Dave bartoo's contenders

[msstate7]

Dave Bartoo
@CFBMatrix
So its a wrap

Tier I Contenders - Bama Auburn tOSU Clemson
Tier II - USC UGA FSU LSU ND Texas PSU
Tier III - (maybe get to NC but not win) OU Vols UCLA UF

11:58 PM - Jul 16, 2018

[msstate7]

So he has 15 teams with a shot at playing for the natty, and 4 of them are on our schedule. Let's hope he's wrong

[Big4Dawg]

Vols????

[starkvegasdawg]

Vols, LSU, and Florida? Do they drug test at his place of employment?

[Todd4State]

Vols, LSU, and Florida? Do they drug test at his place of employment?

He still thinks it 2003.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Lol the Vols???! The 4-8 team with no QB, tons of locker room issues, and not even a top 10 4 year average recruiting ranking? Wtf is he smoking?

Also, how can you say OU is tier 3 when they return the same staff, have more talent, and a better QB than the Vols, UF, or LSU does? They made the playoffs last year and he puts them on the same level as 2 4-8 programs with new coaches and worse recruiting profiles. What an idiot. No Washington or Oklahoma State or TCU or Michigan State or Wisconsin either... my God I'm getting mad that this complete idiot actually has a radio show

[Commercecomet24]

What's Bartoo smoking? Must be some heavy hallucinogenic stuff.

[ShotgunDawg]

I like Bartoo & find much of what he says to be valuable quality information.

However, I was thinking about this today when on Bo Bounds he said, "MSU finishing in the top 25 would be an incredible season for them under a new staff." IMO, Bartoo's formula is missing a recent track record component & a re-ranking of starting players based off logical production or draft stock.

Best I can tell, most of Bartoo's formula is (recruiting ranking + coach + coordinators + schedule (which is based on your opponents recruiting, coach, & coordinators) = record

My biggest issue is that his formula doesn't appear to account for track record, draft stock, etc.... I'm sure his formula is solid for most of college football, but it becomes irrational when MSU is being credited as being a mid-20s recruiter while players such as Sweat & Fitz are clearly high 4 to 5 star talents that were clearly underrated.

What Bartoo's formula needs is a way to re-rank upper classmen that have produced by either considering their stats or draft stock.

Again, there is a missing component in his formula because our eyes tell us that his formula is missing a logical component.

[Cooterpoot]

Just another stupid 17 trying to suck money off fans of big programs.

[SmokeyDawg]

I would imagine he actually does pretty well on the larger scale. I don't think his formula works all that well for State as a contender right now, but his formula basically boils down to the blue bloods and that's an easy bet. Recruiting average, coordinator grades, home field advantage... hard lean towards those programs. I agree with shotgun; if he re-evaluated the upper classmen on teams he would probably find the best dark horses for the playoffs. When you rate guys like Sweat, Fitz, Hoyett, Jenkins, etc as they were when signed, your formula is pretty flawed. Probably a lot less work though.

[Ari Gold]

Dave Bartoo
@CFBMatrix
So its a wrap

Tier I Contenders - Bama Auburn tOSU Clemson
Tier II - USC UGA FSU LSU ND Texas PSU
Tier III - (maybe get to NC but not win) OU Vols UCLA UF

11:58 PM - Jul 16, 2018

What a waste of segment..

[ShotgunDawg]

I would imagine he actually does pretty well on the larger scale. I don't think his formula works all that well for State as a contender right now, but his formula basically boils down to the blue bloods and that's an easy bet. Recruiting average, coordinator grades, home field advantage... hard lean towards those programs. I agree with shotgun; if he re-evaluated the upper classmen on teams he would probably find the best dark horses for the playoffs. When you rate guys like Sweat, Fitz, Hoyett, Jenkins, etc as they were when signed, your formula is pretty flawed. Probably a lot less work though.

You nailed it.

His formula does work on the whole allows him to make bets between teams like Colorado State and Wyoming.

