[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?