(05-04-2016 11:11 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 11:05 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:52 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:

PHOENIX -- Big 12 athletic directors and coaches will be presented with data Wednesday that shows a significant increase in the likelihood the league would reach the College Football Playoff if it expands to 12 or more teams.

Analytics from Navigate Research are expected to show the Big 12 has at least a 10-15 percent better chance of reaching the CFP in any given year if it expands as opposed to staying in its 10-team configuration.

That percentage at least doubles than the “4-5 percent” improvement commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke about in Phoenix on Monday. That smaller figure discussed by Bowlsby only included the addition of a conference championship game, CBS Sports has learned.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...15-percent

.... one league source called the existing analytics “statistically insignificant.”

4-5% means it would make a difference once in 20 years. 10-15% means it would make a difference once or twice a decade.

The 10-15% statistic isn't enough to force any moves; but it should be enough to influence the leadership to at least seriously consider what type of expansion could be done without damage to the current financial model - and hopefully improve it.

This quote from Bowlsby I hope is correct...

Bowlsby reiterated that a decision -- whatever it is -- needs to be made this year. The league added West Virginia and TCU to complete its current roster of 10 in 2012.

“The good news is the last time we added members we didn't have the same urgency,” Bowlsby said. “I just think we need to act expediently.”

Expansion and ccg decisions don't need to be made this year. But if they are going to start a network, they probably need to decide this year to catch the next window of re-negotiation between the Mouse and the cable networks.

The original, bogus 4-5% number was pretty much dismissed as being not meaningful when that trial balloon was floated. So they floated another balloon with a bigger number to see if that moves anybody's needle. Fact is, Navigate pulled both numbers out of the same orifice.

What neither number indicates is any financial gain by the B12 if they expand. In fact, either scenario - 5% or 15% - costs existing members a significant chunk of change. And for most of those members, the likelihood that they will be the beneficiary of this ephemeral "improvement" is slim to none. Navigate isn't doing any analysis. They are just a shill for an agenda - an agenda not all members share.

(05-04-2016 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  The original, bogus 4-5% number was pretty much dismissed as being not meaningful when that trial balloon was floated. So they floated another balloon with a bigger number to see if that moves anybody's needle. Fact is, Navigate pulled both numbers out of the same orifice.

What neither number indicates is any financial gain by the B12 if they expand. In fact, either scenario - 5% or 15% - costs existing members a significant chunk of change. And for most of those members, the likelihood that they will be the beneficiary of this ephemeral "improvement" is slim to none. Navigate isn't doing any analysis. They are just a shill for an agenda - an agenda not all members share.

The first number was a CCG with 10 teams.

The second was a CCG with 12 teams.

(05-04-2016 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 11:30 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:52 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:

PHOENIX -- Big 12 athletic directors and coaches will be presented with data Wednesday that shows a significant increase in the likelihood the league would reach the College Football Playoff if it expands to 12 or more teams.

Analytics from Navigate Research are expected to show the Big 12 has at least a 10-15 percent better chance of reaching the CFP in any given year if it expands as opposed to staying in its 10-team configuration.

That percentage at least doubles than the “4-5 percent” improvement commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke about in Phoenix on Monday. That smaller figure discussed by Bowlsby only included the addition of a conference championship game, CBS Sports has learned.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...15-percent

.... one league source called the existing analytics “statistically insignificant.”

That's Navigate trying to say there hasn't been enough factual data to accurately predict the future (which makes sense, given that we've had 2 years of the playoff). But they are still extrapolating out to a given advantage expanding to 12.

It's kind of a weird scenario. They are basically saying, 'We modeled out a XX% advantage by having 12 teams in the league, but that model is based on too limited of data for us to say it is statistically solid'.

Of course 2 years of a playoff is not enough data to reach a solid, reliable conclusion here.

It's like the old geek joke about a lazy professor who is asked, "Are all of the odd numbers prime numbers?“ and he answers, "Let's see... One is prime, three is prime... That's enough data. I'm sure they're all prime."

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago

Bob Bowlsby said the research done by Navigate was based on 10 seasons of data and 40,000 simulations.



Stewart Mandel Verified account 
‏@slmandel
Simulations included everything from 10 to 16 teams, championship or no championship, 8 or 9 games, how hard the 8 opponents were, etc.

(05-04-2016 11:05 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:52 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:

PHOENIX -- Big 12 athletic directors and coaches will be presented with data Wednesday that shows a significant increase in the likelihood the league would reach the College Football Playoff if it expands to 12 or more teams.

Analytics from Navigate Research are expected to show the Big 12 has at least a 10-15 percent better chance of reaching the CFP in any given year if it expands as opposed to staying in its 10-team configuration.

That percentage at least doubles than the “4-5 percent” improvement commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke about in Phoenix on Monday. That smaller figure discussed by Bowlsby only included the addition of a conference championship game, CBS Sports has learned.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...15-percent

.... one league source called the existing analytics “statistically insignificant.”

I take it as someone in the Big XII wants this out there to build up it argument to expand

Good point. Gotta figure that the Big 12 is split on this so shaping public perceptions will be part of the battle behind closed doors.

(05-04-2016 11:30 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:52 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:

PHOENIX -- Big 12 athletic directors and coaches will be presented with data Wednesday that shows a significant increase in the likelihood the league would reach the College Football Playoff if it expands to 12 or more teams.

Analytics from Navigate Research are expected to show the Big 12 has at least a 10-15 percent better chance of reaching the CFP in any given year if it expands as opposed to staying in its 10-team configuration.

That percentage at least doubles than the “4-5 percent” improvement commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke about in Phoenix on Monday. That smaller figure discussed by Bowlsby only included the addition of a conference championship game, CBS Sports has learned.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...15-percent

.... one league source called the existing analytics “statistically insignificant.”

That's Navigate trying to say there hasn't been enough factual data to accurately predict the future (which makes sense, given that we've had 2 years of the playoff). But they are still extrapolating out to a given advantage expanding to 12.

It's kind of a weird scenario. They are basically saying, 'We modeled out a XX% advantage by having 12 teams in the league, but that model is based on too limited of data for us to say it is statistically solid'.

In my field, such scenarios are pretty common, and when we encounter them, by training we tend to discount results that aren't statistically significant.

Navigate does a great job, but I'm not seeing any data being tweeted out that screams a need to expand.

The Big 12 will end up blowing things up.

(05-04-2016 05:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 11:30 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:52 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:

PHOENIX -- Big 12 athletic directors and coaches will be presented with data Wednesday that shows a significant increase in the likelihood the league would reach the College Football Playoff if it expands to 12 or more teams.

Analytics from Navigate Research are expected to show the Big 12 has at least a 10-15 percent better chance of reaching the CFP in any given year if it expands as opposed to staying in its 10-team configuration.

That percentage at least doubles than the “4-5 percent” improvement commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke about in Phoenix on Monday. That smaller figure discussed by Bowlsby only included the addition of a conference championship game, CBS Sports has learned.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...15-percent

.... one league source called the existing analytics “statistically insignificant.”

That's Navigate trying to say there hasn't been enough factual data to accurately predict the future (which makes sense, given that we've had 2 years of the playoff). But they are still extrapolating out to a given advantage expanding to 12.

It's kind of a weird scenario. They are basically saying, 'We modeled out a XX% advantage by having 12 teams in the league, but that model is based on too limited of data for us to say it is statistically solid'.

Of course 2 years of a playoff is not enough data to reach a solid, reliable conclusion here.

It's like the old geek joke about a lazy professor who is asked, "Are all of the odd numbers prime numbers?“ and he answers, "Let's see... One is prime, three is prime... That's enough data. I'm sure they're all prime."

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago

Bob Bowlsby said the research done by Navigate was based on 10 seasons of data

How do you use 10 seasons of data when we've had two seasons of the CFP?

Navigate had to be making some big assumptions about what would have happened during BCS years, or something like that.

Also, if you really do run 40,000 simulations and the results aren't "statistically significant" ...

All that said, I do admit the smoke seems to indicate expansion now. Hope my Bulls are ready!

(05-04-2016 05:47 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Navigate does a great job, but I'm not seeing any data being tweeted out that screams a need to expand.

The Big 12 will end up blowing things up.

That the part I agree with...no real viable options that would increase revenue which is what it always comes down to..

(05-05-2016 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 05:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 11:30 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  .... one league source called the existing analytics “statistically insignificant.”

That's Navigate trying to say there hasn't been enough factual data to accurately predict the future (which makes sense, given that we've had 2 years of the playoff). But they are still extrapolating out to a given advantage expanding to 12.

It's kind of a weird scenario. They are basically saying, 'We modeled out a XX% advantage by having 12 teams in the league, but that model is based on too limited of data for us to say it is statistically solid'.

Of course 2 years of a playoff is not enough data to reach a solid, reliable conclusion here.

It's like the old geek joke about a lazy professor who is asked, "Are all of the odd numbers prime numbers?“ and he answers, "Let's see... One is prime, three is prime... That's enough data. I'm sure they're all prime."

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago

Bob Bowlsby said the research done by Navigate was based on 10 seasons of data

How do you use 10 seasons of data when we've had two seasons of the CFP?

Navigate had to be making some big assumptions about what would have happened during BCS years, or something like that.

Also, if you really do run 40,000 simulations and the results aren't "statistically significant" ...

All that said, I do admit the smoke seems to indicate expansion now. Hope my Bulls are ready!

For purely selfish reason would like to see them go to 14 with UConn, USF, Cincinnati and Houston..3 of the last remaining BIG EAST 2.0 and a school with loads of potential in and Old School SWC School.

(05-04-2016 05:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 11:30 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:52 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:

PHOENIX -- Big 12 athletic directors and coaches will be presented with data Wednesday that shows a significant increase in the likelihood the league would reach the College Football Playoff if it expands to 12 or more teams.

Analytics from Navigate Research are expected to show the Big 12 has at least a 10-15 percent better chance of reaching the CFP in any given year if it expands as opposed to staying in its 10-team configuration.

That percentage at least doubles than the “4-5 percent” improvement commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke about in Phoenix on Monday. That smaller figure discussed by Bowlsby only included the addition of a conference championship game, CBS Sports has learned.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...15-percent

.... one league source called the existing analytics “statistically insignificant.”

That's Navigate trying to say there hasn't been enough factual data to accurately predict the future (which makes sense, given that we've had 2 years of the playoff). But they are still extrapolating out to a given advantage expanding to 12.

It's kind of a weird scenario. They are basically saying, 'We modeled out a XX% advantage by having 12 teams in the league, but that model is based on too limited of data for us to say it is statistically solid'.

Of course 2 years of a playoff is not enough data to reach a solid, reliable conclusion here.

It's like the old geek joke about a lazy professor who is asked, "Are all of the odd numbers prime numbers?“ and he answers, "Let's see... One is prime, three is prime... That's enough data. I'm sure they're all prime."

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago

Bob Bowlsby said the research done by Navigate was based on 10 seasons of data and 40,000 simulations.



Stewart Mandel Verified account 
‏@slmandel
Simulations included everything from 10 to 16 teams, championship or no championship, 8 or 9 games, how hard the 8 opponents were, etc.

Of ALL the simulations, it looks like the 12 member conference with a championship game and 8 conference games give the conference the best opportunity to make the CFP.

Based on the research, looks like the PAC12 needs to reduce their number of conference games. I think the 8 game conference slate is not getting the emphasis it should.

