[BostonCard]

[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. 

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

[BostonCard]

[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. 

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