[needle]

I do not trust the defense to play well right out of the gate against what's expected to be a very solid offensive line. The secondary is talented and will make big plays but also blow some assignments Friday night.

I think San Diego State will score some points.

I just don't believe the hype on offense, but I think San Diego State will struggle over a full game to slow down the Stanford running game.

Stanford wins in a nailbiter, 29-22.

[needle]

I do not trust the defense to play well right out of the gate against what's expected to be a very solid offensive line. The secondary is talented and will make big plays but also blow some assignments Friday night.

I think San Diego State will score some points.

I just don't believe the hype on offense, but I think San Diego State will struggle over a full game to slow down the Stanford running game.

Stanford wins in a nailbiter, 29-22.

[MiamiCard]

We come out the gates strong. 

Stanford - 31
Almost Tijuana U - 10

[MiamiCard]

We come out the gates strong. 

Stanford - 31
Almost Tijuana U - 10

[martyup]

GAME RULES DISCUSSION 

I'm looking for input here.  I had the idea of rewarding entrants for picking Stanford to win and/or penalizing entrants for choosing our opponent.  After all, this is the Cardboard.  If someone picks an opponent to win and is correct, they will be way ahead of everyone who picked Stanford to win.  So, the penalty won't hurt too much if you're right.

[martyup]

GAME RULES DISCUSSION 

I'm looking for input here.  I had the idea of rewarding entrants for picking Stanford to win and/or penalizing entrants for choosing our opponent.  After all, this is the Cardboard.  If someone picks an opponent to win and is correct, they will be way ahead of everyone who picked Stanford to win.  So, the penalty won't hurt too much if you're right.

[Hulk01]

Good for you Marty, and thanks.

I've only entered twice but strongly agree with your approach.  Getting closest to the actual score is second only in importance to getting the right winner.  Picking Stanford 17-10 is not at all the same as picking us 37-30.  (And calling for a 37-30 score takes some guts--that requires, more likely than not, six field goals by the two teams!  Should be a special clairvoyance/sheer wild luck award for that.)

Again, thanks for stepping in and good luck.

[Hulk01]

Good for you Marty, and thanks.

I've only entered twice but strongly agree with your approach.  Getting closest to the actual score is second only in importance to getting the right winner.  Picking Stanford 17-10 is not at all the same as picking us 37-30.  (And calling for a 37-30 score takes some guts--that requires, more likely than not, six field goals by the two teams!  Should be a special clairvoyance/sheer wild luck award for that.)

Again, thanks for stepping in and good luck.

[martyup]

Proposed Scoring Scheme and Rules:

1. Each entry is given an error score equal to the sum of the [difference between the Stanford prediction and the actual Stanford score] and the [diffenence between the opponent prediction and the actual opponent score].

2. Each entry that correctly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant that (1) also correctly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs, and (2) every entrant that incorrectly picked the winner.

3. Each entry that incorrectly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant also incorrectly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs.

4. Each player that picks Stanford to lose is deducted 10 points.

5. Each entry that nails the final score gets a 10 point bonus.

6. Each entry that does not nail the score but correctly predicts either Stanford's or the opponents score gets a 3 point bonus.

7. All entries must be submitted in the Google form, except for the first game.

8. If a player enters a prediction on the Google form and also enters a different prediction in a post, then the form entry will take precedent. In the case of multiple predictions by one player, the last prediction entered in the form will be official.

9. All entries must be submitted no later than 5 minutes prior to the official kick-off time of each game.

10. The winners will be the players with the highest scores after the last game is played, including bowl or playoff games.

[martyup]

Proposed Scoring Scheme and Rules:

1. Each entry is given an error score equal to the sum of the [difference between the Stanford prediction and the actual Stanford score] and the [diffenence between the opponent prediction and the actual opponent score].

2. Each entry that correctly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant that (1) also correctly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs, and (2) every entrant that incorrectly picked the winner.

3. Each entry that incorrectly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant also incorrectly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs.

4. Each player that picks Stanford to lose is deducted 10 points.

5. Each entry that nails the final score gets a 10 point bonus.

6. Each entry that does not nail the score but correctly predicts either Stanford's or the opponents score gets a 3 point bonus.

7. All entries must be submitted in the Google form, except for the first game.

8. If a player enters a prediction on the Google form and also enters a different prediction in a post, then the form entry will take precedent. In the case of multiple predictions by one player, the last prediction entered in the form will be official.

9. All entries must be submitted no later than 5 minutes prior to the official kick-off time of each game.

10. The winners will be the players with the highest scores after the last game is played, including bowl or playoff games.

[pefloresjr]

Proposed Scoring Scheme and Rules:

1. Each entry is given an error score equal to the sum of the [difference between the Stanford prediction and the actual Stanford score] and the [diffenence between the opponent prediction and the actual opponent score].

2. Each entry that correctly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant that (1) also correctly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs, and (2) every entrant that incorrectly picked the winner.

3. Each entry that incorrectly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant also incorrectly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs.

4. Each player that picks Stanford to lose is deducted 10 points.

5. Each entry that nails the final score gets a 10 point bonus.

6. Each entry that does not nail the score but correctly predicts either Stanford's or the opponents score gets a 3 point bonus.

7. All entries must be submitted in the Google form, except for the first game.

8. If a player enters a prediction on the Google form and also enters a different prediction in a post, then the form entry will take precedent.

9. All entries must be submitted no later than 5 minutes prior to the official kick-off time of each game.

10. The winners will be the players with the highest scores after the last game is played, including bowl or playoff games.

I love it.  I have always wanted the emphasis to be on being closest to picking the correct score with main priority to picking the correct winner.  Thanks Martyup!  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Proposed Scoring Scheme and Rules:

1. Each entry is given an error score equal to the sum of the [difference between the Stanford prediction and the actual Stanford score] and the [diffenence between the opponent prediction and the actual opponent score].

2. Each entry that correctly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant that (1) also correctly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs, and (2) every entrant that incorrectly picked the winner.

3. Each entry that incorrectly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant also incorrectly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs.

4. Each player that picks Stanford to lose is deducted 10 points.

5. Each entry that nails the final score gets a 10 point bonus.

6. Each entry that does not nail the score but correctly predicts either Stanford's or the opponents score gets a 3 point bonus.

7. All entries must be submitted in the Google form, except for the first game.

8. If a player enters a prediction on the Google form and also enters a different prediction in a post, then the form entry will take precedent.

9. All entries must be submitted no later than 5 minutes prior to the official kick-off time of each game.

10. The winners will be the players with the highest scores after the last game is played, including bowl or playoff games.

I love it.  I have always wanted the emphasis to be on being closest to picking the correct score with main priority to picking the correct winner.  Thanks Martyup!  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[JJJ]

Not a prediction but our game gets some airtime from Pat Forde along the lines of "Stanford blew it last year and can't afford to do the same this year" (loosely quoted).

http://sports.yahoo.com/forde-yard-dash-...37372.html

[JJJ]

Not a prediction but our game gets some airtime from Pat Forde along the lines of "Stanford blew it last year and can't afford to do the same this year" (loosely quoted).

http://sports.yahoo.com/forde-yard-dash-...37372.html

[BostonCard]

Proposed Scoring Scheme and Rules:

1. Each entry is given an error score equal to the sum of the [difference between the Stanford prediction and the actual Stanford score] and the [diffenence between the opponent prediction and the actual opponent score].

2. Each entry that correctly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant that (1) also correctly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs, and (2) every entrant that incorrectly picked the winner.

3. Each entry that incorrectly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant also incorrectly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs.

4. Each player that picks Stanford to lose is deducted 10 points.

5. Each entry that nails the final score gets a 10 point bonus.

6. Each entry that does not nail the score but correctly predicts either Stanford's or the opponents score gets a 3 point bonus.

7. All entries must be submitted in the Google form, except for the first game.

8. If a player enters a prediction on the Google form and also enters a different prediction in a post, then the form entry will take precedent.

9. All entries must be submitted no later than 5 minutes prior to the official kick-off time of each game.

10. The winners will be the players with the highest scores after the last game is played, including bowl or playoff games.

Hey Marty... thanks for taking this project up.  I'm very glad that it won't fall by the wayside.

Your rules sound perfectly reasonable.  I've always said that if anyone wants the rules changed, they are free to run the project themselves.  One additional thing to consider is what happens when individuals enter their predictions more than once.  When I ran it, I always took the last prediction entered (figuring that people could change their mind with updated info), but this is your call.

BC

[BostonCard]

Proposed Scoring Scheme and Rules:

1. Each entry is given an error score equal to the sum of the [difference between the Stanford prediction and the actual Stanford score] and the [diffenence between the opponent prediction and the actual opponent score].

2. Each entry that correctly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant that (1) also correctly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs, and (2) every entrant that incorrectly picked the winner.

3. Each entry that incorrectly picked the winner is given 1 point for every entrant also incorrectly picked the winner and had a higher error score than theirs.

4. Each player that picks Stanford to lose is deducted 10 points.

5. Each entry that nails the final score gets a 10 point bonus.

6. Each entry that does not nail the score but correctly predicts either Stanford's or the opponents score gets a 3 point bonus.

7. All entries must be submitted in the Google form, except for the first game.

8. If a player enters a prediction on the Google form and also enters a different prediction in a post, then the form entry will take precedent.

9. All entries must be submitted no later than 5 minutes prior to the official kick-off time of each game.

10. The winners will be the players with the highest scores after the last game is played, including bowl or playoff games.

Hey Marty... thanks for taking this project up.  I'm very glad that it won't fall by the wayside.

Your rules sound perfectly reasonable.  I've always said that if anyone wants the rules changed, they are free to run the project themselves.  One additional thing to consider is what happens when individuals enter their predictions more than once.  When I ran it, I always took the last prediction entered (figuring that people could change their mind with updated info), but this is your call.

BC

[martyup]

Hey BigEasyCard,

Can you PM me?  Your PM inbox is full and not accepting new messages.

Thanks,

Marty

---

One additional thing to consider is what happens when individuals enter their predictions more than once.  When I ran it, I always took the last prediction entered (figuring that people could change their mind with updated info), but this is your call.

BC

Good point.  I added that rule.

[martyup]

Hey BigEasyCard,

Can you PM me?  Your PM inbox is full and not accepting new messages.

Thanks,

Marty

---

One additional thing to consider is what happens when individuals enter their predictions more than once.  When I ran it, I always took the last prediction entered (figuring that people could change their mind with updated info), but this is your call.

BC

Good point.  I added that rule.

[CornFed]

First of all, thank you martyup for taking this on.  It's a very big contribution.  Which is an indirect acknowledgement of the work BostonCard did last year.  Thank you both for your service!!!


Last year the final score was 20-17 in favor of the Aztecs.  I’m thinking about this incrementally from that point.
 
San Diego State on offense:
Running backs - a step back, but minimally.  Washington is an excellent back.  The only possible loss of production relates to whether he can perform as the lead back.  Plus, the OL is probably going to improve.

QB – Chapman is deeply experienced and is competent in their system.  His critical skill lies in efficiency, not necessarily play-making.  Presumably, he will benefit from improved line play, but his skills will not be much different.

Receivers – The only receiver who had any success against us last year, Holder, is gone.  Neither of the two starting WR had a catch last year.  This appears to be an area of slippage this year.

Tight End – Also, the starter, Parker, had no catches in last year’s game.  I don’t really know what he can do even if he were to be targeted.  Rate this as “no change”.

OL – This appears to be an area in which solid improvement is expected.  Intact from last year, the SDS OL is experienced and large but was not particularly effective against us last year.  They surrendered six sacks and we held Penny well under his YPA average for the year.  They will need to have improved a lot (or we will have to be much worse) to make the upside difference for SDS this year.
 
San Diego State on defense:

DL and LB – These two units did get four sacks on Keller Chryst in last year’s game.  Our OL, though, as we now know, was not operating on all cylinders.  Notwithstanding our OL struggles, Love ran for 184 yards on 13 (!) carries.  We will run very well against this front seven.  Our line is expected to be strong in run blocking, but I have not heard much raving about our expected pass blocking.  Perhaps the Aztecs can put even more pressure on a more mobile Costello, but I am skeptical.  Maybe they gain some ground in this area.
           
