[DenverCard]

My take is that Stanford came into this game mentally and physically spent.  The UCLA game, in particular, was a physical war.  Not only were six players out with injuries, but in seeing how flat Stanford was from the outset against Washington, it's my sense that the entire team was beat up.  They lacked that critical emotional element that in football makes such a difference, and for this reason played way below their baseline.

It's also my impression that with rare exception, Stanford "wins hard." As opposed to wins easy.  And by this, I speak to something other than the style of play centered on a running game.  As such, to play their best, Stanford must expend more physical and mental energy, and are therefore more vulnerable to bad games than if their game planning was more elegant, savvy, or spontaneous.  By analogy, I watched Washington's receiver, Ross, run next to one of Stanford's DBs.  Ross's speed was so fluid and effortless, whereas the DB was chugging hard to keep up with him, expending much more energy to try to hang with him.

Abstract, and lacking in data, I know, but I'm curious if these musings resonate with others.

Having said that, I believe Washington is the better team, perhaps simply because, top to bottom, they have better players.

[DenverCard]

My take is that Stanford came into this game mentally and physically spent.  The UCLA game, in particular, was a physical war.  Not only were six players out with injuries, but in seeing how flat Stanford was from the outset against Washington, it's my sense that the entire team was beat up.  They lacked that critical emotional element that in football makes such a difference, and for this reason played way below their baseline.

It's also my impression that with rare exception, Stanford "wins hard." As opposed to wins easy.  And by this, I speak to something other than the style of play centered on a running game.  As such, to play their best, Stanford must expend more physical and mental energy, and are therefore more vulnerable to bad games than if their game planning was more elegant, savvy, or spontaneous.  By analogy, I watched Washington's receiver, Ross, run next to one of Stanford's DBs.  Ross's speed was so fluid and effortless, whereas the DB was chugging hard to keep up with him, expending much more energy to try to hang with him.

Abstract, and lacking in data, I know, but I'm curious if these musings resonate with others.

Having said that, I believe Washington is the better team, perhaps simply because, top to bottom, they have better players.