[CTcard]

Wilner has a blog post listing over/under win expectations from Vegas for some Pac 12 teams, along with his pick on the proposition.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/22/co...-for-2017/

U$C 9.5 - under
UW 9.5 - over
Stanford 8.5 - under
Oregon 8 - under
Colorado 7.5 - under
WSU 7.5 - under
Utah 6.5 - over
UCLA 6 - under
Arizona 5.5 - over

It seems to fit Wilner that he picks 6 of 9 to be under. Pretty sure that if he could he'd pick the Pac-12 as a whole to go 33% in conference games.

Wilner seems to give little value to returning experience.
For Stanford he says, "enough uncertainty at key positions to make 8-4 (or worse) more likely than 9-3 (or better)." While perhaps true, the phrase doesn't make clear that Wilner realizes Stanford loses about the fewest starters in the conference (5).
Utah - he acknowledges Utah loses a lot but likes Whittingham so chooses the over. 
Colorado - loses a ton, but Wilner says he chose the under because of worry about "expectations".

I say, 8 seems awfully high for Oregon.
The rest I am not sure of yet.

[CTcard]

Wilner has a blog post listing over/under win expectations from Vegas for some Pac 12 teams, along with his pick on the proposition.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/22/co...-for-2017/

U$C 9.5 - under
UW 9.5 - over
Stanford 8.5 - under
Oregon 8 - under
Colorado 7.5 - under
WSU 7.5 - under
Utah 6.5 - over
UCLA 6 - under
Arizona 5.5 - over

It seems to fit Wilner that he picks 6 of 9 to be under. Pretty sure that if he could he'd pick the Pac-12 as a whole to go 33% in conference games.

Wilner seems to give little value to returning experience.
For Stanford he says, "enough uncertainty at key positions to make 8-4 (or worse) more likely than 9-3 (or better)." While perhaps true, the phrase doesn't make clear that Wilner realizes Stanford loses about the fewest starters in the conference (5).
Utah - he acknowledges Utah loses a lot but likes Whittingham so chooses the over. 
Colorado - loses a ton, but Wilner says he chose the under because of worry about "expectations".

I say, 8 seems awfully high for Oregon.
The rest I am not sure of yet.

[Snorlax94]

I like how we keep a running total of people's score predictions throughout the season, and I've been wanting people to do a pre-season conference prediction so here's my attempt to get it started, with my predictions below:

U$C 9.5 - under
UW 9.5 - over
Stanford 8.5 - over
Oregon 8 - under
Colorado 7.5 - under
WSU 7.5 - over
Utah 6.5 - over -- nice home schedule
UCLA 6 - over
Arizona 5.5 - I come up with 5.5 but I'll go under because many of their 50/50 games are away.

The two I feel are the best bets are Wasu and Utah going over.

Anyone care to join?

[Snorlax94]

I like how we keep a running total of people's score predictions throughout the season, and I've been wanting people to do a pre-season conference prediction so here's my attempt to get it started, with my predictions below:

U$C 9.5 - under
UW 9.5 - over
Stanford 8.5 - over
Oregon 8 - under
Colorado 7.5 - under
WSU 7.5 - over
Utah 6.5 - over -- nice home schedule
UCLA 6 - over
Arizona 5.5 - I come up with 5.5 but I'll go under because many of their 50/50 games are away.

The two I feel are the best bets are Wasu and Utah going over.

Anyone care to join?

[SamAtoms1980]

I like how we keep a running total of people's score predictions throughout the season, and I've been wanting people to do a pre-season conference prediction so here's my attempt to get it started, with my predictions below:

U$C 9.5 - under
UW 9.5 - over
Stanford 8.5 - over
Oregon 8 - under
Colorado 7.5 - under
WSU 7.5 - over
Utah 6.5 - over -- nice home schedule
UCLA 6 - over
Arizona 5.5 - I come up with 5.5 but I'll go under because many of their 50/50 games are away.

The two I feel are the best bets are Wasu and Utah going over.

Anyone care to join?

Over on the Bootleg, we do that as part of the BootPool every year.

[SamAtoms1980]

I like how we keep a running total of people's score predictions throughout the season, and I've been wanting people to do a pre-season conference prediction so here's my attempt to get it started, with my predictions below:

U$C 9.5 - under
UW 9.5 - over
Stanford 8.5 - over
Oregon 8 - under
Colorado 7.5 - under
WSU 7.5 - over
Utah 6.5 - over -- nice home schedule
UCLA 6 - over
Arizona 5.5 - I come up with 5.5 but I'll go under because many of their 50/50 games are away.

The two I feel are the best bets are Wasu and Utah going over.

Anyone care to join?

Over on the Bootleg, we do that as part of the BootPool every year.

[Mick]

U$C 9.5 - under
UW 9.5 - over
Stanford 8.5 - over
Oregon 8 - over
Colorado 7.5 - over
WSU 7.5 - under
Utah 6.5 - over -- nice home schedule
UCLA 6 - under
Arizona 5.5 - under

[Mick]

U$C 9.5 - under
UW 9.5 - over
Stanford 8.5 - over
Oregon 8 - over
Colorado 7.5 - over
WSU 7.5 - under
Utah 6.5 - over -- nice home schedule
UCLA 6 - under
Arizona 5.5 - under

[82lsju]

Who cares about anyone else

We go at worst 9-3 in the regular season

If we get some good QB play the sky is the limit

[82lsju]

Who cares about anyone else

We go at worst 9-3 in the regular season

If we get some good QB play the sky is the limit

[BostonCard]

Lex asked... here's the answer.  O/U on this season was 8.5 wins;  we got 9 in the regular season.

BC

[BostonCard]

Lex asked... here's the answer.  O/U on this season was 8.5 wins;  we got 9 in the regular season.

BC

[SamAtoms1980]

My May post appears to have jinxed the BootPool.  Not only did we not hold the over/under pool before the season, but the BootPool board has disappeared from the Bootleg entirely (along with several other boards), there are no indications that this year's BowlPool will be happening, and the future of the BootPool looks at best clouded in uncertainty.  Dang!

[SamAtoms1980]

My May post appears to have jinxed the BootPool.  Not only did we not hold the over/under pool before the season, but the BootPool board has disappeared from the Bootleg entirely (along with several other boards), there are no indications that this year's BowlPool will be happening, and the future of the BootPool looks at best clouded in uncertainty.  Dang!

[winflop]

I'm not jumping in on this until we see who is leaving early and who isn't - not just Stanford but across the conference.

[winflop]

I'm not jumping in on this until we see who is leaving early and who isn't - not just Stanford but across the conference.

[CTcard]

I'm not jumping in on this until we see who is leaving early and who isn't - not just Stanford but across the conference.

Come on, be bold.

I'll jump in. I would put the over/under on Stanford wins in 2017 at nine.

[CTcard]

I'm not jumping in on this until we see who is leaving early and who isn't - not just Stanford but across the conference.

Come on, be bold.

I'll jump in. I would put the over/under on Stanford wins in 2017 at nine.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm going with 7.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm going with 7.

[Mick]

How many returning starters and returning starting OLs do we have?  I seem to recall Terry did an analysis of the two which indicated that a team's fortunes -- or at least Stanford's fortunes -- could be predicted with those two numbers.  And of course, if Love returns, that would be amazing.  I wouldn't predict without knowing if Love would return.

[Mick]

How many returning starters and returning starting OLs do we have?  I seem to recall Terry did an analysis of the two which indicated that a team's fortunes -- or at least Stanford's fortunes -- could be predicted with those two numbers.  And of course, if Love returns, that would be amazing.  I wouldn't predict without knowing if Love would return.

[82lsju]

Who cares about anyone else

We go at worst 9-3 in the regular season

If we get some good QB play the sky is the limit

building on my prediction for 2017 above

in 2018 we go at worst 10-2 in the regular season.

[82lsju]

Who cares about anyone else

We go at worst 9-3 in the regular season

If we get some good QB play the sky is the limit

building on my prediction for 2017 above

in 2018 we go at worst 10-2 in the regular season.

[teejers1]

To quell a gambling jones, these pre-season O/Us may have some utility.

But as a measure of how well a team actually performs in-season, they are virtually worthless.  For example, many might say the O/U on Stanford going into the season was 8.5 wins and because Stanford secured 9 wins, they had a good/over-performing season.  Hogwash.  For example, if the line-setters knew that Love would be the most explosive RB in college football and amass video game stats before the ankle injury, then the line may well have been at 10.  Who knows?

Now, Stanford may have had a good and over-performing season (or may not have), but it had nothing to do with preseason prognostications and everything to do with how the team played up to its potential week in and week out.  Encompassed in this is how good the opponent really turned out to be, respective team injuries, etc. 

[teejers1]

To quell a gambling jones, these pre-season O/Us may have some utility.

But as a measure of how well a team actually performs in-season, they are virtually worthless.  For example, many might say the O/U on Stanford going into the season was 8.5 wins and because Stanford secured 9 wins, they had a good/over-performing season.  Hogwash.  For example, if the line-setters knew that Love would be the most explosive RB in college football and amass video game stats before the ankle injury, then the line may well have been at 10.  Who knows?

Now, Stanford may have had a good and over-performing season (or may not have), but it had nothing to do with preseason prognostications and everything to do with how the team played up to its potential week in and week out.  Encompassed in this is how good the opponent really turned out to be, respective team injuries, etc. 

[washingtonismoney]

To quell a gambling jones, these pre-season O/Us may have some utility.

But as a measure of how well a team actually performs in-season, they are virtually worthless.  For example, many might say the O/U on Stanford going into the season was 8.5 wins and because Stanford secured 9 wins, they had a good/over-performing season.  Hogwash.  For example, if the line-setters knew that Love would be the most explosive RB in college football and amass video game stats before the ankle injury, then the line may well have been at 10.  Who knows?

Now, Stanford may have had a good and over-performing season (or may not have), but it had nothing to do with preseason prognostications and everything to do with how the team played up to its potential week in and week out.  Encompassed in this is how good the opponent really turned out to be, respective team injuries, etc.

So preseason prognostications are worthless because...certain players might play better than expected? Isn't that the definition of overperforming?

Of course, week-in, week-out, one metric to track how well a team and/or coach is performing is how they do against the spread. Stanford ranks #3 against the spread since 2011.

[washingtonismoney]

To quell a gambling jones, these pre-season O/Us may have some utility.

But as a measure of how well a team actually performs in-season, they are virtually worthless.  For example, many might say the O/U on Stanford going into the season was 8.5 wins and because Stanford secured 9 wins, they had a good/over-performing season.  Hogwash.  For example, if the line-setters knew that Love would be the most explosive RB in college football and amass video game stats before the ankle injury, then the line may well have been at 10.  Who knows?

Now, Stanford may have had a good and over-performing season (or may not have), but it had nothing to do with preseason prognostications and everything to do with how the team played up to its potential week in and week out.  Encompassed in this is how good the opponent really turned out to be, respective team injuries, etc.

So preseason prognostications are worthless because...certain players might play better than expected? Isn't that the definition of overperforming?

Of course, week-in, week-out, one metric to track how well a team and/or coach is performing is how they do against the spread. Stanford ranks #3 against the spread since 2011.

[teejers1]

If lines were set based on teams playing up to their potential week-in and week-out, then ATS might have some validity for over/under performance.  But instead, it's Vegas's attempt to split the betting money in half.  Separately, if Vegas knows a team has $hitty D coaches and will give up WAY more points that the talent should normally allow, that may affect the spread.  And then if the D plays closer to its potential, it will have a good ATS record, while still not performing as well as they should have with coaching that maximizes level of play.

But I'm pretty sure you knew that already.

[teejers1]

If lines were set based on teams playing up to their potential week-in and week-out, then ATS might have some validity for over/under performance.  But instead, it's Vegas's attempt to split the betting money in half.  Separately, if Vegas knows a team has $hitty D coaches and will give up WAY more points that the talent should normally allow, that may affect the spread.  And then if the D plays closer to its potential, it will have a good ATS record, while still not performing as well as they should have with coaching that maximizes level of play.

But I'm pretty sure you knew that already.