Notre Dame will not be able to survive their schedule enough to make it into the Sugar Bowl.. or any BCS bowl.
I think SCar goes to SECCG probably and Fla second... Mutts 3rd, Vawls 4th On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:21 AM, mail.bobparks.com <[email protected]>wrote: > Very interesting. I think, like compupicks does, that Florida is going > to surprise lots of people. > I think Alabama will decline a little this year and LSU will be the west > champ. So, we lose to LSU in the regular season, sweep the East and lose to > LSU again in the SECCG (but by a smaller margin) then go on to beat Notre > Dame in the Sugar Bowl. > > Oliver Barry, CRS, GRI > Real Estate Broker > Bob Parks, LLC > 1517 Hunt Club Blvd > Gallatin TN 37066 > 615-972-4239 > 615-826-4040 > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Woody Bass <[email protected]> > *Date:* August 27, 2012 5:10:32 PM CDT > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* *[gatornews] CFN.com <http://cfn.com/>: Compu-Picks 2012 > Preview: SEC* > *Reply-To:* [email protected] > > Compu-Picks 2012 Preview: SEC > > > *By Matthew Smith* > Mr Pac Ten > Posted Aug 26, 2012 > > Share on twitter <http://cfn.scout.com/2/1214848.html#> Share on > facebook<http://cfn.scout.com/2/1214848.html#> > <http://www.blogger.com/blog_this.pyra?t=2012%20Compu-Picks%20Previews%20Each%201-A%20League%3A%20Southeastern%20Conference&u=http%3A//cfn.scout.com/2/1214848.html&n=Compu-Picks%202012%20Preview%3A%20SEC><http://cfn.scout.com/2/1214848.html#email-a-friend-window><http://cfn.scout.com/a.z?s=451&p=10&c=1214848&refid=4781> > | More Sharing > ServicesMore<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=scout> > > *2012 Compu-Picks Previews Each 1-A League: Southeastern Conference* > > Below is the preview for the SEC, consisting of five tables. The first > shows projections for each SEC team, with the others showing key statistics > and/or details behind the projections. > > *Projected ranking and expected results* > Expected Wins Projected League Results Team 2012 Rank 2011 Rank All > Games League Games SOS Div Finish Division Odds Florida 6 29 9.19 5.87 7 1 > 40.6% Georgia 12 15 9.00 5.21 31 2 23.5% South Carolina 16 13 8.03 4.68 16 > 3 15.7% Vanderbilt 25 33 7.55 4.04 32 4 9.5% Missouri 23 21 7.40 3.85 17 > 5 7.9% Tennessee 40 59 5.91 2.36 21 6 2.3% Kentucky 66 81 3.48 1.09 5 7 0.5% > Alabama 2 1 10.28 6.59 14 1 51.3% Auburn 10 38 8.69 5.11 11 2 16.1% > Louisiana > State 7 2 8.80 4.97 6 3 16.7% Mississippi State 17 34 8.81 4.92 49 4 11.1% > Arkansas 24 9 7.02 3.68 4 5 4.5% Texas A&M 37 16 5.79 2.54 9 6 1.1% > Mississippi > 60 97 3.57 1.10 2 7 0.2% > > Some notes and comments about the SEC and its teams: > > 1) Alabama - LSU is one of the more interesting questions of the > preseason, with just about everyone having an opinion. As stated before > (more than once), Compu-Picks takes Bama in this one. Bama loses more > production (though after Mathieu's departure it's actually pretty close), > loses much more to the draft, and had much better injury luck in 2011 than > LSU. However, LSU had an almost certainly unsustainable turnover margin, > isn't recruiting nearly as well as Bama (especially the most recent class), > and simply hasn't been as good a program as Bama. To Compu-Picks at least, > this really isn't a difficult choice. > And that's just in terms of power rating. Alabama also has a much easier > SEC slate, drawing Mizzou and Tennessee from the East, compared to LSU's > draw of Florida and South Carolina. That's a major difference, and is a big > part of the projected gap in league records between the two. > > 2) With Arkansas projected to slip (largely due to Petrino being gone, > though the fact that 2011 was already a material outlier compared to > standard performance mattered as well), watch out for Auburn and, > interestingly, Mississippi St as potential sleepers in the West. Auburn had > a major down year in 2011, but has been a solid program, is recruiting > fantastically well, and returns an enormous amount of talent. Mississippi > St, meanwhile, returns much more production than their mere 12 starters > would suggest, and unlike most teams near the top of the SEC, seems likely > to improve their turnover margin rather than worsen. Also, Auburn has a > reasonable East draw of Georgia and Mizzou, while Mississippi St has a > fantastic East draw of Kentucky and Tennessee, arguably the easiest > possible draw for a West team. > > 3) Compu-Picks isn't at all high on Texas A&M this year. While it's true > that A&M had a lot of rough luck last year (turnovers, fumble luck, > injuries, not to mention close game luck), they also have a new coach, 2011 > was a positive outlier compared to previous history (not as much as 2010, > but far better than 2007-2009), their recruiting trend is really bad (worst > in SEC and bottom 15 in the country), and their offense is gutted, losing > their starting quarterback, running back, and 2nd most productive receiver. > Throw in a challenging schedule (not the nastiest in the SEC, but not very > far off), and reaching six wins will be tough. Even worse, since they play > two AA teams this year, they actually need to hit seven wins to make a bowl > game. Compu-Picks is not optimistic about their chances of making that > happen. > > 4) In the East, watch out for Florida. The Gators' recruiting slide seems > to be over, with their numbers at least stabilizing as their amazing > mid-decade recruiting run slips even further off the board. They also > return an enormous amount of production on defense, though their offensive > numbers show rebuilding potential. They also almost certainly will improve > their turnover numbers, most likely by a substantial amount, which all by > itself should herald meaningful improvement. Finally, while Urban Meyer is > gone, the fact that this program has been absolutely oustanding for a while > definitely comes into play here. A lot of the players from the 2008-2009 > run are gone, but not all. There's more underlying talent here than people > realize. > > 5) If it's not Florida in the East, it'll probably be Georgia. Drawing > Auburn and Ole Miss is about as favorable an SEC slate as you can get, and > this is a strong program with good recruiting numbers (though unlike many > other SEC programs, they're actually slipping a bit rather than surging), a > lot of returning production (though they do lose a bit to the draft), and > overall a pretty solid resume. > > 6) South Carolina, meanwhile, looks iffier. An LSU-Arkansas draw isn't fun > at all, but they also lost a lot of talent to the draft, and need to > replace a lot of production on defense. Their recruiting numbers are solid > but not spectacular, though they probably will get better injury luck in > 2012. Overall, they're behind the projected top two, but not by so much > that they couldn't end up the East's best team. However, thanks to the > worst schedule draw of any projected East contenders, it's going to be a > really tough road to actually make the title game even if, like last year, > they really were the best team in the division. Don't be surprised if they > come close, though. > > 7) As for the rest, Vandy and Mizzou look like the next best pair, with > Mizzou projected to be a bit better quality-wise, while Vandy gets the > projected record nod thanks to (like Georgia) drawing Auburn and Ole Miss > instead of Mizzou's Bama and A&M. Vandy is intuitively more surprising, but > their recruiting numbers have really surged, they return a lot of players, > and they made nice strides last year despite the worst injury luck in the > entire SEC. Mizzou, meanwhile, is basically projected to more or less hover > around the usual spot quality-wise, with a worse record than usual just > because the schedule is tougher than usual. > > 8) Compu-Picks didn't expect much out of Tennessee even before they lost > Rogers. With him gone too, their numbers sink even lower. Don't be at all > surprised if they miss a bowl for the second straight year. > > The next two tables show key statistics and details underlying the > projections, from prior history and performance to luck-related statistics > to key indicators of incoming and outgoing talent. Below is a brief > explanation of some of these items: > > > *Rank* - Projected 2012 ranking, from 1 to 124 > *2011 Rank* - 2011 ranking using the current compu-picks model, from 1 to > 120 (does NOT include the four 1-A newcomers) > *Prev 4 yr* - ranking of the average rating from 2007-2010, from 1 to 120 > (does NOT include the four 1-A newcomers) > *Injuries* - starts lost to injury during the 2011 season, from Phil > Steele <http://blog.philsteele.com/2012/07/05/2011-starts-lost-to-injury/> > *Fumble Luck* - the number of net turnovers in 2011 due to fumble > luck<http://cfn.scout.com/2/1168510.html> > *Recruit Rank* - ranking of past 4 years of recruiting (each year equally > weighted), from > scout.com<http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2012> > *Recruit Trend* - the difference between the past 3 years of recruiting > and the previous 4, ranked from best to worst > *Starters* - returning offensive / defensive / special teams (kicker and > punter) starters, per Phil Steele magazine (* if the QB returns), with some > edits due to subsequent news > *Returning Yards, Tackles, Int, Sacks, Lettermen* - returning production > and roster depth; lettermen taken from > philsteele.com<http://www.philsteele.com/blogs/2012/May12/DBMay26.html>, > with the other stats calculated from cfbstats.com<http://www.cfbstats.com/>. > > *Draft Losses* - based on the 2012 > draft<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NFL_Draft> > > *Key Statistics - Performance, Luck and Coaching* > Team 2012 Rank 2011 Rank Prev 4 yr Injuries Turnovers Fumble Luck New > Coach Florida 6 29 2 29 -12 -0.5 . Georgia 12 15 26 22 7 -1 . South > Carolina 16 13 28 35 5 1.5 . Vanderbilt 25 33 80 42 1 -6 . Missouri 23 21 > 21 36 3 -1.5 . Tennessee 40 59 45 36 0 6.5 . Kentucky 66 81 48 17 1 0 . > Alabama > 2 1 1 9 8 0 . Auburn 10 38 20 15 2 -0.5 . Louisiana State 7 2 14 31 20 2 > . Mississippi State 17 34 49 11 0 -0.5 . Arkansas 24 9 24 21 1 0.5 1 Texas > A&M 37 16 50 27 -9 -4.5 1 Mississippi 60 97 33 21 -8 -4.5 1 > > *Talent Inflows and Outflows* > Team Recruit Rank Recruit Trend Starters Ret. Yards Ret. Tackles Ret. > Int Ret. Sacks Ret. Lettermen Draft Losses Florida 6 38 7/10/1 37% 76% 100% > 68% 85% 7 Georgia 10 72 6*/9/0 72% 85% 85% 96% 73% 25 South Carolina 17 29 > 6*/5/1 73% 58% 37% 53% 70% 43 Vanderbilt 57 12 8*/7/2 84% 60% 53% 50% 67% > 10 Missouri 36 30 6*/6/2 82% 66% 69% 58% 63% 5 Tennessee 13 66 9*/9/2 58% > 68% 44% 77% 77% 3 Kentucky 34 23 6*/5/1 83% 42% 13% 50% 67% 4 Alabama 2 > 9 6*/5/2 57% 47% 54% 23% 64% 75 Auburn 5 6 6/9/2 58% 78% 73% 86% 71% 4 > Louisiana > State 4 58 7/4/2 45% 55% 28% 66% 63% 47 Mississippi State 29 90 5/7/1 54% > 59% 100% 56% 76% 19 Arkansas 20 27 7*/6/2 66% 56% 33% 53% 71% 17 Texas > A&M 21 107 7/6/1 39% 59% 57% 65% 66% 21 Mississippi 24 56 7*/8/2 66% 72% 60% > 54% 79% 4 > > The next two tables show probability distributions for the projections, > based on 5,001 season simulation runs. Please note that a . indicates zero > odds, while 0% indicates a non-zero probability that just rounds to 0%. The > first table breaks down results across all games, while the second breaks > down results across league games only. > > *Projected Results - All Games* > Odds of Winning _ Games Team E(wins) Stdev (wins) 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 > 4 3 2 1 0 Florida 9.19 2.06 . 11% 19% 21% 18% 13% 8% 5% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% > Georgia 9.00 1.89 . 8% 15% 20% 20% 17% 10% 5% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% . South > Carolina 8.03 2.11 . 4% 9% 13% 18% 18% 15% 11% 7% 4% 1% 1% 0% . Vanderbilt > 7.55 2.24 . 3% 6% 11% 16% 17% 17% 13% 8% 5% 3% 1% 0% 0% Missouri 7.40 2.09 > . 2% 4% 9% 14% 19% 18% 15% 10% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0% Tennessee 5.91 1.97 . 0% 1% > 3% 5% 9% 15% 21% 21% 14% 7% 2% 1% 0% Kentucky 3.48 1.96 . 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% > 7% 12% 18% 23% 21% 10% 2% Alabama 10.28 1.67 . 26% 28% 20% 12% 6% 3% 2% 1% > 1% 0% 0% . . Auburn 8.69 2.00 . 6% 13% 19% 19% 16% 12% 7% 4% 2% 1% 0% . . > Louisiana State 8.80 1.97 . 7% 14% 18% 20% 16% 11% 7% 4% 1% 1% 0% . . > Mississippi > State 8.81 1.78 . 4% 12% 22% 23% 18% 10% 6% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% . Arkansas 7.02 > 2.16 . 1% 4% 7% 13% 16% 19% 16% 12% 6% 4% 1% 0% 0% Texas A&M 5.79 2.13 . 0% > 1% 3% 6% 10% 15% 18% 18% 15% 9% 4% 1% 0% Mississippi 3.57 1.67 . 0% 0% 0% > 0% 1% 3% 6% 14% 22% 27% 18% 7% 1% > > *Projected Results - League Games* > Odds of Winning _ League Games Team E(wins) Stdev (wins) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 > 2 1 0 Florida 5.87 1.76 . 19% 24% 21% 15% 10% 6% 3% 2% 1% Georgia 5.21 1.70 > . 8% 16% 21% 22% 16% 10% 4% 2% 0% South Carolina 4.68 1.82 . 5% 12% 18% 22% > 18% 13% 7% 4% 1% Vanderbilt 4.04 1.87 . 3% 7% 13% 17% 20% 19% 12% 7% 3% > Missouri > 3.85 1.77 . 2% 5% 11% 17% 22% 20% 15% 7% 2% Tennessee 2.36 1.65 . 1% 1% 3% > 6% 11% 18% 25% 24% 10% Kentucky 1.09 1.34 . 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 7% 15% 29% 43% > Alabama 6.59 1.43 . 31% 31% 19% 10% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0% Auburn 5.11 1.75 . 7% > 16% 22% 22% 15% 10% 5% 2% 1% Louisiana State 4.97 1.81 . 7% 15% 19% 21% 16% > 11% 6% 3% 1% Mississippi State 4.92 1.66 . 4% 12% 23% 23% 19% 10% 5% 2% 1% > Arkansas 3.68 1.71 . 2% 5% 9% 15% 21% 23% 17% 7% 2% Texas A&M 2.54 1.72 . > 0% 2% 4% 8% 13% 19% 23% 20% 11% Mississippi 1.10 1.24 . 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 7% > 18% 31% 39% > > There are a few important notes and caveats I need to make about this > model: > > 1) Compu-Picks does not endorse implicitly or explicitly any form of > illegal gambling. Compu-Picks is intended to be used for entertainment > purposes only. > > 2) No guarantee or warranty is offered or implied by Compu-Picks for any > information provided and/or predictions made. > > 3) This preseason model is primarily based on the main compu-picks model. > Essentially, it attempts to predict how well a team will rate given its > rating history, as well as a number of other data points, such as returning > starters, draft talent lost, turnovers, recruiting, etc. This means, among > other things, that the rankings are power rankings based on how good a team > projects to be, as opposed to a more cynical (though accurate) model that > attempts to project how the BCS will rank a team by making adjustments to > favor those with easy schedules and punish those with tough schedules. > > I have provided adjusted division (or league) odds in a couple of > instances. For the Big Ten Leaders, it shows the odds of each team winning > adjusting for the fact that Ohio St and Penn St will both be ineligible. > The same is true for the ACC Coastal and North Carolina. > > 5) There is a substantial amount of noise in these projections, which is > to be expected given the large number of unknowns (who will have good and > bad luck with injuries, which young players will improve and which won't, > how specific matchups will come into play, etc.). Right now the standard > error is a bit over 0.2 on a scale of about -1 to +1. It's important to > look at the projections with this in mind to get a sense of how material > the projected differences are. Given a standard error around 0.2, it is > safe to project Alabama to be a much better team than Mississippi St, but > it is not safe to project Mississippi St to be any better than Arkansas, > much less a lot better. > > 6) At this point, there are a number of model features that need to be > investigated further. Chief among these is the distribution of extreme > events. It appears that the model may be overstating the probabilities of > extreme events, such as 12-0 or 0-12 records, or major underdogs winning > their division/league. This overstatement has been reduced compared to last > year's projections, but still likely exists to some degree. Please keep > this in mind when looking at the distribution of win probabilities. > > 7) Since there is much less data available for the four 1-A newcomers, the > power rating methodology has been more manual and arbitrary. As a > consequence, I am somewhat less confident of the projections for those four > teams than I am for the other 120 1-A members. Please keep this in mind > when looking at the newcomers' projections. > > -- > GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! > 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions > 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions > 2008 National Football Champions | > Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), > Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us > > -- > GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! > 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions > 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions > 2008 National Football Champions | > Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), > Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -- GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us
