header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 29   Go Down
Author

Topic: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18

 (Read 17685 times)

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #336 on: November 11, 2018, 01:12:48 PM »
Even better if CCGs start going away thereafter. But I expect penny pinching will never allow it.
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #337 on: November 11, 2018, 02:12:07 PM »
The NFL has not convinced me a bye is an advantage.  Like in the conference tourneys where the top non bye teams have a really good record against the bottom bye team
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18848
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #338 on: November 11, 2018, 04:03:25 PM »
Quote from: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2018, 11:48:21 AM
That's weird. I don't but maybe a bump will help your chances. I know ftbobs's data warehouse site goes back much further than that, but I'm doubting it'll be organized to show a pass defense list per year.
Thanks.
I've found team passing stats on a site for 1990, BUT not the exact stat I need:  yards per attempt.
Frustrating.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11238
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #339 on: November 11, 2018, 04:10:50 PM »

It gives you more than enough info in order to figure it out the old fashioned way. 

Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18848
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #340 on: November 11, 2018, 04:11:33 PM »
Hey, I thought I should ask, so I'll do it here.

Where would a thread about random deep-dive statistical oddities and "Did you know"s belong???  I'm almost always looking up random things in college football and a lot of them are cool enough to share.  


Where should that type of thread be?
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18848
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #341 on: November 11, 2018, 04:12:53 PM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on November 11, 2018, 04:10:50 PM
It gives you more than enough info in order to figure it out the old fashioned way.


Ugh.
When it comes to the NCAA's official site and old stats, it's embarrassing.  It's old pdf images of old printouts on that paper with alternating lines of white and color.  Old, grainy documents.  Can't be bothered to type it onto a spreadsheet, I guess.  Not like it's from back in the 60s (those don't even exist), it's from the mid-90s.  I mean c'mon.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #342 on: November 11, 2018, 04:47:25 PM »
Quote from: ELA on November 11, 2018, 02:12:07 PM
The NFL has not convinced me a bye is an advantage.  Like in the conference tourneys where the top non bye teams have a really good record against the bottom bye team
That may be. Though I think all you need for a 6-team playoff to well serve the regular season is the *perception* of the bye having an advantage. Even if it's a draw or detriment (and I doubt it'd be a clear detriment), I'd expect teams to want the bye.
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #343 on: November 11, 2018, 04:50:51 PM »
I still like the 5-1-2 model best.  I'm also interested in only seeding 1-4 and letting those teams, in order, pick their opponent from the other 4.

I also think there needs to be a top 15 or whatever caveat to the auto bids.  I like the auto bid idea generally, but I don't like the chance of Northwestern upsetting Michigan or Pitt upsetting Clemson and getting in.
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #344 on: November 11, 2018, 04:57:55 PM »
Quote from: ELA on November 11, 2018, 04:50:51 PM
I still like the 5-1-2 model best.  I'm also interested in only seeding 1-4 and letting those teams, in order, pick their opponent from the other 4.

I also think there needs to be a top 15 or whatever caveat to the auto bids.  I like the auto bid idea generally, but I don't like the chance of Northwestern upsetting Michigan or Pitt upsetting Clemson and getting in.
And I think rankings should lock before the CCGs, and they just determine auto bids.  I hate that you are better off missing your CCG than qualifying and losing.
Logged

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #345 on: November 11, 2018, 05:03:03 PM »
5-1-2: Is that five P5 autobids, one at-large, and two Go5's?

That's not bad. I don't think I prefer it, but it would be an improvement.

I like your auto-bid caveat at first, but I think it's just as risky as the problem it attempts to avoid: Top 5 team loses CCG to 6-6 Northwestern ... and backs in anyway, making the CCG irrelevant except to the degree that it gave the team a lower seed.

I think I'd rather watch Northwestern or Pitt get pasted in the playoff.
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #346 on: November 11, 2018, 05:03:54 PM »
Quote from: Anonymous Coward on November 11, 2018, 05:03:03 PM
5-1-2: Is that five P5 autobids, one at-large, and two Go5's?

That's not bad. I don't think I prefer it, but it would be an improvement.

I like your auto-bid caveat at first, but I think it's just as risky as the problem it attempts to avoid: Top 5 team loses CCG to 6-6 Northwestern ... and backs in anyway, making the CCG irrelevant except to the degree that it gave the team a lower seed.

I think I'd rather watch Northwestern or Pitt get pasted in the playoff.
No, two at large, one Group of 5.

I don't like the "back in" phrase.  If they did enough to still be one of the, now 3, at larges, how is that anymore backing in than some team that didn't even qualify for their CCG?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 05:05:42 PM by ELA »
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #347 on: November 11, 2018, 05:07:57 PM »
Pitt would have set the NCAA record for ypp yesterday at 13.9, but they only had 47 offensive plays, and the minimum plays is 50.  That's kind of weird considering the reason for not getting there is because they were so good they scored too easily.

Record remains 13.5 by Georgia Tech against Kansas in 2011
Logged

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #348 on: November 11, 2018, 05:15:39 PM »
Quote from: ELA on November 11, 2018, 05:03:54 PM
No, two at large, one Group of 5.

I don't like the "back in" phrase.  If they did enough to still be one of the, now 3, at larges, how is that anymore backing in than some team that didn't even qualify for their CCG?
I guess "back in" is a flawed and trite way to talk. But it also seems flawed to go into a CCG game knowing that very little is actually being played for. I mean, the championship, but my point is that if the favorite loses and barely cares, that sucks.
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Liked:
Re: A Bollman For Your Thoughts? SOC 11/10/18
« Reply #349 on: November 11, 2018, 05:53:17 PM »
If you eliminate at larges then, I'd be ok with that.

I don't HATE a 12 team, all 10 auto bids, 2 at large model either.  I like having a reason to pseudo care about Sun Belt and CUSA races, and let their chamos, a couple at larges, and a conference champion who currently would be excluded play it out to get into a 4 team playoff.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 29   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Living Wedding Guest Book

Hidden Safe