|
Author | Topic: Projected Football Record (Read 3,426 times) |
k5james Guest
|  | Projected Football Record « Thread Started on Jun 6, 2012, 11:32am » | |
Heres my prediction based on a formula put together by the guy at Mgoblog using statistics from footballoutsiders. It takes into account statistics from the prior year, number of returning starters, recruiting rankings and coaching changes. It's not a perfect formula (doesn't account for special teams) but what the hell else are we going to talk about in this dead period.
I did this last year prior to the season and hit every game except Wyoming. (didn't do the bowl game)
Here goes...
Our projected offensive ranking is 73 and our projected defensive ranking is 64.
@ Washington L (0-1) O #34 D #78
They look to be significantly better on offense and we only project to be moderately better on defense. That combined with the fact that we are playing up in Seattle means a loss is very likely based on the numbers.
Army W (1-1) O #84 D #74
We project to be slightly better on both O and D and are playing at home so this should be a W.
North Dakota W (2-1)
There is no data kept for FCS schools but its safe to say this should be a W fairly handily.
SJSU W (3-1) O #94 D #68
We project to be significantly better on offense and slightly better on defense and are playing at home so I suspect this game should be a fairly easy game.
@ CSU Fresno W (4-1) O #49 D #90
They project to be significantly better on O, while we project to be significantly better on D. They get us at home, while we get them early in the season with a new staff. This one is a toss up statistically but I'll go the homer route and take SDSU.
Hawaii W (5-1) O #79 D #101
We project to be slightly better on O and significantly better on D. They'll be breaking in a new staff and have been horrible playing away from the Rock historically. We should win this one pretty soundly.
CSU W (6-1) O #71 D #83
They project to be slightly better on O and we project to be significantly better on D and we get them at home riding what should be a five game winning streak. I like our chances to win solidly.
@ UNR W (7-1) O #56 D #87
They project to be significantly better on O and we project to be significantly better on D. They get us at home but Mackay Stadium isn't exactly Michigan Stadium. This is another game that's a statistical toss up and I'll again go the homer route and pick SDSU to win it. (Yeah, I'm a homer, so what)
UNLV W (8-1) O #80 D #96
We project to be slightly better on O and significantly better on D. We get them at home. This isn't basketball, so this should be a fairly easy W.
@ BSU L (8-2) O #62 D #50
They project to be moderately better on both O and D and get us at home on "the blue" so this one is easy to call. Our 8 game winning streak comes to an end.
AFA W (9-2) O #75 D #85
We project to be slightly better on O and significantly better on D and we get them at home. This should be a W to get us back on track.
@ Wyoming W (10-2) O #80 D #90
We project to be slightly better on O and significantly better on D. We should win ths one fairly handily to have our best season in decades.
Realistically we'll probably split the toss up games and finish 9-3 but I don't think 10-2 is out of the question and these statistics support that.
| |
|
ohioaztec1 Assistant Coach
    member is offline
Joined: Oct 2010 Gender: Male  Posts: 373
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #1 on Jun 6, 2012, 11:39am » | |
Man give me some of that joy juice you are drinking this AM.
| |
|
Gilbert Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: Aug 2010 Gender: Male  Posts: 665
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #2 on Jun 6, 2012, 11:57am » | |
You are correct... during this “dead period” we have plenty of time to fool around with predictions. Based on the statistics I would say 9-3 is not out of the question, add a bowl win and it would be a great send off to the Big East.
| |
|
GothamCityRogue Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: Jun 2011 Gender: Male  Posts: 1,977 Location: Pasadena/L.A.
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #3 on Jun 6, 2012, 12:09pm » | |
8-4 - 10-2 record is what I expect. An 8-4 record would be a bit disappointing with this schedule. However, if 8-4 includes wins over UDub and Boise St, I won't be disappointed.
|
"Because he's the hero SDSU deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a dark knight." -Commissioner Gordon on Rocky Long |
|
missiontrails Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: Sept 2011 Gender: Male  Posts: 1,769
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #4 on Jun 6, 2012, 12:12pm » | |
What about special teams?!? Back to the drawing board......
| |
|
Boise Aztec Assistant Coach
    member is offline
Joined: May 2012 Gender: Male  Posts: 391
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #5 on Jun 6, 2012, 12:58pm » | |
I might be wrong, but ... 1. Defense should be slightly better than last year 2. WR much better 3. RB slightly worse (hopeful?) 4. OL about the same 5. TE really good, slightly better 6. QB better, I am likely on my own on this, but Lindley never completed more than 57% of his throws even when he had the best receivers in the conference. Katz has a QB rating as good as Lindley's and he was getting sacked three times as often.
| |
|
missiontrails Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: Sept 2011 Gender: Male  Posts: 1,769
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #6 on Jun 6, 2012, 1:08pm » | |
Jun 6, 2012, 12:58pm, Boise Aztec wrote:I might be wrong, but ... 1. Defense should be slightly better than last year 2. WR much better 3. RB slightly worse (hopeful?) 4. OL about the same 5. TE really good, slightly better 6. QB better, I am likely on my own on this, but Lindley never completed more than 57% of his throws even when he had the best receivers in the conference. Katz has a QB rating as good as Lindley's and he was getting sacked three times as often. |
|
It's gotta be lonely being a Boise Aztec.
| |
|
k5james Guest
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #7 on Jun 6, 2012, 1:15pm » | |
Jun 6, 2012, 12:12pm, missiontrails wrote:| What about special teams?!? Back to the drawing board...... |
|
That's why I prefaced the whole thread with the fact that it is an imperfect system.
I did go 11-1 with it last year however...
| |
|
k5james Guest
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #8 on Jun 6, 2012, 1:17pm » | |
Jun 6, 2012, 12:58pm, Boise Aztec wrote:I might be wrong, but ... 1. Defense should be slightly better than last year 2. WR much better 3. RB slightly worse (hopeful?) 4. OL about the same 5. TE really good, slightly better 6. QB better, I am likely on my own on this, but Lindley never completed more than 57% of his throws even when he had the best receivers in the conference. Katz has a QB rating as good as Lindley's and he was getting sacked three times as often. |
|
That's basically what the numbers show.
We finished last year with a 63 on O and a 66 on D.
This year, we are projected to finish with a 73 on O and a 64 on D.
| |
|
votecarcetti Coordinator
     member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://soundpolitics.com/Carcetti2.jpg)
It's a new day on the Mesa.
Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Male  Posts: 1,047
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #9 on Jun 6, 2012, 1:37pm » | |
What do the numbers predict for the Ponto Bowl vs. BYU?
| |
|
OCEOTL Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: Aug 2010 Gender: Male  Posts: 540
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #10 on Jun 6, 2012, 1:37pm » | |
Thanks James. I had us at 10 - 2 and after reading your projections I'm more confident. Steele had Katz rated @ 40 IIRC and our recievers could be a strength, so I'm thinking we're under-rated on O. Maybe low 50's?
| |
|
votecarcetti Coordinator
     member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://soundpolitics.com/Carcetti2.jpg)
It's a new day on the Mesa.
Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Male  Posts: 1,047
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #11 on Jun 6, 2012, 1:39pm » | |
Jun 6, 2012, 12:58pm, Boise Aztec wrote:I might be wrong, but ... 1. Defense should be slightly better than last year 2. WR much better 3. RB slightly worse (hopeful?) 4. OL about the same 5. TE really good, slightly better 6. QB better, I am likely on my own on this, but Lindley never completed more than 57% of his throws even when he had the best receivers in the conference. Katz has a QB rating as good as Lindley's and he was getting sacked three times as often. |
|
I'm not sure the QB will be better in a vacuum, but Katz with this year's receivers should be much better than Lindley with last year's receivers.
| |
|
sdsustoner Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: Nov 2011 Gender: Male  Posts: 2,873
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #12 on Jun 6, 2012, 2:03pm » | |
If we go 10-2, both my hands would be worn to nubs after all the solo celebrating I do.
| |
|
sleepinggiantsfan Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: Dec 2011 Posts: 5,762
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #13 on Jun 6, 2012, 2:36pm » | |
No way I see us going 10-2. At a minimum we always stub our toe in a game we have no business losing. So 9-3 is as good as it's going to get.
The two games I disagree with James on the most are against the Nevada schools. I think we lose at Reno but then lay a major beatdown on UNLV. The latter game will be something like 56-17.
|
|
|
k5james Guest
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #14 on Jun 6, 2012, 2:57pm » | |
Jun 6, 2012, 1:37pm, votecarcetti wrote:| What do the numbers predict for the Ponto Bowl vs. BYU? |
|
It wouldn't be good for us.
BYU O #53 D #50
They project to be significantly better on O and moderately better on D.
| |
|
AztecTom Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: May 2010 Gender: Male  Posts: 7,364
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #15 on Jun 6, 2012, 2:58pm » | |
Jun 6, 2012, 12:58pm, Boise Aztec wrote:I might be wrong, but ... 1. Defense should be slightly better than last year 2. WR much better 3. RB slightly worse (hopeful?) 4. OL about the same 5. TE really good, slightly better 6. QB better, I am likely on my own on this, but Lindley never completed more than 57% of his throws even when he had the best receivers in the conference. Katz has a QB rating as good as Lindley's and he was getting sacked three times as often. |
| Agree with you on all points except RB. We should be the same. We have a great stable of RB's. I think we go 9-3. Now if we beat Washington, I can see us going undefeated or worse case 10-2.
|
|
|
monty Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: Sept 2011 Gender: Male  Posts: 7,721
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #16 on Jun 6, 2012, 3:00pm » | |
7-6
| |
|
AztecTom Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: May 2010 Gender: Male  Posts: 7,364
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #17 on Jun 6, 2012, 3:01pm » | |
Jun 6, 2012, 3:00pm, monty wrote: No way in hell we go 7-6 with our schedule.
|
|
|
elclip Coordinator
     member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://s6.postimage.org/5afg00dv1/20121021_224032.jpg)
Joined: Sept 2010 Posts: 641
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #18 on Jun 6, 2012, 3:16pm » | |
There is almost always one game you should lose that you win and one that you should win that you lose, so I am also thinking 9-3 (+/- 1) is about where we will wind up. I'd be ok with that. After so many years of bad football, I am not yet at the point where I will get dissapointed when we win 8.
Looking forward to attending the Washington Game. While I don't expect a win, I don't think a victory is impossible.
Go State
|
"How do you deal with this? I mean, we lost to San Diego stinkin' State." Cal QB David Barr |
|
monty Coordinator
     member is offline
Joined: Sept 2011 Gender: Male  Posts: 7,721
|  | Re: Projected Football Record « Reply #19 on Jun 6, 2012, 3:54pm » | |
Rocky said we were going to be terrible this year. Some of you aren't being good fans by expecting us to beat god awful programs.
| |
|
|