Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Notre Dame's Turnaround: How Have The Irish Done It?

Week 2 BTBS Picks

Putting your trust in this guy: what could possibly go wrong?

UPDATE: a 22-24 week here, but at least the Safe/Queasy picks turned out better.

Week One is in the books, and the BTBS picks did ... fine.  We went 24-13-2 (64%) overall, faring better than we did in Week One of 2009 (23-17, 58%), so there's something to be said for that.  Plus, in terms of straight-up results, we got 34 of 39 correct (87%).  But the way we did well was a bit confusing.


Week 1
Season
Type/Range
W-L
Win%
W-L
Win%
ALL GAMES
24-13-2
.641
24-13-2
.641
Big 12 Games
4-5
.444
4-5
.444
Upset Picks
2-3-1
.417
2-3-1
.417
"LOCKS"
2-3
.400
2-3
.400
"Feeling Safe"
2-3
.400
2-3
.400
"Feeling Queasy"
3-1-1
.700
3-1-1
.700
0-5 point spread
5-4-1
.550
5-4-1
.550
5-10 points
5-0
1.000
5-0
1.000
10-20 points
6-3-1
.650
6-3-1
.650
20-30 points
5-2
.714
5-2
.714
30+ points
3-4
.429
3-4
.429

Let's face it: I'd have been willing to bet $1,000,000 that the "Picks I Feel Queasy About" would outperform the "Picks I Feel Safe About."  That was just about a given.  And I continue to find it odd that the "LOCKS" (the picks where there is the biggest difference between my projection and the spread) have, going back to last season, fared worse than the picks as a whole.

The picks were pretty much spot-on for the spreads that were not on either extreme.  For the really tight spreads (0-5 points) and the really huge lines (30+ points), we went just 8-8-1.  For the spreads between 5 and 30, we made a killing, winning at a 74% clip (15-5-1).  It makes some sense that that would be the case, obviously -- the tight spreads have almost no margin for error, and the huge spreads can be impacted significantly by what happens in garbage time.  It's something to keep an eye on as we move to the Week 2 picks after the jump.

Star-divide

Some notes:

  • "LOCKS" signify games where the spread and projection are more than 17 points apart.  Remember: locks don't seem to do particularly well for whatever reason, so don't take these picks as gospel.  I had to point them out somehow, so I chose "LOCKS".
  • If there is a "(!)" next to the spread, that means the projection and spread are within 2 points of each other ... and you should probably lay off of these picks if you are the betting type.  There is already a marked increase in these games compared to how many there were last week.  That's a bad sign for my overall win% down the line.
  • Verdicts in all caps signify games where the underdog is picked to win straight up.
  • Now's a good time to remind you that one week into the season, teams' ratings haven't changed much.  They're still made up primarily by the preseason projections.  That's why you see teams like Ole Miss and Kansas still faring quite well.  I am quite confident in this approach -- too often we severely overreact to a one-game sample.  Kansas and Ole Miss might very well be the worst teams in their respective conferences, but we can't conclude that beyond a shadow of a doubt after one week.
Date Time Game Projection Spread ATS Verdict
Thurs., 9/9
6:00pm
Central Michigan at Temple (ESPNU)
CMU by 6.2
CMU +7.5
CEN. MICH. (W)

6:30pm
Auburn at Mississippi State (ESPN)
Auburn by 8.5
Auburn -2.5
Auburn (W)
Fri., 9/10
6:00pm
West Virginia at Marshall (ESPN)
WVU by 26.6
WVU -13.5
West Va. (L)

9:15pm
UTEP at Houston (ESPN)
Houston by 19.3
Houston -20 (!) Utep (L)
Sat., 9/11
11:00am
Memphis at East Carolina
ECU by 21.9
ECU -13.5
East Caro. (W)


Duke at Wake Forest (ESPN3)
Wake by 15.5
Wake -5
Wake Forest (W)


San Jose State at Wisconsin (ESPN)
Wiscy by 45.5
Wiscy -38
Wisconsin (L)


Hawaii at Army
Hawaii by 1.5
Hawaii +3
HAWAII (W)


Florida Atlantic at Michigan State (ESPNU)
Mich. St. by 36.6
Mich. St. -28.5
Michigan St. (L)


Georgia Tech at Kansas (FSN)
GT by 13.6
GT -14 (!) Kansas (W)


Georgia at South Carolina (ESPN2)
UGa by 2.4
UGa +3
GEORGIA (L)

11:21am
South Florida at Florida (ESPN3)
Florida by 35
Florida -16
UF (LOCK) (W)

11:30am
Idaho at Nebraska
NU by 44.6
NU -28
Nebraska (L)

1:00pm
Eastern Michigan at Miami (OH) (ESPN3)
Miami by 16.7
Miami -16 (!) Miami (L)

