Week 1 Preview - Printable Version

Week 1 Preview - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Week 1 Preview (/thread-14095.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Week 1 Preview - CTcard - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 11:18 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:Frustrating to see Oregon State give such a poor accounting of themselves.Â

I find the cult of Gary Andersen odd.
The media seems to universally praise the rebuilding job he has done in Corvalis, with Jon Wilner a leading cheerleader.

What Andersen did was take over a team that went:
9-4, 7-6, 5-7
And improved them to records of:
2-10, 4-8, 0-1 and counting.

Now no doubt the 2016 version was better than the 2015 disaster, and it is true that Riley's last teams seemed to be going in the wrong direction. Still, the improvement trend isn't so clear to me.

But, I am not to be trusted here. I am definitely biased against the guy ever since he left Wisconsin because the admissions standards for football players were too high.

Re: Week 1 Preview - stupac2 - 08-28-2017

(08-28-2017, 12:24 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Right, so the Oct. 26th Thursday night game oughta be less worrisome...

Yeah, just like how this team imploded after losing to Northwestern in 2015, and WSU was a pushover the last couple years.

Re: Week 1 Preview - ColoradoTree - 09-01-2017

Checking in partway through the weekly Pac-12 slate, we have the following results:

Stanford 62, Rice 7 (Stanford was favored by 31)
Colorado State 58, Oregon State 27 (the Beavs were only a 3.5-point dog)
Utah 37, North Dakota 16 (no line; FCS opponent)
Arizona State 37, New Mexico State 31 (ASU was favored by 23.5)

Yes, the Pac-12 is 3-1, with the one loss coming from a team we expected to be wet garbage, but that's a pretty disappointing opening act for the conference.Â I suppose we should reserve judgment on Utah, since that's basically the scoreline I expected us to put up against Rice, so Whittingham likely didn't ask his OC to pull out all the stops in their revamped offense.Â But I expect that, had there been a line on the game, Utah would have failed to cover the spread (Utah would have been more than a 21-point favorite at home vs. a FCS foe, I'd think).Â Â

In any event, the opening "week" marches on, with both participants in last year's Pac-12 title game going tonight: Washington a heavy favorite against Rutgers (UW opened as a 33-point favorite, though the line has moved down to -27.5), and Colorado a minor favorite against Colorado State (the line opened at -8, but has moved down to -3.5 after what CSU did to Oregon State).Â I'd expect both teams to win, and both to cover, which would put the opening week in a different light, given that the remaining games (aside from C.al-UNC) should see the Pac-12 team emerge victorious.Â

Re: Week 1 Preview - CTcard - 09-01-2017

(09-01-2017, 01:30 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:Yes, the Pac-12 is 3-1, with the one loss coming from a team we expected to be wet garbage,

That depends upon just who you are including in "we".

OSU has been the trendy pick for up and coming team in the Pac 12. In particular, there seems to be lots of faith in Gary Andersen with pundits rhapsodizing about his improvement year one to year two of 2-10 to 4-8.

Despite my disdain for Andersen, OSU may recover. There is a chance that CSU is a very good G5 team, and OSU wasn't pushed around so much as they stumbled and butter-fingered their way into the blow out. And of course many teams recover from bad looks week 1 (2015 anyone?).Â

Quote:I suppose we should reserve judgment on Utah, since that's basically the scoreline I expected us to put up against Rice, so Whittingham likely didn't ask his OC to pull out all the stops in their revamped offense.Â But I expect that, had there been a line on the game, Utah would have failed to cover the spread (Utah would have been more than a 21-point favorite at home vs. a FCS foe, I'd think).Â Â

Well, if Utah would not have been a 21+ point favourite over an FCS team then that would have represented a big problem.

Utah did mostly control play, but were also only up 11 well into the fourth quarter. They added 10 points late for a more impressive score. In some sense the opposite of the ASU game where ASU let NMSU score three TDs late.

