11-01-2016, 06:12 AM
By this season's standard, I consider this entire thread woofing. Please stop with the bowl talk until we actually win another game.
What's attractive bowl game do we have a shot at?
By this season's standard, I consider this entire thread woofing. Please stop with the bowl talk until we actually win another game.
11-01-2016, 08:28 AM
(10-31-2016, 08:06 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:A reminder about how far that we've come that we are disappointed that we won't be going to an "attractive" bowl. Remember how happy we were when we went to the Sun Bowl in Harbaugh's third year? I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
As for me, fist of course, I am looking forward to becoming bowl eligible for the eighth consecutive year, hopefully this Saturday at home.
As to preferred destination, I wouldn't mind getting into the Holliday bowl in San Diego; my parents live there, and we have never been.
BC
Yes, it appears I've stumbled onto a thread of Domer and $C fans. "I won't go to any game that's not a New Years Six Bowl" and "What's attractive about a non-Rose Bowl?" reek of entitlement. If Buddy Teevens returns, I'm blaming this thread. I'll personally be happy with any bowl, and will likely go to any except maybe the Sun Bowl (since I went in 2009), with an order of preference probably along the lines of Holiday, Alamo, Vegas, Cactus, Chicken, Sun.
But as for attractive, yes, the Holiday and Alamo defintely fall into the "attractive bowl" category and are definitely still possible.
(10-31-2016, 08:06 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:A reminder about how far that we've come that we are disappointed that we won't be going to an "attractive" bowl. Remember how happy we were when we went to the Sun Bowl in Harbaugh's third year? I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
As for me, fist of course, I am looking forward to becoming bowl eligible for the eighth consecutive year, hopefully this Saturday at home.
As to preferred destination, I wouldn't mind getting into the Holliday bowl in San Diego; my parents live there, and we have never been.
BC
Yes, it appears I've stumbled onto a thread of Domer and $C fans. "I won't go to any game that's not a New Years Six Bowl" and "What's attractive about a non-Rose Bowl?" reek of entitlement. If Buddy Teevens returns, I'm blaming this thread. I'll personally be happy with any bowl, and will likely go to any except maybe the Sun Bowl (since I went in 2009), with an order of preference probably along the lines of Holiday, Alamo, Vegas, Cactus, Chicken, Sun.
But as for attractive, yes, the Holiday and Alamo defintely fall into the "attractive bowl" category and are definitely still possible.
11-01-2016, 10:27 AM
(11-01-2016, 08:28 AM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:I'll personally be happy with any bowl
I will be happy with any bowl but there's a delta between what I'll be happy with and what I'll spend money for four of us to attend. Levi's Stadium sucks, and the weather is not fan-friendly that time of year. I readily admit I'm a bit of a bowl snob as far as attending goes but that's not the same as being happy that the team is going to a bowl game.
(11-01-2016, 08:28 AM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:I'll personally be happy with any bowl
I will be happy with any bowl but there's a delta between what I'll be happy with and what I'll spend money for four of us to attend. Levi's Stadium sucks, and the weather is not fan-friendly that time of year. I readily admit I'm a bit of a bowl snob as far as attending goes but that's not the same as being happy that the team is going to a bowl game.
11-01-2016, 11:13 AM
Attractive for the Staff?
Probably anything other than the Las Vegas bowl.
Why? That bowl's early date makes it hard to get the maximum benefit of the pre-bowl practices. Overlap with Dead week and Finals week would compound the challenges.
Attractive for the Players? Probably anything other than the Las Vegas Bowl (finals conflict) and Chicken Bowl (no travel - for example, Stanford University is one of the better attractions in Santa Clara County).
Attractive for Fans? Too variable to call.
This is far from woofing BTW - Stanford is already in the mix at 5 wins. This is not exactly like planning on a trip to a CFP semi site.Â
Alamo and Holiday bowls would take late season collapses by two of the trendy three (Utah, Colorado and WSU) and UW going to the CFP. Seems hard to imagine.
Sun probably would really like Colorado or Utah, but might take Stanford. I suspect a lot of bowls would want Colorado as they would be so excited to be at any bowl at this point.
Chicken Bowl doesn't want Stanford apparently. The bad attendance is easier to dismiss if the teams are far away. Fans of the team from the same county skipping the game looks bad.
Vegas probably doesn't want USC given their history with the bowl. UCB would probably be excited to go. My guess is Vegas will have to take Stanford in most cases where Stanford is (9-3, 8-4 or 7-5) because other programs will not be eligible or available.
Cactus - Gets whatever is left, so hopefully Stanford doesn't fall that far. And yet, personally Cactus works better for me. I would guess the players would prefer that date over the Vegas bowl date.
In the end, would probably go to see them at Vegas, Cactus, or Holiday. But no scenario is so exciting or important that Shaw should burn a year of QB eligibility.
Probably anything other than the Las Vegas bowl.
Why? That bowl's early date makes it hard to get the maximum benefit of the pre-bowl practices. Overlap with Dead week and Finals week would compound the challenges.
Attractive for the Players? Probably anything other than the Las Vegas Bowl (finals conflict) and Chicken Bowl (no travel - for example, Stanford University is one of the better attractions in Santa Clara County).
Attractive for Fans? Too variable to call.
This is far from woofing BTW - Stanford is already in the mix at 5 wins. This is not exactly like planning on a trip to a CFP semi site.Â
Alamo and Holiday bowls would take late season collapses by two of the trendy three (Utah, Colorado and WSU) and UW going to the CFP. Seems hard to imagine.
Sun probably would really like Colorado or Utah, but might take Stanford. I suspect a lot of bowls would want Colorado as they would be so excited to be at any bowl at this point.
Chicken Bowl doesn't want Stanford apparently. The bad attendance is easier to dismiss if the teams are far away. Fans of the team from the same county skipping the game looks bad.
Vegas probably doesn't want USC given their history with the bowl. UCB would probably be excited to go. My guess is Vegas will have to take Stanford in most cases where Stanford is (9-3, 8-4 or 7-5) because other programs will not be eligible or available.
Cactus - Gets whatever is left, so hopefully Stanford doesn't fall that far. And yet, personally Cactus works better for me. I would guess the players would prefer that date over the Vegas bowl date.
In the end, would probably go to see them at Vegas, Cactus, or Holiday. But no scenario is so exciting or important that Shaw should burn a year of QB eligibility.
Attractive for the Staff?
Probably anything other than the Las Vegas bowl.
Why? That bowl's early date makes it hard to get the maximum benefit of the pre-bowl practices. Overlap with Dead week and Finals week would compound the challenges.
Attractive for the Players? Probably anything other than the Las Vegas Bowl (finals conflict) and Chicken Bowl (no travel - for example, Stanford University is one of the better attractions in Santa Clara County).
Attractive for Fans? Too variable to call.
This is far from woofing BTW - Stanford is already in the mix at 5 wins. This is not exactly like planning on a trip to a CFP semi site.Â
Alamo and Holiday bowls would take late season collapses by two of the trendy three (Utah, Colorado and WSU) and UW going to the CFP. Seems hard to imagine.
Sun probably would really like Colorado or Utah, but might take Stanford. I suspect a lot of bowls would want Colorado as they would be so excited to be at any bowl at this point.
Chicken Bowl doesn't want Stanford apparently. The bad attendance is easier to dismiss if the teams are far away. Fans of the team from the same county skipping the game looks bad.
Vegas probably doesn't want USC given their history with the bowl. UCB would probably be excited to go. My guess is Vegas will have to take Stanford in most cases where Stanford is (9-3, 8-4 or 7-5) because other programs will not be eligible or available.
Cactus - Gets whatever is left, so hopefully Stanford doesn't fall that far. And yet, personally Cactus works better for me. I would guess the players would prefer that date over the Vegas bowl date.
In the end, would probably go to see them at Vegas, Cactus, or Holiday. But no scenario is so exciting or important that Shaw should burn a year of QB eligibility.
Probably anything other than the Las Vegas bowl.
Why? That bowl's early date makes it hard to get the maximum benefit of the pre-bowl practices. Overlap with Dead week and Finals week would compound the challenges.
Attractive for the Players? Probably anything other than the Las Vegas Bowl (finals conflict) and Chicken Bowl (no travel - for example, Stanford University is one of the better attractions in Santa Clara County).
Attractive for Fans? Too variable to call.
This is far from woofing BTW - Stanford is already in the mix at 5 wins. This is not exactly like planning on a trip to a CFP semi site.Â
Alamo and Holiday bowls would take late season collapses by two of the trendy three (Utah, Colorado and WSU) and UW going to the CFP. Seems hard to imagine.
Sun probably would really like Colorado or Utah, but might take Stanford. I suspect a lot of bowls would want Colorado as they would be so excited to be at any bowl at this point.
Chicken Bowl doesn't want Stanford apparently. The bad attendance is easier to dismiss if the teams are far away. Fans of the team from the same county skipping the game looks bad.
Vegas probably doesn't want USC given their history with the bowl. UCB would probably be excited to go. My guess is Vegas will have to take Stanford in most cases where Stanford is (9-3, 8-4 or 7-5) because other programs will not be eligible or available.
Cactus - Gets whatever is left, so hopefully Stanford doesn't fall that far. And yet, personally Cactus works better for me. I would guess the players would prefer that date over the Vegas bowl date.
In the end, would probably go to see them at Vegas, Cactus, or Holiday. But no scenario is so exciting or important that Shaw should burn a year of QB eligibility.
11-01-2016, 11:46 AM
(11-01-2016, 02:56 AM)winflop link Wrote:To answer the question in the thread - Holiday is a remote possibility, but more likely the Amazing Chicken Bowl on semi-home turf.
To get to the Holiday Bowl, Stanford and Washington need to run the table. That puts UW in the CFP and leaves the Rose Bowl to pick another team. The Rose Bowl has an inherent bias toward picking Pac-12 and BigTen teams with open slots, but that second Pac-12 team would need to finish in the Top 14. My guess here is Utah. That puts the Cougs in the Alamo Bowl and the Holiday Bowl would then choose between Stanford & Colorado. Buffs travel better, and they beat Stanford.
After my last non-NY6 bowl experience at Levi's I'll be passing on any bowl game Stanford goes to this year unless it's in a warmer, sunnier place than the Bay Area.
I'm pretty sure I looked this up and there is no top-14 requirement for the Rose Bowl. If UW is in the CFP, Rose takes the next Pac-12 team.
BC
(11-01-2016, 02:56 AM)winflop link Wrote:To answer the question in the thread - Holiday is a remote possibility, but more likely the Amazing Chicken Bowl on semi-home turf.
To get to the Holiday Bowl, Stanford and Washington need to run the table. That puts UW in the CFP and leaves the Rose Bowl to pick another team. The Rose Bowl has an inherent bias toward picking Pac-12 and BigTen teams with open slots, but that second Pac-12 team would need to finish in the Top 14. My guess here is Utah. That puts the Cougs in the Alamo Bowl and the Holiday Bowl would then choose between Stanford & Colorado. Buffs travel better, and they beat Stanford.
After my last non-NY6 bowl experience at Levi's I'll be passing on any bowl game Stanford goes to this year unless it's in a warmer, sunnier place than the Bay Area.
I'm pretty sure I looked this up and there is no top-14 requirement for the Rose Bowl. If UW is in the CFP, Rose takes the next Pac-12 team.
BC
11-01-2016, 11:48 AM
+1. I would join you at the Holiday Bowl in San Diego. Love the town, my brother/sis in law and niece are down there (Carlsbad), my wife's BFF lives in Del Mar and it's my #1 short-stay vacation spot.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
11-01-2016, 12:48 PM
(11-01-2016, 11:46 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:I'm pretty sure I looked this up and there is no top-14 requirement for the Rose Bowl. If UW is in the CFP, Rose takes the next Pac-12 team.
BC
Pac-12
The Pac-12 gets a team in the Rose Bowl. Its the Pac-12 Champion if its not in the College Football Playoff.
1. Rose Bowl (New Years Six)
2. Valero Alamo Bowl vs. Big 12
3. National University Holiday Bowl vs. Big Ten
4. Foster Farms Bowl vs. Big Ten
5. Hyundai Sun Bowl vs. ACC
6. Las Vegas Bowl vs. Mountain West
7. Motel 6 Cactus Bowl vs. Big 12
http://collegefootballnews.com/2016/coll...conference
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(11-01-2016, 11:46 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:I'm pretty sure I looked this up and there is no top-14 requirement for the Rose Bowl. If UW is in the CFP, Rose takes the next Pac-12 team.
BC
Pac-12
The Pac-12 gets a team in the Rose Bowl. Its the Pac-12 Champion if its not in the College Football Playoff.
1. Rose Bowl (New Years Six)
2. Valero Alamo Bowl vs. Big 12
3. National University Holiday Bowl vs. Big Ten
4. Foster Farms Bowl vs. Big Ten
5. Hyundai Sun Bowl vs. ACC
6. Las Vegas Bowl vs. Mountain West
7. Motel 6 Cactus Bowl vs. Big 12
http://collegefootballnews.com/2016/coll...conference
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
11-02-2016, 09:10 AM
Tom Fitzgerald has changed his tune:
"Stanford could be headed to one of Pac-12s lowest bowls"
http://m.sfgate.com/collegesports/articl...452528.php
"Stanford could be headed to one of Pac-12s lowest bowls"
http://m.sfgate.com/collegesports/articl...452528.php
Tom Fitzgerald has changed his tune:
"Stanford could be headed to one of Pac-12s lowest bowls"
http://m.sfgate.com/collegesports/articl...452528.php
"Stanford could be headed to one of Pac-12s lowest bowls"
http://m.sfgate.com/collegesports/articl...452528.php
11-02-2016, 09:32 AM
From Fitzgerald's piece:
"That wouldnt help the Pac-12s smallest school, Stanford, which doesnt travel well."
Haven't we disproven that statement yet? or will it persist in perpetuity?
"That wouldnt help the Pac-12s smallest school, Stanford, which doesnt travel well."
Haven't we disproven that statement yet? or will it persist in perpetuity?
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
From Fitzgerald's piece:
"That wouldnt help the Pac-12s smallest school, Stanford, which doesnt travel well."
Haven't we disproven that statement yet? or will it persist in perpetuity?
"That wouldnt help the Pac-12s smallest school, Stanford, which doesnt travel well."
Haven't we disproven that statement yet? or will it persist in perpetuity?
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
11-02-2016, 09:56 AM
(11-02-2016, 09:32 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:From Fitzgerald's piece:
"That wouldnt help the Pac-12s smallest school, Stanford, which doesnt travel well."
Haven't we disproven that statement yet? or will it persist in perpetuity?
We travel well to NY6 bowls, but we did a pretty crappy job filling Levi's in 2014, which is the only chance we've had to show how well we'd do at a lower bowl (I don't count 2009 since that was the first time we'd been to any bowl in years). Considering it was basically a home game that's a pretty big mark against us.
(11-02-2016, 09:32 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:From Fitzgerald's piece:
"That wouldnt help the Pac-12s smallest school, Stanford, which doesnt travel well."
Haven't we disproven that statement yet? or will it persist in perpetuity?
We travel well to NY6 bowls, but we did a pretty crappy job filling Levi's in 2014, which is the only chance we've had to show how well we'd do at a lower bowl (I don't count 2009 since that was the first time we'd been to any bowl in years). Considering it was basically a home game that's a pretty big mark against us.
11-02-2016, 10:33 AM
Small alumni base. An alumni base that has proven time after time that it doesn't travel to bowls just because the venue is nice, the city is warm or the opponent is from a rival conference. No significant group of traveling fans beyond the alumni base, etc. etc.
Also bowl games try to appeal to neutral fans to keep those TV ratings solid, Stanford's style on O and D are not ideal for that entertaining match-up metric.
Then Stanford has been to the Rose Bowl 3 of the last 4 years. Most of these mid tier bowls know that is a trap to avoid. Sure the coach and players are known, but will they really care about the (insert low tier brand name here) bowl? Will their fans? It is unlikely.
For those reasons Stanford will get whatever bowl is obligated to select them.
Also bowl games try to appeal to neutral fans to keep those TV ratings solid, Stanford's style on O and D are not ideal for that entertaining match-up metric.
Then Stanford has been to the Rose Bowl 3 of the last 4 years. Most of these mid tier bowls know that is a trap to avoid. Sure the coach and players are known, but will they really care about the (insert low tier brand name here) bowl? Will their fans? It is unlikely.
For those reasons Stanford will get whatever bowl is obligated to select them.
Small alumni base. An alumni base that has proven time after time that it doesn't travel to bowls just because the venue is nice, the city is warm or the opponent is from a rival conference. No significant group of traveling fans beyond the alumni base, etc. etc.
Also bowl games try to appeal to neutral fans to keep those TV ratings solid, Stanford's style on O and D are not ideal for that entertaining match-up metric.
Then Stanford has been to the Rose Bowl 3 of the last 4 years. Most of these mid tier bowls know that is a trap to avoid. Sure the coach and players are known, but will they really care about the (insert low tier brand name here) bowl? Will their fans? It is unlikely.
For those reasons Stanford will get whatever bowl is obligated to select them.
Also bowl games try to appeal to neutral fans to keep those TV ratings solid, Stanford's style on O and D are not ideal for that entertaining match-up metric.
Then Stanford has been to the Rose Bowl 3 of the last 4 years. Most of these mid tier bowls know that is a trap to avoid. Sure the coach and players are known, but will they really care about the (insert low tier brand name here) bowl? Will their fans? It is unlikely.
For those reasons Stanford will get whatever bowl is obligated to select them.
(11-01-2016, 11:46 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=16019.msg177934#msg177934 date=1477994160]
To answer the question in the thread - Holiday is a remote possibility, but more likely the Amazing Chicken Bowl on semi-home turf.
To get to the Holiday Bowl, Stanford and Washington need to run the table. That puts UW in the CFP and leaves the Rose Bowl to pick another team. The Rose Bowl has an inherent bias toward picking Pac-12 and BigTen teams with open slots, but that second Pac-12 team would need to finish in the Top 14. My guess here is Utah. That puts the Cougs in the Alamo Bowl and the Holiday Bowl would then choose between Stanford & Colorado. Buffs travel better, and they beat Stanford.
After my last non-NY6 bowl experience at Levi's I'll be passing on any bowl game Stanford goes to this year unless it's in a warmer, sunnier place than the Bay Area.
I'm pretty sure I looked this up and there is no top-14 requirement for the Rose Bowl. If UW is in the CFP, Rose takes the next Pac-12 team.
BC
[/quote]
I believe BC is correct, the top-14 ranking (and 9 win) requirement for at-large teams existed under the BCS system but not under the new playoff model.
(11-01-2016, 11:46 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=16019.msg177934#msg177934 date=1477994160]
To answer the question in the thread - Holiday is a remote possibility, but more likely the Amazing Chicken Bowl on semi-home turf.
To get to the Holiday Bowl, Stanford and Washington need to run the table. That puts UW in the CFP and leaves the Rose Bowl to pick another team. The Rose Bowl has an inherent bias toward picking Pac-12 and BigTen teams with open slots, but that second Pac-12 team would need to finish in the Top 14. My guess here is Utah. That puts the Cougs in the Alamo Bowl and the Holiday Bowl would then choose between Stanford & Colorado. Buffs travel better, and they beat Stanford.
After my last non-NY6 bowl experience at Levi's I'll be passing on any bowl game Stanford goes to this year unless it's in a warmer, sunnier place than the Bay Area.
I'm pretty sure I looked this up and there is no top-14 requirement for the Rose Bowl. If UW is in the CFP, Rose takes the next Pac-12 team.
BC
[/quote]
I believe BC is correct, the top-14 ranking (and 9 win) requirement for at-large teams existed under the BCS system but not under the new playoff model.
11-02-2016, 11:03 AM
(11-02-2016, 10:33 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:An alumni base that has proven time after time that it doesn't travel to bowls just because the venue is nice, the city is warm or the opponent is from a rival conference.Â
The biggest crowd the Kraft Fight Hunger/Foster Farms Bowl had since 2010 was Stanford-Maryland. Not a big crowd (34,700) but bigger than games with UCLA, WSU or ASU.
The Stanford-Oklahoma Sun Bowl attendance (53,700) was over 5000 more people than any of the Sun Bowls since then that involved Pac 12 schools. Utah, USC, UCLA, WSU and ASU all had much lower attendance at their games.
Stanford travels better than many other Pac 12 schools and should be an attractive option if the other teams under consideration include USC, WSU, Utah and ASU IF the main goal is to sell more tickets.
Again, I think it is a canard that Stanford does not travel well, at least compared to other Pac 12 teams.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(11-02-2016, 10:33 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:An alumni base that has proven time after time that it doesn't travel to bowls just because the venue is nice, the city is warm or the opponent is from a rival conference.Â
The biggest crowd the Kraft Fight Hunger/Foster Farms Bowl had since 2010 was Stanford-Maryland. Not a big crowd (34,700) but bigger than games with UCLA, WSU or ASU.
The Stanford-Oklahoma Sun Bowl attendance (53,700) was over 5000 more people than any of the Sun Bowls since then that involved Pac 12 schools. Utah, USC, UCLA, WSU and ASU all had much lower attendance at their games.
Stanford travels better than many other Pac 12 schools and should be an attractive option if the other teams under consideration include USC, WSU, Utah and ASU IF the main goal is to sell more tickets.
Again, I think it is a canard that Stanford does not travel well, at least compared to other Pac 12 teams.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
11-02-2016, 11:38 AM
(11-02-2016, 10:33 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:Then Stanford has been to the Rose Bowl 3 of the last 4 years. Most of these mid tier bowls know that is a trap to avoid. Sure the coach and players are known, but will they really care about the (insert low tier brand name here) bowl? Will their fans? It is unlikely.
I would have to disagree with this statement. The LA schools have been invited to bowl games over more deserving schools for decades because they have a well known brand. Stanford has a brand now too and casual fans across the country will tune into their bowl game who would not have a few years ago.
(11-02-2016, 10:33 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:Then Stanford has been to the Rose Bowl 3 of the last 4 years. Most of these mid tier bowls know that is a trap to avoid. Sure the coach and players are known, but will they really care about the (insert low tier brand name here) bowl? Will their fans? It is unlikely.
I would have to disagree with this statement. The LA schools have been invited to bowl games over more deserving schools for decades because they have a well known brand. Stanford has a brand now too and casual fans across the country will tune into their bowl game who would not have a few years ago.
11-02-2016, 11:41 AM
Have other bowls gotten larger numbers at Foster Farms? Or is it just that they've done better relatively given that they came from farther away? That is, is it absolute or relative?
Have other bowls gotten larger numbers at Foster Farms? Or is it just that they've done better relatively given that they came from farther away? That is, is it absolute or relative?
11-02-2016, 01:56 PM
(10-31-2016, 08:31 PM)JJJ link Wrote:Las Vegas Bowl 12/17
Dang I'm going to be in Vegas that weekend already!
11-02-2016, 02:55 PM
11-02-2016, 03:09 PM
Everyone,
Not trying to argue that Stanford is the least popular team in the conference, though I could go that route. Rather here in 2016, Stanford is a very unpopular choice for bowls.
Team with dreams of CFP at the start of the season? If yes, skip
Team with multiple BCS/NY6 type appearances in the last five years? If yes, skip
Team with boring offense likely to score only a TD or two? If yes, skip
Stanford game had 35,000 in SF based bowl. Wooo Hoooo! 35,000 fans at the game 30 miles away is not a selling point.
The Sun Bowl thing was OK but Oklahoma had a lot to do with that result. Also, that Sun Bowl featured a Stanford program that had not been to many bowl in the previous 5 seasons more like WSU, UCB or Colorado here in 2016 than Stanford 2016.
A contractual obligation may put Stanford into Sun or Chicken, but my guess is Stanford finds a way to end up in Vegas. Now, the academic burden may come into play. Stanford might beg for the conference to encourage the Sun to pick the true next in line (if Stanford) rather than dip lower so that Stanford can avoid Chicken (recently participation) and Vegas (academic calendar issues).
Premise is still the same. Differences between Sun, Chicken, Vegas, Cactus do not justify the program losing a year of QB eligibility.
Not trying to argue that Stanford is the least popular team in the conference, though I could go that route. Rather here in 2016, Stanford is a very unpopular choice for bowls.
Team with dreams of CFP at the start of the season? If yes, skip
Team with multiple BCS/NY6 type appearances in the last five years? If yes, skip
Team with boring offense likely to score only a TD or two? If yes, skip
Stanford game had 35,000 in SF based bowl. Wooo Hoooo! 35,000 fans at the game 30 miles away is not a selling point.
The Sun Bowl thing was OK but Oklahoma had a lot to do with that result. Also, that Sun Bowl featured a Stanford program that had not been to many bowl in the previous 5 seasons more like WSU, UCB or Colorado here in 2016 than Stanford 2016.
A contractual obligation may put Stanford into Sun or Chicken, but my guess is Stanford finds a way to end up in Vegas. Now, the academic burden may come into play. Stanford might beg for the conference to encourage the Sun to pick the true next in line (if Stanford) rather than dip lower so that Stanford can avoid Chicken (recently participation) and Vegas (academic calendar issues).
Premise is still the same. Differences between Sun, Chicken, Vegas, Cactus do not justify the program losing a year of QB eligibility.
Everyone,
Not trying to argue that Stanford is the least popular team in the conference, though I could go that route. Rather here in 2016, Stanford is a very unpopular choice for bowls.
Team with dreams of CFP at the start of the season? If yes, skip
Team with multiple BCS/NY6 type appearances in the last five years? If yes, skip
Team with boring offense likely to score only a TD or two? If yes, skip
Stanford game had 35,000 in SF based bowl. Wooo Hoooo! 35,000 fans at the game 30 miles away is not a selling point.
The Sun Bowl thing was OK but Oklahoma had a lot to do with that result. Also, that Sun Bowl featured a Stanford program that had not been to many bowl in the previous 5 seasons more like WSU, UCB or Colorado here in 2016 than Stanford 2016.
A contractual obligation may put Stanford into Sun or Chicken, but my guess is Stanford finds a way to end up in Vegas. Now, the academic burden may come into play. Stanford might beg for the conference to encourage the Sun to pick the true next in line (if Stanford) rather than dip lower so that Stanford can avoid Chicken (recently participation) and Vegas (academic calendar issues).
Premise is still the same. Differences between Sun, Chicken, Vegas, Cactus do not justify the program losing a year of QB eligibility.
Not trying to argue that Stanford is the least popular team in the conference, though I could go that route. Rather here in 2016, Stanford is a very unpopular choice for bowls.
Team with dreams of CFP at the start of the season? If yes, skip
Team with multiple BCS/NY6 type appearances in the last five years? If yes, skip
Team with boring offense likely to score only a TD or two? If yes, skip
Stanford game had 35,000 in SF based bowl. Wooo Hoooo! 35,000 fans at the game 30 miles away is not a selling point.
The Sun Bowl thing was OK but Oklahoma had a lot to do with that result. Also, that Sun Bowl featured a Stanford program that had not been to many bowl in the previous 5 seasons more like WSU, UCB or Colorado here in 2016 than Stanford 2016.
A contractual obligation may put Stanford into Sun or Chicken, but my guess is Stanford finds a way to end up in Vegas. Now, the academic burden may come into play. Stanford might beg for the conference to encourage the Sun to pick the true next in line (if Stanford) rather than dip lower so that Stanford can avoid Chicken (recently participation) and Vegas (academic calendar issues).
Premise is still the same. Differences between Sun, Chicken, Vegas, Cactus do not justify the program losing a year of QB eligibility.
11-02-2016, 03:20 PM
I'm not sure I agree with your decision tree there at all. Teams with CFP hopes and recent success are targets for bowl games, not ones to be avoided.
Would the Gator bowl snicker at a chance at Bama, or be elated?
Stanford has a national brand now because of our success, and that can only help us.
Would the Gator bowl snicker at a chance at Bama, or be elated?
Stanford has a national brand now because of our success, and that can only help us.
I'm not sure I agree with your decision tree there at all. Teams with CFP hopes and recent success are targets for bowl games, not ones to be avoided.
Would the Gator bowl snicker at a chance at Bama, or be elated?
Stanford has a national brand now because of our success, and that can only help us.
Would the Gator bowl snicker at a chance at Bama, or be elated?
Stanford has a national brand now because of our success, and that can only help us.
11-02-2016, 03:57 PM
Where is the 35,000 number coming from? The stadium did not look even close to that full to me. It holds ~68,000, so that would be half full, and it just wasn't:
![[Image: 19518img9.jpg]](https://www.vettix.org/images/events/19518img9.jpg)
I don't like that we have a bad reputation, but when we can't even fill our stadium at homecoming it's not like it's totally undeserved. Do us die-hards wish others were as dedicated as we are? Of course, but I don't think we're a large crowd, mostly because Stanford's alumni base is so small.
I don't like that we have a bad reputation, but when we can't even fill our stadium at homecoming it's not like it's totally undeserved. Do us die-hards wish others were as dedicated as we are? Of course, but I don't think we're a large crowd, mostly because Stanford's alumni base is so small.
Where is the 35,000 number coming from? The stadium did not look even close to that full to me. It holds ~68,000, so that would be half full, and it just wasn't:
I don't like that we have a bad reputation, but when we can't even fill our stadium at homecoming it's not like it's totally undeserved. Do us die-hards wish others were as dedicated as we are? Of course, but I don't think we're a large crowd, mostly because Stanford's alumni base is so small.
I don't like that we have a bad reputation, but when we can't even fill our stadium at homecoming it's not like it's totally undeserved. Do us die-hards wish others were as dedicated as we are? Of course, but I don't think we're a large crowd, mostly because Stanford's alumni base is so small.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »