Well if you expect to hit exact on every point with 350 plus data points I don’t know what to tell you. I see the results and see pretty good data if he’s only missing by 5-10 spots.
But he didn't miss by 5-10 spots.
He got 4 of the ten very close including getting the #1 team exactly right
Three teams he missed by between 10 and 20 places.
Three of the teams he ranked in the Top 10 didn’t even finish in the Top 25
And what "data" are we talking about here?
He is projecting player improvement? Is he projecting the likely contributions of incoming freshman or transfers?
Does any of this take into count changes in the strength of competitors even inside the same conference?
If it does, it's all built on a house of cards of assumption stacked upon assumption.
If it doesn't it's incomplete.
It's entertaining nonsense that anyone who actually reads it ought to take with a boulder-sized grain of salt.
Actually, between this faux-statistical approach and gut feel of knowledgeable fans, I'll take the gut-feel every time.