The CardBoard
Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - 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: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 (/thread-6095.html)


Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - needle - 11-16-2013

The second-half defense was damn good, even while missing Alex Carter for lots of the fourth quarter.

When an offense can't score 20 points, you're always going to be in danger of losing.

Maybe with Ben Gardner there's more pressure on Kessler, but SC was missing some guys as well.

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - JohnR34231 - 11-16-2013

This game was reminiscent of the bad old days of Stanford football. We played just well enough to lose.

My vote for the culprit is the offense. They had plenty of chances to win the game in the second half and couldn't get it done.

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - yvonne - 11-16-2013

Went from potential NCG player to Holiday Bowl in one game. 

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - oman - 11-16-2013

I'm hoping Alamo if we going to go down that path.


Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - washingtonismoney - 11-16-2013

Why vote on one culprit? There's clearly more than enough fault to go around.

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - pincemob - 11-16-2013

Given the Pac-12's bowl rules (correct me if I'm wrong) if we miss the BCS we can be jumped by all teams with <=3 losses.  So we could be surpassed by Oregon, ASU, UCLA, and USC. 

The order is Rose, Alamo, Holiday, Sun, Las Vegas. 



Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - Trevmiesterj - 11-17-2013

(11-16-2013, 10:33 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:Given the Pac-12's bowl rules (correct me if I'm wrong) if we miss the BCS we can be jumped by all teams with <=3 losses.  So we could be surpassed by Oregon, ASU, UCLA, and University of Spoiled Children . 

The order is Rose, Alamo, Holiday, Sun, Las Vegas.

Vegas Bowl after this season?  This breaks my heart to even contemplate.

The more this loss sinks in the worse it gets.

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - Oasis - 11-17-2013

We had our chances tonight: the fumble recovery by Skov at the $C 20 (or thereabouts) and first and goal from the $C six.  We bungled them both.  If we had come away with even two FGs, it probably would've been enough.  But we got no points.  And that is why we lost.

I had expected a physical domination by Stanford, which in the second half started to look as if it would happen.  We had a long drive (as I recall it) from about our 30 to the $C six.  The defense gave up only three points, although as Garvin points out the D didn't rise to the occasion on the critical 4th and two.

The pass defense seemed designed not to give up the big play, which meant soft coverage and lots of opportunities for 10- and 15-yard plays for the $C receivers.

For a team with as many experienced players as we have, we were very shaky at the start of the game, which is when $C got 17 of their points. 

This was a painful loss. Life down here is a lot easier when we beat $C.  Yet there's still something significant to wring from this season: the necks of Cal and Notre Dame.  I believe our team will rally and give them both a good drubbing.

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - GoodGrief - 11-17-2013

Well, on the infinitesimally slightly positive side, I no longer have to worry that Utah kept us out of the BCS Championship Game.

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - DC - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 12:43 AM)GoodGrief link Wrote:Well, on the infinitesimally slightly positive side, I no longer have to worry that Utah kept us out of the BCS Championship Game.
Just the Rose Bowl.  :'(

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - fullmetal - 11-17-2013

Two INTs will sink a game, no question, as will not converting a potential FG opportunity.  Is Williamson worse for the wear this week than he was last week?  Can't give the ball away. 

I feel like the defense performed adequately...Lee and maybe even Agholor will be playing on Sundays, and that kind of athleticism can make a lot of yards happen. 

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - Farm93 - 11-17-2013

(11-16-2013, 10:33 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:Given the Pac-12's bowl rules (correct me if I'm wrong) if we miss the BCS we can be jumped by all teams with <=3 losses.  So we could be surpassed by Oregon, ASU, UCLA, and University of Spoiled Children . 

The order is Rose, Alamo, Holiday, Sun, Las Vegas.

If Stanford finishes 10-2, Stanford would not get jumped by most of these teams.  Stanford may not beat out SEC, Big12 and B1G teams in the BCS lottery, but most of the teams in the Pac-12 travel in very small numbers.  10-2 Stanford would be in the top 10 in the BCS standings, thanks to the computers.  The bowls after the Alamo would be thrilled to get a team, any team, with 2 losses and a decent BCS ranking.

I guess we will all find out soon enough.  BTW - Go Beavs!

Not that the bowl location is that critical once the first one on the list is out of reach.  The others are all about getting extra practice time and ending the season with a confidence building OOC win.  Those program building goals can be achieved in San Antonio, San Diego, El Paso or Las Vegas.

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - yvonne - 11-17-2013

Yeah, those recruits are breaking down the doors so they can get a chance to play in El Paso.

Re: Final: U.S.C. 20, Stanford 17 - GoodGrief - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 01:03 AM)DC link Wrote:[quote author=GoodGrief link=topic=8867.msg74911#msg74911 date=1384674217]
Well, on the infinitesimally slightly positive side, I no longer have to worry that Utah kept us out of the BCS Championship Game.
Just the Rose Bowl.  :'(
[/quote]

Crap. Forgot yet again that Utah is in our damn conference. Okay, I can once again continue to fret about Utah. Great.