But, yes, teams like MSU are punished in for a number of reasons: unnderrated in state players, quality QB development, and maybe most of the fact that JUCO players are objectively ranked lower, due to their potential of only giving 2 years of production. So guys like Sweat, Guidry, Abram, Cole, Rivers, etc had their recruiting ranking artificially lowered out of JUCO not because of their talent but because they were JUCO.

Your right though, doing it right would require a lot more work.

[ScoobaDawg]

It's all good. He's an idiot who is picking name teams from their history. I'm alright with getting no respect. Dan built the foundation of going to bowls every year but didn't earn us any staying power in the top echelon of the ncaa or even sec..
Now with a new unproven head coach, we are a gamble.

Besides.. The only time we have gotten any real respect preseason we sh?t the bed badly. Beat Bama. Win the sec. Then we can expect some respect.

[gravedigger]

unnderrated in state players, quality QB development, and maybe most of the fact that JUCO players are objectively ranked lower, due to their potential of only giving 2 years of production. So guys like Sweat, Guidry, Abram, Cole, Rivers, etc had their recruiting ranking artificially lowered out of JUCO not because of their talent but because they were JUCO.

Your right though, doing it right would require a lot more work.

And your comments above are why recruiting rankings are just not reliable. People always point to Bama and Ohio State as an example of recruiting class accuracy and discount the VAST majority of mid ranked teams who have legitimate players who didnt have the luxury of a ranking based on offers from Saban and Meyer.

I dont have a problem with any of the preseason predictions or the recruiting rankings because I know they are simply propaganda for large fanbases and always have been. Bartoo selecting Tennessee is just flat lazyness. LSU is the same. Anyone who watched their spring game could clearly see that Orgeron is struggling to find an identity for his offense and they also have a good amount of talent. But a recruiting ranking isnt going to go very far for them this year.

Florida will be pretty good defensively, but the offense is going to struggle getting used to Mullen's system.

Florida State and ND may very well be good, but they shouldnt either be picked over us on a neutral site.

We didnt pick a guy with automatic national credibility to lead our program. We picked the next great coach who hasnt established himself and that is perfectly fine with me.

I just dont understand how Bartoo and others can discount our team experience and the fact that we won a big bowl game with only an assistant coach and a backup qb against a very potent offense.

[Bass Chaser]

Bartoo is a stats guy who takes emotion out of his picks. He doesn't have a radio show. His succcess rate is around 80%.

A big component as others alluded was recruiting ranking. If I remember correctly he takes a 4-year average from the 247 composite.

[Prediction? Pain.]

Does anyone know this dude's criteria for assigning the coaching scores that he uses in his rankings? I glanced at some of his stuff from last year and noticed that in his predictions for Week 3, he graded LSU's OC at B+ and DC at A+, while giving both Mullen and Grantham a C+. Mullen wasn't elite as an OC, but I think he's at least a solid B on a national scale. And how would Grantham, who was coming off three years of fielding nationally elite defenses at Louisville, not have been at least an A- at DC?

[msstate7]

Bartoo is a stats guy who takes emotion out of his picks. He doesn't have a radio show. His succcess rate is around 80%.

A big component as others alluded was recruiting ranking. If I remember correctly he takes a 4-year average from the 247 composite.

Success at picking individual games? Take the spread out of the equation, and I think most everyone here could pick 80% or dang close. The vast majority of college games are easy to pick

[ShotgunDawg]

And your comments above are why recruiting rankings are just not reliable. People always point to Bama and Ohio State as an example of recruiting class accuracy and discount the VAST majority of mid ranked teams who have legitimate players who didnt have the luxury of a ranking based on offers from Saban and Meyer.

I dont have a problem with any of the preseason predictions or the recruiting rankings because I know they are simply propaganda for large fanbases and always have been. Bartoo selecting Tennessee is just flat lazyness. LSU is the same. Anyone who watched their spring game could clearly see that Orgeron is struggling to find an identity for his offense and they also have a good amount of talent. But a recruiting ranking isnt going to go very far for them this year.

Florida will be pretty good defensively, but the offense is going to struggle getting used to Mullen's system.

Florida State and ND may very well be good, but they shouldnt either be picked over us on a neutral site.

We didnt pick a guy with automatic national credibility to lead our program. We picked the next great coach who hasnt established himself and that is perfectly fine with me.

I just dont understand how Bartoo and others can discount our team experience and the fact that we won a big bowl game with only an assistant coach and a backup qb against a very potent offense.

Not to take this conversation into a different direction, but you have just outlined here is the exact problem with analytics in sports & why ultra-analytical professional organizations will never be successful in the long haul. Sure... they can win big in time frames & be fairly consistent, due to likely never making ultra dumb decisions because the analytics in many ways works as a safety net that prevents ultra-dumb decisions.

However, you cannot replace the "eye test" scouting & the best professional/college organizations will ALWAYS be the organizations that can best blend the best attributes of both scouting & analytics. When an organization gets too far to one side, they begin making dumb decisions.

[ShotgunDawg]

Bartoo is a stats guy who takes emotion out of his picks. He doesn't have a radio show. His succcess rate is around 80%.

A big component as others alluded was recruiting ranking. If I remember correctly he takes a 4-year average from the 247 composite.

Bartoo does a great job & his method works for a vast majority of college football. MSU is a curveball due though due to the number of JUCO players typically on the team & rawness of the typical high school player coming out of the state. We've outline those issues in this thread.

Eye test matters & it always will.

[ShotgunDawg]

Success at picking individual games? Take the spread out of the equation, and I think most everyone here could pick 80% or dang close. The vast majority of college games are easy to pick

Probably, but Bartoo's method does allow him to bet on games in which he does not have personal knowledge of the teams.

Sure, we could all pick 80% of the games that SEC teams play, but his "model" comes in handy when betting Western Kentucky vs Memphis. How many of us could make a logical bet on that game? I know I couldn't because I don't have personal knowledge of either of those teams. Bartoo can because his "model" tells him who to bet on.

[gravedigger]

Not to take this conversation into a different direction, but you have just outlined here is the exact problem with analytics in sports & why ultra-analytical professional organizations will never be successful in the long haul. Sure... they can win big in time frames & be fairly consistent, due to likely never making ultra dumb decisions because the analytics in many ways works as a safety net that prevents ultra-dumb decisions.

However, you cannot replace the "eye test" scouting & the best professional/college organizations will ALWAYS be the organizations that can best blend the best attributes of both scouting & analytics. When an organization gets too far to one side, they begin making dumb decisions.

Spot on

[ShotgunDawg]

It's all good. He's an idiot who is picking name teams from their history.

No he's not & we lose credibility when we make this argument.

Bartoo's system is legit. MSU is just a curveball for it & it's not worth his time to put in the effort to correct it. He would rather just avoid betting MSU games & avoid the flaw

[msstate7]

Probably, but Bartoo's method does allow him to bet on games in which he does not have personal knowledge of the teams.

Sure, we could all pick 80% of the games that SEC teams play, but his "model" comes in handy when betting Western Kentucky vs Memphis. How many of us could make a logical bet on that game? I know I couldn't because I don't have personal knowledge of either of those teams. Bartoo can because his "model" tells him who to bet on.

His model says UCLA and tenn are playoff contenders.

Also as prediction said above that Mullen and grantham were rated poorly by him, but Florida is a playoff contender this year

[Bass Chaser]

Success at picking individual games? Take the spread out of the equation, and I think most everyone here could pick 80% or dang close. The vast majority of college games are easy to pick

He also has stats available that tell you spreads, over, under, etc. It cost like $12 a year. He's pretty close to Vegas.

[msstate7]

Does anyone know this dude's criteria for assigning the coaching scores that he uses in his rankings? I glanced at some of his stuff from last year and noticed that in his predictions for Week 3, he graded LSU's OC at B+ and DC at A+, while giving both Mullen and Grantham a C+. Mullen wasn't elite as an OC, but I think he's at least a solid B on a national scale. And how would Grantham, who was coming off three years of fielding nationally elite defenses at Louisville, not have been at least an A- at DC?

This is where his purely "analytical" approach gets off the tracks. He's assigning a value purely on what he thinks

[msstate7]

[QUOTE=msstate7;971906]Success at picking individual games? Take the spread out of the equation, and I think most everyone here could pick 80% or dang close. The vast majority of college games are easy to pick[/QUOTE

He also has stats available that tell you spreads, over, under, etc. It cost like $12 a year.

At 80% success rate?

[Bass Chaser]

[QUOTE=Bass Chaser;971924]

At 80% success rate?

I believe so. Don't quote me on it. I use to follow him closer. Then I felt like it took the fun out of college football.

He's pretty much figured out the formula the CFP committee uses when they come out with their rankings.

[MetEdDawg]

I heard him on Finebaum a few weeks back. He had us going 7-5 this year. He literally said 8-4 then subtract 1 for a new head coach.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

No he's not & we lose credibility when we make this argument.

Bartoo's system is legit. MSU is just a curveball for it & it's not worth his time to put in the effort to correct it. He would rather just avoid betting MSU games & avoid the flaw

I'm sorry, saying Tennessee will have better odd of making the Natty than Wisconsin or TCU is just insane. They have less talent, a tougher path, worse coaching, and worse culture. Any ranking system that thinks a first year HC will take a 4-8, #13ish 4 year recruiting profile Tennessee and turn them into a better team than Garry Patterson will field, or a 13-1 Wisconsin that returns a lot, is a bad ranking system.

I'm sorry, there is literally no excuse to think Tennessee or Florida will be better than Wisconsin. The only thing they are better at is a raw recruiting ranking.... I don't care what the flaw(s) is, his metric obviously has some big ones. His system seem to be 1) 4 year recruiting ranking, 2) how big the home crowds get, and 3) how well he personally likes the coaches. If he took the schedule into account, Washington and TCU and Wisconsin would make the list as they have an easier path to the playoffs. If he weighed QB play more than any other, there's no way Florida or Tennessee would make the list as they have shit for QBs. If he took an analytic approach to assistants, he'd have Grantham higher than C+ as he's over performed his talent level each of the last 4 years. If he took returning production into account, he'd have State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State ahead of Tenn or UF. Hell, A&M has the same recruiting profile, better coaches, AND more returning starters than those 2, yet aren't to be found.

His problem is not that he's too analytics driven and ignres the eye test... it's that he takes the easiest part of analytics (recruiting rankings) and stops there. His method of evaluating assistants is questionable, and home crowd size just isn't that important. He ignores culture, returning production, QB play, and he completely ignores coaching continuity which a huge as any system take more than 1 year to get installed as it should. It's really terrible, no 2 ways about it. Talent and a rough estimate of coaching ability will get you 80% of games, but it is far from being "too analytical"

[TrapGame]

Bartoo is Common Core analytics. Half his shit makes no sense.

He had his analytics telling him last year that App State was comparable to UGA and would be a close game. Yeah, Kirby didn't break a sweat 31-10 UGA. Those 10 points App State scored were all in the 4th quarter when Kirby was playing the water boy and some walk ons.

[dawgday166]

His model says UCLA and tenn are playoff contenders.

Also as prediction said above that Mullen and grantham were rated poorly by him, but Florida is a playoff contender this year

When I've listened to him, he always rates Mullen high on coach effect.

[ShotgunDawg]

When I've listened to him, he always rates Mullen high on coach effect.

That's just because we win more games than our recruiting rankings say that we should.

The problem is that, if the recruiting rankings are not really indicative of MSU's talent level, then the system starts to break down.

Bartoo's system is based on the assumption & track record that recruiting rankings are fairly accurate. The argument for MSU is that variables in MSU's recruiting make recruiting rankings less accurate about MSU's talent level.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

That's just because we win more games than our recruiting rankings say that we should.

