09-10-2016, 06:50 PM
Why couldn't we play 2016 Northwestern in 2015?
09-10-2016, 07:05 PM
(09-10-2016, 06:59 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Would it have mattered with our late season loss to Oregon?
Our loss to Oregon was better than Oklahoma's to Texas, or Michigan State's to Nebraska. So maybe.
(09-10-2016, 06:59 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Would it have mattered with our late season loss to Oregon?
Our loss to Oregon was better than Oklahoma's to Texas, or Michigan State's to Nebraska. So maybe.
09-10-2016, 07:13 PM
Maybe we wouldn't have lost 2 fumbles in the 4Q if we'd beaten Northwestern.
Maybe we wouldn't have lost 2 fumbles in the 4Q if we'd beaten Northwestern.
(09-10-2016, 07:05 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=15630.msg170674#msg170674 date=1473559148]
Would it have mattered with our late season loss to Oregon?
Our loss to Oregon was better than Oklahoma's to Texas, or Michigan State's to Nebraska. So maybe.
[/quote]
Of course nobody can say for certain, since it is an imaginary situation. I would think that since last year there was already plenty of talk amongst the talking heads that Stanford was playing well enough to be in the playoff (and specifically was playing better than MSU and Oklahoma), then chances would have been very good that with one loss they'd have been in the playoff.
(09-10-2016, 07:05 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=15630.msg170674#msg170674 date=1473559148]
Would it have mattered with our late season loss to Oregon?
Our loss to Oregon was better than Oklahoma's to Texas, or Michigan State's to Nebraska. So maybe.
[/quote]
Of course nobody can say for certain, since it is an imaginary situation. I would think that since last year there was already plenty of talk amongst the talking heads that Stanford was playing well enough to be in the playoff (and specifically was playing better than MSU and Oklahoma), then chances would have been very good that with one loss they'd have been in the playoff.
09-11-2016, 08:57 PM
Last year was exactly what's wrong with the CFP. If Stanford had played Sac State or any other creampuff instead of Northwestern it would have made the playoff.
It needs to be an eight-team playoff. Lots of ways to do that, but my preference is every Power 5 conference champion, the highest-ranked non-Power 5 conference champion, and two at-large spots.
It needs to be an eight-team playoff. Lots of ways to do that, but my preference is every Power 5 conference champion, the highest-ranked non-Power 5 conference champion, and two at-large spots.
Last year was exactly what's wrong with the CFP. If Stanford had played Sac State or any other creampuff instead of Northwestern it would have made the playoff.
It needs to be an eight-team playoff. Lots of ways to do that, but my preference is every Power 5 conference champion, the highest-ranked non-Power 5 conference champion, and two at-large spots.
It needs to be an eight-team playoff. Lots of ways to do that, but my preference is every Power 5 conference champion, the highest-ranked non-Power 5 conference champion, and two at-large spots.
09-11-2016, 09:42 PM
It doesn't "need" to be anything. It is worth noting that had we wound up with only one loss, we would have gotten into the playoff precisely because of our difficult schedule and a team like Oklahoma, who played an easier schedule, would have been on the outside looking in with one loss. Sometimes, a tough schedule is what gets you into the playoff (or a creampuff leaves you out... right Baylor/TCU ca 2014?) and sometimes a tough schedule means you lose a game you otherwise might not have.
And as I said in another thread, last year wound up as bad as it could have for Stanford getting in the playoff, and I was still happy as a clam at how the season turned out, maybe even more so. I don't "need" to see Stanford in the playoffs, it adds nothing to my experience as a fan. I will root for Stanford to make it, but that's because I will always root for Stanford. But that also means I enjoy a trip to the Rose Bowl as much as, if not more so, than a trip to the national championship.
BC
And as I said in another thread, last year wound up as bad as it could have for Stanford getting in the playoff, and I was still happy as a clam at how the season turned out, maybe even more so. I don't "need" to see Stanford in the playoffs, it adds nothing to my experience as a fan. I will root for Stanford to make it, but that's because I will always root for Stanford. But that also means I enjoy a trip to the Rose Bowl as much as, if not more so, than a trip to the national championship.
BC
It doesn't "need" to be anything. It is worth noting that had we wound up with only one loss, we would have gotten into the playoff precisely because of our difficult schedule and a team like Oklahoma, who played an easier schedule, would have been on the outside looking in with one loss. Sometimes, a tough schedule is what gets you into the playoff (or a creampuff leaves you out... right Baylor/TCU ca 2014?) and sometimes a tough schedule means you lose a game you otherwise might not have.
And as I said in another thread, last year wound up as bad as it could have for Stanford getting in the playoff, and I was still happy as a clam at how the season turned out, maybe even more so. I don't "need" to see Stanford in the playoffs, it adds nothing to my experience as a fan. I will root for Stanford to make it, but that's because I will always root for Stanford. But that also means I enjoy a trip to the Rose Bowl as much as, if not more so, than a trip to the national championship.
BC
And as I said in another thread, last year wound up as bad as it could have for Stanford getting in the playoff, and I was still happy as a clam at how the season turned out, maybe even more so. I don't "need" to see Stanford in the playoffs, it adds nothing to my experience as a fan. I will root for Stanford to make it, but that's because I will always root for Stanford. But that also means I enjoy a trip to the Rose Bowl as much as, if not more so, than a trip to the national championship.
BC
09-11-2016, 10:06 PM
(09-11-2016, 09:42 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:It doesn't "need" to be anything.
Agreed. Why do we "need" to know who has the best football team in the country?
Call me old-fashioned, but I liked it when (a) kickoff was always at 12:30, (b) teams saved money by having only two sets of jerseys (home and away) © beating Cal was most important, and (d) the Rose Bowl was the ultimate prize. All this national attention is nice, but not at the expense of having to brave Thu and Fri night traffic, getting shut out of the Rose Bowl, or getting a last-minute over-priced holiday season airplane ticket to watch the team on Dec 31 or Jan 1 or Jan 2 or ???
Arguing about whether the polls were accurate back then is no different from arguing now about how teams were left out because of the 2- and now 4- team format. If we go to 8-team I'm sure we will still argue. And the national championship is fleeting... I couldn't name the #1 team from the last 10 seasons. But I can tell you what bowl games Stanford went to, and which years we beat Cal.
I wonder if the players care? It's ultimately for them, not us (or the TV networks).
(09-11-2016, 09:42 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:It doesn't "need" to be anything.
Agreed. Why do we "need" to know who has the best football team in the country?
Call me old-fashioned, but I liked it when (a) kickoff was always at 12:30, (b) teams saved money by having only two sets of jerseys (home and away) © beating Cal was most important, and (d) the Rose Bowl was the ultimate prize. All this national attention is nice, but not at the expense of having to brave Thu and Fri night traffic, getting shut out of the Rose Bowl, or getting a last-minute over-priced holiday season airplane ticket to watch the team on Dec 31 or Jan 1 or Jan 2 or ???
Arguing about whether the polls were accurate back then is no different from arguing now about how teams were left out because of the 2- and now 4- team format. If we go to 8-team I'm sure we will still argue. And the national championship is fleeting... I couldn't name the #1 team from the last 10 seasons. But I can tell you what bowl games Stanford went to, and which years we beat Cal.
I wonder if the players care? It's ultimately for them, not us (or the TV networks).
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »