Sagarin has Stanford at #22 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Sagarin has Stanford at #22 (/thread-21329.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Sagarin has Stanford at #22 (/thread-21329.html)
Sagarin has Stanford at #22 - Row80Critic - 01-02-2021
Too bad all the best players are all leaving -- seemed to be shaping up pretty well for 2021. :(
RE: Sagarin has Stanford at #22 - baymeadows3408 - 01-02-2021
My recent ponderings about our 2010 season and your post inspired me to look up our final Sagarin ratings for as I could find records. I was able to find records going back to 1998. I decided to use our ranking for the Predictor rating for the sake of consistency (the combination of formulae Jeff Sagarin has used to form his overall rating has changed over the years). For the 1998-2000 seasons, only one rating was available, so that's the one I chose.
Here is our final rating by year in reverse chronological order:
| Season | Rating | Record | Bowl | vs. top 10 | vs. top 30 | Note |
| 2020 | 21 | 4-2 | Declined | 0-1 | 3-1 | |
| 2019 | 61 | 4-8 | 0-1 | 1-4 | ||
| 2018 | 25 | 9-4 | Sun Bowl win | 0-2 | 0-4 | |
| 2017 | 14 | 9-5 | Alamo Bowl loss | 2-0 | 2-3 | Wash #8, ND #10 |
| 2016 | 27 | 10-3 | Sun Bowl win | 1-1 | 2-2 | Golden Mean: #19 |
| 2015 | 6 | 12-2 | Rose Bowl win | 0-0 | 6-1 | ND: #11, USC #13 |
| 2014 | 16 | 8-5 | Foster Farms Bowl win | 0-1 | 1-4 | |
| 2013 | 4 | 11-3 | Rose Bowl loss | 2-1 | 7-2 | #1 strength of schedule |
| 2012 | 11 | 12-2 | Rose Bowl win | 1-1 | 4-1 | |
| 2011 | 5 | 11-2 | Fiesta Bowl loss | 0-2 | 2-2 | ELO: 4 |
| 2010 | 1 | 12-1 | Orange Bowl win | 0-1 | 7-1 | |
| 2009 | 24 | 8-5 | Sun Bowl loss | 0-0 | 2-1 | |
| 2008 | 42 | 5-7 | 0-2 | 2-4 | ||
| 2007 | 69 | 4-8 | 1-1 | 2-3 | ||
| 2006 | 122 | 1-11 | 0-2 | 0-4 | ||
| 2005 | 37 | 5-6 | 0-3 | 1-5 | ||
| 2004 | 30 | 4-7 | 0-2 | 0-4 | ELO: 72 | |
| 2003 | 82 | 4-7 | 0-1 | 0-4 | ||
| 2002 | 71 | 2-9 | 0-1 | 0-6 | ||
| 2001 | 20 | 9-3 | Seattle Bowl loss | 1-0 | 3-3 | |
| 2000 | 40 | 5-6 | 0-2 | 1-3 | Texas: #11 | |
| 1999 | 28 | 8-4 | Rose Bowl loss | 0-1 | 0-2 | |
| 1998 | 70 | 3-8 | 0-2 | 0-5 |
And are our teams ranked by their final rating:
| Year | Rating |
| 2010 | 1 |
| 2013 | 4 |
| 2011 | 5 |
| 2015 | 6 |
| 2012 | 11 |
| 2017 | 14 |
| 2014 | 16 |
| 2001 | 20 |
| 2020 | 21 |
| 2009 | 24 |
| 2018 | 25 |
| 2016 | 27 |
| 1999 | 28 |
| 2004 | 30 |
| 2005 | 37 |
| 2000 | 40 |
| 2008 | 42 |
| 2019 | 61 |
| 2007 | 69 |
| 1998 | 70 |
| 2002 | 71 |
| 2003 | 82 |
| 2006 | 122 |
A few notes:
Sagarin's Predictor rating had our 2010 team as the #1 team in the nation. We lost to our only top-10 opponent that year, but we went 7-1 against top-30 teams and steamrolled most of them.
We had a brutal schedule in 2013 but lost only three games, all by close margins. I still have "what if" visions of Shaw calling a play-action pass or a quarterback keeper bootleg for a touchdown against Michigan State in the Rose Bowl.
I was surprised our 2015 was as low as #6, but that's what losing to Northwestern will do to you. I'd lament our loss against Northwestern or Hogan's costly fumbles and Tucker's missed block against Oregon, but the Rose Bowl win was so satisfying that I'm not that disappointed that we did not receive a playoff berth.
I was also surprised our 2012 team was as low as #12, but we had a lot of narrow victories and probably did not get much of a bump for beating an 8-5 Wisconsin team (#20 Predictor) in the Rose Bowl. Predictor did not think that highly of national runners-up Notre Dame (#5), but we may have lost a position or two because the formula probably treats a six-point loss in overtime the same as a six-point loss in regulation.
Our 2001 team would have been unbeaten...if the state of Washington did not exist (six-point loss to WSU, 14-point loss to UW, 10-point loss in the Seattle Bowl with our head coach who had foot out the door). ELO Chess (#14) liked us a lot better than Predictor (#20).
Our 2009 team peaked in the second half of the season, so our play at the end of the season was better than our #24 rating would suggest. Had Luck played in the Sun Bowl and we had won, we would have gained a few spots.
Predictor didn't care for our 2016 team, even though we lost only three games. The blowout losses against the Washington schools must have dragged this number down. Sagarin's other formula, Golden Mean, also used margin of victory/loss but liked us a lot better (#19). I wish I could see an ELO Chess number for this season.
Our 1999 team and season were a lot of fun, but that team had to be one of the weakest Pacific 8/10/12 champions of all time.
Our 2004 team went 4-7 but had a super strong Predictor rating. This makes sense because five of our seven losses were by eight or fewer points. Still, I have a hard time accepting that our 1999 conference champion team was basically as good as Buddy's last team.
RE: Sagarin has Stanford at #22 - Row80Critic - 01-02-2021
#122 in 2006
#1 in 2010
Pretty amazing.
Not sure the ratings are final for 2020-21 season. The few remaining games, including the ducks today, will probably affect the numbers some...
RE: Sagarin has Stanford at #22 - Mick - 01-02-2021
(01-02-2021, 03:37 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: #122 in 2006
#1 in 2010
Pretty amazing.
Almost as amazing as #6 in 2015, and #61 in 2019... ;)
RE: Sagarin has Stanford at #22 - BostonCard - 01-02-2021
Interesting fuel for the Willingham vs. Shaw comparisons... Willingham's top team (the 2001 Seattle Bowl) was ranked 20th; Shaw had six teams with better final ratings than Willingham's best. Shaw's worst (last year) was better than Willingham's 1998 team.
That being said, I don't think we were the 21st best team this year.
BC
RE: Sagarin has Stanford at #22 - baymeadows3408 - 01-02-2021
(01-02-2021, 04:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Interesting fuel for the Willingham vs. Shaw comparisons... Willingham's top team (the 2001 Seattle Bowl) was ranked 20th; Shaw had six teams with better final ratings than Willingham's best. Shaw's worst (last year) was better than Willingham's 1998 team.
That being said, I don't think we were the 21st best team this year.
BC
I wish Sagarin had data going back to 1995 so we could compare Willingham's teams.
In a hypothetical match up, I would have taken our 2001 team against all of our teams except the 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015 teams. I do think our 2012 team was better than our 2001 team, but not by much. The 2001 team was very good and should have beaten WSU and Georgia Tech. Combining the 2001 offense and the 2012 defense would have given us an elite team.
I have had my quibbles with Shaw, but nobody as ever achieved the sustained success he has had. And when I do quibble with him, it's because I'm greedy and I want that success to continue to be in the national title hunt again.
RE: Sagarin has Stanford at #22 - BostonCard - 01-02-2021
(01-02-2021, 04:26 PM)baymeadows3408 Wrote:(01-02-2021, 04:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Interesting fuel for the Willingham vs. Shaw comparisons... Willingham's top team (the 2001 Seattle Bowl) was ranked 20th; Shaw had six teams with better final ratings than Willingham's best. Shaw's worst (last year) was better than Willingham's 1998 team.
That being said, I don't think we were the 21st best team this year.
BC
I wish Sagarin had data going back to 1995 so we could compare Willingham's teams.
In a hypothetical match up, I would have taken our 2001 team against all of our teams except the 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015 teams. I do think our 2012 team was better than our 2001 team, but not by much. The 2001 team was very good and should have beaten WSU and Georgia Tech. Combining the 2001 offense and the 2012 defense would have given us an elite team.
I have had my quibbles with Shaw, but nobody as ever achieved the sustained success he has had. And when I do quibble with him, it's because I'm greedy and I want that success to continue to be in the national title hunt again.
2017 was a pretty good team too, probably at least as good as 2001.
Among Willingham’s teams, 1996 was pretty good, despite going 6-5 in the regular season. Still, I think 9 of Shaw’s teams would be better than Willingham’s 96 team.
My guess is that they would rank as follows:
2001
1999
1996
1995
2000
1997
1998
BC