[CowboyIndian]

I predict a massacre the proportions of which will make Custer's Last Stand look like Golden Gate Park in 1967.

[CowboyIndian]

I predict a massacre the proportions of which will make Custer's Last Stand look like Golden Gate Park in 1967.

[Bruce Wang]

I predict a massacre the proportions of which will make Custer's Last Stand look like Golden Gate Park in 1967.

OK I'll put you down for 268-36.

[Bruce Wang]

I predict a massacre the proportions of which will make Custer's Last Stand look like Golden Gate Park in 1967.

OK I'll put you down for 268-36.

[martyup]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10428.msg95304#msg95304 date=1409084480]
I predict a massacre the proportions of which will make Custer's Last Stand look like Golden Gate Park in 1967.

OK I'll put you down for 268-36.
[/quote]

That's very disrespectful of our defense.  ;)

[martyup]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10428.msg95304#msg95304 date=1409084480]
I predict a massacre the proportions of which will make Custer's Last Stand look like Golden Gate Park in 1967.

OK I'll put you down for 268-36.
[/quote]

That's very disrespectful of our defense.  ;)

[CornFed]

But it may have been the right accounting of Custer's Last Stand.

[CornFed]

But it may have been the right accounting of Custer's Last Stand.

[Simas]

    Farm boys:  55
    Aggies:        zip

[Simas]

    Farm boys:  55
    Aggies:        zip

[martyup]

    Farm boys:  55
    Aggies:        zip

Nice first post Simas.  That's the spirit.  GO CARD!

[martyup]

    Farm boys:  55
    Aggies:        zip

Nice first post Simas.  That's the spirit.  GO CARD!

[BostonCard]

If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.

If that's the formula, I'll predict a 0-0 tie, as I would have the lowest margin of error possible (assuming any scoring whatsoever, it will be a negative number).  In seriousness, I assume there are absolute values around each of the square brackets.  And although I don't want to mess with a formula that seems to have served the board well for a while, I do think there should be some bonus for predicting the correct team as winner (or a penalty against picking Stanford if Stanford lost).

All that being said, I'll go with a 31-10 Stanford win.

BC

[BostonCard]

If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.

If that's the formula, I'll predict a 0-0 tie, as I would have the lowest margin of error possible (assuming any scoring whatsoever, it will be a negative number).  In seriousness, I assume there are absolute values around each of the square brackets.  And although I don't want to mess with a formula that seems to have served the board well for a while, I do think there should be some bonus for predicting the correct team as winner (or a penalty against picking Stanford if Stanford lost).

All that being said, I'll go with a 31-10 Stanford win.

BC

[Rally]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10428.msg95138#msg95138 date=1408939903]
If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.

If that's the formula, I'll predict a 0-0 tie, as I would have the lowest margin of error possible (assuming any scoring whatsoever, it will be a negative number).  In seriousness, I assume there are absolute values around each of the square brackets.  And although I don't want to mess with a formula that seems to have served the board well for a while, I do think there should be some bonus for predicting the correct team as winner (or a penalty against picking Stanford if Stanford lost).

All that being said, I'll go with a 31-10 Stanford win.

BC
[/quote]

I assume it's lowest margin of error equal to or greater than 0, and I see nothing wrong with a 5 point penalty for picking against Stanford if Stanford does not lose.  Pick against Stanford, you'd better be right.

[Rally]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10428.msg95138#msg95138 date=1408939903]
If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.

If that's the formula, I'll predict a 0-0 tie, as I would have the lowest margin of error possible (assuming any scoring whatsoever, it will be a negative number).  In seriousness, I assume there are absolute values around each of the square brackets.  And although I don't want to mess with a formula that seems to have served the board well for a while, I do think there should be some bonus for predicting the correct team as winner (or a penalty against picking Stanford if Stanford lost).

All that being said, I'll go with a 31-10 Stanford win.

BC
[/quote]

I assume it's lowest margin of error equal to or greater than 0, and I see nothing wrong with a 5 point penalty for picking against Stanford if Stanford does not lose.  Pick against Stanford, you'd better be right.

[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10428.msg95138#msg95138 date=1408939903]
If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.

If that's the formula, I'll predict a 0-0 tie, as I would have the lowest margin of error possible (assuming any scoring whatsoever, it will be a negative number).  In seriousness, I assume there are absolute values around each of the square brackets.  And although I don't want to mess with a formula that seems to have served the board well for a while, I do think there should be some bonus for predicting the correct team as winner (or a penalty against picking Stanford if Stanford lost).

All that being said, I'll go with a 31-10 Stanford win.

BC
[/quote]

This is what a 0 - 0 prediction would yield against a 35 - 10 final score (81alum is the winner in this scenario with a near perfect prediction).

Total Error = 45
Av Bias = -25

I wouldn't suggest that tactic unless you believe both defenses are immovable objects.  ;)

Publius and shinsengumi - I can help as well. I have everything built and ready to display if you all are unable to for the week. The following post is what Gauss built for display on the weekly pregame but if you want a different display, go for it.

I absolutely agree with adding the ESPN bloggers and anyone else in the media world that regularly puts forth Stanford predictions.

[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10428.msg95138#msg95138 date=1408939903]
If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.

If that's the formula, I'll predict a 0-0 tie, as I would have the lowest margin of error possible (assuming any scoring whatsoever, it will be a negative number).  In seriousness, I assume there are absolute values around each of the square brackets.  And although I don't want to mess with a formula that seems to have served the board well for a while, I do think there should be some bonus for predicting the correct team as winner (or a penalty against picking Stanford if Stanford lost).

All that being said, I'll go with a 31-10 Stanford win.

BC
[/quote]

This is what a 0 - 0 prediction would yield against a 35 - 10 final score (81alum is the winner in this scenario with a near perfect prediction).

Total Error = 45
Av Bias = -25

I wouldn't suggest that tactic unless you believe both defenses are immovable objects.  ;)

Publius and shinsengumi - I can help as well. I have everything built and ready to display if you all are unable to for the week. The following post is what Gauss built for display on the weekly pregame but if you want a different display, go for it.

I absolutely agree with adding the ESPN bloggers and anyone else in the media world that regularly puts forth Stanford predictions.

[PrinceLightfoot]

This week we play UCD. CTCard provided an excellent summary of the team:

They went 5-7 last year.
Their one FBS game was a 7-36 loss to Nevada (4-8 last year).
When they did win last year, they won by some big scores (34-7 vs Sac St, 34-18 vs NDak and NColo, 30-13 Id St, and 21-3 So.Utah).
They also tended to lose big. In fact, they only played one 1 score game (L 7-10 SDak) and one 2 score game (L 10-21 NAriz).

Their official outlook says they return 8 starters on offense and 6 on defense.
They return 2 all-Big Sky conference players: newcomer of the year and 3rd team RB Manzanares and third team K Stuart.
They lost their QB Wright, a four year starter. I cannot figure out if they have named a starter or not.

Their coach is Ron Gould, in his second year after being a long time assistant at C_a_l.
Last year they ran about 55% of the time - which is roughly the balance that U$C had.
They averaged 344 yds/gm.
They averaged allowing 388 yds/gm.

All told, they don't seem to be a particularly good FCS team, though they do have a lot of returning starters. Their media guide says The Sports Network preseason ranking has them tied for 41st in FCS

Vegas expects Stanford to win but they won't update the website on the link until Wednesday (typically).

My prediction is that we will score at will using our base offense, we will score twice on special teams, and our base defense will not allow a single score. 55 - 0

