With a bullet

So close to No. 56.

13. Oregon
15. USC
24. Washington
31. Utah
36. TCU
40. Arizona St.
47. Washington St.
48. Stanford
52. CALIFORNIA
60. UCLA
75. Oregon St.
121. UNLV

Cal Poly is not included. Oregon and Washington are projected to have Top 10 defenses. USC is projected to have a Top 10 offense. If Vegas uses a similar system, I assume they do, the over-under will probably be set at 4-5 wins for us.

CalFan777 said:

---

13. Oregon
15. USC
24. Washington
31. Utah
36. TCU
40. Arizona St.
47. Washington St.
48. Stanford
52. CALIFORNIA
60. UCLA
75. Oregon St.
121. UNLV

Cal Poly is not included. Oregon and Washington are projected to have Top 10 defenses. USC is projected to have a Top 10 offense. If Vegas uses a similar system, I assume they do, the over-under will probably be set at 4-5 wins for us.

---

Think I can make so money this year.

The Oregon, USC, and ASU relative rankings are reasonable. I'm more skeptical about Washington, Utah, and Wazzu.

Seems kinda low for us

I Bear said:

---

Seems kinda low for us

---

Way low. Others will put us in their top 25s. But this is good: Keeps us hungry and keeps our opponents overconfident.

This guy's methodology is very suspect. First of all he talks about all the tweaks he has made over the years, which means of course that he really is just spitballing on this whole thing. In addition, he doesn't tell us how we did last year other than the first five weeks of the season. That tells me he didn't have a very good year.

79 Bear said:

---

This guy's methodology is very suspect. First of all he talks about all the tweaks he has made over the years, which means of course that he really is just spitballing on this whole thing. In addition, he doesn't tell us how we did last year other than the first five weeks of the season. That tells me he didn't have a very good year.

---

He starts with last year's ratings and adjusts them for returning production. Then he adjusts for recruiting and performance in earlier years. He rated us 74th out of 130 D1 teams at the end of last year: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/28497018/final-sp+-rankings-2019-college-football-season

Teams we Beat:
16. Washington
28. Washington St.
53. Ole Miss
61. Illinois
79. UCLA
88. Stanford
93. North Texas

Teams we Lost to:
12. Utah
15. Oregon
22. USC
45. Arizona St.
65. Oregon State

I do not think his rating is very accurate for us last year, but he does have a history of beating Vegas, which means his system is very good, as far as predictive college football systems go.

So, he had Furd rated at 88 at the end of last year, and his new rankings supposedly emphasize returning production, Furd is supposedly taking a big hit on transfers, but is jumping to 48?
Combined with the other subjective sounding stuff already mentioned, I'm not going to give his ranking any more attention...

Not sure if he factors-in experience and injuries... Stanford began 2019 as the least experienced team in the Pac-12, 118th in FBS, according to Steele. Then with the many injuries during the season...

They of course have recruited well, the top 25% of the conference (average stars). Really curious to see how they respond in 2020.

Cal89 said:

---

Not sure if he factors-in experience and injuries... Stanford began 2019 as the least experienced team in the Pac-12, 118th in FBS, according to Steele. Then with the many injuries during the season...

They of course have recruited well, the top 25% of the conference (average stars). Really curious to see how they respond in 2020.

---

The ratings do not take into account injuries. Experience is taken into account by the projections in the OP because returning snaps are a major part of the ratings. He keeps tweaking his formula, and has never released it fully, but has given broad overviews like this: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/sp/overalloff/2018

Injuries not being taken into account is a major flaw for teams that had an abnormally high number of injuries the prior year. I doubt he would take an issue with that.

Bad News: Stanford and USC both had abnormally high injuries to key positions last year, which means they both are likely better than the S&P+ Preseason Ratings project.

Good News: We are likely better too.

>I do not think his rating is very accurate for us last year, but he does have a history of beating Vegas, which means his system is very good, as far as predictive college football systems go.

If this guy has a proven history of beating Vegas, why would he be publicizing his methodology? Rather than alerting others about what works (and thus reducing the effectiveness of his methods), he should just be silent and rake in money. This is the contraindicator for most touts.

Cal84 said:

---

>I do not think his rating is very accurate for us last year, but he does have a history of beating Vegas, which means his system is very good, as far as predictive college football systems go.

If this guy has a proven history of beating Vegas, why would he be publicizing his methodology? Rather than alerting others about what works (and thus reducing the effectiveness of his methods), he should just be silent and rake in money. This is the contraindicator for most touts.

---

I don't know you at all. But I will come to this conclusion. You manage your own investment / financial portfolio and future and don't rely on some "guru" or firm that supposedly knows it all at a 5% fee.

Good on ya!!

Go Bears!!

Because of his rating system, Cal would be a fantastic bet in terms of exploiting his algorithm. He has our returning offensive production at 93% - #1 in the country. He has our returning defensive production at 105 in the country returning only 50% of our defense - basically saying that our defense will be a huge blow to us next year. So we end up with a middling rating of 52. That is one of the factors that we always will have with our defense where we funnel tackles to the MLB and when they go it always looks like a big blow to us.

I don't believe that. I do believe that Cal will have a good defense next year and will take a step up on defense with better depth across the board. I think the new DL will have much more depth which will allow DeRuyter to revert back to his preferred defensive strategy of a 3-4 from the 4-3 this year and have a bit more attacking style like in 2018.

Excited to see that we have the most returning offensive power in College football next year, and what Musgrave can do with that. No wonder he wanted to come back to college - imagine what he can scheme up with a team of vets who can absorb coaching.

Preseason FPI is out: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/28708116/2020-preseason-college-football-fpi-breakdown

13. USC
14. Oregon
24. Utah
28. Stanford
29. Washington
30. California
32. TCU
41. Arizona St.
49. UCLA
54. Washington St.
67. Oregon St.
117. UNLV

CalFan777 said:

---

Preseason FPI is out: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/28708116/2020-preseason-college-football-fpi-breakdown

13. USC
14. Oregon
24. Utah
28. Stanford
29. Washington
30. California
32. TCU
41. Arizona St.
49. UCLA
54. Washington St.
67. Oregon St.
117. UNLV

---

None of that is surprising.

But if that's where UCLA really is and continues to be, then 2020 will be Chip's last season in Westwood.

Have you looked at UCLA's schedule this year? I think the 49th best team, if that is accurate, still would get a bowl.

CalFan777 said:

---

Have you looked at UCLA's schedule this year? I think the 49th best team, if that is accurate, still would get a bowl.

---

UCLA has to play a lot of teams better than 49th, while a lot of non-power conference teams play only one team better than 49th and have a far easier path to a winning record.

UCLA might be the 49th best team and have a 4-8 record.