[terry]

We beat UCLA, but not really as badly as the final score indicates. Ninety seconds into the fourth quarter, we were ahead only by 12 points. Add two missed PATs to UCLA scores and subtract 14 that we scored on short fields after Bruin turnovers, and they were actually ahead in a notional sort of way.

I think we actually did beat UCLA just about as badly as the final score indicates. There was never a moment when I thought the outcome was in doubt. Stanford clearly was the better team. We took a double-digit lead in the middle of the second quarter, gradually expanded the lead, and cruised down the stretch.

I don't go along with the idea of notionally taking away points Stanford scored and notionally giving UCLA points it didn't score to come up with a "notional" score. This wasn't a game where Stanford got several fluke TDs on lucky plays and inflated the margin of victory with "unearned" points. Rather, Stanford's offense was dominant, scoring on 7 of 9 possessions (not counting the kneel-down possessions). The 45 points Stanford scored were our most against UCLA since 1929. Stanford's defense was more than adequate, holding UCLA to 343 yards (compared to UCLA's average of 411 yards coming into the game) and just 19 points. Stanford has held its opponent under 20 points in every game this year, and in 10 straight games going back to last year.

At the end, it was a pretty routine 26-point win -- the 7th straight game that Stanford has won by 26 or more, if I recall correctly. One of these days, there Stanford really will play a close game. It's inevitable. But this wasn't it.

[terry]

We beat UCLA, but not really as badly as the final score indicates. Ninety seconds into the fourth quarter, we were ahead only by 12 points. Add two missed PATs to UCLA scores and subtract 14 that we scored on short fields after Bruin turnovers, and they were actually ahead in a notional sort of way.

I think we actually did beat UCLA just about as badly as the final score indicates. There was never a moment when I thought the outcome was in doubt. Stanford clearly was the better team. We took a double-digit lead in the middle of the second quarter, gradually expanded the lead, and cruised down the stretch.

I don't go along with the idea of notionally taking away points Stanford scored and notionally giving UCLA points it didn't score to come up with a "notional" score. This wasn't a game where Stanford got several fluke TDs on lucky plays and inflated the margin of victory with "unearned" points. Rather, Stanford's offense was dominant, scoring on 7 of 9 possessions (not counting the kneel-down possessions). The 45 points Stanford scored were our most against UCLA since 1929. Stanford's defense was more than adequate, holding UCLA to 343 yards (compared to UCLA's average of 411 yards coming into the game) and just 19 points. Stanford has held its opponent under 20 points in every game this year, and in 10 straight games going back to last year.

At the end, it was a pretty routine 26-point win -- the 7th straight game that Stanford has won by 26 or more, if I recall correctly. One of these days, there Stanford really will play a close game. It's inevitable. But this wasn't it.