Bill Connelly's 2019 preseason projections

Quote:The preseason S&P+ projections are a simple mix of three factors: recent history, returning production, and recruiting. To come up with 130-team projections for all of FBS, I create projected ratings based on each factor.

26 Memphis
27 UCF
44 Cincinnati
66 Temple
71 USF
73 Houston
85 SMU
95 Tulsa
98 Tulane
113 ECU
118 Navy
129 UConn

As an ECU fan I would have to say the 113 ranking is warranted based on the last 4 years. Certainly hope we finish a little north of there.

UC at 44 is WAY undervalued....buy

Someone sucks worse than us???

Ridiculous.

(02-11-2019 02:17 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UC at 44 is WAY undervalued....buy

I agree.

(02-11-2019 02:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Someone sucks worse than us???

Ridiculous.

I dunno, UTEP did lose to the Northern Arizona Lumberjacks. Although it's not your fault you didn't get to play the Lumberjacks.

(02-11-2019 02:23 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 02:17 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UC at 44 is WAY undervalued....buy

I agree.

Regarding factoring recent history:
This number isn’t a strict five-year average — last year’s ratings already carry heavy weight from the returning production piece. Instead, what you see below is a projection based solely off of seasons two to five years ago. Recent history doesn’t carry much weight in the projections, but it serves as a reflection of overall program health. We overreact to one year’s performance sometimes.

So UC football is suffering from losing to ECU just like UC basketball.

We have three top 25 teams in the conference.

(02-11-2019 02:36 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 02:23 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 02:17 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UC at 44 is WAY undervalued....buy

I agree.

Regarding factoring recent history:
This number isn’t a strict five-year average — last year’s ratings already carry heavy weight from the returning production piece. Instead, what you see below is a projection based solely off of seasons two to five years ago. Recent history doesn’t carry much weight in the projections, but it serves as a reflection of overall program health. We overreact to one year’s performance sometimes.

So UC football is suffering from losing to ECU just like UC basketball.

Nice job with the jab at UC covered in the facade of an attempt to provide an analytical answer. This would trigger the weak minded such as Payday or Justanub, but not me. With my trained troll eyes, I spotted it immediately. Going to have to do better if you want to troll BC#1.

(02-11-2019 01:57 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  Bill Connelly's 2019 preseason projections

Quote:The preseason S&P+ projections are a simple mix of three factors: recent history, returning production, and recruiting. To come up with 130-team projections for all of FBS, I create projected ratings based on each factor.

26 Memphis
27 UCF
44 Cincinnati
66 Temple
71 USF
73 Houston
85 SMU
95 Tulsa
98 Tulane
113 ECU
118 Navy
129 UConn

As an ECU fan I would have to say the 113 ranking is warranted based on the last 4 years. Certainly hope we finish a little north of there.

So is it performance-based at all? Or just recruit grades, number of returning players, and the average of those two factors over 5 years? It's presenting some pretty wonky numbers.

To be clear, no matter how they do it, our grade it pretty fair.

(02-11-2019 02:43 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 02:36 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 02:23 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 02:17 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UC at 44 is WAY undervalued....buy

I agree.

Regarding factoring recent history:
This number isn’t a strict five-year average — last year’s ratings already carry heavy weight from the returning production piece. Instead, what you see below is a projection based solely off of seasons two to five years ago. Recent history doesn’t carry much weight in the projections, but it serves as a reflection of overall program health. We overreact to one year’s performance sometimes.

So UC football is suffering from losing to ECU just like UC basketball.

Nice job with the jab at UC covered in the facade of an attempt to provide an analytical answer. This would trigger the weak minded such as Payday or Justanub, but not me. With my trained troll eyes, I spotted it immediately. Going to have to do better if you want to troll BC#1.

A solid effort though, 7/10. Got my eye on him for the rankings. Need more of the intelligent trolling here, make you think and tweak the nose is always appreciated especially minus name calling. This did all that. Typo trash talk is weak and clutters the board, definitely need less.

Looks to be a real battle in the East with UCF, USF, UC and Temple. In the West, I guess the preseason story is can Memphis hold off UH with new coach and SMU with new QB transfer. Should be a fun year.

(02-11-2019 02:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Someone sucks worse than us???

Ridiculous.

UTEP hasn’t won a game in two years.

UCF and UC are undervalued in part because the formula includes UCF's winless and 6-7 seasons and two of Cincy's 4-8 seasons.

YEAH, that's about right... It's what they all predict every year!

If we could all finish an average of 15 spots higher than projected we'll be doing alright as a conference.

(02-11-2019 07:24 PM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  If we could all finish an average of 15 spots higher than projected we'll be doing alright as a conference.

Yes, and if Elizabeth Warren wins Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, she will be President (or rather Comrade Comisar) of the United States.

What kind of dingbat ranks Tennessee at 21.

(02-11-2019 08:37 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  

(02-11-2019 07:24 PM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  If we could all finish an average of 15 spots higher than projected we'll be doing alright as a conference.

Yes, and if Elizabeth Warren wins Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, she will be President (or rather Comrade Comisar) of the United States.

I cringe at the fact she was even born in Oklahoma.

(02-11-2019 02:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Someone sucks worse than us???

Ridiculous.

connely's ratings always have a love affair with miss state. Must be all those "quality losses"