That "Dr Saturday" article is really off
I don't think is is worth a post, but his an analysis epitomizes the "Figures lie and liars figure" expression. I won't repost the link, because I don't want to give it any hits, but here are some of the errors (other than the Nevada/SD State error, which was apparently fixed).
Some noteables:
In his 2008 numbers, he includes Hawaii as a team without a winning record. While technically this is true, they did have a winning record not counting their game against the Irish. He makes a similar mistake in 2007, as Georgia Tech and Michigan State and UCLA were all team that finished .500 not counting their game vs the Irish.
Even given his calculations the way they are, he also fails to mention that the quality of competition improved dramatically from 2007 to 2008 when you look solely at teams with a winning record. The teams with winning records in 2007 sported a combined record of 60-32 (.652), while the 2008 teams boasted a record of 55-24 (.696). You'd have to add in Clausen's numbers against a 5-8 team in '08 to get to the same totals as "his" 07 winning opponents. The fact is that even though the overall schedule was weaker, the winning teams on the schedule were tougher opponents in 2008 than in 2007.
Finally, it is a little unfair to count Clausen's numbers in games were he didn't play much. Attributing the 2007 Georgia Tech, Boston College, and Purdue losses to Clausen is hard for me to swallow, as Clausen attempted only 6 of the 22 passes throw against GT, 20 of the 49 vs BC, and half of the passes against Purdue. I should add that Dr. Saturday does correctly omit the Navy & Southern Cal data from his analysis, however.
![[image]](http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_ncaaf_experts__12/ept_sports_ncaaf_experts-293577981-1237845505.jpg?ymBoZ_ADvR0IAtp1)
![[image]](http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_ncaaf_experts__12/ept_sports_ncaaf_experts-679603726-1237845528.jpg?ymYoZ_ADHdSj0hN.)