The CardBoard
Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings (/thread-2458.html)


Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - TreeFitty - 11-27-2011

1. LSU
2. Bama
3. Ok State
4. Stanford
5. VT

leads VT .856 to .781

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - dabigv13 - 11-27-2011

Fantastic! A much larger gap than I was expecting.

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - Cardinal96 - 11-27-2011

(11-27-2011, 06:30 PM)TreeFitty link Wrote:1. LSU
2. Bama
3. Ok State
4. Stanford
5. VT

leads VT .856 to .781

This was great news.  I think we are likely a lock for number 4 at a minimum with that gap.  A win over Clemson is not going to bump Va. Tech up much after their loss to South Carolina by 34.

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - metsjetsfan - 11-27-2011

There is justice in the world of BCS college football!

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - dabigv13 - 11-27-2011

Well, justice would have us at #3, or even better in a playoff system, but this is better than expected.

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - metsjetsfan - 11-27-2011

(11-27-2011, 06:44 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Well, justice would have us at #3, or even better in a playoff system, but this is better than expected.

Good point.  Worse loss: Oregon or Iowa State?  Better win: Oklahoma/Kansas State at home or USC on the road?

I can't help but wonder what if Skov, Ertz, Howell, Owusu, and Williamson were all healthy against Oregon...I think we all neglect the fact that we played without our 2 best tacklers, top WR, top kicker, and (probably the most effective) 30% of our playbook when Ertz went down.  All were deficiencies exploited by Oregon.

I'm also left thinking: if the NCG is a close game, the media's love affair with LSU/Alabama means Alabama could still be ranked #2 in the nation at the end of the year, regardless of the outcome and how many 1-loss teams are left...

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - socalstanfan1 - 11-27-2011

I actually expect we will end up at #3 after Oklahoma beats Ok. State at Bedlam.  And I honestly could not complain about that ranking, or even #4 if that is where we end up.  Losing to Oregon at home in the way we did was a disappointment, and the team lost the chance to control its own fate with that stumble.  The loss was understandable, given all the issues mentioned by dabigv, but given that it was a home game for us, the loss was disappointing.

Looking back on this season, I firmly believe that the biggest loss to the team was Ertz.  Our offense took a big step back IMMEDIATELY, when he was lost for the USC game.  The Skov and Howell injuries were bad, and we started giving up more big running plays without them controlling the middle of the field, but we had guys who could capably fill in (and I think our middle linebacking dept could be the best in college football next season, if Skov returns at full strength, Vaughters continues to develop and moves inside, and Lancaster and Tarpley take all their experience from this season into next).  But we really never adequately replaced Ertz, and the 3-TE offense that put other defensive coordinators in such a bind just did not function effectively without him.  I hope we continue to recuit and develop great TEs and make that a staple of our offense in years to come.

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - pincemob - 11-27-2011

There is a decent case for Stanford to leapfrog Alabama into the title game. 

1.  We have the most impressive wins.  Both teams are 1-1 against the top-10, and I'll score our win over USC on the road far better than their home win vs Arkansas.  We are 3-1 against the top 30 (Sagarin) while they are only 2-1.   

2.  They played more cupcakes:  Kent State, North Texas and Georgia Southern.  And if you look, they scheduled these games just prior to their "big" wins (Penn State, Arkansas, Auburn).  They didn't have any tough stretches like the one we finished with.     

3.  The computers don't realize how bad the middle of the SEC is.  I am sorry, but you can't equate Vanderbilt with Washington, as the computers do. 

Alabama has a great defense, we have a great offense.  But their defense recently gave up 21 points to Georgia Southern, whereas our offense never had a similar letdown (low of 28 points).    I just don't think you can hang your hat on a home loss where you couldn't score a touchdown. 

Realistically, I don't see much hope, but an Oklahoma win combined with an ugly SEC title game (think a 13-5 LSU win) could start a movement in our favor.  We've seen crazier things with polls.


 

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - dabigv13 - 11-27-2011

It's already a foregone conclusion in the media that Bama and LSU will play each other. I think if we were champs of our conference we might have a better chance.

In any case we're not too close to Bama in the computers. We'd need to jump to #2 on all the ballots, and I don't think that's realistic.

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - Farm93 - 11-28-2011

Bama is going to the BCS game.  And win or lose LSU will go too.  The logistics planners are probably already working on the game plan.

Stanford could fall to #5 or move up to #3 depending on this weekend's activities.  Assume for the moment that Stanford gets the Fiesta Bowl no matter what happens this weekend.

Then I would prefer to see OK State at #3 in the Fiesta Bowl.  That would set up the best non-BCS Title bowl game based on BCS standings and the polls.  Possibly beating OK State would be noteworthy for the 2011 season and the 2012 preseason rankings.  If Stanford is BCS #4/#5, Stanford could get to AP #2 with a win over #3 in Arizona.  And finishing the year as AP #2 would be pretty nice.  And should Stanford lose  :o at least it would have been to a team higher in the BCS standings.

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - pincemob - 11-28-2011

I am not saying Alabama has no case, but I think it oversimplifies things if you just look at the 1 losses.  If that was what mattered, the Pac-10 would have had much different BCS opportunities in the past.

In 2001, Nebraska had a 62-36 loss to Colorado (courtesy of Chris Brown, remember him--no).  Meanwhile Oregon (Joey Harrington) was 11-1 and their only loss was to us by a touchdown.  Yet Nebraska went to the title game, not Oregon. 

In 2000, Washington had 1 close loss to Oregon, but had beaten Miami... but the BCS sent a 1-loss Florida State to the title game, even though FSU had lost to that same Miami team who Washington beat. 

Different situation, but in 2004, Cal had its only loss to $C in a very close game.  But did they get a rematch with USC?  No, they didn't even get into the BCS-- they got passed by Texas who had been shutout that year by Oklahoma. 

Anyway, my point is that historically speaking, you can't just compare the 1 loss.  The BCS is supposed to look at the whole body of work, and I think Stanford has an argument. 

Re: Stanford number 4 in the BCS Standings - socalstanfan1 - 11-28-2011

Stanford has an argument to be in the national title game, but unfortunately I don't think it is a really strong one at this point.  I think the argument would actually be much stronger had we lost to Oregon at Autzen stadium, rather than on our home field.  It is pretty well acknowledged that Autzen gives the Ducks a brobdingnagian advantage, but we were pretty thoroughly beaten at home.  That's tough to overcome, IMO.  Beating USC in LA helps, but that has to stand as our lone, real high quality win at this point.  We had a few solid victories over good opponents (ND, Cal, maybe Washington could be considered a quality opponent), but overall we were brought down by a weak Pac-12. 

Had we managed to come up big against Oregon, and Alabama was STILL first in line for the NCS, then that would be crazy.  Â