[washingtonismoney]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/asce...s-week-10/

What was it, 23% last week?

Anyway, the stats presumably don't know that Baylor's starting a true freshman instead of an experienced player, so feel free to bump down Baylor's chances a bit. (Presumably some of that chance gets redistributed to Stanford.)

[washingtonismoney]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/asce...s-week-10/

What was it, 23% last week?

Anyway, the stats presumably don't know that Baylor's starting a true freshman instead of an experienced player, so feel free to bump down Baylor's chances a bit. (Presumably some of that chance gets redistributed to Stanford.)

[stupac2]

19% last week I think. And are the team logos enormous for anyone else? It makes the poll hard to read because 5 teams are visible at a time.

[stupac2]

19% last week I think. And are the team logos enormous for anyone else? It makes the poll hard to read because 5 teams are visible at a time.

[Leftcoast]

No problem with the logos here - I see 25+ teams in a single IPhone screen.  What are you using?

[Leftcoast]

No problem with the logos here - I see 25+ teams in a single IPhone screen.  What are you using?

[stupac2]

No problem with the logos here - I see 25+ teams in a single IPhone screen.  What are you using?

Desktop. Firefox, if it matters. I guess I could poke around the source code to see wtf.

[stupac2]

No problem with the logos here - I see 25+ teams in a single IPhone screen.  What are you using?

Desktop. Firefox, if it matters. I guess I could poke around the source code to see wtf.

[BostonCard]

This seems weird.  Silver gives Alabama a 35% chance of winning the SEC and a 54% chance of making the playoff.  That was understandable last week, when there was a small but significant chance that Alabama could wind up 11-1 but watch Ole Miss go to the SEC championship because of their head-to-head.  But this week, Alabama now "controls its own destiny" in that if it wins out, it will go to the SEC championship and if it beats Florida, it will win the SEC.  So, for Alabama not to win the SEC they would have to lose a second game.  While I could believe that an 11-1 Alabama that did not win the SEC championship would go to the playoffs, and perhaps a 11-2 SEC champion Alabama would go to the playoffs, it is inconceivable to me that even in the vaunted SEC, that a 2-loss non-champion will go to the playoffs.  There are simply too many other teams who will be either undefeated or have one loss and will win their championship to consider.

BC

[BostonCard]

This seems weird.  Silver gives Alabama a 35% chance of winning the SEC and a 54% chance of making the playoff.  That was understandable last week, when there was a small but significant chance that Alabama could wind up 11-1 but watch Ole Miss go to the SEC championship because of their head-to-head.  But this week, Alabama now "controls its own destiny" in that if it wins out, it will go to the SEC championship and if it beats Florida, it will win the SEC.  So, for Alabama not to win the SEC they would have to lose a second game.  While I could believe that an 11-1 Alabama that did not win the SEC championship would go to the playoffs, and perhaps a 11-2 SEC champion Alabama would go to the playoffs, it is inconceivable to me that even in the vaunted SEC, that a 2-loss non-champion will go to the playoffs.  There are simply too many other teams who will be either undefeated or have one loss and will win their championship to consider.

BC

[French Rage]

This seems weird.  Silver gives Alabama a 35% chance of winning the SEC and a 54% chance of making the playoff.  That was understandable last week, when there was a small but significant chance that Alabama could wind up 11-1 but watch Ole Miss go to the SEC championship because of their head-to-head.  But this week, Alabama now "controls its own destiny" in that if it wins out, it will go to the SEC championship and if it beats Florida, it will win the SEC.  So, for Alabama not to win the SEC they would have to lose a second game.  While I could believe that an 11-1 Alabama that did not win the SEC championship would go to the playoffs, and perhaps a 11-2 SEC champion Alabama would go to the playoffs, it is inconceivable to me that even in the vaunted SEC, that a 2-loss non-champion will go to the playoffs.  There are simply too many other teams who will be either undefeated or have one loss and will win their championship to consider.

BC

Yeah it's one thing to finish with one-loss in your division and be second in the division, but arguably still second in the conference and never getting to prove yourself in the conference championship (see us and Oregon 2011 through 2013).  It's another to lose to conference championship.  The championship game can help your resume but it can get you too.  It giveth and it taketh.  In a year like this where there will be plenty of one-loss teams floating around, some as conference champs, 2-losses and losing the championship should place you on the outside.

[French Rage]

This seems weird.  Silver gives Alabama a 35% chance of winning the SEC and a 54% chance of making the playoff.  That was understandable last week, when there was a small but significant chance that Alabama could wind up 11-1 but watch Ole Miss go to the SEC championship because of their head-to-head.  But this week, Alabama now "controls its own destiny" in that if it wins out, it will go to the SEC championship and if it beats Florida, it will win the SEC.  So, for Alabama not to win the SEC they would have to lose a second game.  While I could believe that an 11-1 Alabama that did not win the SEC championship would go to the playoffs, and perhaps a 11-2 SEC champion Alabama would go to the playoffs, it is inconceivable to me that even in the vaunted SEC, that a 2-loss non-champion will go to the playoffs.  There are simply too many other teams who will be either undefeated or have one loss and will win their championship to consider.

BC

Yeah it's one thing to finish with one-loss in your division and be second in the division, but arguably still second in the conference and never getting to prove yourself in the conference championship (see us and Oregon 2011 through 2013).  It's another to lose to conference championship.  The championship game can help your resume but it can get you too.  It giveth and it taketh.  In a year like this where there will be plenty of one-loss teams floating around, some as conference champs, 2-losses and losing the championship should place you on the outside.

[Hank 91]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/asce...s-week-10/

What was it, 23% last week?

Anyway, the stats presumably don't know that Baylor's starting a true freshman instead of an experienced player, so feel free to bump down Baylor's chances a bit. (Presumably some of that chance gets redistributed to Stanford.)

I haven't watched either quarterback, the experienced player who's out with the injury or his inexperienced replacement, but last week I was watching as (Stanford's own) Rod Gilmore broke down potential playoff teams, and he put Baylor firmly in the top four. For what it's worth, he said that the freshman was actually better than the guy he replaced, so Baylor fans needn't be concerned. Again, I've got no opinion on this.

[Hank 91]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/asce...s-week-10/

What was it, 23% last week?

Anyway, the stats presumably don't know that Baylor's starting a true freshman instead of an experienced player, so feel free to bump down Baylor's chances a bit. (Presumably some of that chance gets redistributed to Stanford.)

I haven't watched either quarterback, the experienced player who's out with the injury or his inexperienced replacement, but last week I was watching as (Stanford's own) Rod Gilmore broke down potential playoff teams, and he put Baylor firmly in the top four. For what it's worth, he said that the freshman was actually better than the guy he replaced, so Baylor fans needn't be concerned. Again, I've got no opinion on this.

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13565.msg140360#msg140360 date=1447004937]
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/asce...s-week-10/

What was it, 23% last week?

Anyway, the stats presumably don't know that Baylor's starting a true freshman instead of an experienced player, so feel free to bump down Baylor's chances a bit. (Presumably some of that chance gets redistributed to Stanford.)

I haven't watched either quarterback, the experienced player who's out with the injury or his inexperienced replacement, but last week I was watching as (Stanford's own) Rod Gilmore broke down potential playoff teams, and he put Baylor firmly in the top four. For what it's worth, he said that the freshman was actually better than the guy he replaced, so Baylor fans needn't be concerned. Again, I've got no opinion on this.
[/quote]

Like you, Hank, I have no opinion directly about the new QB at Baylor, and maybe in terms of physical ability and long-term potential Gilmore is right, he is an upgrade.  But I have a hard time believing that experience at the college level means so little.  To take a comparison from the Pac-12, I would say that Josh Rosen has more potential than any QB in the conference, and right now may physically be as good or better than any of the other QBs.  But TODAY, on their respective teams, I would take Hogan to lead Stanford over Rosen to lead UCLA, just due to the mastery that Hogan seems to have over his offense, as well as his ability to read defenses. 

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13565.msg140360#msg140360 date=1447004937]
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/asce...s-week-10/

What was it, 23% last week?

Anyway, the stats presumably don't know that Baylor's starting a true freshman instead of an experienced player, so feel free to bump down Baylor's chances a bit. (Presumably some of that chance gets redistributed to Stanford.)

I haven't watched either quarterback, the experienced player who's out with the injury or his inexperienced replacement, but last week I was watching as (Stanford's own) Rod Gilmore broke down potential playoff teams, and he put Baylor firmly in the top four. For what it's worth, he said that the freshman was actually better than the guy he replaced, so Baylor fans needn't be concerned. Again, I've got no opinion on this.
[/quote]

Like you, Hank, I have no opinion directly about the new QB at Baylor, and maybe in terms of physical ability and long-term potential Gilmore is right, he is an upgrade.  But I have a hard time believing that experience at the college level means so little.  To take a comparison from the Pac-12, I would say that Josh Rosen has more potential than any QB in the conference, and right now may physically be as good or better than any of the other QBs.  But TODAY, on their respective teams, I would take Hogan to lead Stanford over Rosen to lead UCLA, just due to the mastery that Hogan seems to have over his offense, as well as his ability to read defenses. 

[Hank 91]

[quote author=Hank 91 link=topic=13565.msg140444#msg140444 date=1447023310]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13565.msg140360#msg140360 date=1447004937]
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/asce...s-week-10/

What was it, 23% last week?

Anyway, the stats presumably don't know that Baylor's starting a true freshman instead of an experienced player, so feel free to bump down Baylor's chances a bit. (Presumably some of that chance gets redistributed to Stanford.)

I haven't watched either quarterback, the experienced player who's out with the injury or his inexperienced replacement, but last week I was watching as (Stanford's own) Rod Gilmore broke down potential playoff teams, and he put Baylor firmly in the top four. For what it's worth, he said that the freshman was actually better than the guy he replaced, so Baylor fans needn't be concerned. Again, I've got no opinion on this.
[/quote]

Like you, Hank, I have no opinion directly about the new QB at Baylor, and maybe in terms of physical ability and long-term potential Gilmore is right, he is an upgrade.  But I have a hard time believing that experience at the college level means so little.  To take a comparison from the Pac-12, I would say that Josh Rosen has more potential than any QB in the conference, and right now may physically be as good or better than any of the other QBs.  But TODAY, on their respective teams, I would take Hogan to lead Stanford over Rosen to lead UCLA, just due to the mastery that Hogan seems to have over his offense, as well as his ability to read defenses.
[/quote]

I agree completely. It's hard to imagine an eighteen-year-old kid being ready to lead his team in its biggest games of the season. We'll see.

[Hank 91]

[quote author=Hank 91 link=topic=13565.msg140444#msg140444 date=1447023310]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13565.msg140360#msg140360 date=1447004937]
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/asce...s-week-10/

What was it, 23% last week?

Anyway, the stats presumably don't know that Baylor's starting a true freshman instead of an experienced player, so feel free to bump down Baylor's chances a bit. (Presumably some of that chance gets redistributed to Stanford.)

I haven't watched either quarterback, the experienced player who's out with the injury or his inexperienced replacement, but last week I was watching as (Stanford's own) Rod Gilmore broke down potential playoff teams, and he put Baylor firmly in the top four. For what it's worth, he said that the freshman was actually better than the guy he replaced, so Baylor fans needn't be concerned. Again, I've got no opinion on this.
[/quote]

Like you, Hank, I have no opinion directly about the new QB at Baylor, and maybe in terms of physical ability and long-term potential Gilmore is right, he is an upgrade.  But I have a hard time believing that experience at the college level means so little.  To take a comparison from the Pac-12, I would say that Josh Rosen has more potential than any QB in the conference, and right now may physically be as good or better than any of the other QBs.  But TODAY, on their respective teams, I would take Hogan to lead Stanford over Rosen to lead UCLA, just due to the mastery that Hogan seems to have over his offense, as well as his ability to read defenses.
[/quote]

I agree completely. It's hard to imagine an eighteen-year-old kid being ready to lead his team in its biggest games of the season. We'll see.

[FarmBoy]

CBS is picking us to get into the Final Four. I like that they're gutsy enough to make that kind of pick as opposed to ESPN who automatically picks the current top 4 teams to be in the playoff.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...redictions

[FarmBoy]

CBS is picking us to get into the Final Four. I like that they're gutsy enough to make that kind of pick as opposed to ESPN who automatically picks the current top 4 teams to be in the playoff.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...redictions

[amartinsu13]

CBS is picking us to get into the Final Four. I like that they're gutsy enough to make that kind of pick as opposed to ESPN who automatically picks the current top 4 teams to be in the playoff.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...redictions

Playing Ohio State and then Bama in the Champ would be one hell of a January...

One can dream!

[amartinsu13]

CBS is picking us to get into the Final Four. I like that they're gutsy enough to make that kind of pick as opposed to ESPN who automatically picks the current top 4 teams to be in the playoff.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...redictions

Playing Ohio State and then Bama in the Champ would be one hell of a January...

One can dream!

[stupac2]

Here's a guy on reddit doing an analysis of the factors that the committee uses in their ranking: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/3s..._cfp_poll/

The finding about the teams over .500 isn't super surprising since that's one of the pieces of information they have in the room, so it'll be more salient than other things that aren't provided.

[stupac2]

Here's a guy on reddit doing an analysis of the factors that the committee uses in their ranking: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/3s..._cfp_poll/

The finding about the teams over .500 isn't super surprising since that's one of the pieces of information they have in the room, so it'll be more salient than other things that aren't provided.

[stupac2]

Another Silver article about their ratings, and discussing some ways they don't make a ton of sense: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/just...l-playoff/

[stupac2]

Another Silver article about their ratings, and discussing some ways they don't make a ton of sense: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/just...l-playoff/

[French Rage]

Here's a guy on reddit doing an analysis of the factors that the committee uses in their ranking: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/3s..._cfp_poll/

The finding about the teams over .500 isn't super surprising since that's one of the pieces of information they have in the room, so it'll be more salient than other things that aren't provided.

Interesting that they feel it weights more wins against .500+ more importantly than wins against elite teams.  That should help us in a comparison against a Big12 team.

As for us, NW, ND, UCLA are already over .500, USC and Oregon are at .500 but very likely to end over .500, Wazzou pretty likely (game against Colorado).  That puts us at 6.  UCF and OSU are no-gos.  Cal, UW, UA, and Colorado all are still alive to do it; Cal is most likely to reach against OSU.  Hard to tell with the rest.  Do we know if .500+ also means at .500, or does it need to be a winning record?

[French Rage]

Here's a guy on reddit doing an analysis of the factors that the committee uses in their ranking: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/3s..._cfp_poll/

The finding about the teams over .500 isn't super surprising since that's one of the pieces of information they have in the room, so it'll be more salient than other things that aren't provided.

Interesting that they feel it weights more wins against .500+ more importantly than wins against elite teams.  That should help us in a comparison against a Big12 team.

As for us, NW, ND, UCLA are already over .500, USC and Oregon are at .500 but very likely to end over .500, Wazzou pretty likely (game against Colorado).  That puts us at 6.  UCF and OSU are no-gos.  Cal, UW, UA, and Colorado all are still alive to do it; Cal is most likely to reach against OSU.  Hard to tell with the rest.  Do we know if .500+ also means at .500, or does it need to be a winning record?

[stupac2]

Interesting that they feel it weights more wins against .500+ more importantly than wins against elite teams.  That should help us in a comparison against a Big12 team.

As for us, NW, ND, UCLA are already over .500, Under Stanford Control and Oregon are at .500 but very likely to end over .500, Wazzou pretty likely (game against Colorado).  That puts us at 6.  UCF and OSU are no-gos.  Low APR U, UW, UA, and Colorado all are still alive to do it; Low APR U is most likely to reach against OSU.  Hard to tell with the rest.  Do we know if .500+ also means at .500, or does it need to be a winning record?

According to this it's only wins against teams above .500 and losses to teams below .500 that are specifically tallied. But yes, if we're in contention this would probably help us, even in a relative down year for the Pac-12 there are still plenty of good teams, especially compared to the Big 12 and ACC.

[stupac2]

Interesting that they feel it weights more wins against .500+ more importantly than wins against elite teams.  That should help us in a comparison against a Big12 team.

As for us, NW, ND, UCLA are already over .500, Under Stanford Control and Oregon are at .500 but very likely to end over .500, Wazzou pretty likely (game against Colorado).  That puts us at 6.  UCF and OSU are no-gos.  Low APR U, UW, UA, and Colorado all are still alive to do it; Low APR U is most likely to reach against OSU.  Hard to tell with the rest.  Do we know if .500+ also means at .500, or does it need to be a winning record?

According to this it's only wins against teams above .500 and losses to teams below .500 that are specifically tallied. But yes, if we're in contention this would probably help us, even in a relative down year for the Pac-12 there are still plenty of good teams, especially compared to the Big 12 and ACC.