Texas. That’s the easiest to figure out 3. If your standard is “give me the three most compelling games”, you’re going to pick four evenly matched teams—not necessarily 1-4. Heck, we might be one. The process here was Sankey saying “you gotta pick an SEC team”. He might have even told ESPN that he’d take the SEC games to Fox or CBS for all I know. This was the CFP committee being scared to leave the SEC out. I can find a model that liked Washington better than Oregon. The predictive models are going to be the summed value of all the plays (minus garbage time) weighted vs your opponents. The resume models are going to be more focused on wins and losses. The models that are the best predictors of final scores aren’t the same as the ones that measure how much you accomplished at the end of the season, and the rankings come out significantly different. The latter are the ones that focus on who beat who. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top