Two Plus Two Newer Archives - 2007 SEC Football Thread

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- Sporting Events (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=48)

- - 2007 SEC Football Thread (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=488659)

Re: 2007 SEC Football Thread

I think it's very likely that LSU was better than Florida last year, despite the final score.

Just like everyone pretty much knows Florida was way better than Auburn last year, despite the final score.

But at the end of the season, what matters is the win/loss for that year

Re: 2007 SEC Football Thread

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He has no real basis other than he "felt" LSU was the best team. If you can't say UF was the best team then you can't say LSU was the best team either.

LSU could choke again this year vs UF & UF still may not be the best team.

[/ QUOTE ]

No real basis????????

are you for realz???????
I don't say anything without a real basis

last year:
LSU avg 33.7 ppg, 6.63ypp, 21.8 first downs per game, 4.8ypc (35 carries for 166), 252 ypg passing (19 of 28), and allowed 1.5 sacks per game while allowing their opponents 12.6 ppg, 4.13 ypp, 13.8 fdpg, 3.2ypc (31 carries for 97 yards), 146 ypg passing (13 of 28), and sacking them 3.0 times per game.

Let's looks at Florida
29.7 ppg, 6.34ypp, 20.4 fdpg, 4.7 ypc (24 carries for 160), 236 ypg passing (18 of 29), and allowed 1.6 sacks per game
they held their opponents to 13.5 ppg, 4.31 ypp, 15.4 fdpg, 2.7ypc (26 carries for 73), 183 ypg passing (17 of 33), and got 2.4 sacks per game.

From those numbers, LSU has the edge.

I know you probably don't construct models to project outcomes and test those over past data to see what is most relevant. Fortunately, I do. The best method is to look at ypp for v ypp against and add in a turnover correction. As a matter of fact, once ypp is accounted for, all other numbers lose their statistical relevance. YPP explains an uber large percentage of past scores.

However, there is also a schedule weighting.

LSU schedule v Florida schedule
sagarin had it #20 V #8
LSU played 4 top 10 teams on the road!!!!!!!!!
so, stats show an edge to LSU

My model deflates LSU's edge to about 2.4 points.

A correction for turnovers increase LSU's edge slightly as they force opponents into more 3rd and long situations and get more tackles for loss (the 2 statistically valid precursors of causing turnovers).

So, I have LSU -2.5

Then, there is the special teams. LSU was a very mediocre #80 in PhilSteele's ratings last year. Florida was #52. That is about a .5 point difference.

Down to LSU -2

Then, look at the individual matchup.
sure, Florida won the game, but a closer look is in order.
LSU was in control until Russell had a fluke fumble on a snap near the Florida goalline in a very unlikely situation for a turnover. LSU then made a few more turnovers late in the game as they were forced to try and make a comeback.
In the game, Florida had 14 first downs, 3ypc (32 for 97), 191 yards passing on 19 of 28, and gave up 1 sack for 4.8ypp.
LSU had 22 first downs, 3.6ypc (25 for 90), 228 yards passing on 21 of 41, and gave up 1 sack for 4.818181818 ypp.

So, even on the road, LSU put up a performance slightly better than Florida, but had a fluke turnover and the desperation late picks make for a result that obfuscates the underlying fundamentals.

This backs up the LSU -2 rating from the model.

LSU was a better TEAM

stop thinking that I personally am attacking 'your' team. All I do is call them as I see them, and I have a basis for everything.

oh yeah...on another point...my USA over USSR analogy was relevant because Florida over LSU wasn't the title game either.

[/ QUOTE ]

MT2R,

Nice post, but I think you are engaging in a bit of handwaving in order to explain away the turnovers. Since you seem to know where to go for stats, what was Florida and LSU's respective turnover margins?

Not trying to bust your balls, I thought it was a good post. Just curious about the turnover margins.

[/ QUOTE ]

turnovers were +3 for Florida

the difference was a fluke fumbled snap on a goalline possession and then some picks in desperation time for LSU

turnovers pretty much follow a random walk
the only thing that can predict turnovers in all my searching are tackles for loss and 3rd an long situations

Re: 2007 SEC Football Thread

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The equivalent of College Football in the NFL would be New England, Indy, Chicago and San Diego all being in the same division. I used to be a big 10 homer but I have changed my mind. The SEC is simply head and shoulders above everyone except USC.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree...the Pac10 is pretty damn good

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a joke/level, right?

