#17 in the BCS, - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: #17 in the BCS, (/thread-4090.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: #17 in the BCS, (/thread-4090.html)
Re: #17 in the BCS, - fullmetal - 10-22-2012
These Stanford players still have opportunities to leave their legacy, to quote a video well known to this board. Let's not talk them out of it.
https://vimeo.com/43950969
Re: #17 in the BCS, - fullmetal - 10-22-2012
These Stanford players still have opportunities to leave their legacy, to quote a video well known to this board. Let's not talk them out of it.
https://vimeo.com/43950969
Re: #17 in the BCS, - Farm93 - 10-22-2012
(10-22-2012, 11:24 AM)somnambule link Wrote:I'm surprised there's even talk of BCS bowls not named Rose. Aside from winning the league and going to the Rose (which, admittedly, is highly unlikely), there's no way we make it to a BCS bowl.
Even with one loss (to a highly-ranked Oregon) and the TV appeal of Luck, there were serious questions about our viability as a BCS at-large the past two years (especially after the 2010 season). This year, with 3 losses and no Luck-level national interest? Forget it...
OK, that is not really true. Here are some available BCS at-large options.
Stanford wins out, but falls to USC in the Pac-12 Championship game. USC goes to the BCS CG or the Rose Bowl. Either way 2 loss Stanford (+1 in the Pac-12 game) is viewed as the second best Pac-12 option. Notre Dame takes a slot, but the BigTen only has one team in the top 14, so Pac-12 #2 gets an invite. Oregon would have to lose twice in this scenario (Stanford and USC) so they are not taken ahead of Pac-12 runner-up that beat them a few weeks earlier in their house.
Stanford loses to Oregon, but looks respectable. Oregon goes to the BCS CG by beating Stanford in a close game and KILLING SC two times. The Rose Bowl wants SC, but the media backlash would be too much. 3 loss USC vs 3 loss Stanford, but remember Stanford won the head-to-head AND looked better against Oregon. (Just go with it for the moment) Notre Dame is not a Rose Bowl option since Michigan wins the BigTen.
Stanford loses to Oregon, but looks respectable. Oregon goes to the BCS CG by beating Stanford in a close game and KILLING ASU twice. ASU beat SC to get into the Pac-12 CG, but clearly serves the role UCLA played last year. Again, BigTen only has one BCS eligible team, so the Rose Bowl takes Stanford.
There are possibilities that are not unbelievable. The secret ingredients? The Pac-12 getting a BCS CG team. The BigTen having Ohio State ruin the chances of two BigTen BCS eligible teams. Stanford winning or looking good losing at Oregon. Stanford looking like the second best Pac-12 option.
Don't get me wrong I am not making Rose Bowl at-large bid plans, but stranger things have happened.
Why just this weekend I discovered that apparently a miracle happened 30 years ago for this team in Berkeley.... :P
Re: #17 in the BCS, - Farm93 - 10-22-2012
(10-22-2012, 11:24 AM)somnambule link Wrote:I'm surprised there's even talk of BCS bowls not named Rose. Aside from winning the league and going to the Rose (which, admittedly, is highly unlikely), there's no way we make it to a BCS bowl.
Even with one loss (to a highly-ranked Oregon) and the TV appeal of Luck, there were serious questions about our viability as a BCS at-large the past two years (especially after the 2010 season). This year, with 3 losses and no Luck-level national interest? Forget it...
OK, that is not really true. Here are some available BCS at-large options.
Stanford wins out, but falls to USC in the Pac-12 Championship game. USC goes to the BCS CG or the Rose Bowl. Either way 2 loss Stanford (+1 in the Pac-12 game) is viewed as the second best Pac-12 option. Notre Dame takes a slot, but the BigTen only has one team in the top 14, so Pac-12 #2 gets an invite. Oregon would have to lose twice in this scenario (Stanford and USC) so they are not taken ahead of Pac-12 runner-up that beat them a few weeks earlier in their house.
Stanford loses to Oregon, but looks respectable. Oregon goes to the BCS CG by beating Stanford in a close game and KILLING SC two times. The Rose Bowl wants SC, but the media backlash would be too much. 3 loss USC vs 3 loss Stanford, but remember Stanford won the head-to-head AND looked better against Oregon. (Just go with it for the moment) Notre Dame is not a Rose Bowl option since Michigan wins the BigTen.
