[amartinsu13]

...to not appear in the BCS National Championship Game or the College Football Playoff.

Interesting thread on Reddit today: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/3w.../?sort=new

Another interesting table from the comments. 

Here is a record of Stanford's performance between 2010 and 2015:

Year Record Conference Conference Rank
2015 11-2 8-1 Conference Champion
2014 8-5 5-4 2nd in Division
2013 11-3 7-2 Conference Champion
2012 12-2 8-1 Conference Champion
2011 11-2 8-1 2nd in Division
2010 12-1 8-1 2nd in Conference (Pac-10)

Amazing success the last 6 years (3 Rose Bowls in 4 years!?!), but the next step is clear for Stanford Football: The College Football Playoff. 

I'm very excited to see David Shaw take our team to the promised land.  The ride is just getting started y'all! 

[amartinsu13]

...to not appear in the BCS National Championship Game or the College Football Playoff.

Interesting thread on Reddit today: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/3w.../?sort=new

Another interesting table from the comments. 

Here is a record of Stanford's performance between 2010 and 2015:

Year Record Conference Conference Rank
2015 11-2 8-1 Conference Champion
2014 8-5 5-4 2nd in Division
2013 11-3 7-2 Conference Champion
2012 12-2 8-1 Conference Champion
2011 11-2 8-1 2nd in Division
2010 12-1 8-1 2nd in Conference (Pac-10)

Amazing success the last 6 years (3 Rose Bowls in 4 years!?!), but the next step is clear for Stanford Football: The College Football Playoff. 

I'm very excited to see David Shaw take our team to the promised land.  The ride is just getting started y'all! 

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Picking nits here, but the records should be

2015 11-2
2014 8-5
2013 11-3
2012 12-2
2011 11-2
2010 12-1

Bowl games count in the W/L record, I believe.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Picking nits here, but the records should be

2015 11-2
2014 8-5
2013 11-3
2012 12-2
2011 11-2
2010 12-1

Bowl games count in the W/L record, I believe.

[amartinsu13]

Thanks! I just copy pasted from the comment.  Updated.

[amartinsu13]

Thanks! I just copy pasted from the comment.  Updated.

[BostonCard]

Another stat... Stanford and Oregon are a combined 46-2 against the rest of the Pac-12 North this decade.

BC

[BostonCard]

Another stat... Stanford and Oregon are a combined 46-2 against the rest of the Pac-12 North this decade.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Shaw has suggested before this year that Stanford is going to have to be on top for a long time before the perception of the program changes enough for it to get the benefit of the doubt of the humans who vote to put teams in national playoffs.

That may be true, but you also have to beat teams like Michigan State and Iowa in the Rose Bowl and not lose to Utah and Northwestern in the regular season.  My feeling is that Stanford has in fact earned the respect nationally that its record since 2009 warrants, but to get over that hump, you have to win one more game in a season in some of those years.  While it may be true that Stanford's schedule is tougher than many others who have gotten those national title opportunities, Stanford must have an 11 win regular season and win the tie-breaker with Oregon, in addition to winning the Pac-12, at least in the current system. 

[OutsiderFan]

Shaw has suggested before this year that Stanford is going to have to be on top for a long time before the perception of the program changes enough for it to get the benefit of the doubt of the humans who vote to put teams in national playoffs.

That may be true, but you also have to beat teams like Michigan State and Iowa in the Rose Bowl and not lose to Utah and Northwestern in the regular season.  My feeling is that Stanford has in fact earned the respect nationally that its record since 2009 warrants, but to get over that hump, you have to win one more game in a season in some of those years.  While it may be true that Stanford's schedule is tougher than many others who have gotten those national title opportunities, Stanford must have an 11 win regular season and win the tie-breaker with Oregon, in addition to winning the Pac-12, at least in the current system. 

[winflop]

...to not appear in the BCS National Championship Game or the College Football Playoff.

ECBB is hard at work.

[winflop]

...to not appear in the BCS National Championship Game or the College Football Playoff.

ECBB is hard at work.

[TriangleTree]

Another stat... Stanford and Oregon are a combined 46-2 against the rest of the Pac-12 North this decade.

BC

But that's the problem right there, the Oregon problem is alive and well, and it now has become the Pac12 problem.
I'm pretty sure we have kept each other out of the National Championship picture every year in that period, except for last year where we didn't hold serve.

[TriangleTree]

Another stat... Stanford and Oregon are a combined 46-2 against the rest of the Pac-12 North this decade.

BC

But that's the problem right there, the Oregon problem is alive and well, and it now has become the Pac12 problem.
I'm pretty sure we have kept each other out of the National Championship picture every year in that period, except for last year where we didn't hold serve.

[CTcard]

That may be true, but you also have to beat teams like Michigan State and Iowa in the Rose Bowl and not lose to Utah and Northwestern in the regular season. 

Maybe only the latter - at least this year.
If Stanford had beaten Northwestern this year, we'd be in the playoff.
If Stanford had beaten Utah in 2013 ... maybe.
If Stanford had beaten UW in 2012 probably not, if und probably so.

ECBB is hard at work.

I don't see any particular bias or lack of respect for Stanford or the west here.

In almost every one of these recent years, the teams that got into the playoffs/championship game had fewer losses than did Stanford. In some cases that may be a poor way to rank teams, but it's the way college football does it for the most part.

The one possible exception was 2011. Stanford had one loss after the regular season, as did our Fiesta Bowl opponent Oklahoma State and championship game participant Alabama. So, I suppose you could claim lack of respect for Stanford and Ok State versus Alabama kept those teams (one of those teams) out of the championship game. But, as far as I can remember the only controversy of the topic was with respect to Oklahoma State.

In 2010 we had the same number of losses as championship game participant Oregon, but we lost badly to them head to head, so hard to complain about their selection over us - and that certainly wasn't anti-west coast bias.

I'm pretty sure we have kept each other out of the National Championship picture every year in that period, except for last year where we didn't hold serve.

I'm pretty sure "we" = Stanford and Oregon here.

Most years it was the winner of the Oregon/Stanford game that won the conference championship, therefore the one in consideration for the national championship was not knocked off by the other. And, in 2010 (and last year as you note) nothing kept Oregon out - they were in the game/playoff.

The exceptions were this year and 2009.

In 2009 Oregon won the conference but had two losses overall (pre-bowl, where they lost the Rose Bowl to Ohio State). The championship game had undefeated Texas vs undefeated Alabama. Oregon would not have gone even had they beaten us.

This year is different. If we had beaten Oregon then it seems overwhelmingly likely that we would be in the playoff.

[CTcard]

That may be true, but you also have to beat teams like Michigan State and Iowa in the Rose Bowl and not lose to Utah and Northwestern in the regular season. 

Maybe only the latter - at least this year.
If Stanford had beaten Northwestern this year, we'd be in the playoff.
If Stanford had beaten Utah in 2013 ... maybe.
If Stanford had beaten UW in 2012 probably not, if und probably so.

ECBB is hard at work.

I don't see any particular bias or lack of respect for Stanford or the west here.

In almost every one of these recent years, the teams that got into the playoffs/championship game had fewer losses than did Stanford. In some cases that may be a poor way to rank teams, but it's the way college football does it for the most part.

The one possible exception was 2011. Stanford had one loss after the regular season, as did our Fiesta Bowl opponent Oklahoma State and championship game participant Alabama. So, I suppose you could claim lack of respect for Stanford and Ok State versus Alabama kept those teams (one of those teams) out of the championship game. But, as far as I can remember the only controversy of the topic was with respect to Oklahoma State.

In 2010 we had the same number of losses as championship game participant Oregon, but we lost badly to them head to head, so hard to complain about their selection over us - and that certainly wasn't anti-west coast bias.

I'm pretty sure we have kept each other out of the National Championship picture every year in that period, except for last year where we didn't hold serve.

I'm pretty sure "we" = Stanford and Oregon here.

Most years it was the winner of the Oregon/Stanford game that won the conference championship, therefore the one in consideration for the national championship was not knocked off by the other. And, in 2010 (and last year as you note) nothing kept Oregon out - they were in the game/playoff.

The exceptions were this year and 2009.

In 2009 Oregon won the conference but had two losses overall (pre-bowl, where they lost the Rose Bowl to Ohio State). The championship game had undefeated Texas vs undefeated Alabama. Oregon would not have gone even had they beaten us.

This year is different. If we had beaten Oregon then it seems overwhelmingly likely that we would be in the playoff.

[stupac2]

Picking nits here, but the records should be

2015 11-2
2014 8-5
2013 11-3
2012 12-2
2011 11-2
2010 12-1

Bowl games count in the W/L record, I believe.

The count was intentionally ommitting bowl games because the whole premise of the thread was looking at Stanford's record prior to selection for the BCS/CFP. Adding in bowl games in that context is actually an actively bad idea.

[stupac2]

Picking nits here, but the records should be

2015 11-2
2014 8-5
2013 11-3
2012 12-2
2011 11-2
2010 12-1

Bowl games count in the W/L record, I believe.

The count was intentionally ommitting bowl games because the whole premise of the thread was looking at Stanford's record prior to selection for the BCS/CFP. Adding in bowl games in that context is actually an actively bad idea.

[ColoradoTree]

Shaw has suggested before this year that Stanford is going to have to be on top for a long time before the perception of the program changes enough for it to get the benefit of the doubt of the humans who vote to put teams in national playoffs.

That may be true, but you also have to beat teams like Michigan State and Iowa in the Rose Bowl and not lose to Utah and Northwestern in the regular season.  My feeling is that Stanford has in fact earned the respect nationally that its record since 2009 warrants, but to get over that hump, you have to win one more game in a season in some of those years.  While it may be true that Stanford's schedule is tougher than many others who have gotten those national title opportunities, Stanford must have an 11 win regular season and win the tie-breaker with Oregon, in addition to winning the Pac-12, at least in the current system.

All fair enough, and I think that this definitely holds true for our perception among some national media types, but I think the folks in the room in Grapevine, Texas had plenty of respect for Stanford.  Yeah, we didn't get in, but we were the highest-ranked two-loss team, and were ranked higher than the 1-loss defending national champion.  If we'd finished the season ranked lower than we were, I might be more inclined to agree.  But if we'd beaten Oregon, I think we're in the playoff right now.  If we'd beaten Northwestern, I think we're in the playoff right now.  That's enough respect for me. 

[ColoradoTree]

Shaw has suggested before this year that Stanford is going to have to be on top for a long time before the perception of the program changes enough for it to get the benefit of the doubt of the humans who vote to put teams in national playoffs.

That may be true, but you also have to beat teams like Michigan State and Iowa in the Rose Bowl and not lose to Utah and Northwestern in the regular season.  My feeling is that Stanford has in fact earned the respect nationally that its record since 2009 warrants, but to get over that hump, you have to win one more game in a season in some of those years.  While it may be true that Stanford's schedule is tougher than many others who have gotten those national title opportunities, Stanford must have an 11 win regular season and win the tie-breaker with Oregon, in addition to winning the Pac-12, at least in the current system.

All fair enough, and I think that this definitely holds true for our perception among some national media types, but I think the folks in the room in Grapevine, Texas had plenty of respect for Stanford.  Yeah, we didn't get in, but we were the highest-ranked two-loss team, and were ranked higher than the 1-loss defending national champion.  If we'd finished the season ranked lower than we were, I might be more inclined to agree.  But if we'd beaten Oregon, I think we're in the playoff right now.  If we'd beaten Northwestern, I think we're in the playoff right now.  That's enough respect for me. 

[BostonCard]

Given that Oregon has been to the BCS national championship once and the college football playoffs once, it is hard to argue that we have kept them out of anything.

The truth is that it is hard to be one of the top two teams in the country (until two years ago) or top four teams in the country (since the playoffs started).  That we have won so many games over such a long period is a testament to sustained success.  If we keep at it we will eventually break through, but I would rather have sustained greatness than be a flash in the pan who makes it to the playoff once and then things fall apart.

BC

[BostonCard]

Given that Oregon has been to the BCS national championship once and the college football playoffs once, it is hard to argue that we have kept them out of anything.

The truth is that it is hard to be one of the top two teams in the country (until two years ago) or top four teams in the country (since the playoffs started).  That we have won so many games over such a long period is a testament to sustained success.  If we keep at it we will eventually break through, but I would rather have sustained greatness than be a flash in the pan who makes it to the playoff once and then things fall apart.

BC