SP+ updated rankings now out - 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: SP+ updated rankings now out (/thread-24941.html)
+- 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: SP+ updated rankings now out (/thread-24941.html)
SP+ updated rankings now out - msqueri - 05-21-2024
Where Connelly’s model spits out the ACC/Stanford’s schedule (offense, defense, special teams rankings parenthetically):
10) Notre Dame (10, 9, 53)
12) Florida State (16, 10, 8)
14) Clemson (15, 13, 66)
19) Miami (18, 36, 3)
23) SMU (22, 39, 99)
28) Louisville (57, 23, 64)
29) NC State (56, 25, 15)
32) Virginia Tech (42, 33, 14)
36) TCU (30, 44, 81)
47) Duke (70, 34, 18)
50) North Carolina (36, 65, 46)
52) Cal (34, 88, 129)
63) Georgia Tech (35, 99, 68)
64) Syracuse (73, 54, 86)
75) Boston College (77, 72, 84)
77) Virginia (75, 81, 71)
78) Wake Forest (86, 59, 103)
81) Pitt (97, 53, 88)
84) Stanford (71, 94, 36)
112) San Jose State (100, 101, 130)
Observations:
* Yes, we are expected to be the worst team in the ACC, but what I notice is the traffic jam trying to get out of the basement. Four ACC teams any one of whom it wouldn't be all that surprising for us to better than and six for whom it wouldn't be totally shocking (though it would start to be getting to pretty surprising territory). Not finishing dead last can be one of our modest goals for this year.
* Facing three top 25 teams would feel like a very easy schedule by our historical standards and certainly compared to last year.
* The offense is expected to be mediocre, 12th of 17 ACC teams. Not good but not bad either. Our season-ending offensive SP+ the last three years has been #95, #70, #104. SP+ thinks we are still another year away, at least, from getting to the level of offense we had in the pandemic-shortened year, but nonetheless expects a marked improvement from last year.
* The defense is expected to be bad, 16th of 17 ACC teams. Bad but hey, at least avoid the sub-100 indignity. Our season-ending defensive SP+ the last three years has been #116, #103, #107. SP+ thinks this will be our best defense since at least the pandemic-shortened year. Not a very high bar to clear in recent years considering we've had bad defenses every year for a half decade.
* The special teams is expected to be good, 6th of 17 ACC teams. Not a big advantage but still good. Our season-ending special teams SP+ the last three years has been #36, #18, #22. SP+ is betting our special teams will hold about steady with last year, which itself could be reinforcing a downward trend compared to where we typically were under Alamar's dedicated special teams coaching.
* Overall, our season-ending SP+ the last three years has been #108, #93, #105. At least by this one model there is an indication that 2024 is expected to be our best team since 2020.
Now, as I've said all off-season, we have to be able to hold the thought in our head that this very well could be an improved team - even our best team in four years - and still not win very many games. Here's what our implied win probability would be for each game if both Stanford and the teams we play are at the level SP+ forecasts (using a 2.44 home field advantage, which is what Sagarin calculated was the home field adjustment in 2023 and is relatively high for recent years but it makes sense to me to use a relatively high adjustment given the cross-country travel required for us or our opponents for so many games this year):
TCU - 25 percent
Cal Poly - 100 percent
at Syracuse - 28 percent
at Clemson - 0 percent
Virginia Tech - 22 percent
at Notre Dame - 0 percent
SMU - 17 percent
Wake Forest - 51 percent
at NC State - 12 percent
Louisville - 20 percent
at Cal - 22 percent
at San Jose State - 57 percent
EXPECTED TOTAL WINS: 3.54 WINS
Basically the epitome of a 3.5 win over/under. The bottom line is SP+ thinks we will be improved, our best team in several years, and win three or four games. If one is looking for evidence of progress, it seems pretty straightforward after three straight three win seasons our goal this year should be to win four games.
RE: SP+ updated rankings now out - CardinalSagehen - 05-22-2024
Four wins, including Cal Poly and SJSU, should be our goal. How inspiring! But that’s exactly how low we’ve sunk.
It will likely take more than four wins to convince me of progress. Four wins against this schedule could amount to nothing more than natural variation. If we see an upward trend over the course of the season, the emergence of key players at key positions, and some degree of ability to run and stop the run, then I suppose four wins could give me hope for 2025.
As a bonus, it would be nice if our QB and backup QB don’t have to be our top two rushers by a long stretch.
RE: SP+ updated rankings now out - SkiBum80 - 05-22-2024
I don't disagree that counting wins is the ultimate measure of success on the building-back road.
But I suggest that "competitiveness" is a close second.
Which is more of a subjective, hard to rigorously define criteria.
But a simple yardstick for me is, how many games do we go into the half thinking that we still have a chance to win this thing?
Playing a competitive game against a team like, say Notre Dame, that ends in a loss, is still a disappointing loss.
But it would indicate progress and hope compared to the alternative of blow out after blow out.
RE: SP+ updated rankings now out - needle - 05-22-2024
It's obvious to say, but the team will not improve without significant additions/development of new talent on defensive. I'm excited about the Yale transfer (assuming he actually enrolls). We can be hopeful that JFR takes a step forward. David Bailey failed to have an impact matching his talent level for pretty much all of 2023, but I don't think his talent evaporated.
Who am I missing that can potentially make a big difference on defense with improved play? I think it's a woefully short list, unfortunately.
As for the Stanford offense, I can't help but notice that Stanford faces six top 40 defenses, per the rankings above: ND (No. 9), Clemson (No. 13), Louisville (23), NC State (25), Virginia Tech (33) and SMU (39). The season opener is against TCU, which on defense is ranked 44th. Even for those of you bullish on Taylor's offense (I am not), it will a tough road to improvement on the scoreline.
RE: SP+ updated rankings now out - msqueri - 05-22-2024
(05-22-2024, 07:17 AM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I don't disagree that counting wins is the ultimate measure of success on the building-back road.
But I suggest that "competitiveness" is a close second.
Which is more of a subjective, hard to rigorously define criteria.
But a simple yardstick for me is, how many games do we go into the half thinking that we still have a chance to win this thing?
Playing a competitive game against a team like, say Notre Dame, that ends in a loss, is still a disappointing loss.
But it would indicate progress and hope compared to the alternative of blow out after blow out.
Systems like Sagarin and SP+ give us objective, independent, meaningful ways to gauge competitiveness so we don’t have to rely on subjective, difficult to define criteria. It says something meaningful to be #60 vs. #80 vs. #100. Indeed, the model I posted about predicts that we won’t win many more games than last year but will be better than last year. That would be progress. Where subjective judgment comes in would be determining how much progress is enough/fast enough. But personally I think it is straightforward for fans to assess whether teams are getting better or not. Thanks to very good algorithms and models I could rank for you every team in my lifetime and feel confident that the distinctions drawn are pretty meaningful. You can’t do that as well with wins but for something like Sagarin or SP+ this isn’t that mysterious. Different models will have slight differences though so it’s worth comparing apples to apples.
needle dateline='[url=tel:1716390329' Wrote: 1716390329[/url]']
It's obvious to say, but the team will not improve without significant additions/development of new talent on defensive. I'm excited about the Yale transfer (assuming he actually enrolls). We can be hopeful that JFR takes a step forward. David Bailey failed to have an impact matching his talent level for pretty much all of 2023, but I don't think his talent evaporated.
Who am I missing that can potentially make a big difference on defense with improved play? I think it's a woefully short list, unfortunately.
As for the Stanford offense, I can't help but notice that Stanford faces six top 40 defenses, per the rankings above: ND (No. 9), Clemson (No. 13), Louisville (23), NC State (25), Virginia Tech (33) and SMU (39). The season opener is against TCU, which on defense is ranked 44th. Even for those of you bullish on Taylor's offense (I am not), it will a tough road to improvement on the scoreline.
You forgot our best defensive player, Collin Wright. I would look to him and Bailey as the most likely stars. Before the Yale transfer I would look to Anthony Franklin to step up at DL. Tobin Phillips worth keeping an eye on too. Not sure I share your optimism on JFR but hopefully he can take a step, and Edwards and Manley are already solid. Tafiti strikes me as the best candidate for a breakout beyond these. Can hold our hope that enormous experience unlocks something for one of the inside linebackers, though they haven’t excelled to date. My list to look to for potential stars on defense would be Wright, Bailey, Tafiti, Edwards, Franklin, and Phillips, probably in that order.
That’s an interesting observation about six of the top 40 defenses. It doesn’t strike me as something to quake at but not easy either.
RE: SP+ updated rankings now out - Mick - 05-22-2024
If 3.5 wins is the natural O/U, I am taking the over. I think we'll have at least five wins. I'll project wins against Cal Poly and SJSU, and wins against three of the following: TCU, VaTech, Louisville, Wake Forest and SMU. Maybe an NC State win.
Here's a wild card...Stanford will do better than expected against East coast ACC teams during west coast nighttime games. I'm assuming all 7:30 p.m. PT games. That means that games against TCU, VaTech, Louisville, and Wake Forest will kick off at 10:30 p.m. body clock time for the players and coaches of those schools. The second half of those games will be played after midnight, body clock time. That's a heck of a handicap. Also means 9:30 p.m. body clock times for SMU, so...hopefully second-half meltdowns for that team.
Along those lines...no, I'm not a fan of evening games in general, but now that we're in this dog's breakfast of a football conference, I'm a strong advocate for evening games for the advantage it gives Stanford. Recall the 9/4/99 69-17 loss against Texas. 9 a.m. body clock game kickoff for Stanford players and coaches, we got crushed. We had a good team, 10 returning defensive starters and Husak, finished 8-4 and went to the Rose Bowl. Next year, it was a 9:30 pm body clock game for Texas players at Stanford. Presto, 27-24 win for a Stanford team that finished 5-6.
It works the other way, of course. I would take the opponent for any East Coast games that kick off at 12 p.m. or 1 p.m.
RE: SP+ updated rankings now out - SamuelMcF - 05-22-2024
(05-22-2024, 08:05 AM)needle Wrote: It's obvious to say, but the team will not improve without significant additions/development of new talent on defensive. I'm excited about the Yale transfer (assuming he actually enrolls). We can be hopeful that JFR takes a step forward. David Bailey failed to have an impact matching his talent level for pretty much all of 2023, but I don't think his talent evaporated.
Who am I missing that can potentially make a big difference on defense with improved play? I think it's a woefully short list, unfortunately.
Both Sinclair & Bernadel
Scotty Edwards
Tobin Phillips & Anthony Franklin as old men
All the OLBs
Collin Wright
RE: SP+ updated rankings now out - CTcard - 05-23-2024
(05-22-2024, 09:16 AM)msqueri Wrote: Systems like Sagarin and SP+ give us objective, independent, meaningful ways to gauge competitiveness so we don’t have to rely on subjective, difficult to define criteria.
These systems are certainly objective and independent, whether they are meaningful requires some consideration - perhaps with the tone of meaningful-for-what.
On S&P.
The system is meant to be predictive, but after the seventh week of the season it incorporates only backward looking data. in itself, that's fine, as the backward looking data is far more accurate and likely the most useful for predictions.
Preseason predictions are much rougher as there is no current-season data to use. That is why Connelly eventually drops his preseason data from the algorithm - when he does so is to balance too-small data sets versus unreliable data.
Sagarin is another matter. He doesn't write as much about exactly what his algorithm does and considers it a trade secret. It appears to depend far more on results than these newer analytics.
Another issue which appears inherent in the data set (i.e. in schedules across the NCAA) is that the interconnectedness is poor - though I have never seen a direct analysis of this. Teams tend to play a large percentage of their games against their own conference with most non-conference games against local teams. Thus the data linking, say, the SEC to the Pac 12 is sparse. Or ACC to Pac 12.
Now SP seems to be reasonably sophisticated in handling this but brilliant algorithms cannot create information that is absent in the data.
As an aside, I have always had an intuitive preference for FEI but haven't bothered looking at any analytical comparisons of FEI vs SP+ or others.
(05-22-2024, 09:16 AM)msqueri Wrote: Thanks to very good algorithms and models I could rank for you every team in my lifetime and feel confident that the distinctions drawn are pretty meaningful. You can’t do that as well with wins but for something like Sagarin or SP+ this isn’t that mysterious.
Well, Sagarin is kind of mysterious because he doesn't publish just what he does - though it's clearly mostly related to wins and points so it's similar to "doing that" with wins on a strength of schedule adjusted basis.
The more detailed analytics are pretty good for that as long as one considers what they really measure.
It tells you something about a team's control of factors that typically lead to winning against the field they play (with an SOS adjustment).
It doesn't really tell you about how good a team is one year versus another independently of the quality of the entire field in a given year.
Of course that is mostly fine because it could be that is all one can meaningfully analyze anyway, but it's worth keeping in mind.
------------------------------
None of this is to take any issue with the predictions listed above. I fully expect Stanford to be among the very worst football teams in the ACC next fall.