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 530 times)

bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2019, 01:13:32 PM »
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.  
That's fair. But there's a degree to which that's hard. If you're trying to figure out "disappointment", you have to realize that there are different kinds of disappointment. 
I'd wager that Ohio State 2017 or 2018 disappointment is a lot different than Michigan 2018 or Georgia 2018 disappointment. In both cases OSU was the conference champion in a strong P5 conference and was excluded. But in neither case was that disappointment all that much of a surprise to them. They knew going into the CCG that winning the game was in their control, but that the CFP was out of their hands. 
Conversely, Michigan and Georgia were both in a position where a win would pretty much undoubtedly put them in [although for Michigan they'd have needed to beat NU too], and a loss excluded them. Basically the outcome WAS within their control, and their own inability to prevail destroyed their shot at it. And again, unlike OSU, both teams also didn't hit their secondary goal of a conference championship. UM by not making it to the CCG, and UGA by losing the CCG. 

Quote
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.
Again, there's a question of motivation. I don't think that Texas team was necessarily "disappointed", I think it's far more likely they were f'ing angry. It's the very fact that they believed they were every bit as qualified--probably more so due to H2H--as Oklahoma. They wanted to prove a point. It's a different feeling to be excluded because you didn't measure up on the field, rather than believing that you never got your shot and the team that got their shot should have been you
Do you honestly think that Michigan or Georgia this year had that sort of fire? That they wanted to prove that they were legitimate CFP contenders, and that they were unfairly excluded? Did Michigan have any argument that they should have been in over ND or over OSU [who didn't even get in]? Did Georgia have any argument they should have been in over Alabama? 
No, Michigan and Georgia were excluded because they lost. Texas was excluded because a team they beat by double digits won an irrelevant beauty contest. 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2019, 01:14:05 PM »
And beyond all of that, getting a near 50/50 result from a sample size that is already not statistically significant, isn't telling us anything, anyway.

This year Georgia will end up 2-3 against teams that will finish in the top 15.  Their "let-down" opponent Texas will end up 2-1 against the same group of teams.  Texas had a couple of bad losses for sure, but this is hardly representative of an opponent that had no chance at winning, unless Georgia experienced a "let-down."  Texas was completely capable of beating Georgia under any circumstances.

Michigan will end up 0-3 against teams finishing in the top 15.  Their "let-down" opponent Florida will end up 1-2 against that same group of teams.  Again, Florida had a bad loss, but the fact that Michigan couldn't beat a single Top 15 team doesn't make me feel like it was a "let-down" that caused their loss.  They just weren't good enough to beat ANY top 15 teams.  

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2019, 01:19:21 PM »
That's fair. But there's a degree to which that's hard. If you're trying to figure out "disappointment", you have to realize that there are different kinds of disappointment.
I'd wager that Ohio State 2017 or 2018 disappointment is a lot different than Michigan 2018 or Georgia 2018 disappointment. In both cases OSU was the conference champion in a strong P5 conference and was excluded. But in neither case was that disappointment all that much of a surprise to them. They knew going into the CCG that winning the game was in their control, but that the CFP was out of their hands.
Conversely, Michigan and Georgia were both in a position where a win would pretty much undoubtedly put them in [although for Michigan they'd have needed to beat NU too], and a loss excluded them. Basically the outcome WAS within their control, and their own inability to prevail destroyed their shot at it. And again, unlike OSU, both teams also didn't hit their secondary goal of a conference championship. UM by not making it to the CCG, and UGA by losing the CCG.
Again, there's a question of motivation. I don't think that Texas team was necessarily "disappointed", I think it's far more likely they were f'ing angry. It's the very fact that they believed they were every bit as qualified--probably more so due to H2H--as Oklahoma. They wanted to prove a point. It's a different feeling to be excluded because you didn't measure up on the field, rather than believing that you never got your shot and the team that got their shot should have been you.
Do you honestly think that Michigan or Georgia this year had that sort of fire? That they wanted to prove that they were legitimate CFP contenders, and that they were unfairly excluded? Did Michigan have any argument that they should have been in over ND or over OSU [who didn't even get in]? Did Georgia have any argument they should have been in over Alabama?

No, Michigan and Georgia were excluded because they lost. Texas was excluded because a team they beat by double digits won an irrelevant beauty contest.
Neither you nor I have ANY way to know what you're suggesting.  I'm not willing to split those hairs, because we don't know.  I actually disagree with you and think Texas was more bitterly disappointed than Georgia or Michigan could have been, due to the fact that they lost everything to their archrival, but that doesn't really matter at all because neither of us can ever actually know.
Which is precisely why JUDGING various classes of "disappointment" completely invalidates the experiment.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 01:24:47 PM by utee94 »

bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2019, 01:32:37 PM »
And beyond all of that, getting a near 50/50 result from a sample size that is already not statistically significant, isn't telling us anything, anyway.

This year Georgia will end up 2-3 against teams that will finish in the top 15.  Their "let-down" opponent Texas will end up 2-1 against the same group of teams.  Texas had a couple of bad losses for sure, but this is hardly representative of an opponent that had no chance at winning, unless Georgia experienced a "let-down."  Texas was completely capable of beating Georgia under any circumstances.

Michigan will end up 0-3 against teams finishing in the top 15.  Their "let-down" opponent Florida will end up 1-2 against that same group of teams.  Again, Florida had a bad loss, but the fact that Michigan couldn't beat a single Top 15 team doesn't make me feel like it was a "let-down" that caused their loss.  They just weren't good enough to beat ANY top 15 teams.  
To be fair, this is a stronger critique than that of OAM's criteria. Being 1.5 games under .500 for these teams isn't exactly the most statistically strong statement.
However, I'd counter with a few things:
  • I haven't gone through the data, but I would believe that even AFTER losing that final game, the teams OAM considers "disappointed" were more highly ranked than their bowl opponents. 
  • Thus, the "disappointed" teams shouldn't actually be measured against .500, they should be measured against the theoretical win percentage expected based in the ranking differential, which I'm sure is above .500.
  • To extend farther, it would be best to look at a more granular differential than the very noisy W/L record. Such as based upon either ranking or S&P, what is the expected scoring differential in these games and compare to actual. 

Perhaps #3 might be most important. W/L is a VERY noisy statistic. Score differential gives a lot more granularity, and might help. The game I'm most familiar with here, the 1998 Alamo Bowl, is a good example of that. KSU was ranked #3 in the BCS and Purdue came in unranked. I think on basically any measure, the game SHOULD have been a comfortable win for KSU. In the end KSU lost a really hard-fought back and forth game. Had they won by 4 points instead of losing by 3 points--i.e. if Brees hadn't completed that TD pass with 0:30 left in the 4th, all of a sudden OAM's analysis would have been 13-14 instead of 12-15. But I'd still argue that a 4-point win would be considered a letdown for KSU, even though they would have ended the day with a victory...

Now, all of these things dramatically complicate the testing, and would be a HELL of a lot more work. I don't know how many people are willing to go in and do all that work, so perhaps we'll never get to a truly statistically significant answer. 

But I do think that 12-15 as a record suggests that perhaps there's something there. You can deny that it's enough evidence to PROVE anything, but doesn't it give you at least some suspicion? 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2019, 01:37:07 PM »
To be fair, this is a stronger critique than that of OAM's criteria. Being 1.5 games under .500 for these teams isn't exactly the most statistically strong statement.
However, I'd counter with a few things:
  • I haven't gone through the data, but I would believe that even AFTER losing that final game, the teams OAM considers "disappointed" were more highly ranked than their bowl opponents.
  • Thus, the "disappointed" teams shouldn't actually be measured against .500, they should be measured against the theoretical win percentage expected based in the ranking differential, which I'm sure is above .500.
  • To extend farther, it would be best to look at a more granular differential than the very noisy W/L record. Such as based upon either ranking or S&P, what is the expected scoring differential in these games and compare to actual.

