Fiu, Cirminiello, Mitchell on TV - Campus Insiders | Buy College Football Tickets

Compu-Picks: 2012 - How it Did Part 2

Mr Pac Ten
Posted Dec 8, 2012


Compu-Picks 2012 Review - How it Did, Part Two: Game of the Year Picks

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

Follow cfn_ms on Twitter