[stupac2]

Realistically, I think the only chance we will ever get to the national championship semi-finals (top 4) is to have a perfect, no loss season.

...Why? We absolutely would've been in had we managed to beat Oregon in 2015.

[stupac2]

Realistically, I think the only chance we will ever get to the national championship semi-finals (top 4) is to have a perfect, no loss season.

...Why? We absolutely would've been in had we managed to beat Oregon in 2015.

[FarmBoy]

[quote author=thunder_chik link=topic=17706.msg206745#msg206745 date=1508167629]
Realistically, I think the only chance we will ever get to the national championship semi-finals (top 4) is to have a perfect, no loss season.

...Why? We absolutely would've been in had we managed to beat Oregon in 2015.
[/quote]

Would we also have made it in 2010 and 2011, had there been a 4 team format?

[FarmBoy]

[quote author=thunder_chik link=topic=17706.msg206745#msg206745 date=1508167629]
Realistically, I think the only chance we will ever get to the national championship semi-finals (top 4) is to have a perfect, no loss season.

...Why? We absolutely would've been in had we managed to beat Oregon in 2015.
[/quote]

Would we also have made it in 2010 and 2011, had there been a 4 team format?

[Farm93]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17706.msg206619#msg206619 date=1508095181]
No Pac-12 schools in the top ten bodes poorly for the playoff.

U$C #11, UW #12, WSU #15.

Yep.  Hope that SC wins out until we beat them, and it will make for good conversation though.
[/quote]
Nah, that's not Stanford's best path.  Stanford would need to win out, obviously.

ND needs to win, and win big, right up until they play Stanford.  In that scenario the entire Eastern media will be watching trying to understand if Notre Dame would become a CFP #2 or #3 seed or if they would be the dreaded #4 playing Bama.  The attention and focus on that game would be epic since most of the rivalry type games on Nov 25th are not going to feature two teams in the top 10.   

Then if Stanford were to really beat up on Notre Dame, the media would notice.  And Stanford's win would open up a big discussion about who should take Notre Dame's place in the CFP.  The media attention on that game will far exceed the Pac-12 CG in that scenario, and logically Stanford would need to be considered for the spot since they just beat CFP #2-#4.  FWIW - That scenario could help Love too.

However, to seal the deal it likely will be best for SC to then represent the Pac-12 South with just 2 losses (WSU and Notre Dame). 

Stanford and SC would likely both sit in the 5-8 range.  So the winner would likely hope that the second SEC team will have 2 losses.  Better if the ACC or Big12 conference champ had 2 losses too.

To me the key would be to have a ton of hype tied to Notre Dame since Nov 25th would represent a win and they are in scenario.  So SEC types, BigTen types would be watching above and beyond the normal Notre Dame level of hype and media attention.

FWIW - I just don't think Darnold is capable of taking SC to a 1 or 2 loss season.  He is a turnover machine.  The only game he played well was against Stanford, so I doubt SC is going to run the table because some teams are good enough to win if they are given 3 or more turnovers by Darnold.

Not super excited about Notre Dame getting media hype and attention for weeks, but like the idea that Stanford would be able to make a statement on the field in Stanford Stadium.

[Farm93]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17706.msg206619#msg206619 date=1508095181]
No Pac-12 schools in the top ten bodes poorly for the playoff.

U$C #11, UW #12, WSU #15.

Yep.  Hope that SC wins out until we beat them, and it will make for good conversation though.
[/quote]
Nah, that's not Stanford's best path.  Stanford would need to win out, obviously.

ND needs to win, and win big, right up until they play Stanford.  In that scenario the entire Eastern media will be watching trying to understand if Notre Dame would become a CFP #2 or #3 seed or if they would be the dreaded #4 playing Bama.  The attention and focus on that game would be epic since most of the rivalry type games on Nov 25th are not going to feature two teams in the top 10.   

Then if Stanford were to really beat up on Notre Dame, the media would notice.  And Stanford's win would open up a big discussion about who should take Notre Dame's place in the CFP.  The media attention on that game will far exceed the Pac-12 CG in that scenario, and logically Stanford would need to be considered for the spot since they just beat CFP #2-#4.  FWIW - That scenario could help Love too.

However, to seal the deal it likely will be best for SC to then represent the Pac-12 South with just 2 losses (WSU and Notre Dame). 

Stanford and SC would likely both sit in the 5-8 range.  So the winner would likely hope that the second SEC team will have 2 losses.  Better if the ACC or Big12 conference champ had 2 losses too.

To me the key would be to have a ton of hype tied to Notre Dame since Nov 25th would represent a win and they are in scenario.  So SEC types, BigTen types would be watching above and beyond the normal Notre Dame level of hype and media attention.

FWIW - I just don't think Darnold is capable of taking SC to a 1 or 2 loss season.  He is a turnover machine.  The only game he played well was against Stanford, so I doubt SC is going to run the table because some teams are good enough to win if they are given 3 or more turnovers by Darnold.

Not super excited about Notre Dame getting media hype and attention for weeks, but like the idea that Stanford would be able to make a statement on the field in Stanford Stadium.

[OutsiderFan]

If Stanford goes through the Pac-12 season at least 8-1, goes 3-0 OOC while knocking off ND in the process, and wins the Championship game, Stanford will always make the CFP, IMO.

It's a tall order, but if Stanford beats either Oregon or Northwestern in 2015, it is in the 2015 CFP. 

I don't know about 2010.  The committee has yet to put two teams from the same conference in, and I have great doubts the committee is putting two teams from the same division in, because they can always use the head-to-head and conference championship game wins as tie-breakers in their own sort of de-facto informal playoff scenario.

That said, in 2010, I do believe Stanford and Oregon were 2/4 best teams in the country.  And Stanford did have a big lead and suffer a succession of insane bad luck in the Oregon game that year that bothers me to this day.

[OutsiderFan]

If Stanford goes through the Pac-12 season at least 8-1, goes 3-0 OOC while knocking off ND in the process, and wins the Championship game, Stanford will always make the CFP, IMO.

It's a tall order, but if Stanford beats either Oregon or Northwestern in 2015, it is in the 2015 CFP. 

I don't know about 2010.  The committee has yet to put two teams from the same conference in, and I have great doubts the committee is putting two teams from the same division in, because they can always use the head-to-head and conference championship game wins as tie-breakers in their own sort of de-facto informal playoff scenario.

That said, in 2010, I do believe Stanford and Oregon were 2/4 best teams in the country.  And Stanford did have a big lead and suffer a succession of insane bad luck in the Oregon game that year that bothers me to this day.

[French Rage]

On the downside, after OSU, the remaining schedule is very tough.  One the upside, after OSU, the remaining schedule is very tough.

In the last 4 games, we would be playing a middle ranked WSU team, a somewhat high (maybe around #10) ranked UW team, a possibly-receiving-votes Cal team, and a top 5-10 ND team.  If (if) we win those, we'd be playing a decently ranked USC team in the Pac-12 championship.  That's not a bad resume for the end of the season, to point to to show that, despite two early loses, one of which we would have avenged, we have been playing playoff football and winning for an entire month.

Of course, we still need to play and win the games.

[French Rage]

On the downside, after OSU, the remaining schedule is very tough.  One the upside, after OSU, the remaining schedule is very tough.

In the last 4 games, we would be playing a middle ranked WSU team, a somewhat high (maybe around #10) ranked UW team, a possibly-receiving-votes Cal team, and a top 5-10 ND team.  If (if) we win those, we'd be playing a decently ranked USC team in the Pac-12 championship.  That's not a bad resume for the end of the season, to point to to show that, despite two early loses, one of which we would have avenged, we have been playing playoff football and winning for an entire month.

Of course, we still need to play and win the games.

[stupac2]

Would we also have made it in 2010 and 2011, had there been a 4 team format?

