header pic

College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!! The Best FREE College Football Forum on the Internet!!!

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.


Author

Topic: The Letdown - Let's do some research!

 (Read 532 times)

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« on: January 03, 2019, 01:34:21 AM »
Letdown team:  any team that is in line to play for the national championship if it wins its last game of the season (pre-bowl), but loses said game.  Then they go on to lose their bowl, most often against a lower-ranked/talented team.
Playoff era:  top 4 team or ranked 5th and playing a top 4 team in its CCG/season finale.
BCS era:  top 2 team or ranked 3rd and playing a top 2 team in its CCG/season finale.
Pre-BCS era:  #1 team only, or #2 and playing the #1 team in its CCG/season finale.

Year, Team, Bowl outcome

2018, Michigan - L

Georgia - L


2017, Auburn - L

Wisconsin - W



2016, Michigan - L


2015, Iowa - L



2013, Missouri - W

Ohio State - L
2012, Georgia - W
2009 , Florida - W
2008 , Alabama - L
2007, Missouri - W
West Virginia - W
2006, Michigan - L
USC - W...........UM & USC played in a bowl, one had to win/one had to lose
2001
Tennesee - W
1998, UCLA - L
Kansas State - L
1995, Ohio State - L
1989, Alabama - L
Notre Dame - W
1988, USC - L
1985, Nebraska - L
1984, Nebraska - W
1982, SMU - W..........The Mustangs actually tied their last game, but dropped in the polls, so I'll count it
1981, Pitt, W
1980, Notre Dame - L

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so that's going back to my birth year, which is plenty.  
These teams are 12-15 in their bowl games.  If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears.  The point isn't that they always lose due to a letdown, it's that they lose more often than they should be expected to.  I think this bores that out.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 01:39:47 AM by OrangeAfroMan »
“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

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2019, 08:45:56 AM »
First, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to do some research.  It's an interesting topic for sure.

But to answer this question you posed:

"If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. "

Well then, sure, there are plenty of reasons for the effect you're attempting to describe and define.  One simple explanation is that the "let-down losers" were overrated. Your model is relying on the rankings/ratings of the very sheeple you blast on a regular basis.  They are often wrong, because they are lazy and engage in group-think.  But there's a reason they didn't make it into the playoff/BCS/MNC game.  In most cases they didn't just lose their final game, they lost other game(s) too.  Which indicates they're fallible and the final season-ending loss wasn't some anomaly.

Second, the sample size is still small enough to be considered statistically insignificant.  And it comes out almost 50-50 which does little to support your assertion, regardless. Even if we are to disregard the point I made above and assume that the rankings were "correct," there's still not enough of a trend to come to the conclusion that you have. And I absolutely can't disregard my first point because I have little faith in the rankings themselves.

Third, you've narrowed your definition so fine, that it's not a representative sample.  Despite your protests to the contrary, many teams that don't fit your precise definition, still have all of the emotional hallmarks of a team that accuratley fit your "let-down syndrome" hypothesis.

In the other thread, you dismissed them, but 2008 Texas is ABSOLUTELY a team that had every single one of its post-season dreams ripped away at the very end of the season.  And not by a particular season-ending loss, but by something far worse-- a tie-breaker that essentially removed their chances at attaining EVERY single post-season goal they had.  When the B12 tie-breaker concluded that OU would represent the B12 South-- a team that Texas had already beaten by double digits on a neutral site-- it eliminated ALL of Texas' season-long goals of playing in the B12 CCG, winning the B12, and playing for the MNC.  It also quite possibly flipped the Heisman voting to Sam Bradford. Colt McCoy finished second, but had it been Texas playing in the B12 CCG and winning it, and then being selected to go to the MNC game, then it's possible and perhaps even likely that Colt would have edged Bradford in the voting.  Texas lost EVERYTHING with that coin flip tie-breaker, and had every reason to mail it in for the bowl game.  And yet they didn't-- they went on to play and beat the B10 co-champ Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl that year.  Because they were playing for pride, and they were playing to show the poll voters that it should have been Texas in the MNC game, not the Sooners.

And 2008 Texas is just one example of teams that have all of the same emotional hallmarks of a "snubbed" team or a "disappointed" team that didn't make the final game or playoff.  There are numerous others.  Your narrow definition dismisses them, which is part of why it results in an inaccurate hypothesis and an unsubstantiated conclusion.

So in short,there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with your assertion.

But again I do appreciate the time and effort you took to break down the data.  If you included ALL of the data, like 2008 Texas and numerous others in similar circumstances, you might come closer to getting a statistically significant sample size, as well as an appropriately representative one.  Then we could all take a look at the total picture and see if there's really any consistent trend. 

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 6955
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2019, 08:59:02 AM »
My guess is the "let down" concept is a significant factor at times.  I still think the "no let down" record would be something like 15-12 in some alternative reality simply because of the quality of the opponents.

How often should a #5 team beat a #15 team without a let down?  I'd guess something like 2 times in 3., and that is a larger spread than is typical as you often have a #5 team playing a #8 team.

This is an interesting concept to consider next year.  Did Ohio State have a let down or were they motivated to prove something?  Had UGA blow out Texas, would they have proven the committee wrong?

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2019, 09:05:11 AM »
My guess is the "let down" concept is a significant factor at times.  I still think the "no let down" record would be something like 15-12 in some alternative reality simply because of the quality of the opponents.

How often should a #5 team beat a #15 team without a let down?  I'd guess something like 2 times in 3., and that is a larger spread than is typical as you often have a #5 team playing a #8 team.

This is an interesting concept to consider next year.  Did Ohio State have a let down or were they motivated to prove something?  Had UGA blow out Texas, would they have proven the committee wrong?
One way to cut the data, would be to take a look at how many times in the regular season do similar "upsets" happen?  If it happens more often in "let-down loser" bowl games, then that might be a start at generating a real hypothesis.  Unfortunately I still don't think we have enough data to come to any serious conclusions.  Nor do I believe using the rankings is a valid way to measure relative team strength and expectation of outcome.

But it would at least be another view.

Kris60

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 451
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2019, 09:30:34 AM »
First, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to do some research.  It's an interesting topic for sure.

But to answer this question you posed:

"If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. "

Well then, sure, there are plenty of reasons for the effect you're attempting to describe and define.  One simple explanation is that the "let-down losers" were overrated. Your model is relying on the rankings/ratings of the very sheeple you blast on a regular basis.  They are often wrong, because they are lazy and engage in group-think.  But there's a reason they didn't make it into the playoff/BCS/MNC game.  In most cases they didn't just lose their final game, they lost other game(s) too.  Which indicates they're fallible and the final season-ending loss wasn't some anomaly.

Second, the sample size is still small enough to be considered statistically insignificant.  And it comes out almost 50-50 which does little to support your assertion, regardless. Even if we are to disregard the point I made above and assume that the rankings were "correct," there's still not enough of a trend to come to the conclusion that you have. And I absolutely can't disregard my first point because I have little faith in the rankings themselves.

Third, you've narrowed your definition so fine, that it's not a representative sample.  Despite your protests to the contrary, many teams that don't fit your precise definition, still have all of the emotional hallmarks of a team that accuratley fit your "let-down syndrome" hypothesis.

In the other thread, you dismissed them, but 2008 Texas is ABSOLUTELY a team that had every single one of its post-season dreams ripped away at the very end of the season.  And not by a particular season-ending loss, but by something far worse-- a tie-breaker that essentially removed their chances at attaining EVERY single post-season goal they had.  When the B12 tie-breaker concluded that OU would represent the B12 South-- a team that Texas had already beaten by double digits on a neutral site-- it eliminated ALL of Texas' season-long goals of playing in the B12 CCG, winning the B12, and playing for the MNC.  It also quite possibly flipped the Heisman voting to Sam Bradford. Colt McCoy finished second, but had it been Texas playing in the B12 CCG and winning it, and then being selected to go to the MNC game, then it's possible and perhaps even likely that Colt would have edged Bradford in the voting.  Texas lost EVERYTHING with that coin flip tie-breaker, and had every reason to mail it in for the bowl game.  And yet they didn't-- they went on to play and beat the B10 co-champ Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl that year.  Because they were playing for pride, and they were playing to show the poll voters that it should have been Texas in the MNC game, not the Sooners.

And 2008 Texas is just one example of teams that have all of the same emotional hallmarks of a "snubbed" team or a "disappointed" team that didn't make the final game or playoff.  There are numerous others.  Your narrow definition dismisses them, which is part of why it results in an inaccurate hypothesis and an unsubstantiated conclusion.

So in short,there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with your assertion.

But again I do appreciate the time and effort you took to break down the data.  If you included ALL of the data, like 2008 Texas and numerous others in similar circumstances, you might come closer to getting a statistically significant sample size, as well as an appropriately representative one.  Then we could all take a look at the total picture and see if there's really any consistent trend.
Excellent post.  I agree on all counts.  I think a team like Washington St should be included in his letdown criteria.  Their loss to UW knocked them out of the CFP, the Rose Bowl, and any other NY6 bowl.  Despite that, they went out and won the Alamo Bowl.
Here is my other problem with the letdown theory.  I’ll agree that it may affect a player or team’s preparation for the game.  But you will never convince me it affects the effort in the game.  Once the lights come on and the crowd starts roaring, and the hitting starts, and the trash talking begins the competitive instincts kick in.  It’s a football game at that point and they are trying to win.

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 7092
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2019, 09:32:44 AM »
First, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to do some research.  It's an interesting topic for sure.

But to answer this question you posed:

"If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. "

Well then, sure, there are plenty of reasons for the effect you're attempting to describe and define.  One simple explanation is that the "let-down losers" were overrated. Your model is relying on the rankings/ratings of the very sheeple you blast on a regular basis.  They are often wrong, because they are lazy and engage in group-think.  But there's a reason they didn't make it into the playoff/BCS/MNC game.  In most cases they didn't just lose their final game, they lost other game(s) too.  Which indicates they're fallible and the final season-ending loss wasn't some anomaly.

Second, the sample size is still small enough to be considered statistically insignificant.  And it comes out almost 50-50 which does little to support your assertion, regardless. Even if we are to disregard the point I made above and assume that the rankings were "correct," there's still not enough of a trend to come to the conclusion that you have. And I absolutely can't disregard my first point because I have little faith in the rankings themselves.

Third, you've narrowed your definition so fine, that it's not a representative sample.  Despite your protests to the contrary, many teams that don't fit your precise definition, still have all of the emotional hallmarks of a team that accuratley fit your "let-down syndrome" hypothesis.

In the other thread, you dismissed them, but 2008 Texas is ABSOLUTELY a team that had every single one of its post-season dreams ripped away at the very end of the season.  And not by a particular season-ending loss, but by something far worse-- a tie-breaker that essentially removed their chances at attaining EVERY single post-season goal they had.  When the B12 tie-breaker concluded that OU would represent the B12 South-- a team that Texas had already beaten by double digits on a neutral site-- it eliminated ALL of Texas' season-long goals of playing in the B12 CCG, winning the B12, and playing for the MNC.  It also quite possibly flipped the Heisman voting to Sam Bradford. Colt McCoy finished second, but had it been Texas playing in the B12 CCG and winning it, and then being selected to go to the MNC game, then it's possible and perhaps even likely that Colt would have edged Bradford in the voting.  Texas lost EVERYTHING with that coin flip tie-breaker, and had every reason to mail it in for the bowl game.  And yet they didn't-- they went on to play and beat the B10 co-champ Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl that year.  Because they were playing for pride, and they were playing to show the poll voters that it should have been Texas in the MNC game, not the Sooners.

And 2008 Texas is just one example of teams that have all of the same emotional hallmarks of a "snubbed" team or a "disappointed" team that didn't make the final game or playoff.  There are numerous others.  Your narrow definition dismisses them, which is part of why it results in an inaccurate hypothesis and an unsubstantiated conclusion.

So in short,there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with your assertion.

But again I do appreciate the time and effort you took to break down the data.  If you included ALL of the data, like 2008 Texas and numerous others in similar circumstances, you might come closer to getting a statistically significant sample size, as well as an appropriately representative one.  Then we could all take a look at the total picture and see if there's really any consistent trend.
Don't think I could possibly phrase it better

Entropy

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2019, 09:37:00 AM »
During the regular season a team can play a less respected program/team in between 2 big games.   often there is a "let down" and they lose.   When it comes to playoffs or NC games, we don't excuse those away... they are part of the resume.   Yet when it comes to bowl games, fans love to make excuses.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2019, 09:40:18 AM »
Excellent post.  I agree on all counts.  I think a team like Washington St should be included in his letdown criteria.  Their loss to UW knocked them out of the CFP, the Rose Bowl, and any other NY6 bowl.  Despite that, they went out and won the Alamo Bowl.
Here is my other problem with the letdown theory.  I’ll agree that it may affect a player or team’s preparation for the game.  But you will never convince me it affects the effort in the game.  Once the lights come on and the crowd starts roaring, and the hitting starts, and the trash talking begins the competitive instincts kick in.  It’s a football game at that point and they are trying to win.
This is it right here. This is 100 percent on the coaching staff, period. If a staff sees a kid or kids giving half effort, it's up to them to get the kids snapped in and focused.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

SFBadger96

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 423
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2019, 11:39:08 AM »
So many factors at work.

First, I think teams do have letdowns. Definitely on the preparation side, which in sports played at this level makes a huge difference. Teams "play down" to the competition all the time. Better preparation, better leadership, better whatever could fix this, but there's a reason that there's more to coaching at this level than just recruiting.

Second, I think teams get behind early and fall apart. This happens at all levels of sport (and life, frankly). This is more likely to happen if the team already feels like it isn't getting its due, which is part of the letdown dynamic. To Cincy's point about teams losing when they are favored, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been favored, it just means they lost. Again, Purdue shouldn't have crushed Ohio State--a 1-loss, Rose Bowl winner--but it did. The ball starts rolling and sometimes it doesn't stop.

This goes to the "they showed up to play" issue. Yes, when the lights go on, they run out of the tunnel, and they line up for the first play, they are jacked and ready to go. But when they are all of the sudden--unexpectedly--down two scores, they remember the feeling of loss from the last game, they don't get a call they really wanted, and they have another turnover, players--and teams--absolutely do fall apart. Not all teams, not all the time, but this is a team dynamic. Good leadership prevents that--so Georgia and Washington fought back into games that looked too far gone (they still lost, but they went down swinging); Miami imploded against Wisconsin. Was 7-5 Wisconsin that much better? A team that lost at home to BYU and was kicked around at home by Minnesota? No.

Third, many of these teams were overrated going into that game they lost. The 2006 Big Ten teams appeared to be overrated. If I remember correctly, USC smoked Michigan and Florida smoked Ohio State in the MNC game. Maybe neither deserved the 1 or 2 ranking they had when they played each other. Wisconsin had 1 loss that season and took all it could muster to beat a one-dimensional, good-but-not-great Arkansas team in the Capital One Bowl. Maybe the Big Ten just wasn't that big that year, which inflated both Michigan and OSU's rankings. Maybe the Pac-10 (USC, Oregon State, and UCLA) and the SEC (Florida, LSU, and Auburn) were. Kansas State and UCLA in 1998 are other good examples. They lost those games because they weren't elite teams, despite their rankings.

Fourth, as already noted, these are often among the best teams each of these teams played all season, so it isn't surprising that they are tough outs.

And finally, some teams are better week-to-week in the regular season, others have coaching staffs that are really good at preparing for bowl games. Bret Bielema fielded better teams week-to-week; Barry Alvarez coached them up for bowl games. They aren't the same.

