FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

[HSCTiger fan]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

[Pat Coleman]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

I find it less interesting when you feel the need to be a jerk. Why is this necessary? First of all, we all know the ODAC is pretty evenly stacked and volatile from year to year and Logan even mentioned that the conference is even in his post.

With less than one game separating the projected first-place team from the projected fifth place team, I suppose we should expect another fun (frustrating?) season in the ODAC.

If you think it's worthless, that's fine, but perhaps you can leave the "horrible" and "pathetic" discourse for use in other areas of your life.

[HansenRatings]

Wow. ODAC board gets exciting over the weekend. I should come here more often.

Oh, and there's also this, from my 2016 preview (after I adjusted for returning starters):

[jknezek]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

He did finish second in our regular season Pick'em last year and all the "regular" ODAC guys pretty much finished at the bottom. As he and I discussed last year, I'm not a fan of non-returning starter adjusted predictions, but W&L returned pretty much an entire offense last year from an undefeated team and still lost 2 conference games. On the other hand, Guilford graduated pretty much 2 whole units from a one-loss team and did about what many of us expected. Returning starters isn't an end-all, be all. Predicting the ODAC right now a difficult task.

[tigerFanAlso2]

Injuries ended GC's chances last year.
I project RMC, W&L and E&H will fight it out for the ODAC champ this year. Don't see any others ready to make a run.

[jknezek]

Injuries ended GC's chances last year.
I project RMC, W&L and E&H will fight it out for the ODAC champ this year. Don't see any others ready to make a run.

We'll see. W&L graduated a ton last year. As did RMC. I never put much faith in E&H. That team has mental and discipline (on field -- meaning penalties and jawing too much at each other and the other team) problems every time I see them. Maybe this is the year that they clean it up.

[HansenRatings]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

He did finish second in our regular season Pick'em last year and all the "regular" ODAC guys pretty much finished at the bottom. As he and I discussed last year, I'm not a fan of non-returning starter adjusted predictions, but W&L returned pretty much an entire offense last year from an undefeated team and still lost 2 conference games. On the other hand, Guilford graduated pretty much 2 whole units from a one-loss team and did about what many of us expected. Returning starters isn't an end-all, be all. Predicting the ODAC right now a difficult task.

I'm not much either, but I was getting bored with hockey season being done and the Twins starting to tank. Things can change pretty drastically for a squad like RMC (or Guilford last season) if they lose a lot. In the IIAC, which I went through and manually counted games started, Coe went from #1 with a projected conference record of 6.2-1.8 to #4 in conference with a projected record of 5.1-2.9. With the whole conference more clustered in the ODAC than the IIAC, the adjustments from returning starters will probably be even more drastic. The one thing working in RMC's favor is probably that defense appears to be more resilient to roster turnover than offense, and they were pretty good on that side of the ball last year.

[HSCTiger fan]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

I find it less interesting when you feel the need to be a jerk. Why is this necessary? First of all, we all know the ODAC is pretty evenly stacked and volatile from year to year and Logan even mentioned that the conference is even in his post.

With less than one game separating the projected first-place team from the projected fifth place team, I suppose we should expect another fun (frustrating?) season in the ODAC.

If you think it's worthless, that's fine, but perhaps you can leave the "horrible" and "pathetic" discourse for use in other areas of your life.

Your funny Pat. You've put this board out for discussions and you're so offended by "horrible" and "pathetic" that you resort to name calling and assume you know anything about my life. I find that hilarious.  There's been a lot worse said on these boards.

[HSCTiger fan]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

He did finish second in our regular season Pick'em last year and all the "regular" ODAC guys pretty much finished at the bottom. As he and I discussed last year, I'm not a fan of non-returning starter adjusted predictions, but W&L returned pretty much an entire offense last year from an undefeated team and still lost 2 conference games. On the other hand, Guilford graduated pretty much 2 whole units from a one-loss team and did about what many of us expected. Returning starters isn't an end-all, be all. Predicting the ODAC right now a difficult task.

Guilford returned something like 16 or 17 starters from their 9-1 team in 15. I think they had 8 or 9 back on Defense and 7 or 8 on offense.

[HansenRatings]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

He did finish second in our regular season Pick'em last year and all the "regular" ODAC guys pretty much finished at the bottom. As he and I discussed last year, I'm not a fan of non-returning starter adjusted predictions, but W&L returned pretty much an entire offense last year from an undefeated team and still lost 2 conference games. On the other hand, Guilford graduated pretty much 2 whole units from a one-loss team and did about what many of us expected. Returning starters isn't an end-all, be all. Predicting the ODAC right now a difficult task.

Guilford returned something like 16 or 17 starters from their 9-1 team in 15. I think they had 8 or 9 back on Defense and 7 or 8 on offense.

And your educated guess would have pegged them with 1 win in the conference based on that information? It's really easy to say a prediction "sucked" if you never make them yourself.

My model didn't exactly predict them to win the conference either, it said they had about a 25% chance of winning it. That means the model actually thought there was a 3 in 4 chance they wouldn't win the conference. If I told you a baseball player had a 25% chance of getting a hit in their next at bat, would I be wrong if they got out? That's how good models work--they give you a range of probabilities for outcomes.

[Ralph Turner]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

He did finish second in our regular season Pick'em last year and all the "regular" ODAC guys pretty much finished at the bottom. As he and I discussed last year, I'm not a fan of non-returning starter adjusted predictions, but W&L returned pretty much an entire offense last year from an undefeated team and still lost 2 conference games. On the other hand, Guilford graduated pretty much 2 whole units from a one-loss team and did about what many of us expected. Returning starters isn't an end-all, be all. Predicting the ODAC right now a difficult task.

Guilford returned something like 16 or 17 starters from their 9-1 team in 15. I think they had 8 or 9 back on Defense and 7 or 8 on offense.

And your educated guess would have pegged them with 1 win in the conference based on that information? It's really easy to say a prediction "sucked" if you never make them yourself.

My model didn't exactly predict them to win the conference either, it said they had about a 25% chance of winning it. That means the model actually thought there was a 3 in 4 chance they wouldn't win the conference. If I told you a baseball player had a 25% chance of getting a hit in their next at bat, would I be wrong if they got out? That's how good models work--they give you a range of probabilities for outcomes.

But, one in five?  The Mendoza line?  Now that is unacceptably bad!

[HSCTiger fan]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

He did finish second in our regular season Pick'em last year and all the "regular" ODAC guys pretty much finished at the bottom. As he and I discussed last year, I'm not a fan of non-returning starter adjusted predictions, but W&L returned pretty much an entire offense last year from an undefeated team and still lost 2 conference games. On the other hand, Guilford graduated pretty much 2 whole units from a one-loss team and did about what many of us expected. Returning starters isn't an end-all, be all. Predicting the ODAC right now a difficult task.

Guilford returned something like 16 or 17 starters from their 9-1 team in 15. I think they had 8 or 9 back on Defense and 7 or 8 on offense.

And your educated guess would have pegged them with 1 win in the conference based on that information? It's really easy to say a prediction "sucked" if you never make them yourself.

My model didn't exactly predict them to win the conference either, it said they had about a 25% chance of winning it. That means the model actually thought there was a 3 in 4 chance they wouldn't win the conference. If I told you a baseball player had a 25% chance of getting a hit in their next at bat, would I be wrong if they got out? That's how good models work--they give you a range of probabilities for outcomes.

You could pick ANY team last year and have had a 12.5% chance of being right.
What odds/percentage did you give for finishing 1-6 in conference?

[Scots13]

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

He did finish second in our regular season Pick'em last year and all the "regular" ODAC guys pretty much finished at the bottom. As he and I discussed last year, I'm not a fan of non-returning starter adjusted predictions, but W&L returned pretty much an entire offense last year from an undefeated team and still lost 2 conference games. On the other hand, Guilford graduated pretty much 2 whole units from a one-loss team and did about what many of us expected. Returning starters isn't an end-all, be all. Predicting the ODAC right now a difficult task.

Guilford returned something like 16 or 17 starters from their 9-1 team in 15. I think they had 8 or 9 back on Defense and 7 or 8 on offense.

And your educated guess would have pegged them with 1 win in the conference based on that information? It's really easy to say a prediction "sucked" if you never make them yourself.

My model didn't exactly predict them to win the conference either, it said they had about a 25% chance of winning it. That means the model actually thought there was a 3 in 4 chance they wouldn't win the conference. If I told you a baseball player had a 25% chance of getting a hit in their next at bat, would I be wrong if they got out? That's how good models work--they give you a range of probabilities for outcomes.

But, one in five?  The Mendoza line?  Now that is unacceptably bad!

1 for 3 = Cooperstown, 1 in 5 = Salón de la Fama. 1 in 4 = a happy median.

[jknezek]

1 for 3 = Cooperstown, 1 in 5 = Salón de la Fama. 1 in 4 = a happy median.

"That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."  -- Bull Durham