10-10-2015, 10:38 PM
Calsucks has the Utes right where they want them. >:(
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Week 6 in opponents
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
10-10-2015, 10:41 PM
(10-10-2015, 10:37 PM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:I really wish Utah had been able to score on one of these drives...
I can think of a place I'd rather C.al's Pac-12 North hopes die than Salt Lake City...
(10-10-2015, 10:37 PM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:I really wish Utah had been able to score on one of these drives...
I can think of a place I'd rather C.al's Pac-12 North hopes die than Salt Lake City...
![[Image: giphy.gif]](http://media.giphy.com/media/33LLh5DpbTuqA/giphy.gif)
10-10-2015, 10:44 PM
(10-10-2015, 10:41 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=13101.msg133946#msg133946 date=1444541862]
I really wish Utah had been able to score on one of these drives...
I can think of a place I'd rather C.al's Pac-12 North hopes die than Salt Lake City...
[/quote]
Sorry, the "undefeated Bears" was an unbearable situation for me. Much happier this way, go Utes!
(10-10-2015, 10:41 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=13101.msg133946#msg133946 date=1444541862]
I really wish Utah had been able to score on one of these drives...
I can think of a place I'd rather C.al's Pac-12 North hopes die than Salt Lake City...
[/quote]
Sorry, the "undefeated Bears" was an unbearable situation for me. Much happier this way, go Utes!
10-10-2015, 10:47 PM
(10-10-2015, 10:41 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=13101.msg133946#msg133946 date=1444541862]
I really wish Utah had been able to score on one of these drives...
I can think of a place I'd rather C.al's Pac-12 North hopes die than Salt Lake City...
[/quote]
I guess we just have a different way of approaching rivalries, but this (and your previous comments on the subject) makes no sense to me. The meaning of a meaningful big game this year would be that cal, win or lose, is on the way up and has a successful season. I don't see how that is a good thing.
On another subject from the other cal utah thread, note that Utah wins yet another game despite having a lower yards per play.
(10-10-2015, 10:41 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=13101.msg133946#msg133946 date=1444541862]
I really wish Utah had been able to score on one of these drives...
I can think of a place I'd rather C.al's Pac-12 North hopes die than Salt Lake City...
[/quote]
I guess we just have a different way of approaching rivalries, but this (and your previous comments on the subject) makes no sense to me. The meaning of a meaningful big game this year would be that cal, win or lose, is on the way up and has a successful season. I don't see how that is a good thing.
On another subject from the other cal utah thread, note that Utah wins yet another game despite having a lower yards per play.
(10-10-2015, 10:41 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=13101.msg133946#msg133946 date=1444541862]
I really wish Utah had been able to score on one of these drives...
I can think of a place I'd rather C.al's Pac-12 North hopes die than Salt Lake City...
[/quote]
Their hopes aren't dead yet with 1 loss. The Cardinal still needs to beat Kal in Big Game if both teams win the rest of their conference games.
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2015, 10:49 PM by CompSci87.)
(10-10-2015, 10:41 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=13101.msg133946#msg133946 date=1444541862]
I really wish Utah had been able to score on one of these drives...
I can think of a place I'd rather C.al's Pac-12 North hopes die than Salt Lake City...
[/quote]
Their hopes aren't dead yet with 1 loss. The Cardinal still needs to beat Kal in Big Game if both teams win the rest of their conference games.
10-10-2015, 10:48 PM
Leave it to Bryce Treggs to drop a potential first down.
I will give it to Cal, they were able to hang with Utah despite a ridiculous number of turnovers (6) and a very shaky Goff. I think Big Game will likely be for the Pac-12 North, which will be fun, if both teams are able to hold. I like our chances on offense against the Bears defensive line, but we better figure out how to generate turnovers and pressure on the QB or we will have a long night against the Bears offense. It would help us if the refs called offensive pass interference on those pick plays; they called it once, but could have called it several times.
BC
I will give it to Cal, they were able to hang with Utah despite a ridiculous number of turnovers (6) and a very shaky Goff. I think Big Game will likely be for the Pac-12 North, which will be fun, if both teams are able to hold. I like our chances on offense against the Bears defensive line, but we better figure out how to generate turnovers and pressure on the QB or we will have a long night against the Bears offense. It would help us if the refs called offensive pass interference on those pick plays; they called it once, but could have called it several times.
BC
Leave it to Bryce Treggs to drop a potential first down.
I will give it to Cal, they were able to hang with Utah despite a ridiculous number of turnovers (6) and a very shaky Goff. I think Big Game will likely be for the Pac-12 North, which will be fun, if both teams are able to hold. I like our chances on offense against the Bears defensive line, but we better figure out how to generate turnovers and pressure on the QB or we will have a long night against the Bears offense. It would help us if the refs called offensive pass interference on those pick plays; they called it once, but could have called it several times.
BC
I will give it to Cal, they were able to hang with Utah despite a ridiculous number of turnovers (6) and a very shaky Goff. I think Big Game will likely be for the Pac-12 North, which will be fun, if both teams are able to hold. I like our chances on offense against the Bears defensive line, but we better figure out how to generate turnovers and pressure on the QB or we will have a long night against the Bears offense. It would help us if the refs called offensive pass interference on those pick plays; they called it once, but could have called it several times.
BC
10-10-2015, 10:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2015, 11:01 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(10-10-2015, 10:47 PM)cardcoug link Wrote:I guess we just have a different way of approaching rivalries, but this (and your previous comments on the subject) makes no sense to me. The meaning of a meaningful big game this year would be that Low APR U, win or lose, is on the way up and has a successful season. I don't see how that is a good thing.
On another subject from the other Low APR U utah thread, note that Utah wins yet another game despite having a lower yards per play.
My goal for Stanford is the playoffs. If Stanford's divisional opponents are weak, it makes Stanford look weak by association. Since Power 5 conference champions are not guaranteed playoff berths, it is in the best interest of Stanford that the North is a strong division as a whole -- yes, including C.al. Stanford's resume took a big hit this week with SC and Northwestern looking awful, so it would have been nice for C.al to steal a win there. I know how rivalries work -- believe me, nobody is a bigger Dodger hater than me. But under the current playoff system, the unfortunate reality is that a good SC and a good C.al is a net benefit for Stanford, assuming the good guys can take care of their own business.
I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just explaining my logic to you in the hopes of clearing up some of your expressed confusion. Schadenfreude alone doesn't really do it for me.
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2015, 11:01 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(10-10-2015, 10:47 PM)cardcoug link Wrote:I guess we just have a different way of approaching rivalries, but this (and your previous comments on the subject) makes no sense to me. The meaning of a meaningful big game this year would be that Low APR U, win or lose, is on the way up and has a successful season. I don't see how that is a good thing.
On another subject from the other Low APR U utah thread, note that Utah wins yet another game despite having a lower yards per play.
My goal for Stanford is the playoffs. If Stanford's divisional opponents are weak, it makes Stanford look weak by association. Since Power 5 conference champions are not guaranteed playoff berths, it is in the best interest of Stanford that the North is a strong division as a whole -- yes, including C.al. Stanford's resume took a big hit this week with SC and Northwestern looking awful, so it would have been nice for C.al to steal a win there. I know how rivalries work -- believe me, nobody is a bigger Dodger hater than me. But under the current playoff system, the unfortunate reality is that a good SC and a good C.al is a net benefit for Stanford, assuming the good guys can take care of their own business.
I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just explaining my logic to you in the hopes of clearing up some of your expressed confusion. Schadenfreude alone doesn't really do it for me.
10-10-2015, 11:07 PM
(10-10-2015, 10:56 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=cardcoug link=topic=13101.msg133952#msg133952 date=1444542436]I guess we just have a different way of approaching rivalries, but this (and your previous comments on the subject) makes no sense to me. The meaning of a meaningful big game this year would be that Low APR U, win or lose, is on the way up and has a successful season. I don't see how that is a good thing.
On another subject from the other Low APR U utah thread, note that Utah wins yet another game despite having a lower yards per play.
My goal for Stanford is the playoffs. If Stanford's divisional opponents are weak, it makes Stanford look weak by association. Since Power 5 conference champions are not guaranteed playoff berths, it is in the best interest of Stanford that the North is a strong division as a whole -- yes, including C.al. Stanford's resume took a big hit this week with SC and Northwestern looking awful, so it would have been nice for C.al to steal a win there. I know how rivalries work -- believe me, nobody is a bigger Dodger hater than me. But under the current playoff system, the unfortunate reality is that a good SC and a good C.al is a net benefit for Stanford, assuming the good guys can take care of their own business.
I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just explaining my logic to you in the hopes of clearing up some of your expressed confusion.
[/quote]
Fair enough. Ive pretty much assumed that Stanford will very likely be in the playoff if they win out, but maybe 2 or 3 teams will finish undefeated. I'd still prefer that cal lose every game :P
(10-10-2015, 10:56 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=cardcoug link=topic=13101.msg133952#msg133952 date=1444542436]I guess we just have a different way of approaching rivalries, but this (and your previous comments on the subject) makes no sense to me. The meaning of a meaningful big game this year would be that Low APR U, win or lose, is on the way up and has a successful season. I don't see how that is a good thing.
On another subject from the other Low APR U utah thread, note that Utah wins yet another game despite having a lower yards per play.
My goal for Stanford is the playoffs. If Stanford's divisional opponents are weak, it makes Stanford look weak by association. Since Power 5 conference champions are not guaranteed playoff berths, it is in the best interest of Stanford that the North is a strong division as a whole -- yes, including C.al. Stanford's resume took a big hit this week with SC and Northwestern looking awful, so it would have been nice for C.al to steal a win there. I know how rivalries work -- believe me, nobody is a bigger Dodger hater than me. But under the current playoff system, the unfortunate reality is that a good SC and a good C.al is a net benefit for Stanford, assuming the good guys can take care of their own business.
I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just explaining my logic to you in the hopes of clearing up some of your expressed confusion.
[/quote]
Fair enough. Ive pretty much assumed that Stanford will very likely be in the playoff if they win out, but maybe 2 or 3 teams will finish undefeated. I'd still prefer that cal lose every game :P
10-10-2015, 11:09 PM
They could. Both USC and UCLA have looked vulnerable at times. USC has the talent to beat Cal easily, but has the coaching to beat itself. UCLA has a freshman QB, so it depends which Rosen shows up. I could see Cal going 2-0 against them and I could see Cal gig 0-2 against them.
BC
BC
They could. Both USC and UCLA have looked vulnerable at times. USC has the talent to beat Cal easily, but has the coaching to beat itself. UCLA has a freshman QB, so it depends which Rosen shows up. I could see Cal going 2-0 against them and I could see Cal gig 0-2 against them.
BC
BC
10-10-2015, 11:17 PM
(10-10-2015, 11:07 PM)cardcoug link Wrote:Fair enough. Ive pretty much assumed that Stanford will very likely be in the playoff if they win out, but maybe 2 or 3 teams will finish undefeated. I'd still prefer that Low APR U lose every game :P
I think it would be hard for the committee to exclude the Pac-12 champion (particularly one with only a single loss, as in your scenario), however at least one Power 5 champion will obviously have to be snubbed. An ideal playoff system, to me anyway, is one that grants berths to each Power 5 champion. That way we can avoid all this kind of discussion. However, I'll take this system over the BCS any day of the week.
(10-10-2015, 11:07 PM)cardcoug link Wrote:Fair enough. Ive pretty much assumed that Stanford will very likely be in the playoff if they win out, but maybe 2 or 3 teams will finish undefeated. I'd still prefer that Low APR U lose every game :P
I think it would be hard for the committee to exclude the Pac-12 champion (particularly one with only a single loss, as in your scenario), however at least one Power 5 champion will obviously have to be snubbed. An ideal playoff system, to me anyway, is one that grants berths to each Power 5 champion. That way we can avoid all this kind of discussion. However, I'll take this system over the BCS any day of the week.
10-11-2015, 12:13 AM
Any day that Cal loses is a good day. If we keep winning, the playoffs will take care of themselves.
Any day that Cal loses is a good day. If we keep winning, the playoffs will take care of themselves.
10-11-2015, 01:17 AM
(10-11-2015, 12:13 AM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:Any day that Low APR U loses is a good day. If we keep winning, the playoffs will take care of themselves.
Agree,
But ucla has had a painful 2 weeks to stew in an embarrassing loss that knocked them from the headlines. They'll come out swinging and they have the talent to take us down, even if I think we now look like the better team.
IF we get by them, and by W, and by ND, and by cal, and eventually by Utah and by anyone else i'm forgetting on a trap game, we'll be more than fine, but writing all of that makes t obvious how useless it is to focus on anything other than thursday.
(10-11-2015, 12:13 AM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:Any day that Low APR U loses is a good day. If we keep winning, the playoffs will take care of themselves.
Agree,
But ucla has had a painful 2 weeks to stew in an embarrassing loss that knocked them from the headlines. They'll come out swinging and they have the talent to take us down, even if I think we now look like the better team.
IF we get by them, and by W, and by ND, and by cal, and eventually by Utah and by anyone else i'm forgetting on a trap game, we'll be more than fine, but writing all of that makes t obvious how useless it is to focus on anything other than thursday.
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
10-11-2015, 05:26 AM
(10-10-2015, 11:17 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:I think it would be hard for the committee to exclude the Pac-12 champion (particularly one with only a single loss, as in your scenario), however at least one Power 5 champion will obviously have to be snubbed. An ideal playoff system, to me anyway, is one that grants berths to each Power 5 champion. That way we can avoid all this kind of discussion. However, I'll take this system over the BCS any day of the week.
But this year, as opposed to last, there have been some inconvenient non-conference losses. It's not hard to see Clemson and Baylor winning out, and there's the top-heavy Big-10.
(10-10-2015, 11:17 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:I think it would be hard for the committee to exclude the Pac-12 champion (particularly one with only a single loss, as in your scenario), however at least one Power 5 champion will obviously have to be snubbed. An ideal playoff system, to me anyway, is one that grants berths to each Power 5 champion. That way we can avoid all this kind of discussion. However, I'll take this system over the BCS any day of the week.
But this year, as opposed to last, there have been some inconvenient non-conference losses. It's not hard to see Clemson and Baylor winning out, and there's the top-heavy Big-10.
10-11-2015, 08:25 AM
People, you are talking about the Kal weenies. I want them to be down and stay down. I want our guys to drag Oski around the football field like the goat in a game of Buzkashi. I want to win the Axe so many times that Kal finally says "just keep it."
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
People, you are talking about the Kal weenies. I want them to be down and stay down. I want our guys to drag Oski around the football field like the goat in a game of Buzkashi. I want to win the Axe so many times that Kal finally says "just keep it."
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
10-11-2015, 08:48 AM
I think the lesson from that game is that every team in the PAC is flawed. On the other hand, I haven't seen any team in the country play a complete game yet either. At this point I think the south winner will have 2 conference losses, unless Utah keeps getting lucky (that worked out for Cal so I'm sure it'll go great for the Utes).
Personally, I'd rather play Cal with nothing on the line except the Axe. Is that really not enough for you? Why would anyone WANT losing to Cal to mean losing the Axe AND the Pac-12 North? That seems terrible to me. Much better to have it already sewn up and just be playing for pride (and/or a shot in the playoff).
Personally, I'd rather play Cal with nothing on the line except the Axe. Is that really not enough for you? Why would anyone WANT losing to Cal to mean losing the Axe AND the Pac-12 North? That seems terrible to me. Much better to have it already sewn up and just be playing for pride (and/or a shot in the playoff).
I think the lesson from that game is that every team in the PAC is flawed. On the other hand, I haven't seen any team in the country play a complete game yet either. At this point I think the south winner will have 2 conference losses, unless Utah keeps getting lucky (that worked out for Cal so I'm sure it'll go great for the Utes).
Personally, I'd rather play Cal with nothing on the line except the Axe. Is that really not enough for you? Why would anyone WANT losing to Cal to mean losing the Axe AND the Pac-12 North? That seems terrible to me. Much better to have it already sewn up and just be playing for pride (and/or a shot in the playoff).
Personally, I'd rather play Cal with nothing on the line except the Axe. Is that really not enough for you? Why would anyone WANT losing to Cal to mean losing the Axe AND the Pac-12 North? That seems terrible to me. Much better to have it already sewn up and just be playing for pride (and/or a shot in the playoff).
10-11-2015, 08:50 AM
(10-10-2015, 10:56 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:My goal for Stanford is the playoffs. If Stanford's divisional opponents are weak, it makes Stanford look weak by association. Since Power 5 conference champions are not guaranteed playoff berths, it is in the best interest of Stanford that the North is a strong division as a whole -- yes, including C.al. Stanford's resume took a big hit this week with SC and Northwestern looking awful, so it would have been nice for C.al to steal a win there. I know how rivalries work -- believe me, nobody is a bigger Dodger hater than me. But under the current playoff system, the unfortunate reality is that a good SC and a good C.al is a net benefit for Stanford, assuming the good guys can take care of their own business.
I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just explaining my logic to you in the hopes of clearing up some of your expressed confusion. Schadenfreude alone doesn't really do it for me.
By and large, I agree, but I'm not horribly concerned about strength of schedule at this point. C.al and U.tah have the #6 and #7 SoS. Northwestern is #5. I think we'll be OK by the end of the year.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(10-10-2015, 10:56 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:My goal for Stanford is the playoffs. If Stanford's divisional opponents are weak, it makes Stanford look weak by association. Since Power 5 conference champions are not guaranteed playoff berths, it is in the best interest of Stanford that the North is a strong division as a whole -- yes, including C.al. Stanford's resume took a big hit this week with SC and Northwestern looking awful, so it would have been nice for C.al to steal a win there. I know how rivalries work -- believe me, nobody is a bigger Dodger hater than me. But under the current playoff system, the unfortunate reality is that a good SC and a good C.al is a net benefit for Stanford, assuming the good guys can take care of their own business.
I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just explaining my logic to you in the hopes of clearing up some of your expressed confusion. Schadenfreude alone doesn't really do it for me.
By and large, I agree, but I'm not horribly concerned about strength of schedule at this point. C.al and U.tah have the #6 and #7 SoS. Northwestern is #5. I think we'll be OK by the end of the year.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »