[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17197.msg199171#msg199171 date=1504625754]
That $C score is a lot closer than it should have been.  Kickoff return for TD, a double-pass QB reception trick play for TD that should have been intercepted or batted down, and a whole first half of WMU rushing attack played without a super talented U$C middle linebacker...those are coin flips that probably won't fall Stanford's way this week.  Stanford needs to get ready for a motivated $C team.

I don't know why you single out some ... sudden scores and not others.

$C scored on an pick 6, $C scored on a long run where the WMU safety had a clear shot and ... whiffed/fell. 
Stuff happens during a game, and stuff is often what determines who wins and loses.

Look, it's pretty clear that in their respective first games, Stanford performed closer to what their fans and coaches expected than did $C. I don't see how there can be any adjustment in expectations versus the preseason expectations that alters the situation in $C's favour (versus Stanford).
That said, teams don't play at the same level each game. If Stanford played better versus their ability in game one than did $C, that doesn't mean they'll do so in game two.
If you thought $C was dangerous before the season started, it would be foolish to change your mind now.

And I can pretty much guarantee you, there aren't people associated with the Stanford team who don't think they need to get ready.
[/quote]

Two more points:

1) It's also somewhat inconvenient to ignore some of the plays WMU left on the table. They had a beautiful play-action fake that got their TE very open ... and their QB very much underthrew the ball. They also underthrew a hail mary to a pretty open receiver (by hail mary standards). Very plausible that with a decent -- let alone good QB -- that WMU beats SC. If you're going to pull the "well Cam Smith and/or fluky plays" card as to why the WMU result should be ignored, you're ignoring that WMU did a lot of damage with decent talent -- and there's substantial reason to believe that good talent would gash SC all the more. (Of course SC is allowed to make adjustments, etc., so it's possible week 1 is a footnote result for the entire season. On the other hand...it's very possible it's not!)

2) To CTCard's point re: "changing your mind," I somewhat disagree -- though I suppose it depends on what we mean by the phrase. Certainly people shouldn't be flipping their opinion entirely on any team based on limited data. On the other hand, it seems foolish to not modify your beliefs at all.

We saw a different version of this play out last week. Many fans refused to believe UW clown-stomping bad teams through the beginning part of last year based on  similar arguments. Lo and behold it turns out that all data matters, as long as you mentally adjust appropriately and with the right degree of caution. Shrugging and saying Stanford v. Rice and/or SC v. WMU (or for that matter ND v. Temple) is meaningless because (REASONS HERE) is being a bit myopic.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17197.msg199171#msg199171 date=1504625754]
That $C score is a lot closer than it should have been.  Kickoff return for TD, a double-pass QB reception trick play for TD that should have been intercepted or batted down, and a whole first half of WMU rushing attack played without a super talented U$C middle linebacker...those are coin flips that probably won't fall Stanford's way this week.  Stanford needs to get ready for a motivated $C team.

I don't know why you single out some ... sudden scores and not others.

$C scored on an pick 6, $C scored on a long run where the WMU safety had a clear shot and ... whiffed/fell. 
Stuff happens during a game, and stuff is often what determines who wins and loses.

Look, it's pretty clear that in their respective first games, Stanford performed closer to what their fans and coaches expected than did $C. I don't see how there can be any adjustment in expectations versus the preseason expectations that alters the situation in $C's favour (versus Stanford).
That said, teams don't play at the same level each game. If Stanford played better versus their ability in game one than did $C, that doesn't mean they'll do so in game two.
If you thought $C was dangerous before the season started, it would be foolish to change your mind now.

And I can pretty much guarantee you, there aren't people associated with the Stanford team who don't think they need to get ready.
[/quote]

Two more points:

1) It's also somewhat inconvenient to ignore some of the plays WMU left on the table. They had a beautiful play-action fake that got their TE very open ... and their QB very much underthrew the ball. They also underthrew a hail mary to a pretty open receiver (by hail mary standards). Very plausible that with a decent -- let alone good QB -- that WMU beats SC. If you're going to pull the "well Cam Smith and/or fluky plays" card as to why the WMU result should be ignored, you're ignoring that WMU did a lot of damage with decent talent -- and there's substantial reason to believe that good talent would gash SC all the more. (Of course SC is allowed to make adjustments, etc., so it's possible week 1 is a footnote result for the entire season. On the other hand...it's very possible it's not!)

2) To CTCard's point re: "changing your mind," I somewhat disagree -- though I suppose it depends on what we mean by the phrase. Certainly people shouldn't be flipping their opinion entirely on any team based on limited data. On the other hand, it seems foolish to not modify your beliefs at all.

We saw a different version of this play out last week. Many fans refused to believe UW clown-stomping bad teams through the beginning part of last year based on  similar arguments. Lo and behold it turns out that all data matters, as long as you mentally adjust appropriately and with the right degree of caution. Shrugging and saying Stanford v. Rice and/or SC v. WMU (or for that matter ND v. Temple) is meaningless because (REASONS HERE) is being a bit myopic.