09-19-2013, 12:07 PM
34-17 stan
Predict the score: Stanford Vs Arizona State
09-19-2013, 01:05 PM
(09-19-2013, 12:01 PM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=8426.msg68451#msg68451 date=1379616451]
[quote author=Big Brother link=topic=8426.msg68434#msg68434 date=1379606274]
Stanford 16 - ASU 13Â A field goal fest.
Is there going to be a poll for when the announcer says "Hogan is a dropback passer and not known for running the ball."Â I'm going to go with the 3:00 minute mark of the 2nd quarter.
Also, how many minutes after (or before) that will the other announcer call Hogan a dual-threat quarterback. I'm sure I've heard both those statements made about him in the same broadcast already this season.
[/quote]
We should make this part of the Stanford football drinking game. Anytime an announcer calls Hogan surprisingly fast or a better runner than people think, take a shot.
[/quote]
Great idea. Too bad I have to work about the time the game is ending...no drinking for me.
Heroism is not defined by one great act, but by a lifetime of right action.
(09-19-2013, 12:01 PM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=8426.msg68451#msg68451 date=1379616451]
[quote author=Big Brother link=topic=8426.msg68434#msg68434 date=1379606274]
Stanford 16 - ASU 13Â A field goal fest.
Is there going to be a poll for when the announcer says "Hogan is a dropback passer and not known for running the ball."Â I'm going to go with the 3:00 minute mark of the 2nd quarter.
Also, how many minutes after (or before) that will the other announcer call Hogan a dual-threat quarterback. I'm sure I've heard both those statements made about him in the same broadcast already this season.
[/quote]
We should make this part of the Stanford football drinking game. Anytime an announcer calls Hogan surprisingly fast or a better runner than people think, take a shot.
[/quote]
Great idea. Too bad I have to work about the time the game is ending...no drinking for me.
Heroism is not defined by one great act, but by a lifetime of right action.
09-19-2013, 03:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2013, 04:37 PM by pefloresjr.)
I'm going with Stanford 34, ASU 24. Lot's of possessions in this game for both teams. Their offense has some success early, then Stanford mostly shuts them down. Stanford stays balanced in their offense and scores two rushing and two passing touchdowns.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
Cheers,
Pete F.
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2013, 04:37 PM by pefloresjr.)
I'm going with Stanford 34, ASU 24. Lot's of possessions in this game for both teams. Their offense has some success early, then Stanford mostly shuts them down. Stanford stays balanced in their offense and scores two rushing and two passing touchdowns.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
Cheers,
Pete F.
09-19-2013, 05:13 PM
I think tha Army game was an aberration, and we were still leading by 21 until giving the reserve D some game time. I think we perform much better, particularly if Hewitt sees a lot of playing time. And the D comes up big against a QB who, last year, performed much better at home than on the road.
Stanford 34
Arizona Atate: 13
Stanford 34
Arizona Atate: 13
I think tha Army game was an aberration, and we were still leading by 21 until giving the reserve D some game time. I think we perform much better, particularly if Hewitt sees a lot of playing time. And the D comes up big against a QB who, last year, performed much better at home than on the road.
Stanford 34
Arizona Atate: 13
Stanford 34
Arizona Atate: 13
09-20-2013, 06:11 AM
Stanford 34, ASU 20
Card takes advantage of two second half Sun Devil turnovers to break a halftime tie.
Card takes advantage of two second half Sun Devil turnovers to break a halftime tie.
09-20-2013, 04:17 PM
Funny - I predict 34 to 20 also.
Tempted to pick a bigger margin because I think the defense negates the run making them more one dimensional. We could frustrate their offense.
Think our offense could bust out too. Hogan continues to become more in sync with receivers and TEs join the offensive play making.
But, 14 points is a good enough differential.
Tempted to pick a bigger margin because I think the defense negates the run making them more one dimensional. We could frustrate their offense.
Think our offense could bust out too. Hogan continues to become more in sync with receivers and TEs join the offensive play making.
But, 14 points is a good enough differential.
Funny - I predict 34 to 20 also.
Tempted to pick a bigger margin because I think the defense negates the run making them more one dimensional. We could frustrate their offense.
Think our offense could bust out too. Hogan continues to become more in sync with receivers and TEs join the offensive play making.
But, 14 points is a good enough differential.
Tempted to pick a bigger margin because I think the defense negates the run making them more one dimensional. We could frustrate their offense.
Think our offense could bust out too. Hogan continues to become more in sync with receivers and TEs join the offensive play making.
But, 14 points is a good enough differential.
09-21-2013, 08:22 PM
(09-18-2013, 10:35 AM)martyup link Wrote:This is a pivotal game for this season. Time to reveal whether we really are an elite program that belongs in the top 5. ASU will give us a good test. They ran over 90 offensive plays against WI. We've got to be able to deal with that kind of pace if we hope to beat Oregon. I'm a believer. I hope our Angry Nerds are believers.
Stanford 45
ASU 28
8)
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(09-18-2013, 10:35 AM)martyup link Wrote:This is a pivotal game for this season. Time to reveal whether we really are an elite program that belongs in the top 5. ASU will give us a good test. They ran over 90 offensive plays against WI. We've got to be able to deal with that kind of pace if we hope to beat Oregon. I'm a believer. I hope our Angry Nerds are believers.
Stanford 45
ASU 28
8)
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-21-2013, 09:52 PM
Well, Griffin78 wins week 3 again. Congratulations!
Interestingly, the top 3 this week predicted the same result, and the tiebreaker was the quality of their game descriptions.
In the overall standings, Griffin78 leads over the second ranked FarmBoy by 11 points.
I keep sucking, but at least this week was because Stanford surprised me in a good way!
Interestingly, the top 3 this week predicted the same result, and the tiebreaker was the quality of their game descriptions.
In the overall standings, Griffin78 leads over the second ranked FarmBoy by 11 points.
I keep sucking, but at least this week was because Stanford surprised me in a good way!
| Rank | Poster | Points | Score | Error | |
| 1. | Griffin78 | 39 | 34-20 | 0 | |
| 2. | 97fan | 38 | 34-20 | 0 | |
| 3. | FarmBoy | 37 | 34-20 | 0 | |
| 4. | PrinceLightfoot | 36 | 31-17 | 0 | |
| 5. | OutsiderFan | 35 | 38-23 | +1 | |
| 6. | pcgoode | 34 | 35-20 | +1 | |
| 7. | Renaissance Man | 33 | 36-20 | +2 | |
| 8. | Card Fan in OR | 32 | 36-24 | -2 | |
| 9. | martyup | 31 | 45-28 | +3 | |
| 10. | dabigv | 30 | 34-17 | +3 | |
| --- | -------------- | ---- | ----- | ---- | |
| 11. | Rando90 | 29 | 34-17 | +3 | |
| 12. | Treebound | 28 | 31-20 | -3 | |
| 13. | CrazedZooChimp | 27 | 28-17 | -3 | |
| 14. | GoodGrief | 26 | 27-10 | +3 | |
| 15. | Leftcoast | 25 | 24-13 | -3 | |
| 16. | jeboody | 24 | 34-16 | +4 | |
| 17. | pefloresjr | 23 | 34-24 | -4 | |
| 18. | CompSci87 | 21 | 31-13 | +4 | |
| 18. | Farm93 | 21 | 31-13 | +4 | |
| 20. | washingtonismoney | 20 | 31-21 | -4 | |
| --- | -------------- | ---- | ----- | ---- | |
| 21. | stupac2 | 17 | 27-17 | -4 | |
| 21. | Extra Point | 17 | 27-17 | -4 | |
| 21. | 81alum | 17 | 27-17 | -4 | |
| 24. | 2 for 2028 | 16 | 24-16 | -6 | |
| 25. | CochinoJanks | 15 | 34-27 | -7 | |
| 26. | socalstanfan1 | 14 | 34-13 | +7 | |
| 27. | Kathy | 13 | 31-24 | -7 | |
| 28. | Publius | 12 | 27-20 | -7 | |
| 29. | garvin | 11 | 24-17 | -7 | |
| 30. | godfire | 10 | 27-21 | -8 | |
| --- | -------------- | ---- | ----- | ---- | |
| 31. | fullmetal | 9 | 37-13 | +10 | |
| 32. | SUBuddha | 8 | 28-24 | -10 | |
| 33. | JeffInCorvallis | 7 | 30-27 | -11 | |
| 34. | NYCCardinalFan | 6 | 24-21 | -11 | |
| 35. | Gauss | 5 | 17-14 | -11 | |
| 36. | Big Brother | 4 | 16-13 | -11 | |
| 37. | Mick | 3 | 31-30 | -13 | |
| 38. | oman | 2 | 48-13 | +21 | |
| 39. | needle | 1 | 45-7 | +24 |
Well, Griffin78 wins week 3 again. Congratulations!
Interestingly, the top 3 this week predicted the same result, and the tiebreaker was the quality of their game descriptions.
In the overall standings, Griffin78 leads over the second ranked FarmBoy by 11 points.
I keep sucking, but at least this week was because Stanford surprised me in a good way!
Interestingly, the top 3 this week predicted the same result, and the tiebreaker was the quality of their game descriptions.
In the overall standings, Griffin78 leads over the second ranked FarmBoy by 11 points.
I keep sucking, but at least this week was because Stanford surprised me in a good way!
| Rank | Poster | Points | Score | Error | |
| 1. | Griffin78 | 39 | 34-20 | 0 | |
| 2. | 97fan | 38 | 34-20 | 0 | |
| 3. | FarmBoy | 37 | 34-20 | 0 | |
| 4. | PrinceLightfoot | 36 | 31-17 | 0 | |
| 5. | OutsiderFan | 35 | 38-23 | +1 | |
| 6. | pcgoode | 34 | 35-20 | +1 | |
| 7. | Renaissance Man | 33 | 36-20 | +2 | |
| 8. | Card Fan in OR | 32 | 36-24 | -2 | |
| 9. | martyup | 31 | 45-28 | +3 | |
| 10. | dabigv | 30 | 34-17 | +3 | |
| --- | -------------- | ---- | ----- | ---- | |
| 11. | Rando90 | 29 | 34-17 | +3 | |
| 12. | Treebound | 28 | 31-20 | -3 | |
| 13. | CrazedZooChimp | 27 | 28-17 | -3 | |
| 14. | GoodGrief | 26 | 27-10 | +3 | |
| 15. | Leftcoast | 25 | 24-13 | -3 | |
| 16. | jeboody | 24 | 34-16 | +4 | |
| 17. | pefloresjr | 23 | 34-24 | -4 | |
| 18. | CompSci87 | 21 | 31-13 | +4 | |
| 18. | Farm93 | 21 | 31-13 | +4 | |
| 20. | washingtonismoney | 20 | 31-21 | -4 | |
| --- | -------------- | ---- | ----- | ---- | |
| 21. | stupac2 | 17 | 27-17 | -4 | |
| 21. | Extra Point | 17 | 27-17 | -4 | |
| 21. | 81alum | 17 | 27-17 | -4 | |
| 24. | 2 for 2028 | 16 | 24-16 | -6 | |
| 25. | CochinoJanks | 15 | 34-27 | -7 | |
| 26. | socalstanfan1 | 14 | 34-13 | +7 | |
| 27. | Kathy | 13 | 31-24 | -7 | |
| 28. | Publius | 12 | 27-20 | -7 | |
| 29. | garvin | 11 | 24-17 | -7 | |
| 30. | godfire | 10 | 27-21 | -8 | |
| --- | -------------- | ---- | ----- | ---- | |
| 31. | fullmetal | 9 | 37-13 | +10 | |
| 32. | SUBuddha | 8 | 28-24 | -10 | |
| 33. | JeffInCorvallis | 7 | 30-27 | -11 | |
| 34. | NYCCardinalFan | 6 | 24-21 | -11 | |
| 35. | Gauss | 5 | 17-14 | -11 | |
| 36. | Big Brother | 4 | 16-13 | -11 | |
| 37. | Mick | 3 | 31-30 | -13 | |
| 38. | oman | 2 | 48-13 | +21 | |
| 39. | needle | 1 | 45-7 | +24 |
09-22-2013, 02:17 AM
Man, this contest sucks. I predicted a final score of 45 - 28. The final score was 42 - 28, but I only place 9th? The winners were off by a total of 16 points and I was off by 3. I could have predicted a final score of 114 - 100 and still placed first. :(
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Man, this contest sucks. I predicted a final score of 45 - 28. The final score was 42 - 28, but I only place 9th? The winners were off by a total of 16 points and I was off by 3. I could have predicted a final score of 114 - 100 and still placed first. :(
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-22-2013, 08:27 AM
OK that does it. Does somebody live in or near Vegas? We need to put together a CARDboard gambling fund and have Griffin78 manage it.
OK that does it. Does somebody live in or near Vegas? We need to put together a CARDboard gambling fund and have Griffin78 manage it.
09-22-2013, 09:28 AM
I agree with martyup Guessing the winning margin isn't as good a measure as guessing the final score(s).
Should we calculate the difference between the predicted and actual Stanford score and add the difference between the predicted and actual opponents score?
Should we calculate the difference between the predicted and actual Stanford score and add the difference between the predicted and actual opponents score?
I agree with martyup Guessing the winning margin isn't as good a measure as guessing the final score(s).
Should we calculate the difference between the predicted and actual Stanford score and add the difference between the predicted and actual opponents score?
Should we calculate the difference between the predicted and actual Stanford score and add the difference between the predicted and actual opponents score?
09-22-2013, 09:37 AM
(09-22-2013, 08:27 AM)Publius link Wrote:OK that does it. Does somebody live in or near Vegas? We need to put together a CARDboard gambling fund and have Griffin78 manage it.Once you start putting money on it it'll all go to hell.
I left the game early thinking my prediction was way off and then heard the final score on the radio and had a laugh.
(09-22-2013, 08:27 AM)Publius link Wrote:OK that does it. Does somebody live in or near Vegas? We need to put together a CARDboard gambling fund and have Griffin78 manage it.Once you start putting money on it it'll all go to hell.
I left the game early thinking my prediction was way off and then heard the final score on the radio and had a laugh.
09-22-2013, 10:12 AM
(09-22-2013, 09:28 AM)Griffin78 link Wrote:I agree with martyup Guessing the winning margin isn't as good a measure as guessing the final score(s).
Should we calculate the difference between the predicted and actual Stanford score and add the difference between the predicted and actual opponents score?
I agree as well.
When I have time, I'll put up new rankings using |PredStanford-RealStanford| + |PredRival-RealRival| to order the list instead, and people can decide which metric they like best.
(09-22-2013, 09:28 AM)Griffin78 link Wrote:I agree with martyup Guessing the winning margin isn't as good a measure as guessing the final score(s).
Should we calculate the difference between the predicted and actual Stanford score and add the difference between the predicted and actual opponents score?
I agree as well.
When I have time, I'll put up new rankings using |PredStanford-RealStanford| + |PredRival-RealRival| to order the list instead, and people can decide which metric they like best.
09-22-2013, 10:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2013, 10:25 AM by PrinceLightfoot.)
(09-22-2013, 02:17 AM)martyup link Wrote:Man, this contest sucks. I predicted a final score of 45 - 28. The final score was 42 - 28, but I only place 9th? The winners were off by a total of 16 points and I was off by 3. I could have predicted a final score of 114 - 100 and still placed first. :(
Considering we are predicting the score of the game, using the error from the each teams' score prediction creates a better rank ordering. The current methodology only tracks the predictions of the final spread; not the final score. Here is how the top10 would look like using both score predictions:
Stanford ASU
Final Score 42 28
                          Error
Rank Poster      Prediction Stanford ASU Total
1 martyup       45 28      3     0   3
2 OutsiderFan    38 23      4     5  9
3 ChochinoJanks  34 27      8     1  9
4 Card Fan in OR Â 36Â 24 Â Â Â Â Â Â 6 Â Â Â Â 4 Â Â 10
5 pefloresjr      34 24      8     4   12
6 JeffInCorvalis   30 27     12     1  13
7 Mick           31 30     11     2   13
8 Renaissance Man 36 20 Â Â Â Â Â 6 Â Â Â Â 8Â Â 14
9 pcgoode       35 20      7     8  15
10 Kathy        31 24     11     4   15
If I had a dollar every time I was distracted, I wish I had some ice cream.
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2013, 10:25 AM by PrinceLightfoot.)
(09-22-2013, 02:17 AM)martyup link Wrote:Man, this contest sucks. I predicted a final score of 45 - 28. The final score was 42 - 28, but I only place 9th? The winners were off by a total of 16 points and I was off by 3. I could have predicted a final score of 114 - 100 and still placed first. :(
Considering we are predicting the score of the game, using the error from the each teams' score prediction creates a better rank ordering. The current methodology only tracks the predictions of the final spread; not the final score. Here is how the top10 would look like using both score predictions:
Stanford ASU
Final Score 42 28
                          Error
Rank Poster      Prediction Stanford ASU Total
1 martyup       45 28      3     0   3
2 OutsiderFan    38 23      4     5  9
3 ChochinoJanks  34 27      8     1  9
4 Card Fan in OR Â 36Â 24 Â Â Â Â Â Â 6 Â Â Â Â 4 Â Â 10
5 pefloresjr      34 24      8     4   12
6 JeffInCorvalis   30 27     12     1  13
7 Mick           31 30     11     2   13
8 Renaissance Man 36 20 Â Â Â Â Â 6 Â Â Â Â 8Â Â 14
9 pcgoode       35 20      7     8  15
10 Kathy        31 24     11     4   15
If I had a dollar every time I was distracted, I wish I had some ice cream.
09-22-2013, 10:25 AM
Yeah, I thought we were going to win the game, but not impressively enough to convince the non-believers that we deserved our lofty rankings. For a while I thought I was going to be wrong, but unfortunately it turned out I was right.
Yeah, I thought we were going to win the game, but not impressively enough to convince the non-believers that we deserved our lofty rankings. For a while I thought I was going to be wrong, but unfortunately it turned out I was right.
09-22-2013, 10:35 AM
(09-22-2013, 10:25 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Yeah, I thought we were going to win the game, but not impressively enough to convince the non-believers that we deserved our lofty rankings. For a while I thought I was going to be wrong, but unfortunately it turned out I was right.
Hm? I would say the commentariat has been overwhelmingly positive. It's Stanford fans who are most unhappy. It's not unjustifiable, but the mood among most people/boards I've seen is "Wow, so Stanford really is that good."
(09-22-2013, 10:25 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Yeah, I thought we were going to win the game, but not impressively enough to convince the non-believers that we deserved our lofty rankings. For a while I thought I was going to be wrong, but unfortunately it turned out I was right.
Hm? I would say the commentariat has been overwhelmingly positive. It's Stanford fans who are most unhappy. It's not unjustifiable, but the mood among most people/boards I've seen is "Wow, so Stanford really is that good."
09-22-2013, 10:53 AM
Don't mean to complain, but I agree with martyup, Gauss, and Griffin 78. The points should be awarded according to absolute value of Stanford prediction error + absolute value of opponent prediction error. I think martyup would win yesterday at 3.
We'd still have to determine if you can get points if you predict the wrong victor (Although we can assume that will never happen-just keep predicting Stanford "Ws."). I'd suggest a simple numerical penally of some size, like maybe 10 or 20 points, so that if you pick Oregon 24, Stanford 23, and the correct score is Stanford 24, Oregon 23, you accrue 2 absolute value points and 10 or 20 penalty points for picking the wrong victor. Fewer points is better, of course.
Thanks, Gausss, if you are willing to do this.
We'd still have to determine if you can get points if you predict the wrong victor (Although we can assume that will never happen-just keep predicting Stanford "Ws."). I'd suggest a simple numerical penally of some size, like maybe 10 or 20 points, so that if you pick Oregon 24, Stanford 23, and the correct score is Stanford 24, Oregon 23, you accrue 2 absolute value points and 10 or 20 penalty points for picking the wrong victor. Fewer points is better, of course.
Thanks, Gausss, if you are willing to do this.
Don't mean to complain, but I agree with martyup, Gauss, and Griffin 78. The points should be awarded according to absolute value of Stanford prediction error + absolute value of opponent prediction error. I think martyup would win yesterday at 3.
We'd still have to determine if you can get points if you predict the wrong victor (Although we can assume that will never happen-just keep predicting Stanford "Ws."). I'd suggest a simple numerical penally of some size, like maybe 10 or 20 points, so that if you pick Oregon 24, Stanford 23, and the correct score is Stanford 24, Oregon 23, you accrue 2 absolute value points and 10 or 20 penalty points for picking the wrong victor. Fewer points is better, of course.
Thanks, Gausss, if you are willing to do this.
We'd still have to determine if you can get points if you predict the wrong victor (Although we can assume that will never happen-just keep predicting Stanford "Ws."). I'd suggest a simple numerical penally of some size, like maybe 10 or 20 points, so that if you pick Oregon 24, Stanford 23, and the correct score is Stanford 24, Oregon 23, you accrue 2 absolute value points and 10 or 20 penalty points for picking the wrong victor. Fewer points is better, of course.
Thanks, Gausss, if you are willing to do this.
09-22-2013, 11:40 AM
Ok, in the next post I show how this week's results would look with the total error as the first tiebreaker. It does look to me like a more fair metric (even though it makes my predictions skill look even more ridiculously bad!). I'd appreciate if more people wrote to tell me which metric they prefer, and if they'd like to change the scoring system.
As for those predicting the wrong winner, I prefer to give them a penalty than not giving points at all. I explained my reasons in the rules thread.
A couple more things. Hank 91 forgot to send in his prediction, but he sent me proof that he'd done one before the game started, so he will be added to the "official" scoreboard.
Also, the limit of 8,000 characters per post is killing me! I've already told Yvonne that with all the formatting tags, tables with more than 30 participants just don't fit in 8,000 characters. I hope we can find a solution (perhaps if everyone promised to write posts shorter than 8,000 characters they'd increase the limit ;)).
As for those predicting the wrong winner, I prefer to give them a penalty than not giving points at all. I explained my reasons in the rules thread.
A couple more things. Hank 91 forgot to send in his prediction, but he sent me proof that he'd done one before the game started, so he will be added to the "official" scoreboard.
Also, the limit of 8,000 characters per post is killing me! I've already told Yvonne that with all the formatting tags, tables with more than 30 participants just don't fit in 8,000 characters. I hope we can find a solution (perhaps if everyone promised to write posts shorter than 8,000 characters they'd increase the limit ;)).
Ok, in the next post I show how this week's results would look with the total error as the first tiebreaker. It does look to me like a more fair metric (even though it makes my predictions skill look even more ridiculously bad!). I'd appreciate if more people wrote to tell me which metric they prefer, and if they'd like to change the scoring system.
As for those predicting the wrong winner, I prefer to give them a penalty than not giving points at all. I explained my reasons in the rules thread.
A couple more things. Hank 91 forgot to send in his prediction, but he sent me proof that he'd done one before the game started, so he will be added to the "official" scoreboard.
Also, the limit of 8,000 characters per post is killing me! I've already told Yvonne that with all the formatting tags, tables with more than 30 participants just don't fit in 8,000 characters. I hope we can find a solution (perhaps if everyone promised to write posts shorter than 8,000 characters they'd increase the limit ;)).
As for those predicting the wrong winner, I prefer to give them a penalty than not giving points at all. I explained my reasons in the rules thread.
A couple more things. Hank 91 forgot to send in his prediction, but he sent me proof that he'd done one before the game started, so he will be added to the "official" scoreboard.
Also, the limit of 8,000 characters per post is killing me! I've already told Yvonne that with all the formatting tags, tables with more than 30 participants just don't fit in 8,000 characters. I hope we can find a solution (perhaps if everyone promised to write posts shorter than 8,000 characters they'd increase the limit ;)).
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »