10-16-2016, 06:20 PM
Comments?
Stanford opens as 3.5 pt favorite over Colorado...
10-16-2016, 06:24 PM
After their loss to SC and Oregon's massacre at the hands of UW, their (Colorado) resume seems less impressive. That, and we're getting healthier and are at home. I'm surprised, but I can see the logic. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see the line move quite a bit though.
After their loss to SC and Oregon's massacre at the hands of UW, their (Colorado) resume seems less impressive. That, and we're getting healthier and are at home. I'm surprised, but I can see the logic. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see the line move quite a bit though.
10-16-2016, 06:34 PM
I have Colorado as my 3rd best team in the Pac-12 right now, just behind WSU, so if Stanford wins, the reality will be that the three best teams in the Pac-12 are all in the North.
Colorado is a really well-balanced team. They can run and throw well, but do lack some consistency. They are well coached and play solid defense. Stanford will have to play its best game of the season to beat Colorado, IMO.
Colorado is a really well-balanced team. They can run and throw well, but do lack some consistency. They are well coached and play solid defense. Stanford will have to play its best game of the season to beat Colorado, IMO.
I have Colorado as my 3rd best team in the Pac-12 right now, just behind WSU, so if Stanford wins, the reality will be that the three best teams in the Pac-12 are all in the North.
Colorado is a really well-balanced team. They can run and throw well, but do lack some consistency. They are well coached and play solid defense. Stanford will have to play its best game of the season to beat Colorado, IMO.
Colorado is a really well-balanced team. They can run and throw well, but do lack some consistency. They are well coached and play solid defense. Stanford will have to play its best game of the season to beat Colorado, IMO.
10-16-2016, 07:26 PM
(10-16-2016, 06:34 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I have Colorado as my 3rd best team in the Pac-12 right now, just behind WSU, so if Stanford wins, the reality will be that the three best teams in the Pac-12 are all in the North.
Well, Colorado did lose to U$C in a game that was only close because $C couldn't hold onto the ball. You might at least consider that they might be better than Colorado.
On the other hand, Colorado is playing remarkably well right now; especially considering where they've been. They do look like our toughest remaining opponent.
(10-16-2016, 06:34 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I have Colorado as my 3rd best team in the Pac-12 right now, just behind WSU, so if Stanford wins, the reality will be that the three best teams in the Pac-12 are all in the North.
Well, Colorado did lose to U$C in a game that was only close because $C couldn't hold onto the ball. You might at least consider that they might be better than Colorado.
On the other hand, Colorado is playing remarkably well right now; especially considering where they've been. They do look like our toughest remaining opponent.
10-16-2016, 09:51 PM
Though we probably never could've predicted this before the season started, the Colorado game looms very large, considering the next five are @Arizona, Oregon State, @Oregon, @Cal, Rice.
Though we probably never could've predicted this before the season started, the Colorado game looms very large, considering the next five are @Arizona, Oregon State, @Oregon, @Cal, Rice.
10-16-2016, 11:06 PM
Seems a bit generous to us, perhaps giving us credit for our recent history, and not quite believing Colorado is real due to their recent history. However, except for its game against USC, Colorado has played well (even in the loss to Michigan). WE, on the other hand, haven't played well since USC.
BC
BC
Seems a bit generous to us, perhaps giving us credit for our recent history, and not quite believing Colorado is real due to their recent history. However, except for its game against USC, Colorado has played well (even in the loss to Michigan). WE, on the other hand, haven't played well since USC.
BC
BC
10-17-2016, 07:24 AM
Cal really messed up by not hiring Macintyre. Solid coach who's doing a great job with that program. I agree that Stanford will have to be at their best to beat them. Glad this is a home game as CU plays lights out in Boulder.
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
10-17-2016, 07:41 AM
I always thought this too. And also, Gary Andersen who is no doubt a fine coach, seemed a hotter HC prospect than MacIntyre at the time and I always wondered why. That 2012 SJSU team was really good (although they did lose to Utah St). I wonder how many current Pac-12 head coaches could have done what MacIntyre did there.
I always thought this too. And also, Gary Andersen who is no doubt a fine coach, seemed a hotter HC prospect than MacIntyre at the time and I always wondered why. That 2012 SJSU team was really good (although they did lose to Utah St). I wonder how many current Pac-12 head coaches could have done what MacIntyre did there.
10-17-2016, 08:29 AM
The line appears to have fairly rapidly moved to -2.5, which means bettors think the teams are about even. That seems fair to me, games 1 or 2 Stanford would trounce Colorado, but who knows where that team went? (The injury bench, I suppose.) If we can manage to put together a complete game, then I like our odds. But we haven't been able to do that in the past few games, so I'm not super optimistic.
The line appears to have fairly rapidly moved to -2.5, which means bettors think the teams are about even. That seems fair to me, games 1 or 2 Stanford would trounce Colorado, but who knows where that team went? (The injury bench, I suppose.) If we can manage to put together a complete game, then I like our odds. But we haven't been able to do that in the past few games, so I'm not super optimistic.
10-17-2016, 08:44 AM
Colorado has a real QB. Stanford doesn't. But let's look at this meme against all opponents to date...
Stanford no QB (even though Burns started well), KSU no QB. Stanford wins easily.
Stanford no QB, USC no QB (that QB benched after Stanford game). Stanford wins easily.
Stanford no QB. UCLA good QB. Stanford barely wins.
Stanford no QB. Washington good QB. Stanford plays without both starting CBs. Stanford blown out.
Stanford no QB. Washington St. good QB. Stanford plays without both starting CBs. Stanford blown out.
Stanford no QB. ND good QB. Stanford plays with best starting CB. Stanford barely wins.
So you would have to think this is a Stanford barely wins game, given Stanford still has no QB, Colorado does, Stanford has its best starting CB, and the game is at home.
One note on the CBs. I think it's fair to say Murphy played really well against ND, but Meeks really is the key. I'm not even sure Alexander is that bad, just that Meeks is that good.
Stanford no QB (even though Burns started well), KSU no QB. Stanford wins easily.
Stanford no QB, USC no QB (that QB benched after Stanford game). Stanford wins easily.
Stanford no QB. UCLA good QB. Stanford barely wins.
Stanford no QB. Washington good QB. Stanford plays without both starting CBs. Stanford blown out.
Stanford no QB. Washington St. good QB. Stanford plays without both starting CBs. Stanford blown out.
Stanford no QB. ND good QB. Stanford plays with best starting CB. Stanford barely wins.
So you would have to think this is a Stanford barely wins game, given Stanford still has no QB, Colorado does, Stanford has its best starting CB, and the game is at home.
One note on the CBs. I think it's fair to say Murphy played really well against ND, but Meeks really is the key. I'm not even sure Alexander is that bad, just that Meeks is that good.
Colorado has a real QB. Stanford doesn't. But let's look at this meme against all opponents to date...
Stanford no QB (even though Burns started well), KSU no QB. Stanford wins easily.
Stanford no QB, USC no QB (that QB benched after Stanford game). Stanford wins easily.
Stanford no QB. UCLA good QB. Stanford barely wins.
Stanford no QB. Washington good QB. Stanford plays without both starting CBs. Stanford blown out.
Stanford no QB. Washington St. good QB. Stanford plays without both starting CBs. Stanford blown out.
Stanford no QB. ND good QB. Stanford plays with best starting CB. Stanford barely wins.
So you would have to think this is a Stanford barely wins game, given Stanford still has no QB, Colorado does, Stanford has its best starting CB, and the game is at home.
One note on the CBs. I think it's fair to say Murphy played really well against ND, but Meeks really is the key. I'm not even sure Alexander is that bad, just that Meeks is that good.
Stanford no QB (even though Burns started well), KSU no QB. Stanford wins easily.
Stanford no QB, USC no QB (that QB benched after Stanford game). Stanford wins easily.
Stanford no QB. UCLA good QB. Stanford barely wins.
Stanford no QB. Washington good QB. Stanford plays without both starting CBs. Stanford blown out.
Stanford no QB. Washington St. good QB. Stanford plays without both starting CBs. Stanford blown out.
Stanford no QB. ND good QB. Stanford plays with best starting CB. Stanford barely wins.
So you would have to think this is a Stanford barely wins game, given Stanford still has no QB, Colorado does, Stanford has its best starting CB, and the game is at home.
One note on the CBs. I think it's fair to say Murphy played really well against ND, but Meeks really is the key. I'm not even sure Alexander is that bad, just that Meeks is that good.
10-17-2016, 09:00 AM
Colorado is a good team, and it's hard to get too excited about our chances against a good team when our average offensive production over the last four games is one TD. If the defense can come up with another strong effort, and the offense at least be tough when the game is on the line (as they were against UCLA and USB) then I think we have a good shot.
Colorado is a good team, and it's hard to get too excited about our chances against a good team when our average offensive production over the last four games is one TD. If the defense can come up with another strong effort, and the offense at least be tough when the game is on the line (as they were against UCLA and USB) then I think we have a good shot.
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
10-17-2016, 09:14 AM
Last time Stanford played a top-20/25-ish MacIntyre team was, arguably, 2012 and that was a tough game (SJSU opener).
Last time Stanford played a top-20/25-ish MacIntyre team was, arguably, 2012 and that was a tough game (SJSU opener).
10-17-2016, 09:15 AM
It's hard to judge this team because of the two performances against the Washington teams. The other four games are consistent with a top-20 team that's OK on the road and good at home -- which would lead you to believe that Stanford should be a solid favorite. On the other hand it's hard to erase two massive blowouts from your memory. Just hard to know for sure. I feel the four wins are more consistent with the team's actual level but I have no real idea.
It's hard to judge this team because of the two performances against the Washington teams. The other four games are consistent with a top-20 team that's OK on the road and good at home -- which would lead you to believe that Stanford should be a solid favorite. On the other hand it's hard to erase two massive blowouts from your memory. Just hard to know for sure. I feel the four wins are more consistent with the team's actual level but I have no real idea.
10-17-2016, 09:50 AM
(10-17-2016, 09:15 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It's hard to judge this team because of the two performances against the Washington teams. The other four games are consistent with a top-20 team that's OK on the road and good at home -- which would lead you to believe that Stanford should be a solid favorite. On the other hand it's hard to erase two massive blowouts from your memory. Just hard to know for sure. I feel the four wins are more consistent with the team's actual level but I have no real idea.
Agree that judging Stanford is a bit tricky. There's the two hideous games, there's the fact that to date Stanford has played one of the toughest schedules in the country (#1 per Sagarin), and the strong disparity between offense/defense from both us and our opponents.
So, we have already played the top 3, 5 of top 6 and top 8 defenses we will play this year according to S&P+ (which I don't love but it doesn't seem terrible, and FEI seems to be unavailable at the moment).
The worst defense by this measure we have played is WSU.
The best defense we have yet to play is Colorado (#34 vs #31 $C and #39 und).
However, we have yet to see the (S&P) top offense we will face, 2 of top 3, 4 of top 6.
The best offense we have faced is UW (duh), but they also list und at #53, UCLA #56, KSU #60 - not atrocious but not cream of the crop either.
Simply by opponent strength one might think we'll feel a little better about the offense and less good about the defense going forward - let's see what actual performance turns out to be.
I would notice one surprise to me. The book on und so far was supposedly capable offense but terrible defense. S&P rates those units as offense #53 and defense #53. Not so clear that view was correct.
(10-17-2016, 09:15 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It's hard to judge this team because of the two performances against the Washington teams. The other four games are consistent with a top-20 team that's OK on the road and good at home -- which would lead you to believe that Stanford should be a solid favorite. On the other hand it's hard to erase two massive blowouts from your memory. Just hard to know for sure. I feel the four wins are more consistent with the team's actual level but I have no real idea.
Agree that judging Stanford is a bit tricky. There's the two hideous games, there's the fact that to date Stanford has played one of the toughest schedules in the country (#1 per Sagarin), and the strong disparity between offense/defense from both us and our opponents.
So, we have already played the top 3, 5 of top 6 and top 8 defenses we will play this year according to S&P+ (which I don't love but it doesn't seem terrible, and FEI seems to be unavailable at the moment).
The worst defense by this measure we have played is WSU.
The best defense we have yet to play is Colorado (#34 vs #31 $C and #39 und).
However, we have yet to see the (S&P) top offense we will face, 2 of top 3, 4 of top 6.
The best offense we have faced is UW (duh), but they also list und at #53, UCLA #56, KSU #60 - not atrocious but not cream of the crop either.
Simply by opponent strength one might think we'll feel a little better about the offense and less good about the defense going forward - let's see what actual performance turns out to be.
I would notice one surprise to me. The book on und so far was supposedly capable offense but terrible defense. S&P rates those units as offense #53 and defense #53. Not so clear that view was correct.
10-17-2016, 10:39 AM
I watched the Colorado vs Under Stanford Control (again) game over the weekend. Literature's Most Famous Losers turned the ball over four times and still won the game.Â
My impression of Colorado is that they are well coached and fundamentally sound in all aspects of their game, but they lost to Under Stanford Control (again) because Literature's Most Famous Losers have a lot more talent. Had Under Stanford Control (again) turned the ball over "only" two times, I think Literature's Most Famous Losers would have beaten the Buffs by 14 points or more.
I think if the Cardinal defense plays at a level close to what they did at Votre Dame (which I think means we must have Meeks in the lineup), and we limit our turnovers, we should beat Colorado by 7 to 10 points.
My impression of Colorado is that they are well coached and fundamentally sound in all aspects of their game, but they lost to Under Stanford Control (again) because Literature's Most Famous Losers have a lot more talent. Had Under Stanford Control (again) turned the ball over "only" two times, I think Literature's Most Famous Losers would have beaten the Buffs by 14 points or more.
I think if the Cardinal defense plays at a level close to what they did at Votre Dame (which I think means we must have Meeks in the lineup), and we limit our turnovers, we should beat Colorado by 7 to 10 points.
I watched the Colorado vs Under Stanford Control (again) game over the weekend. Literature's Most Famous Losers turned the ball over four times and still won the game.Â
My impression of Colorado is that they are well coached and fundamentally sound in all aspects of their game, but they lost to Under Stanford Control (again) because Literature's Most Famous Losers have a lot more talent. Had Under Stanford Control (again) turned the ball over "only" two times, I think Literature's Most Famous Losers would have beaten the Buffs by 14 points or more.
I think if the Cardinal defense plays at a level close to what they did at Votre Dame (which I think means we must have Meeks in the lineup), and we limit our turnovers, we should beat Colorado by 7 to 10 points.
My impression of Colorado is that they are well coached and fundamentally sound in all aspects of their game, but they lost to Under Stanford Control (again) because Literature's Most Famous Losers have a lot more talent. Had Under Stanford Control (again) turned the ball over "only" two times, I think Literature's Most Famous Losers would have beaten the Buffs by 14 points or more.
I think if the Cardinal defense plays at a level close to what they did at Votre Dame (which I think means we must have Meeks in the lineup), and we limit our turnovers, we should beat Colorado by 7 to 10 points.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
10-17-2016, 10:40 AM
Quote:I would notice one surprise to me. The book on und so far was supposedly capable offense but terrible defense. S&P rates those units as offense #53 and defense #53. Not so clear that view was correct.
Yes, but in the book's defense, it did note and discount that ND is coached by a screaming maniac.
Quote:I would notice one surprise to me. The book on und so far was supposedly capable offense but terrible defense. S&P rates those units as offense #53 and defense #53. Not so clear that view was correct.
Yes, but in the book's defense, it did note and discount that ND is coached by a screaming maniac.
10-17-2016, 10:46 AM
Sagarin has Stanford and Colorado at nearly an identical score in the "predictor" model (83.65 vs 83.25), and a current "home field" advantage of 2.42. So it would seem Vegas (or the betting) is following Sagarin almost to the letter. Interestingly his "Recent" and "Golden Mean" models (and the combined model) all favor us by more, so I guess we can figure out which of Sagarins methods is the most accurate for Stanford this weekend. Clearly having some of our injured guys back can make a brobdingnagian difference, especially Meeks.
I'm actually surprised the "recent" model has us ranked so high, seeing as we're 1-2 in our past three games with an ugly score differential.
I'm actually surprised the "recent" model has us ranked so high, seeing as we're 1-2 in our past three games with an ugly score differential.