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2019, 08:40:55 PM »
I’ll agree that it may affect a player or team’s preparation for the game.  But you will never convince me it affects the effort in the game.  Once the lights come on and the crowd starts roaring, and the hitting starts, and the trash talking begins the competitive instincts kick in.  It’s a football game at that point and they are trying to win.
Who has said it affects the effort in the game?  And if the preparation can be affected, does that not matter greatly?  Hell, if it wasn't that important to prepare, why do they bother???



I'm saying it affects the outcome of the games.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 08:53:16 PM by OrangeAfroMan »
“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
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2019, 08:52:37 PM »
I'm not sure why you're dwelling on 2008 Texas - they are obviously not in the "letdown" group of teams I specified.  They were one spot ahead of OU late in the season, with a bye  week and a game against a crap A&M team. They knew OU was playing #2 Texas Tech, and if they won, they'd jump the Longhorns, because the voters do that.  And then they're in front of Florida, who was to play #1 Alabama in the SECCG as Texas sat home, again, KNOWING the winner was going to end up ranked ahead of the Longhorns.





The last-game loss is the thing.  Not just the timing of it, but the fact that their fates were in their hands and they lost.  Texas' loss on November 1 was damning at the time, and with where they were ranked and with what games were to be played, they knew the ifs and knew it wasn't good.  






Also, if you're wanting to say these 11-1 and 10-0 teams may have been overranked, but then also suggest we include these teams with September losses and October losses and November 1st losses.....ummm, nope!  What's less accurate, a 3-0 team being really good or a 10-0 team being really good?  The top 5 in September is MUCH less accurate than the top 5 in December - that's just common sense.
“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
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2019, 08:54:32 PM »
The cool thing about this is that while everyone can disagree with me, we can identify the teams each year that fit this mold and see how they perform.  
Georgia lost to a 4-loss team.
Michigan lost to a very ordinary Florida team it waxed just last season.





“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

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 7092
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2019, 08:59:32 PM »
The cool thing about this is that while everyone can disagree with me, we can identify the teams each year that fit this mold and see how they perform.  
Georgia lost to a 4-loss team.
Michigan lost to a very ordinary Florida team it waxed just last season.






Dropping Georgia to 2-3 against teams who will finish in the top 15, and Michigan to 0-3

Kris60

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 451
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2019, 09:38:43 PM »
I'm not sure why you're dwelling on 2008 Texas - they are obviously not in the "letdown" group of teams I specified.  They were one spot ahead of OU late in the season, with a bye  week and a game against a crap A&M team. They knew OU was playing #2 Texas Tech, and if they won, they'd jump the Longhorns, because the voters do that.  And then they're in front of Florida, who was to play #1 Alabama in the SECCG as Texas sat home, again, KNOWING the winner was going to end up ranked ahead of the Longhorns.





The last-game loss is the thing.  Not just the timing of it, but the fact that their fates were in their hands and they lost.  Texas' loss on November 1 was damning at the time, and with where they were ranked and with what games were to be played, they knew the ifs and knew it wasn't good.  






Also, if you're wanting to say these 11-1 and 10-0 teams may have been overranked, but then also suggest we include these teams with September losses and October losses and November 1st losses.....ummm, nope!  What's less accurate, a 3-0 team being really good or a 10-0 team being really good?  The top 5 in September is MUCH less accurate than the top 5 in December - that's just common sense.
You seem to be saying that unless a team meets the criteria you set forth then they couldn’t possibly be as disappointed at the end of the season as the other teams.  All Texas needed the last game of the season was a loss from Oklahoma in a rivalry game to a very good opponent.  Once Oklahoma won Texas was faced with reality that everything they wanted to accomplish that season was gone.   You don’t think that was disappointing?

Kris60

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 451
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2019, 09:40:11 PM »
Dropping Georgia to 2-3 against teams who will finish in the top 15, and Michigan to 0-3
Very true.  It could just be further evidence those teams weren’t quite as good as we thought they were.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2019, 11:22:54 PM »
I'm not sure why you're dwelling on 2008 Texas - they are obviously not in the "letdown" group of teams I specified.  
It's because the narrowly defined group you've decided to outline is wrong.  It's incomplete.  It's a poor sample.  It is not representative.
You're choosing criteria to fit a narrative you've already defined in your head.  You're deliberately imposing your own confirmation bias on the experiment.
It renders your hypothesis inaccurate and inadequate.  It renders your results meaningless.  That you can't fathom this only speaks to how little you understand the data you are so desperately attempting to fit into your preconceived mold.  
It's bad science.  Start over. Do better.  This is really easy stuff.

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2019, 11:42:28 PM »
You seem to be saying that unless a team meets the criteria you set forth then they couldn’t possibly be as disappointed at the end of the season as the other teams.  All Texas needed the last game of the season was a loss from Oklahoma in a rivalry game to a very good opponent.  Once Oklahoma won Texas was faced with reality that everything they wanted to accomplish that season was gone.   You don’t think that was disappointing?
I'm saying that what I've observed as a trend is what I've described here.  I'm not claiming to measure the disappointment level of every team that doesn't win the national championship.
“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
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2019, 11:44:41 PM »
It's because the narrowly defined group you've decided to outline is wrong.  It's incomplete.  It's a poor sample.  It is not representative.
You're choosing criteria to fit a narrative you've already defined in your head.  You're deliberately imposing your own confirmation bias on the experiment.
It renders your hypothesis inaccurate and inadequate.  It renders your results meaningless.  That you can't fathom this only speaks to how little you understand the data you are so desperately attempting to fit into your preconceived mold.  
It's bad science.  Start over. Do better.  This is really easy stuff.
I observed teams tending to lose an inordinate percentage of the time, in a specific situation.  The fact you're labeling that so negatively is odd.  What I observed set the parameters, not my bias.
“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

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2019, 11:46:40 PM »
I observed teams tending to lose an inordinate percentage of the time, in a specific situation.  The fact you're labeling that so negatively is odd.  What I observed set the parameters, not my bias.
We're rejecting that the teams you're observing make up the entire class of teams to consider.
Start over.  Get the science right.  Then at least some of us will reconsider.

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2019, 11:50:48 PM »
Please stop pretending to be an authority on this.  You look arrogant and, to me, combative and not worth the trouble.  
“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

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2019, 11:55:16 PM »
Please stop pretending to be an authority on this.  You look arrogant and, to me, combative and not worth the trouble.  
This is rich, coming from the most abrasive and arrogant poster I've ever encountered on this forum.  Pot, this is Kettle.  Guess what?  You're still black.

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2019, 11:57:46 PM »
I am a white.





















:57:
“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

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2019, 12:06:48 AM »
I am too.

Perhaps I should rephrase that to-- porcelain teacup, this is porcelain saucer, you're still white. :)

Look OAM, I'm not refuting you for the fun of it.  I think your idea is worth exploring. I just don't agree with your data set for the reasons that I, and several other posters on this thread and the other one, have outlined.

If you're attempting to link emotional letdown to bowl game outcomes, then the definition you're trying to use is simply too narrow. There are no reasonable conclusions to be drawn from it, because you're not considering the entire class affected by such letdowns.

Texas 2008 is a pristine example of a team you choose not to consider, and yet had EVERYTHING ripped away at the very last moment.  It wasn't through a loss-- which would be a game-played outcome that they COULD control-- but rather through a coin-flip tie-breaker where they had no control at all, that occurred AFTER their final game of the season. If you don't believe that's emotionally devastating enough to be considered in your very own let-down theory, then I can't honestly believe you understand the point you're trying to make.

