[stupac2]

Here's the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/59...clemson_3/

I was already familiar with FPI's Strength of Victory, it's their way of comparing uneven schedules based on W-L record. I thought it was interesting that Washington, much maligned for their poor schedule on here, is actually quite high by this measure. And it's not just that they're undefeated, Baylor is pretty far down.

What really got my eyebrows raised was that we're on this list. Yes, lowly Stanford, with our horrible 4-3 record and inability to score touchdowns, is ranked #24 by this method against the 8th hardest schedule in the country (tied with Alabama, behind only TAMU and Tennessee).

I'm not saying this is gospel, but we knew that this schedule was brutal and while we're probably underperformed our talent level and definitely had some hard-to-watch games, there's some reason to be cautiously optimistic about where we are. Especially given how young this team is, 2017 could be a very fun season.

[stupac2]

Here's the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/59...clemson_3/

I was already familiar with FPI's Strength of Victory, it's their way of comparing uneven schedules based on W-L record. I thought it was interesting that Washington, much maligned for their poor schedule on here, is actually quite high by this measure. And it's not just that they're undefeated, Baylor is pretty far down.

What really got my eyebrows raised was that we're on this list. Yes, lowly Stanford, with our horrible 4-3 record and inability to score touchdowns, is ranked #24 by this method against the 8th hardest schedule in the country (tied with Alabama, behind only TAMU and Tennessee).

I'm not saying this is gospel, but we knew that this schedule was brutal and while we're probably underperformed our talent level and definitely had some hard-to-watch games, there's some reason to be cautiously optimistic about where we are. Especially given how young this team is, 2017 could be a very fun season.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Here's the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/59...clemson_3/

I was already familiar with FPI's Strength of Victory, it's their way of comparing uneven schedules based on W-L record. I thought it was interesting that Washington, much maligned for their poor schedule on here, is actually quite high by this measure. And it's not just that they're undefeated, Baylor is pretty far down.

What really got my eyebrows raised was that we're on this list. Yes, lowly Stanford, with our horrible 4-3 record and inability to score touchdowns, is ranked #24 by this method against the 8th hardest schedule in the country (tied with Alabama, behind only TAMU and Tennessee).

I'm not saying this is gospel, but we knew that this schedule was brutal and while we're probably underperformed our talent level and definitely had some hard-to-watch games, there's some reason to be cautiously optimistic about where we are. Especially given how young this team is, 2017 could be a very fun season.

Can you explain the underlined within the context of the bold? If we are tied with one team and only behind two others, that would imply we are tied for third, not eighth.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Here's the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/59...clemson_3/

I was already familiar with FPI's Strength of Victory, it's their way of comparing uneven schedules based on W-L record. I thought it was interesting that Washington, much maligned for their poor schedule on here, is actually quite high by this measure. And it's not just that they're undefeated, Baylor is pretty far down.

What really got my eyebrows raised was that we're on this list. Yes, lowly Stanford, with our horrible 4-3 record and inability to score touchdowns, is ranked #24 by this method against the 8th hardest schedule in the country (tied with Alabama, behind only TAMU and Tennessee).

I'm not saying this is gospel, but we knew that this schedule was brutal and while we're probably underperformed our talent level and definitely had some hard-to-watch games, there's some reason to be cautiously optimistic about where we are. Especially given how young this team is, 2017 could be a very fun season.

Can you explain the underlined within the context of the bold? If we are tied with one team and only behind two others, that would imply we are tied for third, not eighth.

[BostonCard]

Can you explain the underlined within the context of the bold? If we are tied with one team and only behind two others, that would imply we are tied for third, not eighth.

Follow the link.  Only 25 teams were listed, so what stupac really meant is that our schedule strength was #8, tied with Alabama and behind only TAMU and Tennessee among teams listed.

[BostonCard]

Can you explain the underlined within the context of the bold? If we are tied with one team and only behind two others, that would imply we are tied for third, not eighth.

Follow the link.  Only 25 teams were listed, so what stupac really meant is that our schedule strength was #8, tied with Alabama and behind only TAMU and Tennessee among teams listed.

[CTcard]

I was already familiar with FPI's Strength of Victory, ...

What really got my eyebrows raised was that we're on this list. Yes, lowly Stanford, with our horrible 4-3 record and inability to score touchdowns, is ranked #24 by this method against the 8th hardest schedule in the country ...

I'm not saying this is gospel, but we knew that this schedule was brutal and while we're probably underperformed our talent level and definitely had some hard-to-watch games, there's some reason to be cautiously optimistic about where we are. Especially given how young this team is, 2017 could be a very fun season.

Couple of comments.

It's pretty clear that Stanford has at least one of the hardest schedules so far. Sagarin ranks our schedule as the #1 hardest, though that's just one rating. That's worth remembering in evaluating where we are so far. In itself, a close loss to Colorado isn't atrocious - though how it happened was awfully painful. I still am unsure just how the WSU debacle happened.

Broadly, I do think there is reason for optimism for 2017. We have a lot coming back. On the Arizona depth chart I see only 4 final year starters on offense and defense (Rector, Caspers, Owusu, Lloyd) and another 5 on the depth chart anywhere (Harrell, Watkins, Kaumatule, Davis, Hoffpaiur).
That's still rather light losses even if the possible juniors-to-the-NFL go; I really think there are only two of those.
We had a good recruiting class in 2016 which will start making an impact.
And of course we ought to be healthier. Holder, for example, isn't even on the depth chart anymore and lots of guys are clearly not 100%.
And of course there is that whole odd year boost thing (2011, 2013, and 2015 all very good).

Of course somewhere we need to find a QB. There will be some highly recruited options - whether or not that means anything.

[CTcard]

I was already familiar with FPI's Strength of Victory, ...

What really got my eyebrows raised was that we're on this list. Yes, lowly Stanford, with our horrible 4-3 record and inability to score touchdowns, is ranked #24 by this method against the 8th hardest schedule in the country ...

I'm not saying this is gospel, but we knew that this schedule was brutal and while we're probably underperformed our talent level and definitely had some hard-to-watch games, there's some reason to be cautiously optimistic about where we are. Especially given how young this team is, 2017 could be a very fun season.

Couple of comments.

It's pretty clear that Stanford has at least one of the hardest schedules so far. Sagarin ranks our schedule as the #1 hardest, though that's just one rating. That's worth remembering in evaluating where we are so far. In itself, a close loss to Colorado isn't atrocious - though how it happened was awfully painful. I still am unsure just how the WSU debacle happened.

Broadly, I do think there is reason for optimism for 2017. We have a lot coming back. On the Arizona depth chart I see only 4 final year starters on offense and defense (Rector, Caspers, Owusu, Lloyd) and another 5 on the depth chart anywhere (Harrell, Watkins, Kaumatule, Davis, Hoffpaiur).
That's still rather light losses even if the possible juniors-to-the-NFL go; I really think there are only two of those.
We had a good recruiting class in 2016 which will start making an impact.
And of course we ought to be healthier. Holder, for example, isn't even on the depth chart anymore and lots of guys are clearly not 100%.
And of course there is that whole odd year boost thing (2011, 2013, and 2015 all very good).

Of course somewhere we need to find a QB. There will be some highly recruited options - whether or not that means anything.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Sagarin's methods also continue to like us, despite our 4-3 record. We are ranked 22 in his predictor methodology, and 16 and 18 in the other two! Sagarin also thinks we have had the #1 hardest schedule in FBS so far. All of these predictive rankings that take into account strength of schedule may imply that we don't give our schedule enough credit. I wonder if perhaps it's because we didn't expect WSU or CU to be as good as they are and we aren't realizing how good they actually are.

I will take the optimism and be bullish on 2017 (and still think 9-3 this year is very possible, which isn't so bad).

[CrazedZooChimp]

Sagarin's methods also continue to like us, despite our 4-3 record. We are ranked 22 in his predictor methodology, and 16 and 18 in the other two! Sagarin also thinks we have had the #1 hardest schedule in FBS so far. All of these predictive rankings that take into account strength of schedule may imply that we don't give our schedule enough credit. I wonder if perhaps it's because we didn't expect WSU or CU to be as good as they are and we aren't realizing how good they actually are.

I will take the optimism and be bullish on 2017 (and still think 9-3 this year is very possible, which isn't so bad).

[fullmetal]

That may be possible...but it'll take finding a QB.

[fullmetal]

That may be possible...but it'll take finding a QB.