[Mick]

FWIW - It was hard to understand how Minnesota, down 10 players, could hold Wazzu's O down. I hope the Stanford staff can review that film and take notes for next year.

Because nine of the ten players were frosh or sophomores, the majority being frosh.  They weren't needed.  It's interesting to see how many upperclassmen supported them, though.

[Mick]

FWIW - It was hard to understand how Minnesota, down 10 players, could hold Wazzu's O down. I hope the Stanford staff can review that film and take notes for next year.

Because nine of the ten players were frosh or sophomores, the majority being frosh.  They weren't needed.  It's interesting to see how many upperclassmen supported them, though.

[Mick]

FWIW - It was hard to understand how Minnesota, down 10 players, could hold Wazzu's O down. I hope the Stanford staff can review that film and take notes for next year.

Because nine of the ten players were frosh or sophomores, the majority being frosh.  They weren't needed.  It's interesting to see how many upperclassmen supported them, though.

[Mick]

FWIW - It was hard to understand how Minnesota, down 10 players, could hold Wazzu's O down. I hope the Stanford staff can review that film and take notes for next year.

Because nine of the ten players were frosh or sophomores, the majority being frosh.  They weren't needed.  It's interesting to see how many upperclassmen supported them, though.

[DC 86]

You can hold Wazzu's offense down by having the #1b Cougar WR tear his ACL a month earlier :(

River Cracraft torched Stanford for 7 catches, 130 yds and a TD.  His yardage total against us was more than the next three WSU receivers' combined yardage (incl. Gabe Marks).

WSU has lost every game since losing Cracraft for the season.

That's somewhat misleading, "every game" that they lost coming into the bowl game was actually two games, in fact the two toughest games on their schedule (at Colorado and vs Washington) - very tough spots for them no matter who was available at receiver.

Cracaft is a good receiver but that is a position of depth for WSU: Marks (obviously their best receiver), Tavares Martin (61-708, 7 TD) and Jamal Morrow (44-468, 5 TD).

What is interesting is that WSU was held to their lowest offensive output of the season by a Minnesota team that was missing four defensive backfield contributors. Among the ten suspended players were Antoine Winfield Jr. (a starting safety) and three DBs who rotated for them at corner (Hardin - who was a starter, Shenault, Buford).

[DC 86]

You can hold Wazzu's offense down by having the #1b Cougar WR tear his ACL a month earlier :(

River Cracraft torched Stanford for 7 catches, 130 yds and a TD.  His yardage total against us was more than the next three WSU receivers' combined yardage (incl. Gabe Marks).

WSU has lost every game since losing Cracraft for the season.

That's somewhat misleading, "every game" that they lost coming into the bowl game was actually two games, in fact the two toughest games on their schedule (at Colorado and vs Washington) - very tough spots for them no matter who was available at receiver.

Cracaft is a good receiver but that is a position of depth for WSU: Marks (obviously their best receiver), Tavares Martin (61-708, 7 TD) and Jamal Morrow (44-468, 5 TD).

What is interesting is that WSU was held to their lowest offensive output of the season by a Minnesota team that was missing four defensive backfield contributors. Among the ten suspended players were Antoine Winfield Jr. (a starting safety) and three DBs who rotated for them at corner (Hardin - who was a starter, Shenault, Buford).

[DC 86]

You can hold Wazzu's offense down by having the #1b Cougar WR tear his ACL a month earlier :(

River Cracraft torched Stanford for 7 catches, 130 yds and a TD.  His yardage total against us was more than the next three WSU receivers' combined yardage (incl. Gabe Marks).

WSU has lost every game since losing Cracraft for the season.

That's somewhat misleading, "every game" that they lost coming into the bowl game was actually two games, in fact the two toughest games on their schedule (at Colorado and vs Washington) - very tough spots for them no matter who was available at receiver.

Cracaft is a good receiver but that is a position of depth for WSU: Marks (obviously their best receiver), Tavares Martin (61-708, 7 TD) and Jamal Morrow (44-468, 5 TD).

What is interesting is that WSU was held to their lowest offensive output of the season by a Minnesota team that was missing four defensive backfield contributors. Among the ten suspended players were Antoine Winfield Jr. (a starting safety) and three DBs who rotated for them at corner (Hardin - who was a starter, Shenault, Buford).

[DC 86]

You can hold Wazzu's offense down by having the #1b Cougar WR tear his ACL a month earlier :(

River Cracraft torched Stanford for 7 catches, 130 yds and a TD.  His yardage total against us was more than the next three WSU receivers' combined yardage (incl. Gabe Marks).

WSU has lost every game since losing Cracraft for the season.

That's somewhat misleading, "every game" that they lost coming into the bowl game was actually two games, in fact the two toughest games on their schedule (at Colorado and vs Washington) - very tough spots for them no matter who was available at receiver.

Cracaft is a good receiver but that is a position of depth for WSU: Marks (obviously their best receiver), Tavares Martin (61-708, 7 TD) and Jamal Morrow (44-468, 5 TD).

What is interesting is that WSU was held to their lowest offensive output of the season by a Minnesota team that was missing four defensive backfield contributors. Among the ten suspended players were Antoine Winfield Jr. (a starting safety) and three DBs who rotated for them at corner (Hardin - who was a starter, Shenault, Buford).

[Farm93]

But they wanted to play with more DBs than just their experienced crew, and therefore they had some really inexperienced players out there.  Then during the game the D suffered a few injuries, and they had other places with limited game experience.

In theory, Wazzu should have been able to exploit the inexperienced and/or the two deeps serving as mid game replacements, but it just didn't happen.

Given all of the events over the past month it would have been understandable if Minnesota got crushed by 2 or 3 TDs, but instead Wazzu didn't even get a TD until the last minute of the game.  Not sure if it was Minnesota coaching, BigTen strength, Wazzu weakness or Pac-12 weakness, but it was not a great start for the Pac-12 given that Wazzu was a big favorite.

[Farm93]

But they wanted to play with more DBs than just their experienced crew, and therefore they had some really inexperienced players out there.  Then during the game the D suffered a few injuries, and they had other places with limited game experience.

In theory, Wazzu should have been able to exploit the inexperienced and/or the two deeps serving as mid game replacements, but it just didn't happen.

Given all of the events over the past month it would have been understandable if Minnesota got crushed by 2 or 3 TDs, but instead Wazzu didn't even get a TD until the last minute of the game.  Not sure if it was Minnesota coaching, BigTen strength, Wazzu weakness or Pac-12 weakness, but it was not a great start for the Pac-12 given that Wazzu was a big favorite.

[Farm93]

But they wanted to play with more DBs than just their experienced crew, and therefore they had some really inexperienced players out there.  Then during the game the D suffered a few injuries, and they had other places with limited game experience.

In theory, Wazzu should have been able to exploit the inexperienced and/or the two deeps serving as mid game replacements, but it just didn't happen.

Given all of the events over the past month it would have been understandable if Minnesota got crushed by 2 or 3 TDs, but instead Wazzu didn't even get a TD until the last minute of the game.  Not sure if it was Minnesota coaching, BigTen strength, Wazzu weakness or Pac-12 weakness, but it was not a great start for the Pac-12 given that Wazzu was a big favorite.

[Farm93]

But they wanted to play with more DBs than just their experienced crew, and therefore they had some really inexperienced players out there.  Then during the game the D suffered a few injuries, and they had other places with limited game experience.

In theory, Wazzu should have been able to exploit the inexperienced and/or the two deeps serving as mid game replacements, but it just didn't happen.

Given all of the events over the past month it would have been understandable if Minnesota got crushed by 2 or 3 TDs, but instead Wazzu didn't even get a TD until the last minute of the game.  Not sure if it was Minnesota coaching, BigTen strength, Wazzu weakness or Pac-12 weakness, but it was not a great start for the Pac-12 given that Wazzu was a big favorite.

[DC 86]

Because nine of the ten players were frosh or sophomores, the majority being frosh.

That implies that the suspended players weren't contributors. In fact two of the suspended players were starters in the defensive backfield (a safety and a cornerback), yet against a team that lines up in multiple WR sets on every play they held WSU without a touchdown for the first 59:41 of the game.

[DC 86]

Because nine of the ten players were frosh or sophomores, the majority being frosh.

That implies that the suspended players weren't contributors. In fact two of the suspended players were starters in the defensive backfield (a safety and a cornerback), yet against a team that lines up in multiple WR sets on every play they held WSU without a touchdown for the first 59:41 of the game.

[DC 86]

Because nine of the ten players were frosh or sophomores, the majority being frosh.

That implies that the suspended players weren't contributors. In fact two of the suspended players were starters in the defensive backfield (a safety and a cornerback), yet against a team that lines up in multiple WR sets on every play they held WSU without a touchdown for the first 59:41 of the game.

[DC 86]

Because nine of the ten players were frosh or sophomores, the majority being frosh.

That implies that the suspended players weren't contributors. In fact two of the suspended players were starters in the defensive backfield (a safety and a cornerback), yet against a team that lines up in multiple WR sets on every play they held WSU without a touchdown for the first 59:41 of the game.

[81alum]

Well, the Ugly Holiday Bowl situation just became the Ugly Holiday Bowl.

The Minnesota strategy (according to the announcers) was to rush only 2-3 players on downs they thought WSU would throw the short pass,  keeping extra players back to stuff the short pass.  Minnesota wanted  to force Falk to run or throw deep but to take away the short passes that he relies upon to keep his "rhythm."  Besides, a large pass rush is useless against the short passes that Falk relies upon, so why not devote more players to guarding receivers?

An interesting theory.  It seemed to work.  Not sure why WSU did not adjust and start going deep more or running more.

While I am sad that a Pac 12 team lost, the silver lining is that Mike Leach lost.

[81alum]

Well, the Ugly Holiday Bowl situation just became the Ugly Holiday Bowl.

The Minnesota strategy (according to the announcers) was to rush only 2-3 players on downs they thought WSU would throw the short pass,  keeping extra players back to stuff the short pass.  Minnesota wanted  to force Falk to run or throw deep but to take away the short passes that he relies upon to keep his "rhythm."  Besides, a large pass rush is useless against the short passes that Falk relies upon, so why not devote more players to guarding receivers?

An interesting theory.  It seemed to work.  Not sure why WSU did not adjust and start going deep more or running more.

While I am sad that a Pac 12 team lost, the silver lining is that Mike Leach lost.

[81alum]

Well, the Ugly Holiday Bowl situation just became the Ugly Holiday Bowl.

The Minnesota strategy (according to the announcers) was to rush only 2-3 players on downs they thought WSU would throw the short pass,  keeping extra players back to stuff the short pass.  Minnesota wanted  to force Falk to run or throw deep but to take away the short passes that he relies upon to keep his "rhythm."  Besides, a large pass rush is useless against the short passes that Falk relies upon, so why not devote more players to guarding receivers?

An interesting theory.  It seemed to work.  Not sure why WSU did not adjust and start going deep more or running more.

While I am sad that a Pac 12 team lost, the silver lining is that Mike Leach lost.

[81alum]

Well, the Ugly Holiday Bowl situation just became the Ugly Holiday Bowl.

The Minnesota strategy (according to the announcers) was to rush only 2-3 players on downs they thought WSU would throw the short pass,  keeping extra players back to stuff the short pass.  Minnesota wanted  to force Falk to run or throw deep but to take away the short passes that he relies upon to keep his "rhythm."  Besides, a large pass rush is useless against the short passes that Falk relies upon, so why not devote more players to guarding receivers?

An interesting theory.  It seemed to work.  Not sure why WSU did not adjust and start going deep more or running more.

While I am sad that a Pac 12 team lost, the silver lining is that Mike Leach lost.

