WEST VIRGINIA
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
WEST VIRGINIA
Why would anyone even visit this site anymore. They predicted West Virginia to go 2-10. These writers don't know their head from their elbows.
[Admin Notice: Actually it picked them to go 2-9. However, the gameday picks went 7-5 (including a miss in the Sugar Bowl).]
[Admin Notice: Actually it picked them to go 2-9. However, the gameday picks went 7-5 (including a miss in the Sugar Bowl).]
I was stunned when I figured out about that. I picked West Virginia to win the Big East until I was told that was an idiot move so I switched to Pitt to sound sensible!
A lot of West Virginia fans were complaining about that on the old Big East message board. I wouldn't say they suck, so what, they missed it on a big suprise team. Can't really blame them there. But, you do have to wonder about putting the Mountaineers behind Cincinnati, a team that was returning 6 starters from a 6-5 C-USA team. I didn't understand that prediction at all, but hey, we've all been dead wrong more times than once right?
A lot of West Virginia fans were complaining about that on the old Big East message board. I wouldn't say they suck, so what, they missed it on a big suprise team. Can't really blame them there. But, you do have to wonder about putting the Mountaineers behind Cincinnati, a team that was returning 6 starters from a 6-5 C-USA team. I didn't understand that prediction at all, but hey, we've all been dead wrong more times than once right?
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
LubbockHasNoTrees wrote...
Thanks guys. Some people take predictions a little too personally. There is no correct response to have other than relief that the team did a lot better than the computer predicted. First, instead of worst - be happy, not sad.
West Virginia entered the season with a very young team and no major returning offensive weapons. They also played in a conference that had three new teams coming in and one leaving - a major overhaul of that conference's members. That was bound to create some larger room for error. The miss would be more glaringly stupid had those factors not existed. It was wrong, but it wasn't like it failed to make ANY sense at all.
It should also be noted that WVU has outperformed the computer's preseason forecasts in every year of Rich Rodriguez' tenure, except for his very first season. That indicates that Rodriguez gets the most from his players. His predecessor (Don Nehlen), though revered by many in Morgantown, usually underformed the computers expectations.
Imagine how Purdue fans felt -picked to go unbeaten and wound up 5-6. I'm sure WVU fans would rather have their situation than Purdue's.
If every pick was correct - or even close to correct - we'd be making millions and you'd be buying shares of the stock. Teams could just forget playing the games because all of the results would be known beforehand.
It would be nice if everyone could take two minutes to consider all of the results and weigh the "hits" against the "misses", but that would just leave them embarrassed by their negativity.
LubbockHasNoTrees also wrote...
True. No writers picked anyone to do anything on this site. They merely presented and commented on the computer's picks. Regarding that, the writer said, "Rich Rodriguez has to replace over half of his starters in Morgantown. However, Rodriguez' teams have outperformed the computer's expectations every year. A last-place finish seems preposterous.."
After the season, the editors added, "We'd like to remove this page or hide it, but that would be too dishonest. At least, the Rutgers pick was solid. We'll use the excuse that three new teams screwed things up, not us."
Eric wrote...
True. But WVU had the higher opening power-rating. As the game was played at Cincy, it altered the forecasted result due to homefield advantage (+3). The preseason pick was a WVa loss by 1. The game-day pick was a Mountaineer win by 8.
don't be bitter that they outdid expectations of a computer... be grateful they did as well as they did. Until then... stay off our message board.
Thanks guys. Some people take predictions a little too personally. There is no correct response to have other than relief that the team did a lot better than the computer predicted. First, instead of worst - be happy, not sad.
West Virginia entered the season with a very young team and no major returning offensive weapons. They also played in a conference that had three new teams coming in and one leaving - a major overhaul of that conference's members. That was bound to create some larger room for error. The miss would be more glaringly stupid had those factors not existed. It was wrong, but it wasn't like it failed to make ANY sense at all.
It should also be noted that WVU has outperformed the computer's preseason forecasts in every year of Rich Rodriguez' tenure, except for his very first season. That indicates that Rodriguez gets the most from his players. His predecessor (Don Nehlen), though revered by many in Morgantown, usually underformed the computers expectations.
Imagine how Purdue fans felt -picked to go unbeaten and wound up 5-6. I'm sure WVU fans would rather have their situation than Purdue's.
If every pick was correct - or even close to correct - we'd be making millions and you'd be buying shares of the stock. Teams could just forget playing the games because all of the results would be known beforehand.
It would be nice if everyone could take two minutes to consider all of the results and weigh the "hits" against the "misses", but that would just leave them embarrassed by their negativity.
LubbockHasNoTrees also wrote...
He obviously doesn't know much about CFP, cause it's a computer ranking
True. No writers picked anyone to do anything on this site. They merely presented and commented on the computer's picks. Regarding that, the writer said, "Rich Rodriguez has to replace over half of his starters in Morgantown. However, Rodriguez' teams have outperformed the computer's expectations every year. A last-place finish seems preposterous.."
After the season, the editors added, "We'd like to remove this page or hide it, but that would be too dishonest. At least, the Rutgers pick was solid. We'll use the excuse that three new teams screwed things up, not us."
Eric wrote...
But, you do have to wonder about putting the Mountaineers behind Cincinnati, a team that was returning 6 starters from a 6-5 C-USA team
True. But WVU had the higher opening power-rating. As the game was played at Cincy, it altered the forecasted result due to homefield advantage (+3). The preseason pick was a WVa loss by 1. The game-day pick was a Mountaineer win by 8.
Last edited by CFP Admin on Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 20970
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
If every pick was correct - or even close to correct - we'd be making millions and you'd be buying shares of the stock. Teams could just forget playing the games because all of the results would be known beforehand.
If every pick was correct I wouldn't need to by the stock. I would just have to make a couple of well placed calls to Las Vegas.
No matter what criteria anyone uses for predicting games and/or scores no one can correctly predict the future. No one should be expected to predict the future and be 100% correct. Our little picks game proved that. The year I kept the tally no one predicted better then 60% for the season and we were picking straight up.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
What was it? 1994 when Northwestern was picked by everyone to finish last in the Big 10 and they went to the Rose Bowl. Last year, my team was picked to finish 7th in the ACC by the conference's sportswriters and coaches - and they WON the conference.
Yes, you can find wrong picks on the site in practically every conference. But look at how many they got right. Especially if you go to http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/commentary.html which just happens to be the top story on the front page right now.
Yes, you can find wrong picks on the site in practically every conference. But look at how many they got right. Especially if you go to http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/commentary.html which just happens to be the top story on the front page right now.
"Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."
For me, it's just that I have little patience for people who want to chop down the whole tree because one orange was sour. Pardon the metaphor. (That was a metaphor, wasn't it?).
By the way, I wonder where HIS (the complainer's) preseason picks are of all the conferences so we can rag on those.
By the way, I wonder where HIS (the complainer's) preseason picks are of all the conferences so we can rag on those.
Last edited by ..fanatic on Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests