[FarmBoy]

I think it's pretty clear what Stanford's best case scenario is this year. 15-0. It may not be likely, but it's definitely in the realm of real possibilities.

I was reading the ESPN Blog and noticed Gemmel's take on each team's worst case scenario (http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...-scenarios)

The critics are finally right and the Cardinal take a step backwards. No one really emerges as a reliable running back and the Cardinal fall to Oregon, Washington and UCLA to close out 9-3. Jared Goff wins the Voldemort. David Shaw leaves for the NFL. Stanford loses to Texas in the Alamo Bowl.

That actually sounds like a fairly optimistic worst case (aside from Goff winning the Voldemort). It got me thinking, being the glass half full guy that I am, what is the realistic worst case outcome for the season? I'm not considering outlandish things like all of our starters contract ebola or an earthquake demolishes the stadium. Rather, if the team has a bad rash of injuries and/or players don't step into the roles that the NFL grades left. We could end up 6-6, losing to all 5 ranked teams on the schedule and one other upset. Could we conceivably miss out on a bowl game?

[FarmBoy]

I think it's pretty clear what Stanford's best case scenario is this year. 15-0. It may not be likely, but it's definitely in the realm of real possibilities.

I was reading the ESPN Blog and noticed Gemmel's take on each team's worst case scenario (http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...-scenarios)

The critics are finally right and the Cardinal take a step backwards. No one really emerges as a reliable running back and the Cardinal fall to Oregon, Washington and UCLA to close out 9-3. Jared Goff wins the Voldemort. David Shaw leaves for the NFL. Stanford loses to Texas in the Alamo Bowl.

That actually sounds like a fairly optimistic worst case (aside from Goff winning the Voldemort). It got me thinking, being the glass half full guy that I am, what is the realistic worst case outcome for the season? I'm not considering outlandish things like all of our starters contract ebola or an earthquake demolishes the stadium. Rather, if the team has a bad rash of injuries and/or players don't step into the roles that the NFL grades left. We could end up 6-6, losing to all 5 ranked teams on the schedule and one other upset. Could we conceivably miss out on a bowl game?

[Renaissance Man]

I actually agree with Gemmel--without a rash of injuries to key players 9-3 during the regular season is a worst-case scenario.  This team has depth and talent like we have never seen--not even over the last few years.

[Renaissance Man]

I actually agree with Gemmel--without a rash of injuries to key players 9-3 during the regular season is a worst-case scenario.  This team has depth and talent like we have never seen--not even over the last few years.

[jacketree]

9-3 is a really optimistic worst-case scenario.  Stanford hasn't been juggernaughty since 2011 and has, more often than not, come out on top in some really tight games these past two years.  What makes this year so different in terms of skill, schedule, depth, and/or intangibles?  (Answer: the schedule is actually tougher.) Stanford will probably have another Utah game (or two, like say the Utes and/or Beavers) and isn't it pretty conceivable they could drop any number of games against:

USC
at Washington
at Notre Dame
at Arizona State
at UCLA

Realistic worst case is probably 6-6 if things go badly, and all positions are not equally deep.

I think there are at least three auto-wins (UC Davis, Army, and Cal), but man, you never, never know.  At least we'll have replay this year, right? :P

[jacketree]

9-3 is a really optimistic worst-case scenario.  Stanford hasn't been juggernaughty since 2011 and has, more often than not, come out on top in some really tight games these past two years.  What makes this year so different in terms of skill, schedule, depth, and/or intangibles?  (Answer: the schedule is actually tougher.) Stanford will probably have another Utah game (or two, like say the Utes and/or Beavers) and isn't it pretty conceivable they could drop any number of games against:

USC
at Washington
at Notre Dame
at Arizona State
at UCLA

Realistic worst case is probably 6-6 if things go badly, and all positions are not equally deep.

I think there are at least three auto-wins (UC Davis, Army, and Cal), but man, you never, never know.  At least we'll have replay this year, right? :P

[washingtonismoney]

(Answer: the schedule is actually tougher.)

Or...will it be?

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2014/8/28/6078...-out-to-be

[washingtonismoney]

(Answer: the schedule is actually tougher.)

Or...will it be?

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2014/8/28/6078...-out-to-be

[teejers1]

"This team has depth and talent like we have never seen--not even over the last few years."

I agree with RenaissanceMan on the above.

I also agree with J-tree that Stanford has not been juggernauty in several years (I actually would say last half of 2010 was when Stanford hit its juggernaut stride - not sure it spilled over to 2011, despite great record).

I also agree that 9-3 is an awfully rosy 'worst cases scenario.'  Man, I am in a particularly agreeable mood this afternoon!

[teejers1]

"This team has depth and talent like we have never seen--not even over the last few years."

I agree with RenaissanceMan on the above.

I also agree with J-tree that Stanford has not been juggernauty in several years (I actually would say last half of 2010 was when Stanford hit its juggernaut stride - not sure it spilled over to 2011, despite great record).

I also agree that 9-3 is an awfully rosy 'worst cases scenario.'  Man, I am in a particularly agreeable mood this afternoon!

[Rally]

"This team has depth and talent like we have never seen--not even over the last few years."

I agree with RenaissanceMan on the above.

I also agree with J-tree that Stanford has not been juggernauty in several years (I actually would say last half of 2010 was when Stanford hit its juggernaut stride - not sure it spilled over to 2011, despite great record).

I also agree that 9-3 is an awfully rosy 'worst cases scenario.'  Man, I am in a particularly agreeable mood this afternoon!

9 - 3 would be a very good year over the last 10 years, but would causse anguish here and elsewhere.  10 win seasons do not continue forever and when the streak falters I hope we don't see chicken .ittles running all over this board.  All of the traditional powers have had their down spells and, now that we are in the group, so will we.  Find the best coach (we have,) ride him to the end, be patient then, but not forever (see Mack Brown, Bobbie Bowden, et al) and hope they don't leave until the ride is over.

[Rally]

"This team has depth and talent like we have never seen--not even over the last few years."

I agree with RenaissanceMan on the above.

I also agree with J-tree that Stanford has not been juggernauty in several years (I actually would say last half of 2010 was when Stanford hit its juggernaut stride - not sure it spilled over to 2011, despite great record).

I also agree that 9-3 is an awfully rosy 'worst cases scenario.'  Man, I am in a particularly agreeable mood this afternoon!

9 - 3 would be a very good year over the last 10 years, but would causse anguish here and elsewhere.  10 win seasons do not continue forever and when the streak falters I hope we don't see chicken .ittles running all over this board.  All of the traditional powers have had their down spells and, now that we are in the group, so will we.  Find the best coach (we have,) ride him to the end, be patient then, but not forever (see Mack Brown, Bobbie Bowden, et al) and hope they don't leave until the ride is over.

[teejers1]

"9 - 3 would be a very good year over the last 10 years, but would cause anguish here and elsewhere."  

I'm not in this camp as a per se rule.  Same would apply for 8-4.  Or even 10-2.

As stated elsewhere, I don't think any of us can evaluate if the team played well or poorly - or was coached well or poorly - until after the games are played.  A good example is SC, if the Trojans are truly depleted when we play them next weekend, then it's possible a W over them isn't necessarily a great one and a L would be a bad one.  The reverse is true, too, if Stanford were to lose a key player or two for game(s) in 2014.

And then there will undoubtedly be teams that are unexpectedly better (and worse) than anticipated, and that affects the calculus, too.  9-3 could be a good season, or it could be a season of lost opportunities - it all depends on stuff we don't know yet.

[teejers1]

"9 - 3 would be a very good year over the last 10 years, but would cause anguish here and elsewhere."  

I'm not in this camp as a per se rule.  Same would apply for 8-4.  Or even 10-2.

As stated elsewhere, I don't think any of us can evaluate if the team played well or poorly - or was coached well or poorly - until after the games are played.  A good example is SC, if the Trojans are truly depleted when we play them next weekend, then it's possible a W over them isn't necessarily a great one and a L would be a bad one.  The reverse is true, too, if Stanford were to lose a key player or two for game(s) in 2014.

And then there will undoubtedly be teams that are unexpectedly better (and worse) than anticipated, and that affects the calculus, too.  9-3 could be a good season, or it could be a season of lost opportunities - it all depends on stuff we don't know yet.

[Farm93]

7-5 is not that hard to imagine given the number of quality road games.  Not too worried about it, and honestly could survive a 7-5 season if it happened for reasons that we could dismiss as an unusually bad season.

With several dozen bowl games Stanford would need to finish 5-7 to not get an invite.  That is pretty hard to see without a lot of injuries at key positions.

[Farm93]

7-5 is not that hard to imagine given the number of quality road games.  Not too worried about it, and honestly could survive a 7-5 season if it happened for reasons that we could dismiss as an unusually bad season.

With several dozen bowl games Stanford would need to finish 5-7 to not get an invite.  That is pretty hard to see without a lot of injuries at key positions.

[martyup]

This topic is just plain bad karma.

[martyup]

This topic is just plain bad karma.

[Rally]

"9 - 3 would be a very good year over the last 10 years, but would cause anguish here and elsewhere."  

I'm not in this camp as a per se rule.  Same would apply for 8-4.  Or even 10-2.

As stated elsewhere, I don't think any of us can evaluate if the team played well or poorly - or was coached well or poorly - until after the games are played.  A good example is SC, if the Literature's Most Famous Losers are truly depleted when we play them next weekend, then it's possible a W over them isn't necessarily a great one and a L would be a bad one.  The reverse is true, too, if Stanford were to lose a key player or two for game(s) in 2014.

And then there will undoubtedly be teams that are unexpectedly better (and worse) than anticipated, and that affects the calculus, too.  9-3 could be a good season, or it could be a season of lost opportunities - it all depends on stuff we don't know yet.

See 10 pt underdog A&M vs South Carolina.

[Rally]

"9 - 3 would be a very good year over the last 10 years, but would cause anguish here and elsewhere."  

I'm not in this camp as a per se rule.  Same would apply for 8-4.  Or even 10-2.

As stated elsewhere, I don't think any of us can evaluate if the team played well or poorly - or was coached well or poorly - until after the games are played.  A good example is SC, if the Literature's Most Famous Losers are truly depleted when we play them next weekend, then it's possible a W over them isn't necessarily a great one and a L would be a bad one.  The reverse is true, too, if Stanford were to lose a key player or two for game(s) in 2014.

And then there will undoubtedly be teams that are unexpectedly better (and worse) than anticipated, and that affects the calculus, too.  9-3 could be a good season, or it could be a season of lost opportunities - it all depends on stuff we don't know yet.

See 10 pt underdog A&M vs South Carolina.

[fullmetal]

This topic is just plain bad karma.

Yeah...remember Utah and U$C last year.  Didn't see 'em coming.

[fullmetal]

This topic is just plain bad karma.

Yeah...remember Utah and U$C last year.  Didn't see 'em coming.

[CTcard]

As stated elsewhere, I don't think any of us can evaluate if the team played well or poorly - or was coached well or poorly - until after the games are played. 

Absolutely true - in an "of course" kind of way.

More broadly, I don't think it is very meaningful to say a team was well or poorly coached in any particular game. By far the most important element of coaching is the creation and development of a good team. That does not happen on a week to week basis.

9-3 could be a good season, or it could be a season of lost opportunities - it all depends on stuff we don't know yet.

9-3 is almost by definition a season of lost opportunities: it's good enough that there will be opportunities, and within three losses for a good team are always cases of "if only".

A 9-3 season would be disappointing for me, simply because we have been better than that for awhile now. On the other hand, if in fact it turns out to be a one season dip before being back to double digit wins for awhile longer - then a depth-of-downturn at 9-3 would be absolutely gob-smacking fantastic.

[CTcard]

As stated elsewhere, I don't think any of us can evaluate if the team played well or poorly - or was coached well or poorly - until after the games are played. 

Absolutely true - in an "of course" kind of way.

More broadly, I don't think it is very meaningful to say a team was well or poorly coached in any particular game. By far the most important element of coaching is the creation and development of a good team. That does not happen on a week to week basis.

9-3 could be a good season, or it could be a season of lost opportunities - it all depends on stuff we don't know yet.

9-3 is almost by definition a season of lost opportunities: it's good enough that there will be opportunities, and within three losses for a good team are always cases of "if only".

A 9-3 season would be disappointing for me, simply because we have been better than that for awhile now. On the other hand, if in fact it turns out to be a one season dip before being back to double digit wins for awhile longer - then a depth-of-downturn at 9-3 would be absolutely gob-smacking fantastic.