Statistical Analysis Projections Don't Like CU

[Quattro]

Where do you see us then? In the 40's?

Nah, I'd group all those teams in the 60's, and Wazzu.

 

[Duff Man]

Goff gives Cal a big bump, and rightfully so.

 

[buffs04]

Statistical analysis is really useful to find manfacturing trends when you make billions of a product. There are far too many variables in college football to put much stock in its use here. It's really just something to put on a web page to collect ad money.

Yeah... no.

 

[DeNiro]

Nah, I'd group all those teams in the 60's, and Wazzu.

In terms of the Pac we are on par with OSU and WSU and step behind UW and Cal, you can lump all the teams in the 60's but we still haven't moved up a tier in the Pac yet, we have the curse and blessing to be in a top conference that tries to improve top to bottom.

 

[SINKRATZ]

But there needs to be more than that, variables such as returning yards and other measures of returning quality players need to be used. UW lost 3 first round picks + their QB. OSU has a new HC + lost Mannion. UVA has consistently recruited well under London, who went 5-7 last year and 2-10 the year before. TT went 4-8 last year...with wins over Central Ark, UTEP, KU, and ISU, so while their record was better, that's a terrible win list (and yes, it would be for CU as well).

Considering the games we played against UW, Cal, and OSU just from the list I originally used, and what we return vs what those teams lose, it's tough to believe they are that much better than us. There may be a gap, but I don't think it's that big given the on-field performances against them.

You're assuming that whoever steps in for the guys lost at those schools are automatic downgrades. Some will be, but some will be better. The thing about eligibility is that every single school loses players (starters even) every single year, but many of these schools still manage to get better. This is why recruiting is so important.

 

[Quattro]

Phil Steele has us at #45. Last in the South, but because of how stacked the division is. Ahead of OSU, WSU, and UW. Says this is the best team by far that HCMM will have had.

 

[tante]

Phil Steele has us at #45. Last in the South, but because of how stacked the division is. Ahead of OSU, WSU, and UW. Says this is the best team by far that HCMM will have had.

That would be amazing. Too bad we play OSU and WSU on the road.

 

[DBT]

One column his stats is missing is "Party Deck." I don't think it can be overstated how important a great party deck can be.

I'd imagine that by just about any measure, the teams in his rankings would fall out about the way they did. But every season has outliers. There will always be teams that buck the trends and projections. I'd like to see an analysis of "outliers" year by year and what factors played into those teams having unexpected success. Because, face it, our hope is that we are one of those teams that buck the "trend."

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

That would be amazing. Too bad we play OSU and WSU on the road.

Big chances this year to change the "we suck on the road against inferior teams" mindset.

 

[Denver_sc]

Phil Steele has us at #45. Last in the South, but because of how stacked the division is. Ahead of OSU, WSU, and UW. Says this is the best team by far that HCMM will have had.

Would definitely take this if that's how it looked at the end of the season.