-
Posts
14417 -
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
-
-
I see Nebraska football is still based on being okay with having shitheads on the team, too bad they don't have the wins to go along with it anymore.
QuoteAn investigator on the case said the Sheriff’s Department has been unable to interview Washington during the months-long investigation after making requests through the University of Nebraska’s Athletic Department, as well as Washington’s former attorney, Jon Bruning, who is the former Attorney General of Nebraska.
The investigator said Bruning questioned whether charges would actually be filed against his client when contacted last fall by the Sheriff’s Department.
“The general air was, ‘Is this really as big of a deal as you’re making it?’” the investigator said. “I explained to him that we do take these cases very seriously. Cases like this can have severe consequences, especially for the victims, throughout their entire lives, and we were investigating wholeheartedly because of that fact.”
Bruning, reached Friday by NBC Bay Area, declined to comment on the case.
-
2
-
-
I don't believe Connelly has any particular axe to grind against Texas, it's just that he feuds with Texas fans more than anyone else right now because of the disconnect between his system and Texas's big wins last season.
The only biases I see come through in his writings are being defensive about his work (understandable and not even an issue) and being exuberant about anything that reflects positively on his alma mater Missouri. The latter bias is the only one that would seem like a problem in terms of objectivity but it's largely unavoidable and I haven't seen any evidence it causes any issues for his work's integrity.
-
He lost dudes from a safety angle, at which he sucks. How do we know he sucks at man coverage, it's a totally different athletic endeavor. The guy can't track balls in the air so he's a liability in pass coverage at the safety position. For somebody who is so awesome at one aspect of the game he can't possibly be worse at standard man coverage than he is at safety coverage.
-
On 2/8/2019 at 8:13 AM, South Austin said:
Are you counting Mizzou and aggy in that 22-10 record?
Hard to come up with a way where we haven't dominated the SEC unless you consider Vanderbilt the only SEC school.
AllTime Texas Record Against:
Current SEC Teams - 191-91-9 (.672 WPCT)
Except TAMU and MU - 97-48-4 (.664 WPCT)
Old 10 (remove South Carolina and Arkansas, too) - 41-25-4 (.614 WPCT) -
2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:
If you ascribe zero value to S&P+, then yes, they would be meaningless. I think they have some value, although it's hard to say how much compared to other rating systems as I have not read any systematic study comparing them (as is occasionally done with ZiPS, Steamer, PECOTA, etc.). However, from judging by this thread, the most valuable rating system is the one that predicts the best performance for your team of choice. With that in mind, I would predict S&P+ has zero value on this board.
No, that's not what I mean at all. Connelly publishes his S&P+ because he thinks it better reflects actual team strengths than final scores. And, on the whole, I agree. He also publishes predictions versus the spread because he wants to show that there is a value in his system with respect to predicting future performance on the field. Therefore it's reasonable to wonder if he intends his preseason projections to predict performance on the field in the upcoming season. I would imagine that he does indeed feel like this is the case.
And so that is a more realistic measuring stick for his projections than his own system's year-end rankings. Otherwise the entire effort is meaningless. Anyone can rank the teams any way they like, and if I say next year San Jose State is going to be the #20 team in the country according to my system and then my system says they're #20 at the end of the year do I get to claim that as proof my system projected the Spartans' team properly? I suppose, but both results are actually evidence that my system is bad.
-
Just now, DanRydell said:
IIRC, it's not actually modeled to predict against the spread but rather to predict win probabilities. I have no idea how well it performs at that (do teams predicted to win a game 70% of the time actually win roughly 70% of the time?) or how it compares to any other model at doing so.
If that's the case then he should go with that, because I have found that Vegas moneylines are much softer than point spreads.
-
7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:
His pre-season projections are designed to project S&P. That's literally all they are meant to do. They aren't intended or designed to project Texas' Dolphin, Hatch, J-Train, Junky's, Hamburgler, etc., rating. Texas had a projected S&P+ entering 2018 of 27 and finished 32nd. The year before their projected S&P+ was 16th and they finished 30th. The year before that their projected S&P+ was 34th and they finished 36th. So while the pre-season projected S&P+ has been fairly accurate over the past few years, but it generally overrates them a little.
So they're meaningless. What is the real world meaning behind them? If the only thing they're designed is to forecast S&P+ then they have zero value.
-
1
-
-
That's the other humorous thing, how defensive he gets in conversations. Saying that his system completely nailed the 2017 Texas team is silly. His preseason projection missed significantly not only compared to end-of-season polls and rankings, but also to his own system at the end of the year. The only place it was "nailed" was his second order wins which is just an ex post facto look at how likely the team who won was likely to win based on the stats.
But of course that is basically meaningless. I could create a system much more accurate at such an analysis, takes about two seconds. Which team had more points at the end of the game? This system is 100%. His entire argument, which is completely valid, is that looking deeper than the final score is important when predicting future performance. But that has absolutely nothing to do with analyzing past performance.
His system did not completely nail Herman's 2016 and 2017 teams, that's simply false.
-
1
-
-
Personally I still think Brandon Jones is our best skills match for the super nickel although I know few agree with me.
-
Random would indeed just be 50%. So I've always looked at it like 50% is random selection, 55% is beyond excellent, and halfway between happens to be roughly the breakeven point.
-
Didn't I read somewhere that Foster is getting a look at nickel?Made some changes. https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/7090-texas-roster-2019/&do=findComment&comment=906439- Whittington is going to play RB, given our dearth of options at the position right now.
- All indications are that Epps will be at XWR, not TE, this season.
- I think Bru will get a shot at HWR first in the LJH mold.
- I have Floyd at Rover, but linebacker is totally up in the air. I also took Townsend off since it's pretty clear he's moving on in some form (participated in Senior Day).
- Split the safeties into boundary, field, and joker positions. It's going to be interesting to see how the staff gets all of Sterns, Foster, Overshown, and Brandon Jones on the field.
-
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."

2019 WR Marcus Washington
in 🤫$9.95🤫
Posted
I think he was saying these 4 posts could have gone in the overall 2019 thread to help with the shit posting.