Hard to say with those years, as OF said two teams from a single conference have never made it. At the same time, it's a small sample size, and there hasn't been a year where it would make sense to. Here are the week 15 rankings for 2010 and 2011. Despite being ranked 4th in the BCS standings, I highly doubt we would've been in the playoff either year. It looks to me like we would've seen Oregon, Auburn, TCU, and OSU in 2010 and Alabama, LSU, Oregon and OKST in 2011. Even with the extra loss I just can't see Oregon failing to jump us with a conference title and head-to-head win.

[stupac2]

Would we also have made it in 2010 and 2011, had there been a 4 team format?

Hard to say with those years, as OF said two teams from a single conference have never made it. At the same time, it's a small sample size, and there hasn't been a year where it would make sense to. Here are the week 15 rankings for 2010 and 2011. Despite being ranked 4th in the BCS standings, I highly doubt we would've been in the playoff either year. It looks to me like we would've seen Oregon, Auburn, TCU, and OSU in 2010 and Alabama, LSU, Oregon and OKST in 2011. Even with the extra loss I just can't see Oregon failing to jump us with a conference title and head-to-head win.

[teejers1]

What was the year Stanford lost at Utah in horrible end game (2 passes when we had run it to the doorstep)?

My recollection is that if Stanford had won that game then they would have made the championship game (or Top 4).

[teejers1]

What was the year Stanford lost at Utah in horrible end game (2 passes when we had run it to the doorstep)?

My recollection is that if Stanford had won that game then they would have made the championship game (or Top 4).

[CTcard]

What was the year Stanford lost at Utah in horrible end game (2 passes when we had run it to the doorstep)?

My recollection is that if Stanford had won that game then they would have made the championship game (or Top 4).

Maybe. There is no way to tell for sure.

That was the 2013 season. We had two losses that year during the regular season, at Utah and at the Coliseum on a last minute FG.
That was the final year of the BCS Championship Game, which featured one loss Auburn against undefeated FSU.

Auburn had lost early to LSU (LSU ranked #6). Stanford had remained above Auburn as the highest rated 1 loss team until racking up the second loss to $C. One might assume that Stanford could have remained above Auburn had that $C loss been the first of the season. But Auburn finished with the dramatic win over #1 Alabama and then a pretty big win over #5 Mizzou in the SEC championship game. That was a stronger finish than Stanford's over an unranked und then over #11 ASU in the conference championship.

[CTcard]

What was the year Stanford lost at Utah in horrible end game (2 passes when we had run it to the doorstep)?

My recollection is that if Stanford had won that game then they would have made the championship game (or Top 4).

Maybe. There is no way to tell for sure.

That was the 2013 season. We had two losses that year during the regular season, at Utah and at the Coliseum on a last minute FG.
That was the final year of the BCS Championship Game, which featured one loss Auburn against undefeated FSU.

Auburn had lost early to LSU (LSU ranked #6). Stanford had remained above Auburn as the highest rated 1 loss team until racking up the second loss to $C. One might assume that Stanford could have remained above Auburn had that $C loss been the first of the season. But Auburn finished with the dramatic win over #1 Alabama and then a pretty big win over #5 Mizzou in the SEC championship game. That was a stronger finish than Stanford's over an unranked und then over #11 ASU in the conference championship.

[ChicagoCard]

Had Toilolo come back, possibly had Hooper played as a true freshman at tight end, and had Terrence Brown come back at cornerback, then Stanford would have been less vulnerable against the three teams they eventually lost too. Also didn't help missing Ben Gardner and Henry Anderson for almost the entire season (that is, not having both of them healthy at the same time). Even then, Montgomery, Cajuste and Rector didn't have the hands / ball skills that Irwin and Arcega-W have.

[ChicagoCard]

Had Toilolo come back, possibly had Hooper played as a true freshman at tight end, and had Terrence Brown come back at cornerback, then Stanford would have been less vulnerable against the three teams they eventually lost too. Also didn't help missing Ben Gardner and Henry Anderson for almost the entire season (that is, not having both of them healthy at the same time). Even then, Montgomery, Cajuste and Rector didn't have the hands / ball skills that Irwin and Arcega-W have.

[CTcard]

Had Toilolo come back, possibly had Hooper played as a true freshman at tight end, and had Terrence Brown come back at cornerback, then Stanford would have been less vulnerable against the three teams they eventually lost too.

And if my mother ...

Even then, Montgomery, Cajuste and Rector didn't have the hands / ball skills that Irwin and Arcega-W have.

True, but Irwin and JJAW don't have the speed that Montgomery and Rector had, nor the generally running skills of Montgomery.
Players have their strengths and weaknesses. With all his issues actually catching the ball over his shoulder, I'd say that at least so far, Montgomery was the top WR of that group. I'd like to put JJAW at #2, but he still has a ways to go to establish proven production.

[CTcard]

Had Toilolo come back, possibly had Hooper played as a true freshman at tight end, and had Terrence Brown come back at cornerback, then Stanford would have been less vulnerable against the three teams they eventually lost too.

And if my mother ...

Even then, Montgomery, Cajuste and Rector didn't have the hands / ball skills that Irwin and Arcega-W have.

True, but Irwin and JJAW don't have the speed that Montgomery and Rector had, nor the generally running skills of Montgomery.
Players have their strengths and weaknesses. With all his issues actually catching the ball over his shoulder, I'd say that at least so far, Montgomery was the top WR of that group. I'd like to put JJAW at #2, but he still has a ways to go to establish proven production.

[ChicagoCard]

I was just pointing out that there were limits with the '13 team. An earlier poster had comments on how if Stanford had gotten by Utah they'd have potentially been able to get to that BCS champ game. So the if my mother comment applies there too, I guess.

[ChicagoCard]

I was just pointing out that there were limits with the '13 team. An earlier poster had comments on how if Stanford had gotten by Utah they'd have potentially been able to get to that BCS champ game. So the if my mother comment applies there too, I guess.

[CTcard]

I was just pointing out that there were limits with the '13 team. An earlier poster had comments on how if Stanford had gotten by Utah they'd have potentially been able to get to that BCS champ game. So the if my mother comment applies there too, I guess.

Yeah, there were definitely limits on that team.

The defense didn't have a lot of limit, though the pass defense was only good, not stellar.

The run game was still mostly Power, though if I remember a lot more zone scheme was developing that year and Gaffney had his big TD run in the CCG on a zone-stretch play.
The pass game wasn't very sophisticated, with deep passes over stacked boxes and short dump offs for first downs. not much of an intermediate game that year.
That led to being offensively challenged against the really good defenses: Michigan State (probably best in the country that year), UW and U$C (both top 20 in yds/play allowed).

[CTcard]

I was just pointing out that there were limits with the '13 team. An earlier poster had comments on how if Stanford had gotten by Utah they'd have potentially been able to get to that BCS champ game. So the if my mother comment applies there too, I guess.

Yeah, there were definitely limits on that team.

The defense didn't have a lot of limit, though the pass defense was only good, not stellar.

The run game was still mostly Power, though if I remember a lot more zone scheme was developing that year and Gaffney had his big TD run in the CCG on a zone-stretch play.
The pass game wasn't very sophisticated, with deep passes over stacked boxes and short dump offs for first downs. not much of an intermediate game that year.
That led to being offensively challenged against the really good defenses: Michigan State (probably best in the country that year), UW and U$C (both top 20 in yds/play allowed).

[teejers1]

Respectfully, the "limits" on the O were not due to personnel that year - at least that's my distinct recollection.  Though I've tried to repress the Michigan State Rose Bowl as much as possible, the timeout by Stanford on a critical late fourth  and 4 (good decision), followed by a shotgun draw to Gaffney that was (absolutely horrific decision) stuffed for TFL (again), is one that is really hard to shake.

That showing against MSU was as bad as the Iowa Rose Bowl was good.

[teejers1]

Respectfully, the "limits" on the O were not due to personnel that year - at least that's my distinct recollection.  Though I've tried to repress the Michigan State Rose Bowl as much as possible, the timeout by Stanford on a critical late fourth  and 4 (good decision), followed by a shotgun draw to Gaffney that was (absolutely horrific decision) stuffed for TFL (again), is one that is really hard to shake.

That showing against MSU was as bad as the Iowa Rose Bowl was good.

[thunder_chik]

Respectfully, the "limits" on the O were not due to personnel that year - at least that's my distinct recollection.  Though I've tried to repress the Michigan State Rose Bowl as much as possible, the timeout by Stanford on a critical late fourth  and 4 (good decision), followed by a shotgun draw to Gaffney that was (absolutely horrific decision) stuffed for TFL (again), is one that is really hard to shake.

Wasn't it to Hewitt?

[thunder_chik]

Respectfully, the "limits" on the O were not due to personnel that year - at least that's my distinct recollection.  Though I've tried to repress the Michigan State Rose Bowl as much as possible, the timeout by Stanford on a critical late fourth  and 4 (good decision), followed by a shotgun draw to Gaffney that was (absolutely horrific decision) stuffed for TFL (again), is one that is really hard to shake.

Wasn't it to Hewitt?

[CTcard]

Respectfully, the "limits" on the O were not due to personnel that year - at least that's my distinct recollection. 

Well, there may have been deficiencies in play calling, and everybody knows that is your hobby horse, but that certainly does not negate the fact that there were personnel limitations as well.

First is the state of Hogan's development.
He was better than in 2012, but nowhere near the QB who starred in 2015. In particular, in 2013 he added the deep ball to his short passing repertoire and scrambling ability. However, he was not good at the intermediate routes that need to be thrown with some steam - in particular slant routes were a nightmare. (See the interception from the $C 10 in the 4th quarter when a FG would have given us the lead. Of course the fact that Hogan was not good at such passes likely means it was a bad play call; but that doesn't change the fact that Hogan wasn't good at such passes.)

That was the year we basically didn't have tight ends (10 catches from that position on the season). That also contributed to killing our intermediate passing game.

Our receiving corps had some skills but wasn't deep or particularly good at actually catching the ball. Montgomery has been heavily discussed. Number 2 was Cajuste, still only a sophomore. Number 3 receiver was Kodi Whitfield who eventually found a better home at safety. 

Gaffney was a very good back, but he wasn't particularly explosive. A very mild limitation.


Now all of these are "limitations" on a conference championship team that finished the season ranked #11, and #30 on offense points per drive. That's a pretty high bar. But it seems silly to pretend these issues didn't exist.
[MSU, by the way, was #1 in the country in defensive points per drive (and in many defensive categories) - something one should consider in evaluating our offense's output in the Rose Bowl.]

[CTcard]

Respectfully, the "limits" on the O were not due to personnel that year - at least that's my distinct recollection. 

Well, there may have been deficiencies in play calling, and everybody knows that is your hobby horse, but that certainly does not negate the fact that there were personnel limitations as well.

First is the state of Hogan's development.
He was better than in 2012, but nowhere near the QB who starred in 2015. In particular, in 2013 he added the deep ball to his short passing repertoire and scrambling ability. However, he was not good at the intermediate routes that need to be thrown with some steam - in particular slant routes were a nightmare. (See the interception from the $C 10 in the 4th quarter when a FG would have given us the lead. Of course the fact that Hogan was not good at such passes likely means it was a bad play call; but that doesn't change the fact that Hogan wasn't good at such passes.)

That was the year we basically didn't have tight ends (10 catches from that position on the season). That also contributed to killing our intermediate passing game.

Our receiving corps had some skills but wasn't deep or particularly good at actually catching the ball. Montgomery has been heavily discussed. Number 2 was Cajuste, still only a sophomore. Number 3 receiver was Kodi Whitfield who eventually found a better home at safety. 

Gaffney was a very good back, but he wasn't particularly explosive. A very mild limitation.


Now all of these are "limitations" on a conference championship team that finished the season ranked #11, and #30 on offense points per drive. That's a pretty high bar. But it seems silly to pretend these issues didn't exist.
[MSU, by the way, was #1 in the country in defensive points per drive (and in many defensive categories) - something one should consider in evaluating our offense's output in the Rose Bowl.]

[martyup]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=17706.msg206833#msg206833 date=1508188600]
Respectfully, the "limits" on the O were not due to personnel that year - at least that's my distinct recollection. 

Well, there may have been deficiencies in play calling, and everybody knows that is your hobby horse, but that certainly does not negate the fact that there were personnel limitations as well.

First is the state of Hogan's development.
He was better than in 2012, but nowhere near the QB who starred in 2015. In particular, in 2013 he added the deep ball to his short passing repertoire and scrambling ability. However, he was not good at the intermediate routes that need to be thrown with some steam - in particular slant routes were a nightmare. (See the interception from the $C 10 in the 4th quarter when a FG would have given us the lead. Of course the fact that Hogan was not good at such passes likely means it was a bad play call; but that doesn't change the fact that Hogan wasn't good at such passes.)

That was the year we basically didn't have tight ends (10 catches from that position on the season). That also contributed to killing our intermediate passing game.

Our receiving corps had some skills but wasn't deep or particularly good at actually catching the ball. Montgomery has been heavily discussed. Number 2 was Cajuste, still only a sophomore. Number 3 receiver was Kodi Whitfield who eventually found a better home at safety. 

Gaffney was a very good back, but he wasn't particularly explosive. A very mild limitation.


Now all of these are "limitations" on a conference championship team that finished the season ranked #11, and #30 on offense points per drive. That's a pretty high bar. But it seems silly to pretend these issues didn't exist.
[MSU, by the way, was #1 in the country in defensive points per drive (and in many defensive categories) - something one should consider in evaluating our offense's output in the Rose Bowl.]
[/quote]

+1 -- Ding ding ding ding . . . welcome to the reputation Century Club CT!

[martyup]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=17706.msg206833#msg206833 date=1508188600]
Respectfully, the "limits" on the O were not due to personnel that year - at least that's my distinct recollection. 

Well, there may have been deficiencies in play calling, and everybody knows that is your hobby horse, but that certainly does not negate the fact that there were personnel limitations as well.

First is the state of Hogan's development.
He was better than in 2012, but nowhere near the QB who starred in 2015. In particular, in 2013 he added the deep ball to his short passing repertoire and scrambling ability. However, he was not good at the intermediate routes that need to be thrown with some steam - in particular slant routes were a nightmare. (See the interception from the $C 10 in the 4th quarter when a FG would have given us the lead. Of course the fact that Hogan was not good at such passes likely means it was a bad play call; but that doesn't change the fact that Hogan wasn't good at such passes.)

That was the year we basically didn't have tight ends (10 catches from that position on the season). That also contributed to killing our intermediate passing game.

Our receiving corps had some skills but wasn't deep or particularly good at actually catching the ball. Montgomery has been heavily discussed. Number 2 was Cajuste, still only a sophomore. Number 3 receiver was Kodi Whitfield who eventually found a better home at safety. 

Gaffney was a very good back, but he wasn't particularly explosive. A very mild limitation.


Now all of these are "limitations" on a conference championship team that finished the season ranked #11, and #30 on offense points per drive. That's a pretty high bar. But it seems silly to pretend these issues didn't exist.
[MSU, by the way, was #1 in the country in defensive points per drive (and in many defensive categories) - something one should consider in evaluating our offense's output in the Rose Bowl.]
[/quote]

+1 -- Ding ding ding ding . . . welcome to the reputation Century Club CT!

[CTcard]

+1 -- Ding ding ding ding . . . welcome to the reputation Century Club CT!

Well ... wow.

In honour of martyup,





[Now somebody will give me a down vote and I'll slip back down. ]

[CTcard]

+1 -- Ding ding ding ding . . . welcome to the reputation Century Club CT!

Well ... wow.

In honour of martyup,





[Now somebody will give me a down vote and I'll slip back down. ]