2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - 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: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight (/thread-11092.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: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight (/thread-11092.html)
Re: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - CTcard - 12-16-2015
(12-16-2015, 05:31 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Hank, UW loses Topou, Feeney, and Littleton up front, and those guys were key to that defense. And a year ago, their defense lost four players who went the top 44 in the NFL draft--DE Ki'kaha, CB Macus Peters, NT Danny Shelton, and LB Shaq Richardson. Their defense is going to step back. It's not as if their current DBs (two first team all cons) can play much better, and the pressure in UW's front seven made a major difference to them.
Plus UW didn't have an offense last year, and lose their top three wide receivers--and Browning isn't Rosen, Falk, or even Chryst.
They are tough in Seattle, but we're a much better team.
Overall, UW next year is an interesting question. No doubt the conventional wisdom is that they will be quite strong.
Their bowl game depth chart is available on p.8 of their bowl guide:
http://www.gohuskies.com/pdf9/4246907.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=30200
On offense they have two senior starters (C-Tufunga and WR-Mickens) and one senior co-starter (TE-Perkins).
Perkins was honorable mention All Pac-12.
On defense they have four senior starters (DT-Tupou, BUCK-Feeney, LB-Littleton, S-Clay).
Tupou and Feeney were second team All Pac-12. Littleton honorable mention.
There only seem to be about two other seniors on their two-deep.
Those are light losses for a college team. Where they do lose a considerable amount is on the defensive front seven. So, the question is the quality of their replacements - which I simply don't know.
The few times I saw Browning he looked pretty good, though the sample size wasn't adequate. Interesting to compare Browning and Rosen statistically this year.
Browning: 210-335 for 2671 yds, 8.0 yds/att, 16 TD, 10 INT, PER=139.45
Rosen:Â 266-477 for 3350 yds, 7.5 yds/att, 20 TD, 9 INT, PER=133.19
[Note - Browning missed one game - vs Stanford so we didn't see him]
I'd give the edge to Browning, perhaps moreso considering the quality of targets each QB had. It may be true that Rosen has more potential, but who gets further next year is not so clear.
And at the moment I'd have more confidence in Browning than Chryst - merely because he's had the opportunity to show something.
The UW offense has some work to do, but they have a lot returning: a QB coming off a strong frosh year, four starters on the OL, a very promising RB heading into his second year (Gaskin).
Sarkisian's recruiting was okay, I would give Petersen the benefit of the doubt for now, and while I certainly wouldn't yet put UW as a favourite in the North, probably would put them at third and challenging for more.
Personally, I am more skeptical of what we'll see from WSU.
Re: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - stupac2 - 12-16-2015
(12-15-2015, 10:48 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends is not the problem here; the problem is the loss of San Jose State as a team that would play us at home most years because they want the payday that comes from being a sacrificial lamb (this year they were Auburn's auto-win). Since most of the non-conference teams we will be playing will be home-and-homes, on the years we have the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends and 5 conference games at home, we will have both non-ND out of conference games away.
Which is to say that I expect this year to have been the last where schedule 7 home games until 2019, unless we get a Davis, Sacramento State, or San Jose state to come visit without a return game. For example, 2017, we get the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends and 5 conference games at home, but we travel to 4 conference games and Rice and San Diego State (that's a reason not to schedule a neutral game against Low APR U).
I've never understood why we don't just pay them. Sure, we're not like the SEC where the extra home game just covers the cost, but having a guaranteed home game every year is a big deal and it's not like Stanford wants for money. Seems like it's just pride. But doing home-and-homes with SDSU (or any G5 school) is dumb.
Anyway, ND is still a big problem in this world because it constricts our options a lot.
Re: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - Farm93 - 12-16-2015
This board is funny. The schedule is not that bad given the known flaws in the Pac-12 system and Stanford's rotation of opponents.
K-State is an ideal starting team. Stanford, and the Pac-12, will want and need that win for later CFP considerations. The students are not on campus and that's the reality every year. Friday is not ideal, but at least our student-athletes get that non-Saturday home game out of the way before classes begin.
Bye - It's bad for the team and it is clearly better to have the bye later. However, the bye is good for those concerned about students missing too many games before classes begin.
USC - Thanks to ND and Pac-12 scheduling realities this has become a mini-tradition at this point.
UCLA - The Pac-12 should protect upcoming Friday teams with afternoon Saturday games, but I doubt that has been implemented. At least it is not too hard to get from Pasadena back to the Stanford.
The home schedule is awful for casual fans. That's a big even year problem. The 6 games may be great times for long-time fans that love watching big wins, but I can't imagine Stanford uncovering too many new season ticket holders with this schedule. Only credible way to fix the even year woes is to get UCB to flip. (ND can't & won't)
I really hope the AD is trying to find a way to get UCBers to accept a one time game at Levi's. If it helps Stanford should even consider a one time game at the Oakland Coliseum if that neutral venue looks better to UCBers. I just hope the AD finds a way to host UCLA/Oregon/Notre Dame in odd years and USC/Cal in even years.
Re: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - rudruff - 12-16-2015
Complaining about the schedule is a time honored tradition.
I don't mind it, since I am sure SC fans are already lining up the "Stanford had a bye before us" excuse for next year's loss.
I actually kind of like the OOC home and homes that bring in different teams. The game at Army was a great thing to do (triple option aside). Watching the game on tv, you could see what a big deal it was for them. As long as we are doing it with the idea that we are a national program and give people an opportunity to see us play.
If we add SJSU to the schedule each year, between ND and a nine game conference schedule that leaves only one new team to play in a given year.
Re: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - French Rage - 12-16-2015
We have the chance to beat USC 3 times in 365/366 days, which is kind of cool.
Re: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - StanfordMatt - 12-16-2015
(12-16-2015, 09:59 AM)rudruff link Wrote:If we add SJSU to the schedule each year, between ND and a nine game conference schedule that leaves only one new team to play in a given year.
If we played SJSU this year, chances are we'd be playing for a national championship in a few weeks.
Re: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - Mick - 12-16-2015
(12-16-2015, 09:41 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:The home schedule is awful for casual fans. That's a big even year problem. The 6 games may be great times for long-time fans that love watching big wins, but I can't imagine Stanford uncovering too many new season ticket holders with this schedule. Only credible way to fix the even year woes is to get UCB to flip. (ND can't & won't)
I really hope the AD is trying to find a way to get UCBers to accept a one time game at Levi's. If it helps Stanford should even consider a one time game at the Oakland Coliseum if that neutral venue looks better to UCBers. I just hope the AD finds a way to host UCLA/Oregon/the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends in odd years and Unbelievably Spoiled Children/Low APR U in even years.
I agree that it would be optimal for UCB to flip, and my WAG is that Stanford has already explored that request, most likely from a "Please Help Stanford, It Would Be Great If You Could Do This" standpoint, to which UC.B would have just laughed, at which point Stanford would have said "It's Good For the Rivalry," to which UCB would laugh twice as hard.
In the "Never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste" mode of their philosophical counterpart, my suspicion is that Berkeley is coming at Stanford with a "We-don't-have-a-home-rivalry-game-for-three-years-so-pay-us-lots-of-money-which-you-clearly-have-and-we-clearly-don't" argument. So my WAG is that they are haggling over a dollar figure that makes sense for both of them, or at least Berkeley.
Re: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - cctop - 12-16-2015
(12-16-2015, 09:41 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:I really hope the AD is trying to find a way to get UCBers to accept a one time game at Levi's. If it helps Stanford should even consider a one time game at the Oakland Coliseum if that neutral venue looks better to UCBers.
I don't understand why we'd need a game at a neutral site.
Why not just have one team host the game two years in a row? Cal can do it, for all I care, if it gets our even/odd year schedule better in balance.
Re: 2016 football schedule to be announced tonight - BostonCard - 12-16-2015
(12-16-2015, 12:00 PM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:[quote author=rudruff link=topic=14076.msg148596#msg148596 date=1450285175]
If we add SJSU to the schedule each year, between ND and a nine game conference schedule that leaves only one new team to play in a given year.
If we played SJSU this year, chances are we'd be playing for a national championship in a few weeks.
[/quote]
Why? I'm fairly certain SJSU would have substituted in for UCF, not Northwestern.
BC