AbsolutelyPenix should of won the Heisman
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AbsolutelyPenix should of won the Heisman
The Heisman is an individual award. Not a team award.Penix should of won the Heisman
55% correct is almost like a coin flip. Pure luck.It's correct 55% of the time against the spread
Tiresome. Why not admit you are wrong? As much as I hate to admit it Harbaugh is a helluva football coach. That team is playing well and together. Washington too. Your data (and your thinking) would not have recruited Penix (a low three star) who is the most NFL ready QB in CFB right now.Washington has now won 2 games in a row that the data thought would be unlikely (Oregon in conf champ game, and now Texas). Impressive!
Wrong.The data you present is not a predictor of future contests, it’s simply a dataset of past performances. Now F+ must adjust as Washington continues to dismantle their projections.
All I’m saying is these forward looking measures are based off past performance. That’s why it consistently adjusts off new data.Wrong.
F+ is a forward looking projection. Half of it is SP+ and FEI. Both of which are forward looking measures.
Chase claimed F+ was 55 percent against the spread this year, not sure where he’s getting that but I don’t believe it. I’m not even sure how f+ gets converted into a spread.
SP+ is tracked publicly, and for a public model it’s pretty solid. Hard to expect anything public to break even. But it’s usually right on market numbers with a few exceptions
These things are just median projections just like the spread. It’s not a prediction per se. but they are meant to have some predictive power.
If sp+ says a team should be giving 3 to another team on a neutral field, it’s not meant to be taken so literally that the team is going to win by 3.
The nfl is the most efficient market. CFB is second most I believe.All I’m saying is these forward looking measures are based off past performance. That’s why it consistently adjusts off new data.
I understand they are meant to have some predictive power, sometimes it’s spot on, sometimes it’s way off. Chase thinks the natty should be determined by recruiting rankings and F+ ratings.
The beautiful thing about college football is it’s not nearly as predictive as something like the NFL. Those lines are razor sharp.
But we don't forget the fact that you were positive not only that Washington would lose, but that Washington would lose badly.It's funny how we all conveniently forget all the boring hits the system makes from week to week (the majority) and laser focus in on the misses (the minority).
F+ did correctly have MIchigan as one of the best teams in the country dating back to the first few weeks of the season. 99% of this board (and pundits) didn't agree, and now Michigan has a Rose Bowl win, a BIG10 championship, and a favorite to win the national title Monday.
I wouldn't call as you claim F+ being correct 55% of the time, which in fact I don't believe, but even if it was true, I wouldn't call this some incredible majority. If we are excluding lines and simply going by win/loss, I could definitely do better than 55%.It's funny how we all conveniently forget all the boring hits the system makes from week to week (the majority) and laser focus in on the misses (the minority).
F+ did correctly have MIchigan as one of the best teams in the country dating back to the first few weeks of the season. 99% of this board (and pundits) didn't agree, and now Michigan has a Rose Bowl win, a BIG10 championship, and a favorite to win the national title Monday.
You are the village idiot.I remember early on in the season F+ really loved Washington (had them in the top 5 early). And then Washington's performance really dropped off over the 2nd half of the season, and Washington slipped down to 11th or 12th in F+ as recently as just a few weeks ago.
I thought by bumping this thread and giving credit to Washington for their surprising performance was admitting that I was (obviously) utterly incorrect in my OP in this thread.
It's a reminder that games are played on the field and no matter how good we think the evidence is we should always remember how prone we are as humans to bias and error.
F+ isn't a resume ranking. You are trying to use F+ as a resume ranking -- using the "Team A beat Team B so deserve to be ranked higher" logic -- which is an exercise that has no value in a predictive stat like F+.I wouldn't call as you claim F+ being correct 55% of the time, which in fact I don't believe, but even if it was true, I wouldn't call this some incredible majority. If we are excluding lines and simply going by win/loss, I could definitely do better than 55%.
All you have to do is look at the top 10 through the Bowl Games and know F+ is garbage: This is literally their ratings through the bowl games 😂
1 Michigan
2 Georgia
3 Oregon
4 Ohio State
5 Penn State
6 Texas
7 Alabama
8 Notre Dame
9 Washington
10. LSU
The only top 4 team they got correct was Michigan. that's piss poor.
2-loss Oregon at 3 😂 Lost both to Washington who they have at ninth 😂
Ohio State at 4 😂 got owned by Michigan and Missouri. 😂
Penn Stare at 5 🤣 Lost to OSU, Michigan, and Ole Miss 🤣
UNDEFEATED Washington at 9 beat Texas in the cfp and Oregon x 2, yet are still rated behind both. 😂
Yea ok, F+ is correct the majority of the time. I just blew up their Top 10. 😂
No. FEI 'efficiency' is the definition of a backwards looking stat. ND recovering an SC fumble at the 1 may be the most efficient play possible after a one yard scoring drive. However that has absolutely no potential to predict that ND will recover more fumbles at the 1.Wrong.
F+ is a forward looking projection. Half of it is SP+ and FEI. Both of which are forward looking measures.
Chase claimed F+ was 55 percent against the spread this year, not sure where he’s getting that but I don’t believe it. I’m not even sure how f+ gets converted into a spread.
SP+ is tracked publicly, and for a public model it’s pretty solid. Hard to expect anything public to break even. But it’s usually right on market numbers with a few exceptions
These things are just median projections just like the spread. It’s not a prediction per se. but they are meant to have some predictive power.
If sp+ says a team should be giving 3 to another team on a neutral field, it’s not meant to be taken so literally that the team is going to win by 3.
Please stop contradicting yourself. In one of your F+ rants above you reflect on how F+ had Michigan as one of the top teams early in the season and how we laser focus on the misses. I was simply pointing out the numerous amount of misses. Oregon at 3, PSU at 5, OSU at 4, Washington at 9. I could name numerous other so called "misses" but there are far too many to list. So yea F+ is a crappy system that leaves a lot to be desired.F+ isn't a resume ranking. You are trying to use F+ as a resume ranking -- using the "Team A beat Team B so deserve to be ranked higher" logic -- which is an exercise that has no value in a predictive stat like F+.
F+ is trying to tell you how teams stack up *going forward* based on each team's respective track record throughout the season.
Also, on another note, the F+ system has no way of accounting for any kind of roster attrition so the system needs to be looked at as "this is how ALL teams stack up with their full healthy 2023 regular season roster intact"
You could even say the “sharps” shape them.The nfl is the most efficient market. CFB is second most I believe.
Remember the real odds makers are the bettors. The shops set the lines. The bettors shape them
Sigh. No.No. FEI 'efficiency' is the definition of a backwards looking stat. ND recovering an SC fumble at the 1 may be the most efficient play possible after a one yard scoring drive. However that has absolutely no potential to predict that ND will recover more fumbles at the 1.
By bettors. I meant sharps. Most of the books are just copy paste and limit winning bettors. When circa or Bookmaker move, you can bet fanduel and dk are right there with them within secondsYou could even say the “sharps” shape them.
Nothing more evident than the Michigan Bama line. Much of the public’s money went to Bama, but the line held and even moved backed towards Michigan.