The problem is that, if the recruiting rankings are not really indicative of MSU's talent level, then the system starts to break down.

Bartoo's system is based on the assumption & track record that recruiting rankings are fairly accurate. The argument for MSU is that variables in MSU's recruiting make recruiting rankings less accurate about MSU's talent level.

You're greatly understating the flaws in his system. He doesn't take into account returning production, he doesn't take into account returning QBs, he seems to think year 1 of a coach will be just as good as year 5, and his coaching rankings are subjective. The underrated talent part may be the biggest reason we are so low, but all these are still flaws in the system

[ShotgunDawg]

You're greatly understating the flaws in his system. He doesn't take into account returning production, he doesn't take into account returning QBs, he seems to think year 1 of a coach will be just as good as year 5, and his coaching rankings are subjective. The underrated talent part may be the biggest reason we are so low, but all these are still flaws in the system

I believe Bartoo could come on this board and destroy me in an arguement and bury me with research because he knows his algorithm better than I do.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the eye test says that there is a missing component with MSU. There is something about MSU that his algorithm doesn't account for but it's hard to put your finger on.

I believe it's a product of systematic underrating of talent within the state of Mississippi including both HS and JUCO players that, if they were rated correctly, would give MSU somewhere between the 13th-17th most talent in the country. Throw that in with above average coaching and you've got a top 10 caliber team.

I could be wrong though, and he may be making an assumption that Moorhead will just be average, which isn't unfair because he hasn't coached yet.

[BuckyIsAB****]

This guy is a bafoon. Notre Dame, USC, Texas, Tennessee, UF, LSU, and for Gods sake UCLA have as much of a shot at making it as the jackson state tigers do

[Ari Gold]

I heard him on Finebaum a few weeks back. He had us going 7-5 this year. He literally said 8-4 then subtract 1 for a new head coach.

The -1 for a new coach is stupid and ****ing lazy , unless he uses it every time a new coach is hired. And if he does then it’s just plain stupid.
I don’t listen and haven’t listened to this guy but based on some of the shit he says and throws out there that some of you are posting I’m glad I don’t waste my ****ing time..
Sounds more like Bartool than Bartoo .

[Johnson85]

I believe so. Don't quote me on it. I use to follow him closer. Then I felt like it took the fun out of college football.

He's pretty much figured out the formula the CFP committee uses when they come out with their rankings.

IF he was hitting at 80% against the spread, he move the spread when he released his projections.

[Commercecomet24]

This guy is a bafoon. Notre Dame, USC, Texas, Tennessee, UF, LSU, and for Gods sake UCLA have as much of a shot at making it as the jackson state tigers do

This.

[Bubb Rubb]

Dave Bartoo
@CFBMatrix
So its a wrap

Tier I Contenders - Bama Auburn tOSU Clemson
Tier II - USC UGA FSU LSU ND Texas PSU
Tier III - (maybe get to NC but not win) OU Vols UCLA UF

11:58 PM - Jul 16, 2018

LSU? Tennessee? Florida?

Absolutely retarded. All three of those teams will struggle to be bowl eligible.

[TUSK]

NOBODY hits 80% versus the spread over time, nobody...

[CadaverDawg]

Bartoo's biggest problem in the matrix is that he doesn't reevaluate recruiting rankings each year. In other words, the year Bernardrick McKinney and Johnthan Banks were Juniors, they were still 2 stars in Bartoo's matrix. No algorithm will be very accurate if one of the metrics is flawed to that extent.

Other examples, this years team has 2 Star Fitzgerald at QB, 3 Star McLaurin at S, etc....if re-ranked, both would be 4 stars at minimum. And there are many other examples as well. I'm also pretty sure His matrix also doesn't factor in guys that are no longer on the team....so you have an Ole Miss getting credit for Shea Patterson, Van Jefferson, etc.

To me, this not factoring in player development or not re-rating players, kills the matrix completely

[ShotgunDawg]

Bartoo's biggest problem in the matrix is that he doesn't reevaluate recruiting rankings each year. In other words, the year Bernardrick McKinney and Johnthan Banks were Juniors, they were still 2 stars in Bartoo's matrix. No algorithm will be very accurate if one of the metrics is flawed to that extent.

Other examples, this years team has 2 Star Fitzgerald at QB, 3 Star McLaurin at S, etc....if re-ranked, both would be 4 stars at minimum. And there are many other examples as well. I'm also pretty sure His matrix also doesn't factor in guys that are no longer on the team....so you have an Ole Miss getting credit for Shea Patterson, Van Jefferson, etc.

To me, this not factoring in player development or not re-rating players, kills the matrix completely

100% agree.

In Bartoo's defense though, if his system already works at an adequate level, is it worth the extra effort to update all the rosters & is he a good enough evaluator or is there enough information on what to systematically update the player's evaluations too in order to make a more accurate system?

I believe Bartoo's current system works pretty well, but MSU may be the epitome of teams that has players out produce & play their recruiting ranking.

[CadaverDawg]

100% agree.

In Bartoo's defense though, if his system already works at an adequate level, is it worth the extra effort to update all the rosters & is he a good enough evaluator or is there enough information on what to systematically update the player's evaluations too in order to make a more accurate system?

I believe Bartoo's current system works pretty well, but MSU may be the epitome of teams that has players out produce & play their recruiting ranking.

Any system with Tennessee as a contender in 2018, is not "accurate". They play both UGA and Bama, have a new coach with no head coaching experience, no QB, and were 4-8 last year. Having them as a contender is a credibility killer in my opinion.

[ShotgunDawg]

Any system with Tennessee as a contender in 2018, is not "accurate". They play both UGA and Bama, have a new coach with no head coaching experience, no QB, and were 4-8 last year. Having them as a contender is a credibility killer in my opinion.

True

[gravedigger]

Bartoo's biggest problem in the matrix is that he doesn't reevaluate recruiting rankings each year. In other words, the year Bernardrick McKinney and Johnthan Banks were Juniors, they were still 2 stars in Bartoo's matrix. No algorithm will be very accurate if one of the metrics is flawed to that extent.

Other examples, this years team has 2 Star Fitzgerald at QB, 3 Star McLaurin at S, etc....if re-ranked, both would be 4 stars at minimum. And there are many other examples as well. I'm also pretty sure His matrix also doesn't factor in guys that are no longer on the team....so you have an Ole Miss getting credit for Shea Patterson, Van Jefferson, etc.

To me, this not factoring in player development or not re-rating players, kills the matrix completely

^^^^^^^^^^^^ this,this,this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a severe flaw and if someone ever accounted for it, they might cause some problems for Vegas until they corrected it. It is why we went to Atlanta in 1998. Sometimes (meaning rarely) a team lands a class that is quite special even though it's not rated highly. That team has an affect over 4-5 years. Then there are times a team has a dud that is rated highly (Texas, Tennessee, etc) and they negatively affect classes for 2-3 years. This is never reflected later and should be.

I dont think I've ever witnessed something so counter-intuitive in my life. So many people just assume that the rankings passed out before the kid ever hits the D1 field should mean success for years to come and vice versa.

[Commercecomet24]

Bartoo's biggest problem in the matrix is that he doesn't reevaluate recruiting rankings each year. In other words, the year Bernardrick McKinney and Johnthan Banks were Juniors, they were still 2 stars in Bartoo's matrix. No algorithm will be very accurate if one of the metrics is flawed to that extent.

Other examples, this years team has 2 Star Fitzgerald at QB, 3 Star McLaurin at S, etc....if re-ranked, both would be 4 stars at minimum. And there are many other examples as well. I'm also pretty sure His matrix also doesn't factor in guys that are no longer on the team....so you have an Ole Miss getting credit for Shea Patterson, Van Jefferson, etc.

To me, this not factoring in player development or not re-rating players, kills the matrix completely

Right on, CD!