Printable View
If I remember right, he changed things several weeks into last season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gully
Since the regular rating is now an average of two score-based systems, I'm just going to go with that(like we agreed toward the end of last season). It should cause a lot less confusion.
Not sure if this will sway your judgment, but per the definitions that I copied from Sagarin, the Rating metric is actually a weighted average of all three metrics. More weight is placed on the two models that are better predictors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammersmith
I still think for simplicity, the Rating is probably best to use, unless we wanted to come up with our own metric that uses an average of just the two measures deemed to be better predictors. That just seems like a lot of unnecessary complication though.
I'm confused. Look at Oregon. Their RATING is higher than any of the other three methods? How does that work?
Could be a mistake. Remember when he published some erroneous figures last year and then republished with corrected figures?Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
I didn't look closely enough to catch that, but I'll take a look too.
And here we go. Four touchdown favorite going into Weber State. Closest game prediction is UNI by a TD. MVFC top three, four of top six, and six of top twelve. MVFC also a TD favorite over the next best conference.
Sagarin's Week 2 Predictions
Sagarin FCS Predictor Top-25Code:Sagarin Predict Result Diff
40 North Dakota State 76.45
70 Iowa State 68.39 +4.90 +20.00 +15.10
197 Weber State 44.78 +28.51
218 Incarnate Word 39.27 +40.34
103 Montana 62.13 +17.48
177 Western Illinois 49.09 +24.20
90 Southern Illinois 64.87 +14.74
188 Indiana State 46.54 +33.07
156 South Dakota 53.27 +20.02
79 South Dakota State 67.08 +12.53
82 Northern Iowa 66.57 +6.72
133 Missouri State 57.30 +15.99
107 Youngstown State 62.25 +17.36
108 Illinois State 62.23
Total Diff: +15.10
Home Field 3.16
Sagarin Predictor Top-5 FCS ConferencesCode:1 40 North Dakota State
2 79 South Dakota State
3 82 Northern Iowa
4 84 Eastern Washington
5 89 New Hampshire
6 90 Southern Illinois
7 94 Villanova
8 99 Jacksonville State
9 103 SE Louisiana
10 106 McNeese State
11 107 Youngstown State
12 108 Illinois State
13 109 Chattanooga
14 110 Montana
15 116 Tennessee State
16 119 Princeton
17 121 Richmond
18 123 Eastern Illinois
19 127 William & Mary
20 128 Harvard
21 130 Montana State
22 132 Coastal Carolina
23 133 Missouri State
24 134 Sam Houston State
25 136 Central Arkansas
Code:1. MVFC 60.86
2. Colonial 53.62
3. Ohio Valley 53.22
4. Big Sky 52.26
5. Southland 50.29
That's pretty nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammersmith
Wow, that's quite a separation between MVFC and the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammersmith
Yeah. Never seen anything close to that. Normally a big gap is three or four points. I think the overall suckage of FCS vs. FBS in week 1 is part of it. Only the MVFC as a conference really stood up to their FBS foes.Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
Oh, and that puts the MVFC above C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt.
Based on Sagarin's RATING numbers (3.16 home field) and a 2.61 pt kicker for coming off a bye week, here's the outlook for the remainder of the regular season:
Weber State 98.2% (+0.1% from last week)
Incarnate Word 99.8% (+0.1%)
Montana 90.1% (+1.9%)
Western Illinois 97.5% (+0.7%)
Southern Illinois 86.2% (-3.5%)
Indiana State 99.2% (+0.1%)
South Dakota 93.0% (+0.6%)
South Dakota State 82.3% (+3.5%)
Northern Iowa 69.1% (+1.6%)
Missouri State 88.1% (+0.8%)
Youngstown State 90.0% (+2.2%)
12-0 30.9% (+15.4% from last week)
11-1 40.4% (+5.8%)
10-2 21.4% (-9.3%)
9-3 6.1% (-8.3%)
8-4 1.0% (-3.0%)
7-5 0.1% (-0.6%)
6-6 0.01% (-0.1%)
5-7 0.0003%
4-8 0.00001%
3-9 0.0000001%
2-10 0.0000000003%
1-11 0.0000000000003%
Assumes a normal distribution of outcomes w/ Sagarin's projected spread as the mean and a standard deviation of 13.86. In round numbers this means that if the spread is 14 the model predicts that roughly 2/3 of the outcomes will be between a tie and a 28 point victory. Half of the remaining outcomes or about 1/6 of all the outcomes would be a victory by more than 28 and there would be roughly a 1 in 6 chance that the team favored by 14 would lose.
I just took a closer look. I was assuming that the RATING was a weighted average, but the description states that it is a synthesis of the three different methods. I'd sure be interested to see how that formula works. Probably not just a simple weighted average. Or maybe there really is an error in his figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
I ran a quick regression analysis to see if I could identify any patterns or consistencies between the three independent measures and the RATING. I may have missed something, but I wasn't able to identify anything. So my guess is that there's some additional variable(s) in the synthesis of the measures.