[fullmetal]

Cracaft is a good receiver but that is a position of depth for WSU: Marks (obviously their best receiver), Tavares Martin (61-708, 7 TD) and Jamal Morrow (44-468, 5 TD).

That's like saying that having Holder and Meeks out shouldn't have mattered for Stanford because DB is a position of depth for Stanford...Cracraft was arguably WSU's best receiver for at least four of their games. 

Is it true that a long layoff and lots of prep time enables defenses to better shut down passing games than running games?

Anyway, WSU appears to have been a little bit of a paper tiger anyway--losing to EWU and BSU raised yellow flags.  WSU's best wins were over an injured Stanford and a Rosen-less UCLA.  The rest of their regular season schedule, minus CU and UW, was filled with bad teams.  Good for Minnesota, but I still think WSU with Cracraft lets Mike Leach stretch the field more.

[fullmetal]

Cracaft is a good receiver but that is a position of depth for WSU: Marks (obviously their best receiver), Tavares Martin (61-708, 7 TD) and Jamal Morrow (44-468, 5 TD).

That's like saying that having Holder and Meeks out shouldn't have mattered for Stanford because DB is a position of depth for Stanford...Cracraft was arguably WSU's best receiver for at least four of their games. 

Is it true that a long layoff and lots of prep time enables defenses to better shut down passing games than running games?

Anyway, WSU appears to have been a little bit of a paper tiger anyway--losing to EWU and BSU raised yellow flags.  WSU's best wins were over an injured Stanford and a Rosen-less UCLA.  The rest of their regular season schedule, minus CU and UW, was filled with bad teams.  Good for Minnesota, but I still think WSU with Cracraft lets Mike Leach stretch the field more.

[fullmetal]

Cracaft is a good receiver but that is a position of depth for WSU: Marks (obviously their best receiver), Tavares Martin (61-708, 7 TD) and Jamal Morrow (44-468, 5 TD).

That's like saying that having Holder and Meeks out shouldn't have mattered for Stanford because DB is a position of depth for Stanford...Cracraft was arguably WSU's best receiver for at least four of their games. 

Is it true that a long layoff and lots of prep time enables defenses to better shut down passing games than running games?

Anyway, WSU appears to have been a little bit of a paper tiger anyway--losing to EWU and BSU raised yellow flags.  WSU's best wins were over an injured Stanford and a Rosen-less UCLA.  The rest of their regular season schedule, minus CU and UW, was filled with bad teams.  Good for Minnesota, but I still think WSU with Cracraft lets Mike Leach stretch the field more.

[fullmetal]

Cracaft is a good receiver but that is a position of depth for WSU: Marks (obviously their best receiver), Tavares Martin (61-708, 7 TD) and Jamal Morrow (44-468, 5 TD).

That's like saying that having Holder and Meeks out shouldn't have mattered for Stanford because DB is a position of depth for Stanford...Cracraft was arguably WSU's best receiver for at least four of their games. 

Is it true that a long layoff and lots of prep time enables defenses to better shut down passing games than running games?

Anyway, WSU appears to have been a little bit of a paper tiger anyway--losing to EWU and BSU raised yellow flags.  WSU's best wins were over an injured Stanford and a Rosen-less UCLA.  The rest of their regular season schedule, minus CU and UW, was filled with bad teams.  Good for Minnesota, but I still think WSU with Cracraft lets Mike Leach stretch the field more.

[OutsiderFan]

More evidence of how bowl games can be emotional mismatches.

I didn't see but a few mins of the game, but what I saw was an emotionally fired up squad and an unfocused, WSU going through the motions. Makes me think Minny players were all in due to their situation, and WSU expected a team in shambles.

Minny had a good D all year.  Cougs needed to be focused and play with intensity. They didn't do either. That was not the team that whipped Stanford.

[OutsiderFan]

More evidence of how bowl games can be emotional mismatches.