Poster	Diff.	Score	Description
==============	====	=====	================================
CompSci87	+56	56-0
PrinceLightfoot	+55	55-0
Simas	+55	55-0
Papa John	+50	63-13	This score cheers up Papa John when sad.
martyup	+49	49-0	We are deep on defense.  I don't see the Aggies scoring a single point, even against our #2s and #3s.  I've got us crossing the line a lucky seven times.
Publius	+49	55-6
StanFan88	+49	55-6
Hank 91	+45	51-6
Big Brother	+42	51-9	Crower to receive some meanigful minutes.
indiancardinal	+42	45-3
Renaissance Man	+40	40-0
Farm93	+35	45-10	A first game will include a mistake or two that will lead to a few scores for UCD.
Robber Baron 83	+35	48-13
Corn Fed	+35	38-3	Big day from Vaughters including a forced fumble that sets up an easy score
hulburt88	+35	38-3	We do not allow a TD!
CochinoJanks	+35	42-7	The ones play a half.  The twos and threes play a quarter each.
SUBudda	+34	47-13	The line will give up some pressure early and our second stringers will give up at least one TD.
GoodGrief	+33	40-7	Barry J Sanders runs for 145 yards.
pcgoode	+32	52-20	Big lead early enough in the game so that second and third team guys on D get some reps and make some mistakes, leading to a few scores by The school that shall not be mentioned.  First team OLine plays into fourth quarter to get some time to gel.
el mono	+32	42-10	Even with vanilla schemes our offense puts up a fair amount of points.  D looks goods and 3-4th stringers give up a late TD in the 4th.
IdCard83	+31	38-7
2 for 2028	+31	41-10
shinsengumi	+31	41-10
ferrari	+28	31-3	We play very vanilla, trying out running backs and tight ends, but otherwise power.  No need to provide any more scouting tape than necessary.
CrazedZooChimp	+28	38-10	The game plan is pretty plain and boring on offense, and there is much partying in the backfield on defense.
CTCard	+28	38-10	Stanford wins by essentially whatever they want.
fullmetal	+28	34-6
washingtonismoney	+27	43-16
81alum	+24	34-10	Stanford is not built to run up the score. Their strength is the running game which will be neutralized.
leftcoast	+24	37-13	Shaw runs power left, power right and power on any down or distance. Davi.s is worn down in the second half.
Trevmiesterj	+23	33-10
garvin	+21	31-10
socalstanfan1	+21	31-10
burger	+21	34-13
Boston Card	+21	31-10
Farmboy	+18	28-10
Stymie	+18	31-13
==============	====	=====
Board average score	+34	42-8

[PrinceLightfoot]

This week we play UCD. CTCard provided an excellent summary of the team:

They went 5-7 last year.
Their one FBS game was a 7-36 loss to Nevada (4-8 last year).
When they did win last year, they won by some big scores (34-7 vs Sac St, 34-18 vs NDak and NColo, 30-13 Id St, and 21-3 So.Utah).
They also tended to lose big. In fact, they only played one 1 score game (L 7-10 SDak) and one 2 score game (L 10-21 NAriz).

Their official outlook says they return 8 starters on offense and 6 on defense.
They return 2 all-Big Sky conference players: newcomer of the year and 3rd team RB Manzanares and third team K Stuart.
They lost their QB Wright, a four year starter. I cannot figure out if they have named a starter or not.

Their coach is Ron Gould, in his second year after being a long time assistant at C_a_l.
Last year they ran about 55% of the time - which is roughly the balance that U$C had.
They averaged 344 yds/gm.
They averaged allowing 388 yds/gm.

All told, they don't seem to be a particularly good FCS team, though they do have a lot of returning starters. Their media guide says The Sports Network preseason ranking has them tied for 41st in FCS

Vegas expects Stanford to win but they won't update the website on the link until Wednesday (typically).

My prediction is that we will score at will using our base offense, we will score twice on special teams, and our base defense will not allow a single score. 55 - 0

Poster	Diff.	Score	Description
==============	====	=====	================================
CompSci87	+56	56-0
PrinceLightfoot	+55	55-0
Simas	+55	55-0
Papa John	+50	63-13	This score cheers up Papa John when sad.
martyup	+49	49-0	We are deep on defense.  I don't see the Aggies scoring a single point, even against our #2s and #3s.  I've got us crossing the line a lucky seven times.
Publius	+49	55-6
StanFan88	+49	55-6
Hank 91	+45	51-6
Big Brother	+42	51-9	Crower to receive some meanigful minutes.
indiancardinal	+42	45-3
Renaissance Man	+40	40-0
Farm93	+35	45-10	A first game will include a mistake or two that will lead to a few scores for UCD.
Robber Baron 83	+35	48-13
Corn Fed	+35	38-3	Big day from Vaughters including a forced fumble that sets up an easy score
hulburt88	+35	38-3	We do not allow a TD!
CochinoJanks	+35	42-7	The ones play a half.  The twos and threes play a quarter each.
SUBudda	+34	47-13	The line will give up some pressure early and our second stringers will give up at least one TD.
GoodGrief	+33	40-7	Barry J Sanders runs for 145 yards.
pcgoode	+32	52-20	Big lead early enough in the game so that second and third team guys on D get some reps and make some mistakes, leading to a few scores by The school that shall not be mentioned.  First team OLine plays into fourth quarter to get some time to gel.
el mono	+32	42-10	Even with vanilla schemes our offense puts up a fair amount of points.  D looks goods and 3-4th stringers give up a late TD in the 4th.
IdCard83	+31	38-7
2 for 2028	+31	41-10
shinsengumi	+31	41-10
ferrari	+28	31-3	We play very vanilla, trying out running backs and tight ends, but otherwise power.  No need to provide any more scouting tape than necessary.
CrazedZooChimp	+28	38-10	The game plan is pretty plain and boring on offense, and there is much partying in the backfield on defense.
CTCard	+28	38-10	Stanford wins by essentially whatever they want.
fullmetal	+28	34-6
washingtonismoney	+27	43-16
81alum	+24	34-10	Stanford is not built to run up the score. Their strength is the running game which will be neutralized.
leftcoast	+24	37-13	Shaw runs power left, power right and power on any down or distance. Davi.s is worn down in the second half.
Trevmiesterj	+23	33-10
garvin	+21	31-10
socalstanfan1	+21	31-10
burger	+21	34-13
Boston Card	+21	31-10
Farmboy	+18	28-10
Stymie	+18	31-13
==============	====	=====
Board average score	+34	42-8

[Leftcoast]

I think you copied someone else's summary under my name.  Can you check it? Thx.

[Leftcoast]

I think you copied someone else's summary under my name.  Can you check it? Thx.

[PrinceLightfoot]

I I think you copy someone else's summary under my name.  Can you check it.

Sorry, updated. The above is just a template with actual data collected so far, but Publius may choose a different direction this year.

[PrinceLightfoot]

I I think you copy someone else's summary under my name.  Can you check it.

Sorry, updated. The above is just a template with actual data collected so far, but Publius may choose a different direction this year.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10428.msg95329#msg95329 date=1409095935]
[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10428.msg95138#msg95138 date=1408939903]
If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.

If that's the formula, I'll predict a 0-0 tie, as I would have the lowest margin of error possible (assuming any scoring whatsoever, it will be a negative number).  In seriousness, I assume there are absolute values around each of the square brackets.  And although I don't want to mess with a formula that seems to have served the board well for a while, I do think there should be some bonus for predicting the correct team as winner (or a penalty against picking Stanford if Stanford lost).

All that being said, I'll go with a 31-10 Stanford win.

BC
[/quote]

This is what a 0 - 0 prediction would yield against a 35 - 10 final score (81alum is the winner in this scenario with a near perfect prediction).

Total Error = 45
Av Bias = -25

I wouldn't suggest that tactic unless you believe both defenses are immovable objects.  ;)

Publius and shinsengumi - I can help as well. I have everything built and ready to display if you all are unable to for the week. The following post is what Gauss built for display on the weekly pregame but if you want a different display, go for it.

I absolutely agree with adding the ESPN bloggers and anyone else in the media world that regularly puts forth Stanford predictions.
[/quote]

Yes, I figured that was what was intended.  But as written:
Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score: 0 - 35 = -35
Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score: 0 - 10 = -10
Total = -45

That's why I suggested you meant to put absolute values around the equation.

But it sounds like what you are going for based on the table below is the difference in scoring differential.  That equation for that would be:

| (Predicted Stanford score - Predicted Opponent score) - (Actual Stanford score - Actual Opponent score) |

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10428.msg95329#msg95329 date=1409095935]
[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10428.msg95138#msg95138 date=1408939903]
If I remember correctly, we ended up following this formula: [Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score] + [Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score] = margin of error. The total number of points awarded is based on the number of players entering in a prediction for that week...i.e. 20 predictions, the person with the smallest margin of error gets 20 points, 2nd place gets 19 points, etc. There was a 10(?) point bonus if your score prediction was perfect and a 5(?) point penalty for picking against Stanford with the result being a Stanford win. Your weekly score would be added to the season-to-date totals.

If that's the formula, I'll predict a 0-0 tie, as I would have the lowest margin of error possible (assuming any scoring whatsoever, it will be a negative number).  In seriousness, I assume there are absolute values around each of the square brackets.  And although I don't want to mess with a formula that seems to have served the board well for a while, I do think there should be some bonus for predicting the correct team as winner (or a penalty against picking Stanford if Stanford lost).

All that being said, I'll go with a 31-10 Stanford win.

BC
[/quote]

This is what a 0 - 0 prediction would yield against a 35 - 10 final score (81alum is the winner in this scenario with a near perfect prediction).

Total Error = 45
Av Bias = -25

I wouldn't suggest that tactic unless you believe both defenses are immovable objects.  ;)

Publius and shinsengumi - I can help as well. I have everything built and ready to display if you all are unable to for the week. The following post is what Gauss built for display on the weekly pregame but if you want a different display, go for it.

I absolutely agree with adding the ESPN bloggers and anyone else in the media world that regularly puts forth Stanford predictions.
[/quote]

Yes, I figured that was what was intended.  But as written:
Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score: 0 - 35 = -35
Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score: 0 - 10 = -10
Total = -45

That's why I suggested you meant to put absolute values around the equation.

But it sounds like what you are going for based on the table below is the difference in scoring differential.  That equation for that would be:

| (Predicted Stanford score - Predicted Opponent score) - (Actual Stanford score - Actual Opponent score) |

BC

[Rally]

This week we play UCD. CTCard provided an excellent summary of the team:

They went 5-7 last year.
Their one FBS game was a 7-36 loss to Nevada (4-8 last year).
When they did win last year, they won by some big scores (34-7 vs Sac St, 34-18 vs NDak and NColo, 30-13 Id St, and 21-3 So.Utah).
They also tended to lose big. In fact, they only played one 1 score game (L 7-10 SDak) and one 2 score game (L 10-21 NAriz).

Their official outlook says they return 8 starters on offense and 6 on defense.
They return 2 all-Big Sky conference players: newcomer of the year and 3rd team RB Manzanares and third team K Stuart.
They lost their QB Wright, a four year starter. I cannot figure out if they have named a starter or not.

Their coach is Ron Gould, in his second year after being a long time assistant at C_a_l.
Last year they ran about 55% of the time - which is roughly the balance that U$C had.
They averaged 344 yds/gm.
They averaged allowing 388 yds/gm.

All told, they don't seem to be a particularly good FCS team, though they do have a lot of returning starters. Their media guide says The Sports Network preseason ranking has them tied for 41st in FCS

Vegas expects Stanford to win but they won't update the website on the link until Wednesday (typically).

My prediction is that we will score at will using our base offense, we will score twice on special teams, and our base defense will not allow a single score. 55 - 0

Poster	Diff.	Score	Description
==============	====	=====	================================
CompSci87	+56	56-0
PrinceLightfoot	+55	55-0
Simas	+55	55-0
Papa John	+50	63-13	This score cheers up Papa John when sad.
martyup	+49	49-0	We are deep on defense.  I don't see the Aggies scoring a single point, even against our #2s and #3s.  I've got us crossing the line a lucky seven times.
Publius	+49	55-6
StanFan88	+49	55-6
Hank 91	+45	51-6
Big Brother	+42	51-9	Crower to receive some meanigful minutes.
indiancardinal	+42	45-3
Renaissance Man	+40	40-0
Farm93	+35	45-10	A first game will include a mistake or two that will lead to a few scores for UCD.
Robber Baron 83	+35	48-13
Corn Fed	+35	38-3	Big day from Vaughters including a forced fumble that sets up an easy score
hulburt88	+35	38-3	We do not allow a TD!
CochinoJanks	+35	42-7	The ones play a half.  The twos and threes play a quarter each.
SUBudda	+34	47-13	The line will give up some pressure early and our second stringers will give up at least one TD.
GoodGrief	+33	40-7	Barry J Sanders runs for 145 yards.
pcgoode	+32	52-20	Big lead early enough in the game so that second and third team guys on D get some reps and make some mistakes, leading to a few scores by The school that shall not be mentioned.  First team OLine plays into fourth quarter to get some time to gel.
el mono	+32	42-10	Even with vanilla schemes our offense puts up a fair amount of points.  D looks goods and 3-4th stringers give up a late TD in the 4th.
IdCard83	+31	38-7
2 for 2028	+31	41-10
shinsengumi	+31	41-10
ferrari	+28	31-3	We play very vanilla, trying out running backs and tight ends, but otherwise power.  No need to provide any more scouting tape than necessary.
CrazedZooChimp	+28	38-10	The game plan is pretty plain and boring on offense, and there is much partying in the backfield on defense.
CTCard	+28	38-10	Stanford wins by essentially whatever they want.
fullmetal	+28	34-6
washingtonismoney	+27	43-16
81alum	+24	34-10	Stanford is not built to run up the score. Their strength is the running game which will be neutralized.
leftcoast	+24	37-13	Shaw runs power left, power right and power on any down or distance. Davi.s is worn down in the second half.
Trevmiesterj	+23	33-10
garvin	+21	31-10
socalstanfan1	+21	31-10
burger	+21	34-13
Boston Card	+21	31-10
Farmboy	+18	28-10
Stymie	+18	31-13
==============	====	=====
Board average score	+34	42-8

Love it!  Let the game begin!  Is it Saturday yet?

[Rally]

This week we play UCD. CTCard provided an excellent summary of the team:

They went 5-7 last year.
Their one FBS game was a 7-36 loss to Nevada (4-8 last year).
When they did win last year, they won by some big scores (34-7 vs Sac St, 34-18 vs NDak and NColo, 30-13 Id St, and 21-3 So.Utah).
They also tended to lose big. In fact, they only played one 1 score game (L 7-10 SDak) and one 2 score game (L 10-21 NAriz).

Their official outlook says they return 8 starters on offense and 6 on defense.
They return 2 all-Big Sky conference players: newcomer of the year and 3rd team RB Manzanares and third team K Stuart.
They lost their QB Wright, a four year starter. I cannot figure out if they have named a starter or not.

Their coach is Ron Gould, in his second year after being a long time assistant at C_a_l.
Last year they ran about 55% of the time - which is roughly the balance that U$C had.
They averaged 344 yds/gm.
They averaged allowing 388 yds/gm.

All told, they don't seem to be a particularly good FCS team, though they do have a lot of returning starters. Their media guide says The Sports Network preseason ranking has them tied for 41st in FCS

Vegas expects Stanford to win but they won't update the website on the link until Wednesday (typically).

My prediction is that we will score at will using our base offense, we will score twice on special teams, and our base defense will not allow a single score. 55 - 0

Poster	Diff.	Score	Description
==============	====	=====	================================
CompSci87	+56	56-0
PrinceLightfoot	+55	55-0
Simas	+55	55-0
Papa John	+50	63-13	This score cheers up Papa John when sad.
martyup	+49	49-0	We are deep on defense.  I don't see the Aggies scoring a single point, even against our #2s and #3s.  I've got us crossing the line a lucky seven times.
Publius	+49	55-6
StanFan88	+49	55-6
Hank 91	+45	51-6
Big Brother	+42	51-9	Crower to receive some meanigful minutes.
indiancardinal	+42	45-3
Renaissance Man	+40	40-0
Farm93	+35	45-10	A first game will include a mistake or two that will lead to a few scores for UCD.
Robber Baron 83	+35	48-13
Corn Fed	+35	38-3	Big day from Vaughters including a forced fumble that sets up an easy score
hulburt88	+35	38-3	We do not allow a TD!
CochinoJanks	+35	42-7	The ones play a half.  The twos and threes play a quarter each.
SUBudda	+34	47-13	The line will give up some pressure early and our second stringers will give up at least one TD.
GoodGrief	+33	40-7	Barry J Sanders runs for 145 yards.
pcgoode	+32	52-20	Big lead early enough in the game so that second and third team guys on D get some reps and make some mistakes, leading to a few scores by The school that shall not be mentioned.  First team OLine plays into fourth quarter to get some time to gel.
el mono	+32	42-10	Even with vanilla schemes our offense puts up a fair amount of points.  D looks goods and 3-4th stringers give up a late TD in the 4th.
IdCard83	+31	38-7
2 for 2028	+31	41-10
shinsengumi	+31	41-10
ferrari	+28	31-3	We play very vanilla, trying out running backs and tight ends, but otherwise power.  No need to provide any more scouting tape than necessary.
CrazedZooChimp	+28	38-10	The game plan is pretty plain and boring on offense, and there is much partying in the backfield on defense.
CTCard	+28	38-10	Stanford wins by essentially whatever they want.
fullmetal	+28	34-6
washingtonismoney	+27	43-16
81alum	+24	34-10	Stanford is not built to run up the score. Their strength is the running game which will be neutralized.
leftcoast	+24	37-13	Shaw runs power left, power right and power on any down or distance. Davi.s is worn down in the second half.
Trevmiesterj	+23	33-10
garvin	+21	31-10
socalstanfan1	+21	31-10
burger	+21	34-13
Boston Card	+21	31-10
Farmboy	+18	28-10
Stymie	+18	31-13
==============	====	=====
Board average score	+34	42-8

Love it!  Let the game begin!  Is it Saturday yet?

[Bruce Wang]

Publius and shinsengumi - I can help as well. I have everything built and ready to display if you all are unable to for the week. The following post is what Gauss built for display on the weekly pregame but if you want a different display, go for it.

Terrific! Somebody else does all the work and next season I will get the credit!  I really should be a CEO.

[Bruce Wang]

Publius and shinsengumi - I can help as well. I have everything built and ready to display if you all are unable to for the week. The following post is what Gauss built for display on the weekly pregame but if you want a different display, go for it.

Terrific! Somebody else does all the work and next season I will get the credit!  I really should be a CEO.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Yes, I figured that was what was intended.  But as written:
Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score: 0 - 35 = -35
Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score: 0 - 10 = -10
Total = -45

That's why I suggested you meant to put absolute values around the equation.

But it sounds like what you are going for based on the table below is the difference in scoring differential.  That equation for that would be:

| (Predicted Stanford score - Predicted Opponent score) - (Actual Stanford score - Actual Opponent score) |

BC

Ah yes! I should read the whole post instead of the just the first sentence before running the simulation and responding. My bad  :-[

[PrinceLightfoot]

Yes, I figured that was what was intended.  But as written:
Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score: 0 - 35 = -35
Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score: 0 - 10 = -10
Total = -45

That's why I suggested you meant to put absolute values around the equation.

But it sounds like what you are going for based on the table below is the difference in scoring differential.  That equation for that would be:

| (Predicted Stanford score - Predicted Opponent score) - (Actual Stanford score - Actual Opponent score) |

BC

Ah yes! I should read the whole post instead of the just the first sentence before running the simulation and responding. My bad  :-[

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10428.msg95339#msg95339 date=1409101628]
Yes, I figured that was what was intended.  But as written:
Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score: 0 - 35 = -35
Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score: 0 - 10 = -10
Total = -45

That's why I suggested you meant to put absolute values around the equation.

But it sounds like what you are going for based on the table below is the difference in scoring differential.  That equation for that would be:

| (Predicted Stanford score - Predicted Opponent score) - (Actual Stanford score - Actual Opponent score) |

BC

Ah yes! I should read the whole post instead of the just the first sentence before running the simulation and responding. My bad  :-[
[/quote]

Others make fun of my language gaffes, so it's nice to have a chance to have at a math error.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10428.msg95339#msg95339 date=1409101628]
Yes, I figured that was what was intended.  But as written:
Stanford predicted score - Stanford actual score: 0 - 35 = -35
Opponent predicted score - Opponent actual score: 0 - 10 = -10
Total = -45

That's why I suggested you meant to put absolute values around the equation.

But it sounds like what you are going for based on the table below is the difference in scoring differential.  That equation for that would be:

| (Predicted Stanford score - Predicted Opponent score) - (Actual Stanford score - Actual Opponent score) |

BC

Ah yes! I should read the whole post instead of the just the first sentence before running the simulation and responding. My bad  :-[
[/quote]

Others make fun of my language gaffes, so it's nice to have a chance to have at a math error.

BC

[shinsengumi]

| (Predicted Stanford score - Predicted Opponent score) - (Actual Stanford score - Actual Opponent score) |

BC

I believe the formula used was a sum of errors:
| (Predicted Stanford Score - Actual Stanford Score) | + | (Predicted Opponent score - Actual Opponent Score) |

There are pros and cons to both.

[shinsengumi]

| (Predicted Stanford score - Predicted Opponent score) - (Actual Stanford score - Actual Opponent score) |

BC

I believe the formula used was a sum of errors:
| (Predicted Stanford Score - Actual Stanford Score) | + | (Predicted Opponent score - Actual Opponent Score) |

There are pros and cons to both.

[PrinceLightfoot]

I believe the formula used was a sum of errors:
| (Predicted Stanford Score - Actual Stanford Score) | + | (Predicted Opponent score - Actual Opponent Score) |

Yes, that is the correct formula. Once again, I need to stop multitasking when responding to posts!

[PrinceLightfoot]

I believe the formula used was a sum of errors:
| (Predicted Stanford Score - Actual Stanford Score) | + | (Predicted Opponent score - Actual Opponent Score) |

Yes, that is the correct formula. Once again, I need to stop multitasking when responding to posts!

[Gauss]

Wow, no need to ask this year whether there is interest on doing the game again!

Hi again all.
I just got back from a few months in Europe (where, yes, they also have internet, but I was more busy), and I'd be happy to compile the results again. Though I see that PrinceLightfoot has already put together a beautiful table  ;)

My c++ code is based on a class that takes a text file similar to that table, with the results of each week, and implements the scoring system described here. Basically, |PredStanford-RealStanford| + |PredRival-RealRival| with a few details.

The one thing that I wouldn't do again were the comments as tiebreakers. To make the table readable, I first had to summarize them, and then manually tell the code which comment was closer to reality (it'd be a great PhD thesis to teach c++ to read a few articles summarizing the game, and pick the best comments based on that).

Apart from that, there were some gripes with the scoring system (we started with using only the spread, and changed midway to use those absolute differences), but I think is more or less ok.

If anybody prefers to take of this, I'm happy as well.
My prediction for this week is 35-9, an unsatisfying win where the defense is decent but lots of missed opportunities in offense. More yards will be earned through the air, than rushing.

[Gauss]

Wow, no need to ask this year whether there is interest on doing the game again!

Hi again all.
I just got back from a few months in Europe (where, yes, they also have internet, but I was more busy), and I'd be happy to compile the results again. Though I see that PrinceLightfoot has already put together a beautiful table  ;)

My c++ code is based on a class that takes a text file similar to that table, with the results of each week, and implements the scoring system described here. Basically, |PredStanford-RealStanford| + |PredRival-RealRival| with a few details.

The one thing that I wouldn't do again were the comments as tiebreakers. To make the table readable, I first had to summarize them, and then manually tell the code which comment was closer to reality (it'd be a great PhD thesis to teach c++ to read a few articles summarizing the game, and pick the best comments based on that).

Apart from that, there were some gripes with the scoring system (we started with using only the spread, and changed midway to use those absolute differences), but I think is more or less ok.

If anybody prefers to take of this, I'm happy as well.
My prediction for this week is 35-9, an unsatisfying win where the defense is decent but lots of missed opportunities in offense. More yards will be earned through the air, than rushing.