11-09-2015, 01:51 PM
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
Stanford tops everybody. . . Fun article
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
11-09-2015, 02:03 PM
"USC is the best team on paper (in the Pac-12)." Exactly which paper is that and what section suggests this? If you want to judge teams based on recruiting rankings, USC might be the best team. But when it reports on what the teams actually do on the field, Stanford is the best team on paper.
"USC is the best team on paper (in the Pac-12)." Exactly which paper is that and what section suggests this? If you want to judge teams based on recruiting rankings, USC might be the best team. But when it reports on what the teams actually do on the field, Stanford is the best team on paper.
11-09-2015, 02:07 PM
(11-09-2015, 02:03 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:"Under Stanford Control is the best team on paper (in the Pac-12)." Exactly which paper is that and what section suggests this? If you want to judge teams based on recruiting rankings, Under Stanford Control might be the best team. But when it reports on what the teams actually do on the field, Stanford is the best team on paper.
He probably meant the talent of the individual players, but it's worth noting that computers continue their love affair with USC, they're currently ranked #6 (ahead of us by one spot) in F+: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus. Same deal with ESPN's FPI, they're #7, we're #11.
I'm really not sure how this comes about, but I continue to think they're the team we least want to win the south. Really hoping Utah can win out.
(11-09-2015, 02:03 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:"Under Stanford Control is the best team on paper (in the Pac-12)." Exactly which paper is that and what section suggests this? If you want to judge teams based on recruiting rankings, Under Stanford Control might be the best team. But when it reports on what the teams actually do on the field, Stanford is the best team on paper.
He probably meant the talent of the individual players, but it's worth noting that computers continue their love affair with USC, they're currently ranked #6 (ahead of us by one spot) in F+: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus. Same deal with ESPN's FPI, they're #7, we're #11.
I'm really not sure how this comes about, but I continue to think they're the team we least want to win the south. Really hoping Utah can win out.
11-09-2015, 02:12 PM
It's mistifying how U'SC is ranked so highly. Do the computer models take into account Sark being sacked? They're 0 and 2 against the top 10 and 1 and 3 against the top 30 (compared to us being 1 and 0 and 3 and 0) and yet they're "predicted" to be 7 ahead of us at 8.
It's mistifying how U'SC is ranked so highly. Do the computer models take into account Sark being sacked? They're 0 and 2 against the top 10 and 1 and 3 against the top 30 (compared to us being 1 and 0 and 3 and 0) and yet they're "predicted" to be 7 ahead of us at 8.
11-09-2015, 02:28 PM
(11-09-2015, 02:12 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:It's mistifying how U'SC is ranked so highly. Do the computer models take into account Sark being sacked? They're 0 and 2 against the top 10 and 1 and 3 against the top 30 (compared to us being 1 and 0 and 3 and 0) and yet they're "predicted" to be 7 ahead of us at 8.
Computer models almost never take that sort of thing into account. I find it weird because as of the last time BC posted his various efficiency stats we were still well ahead of them in pretty much every category, so I really don't know where it's coming from.
(11-09-2015, 02:12 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:It's mistifying how U'SC is ranked so highly. Do the computer models take into account Sark being sacked? They're 0 and 2 against the top 10 and 1 and 3 against the top 30 (compared to us being 1 and 0 and 3 and 0) and yet they're "predicted" to be 7 ahead of us at 8.
Computer models almost never take that sort of thing into account. I find it weird because as of the last time BC posted his various efficiency stats we were still well ahead of them in pretty much every category, so I really don't know where it's coming from.
11-09-2015, 05:03 PM
Only thing I could think of is that we got punished for a narrow win over Wazzu. One thing computer models don't take into account is weather. On a dry, cool night Stanford beats Wazzu by 14.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »