Cal Fans Predict the 2010 Golden Bears to go 8-4 (Spring Edition Results)
| Opponent | Win Probability |
| UC Davis | 0.975 |
| Colorado | 0.837 |
| at Nevada | 0.718 |
| at Arizona | 0.555 |
| UCLA | 0.729 |
| at USC | 0.273 |
| Arizona St. | 0.741 |
| at Oregon St. | 0.404 |
| at Wash St. | 0.896 |
| Oregon | 0.475 |
| Furd | 0.688 |
| Washington | 0.633 |
Last Monday, I asked Cal fans to predict the upcoming season using win probabilities (i.e. give us what they thought the odds were we'd beat Team X on our schedule). I was quite happy to receive numerous responses, as we ended up with well over 500 responses from our readers. Thanks to everyone for submitting your answers. This experiment should give our fans a healthy enough expectation of what next season will be like.
Indeed, the final average from our season indicates a return to the previous two seasons--a regular season finish of around 8-4, with the actual expected value of wins around 7.925, with a standard deviation of 0.86. So it looks like our fans are expecting a solid if unspectacular season, akin to 2008, where expectations were not a big part of the game.
In terms of the Pac-10, we ended up somewhere between a 5-4 and 6-3 conference record. Non conference wins were estimated at around 2.53, so the lean is a little bit more to the five rather than the six.
Finally, with regards to road and home, we might finally see our undefeated Memorial streak to teams not named Oregon State and USC snapped. Our expected home record is 5-2, meaning a road record of 3-2. However, looking at the data this way, it's hard to figure out where the losses would come, although it wouldn't be that tough to venture a guess when we look at the individual matchup win probabilities.
After the jump, closer looks at the numbers, followed by plenty of intriguing prognostications. If you want to view the full results and see what your friends and peers put down, here is the official Google spreadsheet with all the submissions included!
Quick submission notes before you move ahead to the good stuff.
- I threw out all the repeat ballots and most of the dumb ballots out; i.e. an excessive amount of ones and zeroes. Sorry people, if you believe we have a 100% chance of beating Arizona in Tucson or a 0% chance of beating Oregon at home, I'm not taking stock in your opinions (literally, anyone who said we had a 100% chance of starting the season 3-0 did not get their ballots factored in). Optimism and pessimism are more than welcome; homerism and Eeyorism are not.
- Also, ballots that were unclear (some people had values from 1 to 9, others didn't put in actual numbers) or incomplete were thrown out. Again, apologies if you made a mistake, but only had so much time to sort through a half-k votes.
- I tabulated all the ballots up to this Saturday morning. Apologies to those who came real late to the party, but only those who RSVPed early got in.
Now the hard numbers and graphs (big ups to Berkelium for the graphs).
Overall distribution
8 wins seems to be where everyone's coordinating themselves, with about one standard deviation (68% of the overall submitters) between 7.065 and 8.785 wins. So the seven to nine win platform seems about the same as before, with not many people going beyond that or below that. Since the Golden Bears have only failed to win seven games once in the Tedford era, it seems playing to averages would be just fine for most Cal fans this season.
Easiest victories
Unsurprisingly, almost all our readers are fairly confident in a victory over UC Davis--at 0.975 with a standard deviation of only 0.074, it was the easiest prediction most of our fans made. The majority of the ballots were either 99 or 100 percent for an opening day win at Memorial. Wazzu and Colorado also are considered easy opponents for the Bears next season, and the only three games that I'd expect Cal fans to be baffled to lose.
Fiercest foes
In a shocker, USC is again the toughest opponent, and it's not terribly close, with the fourth lowest standard deviation (0.115). A little bit surprising is that Oregon State is second--I know we haven't had much success with the Beavers lately, but Oregon and Washington seem to be tougher opponents this season. Oregon State's on the next tier with Arizona.
The most interesting result was probably Nevada. At 72%, our results seem to establish equal, if not greater difficulty as we do with conference dates with ASU and UCLA. That seems a little strange--although the Wolfpack aren't going to be pushovers in 2010, it's not going to be a substantial road trip and won't be your typical road game.
Tossups
Where will the home losses come from?
Not too surprisingly, most fans give us a 50-50 shot to beat Oregon despite the recent success we've had duck hunting in Strawberry Canyon. We'll probably be underdogs when the defending Pac-10 champs come to town in November. As you can see from the graph above, lots of Cal fans are pretty low on us pulling the upset.
The second candidate is a little more difficult to establish. The Huskies are second in the toughness rankings at 63%, but that's hardly a vote of non-confidence. The Furd is next at 68%, and then UCLA (73%) and ASU (74%), and there's plenty. All in all, the win probabilities for those four games adds up to a 3-1 record, despite the fact we'd probably be disappointed if we lost any of these four individually. Up to you to figure out which one is the one that we'd get upset in. Gotta love stats.
While home win distributions are pretty bunched up as opposed to previous years, the road is about the same. USC is still the toughest sell, Oregon State is next hardest to go, then Arizona, Nevada and Wazzu. For the Bears to go 3-2 on the road, it seems like they'd have to win one of the three in LA, Corvallis or Tucson. Since Cal lost all three games in those locations in 2008 and two of them in 2006, I'm guessing going 1-2 on this stretch would be acceptable if we meet our home expectations.
The lows, the highs, and the ones closest to the mark
No one predicted the Bears to finish with a losing record. Some got close though. The worst got you 6-6. The most dreamy of us got 10-2 on the mind.
| OId Blues | Score | Golden Sunglasses | Score | Golden Rationals | Differential from mean |
| xspotster | 5.79 | GO Bears 2010 | 10.1 | Maisbikkja |
0.015 |
| polyol | 5.865 | Penguin42/big woogie | 10 | casey | 0.015 |
| whiznads | 5.9 | calblaker1 | 9.95 | First and Ten | 0.025 |
| an alias | 6 | ANON | 9.9 | Tony Macaroni | 0.025 |
| Newkleer |
6.05 | CleanCutMedia/Cronan | 9.8 | Fair Weather Cal Fan | 0.025 |
| zdub | 6.15 | FrankCohen |
9.77 | chickens0up | 0.025 |
| jiggets44 | 6.2 | martymatchead | 9.75 | chardamus | 0.025 |
| jjj | 6.25 | JustBear | 9.7 | running bear | 0.025 |
| sdfgdfgsd... | 6.2999 | uberfred/basketballbear | 9.6 | Bahbaloni/oldyeller | 0.025 |
| charliehorse/katster | 6.3 | cmb1117/asdfadsf | 9.55 | beebop/btme | 0.025 |
xsposter is very pessimistic about some of our opponents. 0.4 at Nevada, 0.1 at USC, 0.1 at OSU, 0.1 vs Oregon, 0.3 vs Furd....yikes. Not at all hoping those expectations happen.
GO Bears 2010 is going all in. 0.8 at Arizona, 0.7 at USC, 0.8 at Oregon St., 0.7 vs Oregon, 1 vs Furd (uhh...). Wish you luck on your ten win expectations.
Finally, here are the most rational ballots.
Maisbikkja: UCD (0.98), Colorado (0.95), at Nevada (0.9), at Arizona (0.3), UCLA (0.85), at USC (0.36), ASU (0.64), at OSU (0.5), at Wazzu (0.89), Oregon (0.38), Furd (0.76), Washington (0.4)
casey: UCD (1), Colorado (0.75), at Nevada (0.65), at Arizona (0.65), UCLA (0.7), at USC (0.3), ASU (0.75), at OSU (0.5), at Wazzu (0.9), Oregon (0.51), Furd (0.6), Washington (0.6)
What your fearless leaders projected.
| UCD | CO | @NV | @AZ | UCLA | @USC | ASU | @OSU | @WSU | OR | STAN | UW | |
| TwistNHook | 0.99 | 0.75 | 0.65 | 0.7 | 0.85 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| ragnarok | 1 | 0.85 | 0.72 | 0.42 | 0.82 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.45 | 0.88 | 0.72 |
| Hydrotech | 1 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.65 | 0.05 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.75 | 0.3 |
| Avinash | 0.99 | 0.85 | 0.6 | 0.45 | 0.68 | 0.28 | 0.75 | 0.52 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.65 | 0.6 |
| Berkelium97 | 0.99 | 0.85 | 0.55 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.15 | 0.75 | 0.45 | 0.95 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.5 |
| norcalnick | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.35 | 0.95 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
TwistNHook at 7.79, norcalnick at 7.6, Berkelium at 7.44 are a little bit lower than the overall expectations. You can tell there's a lot of wiseness coming from those boys.. Twist's 70% belief in a win in Tucson seems overtly optimistic, although that's counterbalanced by a mere 25% shot at victory in Corvallis and a 65% chance of victory in Reno. Norcalnick seems fairly confident we'll sweep the nonconference schedule, but otherwise his ballot is pretty much reflective of the mean for each team. Berkelium is surprisingly pessimistic. Berkelium seems awfully wary of that Nevada game--his 55% odds are some of the lowest by anyone who submitted a ballot.
Our most optimistic Golden Bear is ragnarok at 8.06, which is probably helped by an enormous confidence of winning all 7 home games and a decent probability of winning on the road; only the Oregon game is under 50% for rags, and every other game at Memorial he gives Cal at least a 72% shot of knocking off the opposition (going over 80% for five of those games).
On the flip side, Hydrotech is not so high on the 2010 Golden Bears, projecting 6.85 wins, mostly due to the 5% chance he gives us to beat USC and the 30% chance we beat Jake Locker and the defending Pac-10 champs at home. Considering how close to the mark he was last season, I would listen to the wise man.
As for me, I'm around 7.67 wins, so I do lean closer to the 8 win margin (although I wouldn't be unhappy with 7 wins). I do feel the Arizona game will be a tough matchup for us (breaking in an almost entirely new pass defense against the Airraid is no easy task), but do believe Oregon State works better for us than it has in previous years (the Beavers front seven, their consistent strong point for years, looks like it could be weaker than in years past). And I'm probably alone in thinking we have about the same probability of beating USC as we do every year in the Coliseum, about 25%.
All in all, I'm seeing a lot of people satisfied with an eight win season, who don't see seven and nine wins out of the realm of possibility, and would be disappointed with less and thrilled with more. Am I reading that right? Spill your thoughts on the numbers and the expectations game in the comments.
71 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This was a great read!
But to be honest, I was frustrated at our lack of National Championship pedigree and rather underwhelming play until I saw an article, a few months ago, about why we aren’t more successful. It said that one of Jeff Tedford’s main priorities when he came here was to improve the graduation rate among our student-athletes and it broke down how most of the major College FB powerhouses have low academic standards and graduation rates for student-athletes. It also said that Cal is one of the only competitive teams with an education comes first mentality.
Since I saw that article, I can’t be mad at another 8-4 season since I know our coach is willing to sacrifice success on the field for success in the classroom. With our last recruiting class, I wouldn’t be surprised if we beat a couple of the teams we aren’t expected to beat though. I just want to beat USC. I just hope our D gels early .
Do you have a link?
Raider Zealot….I’d be interested in reading that article. Do you have a link?
by CALiforniALUM on May 17, 2010 5:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I just take a very long-term approach on the program. I can handle A LOT of 8-4 or 7-5 years… we will always have seasons of good luck and bad luck too. I just keep that in perspective
Cooler than a Polar Bear's toenails.
by Thoroughbred on May 17, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I am satisfied averaging 7-9 wins a season, as long as we have an occassional uptick to 10 or 11 wins, and challenge for a top 10 finish once in a while. By once in a while, I mean once every four/five years. Football is a form of entertainment, and as long as we have some exciting games, and one or two wins a year (Big Game/UCLA this year, 2007 Oregon/Tennessee) I’ll be content. Also, it helps to have the loses be competitive, unlike this year.
This looks like a really cool study with the graphs and what not. I’d take eight wins in a heartbeat. I think the Pac-10 will be great again and winning at Nevada isn’t easy.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 17, 2010 6:42 AM PDT reply actions
Great read and the overall results seem to be relatively likely… I don’t agree with your throwing out of the homer and anti-homer votes though (one’s like the JShufelt ballot you posted I can understand throwing out), these people are fans and regardless of whether or not they are rational they took time to fill out the ballot and therefor should be considered in the overall results…
Although you may not agree with the knee jerk, homer-istic voting of these folks its rather undemocratic (dare I say un-American) to not consider their votes as valid parts of the survey, whats the worst that could happen? we get to 9-3 or drop to 7-5 on the poll?
For patriots sake, let everyone have a voice, even the crazy ones…
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
People who said we have a 100% chance of beating Oregon are not living in a world I wish to associate myself with.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on May 17, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Right, but you represent the whole blog in your decision making, even the crazier homeristic ones… You don’t have to like it, but you should include the results regardless, its part of being a diplomatic leader…
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
This is not a democracy, it’s a Twistocracy! Sit down, shut up, button up that double breasted suit!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
If you’re sitting down, its more comfortable and maybe looks better for you to leave the suit unbuttoned.
I am a proud member of LB Chris Martin's fan group: the Martinis
by dballisloose on May 17, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Trimodal distributions reveal the homers and Eeyors.
Cruz, I think they dropped the UBER-Homers from the stats, which if you glance at the actual data you can identify pretty quickly. Anytime you have statistical outliers like that it can really skew your data…there are also statistical methods for identifying those extreme outliers that I am sure hope were implemented.
As for Homers and Eeyors it was pretty pretty interesting to me looking at the distribution graphs…almost all had a trimodal curve indicating that perhaps you could ID those who were inclined towards homerism or eeyorism based on their biases. I’m sure some ANOVAs could be run to see if in fact there are group differences. Which I think would be significant because it would certainly inform the coaching staff on how to approach certain games…for example if there was an especially high level of Eeyorism about the OSU game one would try to address motivation and resilience that week before the game so if we get scored on early we don’t give up. This could be a really cool and powerful tool for the coaches. I’m sure a lot of these expectations are also absorbed by our players implicitly.
NICE WORK GENTLEMEN!
GO BEARS!
by PlayClassyBears on May 17, 2010 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Well the graphs aren't smooth because people tended to pick single-digit decimals
i.e. if the average for a given game was .45, it’s likely that a lot more people picked .4 and .5 than .45 on the dot.
Arthur Dent: You know, it's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space, that I really wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was young.
Ford Prefect: Why, what did she tell you?
Arthur Dent: I don't know, I didn't listen!
What can I say? I find Cal’s home/road splits over the past few years to be pretty compelling (although, in retrospect, 88% to beat Stanfurd, even at home, seems a bit high).
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I think many of us did not want to even consider the possibility of losing to the ’Furd.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on May 17, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
And 500 responses is nothing to shake a stick at!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 17, 2010 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I've got more work for you !!!!
What will be really interesting is when you recall our projections after each game in the season so we can see how close to reality we were. Since I’m not saving this article, I’m depending on YOU to add it to your analysis. Thanks for offering……
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
We are thinking of doing something like that this season.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on May 17, 2010 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
This is pretty much what I predicted too
Middle of the pack team. As long as we beat Furd, UW, WSU and UC Davis I’ll be happy
In other words, Go Bears!
How far we have come. Middle of the pack team at 8-4. All praise to Tedford.
by 33SwisherSweet on May 17, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Think rationally here. We have a QB that is shaky, an O-line that is unproven, a completely revamped secondary, only one WR, a new D-line, a new DC, a new ST coach, etc etc
In other words, Go Bears!
Can’t argue with any of that. I suspect our D and special teams will be better this year. (The bar is low, after all) However, I think it’s the O-line which holds the key between a meh season and something we can get excited about.
Firm-jawed and ready to extract the Poisonous Fangs of Communism
Great job, Avinash. Love this and would love a revisit RIGHT BEFORE the season starts, if possible.
Cooler than a Polar Bear's toenails.
I honestly think 9-3 is realistically the best we can hope for. I honestly think we are likely to lose 3 out of 4 to the likes of USC, OSU, UO, and UW, if not all 4. It would be nice to steal one of those, though. If we steal 2 out of those 4, that would be incredible, but then it’s possible we could also lose one of the other games like ’Furd and ’Zona.
Anyway, I would be absolutely thrilled with 9-3, I think 8-4 is a pretty decent season for the team we have right now, 7-5 would be slightly disappointing but understandable, and anything worse than that means we would’ve lost more than one game we shouldn’t have.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on May 17, 2010 10:17 AM PDT reply actions
I'm not sold on UW. One win against us does not make them a legitimate contender.
by 33SwisherSweet on May 17, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m not completely sold on them either, but I think Sarkisian and Co. are solid coaches. I’d put them in the “team on the rise” category. Of the 4 games I marked as possible/likely losses, that one is the least likely. Plus, we face them at home.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on May 17, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Put me in the 8-4 camp (see my rankings in attached spreadsheet).
We should all be satisfied with 8-4. After all, we are still Cal.
by 33SwisherSweet on May 17, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
.555 for Zona is pushing it for me, given the recent history in Tucson. I don’t have us favored at this point, even if I think we’re the more talented team.
We have the meat and potatoes at home. I like this schedule because 1) Our freshman starters will hopefully be head and shoulders better by the end of the year 2) We have three tough home games to end the year. I’ll feel really good if we steal a game or two early, but I won’t feel too bad about things if we drop one since we have this nice home run to end the season.
Cooler than a Polar Bear's toenails.
I think of all the lines we have next year, Cal-Arizona will be the closest to a pick’em. Cal-Oregon might be close too (I’m thinking Oregon favored by 1 or 2 or Cal favored by 1 or two).
I’m especially digging the home run to end the season and Wazzu being our final game.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on May 17, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
*road game.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on May 17, 2010 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions
5/11/2010 14:12:46
ShufeltLikeBeingAnonymous
Hydrotech is evil! No more hydrotech!
down with hydrotech!
I bet Hydrotech will lose
Probability that Hydrotech beats UCLA? 0.0000000000001%
Hydrotech can’t even spell USC
No more hydrotech! No more hydrotech!
Hydrotech? More like Hydrosuck!
Even Hydrotech can lose to WSU.
Zero if Hydrotech is involved.
HydroFURD! 1
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 17, 2010 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
but do believe Oregon State works better for us than it has in previous years (the Beavers front seven, their consistent strong point for years, looks like it could be weaker than in years past)
What make you say this, Avi. Anything in particular? I think this has been said about the OSU lines going back four years…and every year the so-called “experts” have been wrong.
Is there some reason to think OSU will continue to produce quality defensive fronts?
by Missing Barry on May 18, 2010 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks Avi
BTW you made ESPN again…great read and I agree with the suggestion it will be fun to revisit during the year (…i know, more work…) Thanks again.
"It's on the ROOF, oh yeah, one hundred PROOF, oh yeah....."
by TKE Prytanis 79 on May 17, 2010 12:35 PM PDT reply actions
Interesting poll, can’t really argue much with the results, it looks like Cal fans are pretty savvy and realistic about the Bear’s chances next season. If you ignore the overall wins probability and focus on each individual game then it looks like the expectation is for Cal to go 9-3. This includes a road win in Tucson which seems a bit optimistic, I think I had that game as a narrow loss given Cal’s problems on the road and a pretty good Wildcat team led by Nick Foles. Cal went to Arizona a little too overconfident 2 years ago and got whooped even though they were heavily favored so a .55 probability seems a bit high. I also had the last 3 home games much closer to 50%, the Big Game in particular is always close regardless of where it’s played and what the teams’ respective records are.
Overall 8-4 would be OK, 9 or more wins should be considered a successful season but really a trip to the Rose Bowl or Alamo Bowl is what we should be shooting for.
Anything in the 45-55% range is kind of a tossup, not really an indication of certain belief in victory. The probabilities seem to indicate we lose either the Oregon State or Arizona games and go 1-1 on that stretch.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on May 17, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually I think there’s a good chance we lose both at Arizona and at Oregon State given our recent history with the two teams on the road. Combined with a loss at USC and one loss at home to Oregon, Stanford or Washington would put us at 8-4. If we go 1-1 against OSU and Arizona I’d be really happy.
Is “recent history” an indicator of future success/lack of success?
by Missing Barry on May 18, 2010 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Seems like I was more pessimistic than everyone else in every game except WSU and UO. I just don’t think that WSU has what it takes to beat us and we’ve somehow found a way to beat the Ducks on their last three visits here. I think that 7-5 is a more realistic finish given the many changes/questions/liabilities that this team has. A second year under Ludwig should make a big difference since our teams have seemed to improve when there is continuity at the Offensive Coordinator position. I’d be happy with an 8-4 season and ecstatic with a 9-3 season.
What are the changes/questions/liabilities you’re talking about, exactly? The biggest questions I see – does the pass rush improve? Do the WR’s get better? Can we replace Alualu and Syd? How does the oline play? The pass rush and WR’s can’t do any worse than last year in my opinion, so even if they don’t improve substantially….well, at least they’re not worse. Alualu will probably be very tough to replace ,but not so sure about Syd – as good as he is, the secondary overall didn’t play all that well, and the lack of a pass rush was a significant factor there…..overall, I don’t think his loss will hurt all that much. The oline is back, with added talent and experience….so I see improvement there, even if they’re not as good as we’d like…..so at least I’m not seeing reasons for pessimism. Maybe not reasons for too much “optimism”, either….but this team went 8-4 in the regular season last year, and I don’t see much reason to think they won’t be at least as good as last year.
by Missing Barry on May 18, 2010 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Ted Miller linked to this post
Wonder if Ted filled out a sheet
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
It's in Miller's Lunch Links
Above link is to the Pac-10 blog front page. Direct link here.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
500 accepted ballots
With 1500+ lurkers and contributors on this site, and i`m voted most rational?
You people really need to step up your game, before this blog crashes into the side of the mountain…
UFF DA! california golden blogs!
It's funny how you have such statistical analysis as to how we readers perceive Cal this season
This is why I love Cal. Go Bears!
In other words, Go Bears!
This is the best post in a long while. Really liked it, was surprised my projections weren’t as optimistic as I thought. Just under 9 wins (9 wins rounded) for them, and I was feeling optimistic. I think the team has the talent to be at least as good as last year, and very realistically better. Anyways, this is the type of content I started visiting goldenblogs.blogsome.com for, I like the [interesting] sports discussion, so I’d encourage you guys to keep it up. Tell Hydrotech to ditch whatever real life things he’s doing and give us some good film analysis!
Also, I object to calling the people who finished closest to the mean the most “rational”. Most “conformist” is probably more appropriate, but “rational” implies the crowd is rational, which I’m not sure to be true…. :)
The one problem with things like this is none of us (I assume) have nearly as much knowledge about our opponents, so how our schedule ends up stacking up is an important factor. Maybe poll people to see if their opinions change throughout the season? If nothing else I think the results could be interesting.
This is the best post in a long while
I will take that as the insult you, most assuredly, meant it as.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Well, it was meant to be a bit of an underhanded shot about how this site isn’t as good as it used to be, and if you want to read into your increased role in the site coinciding with it’s slide….well, that’s up to you……
;)
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2010 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions
according to wut?
Finally, here are the most rational ballots.
Maisbikkja: UCD (0.98), Colorado (0.95), at Nevada (0.9), at Arizona (0.3), UCLA (0.85), at USC (0.36), ASU (0.64), at OSU (0.5), at Wazzu (0.89), Oregon (0.38), Furd (0.76), Washington (0.4)
casey: UCD (1), Colorado (0.75), at Nevada (0.65), at Arizona (0.65), UCLA (0.7), at USC (0.3), ASU (0.75), at OSU (0.5), at Wazzu (0.9), Oregon (0.51), Furd (0.6), Washington (0.6)
Any ballot with a 1 or 0 probability is irrational. I wonder what michigan fans thought their probability of beating app state was 3 years ago? I say with a 99% confidence that it was 1.
I’m also surprised at the optimism against osu. Cal has beaten osu like, what, 1 time in the last 7 years? Riley (as in Mike) pwns Tedford.
Otherwise, this is good stuff. I look fwd to weekly or periodic lookbacks during the season.
Go. Bears.
by the CGB on May 18, 2010 7:06 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Well, let’s note that Davis isn’t App State. The only 1-AA teams that ever win against 1-A teams are the 1-AA powerhouses (4 of the 5 wins last year came out of the powerhouse CAA conference – Richmond, Nova, W&M and UNH, with the 5th being Central Arkansas over 0-12 Western Kentucky). Davis isn’t one of those. You’re right that 1 probably isn’t rational, but depending on how many significant figures you round to…..it might just be accurate.
I’m also surprised at the optimism against osu. Cal has beaten osu like, what, 1 time in the last 7 years? Riley (as in Mike) pwns Tedford.
Is there a reason to think this is meaningful for the future? What is it?
by Missing Barry on May 18, 2010 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
coaching
that’s why it’s meaningful
8-5 6th
7-5 4th
5-6 7th
10-4 3rd
9-4 3rd
9-4 2nd
8-5 2nd
that’s osu’s record and pac-10 finish under riley … since his classes have come through the system, his teams have been solid, and consistently so
tedford same 7 years
8-6 3rd
10-2 2nd
8-4 4th
10-3 1st
7-6 7th
9-4 4th
8-5 5th
wow our Bears are inconsistent while riley’s beavers have been solid and improving
all of the new buzz about DICK down in l a and the other dick (kiffin) and sarkisian in washington … the never ending usc and oregon bandwagons … yet osu:
has been is the 2nd best team in the pac 2 years running
finished no less than 3rd since riley’s players have come through the system
has beaten our Bears 5 of the last 7 (thanks OB) years
has bearen out Bears 3 years in a row
considering the talent level and what he has done with it, riley is the best coach in the pac 10
all that aside, the inverted home and away record is mind bottling:
only in 2008 did the home team (osu) win (i was at that game – maybe i’m the curse)
that gives the home team a 1-6 record over the above time period
home points
21
7
20
13
28
34
14
137
away points
35
49
23
41
31
21
31
231
cal points
21
49
20
41
28
21
14
194
notice the last 4 years what the cal offense has done against that d … is that meaningful?
osu points
35
7
23
13
31
34
31
174
notice the last 4 years what the osu has done against the cal d … is that meaningful?
time will tell
Go. Bears.
Don’t forget that 21 of the points in 2008 came off ST touchdowns and a pick-six.
"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
And two fumbles in Cal territory (once around the 15 and once around the 35) led to OSU TDs in 2007. I’m not convinced that Cal is consistently outplayed by Riley’s teams. Only in 2009 were we soundly beaten on both sides of the ball.
"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
Thanks for the analysis, good points, but one thing I’ll point out is in this specific case (OSU), I don’t think you can look at just Pac-10 records. Normally I think that would be a good way to go, as you normalize competition and such, but since OSU is so unusual in how they always get romped on OOC…..I don’t think you can just exclude their poor OOC performance when evaluating the two coaching staffs success.
by Missing Barry on May 20, 2010 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually, twice, but point well taken
I’m also surprised at the optimism against osu. Cal has beaten osu like, what, 1 time in the last 7 years? Riley (as in Mike) pwns Tedford.
2004 at Corvallis: Cal 49, Oregon State 7
2006 at Corvallis: Cal 41, Oregon State 13
As a whole, the responders are giving us only a 40% shot against Oregon State. OSU has had the best of this series over the last 3 years, no doubt, but I don’t think giving ourselves a 40% chance to win is overly optimistic at all. The last 4 meetings up there have been either Cal wins or competitive games.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
of course i want our Bears to win (against osu)
but all i see are excuses as to why we haven’t been
i don’t see us winning up there this year … we have no Jahvid; they have BOTH of the those annoying kids from Texas running amuck – i’ll be slightly relieved when they start gradgitating errrrr getting drafted
and i’m betting beers against our Bears on it with anyone that wants to tango*
- betting against our Bears is something i’ve never done … it’s a new tactic intended to benefit the team and only cost me ;-)
of course i want our Bears to win (against osu)
but all i see are excuses as to why we haven’t been
Ha, true, but then again, I know way too much about statistics and random variance and the natural desire humans have to find trends whether they’re real or just a product of random distributions to just take our lack of past success at face value as an indicator of the future…..
So that’s why I ask the questions I do. ;)
by Missing Barry on May 20, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
sure
i’m just calling it like I see it:
generally unexplainable
yet generally unfavorably
if in 7 years these two coaches are still in place AND the cal v osu AND the home v away records approach statistical insignificance then … ok
until then, the numbers don’t lie … only people do
by the CGB on May 21, 2010 6:05 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

by 


























































