It was a frustrating week going just 2-4 on our recommended plays, and again being the beneficiary of some horrible luck.  We had an easy winner on our #1 recommended play as Nevada destroyed SJSU 62-7, outgaining them 655-258 (including over 500 on the ground, which we called for them to top 400 yds rushing).  We again suffered some horrible luck this week on our 4 Losses:

1. #2 recommended play TAMU (-3):  TAMU was up 21-10 at half (which should have been more as they had a TAMU turnover on downs at the 1 yard line on the 1^st drive of the game), and up 6 with 3 minutes to go in the game despite a 2^nd half that included 1 missed FG and two stalled drives in the red zone that settled for FGs (one of which on the 3 yd line).

1. #3 recommend play Army (+17):  AF wins 35-7 despite only 292 yards (of which 75 came on one play).  The game was 7-7 with AFs only points coming via a punt return TD, long pass play (75yd) and some really unfortunate short field possessions  (AF gained 4.7 yppl which if you take out the one long pass play was much worse, 3.6 yppl), which is very close to our projections of 262 yds @ 4.0 yppl. Army gained 236 ypds (4.0 yppl) which is actually better than the 213 (3.7 yppl) we projected.  To give you a sense of how unusual 35 pts on just 292 yds  total offense is, here are the production of a couple other of our recommended plays this week:
   1. SJSU: 7 pts – 258 yds (4.9 yppl)
   2. UNC: 19 pts – 311 yds (3.9 yppl)
   3. Oklahoma -3 pts – 325 yds (3.7 yppl)

Oklahoma should have had a little more (probably close to 13-17), but all in all I think it is pretty obvious our analysis was correct, and we were on the right side, just horribly unlucky

1. #4 recommend play Duke (+10)- we were in great shape with a 6-6 score late in the 3^rd quarter before this comedy of errors occurred:
   1. Duke picks off UNC returning it to the UNC 37, looking good to go up at least 9-6 heading into the 4^th quarter.  2 plays later Duke throws a pick that is returned to the INT sets up 20, 3 and out later – UNC FG and 9-6 UNC lead to end the 3^rd quarter…at minimum a 6 point swing
   2. Duke TO on downs at the UNC 41 which leads to a TD
   3. UNC Punt return to the Duke 28 yard line which leads to a FG with less than 4 minutes to go in the game to push it over the 10 pt total.

We feel very confident in our analysis of this game, and that we were on the correct side and with any justice should have been up 9-6 heading into the 4^th.

1. We did get a little fortunate in the Nebraska game as their O struggled much more than we anticipated, however the D held up as we suspected.  OU missed 3 FGs, although all 3 where 40+ attempts with 2 of the 3 being from 45+ so they were anything but certain.  OU also had 5 Int, however 3 of them occurred in the 4^th Q w/ Nebraska already up 10-3.  The two other INTs set up Nebraska on short field leading to their 10 points, but to be fair Nebraska also fumbled the ball on the OU 21 which effectively erased at least 3 maybe 7 points as well, so the net effect of TOs wasn’t as bad as one might think.

Depending on whether or not you think we were lucky in the Nebraska game our record in bad luck / good luck games is now a nearly impossible to believe 2-15-1 (or 1-16-1).  With a record of 30-31-1that means we’ve been correct in our analysis of 46 (or 47) of 62 games which is right at 74%, yet just below .500 in the outcomes.  Presuming that luck, by definition, is random we should expect to be the beneficiary of good luck as frequently as the bad luck, which has clearly not been the case.  Even if you just took away half of our bad luck losses (which would still be just 2-8-1 on bad luck/good luck games), we’d be 37-31-1 or a respectable 54%.  If the luck was truly equitable we’d be .500 in our good luck/ bad luck games (effectively meaning we’ve suffered 13 too many losses / pushes) and a very solid record of 43-19 or 69%.
All that said, luck evens out in the long run, and our historical record (5 years) of 245-147-8 (63%) attests to that fact, and the validity of our methods.  Also, considering the bad breaks this year (basically 25% of our total games), to be .500 is actually a pretty accomplished feat (if you do the mathematics of starting -25% in the whole based on correct analysis and assessments validated by the performance).