Sagarin has Stanford and Colorado at nearly an identical score in the "predictor" model (83.65 vs 83.25), and a current "home field" advantage of 2.42. So it would seem Vegas (or the betting) is following Sagarin almost to the letter. Interestingly his "Recent" and "Golden Mean" models (and the combined model) all favor us by more, so I guess we can figure out which of Sagarins methods is the most accurate for Stanford this weekend. Clearly having some of our injured guys back can make a brobdingnagian difference, especially Meeks.
I'm actually surprised the "recent" model has us ranked so high, seeing as we're 1-2 in our past three games with an ugly score differential.
I'm actually surprised the "recent" model has us ranked so high, seeing as we're 1-2 in our past three games with an ugly score differential.
10-17-2016, 10:53 AM
(10-17-2016, 10:46 AM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:I'm actually surprised the "recent" model has us ranked so high, seeing as we're 1-2 in our past three games with an ugly score differential.
Indeed, sometimes the ratings Sagarin posts are bizarre enough that I suspect actual calculating errors.
Of course since he doesn't publish exactly what he does, no one can check.
(10-17-2016, 10:46 AM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:I'm actually surprised the "recent" model has us ranked so high, seeing as we're 1-2 in our past three games with an ugly score differential.
Indeed, sometimes the ratings Sagarin posts are bizarre enough that I suspect actual calculating errors.
Of course since he doesn't publish exactly what he does, no one can check.
10-17-2016, 12:04 PM
According to NCAA.com stats:
Scoring offense:Â CO=#22, 39 points per game
Defense (yards allowed) CO=#15; we are ranked #45 (but that's probably due to the 2 blowouts)
Shaping up to be a pretty even match. Glad we are playing at home during daylight.
Scoring offense:Â CO=#22, 39 points per game
Defense (yards allowed) CO=#15; we are ranked #45 (but that's probably due to the 2 blowouts)
Shaping up to be a pretty even match. Glad we are playing at home during daylight.
Pax et Bonum
According to NCAA.com stats:
Scoring offense:Â CO=#22, 39 points per game
Defense (yards allowed) CO=#15; we are ranked #45 (but that's probably due to the 2 blowouts)
Shaping up to be a pretty even match. Glad we are playing at home during daylight.
Scoring offense:Â CO=#22, 39 points per game
Defense (yards allowed) CO=#15; we are ranked #45 (but that's probably due to the 2 blowouts)
Shaping up to be a pretty even match. Glad we are playing at home during daylight.
Pax et Bonum
10-17-2016, 12:25 PM
(10-17-2016, 10:53 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=15920.msg176253#msg176253 date=1476726398]
I'm actually surprised the "recent" model has us ranked so high, seeing as we're 1-2 in our past three games with an ugly score differential.
Indeed, sometimes the ratings Sagarin posts are bizarre enough that I suspect actual calculating errors.
Of course since he doesn't publish exactly what he does, no one can check.
[/quote]
Sagarin's highly flawed models have been reverse engineered by various groups over the years. The "Predictor" model basically consists of weighted linear regression using almost-uncapped score margins. Sagarin's season ending ratings have retrodictive value, but any objective analysis (measuring deviation from the final score) concludes that the consensus opening and closing betting lines are far stronger predictors. The problem with Sagarin's (and others') predictive models is primarily that they are purely statistical with no adjustments for factors that may have distorted previous results (e.g. lucky plays, officiating errors, personnel changes) or will impact future results (e.g. injuries, weather conditions).
(10-17-2016, 10:53 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=15920.msg176253#msg176253 date=1476726398]
I'm actually surprised the "recent" model has us ranked so high, seeing as we're 1-2 in our past three games with an ugly score differential.
Indeed, sometimes the ratings Sagarin posts are bizarre enough that I suspect actual calculating errors.
Of course since he doesn't publish exactly what he does, no one can check.
[/quote]
Sagarin's highly flawed models have been reverse engineered by various groups over the years. The "Predictor" model basically consists of weighted linear regression using almost-uncapped score margins. Sagarin's season ending ratings have retrodictive value, but any objective analysis (measuring deviation from the final score) concludes that the consensus opening and closing betting lines are far stronger predictors. The problem with Sagarin's (and others') predictive models is primarily that they are purely statistical with no adjustments for factors that may have distorted previous results (e.g. lucky plays, officiating errors, personnel changes) or will impact future results (e.g. injuries, weather conditions).
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »