Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HRE Otto IV, post: 3024577, member: 5685"]
I love Connelly’s efforts. I think he does a great job writing up previews and his formula is good at evaluating past performance. As a predictor, not so much. College football has way too many variables, many of which can never be quantified.

How do you factor in coaching? Especially with all the coaching changes? Some coaches have a great system which makes the players outperform their talent. Other coaches are great at developing players making them better than when they came in. How do you assign value to that?

How do you factor in the roster turnover which happens every year for every team? Recruiting rankings is a decent tool but highly flawed. In addition IMO the stars mean more for predicting a Frosh or Sophomore than a Junior or Senior, which past performance IMO is a better predictor.

I don’t think Connelly is the issue. It is the people who put too much value on the formulaic stats as being black and white. Pro sports is a bit different as there are less variables. So these advanced stats have more value. But even then the formulas are created by humans using a chosen set of variables. If the advanced stats are the be all, then why do they all use different formulas? Shouldn’t  Sagarin and Connelly be using the same thing in that case?
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?