Utah's opening game was certainly no disaster, and perhaps what one would expect from a team with so many parts to replace. But, they are still a team replacing a lot of parts.Â

Re: Week 1 Preview - fullmetal - 09-01-2017

Given the data so far, I'd say the Pac-12 might be in a bit of a down year.Â But week 1 hasn't even finished yet...

Re: Week 1 Preview - DC 86 - 09-01-2017

(09-01-2017, 01:30 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:But I expect that, had there been a line on the game, Utah would have failed to cover the spread (Utah would have been more than a 21-point favorite at home vs. a FCS foe, I'd think).Â Â

Utah opened as a 22 point favorite but closed as a 20.5 point favorite at both CRIS and Pinnacle (the world's two largest sports books).

Re: Week 1 Preview - ColoradoTree - 09-05-2017

(09-01-2017, 01:30 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:Checking in partway through the weekly Pac-12 slate, we have the following results:

Stanford 62, Rice 7 (Stanford was favored by 31)
Colorado State 58, Oregon State 27 (the Beavs were only a 3.5-point dog)
Utah 37, North Dakota 16 (no line; FCS opponent)
Arizona State 37, New Mexico State 31 (ASU was favored by 23.5)

Yes, the Pac-12 is 3-1, with the one loss coming from a team we expected to be wet garbage, but that's a pretty disappointing opening act for the conference.Â I suppose we should reserve judgment on Utah, since that's basically the scoreline I expected us to put up against Rice, so Whittingham likely didn't ask his OC to pull out all the stops in their revamped offense.Â But I expect that, had there been a line on the game, Utah would have failed to cover the spread (Utah would have been more than a 21-point favorite at home vs. a FCS foe, I'd think).Â Â

In any event, the opening "week" marches on, with both participants in last year's Pac-12 title game going tonight: Washington a heavy favorite against Rutgers (UW opened as a 33-point favorite, though the line has moved down to -27.5), and Colorado a minor favorite against Colorado State (the line opened at -8, but has moved down to -3.5 after what CSU did to Oregon State).Â I'd expect both teams to win, and both to cover, which would put the opening week in a different light, given that the remaining games (aside from C.al-UNC) should see the Pac-12 team emerge victorious.

Well, things got exciting, didn't they?Â

* Washington 30, Rutgers 14. Pulled away in the second half, but failed to cover.Â If UW is really as good as some expect, they should have blown the doors off Rutgers.

* Colorado 17, Colorado State 3.Â Covered, and held the apparently explosive CSU offense to just a field goal.Â It appears that either CU's defense is otherworldly, or Oregon State's defense is historically bad.Â Gee, I wonder.

* SC 49, Western Michigan 31. Yes, SC won solidly, but they failed to cover and this game was tied with 7 minutes to go.Â Here's hoping SC doesn't treat it as a wake up call.Â Western Michigan gaining 263 yards on the ground is encouraging for our boys, especially since the Broncos were pretty one-dimensional on offense.Â

* Washington State 31, Montana State 0.Â Wazzu pitched a shutout.Â I don't even care that it was against an FCS opponent.Â (Maybe this is strange, but I'm disappointed by Wazzu's point total.Â Only 31?)Â

* Cal 35, UNC 30.Â Sure, UNC lost some talent, but this was an early morning game for Wilcox's debut.Â Simply impressive.Â I miss Sonny already.Â

* Oregon State 35, Portland State 32.Â When you need a game-winning TD drive against a bad FCS team, you're bad at football.Â When you let said FCS team put up 515 yards of offense (and you only manage 389 of your own), you're bad at football.Â When you're hoping said FCS team's game-tying FG try misses, you're bad at football.

* Oregon 77, Southern Utah 21.Â Seventy-seven points is a lot of points.Â

* Arizona 62, Northern Arizona 24.Â And there it is, the highlight of Arizona's season.Â

* UCLA 45, Texas A&M 44.Â Holy mackerel.Â That game.Â That fourth quarter.Â I know A&M is supposed to be down this year, but that's still a team with a lot of 4-star players playing defense, and Rosen et al. made them look silly in the fourth quarter.Â To be down 34 late in the third and come back?Â To complete such a comeback is quite the thing, to be sure, but to allow it is pretty damning evidence of either poor character or poor coaching (or a bit of both).Â Failed to cover, though.

All in all, Pac-12 teams are 12-1 after that extended Week 1.Â But against the spread, it's a less impressive mark.Â

Re: Week 1 Preview - fullmetal - 09-05-2017

That $C score is a lot closer than it should have been.Â Kickoff return for TD, a double-pass QB reception trick play for TD that should have been intercepted or batted down, and a whole first half of WMU rushing attack played without a super talented U$C middle linebacker...those are coin flips that probably won't fall Stanford's way this week.Â Stanford needs to get ready for a motivated $C team.

Re: Week 1 Preview - Spiny_Norman - 09-05-2017

Week 1 Power 5 vs. Power 5 records:
Pac-12 3-0
SEC 3-2
B1G 2-2
ACC 2-4
Big 12 0-2

Re: Week 1 Preview - CTcard - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 08:35 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:That $C score is a lot closer than it should have been.Â Kickoff return for TD, a double-pass QB reception trick play for TD that should have been intercepted or batted down, and a whole first half of WMU rushing attack played without a super talented U$C middle linebacker...those are coin flips that probably won't fall Stanford's way this week.Â Stanford needs to get ready for a motivated $C team.

Re: Week 1 Preview - Hulk01 - 09-05-2017

Excellent point, CC, on Oregon State's rebuilding.Â I'd heard that story so often I'd fallen for it, too.Â

Re: Week 1 Preview - washingtonismoney - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 10:38 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17197.msg199171#msg199171 date=1504625754]
That $C score is a lot closer than it should have been.Â Kickoff return for TD, a double-pass QB reception trick play for TD that should have been intercepted or batted down, and a whole first half of WMU rushing attack played without a super talented U$C middle linebacker...those are coin flips that probably won't fall Stanford's way this week.Â Stanford needs to get ready for a motivated $C team.

I don't know why you single out some ... sudden scores and not others.

$C scored on an pick 6, $C scored on a long run where the WMU safety had a clear shot and ... whiffed/fell.Â
Stuff happens during a game, and stuff is often what determines who wins and loses.

Look, it's pretty clear that in their respective first games, Stanford performed closer to what their fans and coaches expected than did $C. I don't see how there can be any adjustment in expectations versus the preseason expectations that alters the situation in $C's favour (versus Stanford).
That said, teams don't play at the same level each game. If Stanford played better versus their ability in game one than did $C, that doesn't mean they'll do so in game two.
If you thought $C was dangerous before the season started, it would be foolish to change your mind now.

And I can pretty much guarantee you, there aren't people associated with the Stanford team who don't think they need to get ready.
[/quote]

Two more points:

1) It's also somewhat inconvenient to ignore some of the plays WMU left on the table. They had a beautiful play-action fake that got their TE very open ... and their QB very much underthrew the ball. They also underthrew a hail mary to a pretty open receiver (by hail mary standards). Very plausible that with a decent -- let alone good QB -- that WMU beats SC. If you're going to pull the "well Cam Smith and/or fluky plays" card as to why the WMU result should be ignored, you're ignoring that WMU did a lot of damage with decent talent -- and there's substantial reason to believe that good talent would gash SC all the more. (Of course SC is allowed to make adjustments, etc., so it's possible week 1 is a footnote result for the entire season. On the other hand...it's very possible it's not!)

2) To CTCard's point re: "changing your mind," I somewhat disagree -- though I suppose it depends on what we mean by the phrase. Certainly people shouldn't be flipping their opinion entirely on any team based on limited data. On the other hand, it seems foolish to not modify your beliefs at all.

We saw a different version of this play out last week. Many fans refused to believe UW clown-stomping bad teams through the beginning part of last year based onÂ similar arguments. Lo and behold it turns out that all data matters, as long as you mentally adjust appropriately and with the right degree of caution. Shrugging and saying Stanford v. Rice and/or SC v. WMU (or for that matter ND v. Temple) is meaningless because (REASONS HERE) is being a bit myopic.

Re: Week 1 Preview - fullmetal - 09-05-2017

The singling out of scores is based on a presumption of likely talent imbalance and expectation.Â E.g. I would expect U$C to have a better than average chance of stopping a WMU drive and then scoring thereafter, so a pick-six would not necessarily be out of the ordinary in terms of scoring (it'd definitely cause the total scoring output for both teams to rise).Â If I assume WMU will not score many points against U$C, then it is definitely unexpected for WMU to crank out a kickoff return for TD.

But I think maybe I'm not contextualizing my primary point, which is that the scoring output alone for both teams is not indicative of their performance.Â That's all.Â And I've always though U$C was dangerous; their WMU game might lead casual fans to think that U$C had a serious stumble--but that game has little relevance now for U$C's chances vs. Stanford.

Re: Week 1 Preview - BostonCard - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 01:17 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:The singling out of scores is based on a presumption of likely talent imbalance and expectation.Â E.g. I would expect U$C to have a better than average chance of stopping a WMU drive and then scoring thereafter, so a pick-six would not necessarily be out of the ordinary in terms of scoring (it'd definitely cause the total scoring output for both teams to rise).Â If I assume WMU will not score many points against U$C, then it is definitely unexpected for WMU to crank out a kickoff return for TD.

But I think maybe I'm not contextualizing my primary point, which is that the scoring output alone for both teams is not indicative of their performance.Â That's all.Â And I've always though U$C was dangerous; their WMU game might lead casual fans to think that U$C had a serious stumble--but that game has little relevance now for U$C's chances vs. Stanford.

With Mick's permission, I will accuse you of "begging the question" by assuming your conclusion.Â You start with the assumption that USC is a stronger team than WMU (and a stronger team than it appeared in the game against WMU) and use that to argue that the expected result of any given drive is a higher likelihood of a touchdown for USC and a lower likelihood of a touchdown for WMU.Â From that, it follows that a pick six or other "sudden score" would result in a more unexpected outcome in WMU's case than in USC's case, and use that to discount WMU's scores more than USC's.Â Ergo, USC is a stronger team than it showed against WMU.

Mick, how'd I do?

I would take a more Bayesian approach here.Â My priors are that USC is a very good to excellent team and that WMU is an ok to good team.Â Based on that, I would have expected that USC would beat WMU easily.Â The actual outcome was closer than I would have expected, but this is only one game with some caveats, so my posteriors are that USC is still a very good team, but perhaps not as strong as I had expected, who underperformed somewhat against WMU, and WMU is probably a better team than my priors dictated who overperformed a bit against USC.

BC

Re: Week 1 Preview - fullmetal - 09-05-2017

Your priors are essentially the same as mine, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.Â

All I'm saying is that the score is closer than it should have been had U$C a) played with Cam Smith in the 1H and b) not suffered through two unlikely scores that were less predicated on fundamental football execution than most scores are.

Re: Week 1 Preview - BostonCard - 09-05-2017

I'm saying that I'm maybe willing to move a bit more from my priors than you are.Â The "begging the question" aspect of this is that as you are describing it,m it appears your priors are coloring your interpretation of the observed result (a form of confirmation bias), although maybe you are describing more how the data is affecting your posteriors.

In football it is a given that there are occasionally fluky plays that affect the outcome or closeness of a game, and players are temporarily injured or unavailable or what have you, which is why it is reasonable not to move from one's priors based on a single result (especially one that didn't dramatically differ from the expected; it's not like WMU upset USC).Â But I think if you try and pick and chose which plays are fluky and which ones support your argument, you can get into trouble.Â As others have pointed out, why do you discount the KOR and a trick play by WMU and not the pick six and missed tackle leading to USC touchdowns.Â Maybe the fact that USC gave up a kickoff return for a touchdown means that their special team play is substandard and that we might have several big returns Saturday.Â Maybe on the trick play, it's a sign that USC overpursues and that they are vulnerable to giving up a big play in a similar situation to us (we have been known to punish teams with trick plays when they sell out for the run).