Defensive Secondary – I’m not sure what the Aztecs can do to stop our passing attack.  What seemed to stop us last year was, I’m sad to say, our QB.  I have not gone back to review the game, but JJA-W did not even play!  This is going to be really fun this year.  Perhaps Love barely makes it to 100 yards because he only gets carries late in the second half when we’re trying to avoid running up the score?  HAH!  Just kidding.  But unless our opponent has a totally new approach to pass defense, I am thinking that they will be hard-pressed to get it done when we have all of our receiving weapons available and several new fangled weapons added as well.
 
It feels to me like, at best, San Diego scores 7-10 more points this year.  At best.  We, on the other hand should more than double our point production.  Maybe because of Northwestern in 2015 and SDS last year, there seems to be a conventional wisdom that Stanford tends to start slowly.  I don’t buy it.  It probably is reasonable to expect that the playbook will be somewhat basic, but I am blindly guessing (I admit) that Tavita and David are going to try to bring a different feeling to our game planning – still power run based - but just a different flavoring of aerial artistry.  I am going all-in on two post-game story lines.  “KJ is the real deal” and our offense is “even better than expected”.  I’ll re-evaluate next week.  But right now, all the preceding blather gets me to the following:
 
Stanford – 45
San Diego State - 27

[CornFed]

First of all, thank you martyup for taking this on.  It's a very big contribution.  Which is an indirect acknowledgement of the work BostonCard did last year.  Thank you both for your service!!!


Last year the final score was 20-17 in favor of the Aztecs.  I’m thinking about this incrementally from that point.
 
San Diego State on offense:
Running backs - a step back, but minimally.  Washington is an excellent back.  The only possible loss of production relates to whether he can perform as the lead back.  Plus, the OL is probably going to improve.

QB – Chapman is deeply experienced and is competent in their system.  His critical skill lies in efficiency, not necessarily play-making.  Presumably, he will benefit from improved line play, but his skills will not be much different.

Receivers – The only receiver who had any success against us last year, Holder, is gone.  Neither of the two starting WR had a catch last year.  This appears to be an area of slippage this year.

Tight End – Also, the starter, Parker, had no catches in last year’s game.  I don’t really know what he can do even if he were to be targeted.  Rate this as “no change”.

OL – This appears to be an area in which solid improvement is expected.  Intact from last year, the SDS OL is experienced and large but was not particularly effective against us last year.  They surrendered six sacks and we held Penny well under his YPA average for the year.  They will need to have improved a lot (or we will have to be much worse) to make the upside difference for SDS this year.
 
San Diego State on defense:

DL and LB – These two units did get four sacks on Keller Chryst in last year’s game.  Our OL, though, as we now know, was not operating on all cylinders.  Notwithstanding our OL struggles, Love ran for 184 yards on 13 (!) carries.  We will run very well against this front seven.  Our line is expected to be strong in run blocking, but I have not heard much raving about our expected pass blocking.  Perhaps the Aztecs can put even more pressure on a more mobile Costello, but I am skeptical.  Maybe they gain some ground in this area.
           
Defensive Secondary – I’m not sure what the Aztecs can do to stop our passing attack.  What seemed to stop us last year was, I’m sad to say, our QB.  I have not gone back to review the game, but JJA-W did not even play!  This is going to be really fun this year.  Perhaps Love barely makes it to 100 yards because he only gets carries late in the second half when we’re trying to avoid running up the score?  HAH!  Just kidding.  But unless our opponent has a totally new approach to pass defense, I am thinking that they will be hard-pressed to get it done when we have all of our receiving weapons available and several new fangled weapons added as well.
 
It feels to me like, at best, San Diego scores 7-10 more points this year.  At best.  We, on the other hand should more than double our point production.  Maybe because of Northwestern in 2015 and SDS last year, there seems to be a conventional wisdom that Stanford tends to start slowly.  I don’t buy it.  It probably is reasonable to expect that the playbook will be somewhat basic, but I am blindly guessing (I admit) that Tavita and David are going to try to bring a different feeling to our game planning – still power run based - but just a different flavoring of aerial artistry.  I am going all-in on two post-game story lines.  “KJ is the real deal” and our offense is “even better than expected”.  I’ll re-evaluate next week.  But right now, all the preceding blather gets me to the following:
 
Stanford – 45
San Diego State - 27

[WhatsYourDeal]

Stanford has struggled to score in openers recently. (Rice notwithstanding). That won't be the case Friday. 

Stanford 38
SDSU 24

[WhatsYourDeal]

Stanford has struggled to score in openers recently. (Rice notwithstanding). That won't be the case Friday. 

Stanford 38
SDSU 24

[martyup]

Can someone who is an expert at creating complex spreadsheets help me with the tabulation sheet?

The data input for each entry will be [username],[stanford score],[opponent score].  The sheet will have to apply the rules to calculate the prediction error, correct winner predicted, bonus points, and penalty points.  The results will then need to be sorted according to the rules so the game points can be awarded.

The spreadsheet would need to be able to keep a running total of each user's score as the season progresses.  I would like this to be done with an automated script, if possible.

Another issue is how to format the results so they can be posted and read on this board.

[martyup]

Can someone who is an expert at creating complex spreadsheets help me with the tabulation sheet?

The data input for each entry will be [username],[stanford score],[opponent score].  The sheet will have to apply the rules to calculate the prediction error, correct winner predicted, bonus points, and penalty points.  The results will then need to be sorted according to the rules so the game points can be awarded.

The spreadsheet would need to be able to keep a running total of each user's score as the season progresses.  I would like this to be done with an automated script, if possible.

Another issue is how to format the results so they can be posted and read on this board.

[bbm233]

Stanford 31, SDSU 24

Bryce Love continues his freakish ability to take it to the house from long distance. 62 yards on a third and 2.
KJ goes 12-21 for 116 yards, 1 TD (to Parkinson) and 1 INT.

[bbm233]

Stanford 31, SDSU 24

Bryce Love continues his freakish ability to take it to the house from long distance. 62 yards on a third and 2.
KJ goes 12-21 for 116 yards, 1 TD (to Parkinson) and 1 INT.

[pefloresjr]

We score but are frustrated by having to settle for field goals on several drives.  SDSU keeps it competitive but doesn't have enough offense.  
Stanford 30
SDSU 20

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

We score but are frustrated by having to settle for field goals on several drives.  SDSU keeps it competitive but doesn't have enough offense.  
Stanford 30
SDSU 20

Cheers,
Pete F.

[CardinalSagehen]

Great rules, martyup!  I suggest updating the thread's subject line to include the form URL, as it might be hard to find in the middle of this thread. For anyone that hasn't seen or used the form, here it is again: https://goo.gl/forms/az1fhsI1JH3lhUT93

Here are a few random takes on this game: 
1) Revenge will be in the air no matter how much it is denied.  
2) As predicted by most, we'll run heavily on them and vice-versa.  
3) If we see my favorite Stanford football phenomenon - a play-action bomb on 2nd-and-short from midfield following a series of punishing power runs - we will know that all is well on offense!
4) If we can mostly stop the run and party-in-the-backfield against SDSU's strong OL, it will bode extremely well for our season.  As many have noted, the DL is our biggest unknown and greatest area of upside vs. expectations.  It's also where CFB champions like Clemson and 'Bama make their mark.

CARDINAL - 38
AZTECS - 20

[CardinalSagehen]

Great rules, martyup!  I suggest updating the thread's subject line to include the form URL, as it might be hard to find in the middle of this thread. For anyone that hasn't seen or used the form, here it is again: https://goo.gl/forms/az1fhsI1JH3lhUT93

Here are a few random takes on this game: 
1) Revenge will be in the air no matter how much it is denied.  
2) As predicted by most, we'll run heavily on them and vice-versa.  
3) If we see my favorite Stanford football phenomenon - a play-action bomb on 2nd-and-short from midfield following a series of punishing power runs - we will know that all is well on offense!
4) If we can mostly stop the run and party-in-the-backfield against SDSU's strong OL, it will bode extremely well for our season.  As many have noted, the DL is our biggest unknown and greatest area of upside vs. expectations.  It's also where CFB champions like Clemson and 'Bama make their mark.

CARDINAL - 38
AZTECS - 20

[martyup]

The subject line does not accept URLs.  However, the link is posted in the first post on page one.

[martyup]

The subject line does not accept URLs.  However, the link is posted in the first post on page one.

[newguy]

looks like the over-under is 49.

my prediction?  bet on the over.  we have an average defense and a high-powered offense.

[newguy]

looks like the over-under is 49.

my prediction?  bet on the over.  we have an average defense and a high-powered offense.

[stupac2]

Can someone who is an expert at creating complex spreadsheets help me with the tabulation sheet?

The data input for each entry will be [username],[stanford score],[opponent score].  The sheet will have to apply the rules to calculate the prediction error, correct winner predicted, bonus points, and penalty points.  The results will then need to be sorted according to the rules so the game points can be awarded.

The spreadsheet would need to be able to keep a running total of each user's score as the season progresses.  I would like this to be done with an automated script, if possible.

How is the output of the google form formatted? If it's just a csv or whatever you could have the formula set up, paste in the new results, and drag it down. Wouldn't take too long. For a running total you could do a sum of hlookups or something. I'd really have to sit down and play with it to know what I'd want to do. I know nothing about macros so couldn't automate it.

Another issue is how to format the results so they can be posted and read on this board.

I do that by copy/pasting into notepad++, where everything will be tab-separated. You replace the tabs (via search and replace) with:

Code:

[/td][td]

Then selecting the end of one line to the beginning of the next, replace that with:

Code:

[/td][/tr]/n[tr][td]

And then you add to the very beginning:

Code:

[table][tr][td]

And the very end the opposite of that. It sounds cumbersome but only takes a minute or so.

[stupac2]

Can someone who is an expert at creating complex spreadsheets help me with the tabulation sheet?

The data input for each entry will be [username],[stanford score],[opponent score].  The sheet will have to apply the rules to calculate the prediction error, correct winner predicted, bonus points, and penalty points.  The results will then need to be sorted according to the rules so the game points can be awarded.

The spreadsheet would need to be able to keep a running total of each user's score as the season progresses.  I would like this to be done with an automated script, if possible.

How is the output of the google form formatted? If it's just a csv or whatever you could have the formula set up, paste in the new results, and drag it down. Wouldn't take too long. For a running total you could do a sum of hlookups or something. I'd really have to sit down and play with it to know what I'd want to do. I know nothing about macros so couldn't automate it.

Another issue is how to format the results so they can be posted and read on this board.

I do that by copy/pasting into notepad++, where everything will be tab-separated. You replace the tabs (via search and replace) with:

Code:

[/td][td]

Then selecting the end of one line to the beginning of the next, replace that with:

Code:

[/td][/tr]/n[tr][td]

And then you add to the very beginning:

Code:

[table][tr][td]

And the very end the opposite of that. It sounds cumbersome but only takes a minute or so.

[murky]

Stanford 43
SDSU 17

[murky]

Stanford 43
SDSU 17

[martyup]

Can someone who is an expert at creating complex spreadsheets help me with the tabulation sheet?

How is the output of the google form formatted?

It is csv.

Another issue is how to format the results so they can be posted and read on this board.

I do that by copy/pasting into notepad++, where everything will be tab-separated. You replace the tabs (via search and replace) with:

Code:

[/td][td] ...

I don't think the new forum software will accept this formatting.

BC used pivot tables, but I have never learned how to use them.  You're never too old to learn new tricks, so I guess I could dig in and learn.  I was hoping there was an excel wiz on this board that could knock this out with ease.

[martyup]

Can someone who is an expert at creating complex spreadsheets help me with the tabulation sheet?

How is the output of the google form formatted?

It is csv.

Another issue is how to format the results so they can be posted and read on this board.

I do that by copy/pasting into notepad++, where everything will be tab-separated. You replace the tabs (via search and replace) with:

Code:

[/td][td] ...

I don't think the new forum software will accept this formatting.

BC used pivot tables, but I have never learned how to use them.  You're never too old to learn new tricks, so I guess I could dig in and learn.  I was hoping there was an excel wiz on this board that could knock this out with ease.