2:30pm
Colorado at California (FSN)
Cal by 12.4
Cal -9
California (W)


Michigan at Notre Dame (NBC)
Irish by 5.8
Irish -4 (!) Notre Dame (L)


Kent State at Boston College (ESPNU)
BC by 34.3
BC -17.5
Boston Coll. (L)


Florida State at Oklahoma (ABC)
OU by 10.9
OU -7.5
Oklahoma (W)


Arkansas State at UL-Lafayette (ESPN3)
ULL by 1.6
ULL -1 (!) ULL (W)


Iowa State at Iowa (ABC)
Iowa by 30.4
Iowa -14
Iowa (W)

2:40pm
Miami at Ohio State (ESPN)
Ohio St. by 12.3
Ohio St. -8.5
Ohio State (W)

3:00pm
UNLV at Utah
Utah by 31.6
Utah -22
Utah (W)


BYU at Air Force (Versus)
BYU by 10.6
BYU +1
BYU (L)

6:00pm
Toledo at Ohio
Ohio by 12.1
Ohio -8
Ohio (L)


Troy at Oklahoma State
OSU by 22.7
OSU -14
OSU (L)


Bowling Green at Tulsa
Tulsa by 10.1
Tulsa -17
B. Green (W)


LSU at Vanderbilt (ESPNU)
LSU by 24.3
LSU -10
La. St. (W)


Buffalo at Baylor
Baylor by 10.6
Baylor -17
Buffalo (L)


Louisiana Tech at Texas A&M
A&M by 21.9
A&M -19.5
A&M (W)


Rice at North Texas
UNT by 2.49
UNT -2.5 (!)
Rice (W)


Wyoming at Texas
Texas by 51.1
Texas -29
Tex. (LOCK) (L)


Syracuse at Washington
Wash. by 7.6
Wash. -13.5
Syracuse (L)


Penn State at Alabama (ESPN)
'Bama by 13.8
'Bama -12 (!) Alabama (W)


Arkansas vs UL-Monroe (ESPN3)
Arky by 42.3
Arky -34
Arkansas (L)


Oregon at Tennessee (ESPN2)
Oregon by 8.9
Oregon -12
Tennessee (L)

6:30pm
Western Kentucky at Kentucky (ESPN3)
UK by 31.4
UK -24.5
Kentucky (W)


N.C. State at Central Florida
NC St. by 4.8
NC St +3.5
NC STATE (W)

7:00pm
San Diego St. at New Mexico St. (ESPN3)
SDSU by 5.9
SDSU -13
New Mex. St. (L)


Texas Tech at New Mexico
Tech by 33.7
Tech -24.5
Texas Tech (W)


Rutgers at Florida Int'l (ESPN3)
Rutgers by 26.1
Rutgers -19
Rutgers (L)


UAB at SMU
SMU by 8
SMU -12
Uab (L)

8:00pm
Ole Miss at Tulane (ESPNC / ESPN3)
Ole Miss by 35.5
Ole Miss -20.5
Ole Miss (L)

9:30pm
Stanford at UCLA (ESPN)
Stanford by 4.4
Stanford -6
Ucla (L)


Virginia at USC
USC by 18.7
USC -19.5 (!) Virginia (W)


Colorado State at Nevada (ESPNU)
Nevada by 13.9
Nevada -23.5
Colorado St. (L)

Picks I am Feeling Safest About:

  1. LSU-Vanderbilt.  You won't make a lot of money in life betting on Les Miles teams, but for one reason or another I feel pretty good about this one.  LSU was dominant in the first half against North Carolina, and I think their problem in the second half was simply one of focus.  They should stay focused enough in Nashville to win by 10 or more. (VERDICT: W)

  2. Colorado-California.  Colorado's biggest problem in my eyes (speed) is California's biggest strength.  I think the CU defense might have some saltiness to it this year, but I can't get the visions of last year's Colorado-Toledo game out of my head.  Speed kills. (VERDICT: W)

  3. ISU-Iowa.  Fourteen points is showing a lot of respect to Iowa State, considering both teams are at least comparable to where they were last year, and Iowa won by 32 in Ames. (VERDICT: W)

  4. WKU-Kentucky.  Western Kentucky is terrible.  That's the only rationale I have. (VERDICT: W)

  5. Troy-OSU.  If Kendall Hunter really is doing his best Barry Sanders impression right now, then Vegas is, like last week, significantly underrating the Cowboys.  I say hop on the bandwagon until Vegas figures it out.  Or, you know, until Troy upsets them this week. (VERDICT: L)

Picks I am Feeling Queasiest About:

  1. CSU-Nevada.  Picking Nevada to win by only two touchdowns over a seemingly lifeless Colorado State squad doesn't seem quite right to me.  I think Nevada runs away with this one. (VERDICT: L)

  2. SJSU-Wisconsin.  SJSU obviously isn't good, but 38 points is a lot to give for a grind-it-out team like Wisconsin.  They could completely dominate but only win by 35.  (This is similar to what I said about Nebraska last week, and they barely covered.) (VERDICT: L)

  3. Baylor-Buffalo.  When you think about it, Buffalo's projection is based on them being a Turner Gill team, and a large portion of Baylor's projection is based on Robert Griffin having been injured last year.  I don't think this one stays anywhere near 10.6 points.  17 is a lot for Baylor to give to anybody, but I like them in this one. (VERDICT: L)

  4. GT-Kansas.  For very, very, very, very obvious reasons. (VERDICT: W)

  5. UTEP-Houston.  Once Houston gets rolling, the score could get ridiculous.  They're just as likely to win by 30 instead of 19.3. (VERDICT: L ... and yes, they won by 30)

Comment 10 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

That's the flipside, yes.

The point was that a 19-point victory isn’t that likely…it’s 30-points, it’s tied, or it’s a 30-point loss.

by Bill C. on Sep 9, 2010 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

How does btbs factor a lost QB?

I notice Texas, Florida and Central Michigan seem to be rating similar to last year. All lost QBs and in the case of CMU a bigger dropoff should be expected. How much of this is factored in? Is Vegas underrating these teams because of the new QB or is BTBS not reacting enough to a new QB (or in the case of CMU, replacing a historic QB)?

by danman31 on Sep 9, 2010 3:23 PM CDT reply actions  

The projections absolutely factor that in.

The biggest factors are “institutional” ones (i.e. recent history/power) because they are by far the most closely correlated to year-to-year success. The change factors, like which starters are returning, or what your turnover margin was last year, are secondary. They often don’t have nearly the impact we think they will, especially with teams like Texas and Florida, who have ridiculous talent/athleticism everywhere else. The top tier stays very much the same from year to year. Maybe one team falls back briefly, but they rarely fall back for long.

by Bill C. on Sep 9, 2010 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

Thanks for the response

That’s similar to what I expected, but I wasn’t sure. I keep going back and forth on this CMU Temple line. Temple being more than a TD favorite after struggling with Villanova confuses me, but then again I don’t know what to make of CMU post-Lefevour.

by danman31 on Sep 9, 2010 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

The projections absolutely factor that in.

The biggest factors are “institutional” ones (i.e. recent history/power) because they are by far the most closely correlated to year-to-year success. The change factors, like which starters are returning, or what your turnover margin was last year, are secondary. They often don’t have nearly the impact we think they will, especially with teams like Texas and Florida, who have ridiculous talent/athleticism everywhere else. The top tier stays very much the same from year to year. Maybe one team falls back briefly, but they rarely fall back for long.

by Bill C. on Sep 9, 2010 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

Do you think getting the higher percentage correct...

…with the (5-10) (10-20) (20-30) groups will stand up as the season progresses? Here’s why I ask. I would guess if you’ve adjusted your projections well from last season, the (5-10) and the (10-20) should give you the highest percentage correct and that these should help you keep up with Vegas. The cloesest games and the furthest apart should be hardest to predict, if you’ve tweeked it well.

Which were the groups that held up with the best percentage last year? I can’t remember.

But I barely know any advanced stats so, I really don’t know.

Dr. Ausgiano schools me in the classroom and on the field of battle

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Sep 9, 2010 5:42 PM CDT reply actions  

You know what I think is happening?

Your model generally beats the odds because it is better at weighting lots of small factors than regular people – they tend to fixate on one or two bits of info rather than being able to consider dozens of them all together.

BUT there is something that you are missing for some teams (maybe not always the same thing for all of them), and when that factor kicks in your model throws out a waaay wrong prediction, which you then gleefully label a LOCK.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Sep 9, 2010 6:56 PM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Rock M Nation: a.k.a. Burnt End Nation.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

35206_876076199270_15923695_47532665_7647603_n_small
Mizzou vs Baylor Basketball in Pictures
Young_man_small
Some Numbers Perspective
Small
Two Baylor Post-Game Thoughts
Calvin2_small
StL Recruiting Reception Notes
Small
Two Oklahoma Post-Game Thoughts

Recent FanPosts

Man_small
If They Made A Movie of This Season...
Small
Inspirational Video M-I-Z
Img_1112_small
Rock M Nation's Guide to Columbia (Remix)
Mizzou__1_small
The Magnificent Seven
Small
Reddit for Mizzou Sports
Small
RISE UP MIZZOU FANS

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Babyfoot_small Bill C.

Editors

Untitled_small ghtd36

Calvin_20and_20hobbes_small The Beef

Sleepy_small SleepyFloyd7

Zdrock_small ZouDave

Authors

Gupegg_small D-Sing

Small BillCarter

Madjay_small TigerBartender