I didn't see but a few mins of the game, but what I saw was an emotionally fired up squad and an unfocused, WSU going through the motions. Makes me think Minny players were all in due to their situation, and WSU expected a team in shambles.

Minny had a good D all year.  Cougs needed to be focused and play with intensity. They didn't do either. That was not the team that whipped Stanford.

[OutsiderFan]

More evidence of how bowl games can be emotional mismatches.

I didn't see but a few mins of the game, but what I saw was an emotionally fired up squad and an unfocused, WSU going through the motions. Makes me think Minny players were all in due to their situation, and WSU expected a team in shambles.

Minny had a good D all year.  Cougs needed to be focused and play with intensity. They didn't do either. That was not the team that whipped Stanford.

[OutsiderFan]

More evidence of how bowl games can be emotional mismatches.

I didn't see but a few mins of the game, but what I saw was an emotionally fired up squad and an unfocused, WSU going through the motions. Makes me think Minny players were all in due to their situation, and WSU expected a team in shambles.

Minny had a good D all year.  Cougs needed to be focused and play with intensity. They didn't do either. That was not the team that whipped Stanford.

[DC 86]

That's like saying that having Holder and Meeks out shouldn't have mattered for Stanford because DB is a position of depth for Stanford...Cracraft was arguably WSU's best receiver for at least four of their games. 

You are really comparing losing both starting cornerbacks to missing a team's #2 receiver?

Coincidentally, Minnesota was missing a starting safety and a starting cornerback last night.

[DC 86]

That's like saying that having Holder and Meeks out shouldn't have mattered for Stanford because DB is a position of depth for Stanford...Cracraft was arguably WSU's best receiver for at least four of their games. 

You are really comparing losing both starting cornerbacks to missing a team's #2 receiver?

Coincidentally, Minnesota was missing a starting safety and a starting cornerback last night.

[DC 86]

That's like saying that having Holder and Meeks out shouldn't have mattered for Stanford because DB is a position of depth for Stanford...Cracraft was arguably WSU's best receiver for at least four of their games. 

You are really comparing losing both starting cornerbacks to missing a team's #2 receiver?

Coincidentally, Minnesota was missing a starting safety and a starting cornerback last night.

[DC 86]

That's like saying that having Holder and Meeks out shouldn't have mattered for Stanford because DB is a position of depth for Stanford...Cracraft was arguably WSU's best receiver for at least four of their games. 

You are really comparing losing both starting cornerbacks to missing a team's #2 receiver?

Coincidentally, Minnesota was missing a starting safety and a starting cornerback last night.

[Mick]

They only beat oregon state by 7, but they only lost to penn state by 3.

[Mick]

They only beat oregon state by 7, but they only lost to penn state by 3.

[winflop]

It would have been a far better game if Minnesota had played Stanford!

[winflop]

It would have been a far better game if Minnesota had played Stanford!

[DC 86]

They only beat oregon state by 7, but they only lost to penn state by 3.

Minnesota was an enigmatic team this year. Their only impressive win was against Northwestern, and in addition to the Oregon State game they only beat Rutgers by two points.

On the other hand their four losses were all respectable: lost in overtime to Penn State, lost by 7 against Iowa, lost by 7 at Nebraska, and lost by 14 at Wisconsin.

[DC 86]

They only beat oregon state by 7, but they only lost to penn state by 3.

Minnesota was an enigmatic team this year. Their only impressive win was against Northwestern, and in addition to the Oregon State game they only beat Rutgers by two points.

On the other hand their four losses were all respectable: lost in overtime to Penn State, lost by 7 against Iowa, lost by 7 at Nebraska, and lost by 14 at Wisconsin.

[DC 86]

Prosecutors declined to file criminal charges against any of the ten suspended players today.

Doesn't mean that the players didn't act poorly, break university or team rules, but it does add some context to the suspension/boycott/reversal.

[DC 86]

Prosecutors declined to file criminal charges against any of the ten suspended players today.

Doesn't mean that the players didn't act poorly, break university or team rules, but it does add some context to the suspension/boycott/reversal.