06-12-2017, 07:21 PM
Stanford over/under at 9 wins in this book's numbers: http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...fbs-teams/
Third-best in the conference.
Third-best in the conference.
More of Las Vegas's prognostications
Stanford over/under at 9 wins in this book's numbers: http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...fbs-teams/
Third-best in the conference.
Third-best in the conference.
06-13-2017, 08:36 AM
Nine wins for us feels about right for an over/under number. As usual, I can see how we get to 11 or 12 wins in the regular season, but experience tells me that some combination of injuries, D line issues or the O line not coming together quickly enough will bring us back down to earth. I would be happy with ten wins and a decent shot at a NY6 bowl.
Nine wins for us feels about right for an over/under number. As usual, I can see how we get to 11 or 12 wins in the regular season, but experience tells me that some combination of injuries, D line issues or the O line not coming together quickly enough will bring us back down to earth. I would be happy with ten wins and a decent shot at a NY6 bowl.
06-13-2017, 08:39 AM
10 wins, a shot at a NY6 bowl, and no injuries would be okay given that Stanford is set up for a good run two seasons from now (hopefully no one leaves early...ha).
But you know...set a goal and watch the Stanford overachievers go to work :)
But you know...set a goal and watch the Stanford overachievers go to work :)
Another over/under thread, this one predicting 9 wins, which we nailed.
BC
BC
12-01-2017, 10:34 PM
(12-01-2017, 10:29 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Another over/under thread, this one predicting 9 wins, which we nailed.
BC
Hm, maybe a mistype -- has 8.5, though the over (-140) is favored.
(12-01-2017, 10:29 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Another over/under thread, this one predicting 9 wins, which we nailed.
BC
Hm, maybe a mistype -- has 8.5, though the over (-140) is favored.
12-01-2017, 10:40 PM
Either way, the season went more or less as neutral observers expected, with the caveat that we won the conference championship when most people expected UW to win it (basically, no one saw ASU beating them). It's always disappointing when you think that with a couple small differences, we could be in a NY6 bowl (and even, potentially, in a playoff). But we were also lucky in some games; a lot would have had to break our way.
BC
BC
Either way, the season went more or less as neutral observers expected, with the caveat that we won the conference championship when most people expected UW to win it (basically, no one saw ASU beating them). It's always disappointing when you think that with a couple small differences, we could be in a NY6 bowl (and even, potentially, in a playoff). But we were also lucky in some games; a lot would have had to break our way.
BC
BC
12-02-2017, 02:21 AM
(12-01-2017, 10:40 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Either way, the season went more or less as neutral observers expected, we won the conference championship when most people expected UW to win it (basically, no one saw ASU beating them). It's always disappointing when you think that with a couple small differences, we could be in a NY6 bowl (and even, potentially, in a playoff). But we were also lucky in some games; a lot would have had to break our way.
BC
Ummm BC I know we are all in denial. We just lost the conference championship game. We won the North Division.
(12-01-2017, 10:40 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Either way, the season went more or less as neutral observers expected, we won the conference championship when most people expected UW to win it (basically, no one saw ASU beating them). It's always disappointing when you think that with a couple small differences, we could be in a NY6 bowl (and even, potentially, in a playoff). But we were also lucky in some games; a lot would have had to break our way.
BC
Ummm BC I know we are all in denial. We just lost the conference championship game. We won the North Division.
12-02-2017, 09:01 AM
(12-01-2017, 10:40 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Either way, the season went more or less as neutral observers expected, with the caveat that we won the conference championship when most people expected UW to win it (basically, no one saw ASU beating them). It's always disappointing when you think that with a couple small differences, we could be in a NY6 bowl (and even, potentially, in a playoff). But we were also lucky in some games; a lot would have had to break our way.
BC
We were lucky in some games but we were also unlucky overall. Unlucky that Costello wasn't identified as the starter during camp. Unlucky with the injuries to our defense and Love. Unlucky that SDSU had a strong team when we met.
I'd say the went 50/50 on bad and good luck events this year.
(12-01-2017, 10:40 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Either way, the season went more or less as neutral observers expected, with the caveat that we won the conference championship when most people expected UW to win it (basically, no one saw ASU beating them). It's always disappointing when you think that with a couple small differences, we could be in a NY6 bowl (and even, potentially, in a playoff). But we were also lucky in some games; a lot would have had to break our way.
BC
We were lucky in some games but we were also unlucky overall. Unlucky that Costello wasn't identified as the starter during camp. Unlucky with the injuries to our defense and Love. Unlucky that SDSU had a strong team when we met.
I'd say the went 50/50 on bad and good luck events this year.
12-02-2017, 09:03 AM
turnover luck was a big positive factor for Stanford this year -- maybe a touchdown boost per game. If that regresses to the mean next year, it could get ugly.
I don't know whether the other "softer" factors you mention outweigh the turnovers aspect, but it's hard to ignore that.
I don't know whether the other "softer" factors you mention outweigh the turnovers aspect, but it's hard to ignore that.
turnover luck was a big positive factor for Stanford this year -- maybe a touchdown boost per game. If that regresses to the mean next year, it could get ugly.
I don't know whether the other "softer" factors you mention outweigh the turnovers aspect, but it's hard to ignore that.
I don't know whether the other "softer" factors you mention outweigh the turnovers aspect, but it's hard to ignore that.
12-02-2017, 10:33 AM
(12-02-2017, 09:03 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:turnover luck was a big positive factor for Stanford this year -- maybe a touchdown boost per game. If that regresses to the mean next year, it could get ugly.
I don't know whether the other "softer" factors you mention outweigh the turnovers aspect, but it's hard to ignore that.
I wonder about that. Is there evidence that this year was the outlier or that prior years were the outliers?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(12-02-2017, 09:03 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:turnover luck was a big positive factor for Stanford this year -- maybe a touchdown boost per game. If that regresses to the mean next year, it could get ugly.
I don't know whether the other "softer" factors you mention outweigh the turnovers aspect, but it's hard to ignore that.
I wonder about that. Is there evidence that this year was the outlier or that prior years were the outliers?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »