forums
I had a sobering thought about our program
- Thread starter zipcode
- Start date
Advertisement
kennesaw_cane
Freshman
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 493
There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be in the Top 25. We have had very good recruiting classes the past 3 years. I'm afraid all the up and coming recruits are going to see what frauds Grohlden and Dorito are and turn tail and run.
Boarcane
All ACC
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 7,615
27 football players on our 77 man scholarship roster were 4* or 5*'s. That makes us more talented than EVERY team (Louisville had 4) we played this season. EVERY TEAM not named FAMU, Arksnsas St. and Duke minus a starting RB & QB should be favored to beat this []_[].
Awsi Dooger
Junior
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 2,662
Vanderbilt is correct. We would be low double digit favorite over Vanderbilt. The line against Kentucky would be low but they currently would be slight favorite. Everybody else in the SEC would be favored over the Canes by considerably more than that.
It doesn't require guesswork. All you have to do is check the power ratings. That's where the odds stem from, even if lots of fans still prefer the mysterious version incorporating trends and all type of sophisticated analysis. That never fails to bust me up. In the old days the oddsmakers literally used to carry around the weekly copy of The Gold Sheet. They have a power ratings table. Then other power ratings versions started to show up. Las Vegas wasn't afraid to steal each one and blend them into a consensus. It's the exact philosophy that Nate Silver uses so effectively for political forecasts. He takes every poll and combines them, while astutely adjusting here and there via sensible variables. That's no different than applying a home field allotment.
I remember when Jeff Sagarin's numbers showed up in the '80s. Lots of guys in Las Vegas used them successfully before the sportsbooks figured it out and included those numbers. When I walked into oddsmakers meetings in the late '80s and early '90s, literally every guy had the USA Today sports page opened up to Sagarin's numbers.
Sagarin is still a great basic power rating reference point:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2014/conference/
Miami is slightly above 74. Vanderbilt is just below 59. Kentucky is 75+. And so forth. I linked the version separated by conference.
It doesn't require guesswork. All you have to do is check the power ratings. That's where the odds stem from, even if lots of fans still prefer the mysterious version incorporating trends and all type of sophisticated analysis. That never fails to bust me up. In the old days the oddsmakers literally used to carry around the weekly copy of The Gold Sheet. They have a power ratings table. Then other power ratings versions started to show up. Las Vegas wasn't afraid to steal each one and blend them into a consensus. It's the exact philosophy that Nate Silver uses so effectively for political forecasts. He takes every poll and combines them, while astutely adjusting here and there via sensible variables. That's no different than applying a home field allotment.
I remember when Jeff Sagarin's numbers showed up in the '80s. Lots of guys in Las Vegas used them successfully before the sportsbooks figured it out and included those numbers. When I walked into oddsmakers meetings in the late '80s and early '90s, literally every guy had the USA Today sports page opened up to Sagarin's numbers.
Sagarin is still a great basic power rating reference point:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2014/conference/
Miami is slightly above 74. Vanderbilt is just below 59. Kentucky is 75+. And so forth. I linked the version separated by conference.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 6,059
Sobering info:
Teams we'd be underdogs to or pick-em on neutral field:
Marshall
Maryland
Memphis
Minnesota
Utah
Texas
North Dakota State (FCS)
Advertisement
Advertisement