• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

How Many Wins for 2016 Wake Football?

How Many Wins for 2016 Wake Football?

  • Total voters
    188
Deacsfan27 said:
Why does Connelly include retuning production in his preseason model if it's not predictive?

Or do you just mean there are outliers in every model and you feel that Wake is consistently that outlier?
Click to expand...

I'm not a Connelly disciple or anything and it's still only a 1/3 of his formula. Vandy was 8th last year in returning production and won 1 more game.

I think we will be better but I don't think that translates into 3 more wins.
 
The top ten last year and how they fared:

1. UMass (Same)
2. UNC (+5)
3. Charlotte (Went from FCS to FBS)
4. Ohio (+2)
5. Georgia State (+5)
6. Temple (+4)
7. Ball State (-2)
8. Vanderbilt (+1)
9. Texas Tech (+3)
10. California (+3)


7 won more games, including 5 teams that would win enough games to make Wake eligible for a bowl next year.
1 won less
1 won the same
1 changed Divisions in football
 
Also, if you take the PPG changes from Bill Connelly and make those adjustments from Sagarin to generate a line, then convert it to win probability you get the following (I rounded for ease):

100% Tulane +22
40% Duke -4
100% Delaware +33
40% @ Indiana -4
30% @ NC State -7
45% Syracuse -2
00% @ Florida State -20
90% Army +16
50% Virginia +1
00% @ Louisville -19
00% Clemson -23
55% Boston College +2

Total- 5.5 wins.

We basically start the season 3-3, and then need to win 3 games out of 6 games in what are deemed statistical toss-ups (2.6 out of 6 wins) to make a bowl.

Also, 3 wins are roughly as likely as 8 wins from a statistical standpoint, while 4 and 7 are approximately the same too.
 
Last edited:
Indiana seems a little low at 25% to me doof. Didn't they lose practically everyone from last year? And that was really their only "good" season.

We're still dogs but I'd put our chances more in the 35 range. That'd be a huge one to get
 
wsc8521s said:
Indiana seems a little low at 25% to me doof. Didn't they lose practically everyone from last year? And that was really their only "good" season.

We're still dogs but I'd put our chances more in the 35 range. That'd be a huge one to get
Click to expand...

Good point, and the second adjustment based on actual point spread to percentage chance to win a certain game, agrees with you.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Everybody go through each game and apply a percentage likelihood that we win each game and post it.

Here is mine:

Tulane 85%
@ Duke 25%
Delaware 99%
@ Indiana 25%
@ NC State 20%
Syracuse 55%
@ Florida State 1%
Army 95%
Virginia 65%
@ Louisville 10%
Clemson 10%
Boston College 60%

I got right at 5.5 wins with just gut-instinct guesses.

Tulane may be a little low and Army a little high, but they probably balance out. Not sure what to expect for Tulane, but we get Army after a bye, and it's not a novelty offense to us anymore. Could argue Clemson should be lower, but even if we are at 0% for both Clemson and FSU, that's 5.39 wins.
Click to expand...

Tulane 90%
Duke 30%
Indiana 35%
State 35%
Cuse 55%
FSU 1%
Army 85%
UVA 55%
Louisvile 15%
Clemson 5% (We play them late enough in the season to where maybe they'll be banged up. That's about our only hope)
BC 70%
 
So Doofus comes up with 5.5 wins based on speculative odds yet he criticizes people who don't think we will get 6 wins.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Why does Connelly include retuning production in his preseason model if it's not predictive?

Or do you just mean there are outliers in every model and you feel that Wake is consistently that outlier?
Click to expand...

Doofus, you predicted 8 wins for Grobe's last team based on this same line of reasoning, iirc. Why do you continually return to this argument without any Wake-specific evidence of its reliability?

It often happens in college sports generally, and it's even happened before in Wake history, but it hasn't really happened at Wake in over a decade.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I don't think 6 is "best case scenario". I think if we fail to hit 6 then it's a very bad sign. This is the easiest schedule I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
So Doofus comes up with 5.5 wins based on speculative odds yet he criticizes people who don't think we will get 6 wins.
Click to expand...

Where did I criticize anybody? I'd love to see those posts Ph.

I came on a little strong before I did the math on the odds. When I backed off a bit I said that 6 was "certainly an attainable goal", which is what we were looking at, and I asked some pointed questions about why people thought we couldn't get there.
 
Lohengrin said:
Doofus, you predicted 8 wins for Grobe's last team based on this same line of reasoning, iirc. Why do you continually return to this argument without any Wake-specific evidence of its reliability?

It often happens in college sports generally, and it's even happened before in Wake history, but it hasn't really happened at Wake in over a decade.
Click to expand...

Because "Wake-specific evidence" is an extremely small sample sized based on the amount of information that we have given the other 125+ college football teams that play each year.

Also, as you say, it "often happens", so why would you rely on the instances that it doesn't, when "predictive" models that are usually quite accurate in projecting wins utilize it as a good part of the formula?

I guess you could argue that the "Wake-specific evidence" is a better indicator "weight-wise" of what Wake should do, but I prefer the bigger pool of numbers instead of the limited sample size that Wake football has.

Not to mention, it happened in 2011. Went 3-9 in 2010, 6-7 in 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wake_Forest_Demon_Deacons_football_team

I would guess that over the past 10+ years Wake Forest football has correlated extremely well with experience/inexperience relative to win expectations.
 
PhDeac said:
So Doofus comes up with 5.5 wins based on speculative odds yet he criticizes people who don't think we will get 6 wins.
Click to expand...

How did you get to your 4 wins? Can you list out your win % expectancy per game for me?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Because "Wake-specific evidence" is an extremely small sample sized based on the amount of information that we have given the other 125+ college football teams that play each year.

Also, as you say, it "often happens", so why would you rely on the instances that it doesn't, when "predictive" models that are usually quite accurate in projecting wins utilize it as a good part of the formula?

I guess you could argue that the "Wake-specific evidence" is a better indicator "weight-wise" of what Wake should do, but I prefer the bigger pool of numbers instead of the limited sample size that Wake football has.

Not to mention, it happened in 2011. Went 3-9 in 2010, 6-7 in 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wake_Forest_Demon_Deacons_football_team

I would guess that over the past 10+ years Wake Forest football has correlated extremely well with experience/inexperience relative to win expectations.
Click to expand...

It certainly didn't correlate "extremely well" at Wake from 2006 - 2009 when we had a worse record every year even as we returned more experience. The complete opposite correlation from what you suggest. I already cited 2013 when Grobe's veteran team actually did worse than the previous year's team with less experience. Again, the opposite correlation.

I would go with the more-experience-leads-to-better-record in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I submit that there is a lot of evidence to the contrary at Wake, and that the reason for that is due to problems at Wake wholly apart from player improvement.

Also, be careful about vagueness in predictions vs. possibilities. It's certainly "possible" for Wake to win 6 games. Indeed that seems to be the official "goal". Even a little more in a perfect season (for us) is possible. But predictions shouldn't hinge on "everything breaking just right". Predictions should be based on tangible factors. I put great value into the previous season's performance and record, degree of difficulty in schedule, historical basis for improvement, and actual [observed] performance in Spring practice. Using those factors as they appear to me, I chose 4 wins.
 
Lohengrin said:
Also, be careful about vagueness in predictions vs. possibilities. It's certainly "possible" for Wake to win 6 games. Indeed that seems to be the official "goal". Even a little more in a perfect season (for us) is possible. But predictions shouldn't hinge on "everything breaking just right". Predictions should be based on tangible factors. I put great value into the previous season's performance and record, degree of difficulty in schedule, historical basis for improvement, and actual [observed] performance in Spring practice. Using those factors as they appear to me, I chose 4 wins.
Click to expand...

It's not "everything breaking just right" to win 6 games. Also, when you say "historical basis for improvement", do you mean for Wake, or for the NCAA as a whole. Obviously you think those differ tremendously and Wake seems to buck the statistical trend as an outlier, rather than falling "where they should".

Like Ph, I would love to see your win expectancy for each game this season to see how you are getting to 4.
 
Last edited:
Deacsfan27 said:
We also had a similar thread to this (albeit shorter) in March of 2011. Coming off of a three win season, we finished with 6 wins the following year:

http://www.ogboards.com/forums/show...-feeling-pretty-good-about-football-this-year

Pretty much the same arguments except flip offense and defense.
Click to expand...
And here's one from 2013 in which the majority had us going to a bowl, and you yourself having us at 7-5. We finished 4-8.

http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php/18170-Does-Wake-Forest-make-a-bowl-game-in-2013-2014

Deacsfan27 said:
I feel like this team certainly has the potential to win 8 games or so. I think 6 or 7 is realistic.

I'll go with 7-5.
Click to expand...
 
wsc8521s said:
Indiana seems a little low at 25% to me doof. Didn't they lose practically everyone from last year? And that was really their only "good" season.

We're still dogs but I'd put our chances more in the 35 range. That'd be a huge one to get
Click to expand...

IU didn't lose "practically everyone" but had a few significant losses (QB, RB, left tackle, and on the d-line). IU brings backs all three starting wrs, a good and experienced O-line (even with a new left tackle), and a back up RB that went for over 1,000 yards last year, including 200 plus against Duke in the bowl game.

The big issue for IU will be at QB where we will be breaking in a new starter, likely a juco transfer. In that sense, it's probably good for Wake that the game is in September when the QB will still be mostly inexperienced.

Does Wake have a QB controversy coming into next year? I'd be perfectly happy to see that athletic kid who played against IU last year sitting on the bench in favor of your pocket QB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top