{"id":1185,"date":"2016-09-20T19:29:36","date_gmt":"2016-09-20T23:29:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lastwordoncollegefootball.com\/?p=1185"},"modified":"2025-09-13T16:16:34","modified_gmt":"2025-09-13T20:16:34","slug":"p2py-week-3-recap-week-4-picks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lastwordonsports.com\/collegefootball\/2016\/09\/20\/p2py-week-3-recap-week-4-picks\/","title":{"rendered":"NCAA Football: P2PY Week 3 Recap and Week 4 Picks"},"content":{"rendered":"

P2Y nailed the picks in week 3. There’s almost literally nowhere to go but down from here…<\/p>\n

WEEK 3 RECAP<\/h2>\n

Last week<\/a> was the first time I used points squared per yard <\/a>(P2PY) to try to predict game score and did surprisingly well. The picks along with the spreads are summarized below (ATS picks in bold italics<\/strong><\/em>). P2PY went 7-2-1 against the spread and 10-0 picking winners. This likely is not a sustainable win percentage but still a good sign going forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Away<\/strong><\/td>\nHome<\/strong><\/td>\nAway Predicted Score (ACTUAL)<\/strong><\/td>\nHome Predicted Score (ACTUAL)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Houston<\/td>\nCincinnati (+7)<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n26 (48)<\/td>\n20 (16)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Florida St.<\/td>\nLouisville (+2.5)<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n29 (20)<\/td>\n38 (63)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Miami (FL)<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nAppalachian St. (+3)<\/td>\n29 (45)<\/td>\n14 (10)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Alabama<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nMississippi (+9.5)<\/td>\n39 (48)<\/td>\n21 (43)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Oregon<\/td>\nNebraska (-3)<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n27 (32)<\/td>\n37 (35)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Texas A&M<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\nAuburn (-4)<\/td>\n28 (29)<\/td>\n22 (16)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Georgia<\/td>\nMissouri (+6.5)<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n26 (28)<\/td>\n22 (27)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ohio St.<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\nOklahoma (+2.5)<\/td>\n42 (45)<\/td>\n22 (24)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Temple<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nPenn State (-9)<\/td>\n20 (27)<\/td>\n25 (34)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Baylor<\/td>\nRice (+30)<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n36 (38)<\/td>\n11 (10)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Good<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. Correctly picking all 10 winners\u00a0(I forget if\u00a0I mentioned this above).<\/li>\n
  2. Correctly picking\u00a0five underdogs to beat the number (Louisville, Texas A&M, Missouri, Temple, Rice.<\/li>\n
  3. Picking the two underdogs to win outright (Louisville and Texas A&M).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Bad<\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. Missing on Houston\/Cincinnati and Alabama\/Mississippi. I did say that I liked Houston better than the prediction would indicate but this is still a loss. I believed that the Alabama prediction was solid. This looked very bad early on, then good, then bad again…<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Summary<\/h3>\n

      Week 3 was a good first pass for the use of P2PY to pick games, but I also watched almost every one of these games and in a lot of cases, college football is fickle. If Oregon kicked extra points, they may have beaten Nebraska. If Penn State doesn’t turn the ball over at terrible times, they roll Temple. Those couple of things going in my favor make the result a little better than maybe it would’ve been otherwise. On the flip side, if Alabama secured an onside kick, they would’ve covered so I guess it goes both ways.<\/p>\n

      Season Long Results: ATS\u00a07-2-1 (75%); Straight 10-0 (100%)<\/em><\/p>\n

      On to week 4…<\/p>\n

      Week 4 Picks<\/h2>\n

      Method Notes<\/h3>\n