(05-05-2016 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 05:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 11:30 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  .... one league source called the existing analytics “statistically insignificant.”

That's Navigate trying to say there hasn't been enough factual data to accurately predict the future (which makes sense, given that we've had 2 years of the playoff). But they are still extrapolating out to a given advantage expanding to 12.

It's kind of a weird scenario. They are basically saying, 'We modeled out a XX% advantage by having 12 teams in the league, but that model is based on too limited of data for us to say it is statistically solid'.

Of course 2 years of a playoff is not enough data to reach a solid, reliable conclusion here.

It's like the old geek joke about a lazy professor who is asked, "Are all of the odd numbers prime numbers?“ and he answers, "Let's see... One is prime, three is prime... That's enough data. I'm sure they're all prime."

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago

Bob Bowlsby said the research done by Navigate was based on 10 seasons of data

How do you use 10 seasons of data when we've had two seasons of the CFP?

Navigate had to be making some big assumptions about what would have happened during BCS years, or something like that.

Also, if you really do run 40,000 simulations and the results aren't "statistically significant" ...

All that said, I do admit the smoke seems to indicate expansion now. Hope my Bulls are ready!

I suspect Navigate's numbers might work if the two teams the B12 expands with are Alabama and LSU.

(05-05-2016 12:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 05:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 11:30 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  That's Navigate trying to say there hasn't been enough factual data to accurately predict the future (which makes sense, given that we've had 2 years of the playoff). But they are still extrapolating out to a given advantage expanding to 12.

It's kind of a weird scenario. They are basically saying, 'We modeled out a XX% advantage by having 12 teams in the league, but that model is based on too limited of data for us to say it is statistically solid'.

Of course 2 years of a playoff is not enough data to reach a solid, reliable conclusion here.

It's like the old geek joke about a lazy professor who is asked, "Are all of the odd numbers prime numbers?“ and he answers, "Let's see... One is prime, three is prime... That's enough data. I'm sure they're all prime."

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago

Bob Bowlsby said the research done by Navigate was based on 10 seasons of data

How do you use 10 seasons of data when we've had two seasons of the CFP?

Navigate had to be making some big assumptions about what would have happened during BCS years, or something like that.

Also, if you really do run 40,000 simulations and the results aren't "statistically significant" ...

All that said, I do admit the smoke seems to indicate expansion now. Hope my Bulls are ready!

I suspect Navigate's numbers might work if the two teams the B12 expands with are Alabama and LSU.

Mathematically it helps to expand even with a middle of the road G5 team. Why? Think of it this way: who has the best chance to win the lottery, someone with 12 tickets or the guy with only 10?

If a 10-15% greater chance to make the CFP equals a 10-15% reduction in money for the current teams in the Big12, is it worth it?

(05-05-2016 12:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 12:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 05:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Of course 2 years of a playoff is not enough data to reach a solid, reliable conclusion here.

It's like the old geek joke about a lazy professor who is asked, "Are all of the odd numbers prime numbers?“ and he answers, "Let's see... One is prime, three is prime... That's enough data. I'm sure they're all prime."

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago

Bob Bowlsby said the research done by Navigate was based on 10 seasons of data

How do you use 10 seasons of data when we've had two seasons of the CFP?

Navigate had to be making some big assumptions about what would have happened during BCS years, or something like that.

Also, if you really do run 40,000 simulations and the results aren't "statistically significant" ...

All that said, I do admit the smoke seems to indicate expansion now. Hope my Bulls are ready!

I suspect Navigate's numbers might work if the two teams the B12 expands with are Alabama and LSU.

Mathematically it helps to expand even with a middle of the road G5 team. Why? Think of it this way: who has the best chance to win the lottery, someone with 12 tickets or the guy with only 10?

That supposes that each of the 12 teams is equally likely to field a championship caliber team in any given year. Most of the schools in the FBS are never going to be ranked among the Top 4 teams.