[ChicagoCard]

[tweet]673584527390863360[/tweet]

[ChicagoCard]

[tweet]673584527390863360[/tweet]

[SeattleTree]

[tweet]673584527390863360[/tweet]

Damn it, Rose Bowl. Don't put the Trees in a no-win situation by inviting Iowa.

[SeattleTree]

[tweet]673584527390863360[/tweet]

Damn it, Rose Bowl. Don't put the Trees in a no-win situation by inviting Iowa.

[OutsiderFan]

If Iowa is higher ranked than Ohio State, what would be wrong with playing Iowa?

[OutsiderFan]

If Iowa is higher ranked than Ohio State, what would be wrong with playing Iowa?

[stupac2]

If Iowa is higher ranked than Ohio State, what would be wrong with playing Iowa?

I don't get it either. I get that OSU has a bigger brand, but who cares? What does it matter? Will we be ranked higher next year if we beat #7 OSU instead of #6 Iowa? I can't imagine we would, and that's literally the only thing I can think of where it matters.

[stupac2]

If Iowa is higher ranked than Ohio State, what would be wrong with playing Iowa?

I don't get it either. I get that OSU has a bigger brand, but who cares? What does it matter? Will we be ranked higher next year if we beat #7 OSU instead of #6 Iowa? I can't imagine we would, and that's literally the only thing I can think of where it matters.

[amartinsu13]

CFP Rankings just released.

1 Clemson
2 Alabama
3 Michigan St
4 Oklahoma
5 Iowa
6 Stanford
7 Ohio State
8 Notre Dame
9 Florida State
10 North Carolina
11 TCU
12 Ole Miss
13 Northwestern
14 Michigan
15 Oregon
16 Oklahoma St.
17 Baylor
18 Houston
19 Florida
20 LSU
21 Navy
22 Utah
23 Tennessee
24 Temple
25 USC

[amartinsu13]

CFP Rankings just released.

1 Clemson
2 Alabama
3 Michigan St
4 Oklahoma
5 Iowa
6 Stanford
7 Ohio State
8 Notre Dame
9 Florida State
10 North Carolina
11 TCU
12 Ole Miss
13 Northwestern
14 Michigan
15 Oregon
16 Oklahoma St.
17 Baylor
18 Houston
19 Florida
20 LSU
21 Navy
22 Utah
23 Tennessee
24 Temple
25 USC

[jacketree]

No win situation? Watchu talk in' bout Willis? They can win the Rose Bowl!

[jacketree]

No win situation? Watchu talk in' bout Willis? They can win the Rose Bowl!

[SeattleTree]

National perception. As CornFed has said, when one's stock rises in the national perception, one starts getting the benefit of the doubt.  That benefit of the doubt can help a team be ranked higher, get more coverage on ESPN, get more attention for Voldemort candidates, etc.  You have to beat the teams that are perceived as strong nationally to be perceived that way yourself. Perception of Stanford would have risen more if Stanford had beaten tOSU in the Rose Bowl than if Stanford beats Iowa. They will be expected to beat Iowa and perception will go down if they lose. That's what I meant by a no win situation.

I'm thrilled Stanford is going to the Rose Bowl and I'll be there. I just think they deserved tOSU as the opponent.

Let me ask it this way: which game do you think people nationally are more excited to see, the Rose Bowl (Stanford - Iowa) or the Fiesta Bowl (ND - tOSU)? 

[SeattleTree]

National perception. As CornFed has said, when one's stock rises in the national perception, one starts getting the benefit of the doubt.  That benefit of the doubt can help a team be ranked higher, get more coverage on ESPN, get more attention for Voldemort candidates, etc.  You have to beat the teams that are perceived as strong nationally to be perceived that way yourself. Perception of Stanford would have risen more if Stanford had beaten tOSU in the Rose Bowl than if Stanford beats Iowa. They will be expected to beat Iowa and perception will go down if they lose. That's what I meant by a no win situation.

I'm thrilled Stanford is going to the Rose Bowl and I'll be there. I just think they deserved tOSU as the opponent.

Let me ask it this way: which game do you think people nationally are more excited to see, the Rose Bowl (Stanford - Iowa) or the Fiesta Bowl (ND - tOSU)? 

[stupac2]

Judging by the reaction on reddit, Iowa-Stanford. It's really hard to tell how joe schmoe fan feels, and given that OSU-ND is basically a matchup of the two most hated programs in the country, it might get less fan love than two less heralded programs playing in the Granddaddy.

[stupac2]

Judging by the reaction on reddit, Iowa-Stanford. It's really hard to tell how joe schmoe fan feels, and given that OSU-ND is basically a matchup of the two most hated programs in the country, it might get less fan love than two less heralded programs playing in the Granddaddy.

[OutsiderFan]

which game do you think people nationally are more excited to see, the Rose Bowl (Stanford - Iowa) or the Fiesta Bowl (ND - tOSU)?

The Rose Bowl brand is really what carries the day for most people.  As long as you have two Top 10 teams that game is going to trump any other non-playoff match-up in terms of viewership, IMO.

[OutsiderFan]

which game do you think people nationally are more excited to see, the Rose Bowl (Stanford - Iowa) or the Fiesta Bowl (ND - tOSU)?

The Rose Bowl brand is really what carries the day for most people.  As long as you have two Top 10 teams that game is going to trump any other non-playoff match-up in terms of viewership, IMO.

[BostonCard]

Stanford Iowa in the Rose bowl. It's official.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford Iowa in the Rose bowl. It's official.

BC

[winflop]

Unless Stanford wins by 10+, the ECBB (East Coast Bias Brigade) will say that Iowa was a one-year wonder who really didn't beat anybody.  The benefit of beating tOSU would have been that the ECBB had been hyping them up all year and Stanford would be beating the brand as much as anything else.

When the ECBB looks at Stanford, they see a team whose best recent bowl win and only quality bowl win was the 2010 Orange Bowl and nobody's left from that team (and only a couple from the staff).  Wisconsin doesn't count since they were a 4/5-loss team.

The ECBB will ALWAYS look for a reason to discount the Pac-12.

[winflop]

Unless Stanford wins by 10+, the ECBB (East Coast Bias Brigade) will say that Iowa was a one-year wonder who really didn't beat anybody.  The benefit of beating tOSU would have been that the ECBB had been hyping them up all year and Stanford would be beating the brand as much as anything else.

When the ECBB looks at Stanford, they see a team whose best recent bowl win and only quality bowl win was the 2010 Orange Bowl and nobody's left from that team (and only a couple from the staff).  Wisconsin doesn't count since they were a 4/5-loss team.

The ECBB will ALWAYS look for a reason to discount the Pac-12.

[SeattleTree]

Unless Stanford wins by 10+, the ECBB (East Coast Bias Brigade) will say that Iowa was a one-year wonder who really didn't beat anybody.  The benefit of beating tOSU would have been that the ECBB had been hyping them up all year and Stanford would be beating the brand as much as anything else.

When the ECBB looks at Stanford, they see a team whose best recent bowl win and only quality bowl win was the 2010 Orange Bowl and nobody's left from that team (and only a couple from the staff).  Wisconsin doesn't count since they were a 4/5-loss team.

The ECBB will ALWAYS look for a reason to discount the Pac-12.

That's what I've been saying throughout this thread.  If Stanford beats Iowa, it won't move the needle perception wise.  They won a game they should have against a one-season wonder.  If Iowa beats Stanford, then Stanford's (and the Pac-12's) season will be discounted because . . . how could the Pac-12 champion lose to IOWA?!?

[SeattleTree]

Unless Stanford wins by 10+, the ECBB (East Coast Bias Brigade) will say that Iowa was a one-year wonder who really didn't beat anybody.  The benefit of beating tOSU would have been that the ECBB had been hyping them up all year and Stanford would be beating the brand as much as anything else.

When the ECBB looks at Stanford, they see a team whose best recent bowl win and only quality bowl win was the 2010 Orange Bowl and nobody's left from that team (and only a couple from the staff).  Wisconsin doesn't count since they were a 4/5-loss team.

The ECBB will ALWAYS look for a reason to discount the Pac-12.

That's what I've been saying throughout this thread.  If Stanford beats Iowa, it won't move the needle perception wise.  They won a game they should have against a one-season wonder.  If Iowa beats Stanford, then Stanford's (and the Pac-12's) season will be discounted because . . . how could the Pac-12 champion lose to IOWA?!?

[CornFed]

Unless Stanford wins by 10+, the ECBB (East Coast Bias Brigade) will say that Iowa was a one-year wonder who really didn't beat anybody.  The benefit of beating tOSU would have been that the ECBB had been hyping them up all year and Stanford would be beating the brand as much as anything else.

When the ECBB looks at Stanford, they see a team whose best recent bowl win and only quality bowl win was the 2010 Orange Bowl and nobody's left from that team (and only a couple from the staff).  Wisconsin doesn't count since they were a 4/5-loss team.

The ECBB will ALWAYS look for a reason to discount the Pac-12.

Then why do you wish we could play along in "their" delusional little game?  Bring on the Hawkeyes!!!!!!

[CornFed]

Unless Stanford wins by 10+, the ECBB (East Coast Bias Brigade) will say that Iowa was a one-year wonder who really didn't beat anybody.  The benefit of beating tOSU would have been that the ECBB had been hyping them up all year and Stanford would be beating the brand as much as anything else.

When the ECBB looks at Stanford, they see a team whose best recent bowl win and only quality bowl win was the 2010 Orange Bowl and nobody's left from that team (and only a couple from the staff).  Wisconsin doesn't count since they were a 4/5-loss team.

The ECBB will ALWAYS look for a reason to discount the Pac-12.

Then why do you wish we could play along in "their" delusional little game?  Bring on the Hawkeyes!!!!!!

[stupac2]

The thing no one has explained is perception wise with what? What is changing? Do you really think that people who are super biased to the east coast (a group that I'm not sure actually exists, I think there's absolutely SEC bias but the B1G was routinely called the worst conference in football recently) are going to suddenly take notice if we beat OSU? They'd just make up excuses for it. That's the problem with dealing with bias, you can't win.

Unless someone can come up with an actually plausible mechanism for how this matters, I'm going to continue to think that it doesn't.

[stupac2]

The thing no one has explained is perception wise with what? What is changing? Do you really think that people who are super biased to the east coast (a group that I'm not sure actually exists, I think there's absolutely SEC bias but the B1G was routinely called the worst conference in football recently) are going to suddenly take notice if we beat OSU? They'd just make up excuses for it. That's the problem with dealing with bias, you can't win.

Unless someone can come up with an actually plausible mechanism for how this matters, I'm going to continue to think that it doesn't.

[ChicagoCard]

Those are good points. On the other hand I think one could make a strong case of systematic bias or advantage for the ACC over the Pac-12 through 2013 and the BCS. A hypothetical #10 ACC vs an identically ranked Pac-12 team would always get the nod (for an at-large BCS slot). Jerry Palm (annoying CBS Sports BCS expert) would "lecture" about this each fall. I understand this is more conjecture than proof but I for one am convinced. Think back to the situation at the end of 2010. Oregon went to the BCS Championship game and Stanford, it was argued, needed to attain a #4 ranking to assure an at-large BCS bid (over the ACC runner-up (Clemson?) who I think ended up losing late.

[ChicagoCard]

Those are good points. On the other hand I think one could make a strong case of systematic bias or advantage for the ACC over the Pac-12 through 2013 and the BCS. A hypothetical #10 ACC vs an identically ranked Pac-12 team would always get the nod (for an at-large BCS slot). Jerry Palm (annoying CBS Sports BCS expert) would "lecture" about this each fall. I understand this is more conjecture than proof but I for one am convinced. Think back to the situation at the end of 2010. Oregon went to the BCS Championship game and Stanford, it was argued, needed to attain a #4 ranking to assure an at-large BCS bid (over the ACC runner-up (Clemson?) who I think ended up losing late.

[stupac2]

Those are good points. On the other hand I think one could make a strong case of systematic bias or advantage for the ACC over the Pac-12 through 2013 and the BCS. A hypothetical #10 ACC vs an identically ranked Pac-12 team would always get the nod (for an at-large BCS slot). Jerry Palm (annoying CBS Sports BCS expert) would "lecture" about this each fall. I understand this is more conjecture than proof but I for one am convinced. Think back to the situation at the end of 2010. Oregon went to the BCS Championship game and Stanford, it was argued, needed to attain a #4 ranking to assure an at-large BCS bid (over theACC runner-up (Clemson?) who I think ended up losing late.

That's more because Stanford is a small school and the big bowls want big schools with big fanbases, not that they thought Stanford as a team (or the Pac-12 as a whole) sucked. They wouldn't say that about USC, for instance.

[stupac2]

Those are good points. On the other hand I think one could make a strong case of systematic bias or advantage for the ACC over the Pac-12 through 2013 and the BCS. A hypothetical #10 ACC vs an identically ranked Pac-12 team would always get the nod (for an at-large BCS slot). Jerry Palm (annoying CBS Sports BCS expert) would "lecture" about this each fall. I understand this is more conjecture than proof but I for one am convinced. Think back to the situation at the end of 2010. Oregon went to the BCS Championship game and Stanford, it was argued, needed to attain a #4 ranking to assure an at-large BCS bid (over theACC runner-up (Clemson?) who I think ended up losing late.

That's more because Stanford is a small school and the big bowls want big schools with big fanbases, not that they thought Stanford as a team (or the Pac-12 as a whole) sucked. They wouldn't say that about USC, for instance.

[ColoradoTree]

I mean, I see what SeattleTree and others are saying, because beating last year's national champs (with much of the same roster back) would be impressive.  That said, I think any such perception bump would be relatively small, and more importantly, fleeting.  It wouldn't push us above the championship game loser, and wouldn't even push us above the semifinal game losers (if those games are close).  So in terms of rankings, I think we might actually gain more by an impressive win over Iowa than a narrow win over Ohio State. But for me, it comes down to this:

1. I married a Hawkeye, and going to the Rose Bowl is on her father's bucket list, so not only do I get to go to the game now that we're playing Iowa, but I gain massive son-in-law and husband points. 

2. Ohio State is a more dangerous team than Iowa.  We are thus far more likely to beat Iowa than to beat Ohio State.  I'm not terrified by what Iowa would do to our defense, though I expect them to run decently well against us.  But if Ohio State is on, then they're good enough to put up 40+ points on our defense.  (That was a decent Michigan defense on whom OSU just hung 50.)  Iowa doesn't have the firepower to do that. 

In sum, I like winning Rose Bowls.  I particularly like winning Rose Bowls that I personally attend.  Thus, I have no misgivings at all about this game, and couldn't be more thrilled about the matchup. 

As to the national perception stuff: if we win, we'll be a top 5 team at the end of the year.  Right now, we have a top 10 recruiting class, and I'm not aware of any players that are deciding between us and the Buckeyes for whom a Rose Bowl win might be decisive.  Our roster will have the same players on it next year regardless of whether we beat Iowa or Ohio State.  Our (brutal, away-heavy) schedule is the same.  If we're a 1-loss Pac-12 champ next year, we're in the playoff.  We've been part of the playoff discussion for several weeks now, and the refrain has been how hard our schedule is, how good we look, and how we'd deserve to make the playoff over (hypothetically) 1-loss Clemson, 1-loss ACC champ UNC, 1-loss Ohio State, and 1-loss Iowa, not to mention a 2-loss SEC champ Florida or 2-loss Alabama.  Since Oregon, we've been the top-ranked 2-loss team.  Forgive me, but I think we did pretty darn well in the national perception contest this year. 

[ColoradoTree]

I mean, I see what SeattleTree and others are saying, because beating last year's national champs (with much of the same roster back) would be impressive.  That said, I think any such perception bump would be relatively small, and more importantly, fleeting.  It wouldn't push us above the championship game loser, and wouldn't even push us above the semifinal game losers (if those games are close).  So in terms of rankings, I think we might actually gain more by an impressive win over Iowa than a narrow win over Ohio State. But for me, it comes down to this:

1. I married a Hawkeye, and going to the Rose Bowl is on her father's bucket list, so not only do I get to go to the game now that we're playing Iowa, but I gain massive son-in-law and husband points. 

2. Ohio State is a more dangerous team than Iowa.  We are thus far more likely to beat Iowa than to beat Ohio State.  I'm not terrified by what Iowa would do to our defense, though I expect them to run decently well against us.  But if Ohio State is on, then they're good enough to put up 40+ points on our defense.  (That was a decent Michigan defense on whom OSU just hung 50.)  Iowa doesn't have the firepower to do that. 

In sum, I like winning Rose Bowls.  I particularly like winning Rose Bowls that I personally attend.  Thus, I have no misgivings at all about this game, and couldn't be more thrilled about the matchup. 

As to the national perception stuff: if we win, we'll be a top 5 team at the end of the year.  Right now, we have a top 10 recruiting class, and I'm not aware of any players that are deciding between us and the Buckeyes for whom a Rose Bowl win might be decisive.  Our roster will have the same players on it next year regardless of whether we beat Iowa or Ohio State.  Our (brutal, away-heavy) schedule is the same.  If we're a 1-loss Pac-12 champ next year, we're in the playoff.  We've been part of the playoff discussion for several weeks now, and the refrain has been how hard our schedule is, how good we look, and how we'd deserve to make the playoff over (hypothetically) 1-loss Clemson, 1-loss ACC champ UNC, 1-loss Ohio State, and 1-loss Iowa, not to mention a 2-loss SEC champ Florida or 2-loss Alabama.  Since Oregon, we've been the top-ranked 2-loss team.  Forgive me, but I think we did pretty darn well in the national perception contest this year. 

[ChicagoCard]

That's true certainly about S,C,. Still as a system it (the bcs) disproportionately benefitted programs east of the Mississippi... I mean, out west there's always just been S,C, and pretty much everybody else. There have been endless, circular, self-serving justifications for that, such as about fan bases and "these are just exhibitions" etc.

[ChicagoCard]

That's true certainly about S,C,. Still as a system it (the bcs) disproportionately benefitted programs east of the Mississippi... I mean, out west there's always just been S,C, and pretty much everybody else. There have been endless, circular, self-serving justifications for that, such as about fan bases and "these are just exhibitions" etc.

[StanfordMatt]

ColoradoTree nailed it. I literally jumped for joy when I found out that we'd be playing Iowa and not tOSU. Ten years from now, people will still talk about us winning two Rose Bowls in four years if we beat the Hawkeyes. No one will remember that the Buckeyes were likely better than the Hawkeyes that year.

[StanfordMatt]

ColoradoTree nailed it. I literally jumped for joy when I found out that we'd be playing Iowa and not tOSU. Ten years from now, people will still talk about us winning two Rose Bowls in four years if we beat the Hawkeyes. No one will remember that the Buckeyes were likely better than the Hawkeyes that year.

[terry]

Sagarin has us as a 3 point underdog to Ohio State, and a 4 to 5 point favorite over Iowa. That's a reason to prefer Iowa.

[terry]

Sagarin has us as a 3 point underdog to Ohio State, and a 4 to 5 point favorite over Iowa. That's a reason to prefer Iowa.