Kris60

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 451
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2019, 08:08:45 AM »
I'm saying that what I've observed as a trend is what I've described here.  I'm not claiming to measure the disappointment level of every team that doesn't win the national championship.
When looking at some of your posts on this topic in the Bowl SOC thread and then your responses you seem to be contradicting yourself from one thread to the other.  Here you say you aren’t claiming to measure the disappointment level of every team that doesn’t win the national championship.  But in the SOC thread you say this in response to Marq Husker’s findings:
“You’re not willing to acknowledge the emotional difference in going 11-1 and losing in September and going 11-1 with your only loss being in the 12th game.  I can’t help you.”
That response leads to believe you are very much trying to measure the disappointment levels of teams.  You also challenge utee to do his own research but when MarqHusker did just that you immediately dismissed it because the parameters for disappointment weren’t exactly like what you came up with.
Losing your last game that cost you a chance at a national title is extremely disappointing.  No one argues that.  But so is needing one result in the last week and not getting it (2008 Texas).  So is winning your last game and having the voters decide to put someone else in (2014 TCU, 2018 Ohio St).
You seem to have narrowly defined what ultimate disappointment is in your view and any evidence to the contrary you are putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and shaking your head.

MrNubbz

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2287
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2019, 11:22:28 AM »
It's because the narrowly defined group you've decided to outline is wrong.  It's incomplete.  It's a poor sample.  It is not representative.
You're choosing criteria to fit a narrative you've already defined in your head.  You're deliberately imposing your own confirmation bias on the experiment.
It renders your hypothesis inaccurate and inadequate.  It renders your results meaningless.  That you can't fathom this only speaks to how little you understand the data you are so desperately attempting to fit into your preconceived mold.  
It's bad science.  Start over. Do better.  This is really easy stuff.
Good posts ITT 94 - you get a Yuengling
"The problem with the Rat Race is,even if you win you're still just a Rat" - Lily Tomlin

MrNubbz

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2287
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2019, 11:26:10 AM »
This is rich, coming from the most abrasive and arrogant poster I've ever encountered on this forum.
What about fearless and I?We're not getting off to a good start in the New Year,Buster
"The problem with the Rat Race is,even if you win you're still just a Rat" - Lily Tomlin

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2019, 11:39:34 AM »
What about fearless and I?We're not getting off to a good start in the New Year,Buster
Sorry to exclude you.  You're a real jackwagon and I wish you nothing but ill will in this New Year.  And lots and lots of malty beers, of course. :)


bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2019, 12:09:45 PM »
When looking at some of your posts on this topic in the Bowl SOC thread and then your responses you seem to be contradicting yourself from one thread to the other.  Here you say you aren’t claiming to measure the disappointment level of every team that doesn’t win the national championship.  But in the SOC thread you say this in response to Marq Husker’s findings:
“You’re not willing to acknowledge the emotional difference in going 11-1 and losing in September and going 11-1 with your only loss being in the 12th game.  I can’t help you.”
That response leads to believe you are very much trying to measure the disappointment levels of teams.  You also challenge utee to do his own research but when MarqHusker did just that you immediately dismissed it because the parameters for disappointment weren’t exactly like what you came up with.
Losing your last game that cost you a chance at a national title is extremely disappointing.  No one argues that.  But so is needing one result in the last week and not getting it (2008 Texas).  So is winning your last game and having the voters decide to put someone else in (2014 TCU, 2018 Ohio St).
You seem to have narrowly defined what ultimate disappointment is in your view and any evidence to the contrary you are putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and shaking your head.
OAM set his criteria narrowly, that is true. He did so because he believes there is a qualitative emotional difference between a "final loss" and a "September loss". 
It honestly makes sense. Ohio State, for example, had time to emotionally process the loss to Purdue. They knew it might be considered a damning loss by the committee, and continued their season. They ended up accomplishing some of their goals--beating Michigan, winning the CCG, and although they missed out on the CFP, they ended up in the Rose Bowl. And then, to top it off, they had an additional emotional goal--to send Meyer out on a high note. 
Michigan, on the other hand, did not have a damning loss. They had a tough-fought close road loss to Notre Dame, a team that ended up undefeated and was a shoo-in for the CFP. All they had to do to get to the CFP was knock off Ohio State, and then they'd have as close to a lay-up in a CCG as you can get with Northwestern, and they'd have been in. But they lost. So instead of going to the CCG, instead of their consolation prize being the ROSE Bowl on NYD, they ended up losing and facing Florida in a rematch of the Citrus Bowl that nobody cared about. So much so that quite a few players even sat out.
Now, does that mean that OAM's criteria is a complete theory of quantifying "disappointed teams"? Probably not. But that doesn't invalidate that his criteria itself is meaningful. 

medinabuckeye1

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1980
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2019, 12:24:55 PM »
I agree with @bwarbiany and I think his post in defense of @OrangeAfroMan 's point is very well stated.  

The problem, as I see it, with what @utee94 and others are advocating is that it is highly subjective and we could spend the entire off-season arguing about which teams were sufficiently disappointed to belong in the group and which were not.  In contrast, OAM's definition avoids that entire debate by laying out a very narrow and very specific definition.  I like that.  

Now, as I see it, the major problem with OAM's definition is that even after going back ~30 years we are still dealing with a fairly small sample-size which leaves the possibility that the result could be just random noise.  

On the overall debate, I agree with OAM.  

First, it is indisputable that teams do not always play their "best game".  You can look at any conference or team for proof but I'll use tOSU because they are my team.  Looking at the whole seasons it would be silly to argue that Iowa-2017 and/or Purdue-2018 were better than tOSU in those respective years.  In spite of that, Ohio State lost to those teams.  Why?  Well, IMHO it is mostly because S*&T happens.  However, there are mental/emotional influences in a game played by college kids.  

I think OAM's data make a strong case.  It isn't THAT big of a gap but on the other hand a lot of these teams were playing opponents that were MUCH worse than they are.  

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2019, 12:48:04 PM »
OAM set his criteria narrowly, that is true. He did so because he believes there is a qualitative emotional difference between a "final loss" and a "September loss".
It honestly makes sense. Ohio State, for example, had time to emotionally process the loss to Purdue. They knew it might be considered a damning loss by the committee, and continued their season. They ended up accomplishing some of their goals--beating Michigan, winning the CCG, and although they missed out on the CFP, they ended up in the Rose Bowl. And then, to top it off, they had an additional emotional goal--to send Meyer out on a high note.
Michigan, on the other hand, did not have a damning loss. They had a tough-fought close road loss to Notre Dame, a team that ended up undefeated and was a shoo-in for the CFP. All they had to do to get to the CFP was knock off Ohio State, and then they'd have as close to a lay-up in a CCG as you can get with Northwestern, and they'd have been in. But they lost. So instead of going to the CCG, instead of their consolation prize being the ROSE Bowl on NYD, they ended up losing and facing Florida in a rematch of the Citrus Bowl that nobody cared about. So much so that quite a few players even sat out.
Now, does that mean that OAM's criteria is a complete theory of quantifying "disappointed teams"? Probably not. But that doesn't invalidate that his criteria itself is meaningful.

If the entire point is to derive a correlation between disappointment and let-down losses, then excluding entire classes of disappointed teams only serves to weaken the hypothesis, and any conclusion that might be drawn from it.
Again I'll go to the 2008 Texas example because it's an important one.  That Texas team didn't lose a final game, it lost a tie-breaker without having any control at all.  And they watched their hated archrival-- that they'd already beaten in the regular season by double digits on a neutral field-- take away every single one of their postseason goals, effectively at the flip of a coin.  That was an unbelievably bitter outcome for that team.  I don't think this year's Georgia or Michigan could have been ANY more bitterly disappointed than that 2008 Texas team was.  
So eliminating entire classes of teams that should be considered, renders the data set incomplete.  And therefore, any conclusions drawn, are already faulty before we've even begun the experiment.
I get it, we're arguing opinions here, but being told by OAM that his view is the only acceptable one is way out of line, and I reject that.  If we're here for debate, great, let's debate it.
Otherwise, it's just as  Kris said-- OAM is sticking his fingers in his ears, closing his eyes as tight as possible, and ignoring all of the other potential factors that affect these classes of "disappointed" teams.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 12:52:48 PM by utee94 »

 

Please Support Site: