[CTcard]

I think the fact that you had to type that much invalidates your argument. The scenarios are getting pretty implausible pretty quickly and you need a few of them for Stanford to benefit. It's just not going to happen that the B1G, ACC, and SEC all have two-loss champions, and I think we'd need that, PLUS for our loss to not be against ND, for it to matter. What do you peg the odds of that at? It's gotta be less than 1%, and probably significantly less. Is it possible? Sure, but it's unlikely enough to write off.

I type that much because I cannot stop myself from going into far too detailed explanations. It has nothing to do with likelihood.

For a two-loss conference champ to make the field, all it takes is fewer than four 1-loss conference champs  - or at least two 2-loss champs. Though you are right that in Stanford's case the head to head vs und makes it trickier.

The odds are low of any particular set of wins and losses - thus the point behind my original post was really more that at this point much less is defined than most of the what-ifs presented presume.

[CTcard]

I think the fact that you had to type that much invalidates your argument. The scenarios are getting pretty implausible pretty quickly and you need a few of them for Stanford to benefit. It's just not going to happen that the B1G, ACC, and SEC all have two-loss champions, and I think we'd need that, PLUS for our loss to not be against ND, for it to matter. What do you peg the odds of that at? It's gotta be less than 1%, and probably significantly less. Is it possible? Sure, but it's unlikely enough to write off.

I type that much because I cannot stop myself from going into far too detailed explanations. It has nothing to do with likelihood.

For a two-loss conference champ to make the field, all it takes is fewer than four 1-loss conference champs  - or at least two 2-loss champs. Though you are right that in Stanford's case the head to head vs und makes it trickier.

The odds are low of any particular set of wins and losses - thus the point behind my original post was really more that at this point much less is defined than most of the what-ifs presented presume.