TheYoungHorn

We can just hope other teams don't watch the OSU and both Maryland game films and get any wise ideas about how to attack an Orlando defense on the ground.

Not near as stupid as taking a TO with you to halftime when you HAVE THE BALL at midfield. The strategy and execution of the particular onside we can all agree was trash. But giving yourself an extra 20 percent chance of getting the ball back isn't something I would get super pissed about.

Yeah, I can get the hate for celebrating an "almost sack" and some of some of the other things he does personality wise, but pay attention to what Texas' 3-2-6 base dime defense is trying to do and give credit where credit is due. Gundy picked it a part, yes, could Hager do a better job about breaking down, getting his head up and adjusting to the ball and play, of course. But Hager is not responsible for the QB keep on those plays, he just isn't. He is executing with intensity what he has been called to, and coached to, do on most (if not all, though I would assume like all players he made a fair share of execution mistakes during the game as well).

Not sure where, or who, finds it infallible. Anyone treating any model as gospel is silly, especially when it's creator will publicly and consistently admit it's shortcomings and tease out why those might apply in particular cases. I think it gets the credit it deserves, because Connelly (and the properties he publishes, or partners with) provide it as accessible and open information. The only thing that is funny is when the team you follow happens to be one of the outliers in a model, and fans start to feel like some computer model is an enemy that shouldn't just be addressed, but attacked.

Just curious, I looked up past Herman teams to see how they fared in the eyes of Connelly's model: 2016---Houston finished 9-4, and was ranked 39th in final S&P+ 2015--Houston finished 13-1, and was ranked 46th in final S&P+

Which is why it's crazy to determine any model, or set of model's, legitimacy based on a single game (the ultimate of small sample size). What some people here were arguing is that the model is fundamentally flawed because it gave Texas such poor chances to win against teams like OSU, WVU, ISU and TTU, when in fact I think any reasonable fan that has watched Texas play every quarter of every game this year would say, "Yeah, I have concerns that if they continue to play the way they have all year, and not just in a half of TCU, USC and OU, that they will struggle to win all of those games." We can do this every week and cherry-pick results where these models look prophetic or aloof, but it doesn't address the underlying issues of why Texas is not getting love in these models. They are not getting love because when you step back and look at the pure inputs they don't do things as well, consistently as teams that win all (or most) of their games.

Systems that take into account every single play (minus truly garbage time snaps) are as unbiased of an arbiter you will find in this sport. Those systems, which do have their faults and blind spots (many of which we have addressed in this thread), didn't believe Texas was anywhere close to a top-10 team, and tonight is just another data point to confirm it. Before you argue that some (insert officiating call or no call here) would have changed the outcome, and Texas sneaks out of Stillwater with another close win, realize that Texas doesn't play consistent enough football to be a top 10 team---something that many here, and Connelly have teased out ad naseum. The Herman coached team narrative continues to be oddly true.

Yeah, but we can still stop them. It's easy to go back and retroactively figure things out this way, and we can all do it on two handfuls of plays... But so can the other team. It was a bad call, but the refs didn't force our safeties to live in concrete the entire game. The defensive game plan to try to cover up for the two freshmen corners was picked apart surgically by Gundy and Co., as they diagnosed the loose zone schemes and attacked the lack of force on the edges (something that is impossible with your corners sagging so deep, not to mention they were slow to react and overmatched). How Texas came out and played in the secondary with their two starting corners on the sidelines is why they got in a huge hole, and why they lost that game. Yeah, there were some bad calls, but that is every week in the Big 12.

Yeah. Honestly, the safety would have been the better option in hindsight. They are up five, and starting on the other side of the field, if they stay conservative and vanilla, Texas might get the ball back down one score with a lot more time left. Not that Texas would have stopped them.

Out coached at every turn

That sucked.

That was the shittiest clock management I have ever seen. Are we even aware we are down two scores?

The entire secondary is just watching the game happen in front of them. Safeties are getting abused Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

To update the discussion earlier on computer models that account for recency/trends, this is from collegefootballpoll:

No. I think his turnover factor is only influenced by sacks and, I believe, passes defended, which he claims are the only quantifiable factor in kept data that correlates to causing turnovers. But you might know better than me how he comes to that number

He doesn't have the stones to follow through and face the wrath of his current opponent's on a daily basis.

Exactly, there is no "trending" model that I know of baked into this particular model. Some of the other computer models do have that, for example the Cosgrove model at collegefootballpoll.com who is .544 ATS this year. And his model has Texas as -1.04 this weekend in Stillwater. For reference, his model also has Texas ranked at #12 (http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/rankings/)

How are you performing this season while betting every single game? Predicting college football games is incredibly hard, and while the model is far from perfect, his five factors have done a good job of helping better predict who will win games based on the factors that determine successful football teams from publicly available box-score and play-by-play data. If he was any better at it, I doubt he would be publicly sharing the data with the whole world, as he would be busy using his black box to make a fortune in Vegas. Can we all just admit that Texas has played a lot of bad football this season even while winning almost all of their games, and that his system ranks all of those bad stretches and plays equally as the good football we have also played? We can disagree on if the bad stretches of limping to close results against bad teams is some super secret, MENSA-Jedi strategy to sandbag the S&P+ rankings so analytics-obsessed opponents will under rank Texas and Longhorn fans will have a new enemy to direct their hate toward, and not indicative of the team they are (or can be) as a result, but it's easy to see why this particular Texas team does so poorly in this rankings.

Because people don't know how to read.

Amen.

Simon, as I think they are probably doing in other spots across the country is going to have to break up that space and look at specialty retail and other "entertainment" focused tenants.

Of course this is how they are making money. Did any one think any different? The HFT pay a bit to get access to guaranteed money on every single transaction they facilitate. Which, in some ways might be better than you paying a brokerage house a per transaction fee for them also to "sell" your trade to a match-making HFT. Either way, there is someone faster than you, and they are going to skim a bit off (rent-seeking FTW).

Or efficient. Or consistent.

How is your model performing this season?