08-17-2013, 07:06 AM
AP Poll: Stanford #4
Stanford opponents:
#3 Oregon
#14 N.D.
#21 UCLA
#24 SC
#25 Oregon State
#3 Oregon
#14 N.D.
#21 UCLA
#24 SC
#25 Oregon State
08-18-2013, 08:04 AM
(08-17-2013, 07:06 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...8077932544Here's our schedule in order of toughest to least tough, according to the coaches' poll:
Oregon, #3
Notre Dame, #11
UCLA, #21
USC, #24
Oregon State, #25
Arizona State, #32
Utah, #35
San Jose State, #40
Washington, #45
Cal, Army, Washington State didn't get any coaches poll results, so they didn't finish in the Top 50.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-17-2013, 07:06 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...8077932544Here's our schedule in order of toughest to least tough, according to the coaches' poll:
Oregon, #3
Notre Dame, #11
UCLA, #21
USC, #24
Oregon State, #25
Arizona State, #32
Utah, #35
San Jose State, #40
Washington, #45
Cal, Army, Washington State didn't get any coaches poll results, so they didn't finish in the Top 50.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
08-18-2013, 08:17 PM
According to this relevant article, Stanford is the 2nd most underrated team in the AP preseason poll since 2000.
http://thecrunchzone.com/over-rated-13-y...evaluated/
http://thecrunchzone.com/over-rated-13-y...evaluated/
According to this relevant article, Stanford is the 2nd most underrated team in the AP preseason poll since 2000.
http://thecrunchzone.com/over-rated-13-y...evaluated/
http://thecrunchzone.com/over-rated-13-y...evaluated/
08-18-2013, 08:26 PM
(08-18-2013, 08:17 PM)Publius link Wrote:According to this relevant article, Stanford is the 2nd most underrated team in the AP preseason poll since 2000.
http://thecrunchzone.com/over-rated-13-y...evaluated/
It's a bit silly to claim that this reveals bias in any way. SC, Oklahoma, and Michigan are three of the top five on the list -- but is it disputable that, more often than not since 2000, they've put good teams on the field? There are four national titles among those three (w/o considering stripped titles.)
Teams that start out highly-ranked early in the season have virtually nowhere to go but down.
(08-18-2013, 08:17 PM)Publius link Wrote:According to this relevant article, Stanford is the 2nd most underrated team in the AP preseason poll since 2000.
http://thecrunchzone.com/over-rated-13-y...evaluated/
It's a bit silly to claim that this reveals bias in any way. SC, Oklahoma, and Michigan are three of the top five on the list -- but is it disputable that, more often than not since 2000, they've put good teams on the field? There are four national titles among those three (w/o considering stripped titles.)
Teams that start out highly-ranked early in the season have virtually nowhere to go but down.
08-18-2013, 09:01 PM
(08-18-2013, 08:26 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Teams that start out highly-ranked early in the season have virtually nowhere to go but down.
I think that a lot of people don't understand this. But, at the same time, why do they start off high but finish low?
Anyway I think Utah's place pretty high on the "underrated" list demonstrates the uselessness of this procedure. I doubt they make a bowl game this year, they were underrated a few times in the mountain west, they're clearly not up to competition in the PAC.
(08-18-2013, 08:26 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Teams that start out highly-ranked early in the season have virtually nowhere to go but down.
I think that a lot of people don't understand this. But, at the same time, why do they start off high but finish low?
Anyway I think Utah's place pretty high on the "underrated" list demonstrates the uselessness of this procedure. I doubt they make a bowl game this year, they were underrated a few times in the mountain west, they're clearly not up to competition in the PAC.
08-19-2013, 07:04 PM
Sobering recap of the history of various preseason AP poll positions:
![[Image: 13.08.19-Historical_AP_Chart.jpg]](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3079703/13.08.19-Historical_AP_Chart.jpg)
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/...-bell-8-19
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/...-bell-8-19
Sobering recap of the history of various preseason AP poll positions:
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/...-bell-8-19
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/...-bell-8-19
08-19-2013, 07:39 PM
Wow that's pretty incredible. My favorite is the team picked to start 21 and to start 10 both have the same average final position, 18.5.
08-19-2013, 08:20 PM
The average finish was flawed. Just look at teams ranked #25. The "Average" was 23.7, but far more often than not the team finished unranked. It appeared the assumption was that the unranked teams were given a #26 value. So by my view the real "Average" would be much worse since most of those unranked teams would not have finished #26 (see USC).
If you factor in a more appropriate value for each unranked team it becomes pretty clear that there is a rather strong correlation between preseason and final rankings. (There are far more unranked teams deeper down the preseason list.)
FWIW - I did find it interesting that #2 was a better place to start than #1. I can only guess that the #1 team gets flooded with preseason hype that impacts prep, while the #2 team probably goes into August most focused likely believing they were unjustly slighted.
If you factor in a more appropriate value for each unranked team it becomes pretty clear that there is a rather strong correlation between preseason and final rankings. (There are far more unranked teams deeper down the preseason list.)
FWIW - I did find it interesting that #2 was a better place to start than #1. I can only guess that the #1 team gets flooded with preseason hype that impacts prep, while the #2 team probably goes into August most focused likely believing they were unjustly slighted.
The average finish was flawed. Just look at teams ranked #25. The "Average" was 23.7, but far more often than not the team finished unranked. It appeared the assumption was that the unranked teams were given a #26 value. So by my view the real "Average" would be much worse since most of those unranked teams would not have finished #26 (see USC).
If you factor in a more appropriate value for each unranked team it becomes pretty clear that there is a rather strong correlation between preseason and final rankings. (There are far more unranked teams deeper down the preseason list.)
FWIW - I did find it interesting that #2 was a better place to start than #1. I can only guess that the #1 team gets flooded with preseason hype that impacts prep, while the #2 team probably goes into August most focused likely believing they were unjustly slighted.
If you factor in a more appropriate value for each unranked team it becomes pretty clear that there is a rather strong correlation between preseason and final rankings. (There are far more unranked teams deeper down the preseason list.)
FWIW - I did find it interesting that #2 was a better place to start than #1. I can only guess that the #1 team gets flooded with preseason hype that impacts prep, while the #2 team probably goes into August most focused likely believing they were unjustly slighted.
08-19-2013, 08:22 PM
Interesting, but the problem with the methodology is that it weights all NR as #26 for the purpose of calculations. So you do get a real sense for the correlation. They should have at least tried to include the ranking based on "others receiving votes".
The real divider seems to be starting in the top 15 and starting in 16-20. Your chances of ending the season NR jumps significantly at that point, it would seem.
The real divider seems to be starting in the top 15 and starting in 16-20. Your chances of ending the season NR jumps significantly at that point, it would seem.
Interesting, but the problem with the methodology is that it weights all NR as #26 for the purpose of calculations. So you do get a real sense for the correlation. They should have at least tried to include the ranking based on "others receiving votes".
The real divider seems to be starting in the top 15 and starting in 16-20. Your chances of ending the season NR jumps significantly at that point, it would seem.
The real divider seems to be starting in the top 15 and starting in 16-20. Your chances of ending the season NR jumps significantly at that point, it would seem.
08-20-2013, 04:38 AM
(08-19-2013, 08:20 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:FWIW - I did find it interesting that #2 was a better place to start than #1. I can only guess that the #1 team gets flooded with preseason hype that impacts prep, while the #2 team probably goes into August most focused likely believing they were unjustly slighted.
Or that's just random noise. I didn't calculate any test statistics, but given how small the sample size is, I doubt that the difference in average finishes between the preseason #1 and #2 is statistically significant.
(08-19-2013, 08:20 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:FWIW - I did find it interesting that #2 was a better place to start than #1. I can only guess that the #1 team gets flooded with preseason hype that impacts prep, while the #2 team probably goes into August most focused likely believing they were unjustly slighted.
Or that's just random noise. I didn't calculate any test statistics, but given how small the sample size is, I doubt that the difference in average finishes between the preseason #1 and #2 is statistically significant.
08-20-2013, 07:26 AM
Quote:Or that's just random noise. I didn't calculate any test statistics, but given how small the sample size is, I doubt that the difference in average finishes between the preseason #1 and #2 is statistically significant.
I am no stats guru. But the pre-season #1 was the "champ" in 2 seasons while the #2 was the "champ" in 5. Seems like a pretty big difference.
Quote:Or that's just random noise. I didn't calculate any test statistics, but given how small the sample size is, I doubt that the difference in average finishes between the preseason #1 and #2 is statistically significant.
I am no stats guru. But the pre-season #1 was the "champ" in 2 seasons while the #2 was the "champ" in 5. Seems like a pretty big difference.
08-20-2013, 08:22 AM
Didn't realize how unique 2012's #1's fall from grace was.
Given that teams are playing a game with an uncertain result, and we are looking at them with the assumed first weeks ratings as a given, these figures all seem very reasonable and unsurprising to me.
Would be much more fun if the initial rankings were all random.
Given that teams are playing a game with an uncertain result, and we are looking at them with the assumed first weeks ratings as a given, these figures all seem very reasonable and unsurprising to me.
Would be much more fun if the initial rankings were all random.
Didn't realize how unique 2012's #1's fall from grace was.
Given that teams are playing a game with an uncertain result, and we are looking at them with the assumed first weeks ratings as a given, these figures all seem very reasonable and unsurprising to me.
Would be much more fun if the initial rankings were all random.
Given that teams are playing a game with an uncertain result, and we are looking at them with the assumed first weeks ratings as a given, these figures all seem very reasonable and unsurprising to me.
Would be much more fun if the initial rankings were all random.
