[DC 86]

Line is now 7, so has gone up 2 pts since opening. But why let recent and even not so recent history get in the way?

In its last 13 games at the Coliseum since 1991, Stanford has lost to Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 7 pts just 3 times, and is 7-6 against Under Stanford Control (again) in such games.  In the last nine meetings in L.A., Stanford is 6-3 overall.  And Stanford is 8-3 in the last 11 meetings between the two period, no matter where played.  Only one of those games did Under Stanford Control (again) win by more than 7 and the other two win were only by 3 pts. 

You have to be kind of crazy to bet Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 6.5 in this game.

Setting aside the issue of arbitrary endpoints, what exactly is the relevance of a game played in 1991 to this upcoming Saturday's result? Data points from prior seasons are not particularly useful for handicapping, nowhere moreso than in college sports where the entire roster turns over every few years and significant changes (including dramatic improvements by younger players) take place each year.

Going into the Washington game last year Stanford had only lost once in Seattle after 2003, and that loss was by four points, yet somehow we got blown out 44-6. Then we played Colorado, against whom our last three results were 48-0, 48-7 and 42-10 wins, yet lost 10-5.

Even just two years ago, when we most recently played USC at the Coliseum, we had Kevin Hogan at QB, Christian McCaffrey was our leading rusher and Austin Hooper was our leading receiver. Steve Sarkisian was USC's head coach and Cody Kessler was their QB.

I believe that Stanford matches up very well with USC and will be fully prepared coming off their bye, but don't think that it's "crazy" to bet SC on the basis of somewhat-recent and definitely not-recent data points.

[DC 86]

Line is now 7, so has gone up 2 pts since opening. But why let recent and even not so recent history get in the way?

In its last 13 games at the Coliseum since 1991, Stanford has lost to Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 7 pts just 3 times, and is 7-6 against Under Stanford Control (again) in such games.  In the last nine meetings in L.A., Stanford is 6-3 overall.  And Stanford is 8-3 in the last 11 meetings between the two period, no matter where played.  Only one of those games did Under Stanford Control (again) win by more than 7 and the other two win were only by 3 pts. 

You have to be kind of crazy to bet Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 6.5 in this game.

Setting aside the issue of arbitrary endpoints, what exactly is the relevance of a game played in 1991 to this upcoming Saturday's result? Data points from prior seasons are not particularly useful for handicapping, nowhere moreso than in college sports where the entire roster turns over every few years and significant changes (including dramatic improvements by younger players) take place each year.

Going into the Washington game last year Stanford had only lost once in Seattle after 2003, and that loss was by four points, yet somehow we got blown out 44-6. Then we played Colorado, against whom our last three results were 48-0, 48-7 and 42-10 wins, yet lost 10-5.

Even just two years ago, when we most recently played USC at the Coliseum, we had Kevin Hogan at QB, Christian McCaffrey was our leading rusher and Austin Hooper was our leading receiver. Steve Sarkisian was USC's head coach and Cody Kessler was their QB.

I believe that Stanford matches up very well with USC and will be fully prepared coming off their bye, but don't think that it's "crazy" to bet SC on the basis of somewhat-recent and definitely not-recent data points.