RandBall: A not-so-rosy prediction for the Gophers from Football Outsiders

Donate To GopherHole




Michael Rand is my go to for College Football and the Gopher Football program... said no one ever
 



I can tell him where so shove his "Projection Model".
 

Parski1 said:
I can tell him where so shove his "Projection Model".
Click to expand...

Please do not do that, Parski. Then I will get called into emergency surgury, and I don't need the money that bad.
 

6. Minnesota Golden Gophers
Projected finish: 5-7
Win total range: 3-9 to 7-5
Chance to win Big Ten: 0 percent
The rebuilding effort for Jerry Kill continues and gets a big boost with 10 returning offensive starters, including quarterback Philip Nelson. The Gophers will need it, since Minnesota managed to produce only 1.6 points per drive (106th nationally) and went three-and-out on more than 40 percent of its possessions. The projection model gives Minnesota an outside shot at bowl eligibility, but the Golden Gophers don't have better than a 31 percent chance of winning any individual Big Ten game.

A focus on sound special teams could help -- Minnesota lost the special-teams battle nine times last year -- and could be the difference in 2013 between the high and low end of its win range.
Click to expand...

Looks like a lot of it is based on our offense from last year, which isn't totally unwarranted. College football depends a lot on organic growth from year to year, and that's something I have a tough time believing you can predict with advanced stats. I'm confident in Coach Kill and at the same time, not surprised or offended that most people are predicting this type of season out of us. Teams get the benefit of the doubt when they have a reputation for putting competitive teams on the field year after year, and frankly we're not at that point yet. Hopefully soon!
 



There really isn't much to take issue with the projection. I think most of us don't expect to finish near the low end 3 win total given the strength of the non conference schedule. A little early to project exactly how the strength of the conference will shake out but the projection probably has our ceiling predicted about right. The only thing I would take any issue with is the idea that we have an outside shot at bowl eligibility. Given the weakness of the non-conf schedule and the ability to win two Big Ten games the past two years I would think that in year 3 of the system 6 wins should not be an overly difficult threshold to reach so I would give us a very good shot of getting bowl eligible again. It would be a very bad sign to see us take a step back record wise in year 3.
 

Russ Archambault said:
Looks like a lot of it is based on our offense from last year, which isn't totally unwarranted. College football depends a lot on organic growth from year to year, and that's something I have a tough time believing you can predict with advanced stats. I'm confident in Coach Kill and at the same time, not surprised or offended that most people are predicting this type of season out of us. Teams get the benefit of the doubt when they have a reputation for putting competitive teams on the field year after year, and frankly we're not at that point yet. Hopefully soon!
Click to expand...

I don't remember the stats, but it seemed the Gophers were pretty poor in the penalties-against department early last year -- especially in the mental and management areas like false start, offsides, delay of game. In the bowl game, they lost their poise temporarily. Just improving in these give-aways can keep drives alive and improve our odds of winning.
 

HA

Parski1 said:
I can tell him where so shove his "Projection Model".
Click to expand...

Note. This is from a StarTribune writer. That means:

  1. He didn't actually do any work
  2. There is little to no information about what was done
  3. If it had been a positive projection for the gophers, it wouldn't have appeared in the paper or on the website

As said above, I also vote we still play the games.

I predict if we win more games this year, it will be predicted we win more games next year too.

Unlike the stock market, in college football pre-season rankings, past performance does guarantee future performance (predictions). I never purchased a bowl game ticket off of pre-season predictions anyway.
 

caliGopher said:
...past performance does guarantee future performance (predictions).
Click to expand...

Never use the word guarantee.

Source: I'm a Registered Investment Advisor, every time I use the word guarantee in an e-mail, it gets flagged and reviewed by the SEC (the commission, not the conference).
 



Guys, I think you should all know that every major newspaper has picked us to finish dead last. The local press seem to think we would save everyone a whole lot of time and energy if we all went out there and just shot ourselves. Me? I'm for wasting sports writers' time, so lets go out, see if we can win a few games, and give them all a great big sh*t burger.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
Guys, I think you should all know that every major newspaper has picked us to finish dead last. The local press seem to think we would save everyone a whole lot of time and energy if we all went out there and just shot ourselves. Me? I'm for wasting sports writers' time, so lets go out, see if we can win a few games, and give them all a great big sh*t burger.
Click to expand...

Hey if you are gonna quote him you should at least give Mr. Lou Brown, manager of the Cleveland Indians, credit for the quote.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Hey if you are gonna quote him you should at least give Mr. Lou Brown, manager of the Cleveland Indians, credit for the quote.
Click to expand...

Haha, I figured that movie was famous enough that it would be recognized. My apologies Lou for failing to cite.
 

I have no problem with this projection, all of the in-conference games this year are against winning programs with generally older o-lines,a nd better receiving corps. we are still a year ahead of the time I expected us to be really competitive in our division.
All of our in-conference games will be tough, and even though I think our talent level is significantly better, I would not be bummed with 6-6.
 

corcoran1 said:
I have no problem with this projection, all of the in-conference games this year are against winning programs with generally older o-lines,a nd better receiving corps. we are still a year ahead of the time I expected us to be really competitive in our division.
All of our in-conference games will be tough, and even though I think our talent level is significantly better, I would not be bummed with 6-6.
Click to expand...

A bowl game similar to last year would be fine but certainly not a given. It won't surprise me to see us enter the BIG 3-1 as SJSU may be a solid test. But it is at TCF.

I think the talent level has improved but for certain the depth has. LB may be the weak spot & WR's not far behind. Both spots may need help from incoming FR and JUCO LB.

We lack star power although Hagemann may be the exception and has the numbers to earn BIG honors. Wells and Epping could be close.

I have been looking to 2014 for the Gophers to be in a better position to make some noise.
 

I'm really hoping for a bowl invitation again in 2013 Bayfield...

Bayfieldgopher said:
A bowl game similar to last year would be fine but certainly not a given. It won't surprise me to see us enter the BIG 3-1 as SJSU may be a solid test. But it is at TCF.

I think the talent level has improved but for certain the depth has. LB may be the weak spot & WR's not far behind. Both spots may need help from incoming FR and JUCO LB.

We lack star power although Hagemann may be the exception and has the numbers to earn BIG honors. Wells and Epping could be close.

I have been looking to 2014 for the Gophers to be in a better position to make some noise.
Click to expand...



I fear some noise needs to be made before the 2014 season to keep a lid on the negativity. I think the lads can grab an invitation to go bowling in 2013. I might just as well see the glass as half full until it comes up half empty on me...The Gophers will be invited to a bowl in this 2013 season for the 2nd year in succession and no matter where it is or when it is, God willing, I will be there cheering them on!

; 0 )
 

it is easy to predict gopher football will finish in the bottom half. Still, icannot make an argument for them finishing in the top half. too many variables.
 

Russ Archambault said:
Looks like a lot of it is based on our offense from last year, which isn't totally unwarranted. College football depends a lot on organic growth from year to year, and that's something I have a tough time believing you can predict with advanced stats. I'm confident in Coach Kill and at the same time, not surprised or offended that most people are predicting this type of season out of us. Teams get the benefit of the doubt when they have a reputation for putting competitive teams on the field year after year, and frankly we're not at that point yet. Hopefully soon!
Click to expand...

I wonder if you did the same analysis of the 2004 Alabama team the Gophers beat in the Music City Bowl what the chances of them winning the National Championship in the 2009 season was?

Not saying the Gophers are in that same conversation, but asking how the analysis can predict turning programs around?
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
I wonder if you did the same analysis of the 2004 Alabama team the Gophers beat in the Music City Bowl what the chances of them winning the National Championship in the 2009 season was?

Not saying the Gophers are in that same conversation, but asking how the analysis can predict turning programs around?
Click to expand...

Analysts can't predict future results with complete certainty (only with a degree of certainty - a "60% chance" of something happening based on available information, for example). And it gets tougher to predict accurately - particularly in sports, and very particularly in college sports - anything beyond a 1- to 2-year window. There is too much turnover from a personnel and coaching standpoint. So that said, analysts can't predict turning programs around, but they can give a reasonable estimation on the immediate future of a program given past results. That doesn't mean they won't be wrong, only that, on average, they'll be right more than they're wrong (if they're using the proper inputs).

Now, what were the chances people were giving Alabama to win the national title for the 2009 season?

Following 2006, low. They had just fired their coach and lost their bowl game.
Following 2007, higher, since Saban (proven commodity, big name) had just come in and fired up the people in Tuscaloosa, and they were very competitive against ranked teams (lost four games against ranked opponents, but none by more than seven points).
Following 2008, much higher, given they finished the regular season ranked #6, 12-2 (8-0 in the SEC).
 

Gopher07 said:
Analysts can't predict future results with complete certainty (only with a degree of certainty - a "60% chance" of something happening based on available information, for example). And it gets tougher to predict accurately - particularly in sports, and very particularly in college sports - anything beyond a 1- to 2-year window. There is too much turnover from a personnel and coaching standpoint. So that said, analysts can't predict turning programs around, but they can give a reasonable estimation on the immediate future of a program given past results. That doesn't mean they won't be wrong, only that, on average, they'll be right more than they're wrong (if they're using the proper inputs).

Now, what were the chances people were giving Alabama to win the national title for the 2009 season?

Following 2006, low. They had just fired their coach and lost their bowl game.
Following 2007, higher, since Saban (proven commodity, big name) had just come in and fired up the people in Tuscaloosa, and they were very competitive against ranked teams (lost four games against ranked opponents, but none by more than seven points).
Following 2008, much higher, given they finished the regular season ranked #6, 12-2 (8-0 in the SEC).
Click to expand...

The point was the discussion was around a model rather than analysts. And I question whether the model in question would have shown the type of growth that happened during that span as possible. An analyst can look at hiring Saban and make assumptions what that does to a program, I would guess a model would not be able to do that. I'm using that example to say that the model likely cannot predict growth in a program since it is based off last year's results.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom