.,......in fact wearing a purple cape right now.....yes those are goldfish in the heel of my platform Stacy's......
Pecador,
I’m not going anywhere. I’ve just been busy lately with work and family. Time management is a real factor in how much I post….. having enough time to review these teams in the offseason is one thing, then finding even more time to regurgitate my thoughts for the forum is another. I’ve been grinding lately. I am a pretty detailed person in most things that I do so my tendency is to bite off more than I can chew in terms of how much time I have and how far I take the numbers review & spreadsheets when studying college football teams in the offseason. Anyway, this Covers forum is my outlet to talk college football so I will be around regardless of some of the idiots here or there along the way.
I got into it with this same guy a couple years ago. I can’t even remember the exact context. Something to do with his extremely over the top self declaration of being the greatest capper blah, blah, blah…. I pointed out that some humility and staying humble as a capper is an important quality (*don’t get too high when the wins are piling up and don’t get too low when it’s not going well—keep an even keel). Eventually the back & forth became a you don’t understand me (or maybe I should say U don’t understand me) and what I’ve been through type of explanation. Ok, whatever. Guess I don’t relate. It doesn’t excuse being an idiot in my opinion. He’ll likely be gone soon enough as BA suggested elsewhere (can’t remember which thread mentioned this). A few bad weeks in recent seasons and he’s gone. One year, a few good weeks, and he’ll stick around a little longer. This is the same guy that LITERALLY played an EA Sports college football video game, recorded himself playing a video game, put it on youtube, then posted the link on a covers thread a few years ago as a simulation. Give me a f’cking break! That’s extremely hard for me (and hopefully anyone else) to take seriously as a real sports capper. Didn’t mean to digress too much on this…. That’s about it for me.
Back later with preliminary MAC conference Power #s.
TD
Out
Out
Example of an increased
home field advantage case:
I was reminded of this recently reading the gmanusc2001 thread on the Wyoming at Iowa game. Great thread with a lot of great information. Go check it out!
Wyoming 2016: Final PR# Rating: 69.2
Home Games:
Northern Illinois:
Final PR # 61.9
neutral field line:
-7.3
Wyoming home field
advantage: using 4.5 instead of 2.8
Final Line: -11.8
Score: Wyoming 40
- NIU 34
Actual Margin: +6
Final Line ATS margin:
-5.8
Air Force: Final
PR # 70.5
neutral field line: +1.3
Wyoming home field
advantage: 4.5
Final Line: -3.2
Score: Wyoming 35 -
Air Force 26
Actual Margin: +9
Final Line ATS margin:
+5.8
Boise State: Final
PR # 77.0
neutral field line:
+7.8
Wyoming home field
advantage: 4.5
Final Line: +3.3
Score: Wyoming 30 -
Boise State 28
Actual Margin: +2
Final Line ATS margin:
+5.3
Utah State: Final
PR # 60.8
neutral field line:
-8.4
Wyoming home field
advantage: 4.5
Final Line: -12.9
Score: Wyoming 52 -
Utah State 28
Actual Margin: +24
Final Line ATS margin:
+11.1
San Diego State:
Final PR # 79.7
neutral field line:
+10.5
Wyoming home field
advantage: 4.5
Final Line: +6.0
Score: Wyoming 34 -
San Diego State 33
Actual Margin: +1
Final Line ATS margin:
+7.0
San Diego State:
Final PR # 79.7
neutral field line:
+10.5
Wyoming home field
advantage: 4.5
Final Line: +6.0
Score: Wyoming 24 -
San Diego State 27
Actual Margin: -3
Final Line ATS margin:
+3.0
Final Line ATS margins
for all home games: -5.8, +5.8, +5.3,
+11.1, +7.0, +3.0. Average = +4.4
*if I include the UC
Davis game, then the ATS margin average drops to +2.2 But still, they are 5-1 covering the # (final
PR# for that matter! / also undervalued going into the season! – i.e. actual
point spreads at kickoff offered more value for much of the season) even with
the larger Home Field Advantage figure making it tougher for them to cover a
larger point spread.
Wyoming 2016 Away Games:
at Nebraska: Final
PR # 75.7
neutral field line:
+6.5
Wyoming on away field disadvantage:
using 6! instead of 2.8
Final Line: +12.5
Score: Wyoming 17
- Nebraska 52
Actual Margin: -35
Final Line ATS margin:
-22.5
at Eastern Michigan:
Final PR # 58.9
neutral field line: -10.3
Wyoming on away field disadvantage:
6
Final Line: -4.3
Score: Wyoming 24 -
Eastern Michigan 27
Actual Margin: -3
Final Line ATS margin:
-7.3
at Colorado State:
Final PR # 70.6
neutral field line:
+1.4
Wyoming on away field disadvantage:
6
Final Line: +7.4
Score: Wyoming 38 -
Colorado State 17
Actual Margin: +21
Final Line ATS margin:
+28.4
at Nevada: Final
PR # 56.3
neutral field line:
-12.9
Wyoming on away field disadvantage:
6
Final Line: -6.9
Score: Wyoming 42 -
Nevada 34
Actual Margin: +8
Final Line ATS margin:
+1.1
at UNLV: Final PR
# 54.6
neutral field line: -14.6
Wyoming on away field disadvantage:
6
Final Line: -8.6
Score: Wyoming 66 -
UNLV 69
Actual Margin: -3
Final Line ATS margin:
-11.6
at New Mexico:
Final PR # 64.5
neutral field line:
-4.7
Wyoming on away field disadvantage:
6
Final Line: +1.3
Score: Wyoming 35 -
New Mexico 56
Actual Margin: -21
Final Line ATS margin:
-19.7
Final Line ATS margins for all away games: -22.5, -7.3, +28.4, +1.1, -11.6, -19.7. Average = -5.3
And again that ATS
margin average is with +6 in their favor to cover the # (rather than 2.8 points) and they still can’t do
it very often.
Now, what else can we learn..... one season is actually a pretty small sample size. That’s why it’s important to keep track of how a coach does (not necessarily the team name alone) for ATS margins to see tendencies vs. best opponents (may play tough) vs. weak opponents (may take it easy on them) – Alabama’s #s reflect this for example, which is no surprise.
Using the final end of the season PR#s is intended to give true value to the line. Take the vs. NIU opener. This website lists the closing line at kickoff as Wyoming +7. Tough to imagine back then that by the end of the year a fair line would be closer to Wyoming -7 to -10.
Vegas does not over react when teams win big / lose big one week. If a team is playing about as expected for say the first half of the season, then something clicks and they play great the final 6 games. That team actually accelerates through the gradual PR# increases that Vegas will do week to week before they catch up to a team in this category. Think Colorado State last year or Ohio State in their 2014 championship season.
One size PR # does not fit all opponents. Some of the better Group of 5 teams cannot hang with the big boys in non-conference play (or the PR #s are about exactly right for these non-conf games), but when they get to conference play they are talented enough (usually the defense can actually stop bad conference team offenses but cannot stop non-conf opponents from scoring). Think Bowling Green in Dino Babers final season. They just destroyed MAC teams and the opening line was never high enough. Think Arkansas State most seasons. Heck, think Idaho or ODU 2016. These are what I refer to as “Tier teams” – their PR#s need adjusted one way or the other depending upon what caliber of opponent they are playing that given week.
BTW, for all 14 Wyoming games my final PR#s gave a net total ATS margin of -10.7 (or -0.8 ppg margin). Net zero is essentially the goal but that’s tough (well impossible) to do across the board (*volatile teams like 2016 Louisville for example really fck this up and then you have to use some common sense / judgement on where they really belong for a PR#). Establishing an “accurate” final end of the year PR# is important. I also use these to look at results vs. top ranked opponents, vs. middle class opponents, and vs. bad teams.
For offseason PR# adjustments….. better borrow Bill Connelly’s words in the Stanford preview.
When we go about trying to figure out who’s going to be good each college football preseason, each team outlook basically comes down to four questions:
Out
RC, no, not yet on HFA
for each team. Just something I’ve
started to tinker with more this offseason and will do so going forward.
BTW, I think you’re supposed to call me on the Wyoming example to some extent. Did you notice that the average ATS margins were still well above/below net 0 for home & away, respectively, even with the inflated HFA. So, for that small of a sample size I could have made the HFA (and conversely the Away disadvantage) even more and the sum of the full season ATS margins probably stay relatively near net zero.
Asking WHY the discrepancy on home/away performance is important. A closer look reveals that it’s not just the altitude in Laramie as an explanation.
More important than the home / away ATS margin #s, is using the data to look at how a team/coach performs vs. great teams, vs. good teams, vs. average teams, vs. bad teams. Could it just be scheduling luck/coincidence that Wyoming played most of their tough opponents at Home (the games they really get up for and give their best effort)? …. I think so!
vs. the top opponents, Wyoming was: +7.0, +3.0, +5.5, +5.3, -22.5 (4-1 ATS vs. Final Postseason PR #s (NOT closing lines). Notice that 3 of these games just happened to be at Home (3-0 ATS), 1 neutral field, and 1 away.
vs. the middle tier opponents, Wyoming was: +28.4, +5.8, -19.7, and -5.8 (2 home & 2 away games with 1-1 record ATS both home & away).
vs. worst 5 opponents Wyoming was: +11.1, -7.3, +1.1, -11.6, and -11.0. Pretty obvious they did not care about crushing these bottom tier teams. 1-2 ATS on the Road games with the one win being a very narrow win. 1-1 for Home games vs. this tier.
Maybe a better split if I’d have done vs. top 7 opponents (6-1 ATS) and vs. bottom 7 opponents (2-5 ATS, including 1-3 vs. worst 4!)
Games
vs. Opponents ranked #26 - #47:
#26 San Diego State:
Final PR # 79.7
neutral field line: +10.5
Wyoming home field advantage: 4.5
Final Line: +6.0
Score: Wyoming 34 - San Diego State 33
Actual Margin: +1
Final Line ATS margin: +7.0
#26 San Diego State:
Final PR # 79.7
neutral field line: +10.5
Wyoming home field advantage: 4.5
Final Line: +6.0
Score: Wyoming 24 - San Diego State 27 (MWC title game played in Laramie, WY)
Actual Margin: -3
Final Line ATS margin: +3.0
#34 BYU: Final PR
# 77.7
neutral field line: +8.5
home field advantage: 0.0
Final Line: +8.5
Score: Wyoming 21 - BYU 24
Actual Margin: -3
Final Line ATS margin: +5.5
#39 Boise State:
Final PR # 77.0
neutral field line: +7.8
Wyoming home field advantage: 4.5
Final Line: +3.3
Score: Wyoming 30 - Boise State 28
Actual Margin: +2
Final Line ATS margin: +5.3
at #47 Nebraska:
Final PR # 75.7
neutral field line: +6.5
Wyoming on away field disadvantage: 6
Final Line: +12.5
Score: Wyoming 17 - Nebraska 52
Actual Margin: -35
Final Line ATS margin: -22.5
Games
vs. Opponents ranked #63 - #84:
at #63 Colorado State:
Final PR # 70.6
neutral field line: +1.4
Wyoming on away field disadvantage: 6
Final Line: +7.4
Score: Wyoming 38 - Colorado State 17
Actual Margin: +21
Final Line ATS margin: +28.4
#64 Air Force:
Final PR # 70.5
neutral field line: +1.3
Wyoming home field advantage: 4.5
Final Line: -3.2
Score: Wyoming 35 - Air Force 26
Actual Margin: +9
Final Line ATS margin: +5.8
at #79 New Mexico:
Final PR # 64.5
neutral field line: -4.7
Wyoming on away field disadvantage: 6
Final Line: +1.3
Score: Wyoming 35 - New Mexico 56
Actual Margin: -21
Final Line ATS margin: -19.7
#84 Northern Illinois:
Final PR # 61.9
neutral field line: -7.3
advantage: 4.5
Final Line: -11.8
Score: Wyoming 40 - NIU 34
Actual Margin: +6
Final Line ATS margin: -5.8
Games
vs. Opponents ranked #90 - #108 plus FCS:
#90 Utah State:
Final PR # 60.8
neutral field line:
-8.4
Wyoming home field advantage: 4.5
Final Line: -12.9
Score: Wyoming 52 - Utah State 28
Actual Margin: +24
Final Line ATS margin: +11.1
at #96 Eastern Michigan:
Final PR # 58.9
neutral field line: -10.3
Wyoming on away field disadvantage: 6
Final Line: -4.3
Score: Wyoming 24 - Eastern Michigan 27
Actual Margin: -3
Final Line ATS margin: -7.3
At #104 Nevada:
Final PR # 56.3
neutral field line: -12.9
Wyoming on away field disadvantage: 6
Final Line: -6.9
Score: Wyoming 42 - Nevada 34
Actual Margin: +8
Final Line ATS margin: +1.1
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
