One of the things that's important to me as I continue working on Compu-Picks is keeping records of how the system is doing. This is why I have picks monitored by sports-watch, why I had Stassen track Compu-Picks' preseason projections starting this year (and Compu-Picks finished with THE MOST ACCURATE league projections in the country), and why I'm posting a number of articles on my own discussing how the system has done. This is the second in that series of articles.
As many of you remember, before the season started I published picks against the books' Game of the Year lines. Now that the season is over, it's time to look back and see how those picks did.
There were plenty of hits and misses, but overall the picks ended up doing extremely well. By units, the system went 80-55, for a great 59.3% win rate. The below table shows the total results by confidence level (level 1 = 1 unit per pick up to level 4 = 4 units per pick)
| Confidence | W | L | Win % |
| 1 | 20 | 16 | 55.6% |
| 2 | 10 | 18 | 35.7% |
| 3 | 30 | 9 | 76.9% |
| 4 | 20 | 12 | 62.5% |
| Total | 80 | 55 | 59.3% |
The table below shows all of the picks and results in more detail, in case you'd like to follow along at home. As noted above, picks are split into confidence levels of 1-4, with 4 being the most confident picks and 1 being the least. Negative numbers indicate that the first team is the favorite, and positive numbers indicate that the second team is the favorite. W/L indicates whether the pick won or lost; oddly enough, I don't believe there were any pushes for any of the lines Compu-Picks made a selection for.
| Team1 | Team2 | Line | Confidence | Pick | W/L |
| Miami (Florida) | Kansas State | 7.5 | 0 | | |
| Washington | Louisiana State | 22 | 2 | Washington | L |
| Georgia | Missouri | -4.5 | 1 | Missouri | L |
| Florida | Texas A&M | -4 | 1 | Florida | L |
| Iowa State | Iowa | 7.5 | 0 | | |
| Southern California | Syracuse | -24 | 1 | Syracuse | W |
| Nebraska | UCLA | -6.5 | 3 | UCLA | W |
| Pittsburgh | Cincinnati | 2.5 | 0 | | |
| Oklahoma State | Arizona | -9.5 | 1 | Oklahoma State | L |
| Washington State | Nevada-Las Vegas | -16 | 1 | Nevada-Las Vegas | W |
| Alabama | Arkansas | -5 | 1 | Alabama | W |
| Florida | Tennessee | -4 | 1 | Florida | W |
| Southern California | Stanford | -12 | 4 | Stanford | W |
| Notre Dame | Michigan State | 2.5 | 0 | | |
| Louisiana State | Auburn | -9.5 | 4 | Auburn | W |
| Clemson | Florida State | 11 | 0 | | |
| Kansas State | Oklahoma | 17 | 1 | Oklahoma | L |
| Missouri | South Carolina | 5 | 0 | | |
| California | Southern California | 24 | 1 | California | W |
| Michigan | Notre Dame | 2.5 | 2 | Michigan | L |
| Mississippi | Alabama | 31 | 0 | | |
| Tennessee | Georgia | 12 | 0 | | |
| Ohio State | Michigan State | 2.5 | 3 | Ohio State | W |
| Texas | Oklahoma State | 1.5 | 3 | Texas | W |
| Arkansas | Texas A&M | -3.5 | 1 | Texas A&M | W |
| Baylor | West Virginia | 12 | 0 | | |
| Wisconsin | Nebraska | 3 | 1 | Nebraska | W |
| Southern California | Utah | -14 | 4 | Utah | W |
| Arkansas | Auburn | -4.5 | 4 | Auburn | L |
| Louisiana State | Florida | -4.5 | 3 | Florida | W |
| Kansas | Kansas State | 20 | 1 | Kansas | L |
| Washington | Oregon | 20 | 0 | | |
| Georgia | South Carolina | -2 | 1 | South Carolina | W |
| West Virginia | Texas | 6.5 | 1 | Texas | L |
| Miami (Florida) | Notre Dame | 10 | 0 | | |
| Nebraska | Ohio State | 4.5 | 0 | | |
| Nevada | Nevada-Las Vegas | -16 | 3 | Nevada-Las Vegas | W |
| Alabama | Missouri | -14 | 1 | Missouri | L |
| Southern California | Washington | -17 | 3 | Washington | W |
| Texas | Oklahoma | 7 | 2 | Texas | L |
| Stanford | Notre Dame | 5.5 | 3 | Stanford | L |
| Stanford | California | -4 | 2 | Stanford | W |
| South Carolina | Florida | 5 | 0 | | |
| Florida State | Miami (Florida) | -11 | 1 | Florida State | W |
| Michigan State | Michigan | 5.5 | 0 | | |
| Alabama | Tennessee | -14 | 0 | | |
| Baylor | Texas | 14 | 2 | Texas | L |
| Louisiana State | Texas A&M | -10 | 1 | Texas A&M | W |
| Colorado | Southern California | 36 | 1 | Southern California | W |
| Kansas State | West Virginia | 7 | 0 | | |
| Nevada-Las Vegas | Boise State | 36 | 0 | | |
| Brigham Young | Notre Dame | 7.5 | 3 | Brigham Young | W |
| Cincinnati | Louisville | 5 | 1 | Cincinnati | W |
| Mississippi State | Alabama | 24 | 2 | Mississippi State | L |
| Southern California | Arizona | -16 | 0 | | |
| Texas A&M | Auburn | 4 | 1 | Auburn | L |
| Notre Dame | Oklahoma | 12 | 1 | Oklahoma | L |
| Texas Christian | Oklahoma State | 7.5 | 4 | Texas Christian | L |
| Tennessee | South Carolina | 6.5 | 0 | | |
| Michigan State | Wisconsin | 5 | 2 | Michigan State | W |
| Florida | Georgia | 3.5 | 2 | Florida | L |
| Michigan | Nebraska | 2 | 1 | Michigan | L |
| Virginia Tech | Miami (Florida) | -6.5 | 1 | Miami (Florida) | W |
| Missouri | Florida | 7.5 | 0 | | |
| Oklahoma State | Kansas State | -2 | 0 | | |
| Nebraska | Michigan State | 5 | 2 | Nebraska | W |
| Oregon | Southern California | 3.5 | 4 | Oregon | W |
| Texas Christian | West Virginia | 6 | 3 | Texas Christian | W |
| Pittsburgh | Notre Dame | 13 | 1 | Pittsburgh | W |
| Alabama | Louisiana State | 1.5 | 1 | Alabama | W |
| Florida State | Virginia Tech | -3 | 1 | Florida State | W |
| Pittsburgh | Connecticut | -2.5 | 0 | | |
| Texas A&M | Alabama | 20 | 0 | | |
| Georgia | Auburn | -5.5 | 3 | Auburn | L |
| Notre Dame | Boston College | -11 | 4 | Boston College | L |
| Mississippi State | Louisiana State | 17 | 3 | Mississippi State | L |
| Baylor | Oklahoma | 20 | 1 | Oklahoma | L |
| West Virginia | Oklahoma State | 5 | 1 | West Virginia | L |
| Arkansas | South Carolina | -2 | 3 | South Carolina | W |
| Kansas State | Texas Christian | 5 | 1 | Texas Christian | L |
| Missouri | Tennessee | 2.5 | 2 | Missouri | W |
| Arizona State | Southern California | 27 | 0 | | |
| Mississippi | Louisiana State | 28 | 0 | | |
| Stanford | Oregon | 14 | 0 | | |
| Southern California | UCLA | -14 | 3 | UCLA | W |
| Ohio State | Wisconsin | 4.5 | 4 | Ohio State | W |
| Oklahoma | West Virginia | -3.5 | 1 | Oklahoma | L |
| Louisiana State | Arkansas | -3.5 | 0 | | |
| Washington | Washington State | -1 | 2 | Washington | L |
| Arizona State | Arizona | 7 | 1 | Arizona State | W |
| Auburn | Alabama | 20 | 2 | Auburn | L |
| South Carolina | Clemson | 2.5 | 0 | | |
| Florida | Florida State | 6.5 | 1 | Florida | W |
| Mississippi State | Mississippi | -10 | 0 | | |
| Michigan | Ohio State | 4 | 0 | | |
| Oklahoma State | Oklahoma | 10 | 0 | | |
| Oregon | Oregon State | -17 | 0 | | |
| Texas Christian | Texas | 8.5 | 1 | Texas Christian | W |
| Missouri | Texas A&M | 3 | 2 | Missouri | L |
| Notre Dame | Southern California | 13 | 1 | Notre Dame | W |
| Texas | Kansas State | -6 | 1 | Texas | L |
| Oklahoma | Texas Christian | -8 | 2 | Texas Christian | W |
| Army | Navy | 3.5 | 1 | Army | L |
There are a few important notes and caveats I need to make about this model:
1) Compu-Picks does not endorse implicitly or explicitly any form of illegal gambling. Compu-Picks is intended to be used for entertainment purposes only.
2) No guarantee or warranty is offered or implied by Compu-Picks for any information provided and/or predictions made.
3) This preseason model is primarily based on the main compu-picks model. Essentially, it attempts to predict how well a team will rate given its rating history, as well as a number of other data points, such as returning starters, draft talent lost, turnovers, recruiting, etc. This means, among other things, that the rankings are power rankings based on how good a team projects to be, as opposed to a more cynical (though accurate) model that attempts to project how the BCS will rank a team by making adjustments to favor those with easy schedules and punish those with tough schedules.
2012 Compu-Picks Blog
Questions, comments or suggestions? Email me at cfn_ms@hotmail.com