I mean one of the top teams in the conference (2nd/3rd best) lost 44-6 to a 0-2 Utah team.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice to know your posting remains consistent from SSNL to sporting events

as to your point,
right now, I don't believe anyone puts UCLA in the top 4 of teams in the PAC10
USC
Cal
Oregon
ASU
must be considered higher

USC has a blowout win @ Nebraska
Cal dominated Tenn at home---the same game that Florida has built its reputation this year on
Oregon demolished Michigan on the road

pretty damn good to me

perhaps, if the vag of a conference known as the SEC went out on the road and played some teams, they could claim some supremacy.

All I know, is everyone pointed to TENN's dominance of Cal last year as the reason for SEC supremacy. Seems the backwoods rednecks forgot about that game pretty quick this year.

For the most part, SEC fans pay no attention to the rest of the country and just assume they are the best conference....lollerskates.

For reference, over the past 10, 15, and 20 years...the big11ten has had the highest out of conference win pct. Yet, no one claims they are the best conference. Why? Scheduling. It all comes down to scheduling.

Re: 2007 SEC Football Thread

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps, if the vag of a conference known as the SEC went out on the road and played some teams, they could claim some supremacy.

All I know, is everyone pointed to TENN's dominance of Cal last year as the reason for SEC supremacy. Seems the backwoods rednecks forgot about that game pretty quick this year.

For the most part, SEC fans pay no attention to the rest of the country and just assume they are the best conference....lollerskates.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to talk about SEC dominance last year, why look any further than BCS games?

[ QUOTE ]
For reference, over the past 10, 15, and 20 years...the big11ten has had the highest out of conference win pct. Yet, no one claims they are the best conference. Why? Scheduling. It all comes down to scheduling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Everyone knows the Big Ten out-of-conference wins are against the MAC, and the Citadel (yeah, Wisconsin is a real top ten team, let me tell you) and Appalachian State (oops).

Re: 2007 SEC Football Thread

ahhhh, clever of you to use BCS only

what about Penn State beating Tennessee down in the south?
what about Wisconsin beating Arkansas down in the south?

Believe me, I think the Big11Ten has sucked of late and pointed it out over and over and over last year. But, the SEC isn't noticeably better.

these conference arguments are pretty stupid in general as shown by last year's best conference not having a noticeable difference over the crappy Big11Ten at season's end.

Also, over time, the Big11Ten's out of conference scheduling has been tougher than the SEC. Yet, the Big11Ten still has a higher win pct.

Re: 2007 SEC Football Thread

Conference arguments are fairly dumb, and are impossible to judge accurately.

You also cannot use one game (ie. BCS title game) to compare the two conferences. Nor should you use just the two wins that PSU/Wisc had last year. I think taking a macro view of the conference as a whole (ie. total bowl games w-l, opponents, etc).

Big Ten beats SEC in bowl games head to head 8-6 IIRC the past 5 years.

However, I do believe that the SEC was stronger than the Big Ten last year. Yes, you can look at the two head to head matches (ie. Wisc/PSU). But I think you should also note the middle-lower tier teams as UK beating a decent Clemson or UGA upsetting VT.

I think from top-bottom, the SEC was stronger than the Big Ten last year.

Re: 2007 SEC Football Thread

[ QUOTE ]

turnovers were +3 for Florida

the difference was a fluke fumbled snap on a goalline possession and then some picks in desperation time for LSU

turnovers pretty much follow a random walk
the only thing that can predict turnovers in all my searching are tackles for loss and 3rd an long situations

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty apparent that the fluke play was a game changer but it's still a mistake. Critical mistakes still count against a team's skill, perhaps more so. They didn't deserve to win the game. Florida was the best team on that day at least. Just because they were the best team going in & leaving doesn't mean they were the best team during that game. It seems to me that these other factors besides the statistical analysis count a ton going in to such a game. You can't assume that LSU beats UF on a neutral field today.
Too many other factors involved.

Re: 2007 SEC Football Thread

I really wish that I lived close to Tuscaloosa for games like tomorrows. People have questioned the Bama D, specifically the run D and I agree that its the weakest aspect of our entire team. However, remember that Bama faced arguably the best rushing attack in the nation and UGA simply doesnt have those types of weapons. Apparently this RS freshman Moreno is supposedly a stud though.

Im also not completely sold on Stafford, the guy is just too inconsistent IMO. If he throws at Castilles man he will get hurt. Im an unashamed homer, but Im expecting Bama to win tomorrow, hopefully I wont have to eat my words.

Re: 2007 SEC Football Thread

Bama 17 UGA 14
UF 38 Ole Miss 17
LSU 31 USCe 10
Ark 38 KY 28