[BostonCard]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-rankings/

One behind Notre Dame and one ahead of UW.  USC still in the top-25 at #22, which I suppose is a credit to us (that is, losing to Stanford is not enough to knock USC out of the top-25).

We are also #9 in the coach's poll, but that is no change from last week:

http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/foo...ll/2018/3/

BC

[EDIT] Since this post bubbled up, I edited the title to make clear it was last week's ranking.
[EDIT2] The AP just came out with Stanford at #7.

[BostonCard]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-rankings/

One behind Notre Dame and one ahead of UW.  USC still in the top-25 at #22, which I suppose is a credit to us (that is, losing to Stanford is not enough to knock USC out of the top-25).

We are also #9 in the coach's poll, but that is no change from last week:

http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/foo...ll/2018/3/

BC

[EDIT] Since this post bubbled up, I edited the title to make clear it was last week's ranking.
[EDIT2] The AP just came out with Stanford at #7.

[French Rage]

Seems fair, can't argue with that.

[French Rage]

Seems fair, can't argue with that.

[Mick]

Seems fair, can't argue with that.

Agreed.  All the teams in front of us won, most by significant margins.  #9 sounds about right to me.

[Mick]

Seems fair, can't argue with that.

Agreed.  All the teams in front of us won, most by significant margins.  #9 sounds about right to me.

[washingtonismoney]

Meanwhile Connelly's S&P+ system dropped Stanford by 13(!) places. Seems turnover luck played a role -- it expected Stanford to be -.61 on the turnover margin while Stanford (obviously) won the turnover battle 3-0. It seems a bit puzzling because Stanford had 11 passes broken up, which is a high number; two picks doesn't at all seem inordinate within that context. But what do I know? 

ESPN FPI moved Stanford up to #10. 

Sagarin kept Stanford stable.

[washingtonismoney]

Meanwhile Connelly's S&P+ system dropped Stanford by 13(!) places. Seems turnover luck played a role -- it expected Stanford to be -.61 on the turnover margin while Stanford (obviously) won the turnover battle 3-0. It seems a bit puzzling because Stanford had 11 passes broken up, which is a high number; two picks doesn't at all seem inordinate within that context. But what do I know? 

ESPN FPI moved Stanford up to #10. 

Sagarin kept Stanford stable.

[BostonCard]

Meanwhile Connelly's S&P+ system dropped Stanford by 13(!) places. Seems turnover luck played a role -- it expected Stanford to be -.61 on the turnover margin while Stanford (obviously) won the turnover battle 3-0. It seems a bit puzzling because Stanford had 11 passes broken up, which is a high number; two picks doesn't at all seem inordinate within that context. But what do I know? 

ESPN FPI moved Stanford up to #10. 

Sagarin kept Stanford stable.

Also, while we technically recovered a fumble that contributed to our turnover margin, it was on fourth down, so we were going to get the ball anyways.

BC

[BostonCard]

Meanwhile Connelly's S&P+ system dropped Stanford by 13(!) places. Seems turnover luck played a role -- it expected Stanford to be -.61 on the turnover margin while Stanford (obviously) won the turnover battle 3-0. It seems a bit puzzling because Stanford had 11 passes broken up, which is a high number; two picks doesn't at all seem inordinate within that context. But what do I know? 

ESPN FPI moved Stanford up to #10. 

Sagarin kept Stanford stable.

Also, while we technically recovered a fumble that contributed to our turnover margin, it was on fourth down, so we were going to get the ball anyways.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Also, while we technically recovered a fumble that contributed to our turnover margin, it was on fourth down, so we were going to get the ball anyways.

BC

Right, though, to be fair, the fumble meant 10 yards of field position. Which ain't nothing. (especially in a two-minute drill situation)

[washingtonismoney]

Also, while we technically recovered a fumble that contributed to our turnover margin, it was on fourth down, so we were going to get the ball anyways.

BC

Right, though, to be fair, the fumble meant 10 yards of field position. Which ain't nothing. (especially in a two-minute drill situation)

[Goose]

Also, while we technically recovered a fumble that contributed to our turnover margin, it was on fourth down, so we were going to get the ball anyways.

BC

Right, though, to be fair, the fumble meant 10 yards of field position. Which ain't nothing. (especially in a two-minute drill situation)

I think what the poster meant was that the sack (without the fumble) was going to give us the ball in the same 10 yard gain area in any case. The fumble netted us almost nothing, less than a yard at most.

[Goose]

Also, while we technically recovered a fumble that contributed to our turnover margin, it was on fourth down, so we were going to get the ball anyways.

BC

Right, though, to be fair, the fumble meant 10 yards of field position. Which ain't nothing. (especially in a two-minute drill situation)

I think what the poster meant was that the sack (without the fumble) was going to give us the ball in the same 10 yard gain area in any case. The fumble netted us almost nothing, less than a yard at most.

[washingtonismoney]

I think what the poster meant was that the sack (without the fumble) was going to give us the ball in the same 10 yard gain area in any case. The fumble netted us almost nothing, less than a yard at most.

Well, sure, except there wasn't any sack. Alfieri poked the ball out without bringing Daniels down. (around :49 seconds here: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...2403057664).

[washingtonismoney]

I think what the poster meant was that the sack (without the fumble) was going to give us the ball in the same 10 yard gain area in any case. The fumble netted us almost nothing, less than a yard at most.

Well, sure, except there wasn't any sack. Alfieri poked the ball out without bringing Daniels down. (around :49 seconds here: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...2403057664).

[BostonCard]

I think what the poster meant was that the sack (without the fumble) was going to give us the ball in the same 10 yard gain area in any case. The fumble netted us almost nothing, less than a yard at most.

Well, sure, except there wasn't any sack. Alfieri poked the ball out without bringing Daniels down. (around :49 seconds here: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...2403057664).

Two things.  First "turnover luck" refers to the fact that on average, the defense recovers about 50% of fumbles, so if you are recovering a larger proportion than that, you are "lucky".  In this case, had USC recovered the fumble, we wouldn't have gotten credit for the turnover, but we would have still gotten the ball in the exact same position.

On your second question, it is tough to tell.  Alfieri had him, but realized the ball had come out and so went after the ball instead of finishing Daniels off.  On the other hand, Daniels had at least one other play where he escaped miraculously from a certain sack (and a second one where it wasn't quite miraculous, but he did get away from pressure), so it is not clear that Alfieri would have had him.  Still, you would have liked your chances with a linebacker draped all over the QB 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage on fourth down.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think what the poster meant was that the sack (without the fumble) was going to give us the ball in the same 10 yard gain area in any case. The fumble netted us almost nothing, less than a yard at most.

Well, sure, except there wasn't any sack. Alfieri poked the ball out without bringing Daniels down. (around :49 seconds here: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...2403057664).

Two things.  First "turnover luck" refers to the fact that on average, the defense recovers about 50% of fumbles, so if you are recovering a larger proportion than that, you are "lucky".  In this case, had USC recovered the fumble, we wouldn't have gotten credit for the turnover, but we would have still gotten the ball in the exact same position.

On your second question, it is tough to tell.  Alfieri had him, but realized the ball had come out and so went after the ball instead of finishing Daniels off.  On the other hand, Daniels had at least one other play where he escaped miraculously from a certain sack (and a second one where it wasn't quite miraculous, but he did get away from pressure), so it is not clear that Alfieri would have had him.  Still, you would have liked your chances with a linebacker draped all over the QB 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage on fourth down.

BC

[Goose]

I think what the poster meant was that the sack (without the fumble) was going to give us the ball in the same 10 yard gain area in any case. The fumble netted us almost nothing, less than a yard at most.

Well, sure, except there wasn't any sack. Alfieri poked the ball out without bringing Daniels down. (around :49 seconds here: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...2403057664).

Alfieri was right there and would have certainly completed a tackle if the ball hadn't come out. Here is a link to a photo. http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-...story.html that pretty clearly shows Alfieri about to wrap him up.  The PAC-12 replay (https://pac-12.com/videos/highlights-sta...bryce-love) makes it look more like Daniels just lost control of the ball, but since it is from the back side, one can't be sure that Alfieri didn't punch it. To me, it looked more like Daniels was trying to shift the ball away to prevent that and just lost control. However, it is clear he was toast in any case.

[Goose]

I think what the poster meant was that the sack (without the fumble) was going to give us the ball in the same 10 yard gain area in any case. The fumble netted us almost nothing, less than a yard at most.

Well, sure, except there wasn't any sack. Alfieri poked the ball out without bringing Daniels down. (around :49 seconds here: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...2403057664).

Alfieri was right there and would have certainly completed a tackle if the ball hadn't come out. Here is a link to a photo. http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-...story.html that pretty clearly shows Alfieri about to wrap him up.  The PAC-12 replay (https://pac-12.com/videos/highlights-sta...bryce-love) makes it look more like Daniels just lost control of the ball, but since it is from the back side, one can't be sure that Alfieri didn't punch it. To me, it looked more like Daniels was trying to shift the ball away to prevent that and just lost control. However, it is clear he was toast in any case.

[stupac2]

Meanwhile Connelly's S&P+ system dropped Stanford by 13(!) places. Seems turnover luck played a role -- it expected Stanford to be -.61 on the turnover margin while Stanford (obviously) won the turnover battle 3-0. It seems a bit puzzling because Stanford had 11 passes broken up, which is a high number; two picks doesn't at all seem inordinate within that context. But what do I know? 

ESPN FPI moved Stanford up to #10. 

Sagarin kept Stanford stable.

I've read that Connelly made some changes to S&P+ this year leading to crazy movement early on. It does seem odd to drop us that much after a 14-point win over another (presumably) top team, who knows what's going on under the hood?

[stupac2]

Meanwhile Connelly's S&P+ system dropped Stanford by 13(!) places. Seems turnover luck played a role -- it expected Stanford to be -.61 on the turnover margin while Stanford (obviously) won the turnover battle 3-0. It seems a bit puzzling because Stanford had 11 passes broken up, which is a high number; two picks doesn't at all seem inordinate within that context. But what do I know? 

ESPN FPI moved Stanford up to #10. 

Sagarin kept Stanford stable.

I've read that Connelly made some changes to S&P+ this year leading to crazy movement early on. It does seem odd to drop us that much after a 14-point win over another (presumably) top team, who knows what's going on under the hood?

[washingtonismoney]

I've read that Connelly made some changes to S&P+ this year leading to crazy movement early on. It does seem odd to drop us that much after a 14-point win over another (presumably) top team, who knows what's going on under the hood?

It's weird -- Stanford drops by 13, SC drops by 11 ... SDSU rises by 12, and SC's first-game opponent rises by 10. Very hard to figure out what's going on here.

[washingtonismoney]

I've read that Connelly made some changes to S&P+ this year leading to crazy movement early on. It does seem odd to drop us that much after a 14-point win over another (presumably) top team, who knows what's going on under the hood?

It's weird -- Stanford drops by 13, SC drops by 11 ... SDSU rises by 12, and SC's first-game opponent rises by 10. Very hard to figure out what's going on here.

[French Rage]

UC Davis was essentially 26th last week, so they may be a top 25 team come this week's poll.  So our game next weekend may be a matchup of top 25 teams.

What?

It's technically true.

[French Rage]

UC Davis was essentially 26th last week, so they may be a top 25 team come this week's poll.  So our game next weekend may be a matchup of top 25 teams.

What?

It's technically true.

[d4cohn]

Meanwhile Connelly's S&P+ system dropped Stanford by 13(!) places. Seems turnover luck played a role -- it expected Stanford to be -.61 on the turnover margin while Stanford (obviously) won the turnover battle 3-0. It seems a bit puzzling because Stanford had 11 passes broken up, which is a high number; two picks doesn't at all seem inordinate within that context. But what do I know? 

ESPN FPI moved Stanford up to #10. 

Sagarin kept Stanford stable.

I've read that Connelly made some changes to S&P+ this year leading to crazy movement early on. 

[/quote]
It's weird -- Stanford drops by 13, SC drops by 11 ... SDSU rises by 12, and SC's first-game opponent rises by 10. Very hard to figure out what's going on here.
[/quote]

This is an indication, to me at least, that perhaps the changes to the metric weren't good ones. Granted, it is a tough balancing act between giving too much weight to your prior (I would put ESPN FPI in this camp; for example, it still has Michigan at No. 7, and LSU at No. 20, even though the eye test, let alone basic stats, would say that LSU and Michigan are at the very least comparable, if not LSU being better) versus making your metric too susceptible to fluctuations by introducing new data. It is not easy, and even the best statisticians produce a model or metric that fails. If anything, it indicates why one would hope that selection committees across the sports (football and otherwise), are using a variety of metrics (and truly considering all of them) as they profile each team.

[d4cohn]

Meanwhile Connelly's S&P+ system dropped Stanford by 13(!) places. Seems turnover luck played a role -- it expected Stanford to be -.61 on the turnover margin while Stanford (obviously) won the turnover battle 3-0. It seems a bit puzzling because Stanford had 11 passes broken up, which is a high number; two picks doesn't at all seem inordinate within that context. But what do I know? 

ESPN FPI moved Stanford up to #10. 

Sagarin kept Stanford stable.

I've read that Connelly made some changes to S&P+ this year leading to crazy movement early on. 

[/quote]
It's weird -- Stanford drops by 13, SC drops by 11 ... SDSU rises by 12, and SC's first-game opponent rises by 10. Very hard to figure out what's going on here.
[/quote]

This is an indication, to me at least, that perhaps the changes to the metric weren't good ones. Granted, it is a tough balancing act between giving too much weight to your prior (I would put ESPN FPI in this camp; for example, it still has Michigan at No. 7, and LSU at No. 20, even though the eye test, let alone basic stats, would say that LSU and Michigan are at the very least comparable, if not LSU being better) versus making your metric too susceptible to fluctuations by introducing new data. It is not easy, and even the best statisticians produce a model or metric that fails. If anything, it indicates why one would hope that selection committees across the sports (football and otherwise), are using a variety of metrics (and truly considering all of them) as they profile each team.

[MiamiCard]

Anyone catch Jesse Palmer on College Football Final listing us in his TOP 5?  Says because we've beaten 2 good teams.  Thoughts? A bit too high at this point IMO.

[MiamiCard]

Anyone catch Jesse Palmer on College Football Final listing us in his TOP 5?  Says because we've beaten 2 good teams.  Thoughts? A bit too high at this point IMO.

[Hurlburt88]

I am not there yet--want to see consistent & phenomenal execution from our o-line

[Hurlburt88]

I am not there yet--want to see consistent & phenomenal execution from our o-line

[SamuelMcF]

Anyone catch Jesse Palmer on College Football Final listing us in his TOP 5?  Says because we've been 2 good teams.  Thoughts? A bit too high at this point IMO.

I will agree with this argument in 3 weeks after remaining undefeated post-trips to Eugene and South Bend

[SamuelMcF]

Anyone catch Jesse Palmer on College Football Final listing us in his TOP 5?  Says because we've been 2 good teams.  Thoughts? A bit too high at this point IMO.

I will agree with this argument in 3 weeks after remaining undefeated post-trips to Eugene and South Bend

[stupac2]

Anyone catch Jesse Palmer on College Football Final listing us in his TOP 5?  Says because we've been 2 good teams.  Thoughts? A bit too high at this point IMO.

The Athletic had us in their top 5 too. At this point our resume probably stacks up against anyone, but that's largely an artifact of scheduling. In 3 weeks we'll know a lot more...

[stupac2]

Anyone catch Jesse Palmer on College Football Final listing us in his TOP 5?  Says because we've been 2 good teams.  Thoughts? A bit too high at this point IMO.

The Athletic had us in their top 5 too. At this point our resume probably stacks up against anyone, but that's largely an artifact of scheduling. In 3 weeks we'll know a lot more...

[BostonCard]

Anyone catch Jesse Palmer on College Football Final listing us in his TOP 5?  Says because we've been 2 good teams.  Thoughts? A bit too high at this point IMO.

The Athletic had us in their top 5 too. At this point our resume probably stacks up against anyone, but that's largely an artifact of scheduling. In 3 weeks we'll know a lot more...

Yeah, I mean if you go solely by strength of record, you have Auburn with a win over Washington, LSU over Miami, Stanford over USC, and  Georgia crushing South Carolina in terms of top-25 teams with victories over another top-25 team.  But Stanford is really the only team to have played a legit second game.

Still, there is simply too little data to go by.  I mean, just because Alabama hasn't beaten a top-25 team doesn't mean they aren't capable of.

By the way, if we are 5-0 to start the season with wins over three top-25 teams it will be quite a start for this team.  But first thing's first; beat Davis.

BC

[BostonCard]

Anyone catch Jesse Palmer on College Football Final listing us in his TOP 5?  Says because we've been 2 good teams.  Thoughts? A bit too high at this point IMO.

The Athletic had us in their top 5 too. At this point our resume probably stacks up against anyone, but that's largely an artifact of scheduling. In 3 weeks we'll know a lot more...

Yeah, I mean if you go solely by strength of record, you have Auburn with a win over Washington, LSU over Miami, Stanford over USC, and  Georgia crushing South Carolina in terms of top-25 teams with victories over another top-25 team.  But Stanford is really the only team to have played a legit second game.

Still, there is simply too little data to go by.  I mean, just because Alabama hasn't beaten a top-25 team doesn't mean they aren't capable of.

By the way, if we are 5-0 to start the season with wins over three top-25 teams it will be quite a start for this team.  But first thing's first; beat Davis.

BC

[CTcard]

Yeah, I mean if you go solely by strength of record, you have Auburn with a win over Washington, LSU over Miami, Stanford over USC, and  Georgia crushing South Carolina in terms of top-25 teams with victories over another top-25 team.  But Stanford is really the only team to have played a legit second game.

Still, there is simply too little data to go by.  I mean, just because Alabama hasn't beaten a top-25 team doesn't mean they aren't capable of.

I suspect you are correct that at the moment Stanford has the strongest record in the country (though I haven't checked - and SDSU was losing last weekend to Sac State entering the fourth quarter). You are certainly correct that does not mean they are the best team. 

An interesting sidelight will be to see what Mr. Wilner does with his AP ballot. He makes a big point of saying he tries to base his ballot exclusively* on team's actual record rather than how good he might think they are - so presumably should have Stanford at or near the top. 


* He does put in the caveat that at the very beginning of the season this is not possible. But he also says he tries to switch over to a results-only evaluation as soon as possible - and as much as possible at any time.

[CTcard]

Yeah, I mean if you go solely by strength of record, you have Auburn with a win over Washington, LSU over Miami, Stanford over USC, and  Georgia crushing South Carolina in terms of top-25 teams with victories over another top-25 team.  But Stanford is really the only team to have played a legit second game.

Still, there is simply too little data to go by.  I mean, just because Alabama hasn't beaten a top-25 team doesn't mean they aren't capable of.

I suspect you are correct that at the moment Stanford has the strongest record in the country (though I haven't checked - and SDSU was losing last weekend to Sac State entering the fourth quarter). You are certainly correct that does not mean they are the best team. 

An interesting sidelight will be to see what Mr. Wilner does with his AP ballot. He makes a big point of saying he tries to base his ballot exclusively* on team's actual record rather than how good he might think they are - so presumably should have Stanford at or near the top. 


* He does put in the caveat that at the very beginning of the season this is not possible. But he also says he tries to switch over to a results-only evaluation as soon as possible - and as much as possible at any time.