The CardBoard
Stanford Teams by historical SRS - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford Teams by historical SRS (/thread-10403.html)


Stanford Teams by historical SRS - 81alum - 10-25-2015

The fun speculation that began on a composite Stanford team composed of the 2014 defense and the 2015 offense got me to looking through some historical stat sites,  and I found this one I had not come across before:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/stanford/

Sadly it does not have a convenient way to measure the success of the offenses and defenses separately that I can find, but it does rate all teams by something it calls the SRS, or "Simple Rating System" which uses the point differential and the strength of schedule to come up with a number.  According to the SRS, these would be the top 10 Stanford teams:

1. 2010
2. 1970
3. 1940
4. 1969
5. 2013
6. 2015 (so far, in progress)
7. 2011
8. 1941
9. 1949
10. 1978

I thought it interesting that we are working on a season that is in the mix among the great ones.  I also thought it interesting that by this measure, the Ralston years hold up well, as does Shaughnessy.

Re: Stanford Teams by historical SRS - CornFed - 10-25-2015

I was just going to post a non-statistical, non-scientific comment that the 1970 team was as beautiful as any I have ever seen; notwithstanding the fact that they lost three games.  I mean, Thunderchickens on one side of the ball and Plunkett/Vataha/Moore on the other.  I mean, c'mon.  Just simply too sweet!!

Re: Stanford Teams by historical SRS - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 10-25-2015

Interesting that the 2013 team that went 11-3 and lost the Rose Bowl is ranked fifth, while the 2012 team that went 12-2 and won the Rose Bowl is ranked fifteenth.  The disparity seems to be in SOS.

Re: Stanford Teams by historical SRS - washingtonismoney - 10-25-2015

(10-25-2015, 06:21 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:Interesting that the 2013 team that went 11-3 and lost the Rose Bowl is ranked fifth, while the 2012 team that went 12-2 and won the Rose Bowl is ranked fifteenth.  The disparity seems to be in SOS.

Yeah, the 2013 team was much better. It outscored teams by 3 points per game more, against a much harder schedule. (Sagarin: #1 SOS in 2013 vs. #22 in 2012.)

Re: Stanford Teams by historical SRS - stupac2 - 10-25-2015

While the results were good, that 2012 team was just not all that great. That year we had an absolutely stupid record in one-score games, like 7-2 or something. If that had kept up in 2013 and 2014 we'd have like 4 more wins in those years, and what would we think of those seasons then?

Re: Stanford Teams by historical SRS - Rally - 10-25-2015

Someday I want to see a Stanford D name themselves Thunderchickens 2.0. Anyone know where that name came from?

Re: Stanford Teams by historical SRS - Mick - 10-25-2015

(10-25-2015, 08:05 PM)ferrari link Wrote:Someday I want to see a Stanford D name themselves Thunderchickens 2.0. Anyone know where that name came from?


I thought it was a Montana motorcycle gang name, or something like that.

Re: Stanford Teams by historical SRS - CowboyIndian - 10-25-2015

(10-25-2015, 09:34 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=13356.msg137097#msg137097 date=1445828736]
Someday I want to see a Stanford D name themselves Thunderchickens 2.0. Anyone know where that name came from?


I thought it was a Montana motorcycle gang name, or something like that.
[/quote]

Yes. All-American DE Pete Lazetich was from Billings and named their DLine after a local motorcycle gang in that town. He also does a mean rendition of "Ghost Riders in the Sky"....a propos of nothing.