07-12-2011, 02:32 PM
It's my opinion that Oregon's troubles are bad for Stanford. Discuss.
http://tinyurl.com/3cteh8u
http://tinyurl.com/3cteh8u
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Oregon and the Asterisk
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
It's my opinion that Oregon's troubles are bad for Stanford. Discuss.
http://tinyurl.com/3cteh8u
http://tinyurl.com/3cteh8u
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
07-12-2011, 08:29 PM
I guess I'll take the bait on this one.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I definitely do not think LaMichael James will be ruled ineligible for this season. Nor do I think that Chip Kelly will exit Eugene prior to or during the season. Too much is at stake for the Ducks this year for Kelly to be fired based on what's emerged so far. And my guess is that this story will play out more at the pace of the Reggie Bush case (over the course of years) than the pace of the Jim Tressel case (months). I think it's a lot more likely that Kelly will leave Oregon after the 2011 season than before it.
All of that said, from a selfish standpoint, I would not be upset at all if James is ruled ineligible and Kelly is fired, and the Ducks go only, say, 9-3 or 8-4, which seems like a worst-case scenario for them, instead of 11-1. No matter what the Ducks' record, I think Stanford will play for the national championship if they go undefeated. It just seems very unlikely that there will be two additional undefeated teams from the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12, and barring that scenario, Stanford's spot in the title game would be safe. Plus, a victory in the inaugural Pac-12 championship game would give us a boost that other West Coast teams have not gotten in past years.
So my attitude is this: anything that makes it more likely that Stanford will run the table is a good thing, and any misfortune that befalls the Ducks falls into that category. If Stanford wins the national championship and Luck wins the Voldemort, no one is going to look back and insert a mental asterisk. This is just how college football works: teams cheat, and sometimes they get caught.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I definitely do not think LaMichael James will be ruled ineligible for this season. Nor do I think that Chip Kelly will exit Eugene prior to or during the season. Too much is at stake for the Ducks this year for Kelly to be fired based on what's emerged so far. And my guess is that this story will play out more at the pace of the Reggie Bush case (over the course of years) than the pace of the Jim Tressel case (months). I think it's a lot more likely that Kelly will leave Oregon after the 2011 season than before it.
All of that said, from a selfish standpoint, I would not be upset at all if James is ruled ineligible and Kelly is fired, and the Ducks go only, say, 9-3 or 8-4, which seems like a worst-case scenario for them, instead of 11-1. No matter what the Ducks' record, I think Stanford will play for the national championship if they go undefeated. It just seems very unlikely that there will be two additional undefeated teams from the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12, and barring that scenario, Stanford's spot in the title game would be safe. Plus, a victory in the inaugural Pac-12 championship game would give us a boost that other West Coast teams have not gotten in past years.
So my attitude is this: anything that makes it more likely that Stanford will run the table is a good thing, and any misfortune that befalls the Ducks falls into that category. If Stanford wins the national championship and Luck wins the Voldemort, no one is going to look back and insert a mental asterisk. This is just how college football works: teams cheat, and sometimes they get caught.
I guess I'll take the bait on this one.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I definitely do not think LaMichael James will be ruled ineligible for this season. Nor do I think that Chip Kelly will exit Eugene prior to or during the season. Too much is at stake for the Ducks this year for Kelly to be fired based on what's emerged so far. And my guess is that this story will play out more at the pace of the Reggie Bush case (over the course of years) than the pace of the Jim Tressel case (months). I think it's a lot more likely that Kelly will leave Oregon after the 2011 season than before it.
All of that said, from a selfish standpoint, I would not be upset at all if James is ruled ineligible and Kelly is fired, and the Ducks go only, say, 9-3 or 8-4, which seems like a worst-case scenario for them, instead of 11-1. No matter what the Ducks' record, I think Stanford will play for the national championship if they go undefeated. It just seems very unlikely that there will be two additional undefeated teams from the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12, and barring that scenario, Stanford's spot in the title game would be safe. Plus, a victory in the inaugural Pac-12 championship game would give us a boost that other West Coast teams have not gotten in past years.
So my attitude is this: anything that makes it more likely that Stanford will run the table is a good thing, and any misfortune that befalls the Ducks falls into that category. If Stanford wins the national championship and Luck wins the Voldemort, no one is going to look back and insert a mental asterisk. This is just how college football works: teams cheat, and sometimes they get caught.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I definitely do not think LaMichael James will be ruled ineligible for this season. Nor do I think that Chip Kelly will exit Eugene prior to or during the season. Too much is at stake for the Ducks this year for Kelly to be fired based on what's emerged so far. And my guess is that this story will play out more at the pace of the Reggie Bush case (over the course of years) than the pace of the Jim Tressel case (months). I think it's a lot more likely that Kelly will leave Oregon after the 2011 season than before it.
All of that said, from a selfish standpoint, I would not be upset at all if James is ruled ineligible and Kelly is fired, and the Ducks go only, say, 9-3 or 8-4, which seems like a worst-case scenario for them, instead of 11-1. No matter what the Ducks' record, I think Stanford will play for the national championship if they go undefeated. It just seems very unlikely that there will be two additional undefeated teams from the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12, and barring that scenario, Stanford's spot in the title game would be safe. Plus, a victory in the inaugural Pac-12 championship game would give us a boost that other West Coast teams have not gotten in past years.
So my attitude is this: anything that makes it more likely that Stanford will run the table is a good thing, and any misfortune that befalls the Ducks falls into that category. If Stanford wins the national championship and Luck wins the Voldemort, no one is going to look back and insert a mental asterisk. This is just how college football works: teams cheat, and sometimes they get caught.
07-13-2011, 10:15 AM
My enjoyment of the USC game last year was not diminished because USC had been penalized by the NCAA.Â
I don't see any asterisks flashing during the celebration after Whitaker's kick - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzdqOWUwNJs
But I also agree with 97fan. I expect Kelly to be coaching, James to be playing and the Ducks to be formidable throughout the season.
I don't see any asterisks flashing during the celebration after Whitaker's kick - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzdqOWUwNJs
But I also agree with 97fan. I expect Kelly to be coaching, James to be playing and the Ducks to be formidable throughout the season.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
My enjoyment of the USC game last year was not diminished because USC had been penalized by the NCAA.Â
I don't see any asterisks flashing during the celebration after Whitaker's kick - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzdqOWUwNJs
But I also agree with 97fan. I expect Kelly to be coaching, James to be playing and the Ducks to be formidable throughout the season.
I don't see any asterisks flashing during the celebration after Whitaker's kick - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzdqOWUwNJs
But I also agree with 97fan. I expect Kelly to be coaching, James to be playing and the Ducks to be formidable throughout the season.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
07-13-2011, 11:23 AM
Garvin's got the right side of this one.
Since Stanford won't cheat (it's one of approximately 5 programs to never have a major NCAA violation in any sport) then it can only be helpful if the rules which prohibit other programs from cheating are enforced.
Celebrating after a big win? I was about to say it's unrelated but that's not quite true. It makes the victory that much sweeter if the other team was cheating and you beat them cleanly.  It's as if Clark Kent (who looks a bit like Andrew Luck, right?) trounced Lex Luther despite the kryptonite. (WHICH is GREEN by the way - just sayin'.) Â
Let's come to celebrate as the good guys (who just happen to wear S on their chests) fight off the Ducks and their Lyles paying, Kelly lying, fans denying quack attack on Nov 12. Â
Since Stanford won't cheat (it's one of approximately 5 programs to never have a major NCAA violation in any sport) then it can only be helpful if the rules which prohibit other programs from cheating are enforced.
Celebrating after a big win? I was about to say it's unrelated but that's not quite true. It makes the victory that much sweeter if the other team was cheating and you beat them cleanly.  It's as if Clark Kent (who looks a bit like Andrew Luck, right?) trounced Lex Luther despite the kryptonite. (WHICH is GREEN by the way - just sayin'.) Â
Let's come to celebrate as the good guys (who just happen to wear S on their chests) fight off the Ducks and their Lyles paying, Kelly lying, fans denying quack attack on Nov 12. Â
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Garvin's got the right side of this one.
Since Stanford won't cheat (it's one of approximately 5 programs to never have a major NCAA violation in any sport) then it can only be helpful if the rules which prohibit other programs from cheating are enforced.
Celebrating after a big win? I was about to say it's unrelated but that's not quite true. It makes the victory that much sweeter if the other team was cheating and you beat them cleanly.  It's as if Clark Kent (who looks a bit like Andrew Luck, right?) trounced Lex Luther despite the kryptonite. (WHICH is GREEN by the way - just sayin'.) Â
Let's come to celebrate as the good guys (who just happen to wear S on their chests) fight off the Ducks and their Lyles paying, Kelly lying, fans denying quack attack on Nov 12. Â
Since Stanford won't cheat (it's one of approximately 5 programs to never have a major NCAA violation in any sport) then it can only be helpful if the rules which prohibit other programs from cheating are enforced.
Celebrating after a big win? I was about to say it's unrelated but that's not quite true. It makes the victory that much sweeter if the other team was cheating and you beat them cleanly.  It's as if Clark Kent (who looks a bit like Andrew Luck, right?) trounced Lex Luther despite the kryptonite. (WHICH is GREEN by the way - just sayin'.) Â
Let's come to celebrate as the good guys (who just happen to wear S on their chests) fight off the Ducks and their Lyles paying, Kelly lying, fans denying quack attack on Nov 12. Â
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
07-13-2011, 11:42 AM
I guess my point was just that if LaMichael James and Lache Seastrunk were both declared ineligible and Chip Kelly were fired, I wouldn't feel like a victory over that depleted squad would be as signficant. That being said, I completely agree with 97Fan's point that if Stanford were to run the table and win a national championship, I'd be basking in that glow for ten or twenty years and wouldn't give the Ducks a second thought.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
I guess my point was just that if LaMichael James and Lache Seastrunk were both declared ineligible and Chip Kelly were fired, I wouldn't feel like a victory over that depleted squad would be as signficant. That being said, I completely agree with 97Fan's point that if Stanford were to run the table and win a national championship, I'd be basking in that glow for ten or twenty years and wouldn't give the Ducks a second thought.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
07-13-2011, 12:06 PM
This is Luck's final season at Stanford. I certainly hope that the Ducks implode under their own ethical violations.
07-13-2011, 03:43 PM
(07-13-2011, 11:42 AM)Hank 91 link Wrote:I guess my point was just that if LaMichael James and Lache Seastrunk were both declared ineligible and Chip Kelly were fired, I wouldn't feel like a victory over that depleted squad would be as signficant. That being said, I completely agree with 97Fan's point that if Stanford were to run the table and win a national championship, I'd be basking in that glow for ten or twenty years and wouldn't give the Ducks a second thought.
How would you feel if Stanford ran the table on a schedule that included a diminished Oregon and then did not play for the national championship due to the diminished strength fo schedule?
Enforcement is great, but as a practical matter there is a muted and delayed and potentially deleterious effect that can bite you.
(07-13-2011, 11:42 AM)Hank 91 link Wrote:I guess my point was just that if LaMichael James and Lache Seastrunk were both declared ineligible and Chip Kelly were fired, I wouldn't feel like a victory over that depleted squad would be as signficant. That being said, I completely agree with 97Fan's point that if Stanford were to run the table and win a national championship, I'd be basking in that glow for ten or twenty years and wouldn't give the Ducks a second thought.
How would you feel if Stanford ran the table on a schedule that included a diminished Oregon and then did not play for the national championship due to the diminished strength fo schedule?
Enforcement is great, but as a practical matter there is a muted and delayed and potentially deleterious effect that can bite you.
07-13-2011, 05:45 PM
Strength of schedule matters far less than wins and losses is all I'm saying...
07-13-2011, 07:56 PM
(07-12-2011, 07:23 PM)oman link Wrote:I agree but refuse to discuss.
I will discuss but I refuse to agree.
(07-12-2011, 07:23 PM)oman link Wrote:I agree but refuse to discuss.
I will discuss but I refuse to agree.
07-16-2011, 01:16 PM
(07-13-2011, 04:50 PM)garvin link Wrote:I'd say it's far more likely we lose to an Oregon team immeasurably aided by players who should be ineligible -- as we did last year -- than that we go undefeated and are excluded from a national championship game through political machinations.
It's nice that we have a program strong enough that we can talk about contending for a national championship without guffawing. But in reality, the chances are tiny -- we lost too many people on defense, we lack proven wide receivers, and we shuffled too many coaches. And to suggest that the Pac-10 or NCAA should stop punishing cheaters in support of a putative Stanford national championship bid is nuts.
You have a different focus than I. I am simply focused on a tainted title. In other words, completely short term. I have no issue with enforcement. I really don't see this as an enforcement of rules issue anyway.
The fact that I am sorry that I didn't get to see Diego Mardona play in Dallas long ago because he got failed a drug test doesn't mean I am for eliminating drug tests.
(07-13-2011, 04:50 PM)garvin link Wrote:I'd say it's far more likely we lose to an Oregon team immeasurably aided by players who should be ineligible -- as we did last year -- than that we go undefeated and are excluded from a national championship game through political machinations.
It's nice that we have a program strong enough that we can talk about contending for a national championship without guffawing. But in reality, the chances are tiny -- we lost too many people on defense, we lack proven wide receivers, and we shuffled too many coaches. And to suggest that the Pac-10 or NCAA should stop punishing cheaters in support of a putative Stanford national championship bid is nuts.
You have a different focus than I. I am simply focused on a tainted title. In other words, completely short term. I have no issue with enforcement. I really don't see this as an enforcement of rules issue anyway.
The fact that I am sorry that I didn't get to see Diego Mardona play in Dallas long ago because he got failed a drug test doesn't mean I am for eliminating drug tests.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »