Preseason AP Poll - Printable Version

Preseason AP Poll - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Preseason AP Poll (/thread-9641.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Preseason AP Poll - washingtonismoney - 08-24-2015

Offense and special teams have a ton of room to improve, and there are reasonably good stories to tell about why each will.

Defense has a ton of room to fall, but there are reasonably good stories to tell about why it won't.

Still, it's a lot of storytelling; that's why #21 is reasonable.

Re: Chris Childers said it??!!! - CTcard - 08-24-2015

(08-24-2015, 11:04 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:The second is that our ranking is accurate but imprecise.Â In other words, while a 9-4 record is our most likely outcome, the uncertainty associated with our ranking is such that the writer believes we could end up with a 12-1 ranking heading into the playoff decision, but could also wind up with a losing record and unranked.

I think the latter view is probably more likely.Â ...

While imprecise is a bit of an odd description for the prediction of a single event, I basically agree that I see greater uncertainty as to how Stanford will do this year than most.

The basic breakdown of the team is pretty clear. Lots of experience and apparent talent returning on the offense - lots of new guys who have played little to none at Stanford on defense.

The optimistic view is that the returning guys on offense mean that unit will be the best we've seen since 2011, continuing on and matching the performance over the final three games last year.Â The defense will have a bunch of new athletes, but they really are athletes (and were highly recruited) playing for the part of the coaching staff that has proved its chops and can get stellar performance out of just about anybody.Â

The pessimistic view is that the only place we have significant experience returning is on a unit that cannot get its act together regardless of experience; and the talent isn't all that great anyway - which other Pac 12 team would trade their WRs for a unit that last year ranked #34, unranked, and unranked in the conference (receptions/game). The only unit that has been consistently good, the defense, just lost basically everyone and now consists of a bunch of new guys will run around lost all year.Â

At this point, especially with closed practices and all, choosing one of the above is pretty much a personality test.

p.s. Not sure the guys on the radio program discussed really knew enough to make the inaccurate vs imprecise distinction with respect to Stanford, other than the fact that the whole topic came up under their claim that outside of Ohio State the college football pecking order is highly variable right now.

Re: Preseason AP Poll - ChicagoCard - 08-24-2015

Was Torretta Miami's qb in '91? UW would have destroyed those guys.

Re: Preseason AP Poll - Spiny_Norman - 08-24-2015

(08-24-2015, 12:59 PM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:Was Torretta Miami's qb in '91? UW would have destroyed those guys.

Torretta won in 1992 over a RB from San Diego State - Marshall Faulk.Â Coming in at #9 that year - Glyn Milburn.

Re: Chris Childers said it??!!! - winflop - 08-24-2015

(08-24-2015, 10:56 AM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=12569.msg125410#msg125410 date=1440435031]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=12569.msg125408#msg125408 date=1440434500]
I just heard Chris Childers on College Sports Coast to Coast (SiriusXM 84) predict that Stanford has the best chance of the teams ranked 15 to 25 in the AP poll to make the playoffs this season.Â 8)

OMG, it has to be true then.
[/quote]

Well, it does mean that at least one top tier college football pundit thinks we are underrated.Â However, I prefer the underrated chip stays firmly on our team's shoulders.

And it is nice to know that someone at that level sees that level of potential in our team.Â It makes me feel less delusional in my optimism.
[/quote]

The whole underrrated/chip on shoulder thing has a lifespan of about 5 more weeks.Â If Stanford wins at the Mausoleum they will quickly jump into the Top 15 and people will start talking about them a lot more.

Re: Chris Childers said it??!!! - Mick - 08-24-2015

(08-24-2015, 12:53 PM)CTcard link Wrote:p.s. Not sure the guys on the radio program discussed really knew enough to make the inaccurate vs imprecise distinction with respect to Stanford, other than the fact that the whole topic came up under their claim that outside of Ohio State the college football pecking order is highly variable right now.

I had lunch in Columbus with some very happy/smug tOSU alums today.Â Fairly confident group, let's say.

Re: Preseason AP Poll - CTcard - 08-25-2015

(08-24-2015, 12:38 PM)martyup link Wrote:I don't think Gino knows Kevin, or Jack.

Of course neither Gino (who was negative) nor Childers (who was positive) knows Stanford in much detail. They're supposed to be covering 128 FBS teams plus a smattering of FCS so they're not going to have ultimate detail on each one. [And yes, I am sure they know the SEC teams better.]

It's not hard to imagine that Gino may have caught Hogan playing against und, ASU, Utah, and UW and thus question his ability whereas Childers caught Hogan vs c.a.l., UCLA, Maryland, and OSU and thinks he'll be the next Voldemort winner ... or something like that.

Re: Preseason AP Poll - Stymie - 08-25-2015

Sagarin has Stanford at #10

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

I trust him more highly than coaches or hacks.

Re: Preseason AP Poll - OutsiderFan - 08-25-2015

All I know is Stanford should be ranked ahead of UCLA.Â No way a true Frosh QB is going to be better than Brett Hundley, even with the most experienced OL in the country.Â And that OL hasn't been particularly great yet anyway.

Re: Preseason AP Poll - washingtonismoney - 08-25-2015

(08-25-2015, 05:04 AM)Stymie link Wrote:Sagarin has Stanford at #10

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

I trust him more highly than coaches or hacks.

Statistically-oriented projections seem to rate us higher. ESPN's FPI has us #17; Football Outsiders has us #11; Ed Feng's The Power Rank has us #13... That's probably due to the strength of our underlying performance: 11 ppg average margin of victory is more like a 10-win team; and the 1.68 difference in our offensive and defensive yards per play is the highest we've seen in the Harbaugh/Shaw era.

Re: Preseason AP Poll - CTcard - 08-25-2015

(08-25-2015, 07:10 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Statistically-oriented projections seem to rate us higher.Â

Of course statistically oriented projections have no statistics from this year to base ranking upon.

If I remember correctly, Sagarin uses a weighted average of the past 3 seasons (maybe 4?) to establish his initial rankings. Apparently he does a single version of this as his three methods are all identical at the moment.

I think some of the other versions try to take into account personnel losses and some use recruiting rankings to try to estimate incoming talent.

Re: Preseason AP Poll - PrinceLightfoot - 08-25-2015

(08-25-2015, 05:55 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:All I know is Stanford should be ranked ahead of UCLA.Â No way a true Frosh QB is going to be better than Brett Hundley, even with the most experienced OL in the country.Â And that OL hasn't been particularly great yet anyway.

+10

Re: Preseason AP Poll - terry - 08-25-2015

(08-25-2015, 07:18 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12569.msg125470#msg125470 date=1440511830]
Statistically-oriented projections seem to rate us higher.Â

Re: Preseason AP Poll - BostonCard - 08-25-2015

(08-25-2015, 01:09 PM)terry link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=12569.msg125471#msg125471 date=1440512311]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12569.msg125470#msg125470 date=1440511830]
Statistically-oriented projections seem to rate us higher.Â

Re: Preseason AP Poll - Mick - 08-25-2015

(08-25-2015, 02:45 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=terry link=topic=12569.msg125525#msg125525 date=1440533350]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=12569.msg125471#msg125471 date=1440512311]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12569.msg125470#msg125470 date=1440511830]
Statistically-oriented projections seem to rate us higher.Â

Of course statistically oriented projections have no statistics from this year to base ranking upon.
[/quote]

Yep. I don't know why Sagarin and similar stat-based systems publish a pre-season ranking. Those systems don't work until there are some current numbers to feed into the algorithms.

For what it's worth, here's a compilation of various pre-season rankings. It includes 38 different ranking sources to date. Stanford's composite ranking is 16th, with a range of 5th to 37th. http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
[/quote]

Getting back to CTCard's point/question, a range of 5 - 37 seems imprecise, but maybe that is par for the course for a pre-season ranking.

BC
[/quote]

The #5 ranking comes from Brown True Sports (BTS) or Mike Brown.Â Has been comparing colleges since 1999, has a Texas helmet on his page:
http://www.brownstruesports.com/

He was a part time sportswriter, and a full time contract auditor.Â Perhaps not the best authority, though I appreciate the thought.

#37 is Dezenzio TSRS, and the link is a gambling site "Bustthebooks.com"