Perhaps #3 might be most important. W/L is a VERY noisy statistic. Score differential gives a lot more granularity, and might help. The game I'm most familiar with here, the 1998 Alamo Bowl, is a good example of that. KSU was ranked #3 in the BCS and Purdue came in unranked. I think on basically any measure, the game SHOULD have been a comfortable win for KSU. In the end KSU lost a really hard-fought back and forth game. Had they won by 4 points instead of losing by 3 points--i.e. if Brees hadn't completed that TD pass with 0:30 left in the 4th, all of a sudden OAM's analysis would have been 13-14 instead of 12-15. But I'd still argue that a 4-point win would be considered a letdown for KSU, even though they would have ended the day with a victory...

Now, all of these things dramatically complicate the testing, and would be a HELL of a lot more work. I don't know how many people are willing to go in and do all that work, so perhaps we'll never get to a truly statistically significant answer.

But I do think that 12-15 as a record suggests that perhaps there's something there. You can deny that it's enough evidence to PROVE anything, but doesn't it give you at least some suspicion?
To be fair, BOTH of the critiques I've raised are equally strong, and here's why--
To answer your final question, my response is: I can't really believe there's something there, unless we're considering all of the members of the class of "disappointed" teams.  Until we are, then this is a futile exercise.
(Although it's likely still futile even if we DID include all of the suggestions made by Marq, and me, and others.  Such is the nature of statistical significance. )

bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2019, 01:39:23 PM »
Neither you nor I have ANY way to know what you're suggesting.  I'm not willing to split those hairs, because we don't know.  I actually disagree with you and think Texas was more bitterly disappointed than Georgia or Michigan could have been, due to the fact that they lost everything to their archrival, but that doesn't really matter at all because neither of us can ever actually know.
Which is precisely why JUDGING various classes of "disappointment" completely invalidates the experiment.
Which is why you create an objective rule where you don't have to subjectively judge each team's disappointment. Which is exactly what OAM did:

Quote
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.
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.
It's true that this is more narrow than you want, and excludes SOME teams that you'd consider disappointed, like 2008 Texas. 
But you can't sit here and accuse OAM of cherry-picking. He laid out a very clear objective rationale of teams that know that they're basically in with a win and out with a loss, who lost. 
That doesn't include all classes of "disappointment". But the class of disappointment he considered at least suggests that there's something there worth further study.

bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2019, 01:41:44 PM »
To answer your final question, my response is: I can't really believe there's something there, unless we're considering all of the members of the class of "disappointed" teams.  Until we are, then this is a futile exercise.
Well, there's another question, then. You say "I can't really believe there's something there."

Do you affirmatively believe there's nothing there? I.e. that the "letdown" theory is bunk?
Or are you agnostic on the question?

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2019, 01:43:17 PM »
Which is why you create an objective rule where you don't have to subjectively judge each team's disappointment. Which is exactly what OAM did:
It's true that this is more narrow than you want, and excludes SOME teams that you'd consider disappointed, like 2008 Texas.
But you can't sit here and accuse OAM of cherry-picking. He laid out a very clear objective rationale of teams that know that they're basically in with a win and out with a loss, who lost.
That doesn't include all classes of "disappointment". But the class of disappointment he considered at least suggests that there's something there worth further study.
Where did I suggest he was cherry-picking?  
I asserted that his definition is so narrow that it precludes a truly representative sample.  And therefore the experiment is faulty before it begins.  

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2019, 01:45:53 PM »
Well, there's another question, then. You say "I can't really believe there's something there."

Do you affirmatively believe there's nothing there? I.e. that the "letdown" theory is bunk?
Or are you agnostic on the question?
I'm either agnostic, or I think there might be something to it.  KSU in 1998 is probably the best example IMO.
But Georgia and Michigan this past season are extremely poor examples IMO, because both had already proven to be completely capable of losing to teams of the same caliber (top 15 ranking) as those they faced in their bowl games.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2019, 01:54:22 PM »
If we include all of the "disappointed teams" and the result flips from 12-15 to 22-19 or something like that, does that flip your view on whether it's a "real thing" or not?

Should it?


bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2019, 02:04:27 PM »
Where did I suggest he was cherry-picking?  
I asserted that his definition is so narrow that it precludes a truly representative sample.  And therefore the experiment is faulty before it begins.

Sorry, I shouldn't say you accused him of cherry-picking. Someone in this thread or the Bowl SOC suggested that his criteria basically just confirmed his bias, which I thought was an unfair accusation. And you were complaining that his criteria didn't include that wider range [such as 2008 Texas] and was incomplete.

My apologies.  

I'm either agnostic, or I think there might be something to it.  KSU in 1998 is probably the best example IMO.
But Georgia and Michigan this past season are extremely poor examples IMO, because both had already proven to be completely capable of losing to teams of the same caliber (top 15 ranking) as those they faced in their bowl games.
If you're agnostic, I can accept that. I think other folks, such as Badge and Kris, are not agnostic but actively believe the theory is bunk. That once you strap on that helmet, "letdown theory" goes out the window. I wasn't sure whether you were in that group or not; based on how vociferously you were debating OAM, I may have lumped you in there.

I'm agnostic on this as well. I wouldn't say that OAM has proven his case by any means. But his analysis provided enough data to be intriguing. Which is about all one might expect on a message board.

It's not like he was saying that more carries equals lower YPC or something silly like that ;-)

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2019, 02:09:02 PM »
Heh.  I'm a scientist and an engineer.  I simply want the process-- the experiment-- to be as precise as possible.  

I'll admit that OAM's dismissive nature occasionally rubs me the wrong way and leads me to debate things more... vociferously... than I might otherwise. :)


SFBadger96

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 423
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2019, 02:09:11 PM »
I would suggest a better metric is to look at point spreads. What causes a team that is a 7+point favorite to lose its bowl game?

Getting away from the beauty contests of the rankings and CFP selection, the odds makers have a lot of data to base their spreads on by the time we reach bowl season. They also take into account who is and who isn't playing, injury reports, and god knows what else. And their profits are related to how good they are at setting those spreads. 

Upsets happen in all sports, but is there any correlation between upsets in college football, the relative disparity of teams (K-State/Purdue being an easy example), and the way the favorite ended its season?

Games where the spread is close going either way shouldn't surprise anyone, but games where there is enough data to support more than a 1-score difference suggest something else happened on that field. Now, if there number of upsets isn't any different than for any other type of match-up, it suggests nothing unique about these games. But worth looking at. Also, how big the upset victory was, vs where the spread was.

Wisconsin has a couple of signature wins against the odds: 1999 Rose Bowl (vs. UCLA), 2006 Capital One Bowl (vs. Auburn) come to mind. Don't know how they figure against the spreads.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2019, 02:21:05 PM »
Wisconsin has a couple of signature wins against the odds: 1999 Rose Bowl (vs. UCLA), 2006 Capital One Bowl (vs. Auburn) come to mind. Don't know how they figure against the spreads.

Obviously, UCLA and Auburn were bitterly disappointed and didn't want to be there, which was the sole reason for their losses. ;)


And yes, point spreads might be an interesting metric.  bwar already suggested score differentials as a potential way to assess.

I'm a little wary of using point spreads produced by betting houses, because they're not actually designed to be representative of an expected point differential, but rather they're created to entice equal betting on each side.  So they're SORT OF representative of what "the people" believe is an appropriate final point differential, but the added complexity of the betting house attempting to generate an even monetary distribution concerns me somewhat.  I guess it might only be worth a point or two of error in either direction?  But that point or two in either direction could change the outcome of the experiment.


Riffraft

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2019, 02:28:30 PM »
If we include all of the "disappointed teams" and the result flips from 12-15 to 22-19 or something like that, does that flip your view on whether it's a "real thing" or not?

Should it?


The problem is you have yet to provide an objective criteria to pull out disappointed teams, where while you may object to the definition at least OEM has provided criteria that is objective. So you think his criteria is wrong, give some criteria that can be used to pull teams out. Otherwise quit complaining about his. 

bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2019, 02:32:44 PM »
And yes, point spreads might be an interesting metric.  bwar already suggested score differentials as a potential way to assess.

I'm a little wary of using point spreads produced by betting houses, because they're not actually designed to be representative of an expected point differential, but rather they're created to entice equal betting on each side.  So they're SORT OF representative of what "the people" believe is an appropriate final point differential, but the added complexity of the betting house attempting to generate an even monetary distribution concerns me somewhat.  I guess it might only be worth a point or two of error in either direction?  But that point or two in either direction could change the outcome of the experiment.
Yeah, I have the same concern about point spreads. Also have concern about the idea I floated, which is using historical ranking differential to generate expected point differential.
I think the ideal would be to use S&P. I believe that is actually designed to be a predictor. Only issue is that I'm not sure it goes back far enough to give us a reasonable sample size, and also not sure how easy it is to pull out the S&P ratings PRIOR to the bowl game as opposed to the final post-bowl season S&P, which would affect the validity. 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2019, 02:33:38 PM »
The problem is you have yet to provide an objective criteria to pull out disappointed teams, where while you may object to the definition at least OEM has provided criteria that is objective. So you think his criteria is wrong, give some criteria that can be used to pull teams out. Otherwise quit complaining about his.

In a scientific experiment you simply can't say, "Well the data set is flawed, statistically insignificant, and also not representative, but it's all we have so we're going to run with it anyway."  That's just bad science.
If it's your opinion that the criteria outlined by OAM are sufficient to be representative, you can state that, and we can debate that. I clearly wouldn't agree, but at least that debate is better than you telling me I should shut up and go away.

And MarqHusker offered a list of teams that he felt should be included on the other thread.  I've stated that's a good start.  I'm not sure what the objective criterion would look like, perhaps "any team excluded from the BCS/playoff that was withing 4 spots" or something?  I'm not saying it's easy.  But I am saying that I don't believe OAM's narrow criteria are sufficient, whether they're objective or not.

So I'll continue to complain about it, thank you very much.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 02:36:44 PM by utee94 »

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 7092
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #47 on: January 04, 2019, 02:42:34 PM »
I also don't think anyone is saying it's never a factor, and that it doesn't play some role.  But my issue is in too narrowly defining disappointing teams and negating other factors.  As I pointed out, Michigan and Georgia both lost to the majority of top teams they faced this year (Michigan lost to all of them).  To fit your definition, a team has to lose its final two games, at the time of year they are likely facing their best opponents.  To me, it is just as likely as those teams getting exposed by the toughest part of their schedule.

Take a look at a couple of teams that should have met your definition, except for some fortunate bounces, 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma.  Both should have been knocked out by season ending losses, but both managed to find their way into a national title shot.  Both fell flat a second straight time on the big stage.  It seems just as likely to me that teams who lose a big game in the finale, and then follow it with a bowl loss did so because it's as simple as they were overrated to begin with.  Is that every time?  No.  But I'm guessing it's just as much of a factor, and the "data" is probably just as supportive.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2019, 02:55:30 PM »
I also don't think anyone is saying it's never a factor, and that it doesn't play some role.  But my issue is in too narrowly defining disappointing teams and negating other factors.  As I pointed out, Michigan and Georgia both lost to the majority of top teams they faced this year (Michigan lost to all of them).  To fit your definition, a team has to lose its final two games, at the time of year they are likely facing their best opponents.  To me, it is just as likely as those teams getting exposed by the toughest part of their schedule.

Take a look at a couple of teams that should have met your definition, except for some fortunate bounces, 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma.  Both should have been knocked out by season ending losses, but both managed to find their way into a national title shot.  Both fell flat a second straight time on the big stage.  It seems just as likely to me that teams who lose a big game in the finale, and then follow it with a bowl loss did so because it's as simple as they were overrated to begin with.  Is that every time?  No.  But I'm guessing it's just as much of a factor, and the "data" is probably just as supportive.
Extremely well said. 

bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2019, 03:33:58 PM »
If it's your opinion that the criteria outlined by OAM are sufficient to be representative, you can state that, and we can debate that. I clearly wouldn't agree, but at least that debate is better than you telling me I should shut up and go away.

And MarqHusker offered a list of teams that he felt should be included on the other thread.  I've stated that's a good start.  I'm not sure what the objective criterion would look like, perhaps "any team excluded from the BCS/playoff that was withing 4 spots" or something?  I'm not saying it's easy.  But I am saying that I don't believe OAM's narrow criteria are sufficient, whether they're objective or not.
The problem with a proposed criteria such as what you postulated is that it would include teams that COMPLETELY missed out on the entire idea of "letdown". Say, a 2-loss team wins its CCG to go from #9 (5 spots out of playoff) to #6 (2 spots out of playoff). What would they be let down or disappointed by?
The biggest critique in my opinion of OAM's data set is small sample size. And that small sample size came from restricting his data set to things that meet his definition of a letdown: a team that is basically in the CFP with a win, but loses their last game to be excluded. 
I think his criteria is actually quite good. I think the downside of that criteria is that not enough teams meet it to be truly statistically significant, at least upon the narrow grounds of mere W/L as the result. I think if we could have a more granular measurement such as score differential, it would give us a lot more info.

bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1898
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #50 on: January 04, 2019, 03:35:32 PM »
I also don't think anyone is saying it's never a factor, and that it doesn't play some role.  But my issue is in too narrowly defining disappointing teams and negating other factors.  As I pointed out, Michigan and Georgia both lost to the majority of top teams they faced this year (Michigan lost to all of them).  To fit your definition, a team has to lose its final two games, at the time of year they are likely facing their best opponents.  To me, it is just as likely as those teams getting exposed by the toughest part of their schedule.

Take a look at a couple of teams that should have met your definition, except for some fortunate bounces, 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma.  Both should have been knocked out by season ending losses, but both managed to find their way into a national title shot.  Both fell flat a second straight time on the big stage.  It seems just as likely to me that teams who lose a big game in the finale, and then follow it with a bowl loss did so because it's as simple as they were overrated to begin with.  Is that every time?  No.  But I'm guessing it's just as much of a factor, and the "data" is probably just as supportive.
So then you're saying that determining MNC, BCSCG participants, or CFP participants, is a horribly flawed beauty contest where the voters / committee routinely get these things so wrong that they're overrating teams on a regular enough basis to throw off all of OAM's data set?
Sounds like a great way to crown a "champion" :57:

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #51 on: January 04, 2019, 04:02:20 PM »
The problem with a proposed criteria such as what you postulated is that it would include teams that COMPLETELY missed out on the entire idea of "letdown". Say, a 2-loss team wins its CCG to go from #9 (5 spots out of playoff) to #6 (2 spots out of playoff). What would they be let down or disappointed by?
The biggest critique in my opinion of OAM's data set is small sample size. And that small sample size came from restricting his data set to things that meet his definition of a letdown: a team that is basically in the CFP with a win, but loses their last game to be excluded.
I think his criteria is actually quite good. I think the downside of that criteria is that not enough teams meet it to be truly statistically significant, at least upon the narrow grounds of mere W/L as the result. I think if we could have a more granular measurement such as score differential, it would give us a lot more info.
I understand that is YOUR biggest concern.
It is only one of mine. 
We've pretty much beaten this one to death.

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #52 on: January 04, 2019, 07:32:45 PM »
I'm just sort of dumbfounded that the suggestion being offered to me is to take my admittedly small sample size and stuff it full of much more diverse, subjective data to make it more valid.


WHAT???
“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 #53 on: January 04, 2019, 07:42:29 PM »
For a team to be "left out" of the playoff or BCSNCG because of a tie-breaker or rankings or even an early-season loss, you have someone else to blame.  You can blame the voters, the system, the baby Jesus,..whoever you want.  You feel cheated.  You learn that life is unfair.  You're probably pissed.




For a team to lose their last game and go from IN to OUT, it's on them.  They have no one else to blame.  THAT, is perhaps, the specific difference being glossed over here.  To fail when you had the power to achieve your season-long goals is an especially damning thing, imo.  When you fail in that way, you're broken.  Emasculated.




If you don't see that colossal difference, I have nothing left to offer.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 07:44:30 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

TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #54 on: January 04, 2019, 10:41:37 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.
I've observed almost exactly half the bowl teams losing their last game. Can we analyze the significance of that disappointment?

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #55 on: January 05, 2019, 12:47:55 PM »
For a team to be "left out" of the playoff or BCSNCG because of a tie-breaker or rankings or even an early-season loss, you have someone else to blame.  You can blame the voters, the system, the baby Jesus,..whoever you want.  You feel cheated.  You learn that life is unfair.  You're probably pissed.




For a team to lose their last game and go from IN to OUT, it's on them.  They have no one else to blame.  THAT, is perhaps, the specific difference being glossed over here.  To fail when you had the power to achieve your season-long goals is an especially damning thing, imo.  When you fail in that way, you're broken.  Emasculated.




If you don't see that colossal difference, I have nothing left to offer.
You asked for reasons to dispute what, in your opinion, is a trend.  This was your exact question:
" 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."
Several individuals have offered multiple possibilities for disputing your opinion.  Those challenges consist of:
1) A non-representative sample that does not include the appropriate teams that represent the class you're attempting to differentiate and identify
2) A sample that is too small to be statistically significant
3) The idea that the "let-down losers" are often simply overrated, as they've already demonstrated the capability of losing to other ranked teams, so their losses in the bowl games are neither surprising nor notable.  This doesn't necessarily apply in all cases, such as KSU 1998, but it certainly applies to this year's batch of let-down losers, as Michigan failed to beat ANY of the three teams it faced that will complete the season ranked in the top 15, and Georgia lost to 3 of the 5 teams it faced that will complete the season ranked in the Top 15.
4) The idea that there are potentially other numerous contributing factors, such as "let-down losers" simply encountering their toughest stretch of opponents at the end of the season in rivalry games, CCGs, etc. Again, making it neither notable nor surprising that they would also lose to another ranked team in a bowl to close out their season.

You apparently have already made up your mind and are completely closed off to debate.  So yes, I'd say you have nothing left to offer.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1925
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #56 on: January 05, 2019, 12:56:54 PM »
One other thing-- as I stated earlier, I actually do think there's something to this.  Watching KSU in 1998 was eye-opening, that was a very good team that just got man-handled in a FAR lesser bowl.

To what extent it factors in, though, is highly debatable.  And that's what I'm debating.

MrNubbz

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2287
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #57 on: January 05, 2019, 01:10:05 PM »
For a team to lose their last game and go from IN to OUT, it's on them.  They have no one else to blame.
There is a plethora of scenarios/variables against a blanket statement like that.Not on whether they lost but going from in to out. As in other teams records/opponents/home & away/schedule strength/injuries/etc.For instance Michigan was rated no 4 when tOSU had played them.What if the Buckeyes had not been beat by Purdue earlier.Then lost to Michigan by a fg or less.Why would an Oklahoma be rated in front of them then?Because they scored a boat load of points,had the Heisman Trophy Winner and lost earlier?A loss is a loss everything being equal.All of this a fun argument but with nothing concretely conclusive
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 01:26:37 PM by MrNubbz »
"The problem with the Rat Race is,even if you win you're still just a Rat" - Lily Tomlin

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3555
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #58 on: January 05, 2019, 06:30:03 PM »
There is a plethora of scenarios/variables against a blanket statement like that.Not on whether they lost but going from in to out. As in other teams records/opponents/home & away/schedule strength/injuries/etc.For instance Michigan was rated no 4 when tOSU had played them.What if the Buckeyes had not been beat by Purdue earlier.Then lost to Michigan by a fg or less.Why would an Oklahoma be rated in front of them then?Because they scored a boat load of points,had the Heisman Trophy Winner and lost earlier?A loss is a loss everything being equal.All of this a fun argument but with nothing concretely conclusive
I don't have to deal with the "what ifs" because I don't bother with them.  I'm just going by what actually happened.  Simple.
“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

MrNubbz

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2287
  • Liked:
Re: The Letdown - Let's do some research!
« Reply #59 on: January 05, 2019, 08:53:30 PM »
One if or time doesn't a complete study make
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 08:58:07 PM by MrNubbz »
"The problem with the Rat Race is,even if you win you're still just a Rat" - Lily Tomlin

 

Please Support Site: