Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

2018 Buffs Advanced Statistics Thread

Duff Man said:
This is where having elite special teams like in 2017 would really help. Just the step back in that area has eliminated the thin margin for error this team had. Going to be a rollercoaster final right games.
Click to expand...
Need Kinney back. Have to hope our kicking game is right after that Nebraska disaster. And seems like hcmm fixed the punt return issues.
 
Lot of disrespect out there about Cu's record. CU is 4-0 but the competition they have played is a combined 1-16. Disrespect even from Wilner and other 'respectable' folk. As a numerics guy who is also likely an asshole, I scoff at the amateurism here.

If you are going to look at the records of opponents this early in the year, then you need to go deeper than that. The teams CU has beat have a record of 1-16 against 9 P5 opponents, 5 G5 opponents and 7 teams who have been ranked. The 5 G5 opponents are the kind of G5 schools that are better than your typical P5 opponent. They include Cincinnati (UCLA), Troy (Nebraska), Fresno State (UCLA) and Hawaii (CSU). These G5s have a combined record of 20-4 with losses to Boise State, Stanford, Army (who almost upset OU last week) and Minnesota. The overall record of the opponents of CU opponents is 60-18; against 23 P5 schools, 21G5 schools and 10 ranked teams. Now as you get to bigger groups of opponents you might expect the record to approach 500, which is the average record across college football (for every W there is a L), but statistical anomalies happen at the beginning of the year and the opponent record of CU football is one of them. CU's opponents have faced an unusual level of competition this early in the year. Its possible that they are all bad football teams and would have even lost to lesser competition, but that isn't likely. Probably better to call CU opponents flawed football teams, or tragic football teams.

Not sayin CU is good just yet...but the implication that CU is not good just because of the record of who they have played is dumb.
 
Last edited:
TheHoodRobin said:
Lot of disrespect out there about Cu's record. CU is 4-0 but the competition they have played is a combined 18-1. Disrespect even from Wilner and other 'respectable' folk. As a numerics guy who is also likely an asshole, I scoff at the amateurism here.

If you are going to look at the records of opponents this early in the year, then you need to go deeper than that. The teams CU has beat have a record of 18-1 against 9 P5 opponents, 5 G5 opponents and 7 teams who have been ranked. The G5 opponents are the kind of G5 schools that are better than your typical P5 opponent. They are San Diego State (New Hampshire), Cincinnati (UCLA), Troy (Nebraska), Fresno State (UCLA) and Hawaii (CSU). These G5s have a combined record of 20-4 with losses to Boise State, Stanford, Army (who almost upset OU last week) and Minnesota. The overall record of the opponents of CU opponents is 60-18; against 23 P5 schools, 21G5 schools and 10 ranked teams. Now as you get to bigger groups of opponents you might expect the record to approach 500, which is the average record across college football (for every W there is a L), but statistical anomalies happen at the beginning of the year and the opponent record of CU football is one of them. CU's opponents have faced an unusual level of competition this early in the year. Its possible that they are all bad football teams and would have even lost to lesser competition, but that isn't likely. Probably better to call CU opponents flawed football teams, or tragic football teams.

Not sayin CU is good just yet...but the implication that CU is not good just because of the record of who they have played is dumb.
Click to expand...
Welcome! 18-1? Where does that come from?
 
Buffs remain unchanged at 44. Our opponents weak efforts are pulling us down.

CSU - 113
nubs - 71
UCLA - 85
ASU - 52
 
The ACC is actually rated as the worst P5 conference now. Yay? SEC is as dominant as they've ever been.

  1. SEC (plus-11.7 adjusted points per game, down 1.0 points)
  2. Big 12 (plus-7.2, down 0.2)
  3. Big Ten (plus-6.9, down 0.7)
  4. Pac-12 (plus-4.8, down 0.6)
  5. ACC (plus-4.6, down 0.6)
 
lots of NON P5 programs above us but probably about right. we are about a mid level team as of right now. Need to beat some teams that matter.
 
liver advanced stats clinic:

"you must have a great offensive line to win conference games on the road."
 
The S&P+ looks like garbage outside the top 10. Hell, Memphis is 4-4 and rated 39th. Their wins are all blowouts over Mercer, Georgia State, South Alabama (+17), and UConn. They lost to Navy by 1, Tulane by 16, UCF by 1, and Mizzou by 22. I don't know what the hell the formula is, but there is no way in hell Memphis is equivalent to Oregon on a neutral field, and better than Northwestern by 6 pts.
 
We're getting killed by the Nebraska game in S&P+. S&P+ uses an expected win percentage based off the statistics of a game. I forget what the exact percentage was but based solely on the numbers Nebraska would have won the game something close to 80% I think (I heard it on their podcast and promptly erased it from my memory). Looking at the number S&P estimates we should have won 3.7 games vs. the 5 we have won.

Also not helping is probably MM's strategy of winning football games like an NFL team. Instead of racking up stats against ASU the game stayed close even though if you were watching we dominated the second half.
 
dwyermj said:
We're getting killed by the Nebraska game in S&P+. S&P+ uses an expected win percentage based off the statistics of a game. I forget what the exact percentage was but based solely on the numbers Nebraska would have won the game something close to 80% I think (I heard it on their podcast and promptly erased it from my memory). Looking at the number S&P estimates we should have won 3.7 games vs. the 5 we have won.

Also not helping is probably MM's strategy of winning football games like an NFL team. Instead of racking up stats against ASU the game stayed close even though if you were watching we dominated the second half.
Click to expand...
96%.
 
Darth Snow said:
S&P is 55% against the spread this year. It aint perfect, but to dismiss it based on perceived outliers is probably the wrong thing to do. Remember, we were one Viska play away from losing to the nubs.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't flipping a coin be pretty close to 50% against the spread? Sorry, but ~50% says it is wrong as much as it is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top