Stanford loses to Oregon, but looks respectable. Oregon goes to the BCS CG by beating Stanford in a close game and KILLING ASU twice. ASU beat SC to get into the Pac-12 CG, but clearly serves the role UCLA played last year. Again, BigTen only has one BCS eligible team, so the Rose Bowl takes Stanford.
There are possibilities that are not unbelievable. The secret ingredients? The Pac-12 getting a BCS CG team. The BigTen having Ohio State ruin the chances of two BigTen BCS eligible teams. Stanford winning or looking good losing at Oregon. Stanford looking like the second best Pac-12 option.
Don't get me wrong I am not making Rose Bowl at-large bid plans, but stranger things have happened.
Why just this weekend I discovered that apparently a miracle happened 30 years ago for this team in Berkeley.... :P
Re: #17 in the BCS, - pincemob - 10-22-2012
I think it's Rose or bust. And by bust, I mean New Mexico or San Francisco. Someone please correct me, but I believe the Pac 12 (in its infinite wisdom) allows the bowl games to "draft" rather than accept teams based on conference finish. So if the Alamo Bowl decides that (say) Arizona State will "travel better", they can take them as long as they're bowl eligible.  I could see us being 9-3, #12 in the BCS and going to the New Mexico Bowl. That is almost exactly what happened in 2001 when we ended up in Seattle (although that year I think we were 9-2 with wins vs Oregon & others really helping our BCS ranking).Â
Re: #17 in the BCS, - pincemob - 10-22-2012
I think it's Rose or bust. And by bust, I mean New Mexico or San Francisco. Someone please correct me, but I believe the Pac 12 (in its infinite wisdom) allows the bowl games to "draft" rather than accept teams based on conference finish. So if the Alamo Bowl decides that (say) Arizona State will "travel better", they can take them as long as they're bowl eligible.  I could see us being 9-3, #12 in the BCS and going to the New Mexico Bowl. That is almost exactly what happened in 2001 when we ended up in Seattle (although that year I think we were 9-2 with wins vs Oregon & others really helping our BCS ranking).Â
Re: #17 in the BCS, - washingtonismoney - 10-22-2012
(10-22-2012, 02:16 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:I think it's Rose or bust. And by bust, I mean New Mexico or San Francisco. Someone please correct me, but I believe the Pac 12 (in its infinite wisdom) allows the bowl games to "draft" rather than accept teams based on conference finish.Â
They're only able to go up or down one slot. So if Stanford is #3, we'll say, the worst case scenario is (and I'll assume also that there are two Pac-12 BCS teams, which I think will happen) San Diego for the Holiday Bowl.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - washingtonismoney - 10-22-2012
(10-22-2012, 02:16 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:I think it's Rose or bust. And by bust, I mean New Mexico or San Francisco. Someone please correct me, but I believe the Pac 12 (in its infinite wisdom) allows the bowl games to "draft" rather than accept teams based on conference finish.Â
They're only able to go up or down one slot. So if Stanford is #3, we'll say, the worst case scenario is (and I'll assume also that there are two Pac-12 BCS teams, which I think will happen) San Diego for the Holiday Bowl.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - pincemob - 10-22-2012
So what happens if the below were to transpire. Could we not wind up in New Mexico?Â
Consider:
Oregon 9-0
Stanford 7-2
USC 7-2
Oregon State 7-2
ASU 5-4
UCLA 5-4
Washington 5-4
Re: #17 in the BCS, - pincemob - 10-22-2012
So what happens if the below were to transpire. Could we not wind up in New Mexico?Â
Consider:
Oregon 9-0
Stanford 7-2
USC 7-2
Oregon State 7-2
ASU 5-4
UCLA 5-4
Washington 5-4
Re: #17 in the BCS, - Farm93 - 10-22-2012
OK, Stanford is undesirable relative to typical NCAA FBS AQ conference programs, but in the Pac-12 Stanford is not THAT undesirable.
Remember, Oregon State does not travel well that's just the way it is.
In the scenario you noted, and assuming USC beats Notre Dame.
Oregon - BCS CG
USC - Rose Bowl
Stanford - Alamo Bowl
Oregon State - Holiday Bowl
The Alamo Bowl is new to the Pac-12. In theory they could go out of their way and grab OSU. It would be their choice. But it would be an odd choice. Stanford would have beaten OSU a few weeks earlier. Stanford would have only 3 road losses. And Stanford, after two BCS at-large bowls, is a bigger national TV brand than Oregon State. But it could happen that Alamo takes OSU. Not that big a deal to me since I would prefer San Diego.
The Holiday Bowl would take Stanford over those 5-4 options, even if they wanted to grab something there is nothing there to take that looks good. Remember, the Holiday Bowl had to suffer with a mediocre 6-6 UCB team. The last thing they want is to voluntarily take another ~500 team.
In the most doomsday one Pac-12 at large scenario from your table.
Oregon - Rose
SC - Alamo
Holiday - Oregon State (but they would take Stanford first for sure)
Sun - ASU (they might want ASUs crowd in El Paso, but ASU does not exactly pack their own house)
And then Stanford would have to go next because the Sun should have taken Stanford.
That puts Stanford in Las Vegas bowl.
Imagine Stanford loses to Oregon State - Then it is still Sun or Las Vegas even with only one BCS at-large for the conference.
If you run the numbers it looks likely that the Pac-12 will get an at-large invite even if Pac-12 #2 has three losses because Oregon/SC/Stanford/Oregon State as #2 will likely beat out ACC #2 or Big East #2. The SEC has so many teams in the top 20 that they crowd out possible qualifiers from other conferences.
Stanford could end up in lower tier bowls, but not if the team finishes 7-2 in conference.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - Farm93 - 10-22-2012
OK, Stanford is undesirable relative to typical NCAA FBS AQ conference programs, but in the Pac-12 Stanford is not THAT undesirable.
Remember, Oregon State does not travel well that's just the way it is.
In the scenario you noted, and assuming USC beats Notre Dame.
Oregon - BCS CG
USC - Rose Bowl
Stanford - Alamo Bowl
Oregon State - Holiday Bowl
The Alamo Bowl is new to the Pac-12. In theory they could go out of their way and grab OSU. It would be their choice. But it would be an odd choice. Stanford would have beaten OSU a few weeks earlier. Stanford would have only 3 road losses. And Stanford, after two BCS at-large bowls, is a bigger national TV brand than Oregon State. But it could happen that Alamo takes OSU. Not that big a deal to me since I would prefer San Diego.
The Holiday Bowl would take Stanford over those 5-4 options, even if they wanted to grab something there is nothing there to take that looks good. Remember, the Holiday Bowl had to suffer with a mediocre 6-6 UCB team. The last thing they want is to voluntarily take another ~500 team.
In the most doomsday one Pac-12 at large scenario from your table.
Oregon - Rose
SC - Alamo
Holiday - Oregon State (but they would take Stanford first for sure)
Sun - ASU (they might want ASUs crowd in El Paso, but ASU does not exactly pack their own house)
And then Stanford would have to go next because the Sun should have taken Stanford.
That puts Stanford in Las Vegas bowl.
Imagine Stanford loses to Oregon State - Then it is still Sun or Las Vegas even with only one BCS at-large for the conference.
If you run the numbers it looks likely that the Pac-12 will get an at-large invite even if Pac-12 #2 has three losses because Oregon/SC/Stanford/Oregon State as #2 will likely beat out ACC #2 or Big East #2. The SEC has so many teams in the top 20 that they crowd out possible qualifiers from other conferences.
Stanford could end up in lower tier bowls, but not if the team finishes 7-2 in conference.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - JeffInCorvallis - 10-22-2012
(10-21-2012, 09:56 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=JeffInCorvallis link=topic=6724.msg50229#msg50229 date=1350879661]You don't believe a season is dynamic and/or a team can improve ?
We are not a top 10 team. Top 15, top 20, maybe. A top 10 team doesn't leave Seattle without an offensive touchdown.
[/quote]
Don't get me wrong, I think we have a great shot at going to the Alamo or Holiday Bowls. This is quite a good team, perhaps the best Stanford defense EVER. But offensively we cannot keep up with some of the top teams this year. Sure, we can get better, and we have Stepfan Taylor, who by all rights SHOULD be in the mix for the Voldemort this year. If we beat the Oregon schools I'm willing to eat my words.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - JeffInCorvallis - 10-22-2012
(10-21-2012, 09:56 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=JeffInCorvallis link=topic=6724.msg50229#msg50229 date=1350879661]You don't believe a season is dynamic and/or a team can improve ?
We are not a top 10 team. Top 15, top 20, maybe. A top 10 team doesn't leave Seattle without an offensive touchdown.
[/quote]
Don't get me wrong, I think we have a great shot at going to the Alamo or Holiday Bowls. This is quite a good team, perhaps the best Stanford defense EVER. But offensively we cannot keep up with some of the top teams this year. Sure, we can get better, and we have Stepfan Taylor, who by all rights SHOULD be in the mix for the Voldemort this year. If we beat the Oregon schools I'm willing to eat my words.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - CrazedZooChimp - 10-23-2012
(10-22-2012, 02:37 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=norcalcard link=topic=6724.msg50279#msg50279 date=1350940586]
I think it's Rose or bust. And by bust, I mean New Mexico or San Francisco. Someone please correct me, but I believe the Pac 12 (in its infinite wisdom) allows the bowl games to "draft" rather than accept teams based on conference finish.Â
They're only able to go up or down one slot. So if Stanford is #3, we'll say, the worst case scenario is (and I'll assume also that there are two Pac-12 BCS teams, which I think will happen) San Diego for the Holiday Bowl.
[/quote]
I seem to recall there is also a rule they can only pick a team "down" one slot if that team is within one win of the team in the original slot. So a 7-2 Stanford team could not be passed up for a 5-4 team, only a 6-3 team. Maybe that's not the case anymore, or I remember incorrectly.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - CrazedZooChimp - 10-23-2012
(10-22-2012, 02:37 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=norcalcard link=topic=6724.msg50279#msg50279 date=1350940586]
I think it's Rose or bust. And by bust, I mean New Mexico or San Francisco. Someone please correct me, but I believe the Pac 12 (in its infinite wisdom) allows the bowl games to "draft" rather than accept teams based on conference finish.Â
They're only able to go up or down one slot. So if Stanford is #3, we'll say, the worst case scenario is (and I'll assume also that there are two Pac-12 BCS teams, which I think will happen) San Diego for the Holiday Bowl.
[/quote]
I seem to recall there is also a rule they can only pick a team "down" one slot if that team is within one win of the team in the original slot. So a 7-2 Stanford team could not be passed up for a 5-4 team, only a 6-3 team. Maybe that's not the case anymore, or I remember incorrectly.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - CowboyIndian - 10-23-2012
(10-23-2012, 09:33 AM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:I seem to recall there is also a rule they can only pick a team "down" one slot if that team is within one win of the team in the original slot. So a 7-2 Stanford team could not be passed up for a 5-4 team, only a 6-3 team. Maybe that's not the case anymore, or I remember incorrectly.
Maybe, if it involved a tie-breaker, but I think they can only go down one slot in the conference standings.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - CowboyIndian - 10-23-2012
(10-23-2012, 09:33 AM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:I seem to recall there is also a rule they can only pick a team "down" one slot if that team is within one win of the team in the original slot. So a 7-2 Stanford team could not be passed up for a 5-4 team, only a 6-3 team. Maybe that's not the case anymore, or I remember incorrectly.
Maybe, if it involved a tie-breaker, but I think they can only go down one slot in the conference standings.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - CowboyIndian - 10-23-2012
(10-22-2012, 07:08 PM)JeffInCorvallis link Wrote:If we beat the Oregon schools I'm willing to eat my words.
If we beat the Oregon schools, I will eat your words as well.
Re: #17 in the BCS, - CowboyIndian - 10-23-2012
(10-22-2012, 07:08 PM)JeffInCorvallis link Wrote:If we beat the Oregon schools I'm willing to eat my words.
If we beat the Oregon schools, I will eat your words as well.