[CTcard]

My suspicion, actually, is that the differences are currently driven by projections and past history: because FEI thinks Stanford was better in 2015, it therefore thinks Stanford's better in 2016.

But that is really the same question isn't it - why did FEI like Stanford better in 2015 than did S&P.

By the way, while the ordinal ranking in the two systems aren't that far apart, the FEI preference for Stanford over S&P is consistent covering six of seven years. I still believe that by style, the recent incarnation of Stanford football does better on a per drive basis than a per play basis.

[CTcard]

My suspicion, actually, is that the differences are currently driven by projections and past history: because FEI thinks Stanford was better in 2015, it therefore thinks Stanford's better in 2016.

But that is really the same question isn't it - why did FEI like Stanford better in 2015 than did S&P.

By the way, while the ordinal ranking in the two systems aren't that far apart, the FEI preference for Stanford over S&P is consistent covering six of seven years. I still believe that by style, the recent incarnation of Stanford football does better on a per drive basis than a per play basis.