Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="007, post: 1425996, member: 393"]
You looked at those 8, 9, 10 (whatever the number) teams over the course of 5 years and conclude that the correlation between rankings and winning percentage does not "jive."

The study I linked looked at [B]EVERY[/B] FBS team (including the 8 you listed) over the course of [B]12[/B] [B]years[/B] and concluded that the correlation between rankings and winning is both meaningful and statistically significant regardless of the comparison group (they even correlated the "economic" impact of having higher rated classes). This was true even when comparisons were made within conferences - meaning the study analyzed the effect within any given conference for teams who were recruiting the same players. The teams with the higher rated classes (regardless of whether you agree with the rankings or not) consistently had a higher head to head winning percentage over time.

This is not an opinion. It is a statistical conclusion of significance based on analysis of 12 years of data. The other thing to keep in mind is that, although statistical significance does prove that there is a [B]strong[/B] correlation between any two variables, it is not an absolute. That means that the occurrence of outcomes that don't "jive" with the correlation are not particularly meaningful. In fact, they are expected to occur. For example, the fact that there are thousands of people who smoke more than a pack of cigarettes a day and never get cancer does NOT disprove the correlation between smoking and cancer.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?