08-20-2013, 08:54 AM
Hey, I just noticed I graduated from "Dolly" to "Tree"!
Woohoo!
What's the next "status" level for volume posting? I need a goal I can focus on.
Woohoo!
What's the next "status" level for volume posting? I need a goal I can focus on.
08-20-2013, 10:11 AM
I think we should all strive to become masters of the universe and slayers of 59er infidels
Although our webmistress has never publicly stated the categories and plateaus (so imagine our surprise at Garvin's new title!) a little investigation is helpful. Go to the Members menu and then tap "posts" to sort by number of posts. It's pretty clear what the categories and break points are.
Looks like your next goal is Tech Mogul at 2500.
And congrats on the new status!
Looks like your next goal is Tech Mogul at 2500.
And congrats on the new status!
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2013, 10:59 AM by Leftcoast.)
Although our webmistress has never publicly stated the categories and plateaus (so imagine our surprise at Garvin's new title!) a little investigation is helpful. Go to the Members menu and then tap "posts" to sort by number of posts. It's pretty clear what the categories and break points are.
Looks like your next goal is Tech Mogul at 2500.
And congrats on the new status!
Looks like your next goal is Tech Mogul at 2500.
And congrats on the new status!
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
08-20-2013, 11:34 AM
(08-20-2013, 07:26 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Quote:Or that's just random noise. I didn't calculate any test statistics, but given how small the sample size is, I doubt that the difference in average finishes between the preseason #1 and #2 is statistically significant.
I am no stats guru. But the pre-season #1 was the "champ" in 2 seasons while the #2 was the "champ" in 5. Seems like a pretty big difference.
I just ran a quick statistical test to compare the finishes for the preseason #1 and #2 teams, and the difference isn't even close to being statistically significant. The test looks at a hypothetical: if the preseason #1 and #2 have exactly the same odds of finishing in any given position, what's the probability that the difference in actual results (in a sample this size) will be at least as big as we see in the data. Or in other words, if it doesn't matter whether you're the #1 or #2, what are the odds that we would get a result like this just by chance. The answer was roughly 40%. The standard threshold for calling a result statistically significant is that it would occur by chance less than 5% of the time. So this wasn't close.
Of course, this doesn't prove that there's no difference between being ranked #1 or #2. It just says that we don't have enough data to tell whether there's a difference or not (or which way such a difference would go).
[For the stats geeks out there: I just ran a simple t-test. There are a lot of reasons why this isn't exactly right for this case, but it should be fairly close, and I didn't feel like taking the time to find a test that would be more strictly correct (if one exists).]
(08-20-2013, 07:26 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Quote:Or that's just random noise. I didn't calculate any test statistics, but given how small the sample size is, I doubt that the difference in average finishes between the preseason #1 and #2 is statistically significant.
I am no stats guru. But the pre-season #1 was the "champ" in 2 seasons while the #2 was the "champ" in 5. Seems like a pretty big difference.
I just ran a quick statistical test to compare the finishes for the preseason #1 and #2 teams, and the difference isn't even close to being statistically significant. The test looks at a hypothetical: if the preseason #1 and #2 have exactly the same odds of finishing in any given position, what's the probability that the difference in actual results (in a sample this size) will be at least as big as we see in the data. Or in other words, if it doesn't matter whether you're the #1 or #2, what are the odds that we would get a result like this just by chance. The answer was roughly 40%. The standard threshold for calling a result statistically significant is that it would occur by chance less than 5% of the time. So this wasn't close.
Of course, this doesn't prove that there's no difference between being ranked #1 or #2. It just says that we don't have enough data to tell whether there's a difference or not (or which way such a difference would go).
[For the stats geeks out there: I just ran a simple t-test. There are a lot of reasons why this isn't exactly right for this case, but it should be fairly close, and I didn't feel like taking the time to find a test that would be more strictly correct (if one exists).]
08-20-2013, 12:55 PM
Robertson,
Were you testing whether the difference between 6.3 or 4.5 is statistically significant or whether the difference between 33% (5 of 15 #2 preseason teams ended up ranked #1) and 13% (2 of 15 #1's) is statistically significant?
Were you testing whether the difference between 6.3 or 4.5 is statistically significant or whether the difference between 33% (5 of 15 #2 preseason teams ended up ranked #1) and 13% (2 of 15 #1's) is statistically significant?
08-20-2013, 01:47 PM
(08-20-2013, 08:54 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Hey, I just noticed I graduated from "Dolly" to "Tree"!
Woohoo!
What's the next "status" level for volume posting? I need a goal I can focus on.
I made someone a "Doily" once, but Yvonne undid that. ;D
(08-20-2013, 08:54 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Hey, I just noticed I graduated from "Dolly" to "Tree"!
Woohoo!
What's the next "status" level for volume posting? I need a goal I can focus on.
I made someone a "Doily" once, but Yvonne undid that. ;D
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »