Poor showing against FCS team is bad sign...

[Quazzum69]

In the past three complete seasons (2011, 2012, 2013) there have been 32 instances of an ACC team playing an FCS team in one of the first three games. I didn't bother researching whether they were a "good" non-major or "bad" non-major because in my book, they're all pretty bad (or at least they should be compared to Syracuse...).

Despite whatever positive conclusions you may have drawn from this game, there is evidence that the worse a team does against a (crappy, sub-divisional) non-major team the first few games, the less likely they are to have a successful season. I didn't split it up into first, second or third cause I;m too drunk right now - feel free to do that for me.

So according to this, Syracuse might be expected to win about 43% of its regular season games, or about 5.3 of the 12 games given its 27 points scored against arguably the best non-major football juggernaut of the past 6 seasons.

Maybe Villanova has a pretty good team and their coach is Vince Lombardi reincarnated. Maybe the Syracuse coaches just got really drunk before the game and forgot they were supposed to be coaching that night. I think the difficulty of the schedule will be more significant than the overlooked effect of perennial football powerhouse Villanova in the analysis. Six wins is probably best-case scenario at the moment.

 

[RF2044]

Or maybe our all-conference QB candidate got tossed in the first half, and that skewed the outcome. Either or.


Edit: quazzum, I'm not knocking your analysis. Just pointing out the interpretive context that the conclusion you've drawn fails to take into account.

 

[otisco]

Well done. Who doesn't love dater. Pardon my ignoramitude, but what happens when the x and y axes are absolute figures - Wins?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That r squared isn't exactly winning any beauty pageants.

 

[SouthernCuse]

I am impressed by any regression on a sports message board, well done.

 

[qdawgg]

I'm sure there is some sort of correlation but under Marrone we always struggled, or seem to struggle, with FCS teams. Even the years we went bowling. Not to say Marrone's record lit the world on fire but it was a lot more enjoyable than the years prior to him arriving.

 

[690West]

[QUOTE="Quazzum69, post: 1120142, I didn't bother researching whether they were a "good" non-major or "bad" non-major because in my book, they're all pretty bad (or at least they should be compared to Syracuse[/QUOTE]

I wonder, however, if that is actually an important variable to consider. Is a top ten FCS team "pretty bad" compared to middle of the pack P5 school?

 

[donniesyracuse]

I can't say for a fact, but I suspect that the number of points scored in any individual game is correlated with winning percentage. I bet how many points a team scores in its fifth game is also correlated with winning percentage. Good teams are more likely to score more points in any particular game; there is nothing groundbreaking here.

 

[CuseOnly]

According to Sagarin and another poll, that "pretty bad" FCS team was better than 41 of the lower echelon FBS teams 30 spots better that our next opponent. Nova was actually ranked higher in the polls than CMU.

Take into consideration that we had no starting QB and that totally skews the outcome.

http://syracusefan.com/threads/fcs-1-aa-polls.79466/#post-1120048

 

[CIL]

That r2 sucks.

 

[Crusty]

I applaud the effort, but I am not sure three seasons is enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions. However, you rightfully pointed out that the data "was evidence".

 

[donniesyracuse]

How teams perform in games against teams wearing blue jerseys or on days when the sun is shinning will also be correlated with winning percentage.

 

[CousCuse]

Q , you have a promising career ahead of you creating junk data for Big Government.

 

[Noexcuse]

Statistics has no place in sports.

 

[FAL]

Statistics has no place in sports.

"Statistics are for losers."

 

[TexanMark]

[QUOTE="Quazzum69, post: 1120142, I didn't bother researching whether they were a "good" non-major or "bad" non-major because in my book, they're all pretty bad (or at least they should be compared to Syracuse

I wonder, however, if that is actually an important variable to consider. Is a top ten FCS team "pretty bad" compared to middle of the pack P5 school?[/QUOTE]
A Top 10 FCS team is the same as a Bottom 30-40 FBS team in my eyes. Also, remember FCS schools best chance to pull an upset is the first week or two before injuries mount. I said 6 or 7 wins with more possible if things click for Cuse. Still there...but I'm leaning more to 6 wins now. Small sample size though.

 

[TexanMark]

"Statistics are for losers."

How big was your sample size? Was it significant?

 

[Millhouse]

In the past three complete seasons (2011, 2012, 2013) there have been 32 instances of an ACC team playing an FCS team in one of the first three games. I didn't bother researching whether they were a "good" non-major or "bad" non-major because in my book, they're all pretty bad (or at least they should be compared to Syracuse...).

Despite whatever positive conclusions you may have drawn from this game, there is evidence that the worse a team does against a (crappy, sub-divisional) non-major team the first few games, the less likely they are to have a successful season. I didn't split it up into first, second or third cause I;m too drunk right now - feel free to do that for me.

View attachment 22728

So according to this, Syracuse might be expected to win about 43% of its regular season games, or about 5.3 of the 12 games given its 27 points scored against arguably the best non-major football juggernaut of the past 6 seasons.

Maybe Villanova has a pretty good team and their coach is Vince Lombardi reincarnated. Maybe the Syracuse coaches just got really drunk before the game and forgot they were supposed to be coaching that night. I think the difficulty of the schedule will be more significant than the overlooked effect of perennial football powerhouse Villanova in the analysis. Six wins is probably best-case scenario at the moment.

 

[Millhouse]

In the past three complete seasons (2011, 2012, 2013) there have been 32 instances of an ACC team playing an FCS team in one of the first three games. I didn't bother researching whether they were a "good" non-major or "bad" non-major because in my book, they're all pretty bad (or at least they should be compared to Syracuse...).

Despite whatever positive conclusions you may have drawn from this game, there is evidence that the worse a team does against a (crappy, sub-divisional) non-major team the first few games, the less likely they are to have a successful season. I didn't split it up into first, second or third cause I;m too drunk right now - feel free to do that for me.

View attachment 22728

So according to this, Syracuse might be expected to win about 43% of its regular season games, or about 5.3 of the 12 games given its 27 points scored against arguably the best non-major football juggernaut of the past 6 seasons.

Maybe Villanova has a pretty good team and their coach is Vince Lombardi reincarnated. Maybe the Syracuse coaches just got really drunk before the game and forgot they were supposed to be coaching that night. I think the difficulty of the schedule will be more significant than the overlooked effect of perennial football powerhouse Villanova in the analysis. Six wins is probably best-case scenario at the moment.

that sounds about right. it's a mild concern but nothing to worry about too much. thanks

 

[Rocco]

I'm more fascinated that you're lit up on a Tues night. Well done.

 

[TexanMark]

I'm more fascinated that you're lit up on a Tues night. Well done.

He was expecting Tuesday Night "AACtion" on ESPNU featuring UConn vs Temple and came up empty...wouldn't you start drinking too after that letdown?

 

[sufandu]

Or maybe our all-conference QB candidate got tossed in the first half, and that skewed the outcome. Either or.


Edit: quazzum, I'm not knocking your analysis. Just pointing out the interpretive context that the conclusion you've drawn fails to take into account.

I would agree with you if we had been up by two touchdowns at that point, but we weren't. We were stinking up with joint with our starting quarterback in the game. The only reason we had a 3 point lead was because of Villanova's inept kicking game (also the reason we won). We had a lot more problems than QB in that game.

 

[SU2NASA]

That r2 sucks.

Was just about to post the same thing.

Just because Excel can generate a trendline for any plot doesn't mean it has a high fidelity.

Also, the conclusion by the OP that a team that scores more points wins more games? Shocking. And none of this takes into account the quality of opponent?

 

[RF2044]

I would agree with you if we had been up by two touchdowns at that point, but we weren't. We were stinking up with joint with our starting quarterback in the game. The only reason we had a 3 point lead was because of Villanova's inept kicking game (also the reason we won). We had a lot more problems than QB in that game.

It was the beginning of the game--you aren't automatically up multiple touchdowns early in the game. That's like complaining that we're not up 20 over an inferior opponent in basketball at the 10 minute mark of the first half. We might get to that margn over the course of the game, but sometimes it takes a while to get there.

No question--Hunt started slow. But if he doesn't pull that bonehead move, I'm quite confident that we would have would have won handily, by 3 TDs or more. That's only my opinion, but I'm comfortable owning that prediction. Such an outcome would certainly change the data in the OP's graph, as well as the interpretative analysis of what Friday's peformance means vis a vis projected wins in 2014.

Sans Hunt, we struggled. That doesn't mean that our performance [playing essentially three quarters of the game with a completely green frosh QB who'd been thrown to the wolves unexpectedly] correlates to how we'll perform the rest of the year. Nor does it mean that there weren't warts revealed with our collective team performance. But overlooking the Hunt being out factor undermines the analysis and makes it easy to poke holes at the interpretive conclusions.

 

[Millhouse]

Or maybe our all-conference QB candidate got tossed in the first half, and that skewed the outcome. Either or.


Edit: quazzum, I'm not knocking your analysis. Just pointing out the interpretive context that the conclusion you've drawn fails to take into account.

wilson picked up right where hunt left off