-
Posts
14406 -
Joined
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Huckleberry
-
-
When I see that actress's face in a gif I just assume it's going to say "suck my dick."
-
immamac should just insert 2,000 posts into the database on this thread so it gets to 1000 pages and then we can get back to actual discussion.
Only the sidebars I participate in are interesting. The others are shit.-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, satyanash said:
Bill uses forced fumbles as part of his calculation for "Havoc Rate", so he definitely keeps track of it: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef
Bill also mentions using forced fumbles and sack rates to calculate a team's expected turnovers in this article.
Right, but my belief is that forced fumbles in those sentences really only means opponents' fumbles.
-
That's not "bad" against the spread, but it's still losing money. Let's put it this way, if Bill Connelly had developed a system that could beat the spread at a 55% rate consistently he would be an absolute fool to publish it.
(52.4% is required to beat the standard -110 juice)
In the interest of full disclosure my system beat the spread on high confidence games at over a 55% clip for two seasons about a decade ago. But for the last few seasons it is well south and right at the 50% mark. Being able to consistently hit that number would be incredible. We are talking really fine margins here when it comes to betting against the spread. It's not like 90% or even 70% is the target mark for excellence. There is a range from 52.38% where you lose money to 55% where you're filthy rich.
-
I've always been under the impression that he merely looks at opponents' fumbles. I'm not aware of any reliable source that differentiates between forced fumbles and your opponent just dropping the ball, although just because I'm not aware of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2015/1/30/7947287/college-football-turnover-luck-2014-tcu-oklahoma
That article indicates it's simply fumble recovery percentage.
-
1 minute ago, satyanash said:
Bill's projected rate is based on forced fumbles and passes defensed. So in your above example, points from the fumbled snap would be attributed to luck, while the ripped-out ball counts as a forced fumble and is included based on the assumption that 50% of fumbles are recovered by the opposing team for a turnover.
A fumbled snap isn't a forced fumble in his numbers?
-
27 minutes ago, Fozzz said:
His pre-season projections have tended to overrate Texas, but given where we finished in S&P last year and what we lost from last year's team, I don't see any problem with his projection for next season.
Only if you are only considering his own ratings' universe and nothing else. His 2018 preseason for Texas was #27. Out of 107 systems that Massey tracks, only 5 systems had 2018 Texas that low at the end of the season (meaning only 4 out of 106 that weren't S&P+). The mean was 16.65 and the median was 16. So no, his preseason ratings don't tend to overrate Texas. You only have to go back to last season to see them underrating Texas pretty significantly.
-
I will have no comment on this matter. For historical reference, Ron Tatum is the only commitment we've ever had for whom I started the commitment thread. That didn't work out so well.
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:
This is the most logical in any step that's designed to limit transfers. Assuming you aren't in the just let them go wherever they want camp. If a scholarship is their contract, certainly the multi year version would be the only leg you have to stand on as controlling their ability to transfer. The idea that we try to control where kids can get their education in an effort to make a better sports program just seems wrong at the core. I realize that very few transfers are academic related, but it really doesn't matter. Where someone wants to go to school can have a million variables, and each person is going to have their own priorities. Whether those priorities are deemed dumb or smart by the masses makes no difference. If it's a mistake, it's theirs to make and learn from.
I assume in sports that nobody watches this manages to just work itself out just like it does in every other aspect of the free world? As in you can change jobs, careers, spouses, friends, and schools at will and the earth somehow manages to keep turning.
Your last paragraph is correct. For example, the Texas softball team this year has 4 starters who played at Oregon last year. Why? Oregon's coach left to come to Texas.
Imagine the end of the world wailing and gnashing of teeth if a football coach left and took 4 players with him to his new school. So why is it okay in softball but not football? Dolla dolla bills y'all.
-
12 minutes ago, Fozzz said:
I don't think Connelly ever said that, and S&P+ nailed Herman's 2016 and 2017 teams. Even though we are fans, we don't have to totally discount unfavorable projections because we don't like them. It's okay.
He predicted 2017 Texas as #16 in the nation. They finished unranked in the polls and #30 in his S&P+.
He predicted 2016 Houston as #53. They finished #39 in his S&P+.
A lot of that is normal variability and certainly shouldn't be viewed as a bad result. But if your range for nailing a prediction is +/- 14 spots then it's not that great of a predictive tool. That would be like saying that his prediction for 2019 Texas is that we will be somewhere between the 21st and 49th best team in the country. Okay.
-
Ha. It's not so much trying to bust somebody on the internet as it is just discussing the importance of sanity checking your statistical results. I did a study on statistics and how they correlated from season-to-season in the past. Sometimes there would be some weird things that popped up. Off the top of my head I think from 2008 to 2009 there was a negative correlation from one season to the next in forced fumbles per carry. So would I actually expect a team that was good at forcing fumbles in 2008 to be bad at it in 2009? Of course not, that fails the sanity check.
So when it comes to that recruiting input, we should be asking the question if 67% makes sense for first year players.
-
Seems like Connelly might be falling into a fairly common trap. He keeps piling more and more data on and can't stop because the more he piles on the better the correlation numbers look.
But that's a false positive. When running a regression analysis, even throwing bullshit unrelated data in will cause your R-squared value to inflate. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that when he says that he includes things that make the ratings "most predictive" he's talking about increasing R-squared values or something similar. Which wouldn't mean they're predictive at all. Let's just take a quick sanity check on his recruiting input, for example.
That input is 67% first year players, 15% second year, 15% third year, and 3% fourth year players. It makes sense that it's weighted toward younger players because he's trying not to duplicate his returning production input. Okay, makes some sense even if he's already in trouble from mixing and matching different measures. The question is this - does anyone think that two-thirds of snaps vacated by departing seniors and early draft entries are taken by true freshmen? Does that sound right, or even close, to anyone?
-
1
-
-
Expected reason was given. "I didn't see him."
-
The real answer also involves the fact that the NCAA now allows the granting of multi-year scholarships. If a player is not on a multi-year scholarship then they should have complete freedom to transfer wherever they want after any season with zero penalty. If a school has not committed a multi-year scholarship to the player for future seasons then they should have absolutely no say on where that player attends school and plays in any following season. Want to control a player? Then guarantee him a scholarship for the years you want to control him.
That's not necessarily applicable to McCoy's situation, but it's a non-starter to me to say that players shouldn't be able to go wherever they want if they haven't been guaranteed compensation (as it exists) for future years.
Honestly, it's still not enough for me to allow coaches to limit transfer destinations, but I can see the sit-out-a-year rule if multi-year scholarships have been guaranteed to the player. But I think that should apply to coaches, as well.
-
1
-
-
How about a rule that makes it to where a coach has to sit out a year unpaid when he changes schools?
-
4
-
-
Since we last posted here City somehow lost the league but has come back from the dead and are now in a heck of a title race with the Liverpudlians. Which, it must be said, is a way cooler demonym than Merseysiders or Scousers.
Also, from the thrashing of Chelsea this was the coolest stat I saw:
Manchester City is the first English top-flight team to score more than one goal in 15 consecutive home league matches since Tottenham Hotspur in December 1965.
I'll be back in a few months, probably, to check on things.
-
20 hours ago, Machinator said:

Should change the baseball part to read "semifinalist." Title right now makes it sound like they have to be one of the last two teams.
-
1 hour ago, AugieBall said:
Why is it being accepted that Tate is transferring because of a head coaching change? It seems to me he is transferring for no reason other than that Fields is transferring to tOSU. If fleeing competition is grounds for a waiver, the floodgates are well and truly open.
In reality he's fleeing competition but the coaching change will be the argument and the basis for the decision.
-
3
-
-
Those of you acting like McCoy's situation is a more dangerous precedent than Martell's are out of your minds. You think it's a bigger threat to the status quo to approve an early enrollee's transfer prior to class registration closing at the new school than it is to approve a transfer of a third year player because the head coach changes?
McCoy's situation might affect a maximum of a half dozen players on a team. Martell's would make the entire roster of a football program free agents if the head coach leaves.
The question of whether free agency is a problem that should be stopped is a separate discussion.
-
7
-
-
My kids are 3/8 an ethnic minority and I tell them to list themselves as that.
So it seems like we're are zeroing in on 1/4 as the magical line.
-
Boy I just can't figure out why he seems so happy about the Big 12 doing well in his system in 2008 but fluffs the SEC every chance he gets in the more recent past.
Truly a mystery.-
5
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:
Aside from the admission that the pictures are real and the possibility if they are released people might laugh at them. I see no other downside in Bezos calling them out. None.
He gets out ahead of any story, calls their bluff, and makes them defend their actions all the while still being the richest guy on the planet.
Please tell me what I'm missing?
An extra chromosome, apparently.
Although typing that out makes me feel shitty, so I apologize for comparing those with birth defects to the standard issue stupid of posters who should know better.
-
7
-
-
Yeah, at this point I think you just do what Reese asks for as long as it's at all feasible. The man just graduated a senior class who won the national championship every year of their college career.
-
Ironically, in the first game of the first season I've had hope for the team in a while I'll actually be cheering for the opponent. One of the Northwestern State players is a family friend who was incredibly helpful to my oldest daughter when she was struggling medically her freshman year of high school. Just a great kid, although I suppose the best possible result will be a close win for Texas as she has a ridiculous 3-for-3 game with multiple defensive gems. Ha.


Texas roster 2019
in Football
Posted