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3V93JHehrs)

And of course if the dropoff in defense is so pronounced that one player was key, it may means there is a big fall off from that player to the back-up and given the non-zero probability of injury or of said player being ejected (again), that too bodes well for us.Â Or maybe it is a bit of a fluke, and USC will revert to expected against us (I hope not).Â I don't know that all of that is enough for me to conclude that we are going to crush USC like we crushed Rice, but subjectively I feel better this week than I did before week 0, both because we had a very good game and because USC had an ok game, and I think the data does support moving the posteriors a bit from the priors.

BC

Re: Week 1 Preview - CTcard - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 08:28 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The "begging the question" aspect of this is that as you are describing it,m it appears your priors are coloring your interpretation of the observed result (a form of confirmation bias), although maybe you are describing more how the data is affecting your posteriors.

In my line of work we call it assuming the conclusion.

- I assume that $C is a much better team than WMU.
- That means I find that WMU's good plays are much more fluky than $C's good plays.
- I also assume that if there were more plays, then $C would continue to score more than WMU.
- Thus my analysis of the game is that it showed $C is a much better team than WMU.

[Of course $C did show they are a better team than WMU, they won the game and in the end were better than WMU in most aspects. However, it still is true that $C's performance vs WMU was less good than generally expected, providing at least one piece of data that $C might actually be less good than generally expected. And as noted, with a few particular issues that just might play to Stanford's strengths. ]

Re: Week 1 Preview - BostonCard - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 08:58 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17197.msg199273#msg199273 date=1504668507]
The "begging the question" aspect of this is that as you are describing it,m it appears your priors are coloring your interpretation of the observed result (a form of confirmation bias), although maybe you are describing more how the data is affecting your posteriors.

In my line of work we call it assuming the conclusion.

[/quote]

Begging the question = assuming the conclusion
Begging the question â raising the question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I only brought it up because misuse of the phrase was one of Mick's pet peeves.

BC

Re: Week 1 Preview - Mick - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 06:34 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:With Mick's permission, I will accuse you of "begging the question" by assuming your conclusion.Â You start with the assumption that Under Stanford Control (again) is a stronger team than WMU (and a stronger team than it appeared in the game against WMU) and use that to argue that the expected result of any given drive is a higher likelihood of a touchdown for Under Stanford Control (again) and a lower likelihood of a touchdown for WMU.Â From that, it follows that a pick six or other "sudden score" would result in a more unexpected outcome in WMU's case than in Under Stanford Control (again)'s case, and use that to discount WMU's scores more than Under Stanford Control (again)'s.Â Ergo, Under Stanford Control (again) is a stronger team than it showed against WMU.

Mick, how'd I do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5_wCsDf_Hs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq1elKBFZcI

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgAZ5uyZUDg[/[url]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMPvJAVxfAw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgAZ5uyZUDg[/[url]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMPvJAVxfAw

Re: Week 1 Preview - CTcard - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 09:10 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Begging the question = assuming the conclusion
Begging the question â raising the question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I only brought it up because misuse of the phrase was one of Mick's pet peeves.

Well, yes, but it seemed a shorter more direct response.

I did find this line in the Wikipedia article amusing,
"In contexts that demand strict adherence to a technical definition of the term, many consider these usages incorrect." [these usages are "beg the question" = "raise the question"]

While the phrase comes out of classical Greek dialectics, and apparently a mistranslation thereof, it is not clear to me that a colloquial phrase can have a technical definition or just what would be a context that would demand strict adherence. The footnote in Wikipedia implies that context is the New York Times.

Later on, the article implies that the phrase may have technical legal or philosophical meaning - though the quotations seem to end up with grammarians. I am sure we have lawyers here, not sure about professional philosophers.
Does anyone know if "begging the question" is a technical phrase in these fields?