[washingtonismoney]

Early yet for a thread but I see Texas is favored by 3.5 against SC this weekend: https://twitter.com/MattRHinton/status/1...1804953601

This may not be the best-received take in the history of this board, but I think we're rooting for SC here.

[washingtonismoney]

Early yet for a thread but I see Texas is favored by 3.5 against SC this weekend: https://twitter.com/MattRHinton/status/1...1804953601

This may not be the best-received take in the history of this board, but I think we're rooting for SC here.

[BostonCard]

Personally I'll be rooting for the sweet meteor of death.  But yeah, from a perspective of helping the conference this year, it would be useful for a team we beat to win a prominent non-conference game against a Power 5 opponent.

But I don't think it can quite get me to "rooting for USC".

BC

[BostonCard]

Personally I'll be rooting for the sweet meteor of death.  But yeah, from a perspective of helping the conference this year, it would be useful for a team we beat to win a prominent non-conference game against a Power 5 opponent.

But I don't think it can quite get me to "rooting for USC".

BC

[GoodGrief]

Personally I'll be rooting for the sweet meteor of death. 

Yeah, despite my fervent prayers every year, that USC-Notre Dame Arena-Swallowing Earthquake Has Yet To Take Place. Hopefully this is the year...

[GoodGrief]

Personally I'll be rooting for the sweet meteor of death. 

Yeah, despite my fervent prayers every year, that USC-Notre Dame Arena-Swallowing Earthquake Has Yet To Take Place. Hopefully this is the year...

[CTcard]

Another Pac 12 team plays a non-conference game where Stanford will see both teams this year: it's ASU at SDSU Saturday night. 

SDSU got hit hard by injuries this past week. Their senior QB Chapman is now out as is their senior DL Hall (the guy who intercepted the pass that Irwin stole back). Their backup QB came in and went 11-17 and 2 INTs against Sacramento State. 
So after taking out a down MSU team, they get a depleted SDSU. Herm may look like a miracle worker for another week. Then they get UW.

[CTcard]

Another Pac 12 team plays a non-conference game where Stanford will see both teams this year: it's ASU at SDSU Saturday night. 

SDSU got hit hard by injuries this past week. Their senior QB Chapman is now out as is their senior DL Hall (the guy who intercepted the pass that Irwin stole back). Their backup QB came in and went 11-17 and 2 INTs against Sacramento State. 
So after taking out a down MSU team, they get a depleted SDSU. Herm may look like a miracle worker for another week. Then they get UW.

[CardinalSagehen]

When two teams on our schedule play each other, which team's win provides the greater boost to our strength of schedule and/or national perception?

When both opponents are within the Pac 12 conference, I'd argue that we usually want the better team to win.  I assume that Stanford will beat the weaker team, and the win or loss against the stronger team will look better the stronger that team looks.  Conferences and schedules seem to be measured based on the strength of the top 2-3 teams rather than the overall top-to-bottom strength.

What about when it's a Pac 12 team vs. a solid non-conference team?  (e.g., SDSU - ASU, ND - USC)  For the same reason, the Pac 12 team's win isn't always in our best interests.  It almost seems like we should be pulling for whichever team is likeliest to end up with the highest ranking.  This would imply (at the moment) that we prefer ASU over SDSU and ND over USC.  But the differences are fairly small and hard to predict.

[CardinalSagehen]

When two teams on our schedule play each other, which team's win provides the greater boost to our strength of schedule and/or national perception?

When both opponents are within the Pac 12 conference, I'd argue that we usually want the better team to win.  I assume that Stanford will beat the weaker team, and the win or loss against the stronger team will look better the stronger that team looks.  Conferences and schedules seem to be measured based on the strength of the top 2-3 teams rather than the overall top-to-bottom strength.

What about when it's a Pac 12 team vs. a solid non-conference team?  (e.g., SDSU - ASU, ND - USC)  For the same reason, the Pac 12 team's win isn't always in our best interests.  It almost seems like we should be pulling for whichever team is likeliest to end up with the highest ranking.  This would imply (at the moment) that we prefer ASU over SDSU and ND over USC.  But the differences are fairly small and hard to predict.

[BostonCard]

When two teams on our schedule play each other, which team's win provides the greater boost to our strength of schedule and/or national perception?

When both opponents are within the Pac 12 conference, I'd argue that we usually want the better team to win.  I assume that Stanford will beat the weaker team, and the win or loss against the stronger team will look better the stronger that team looks.  Conferences and schedules seem to be measured based on the strength of the top 2-3 teams rather than the overall top-to-bottom strength.

What about when it's a Pac 12 team vs. a solid non-conference team?  (e.g., SDSU - ASU, ND - USC)  For the same reason, the Pac 12 team's win isn't always in our best interests.  It almost seems like we should be pulling for whichever team is likeliest to end up with the highest ranking.  This would imply (at the moment) that we prefer ASU over SDSU and ND over USC.  But the differences are fairly small and hard to predict.

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

BC

[BostonCard]

When two teams on our schedule play each other, which team's win provides the greater boost to our strength of schedule and/or national perception?

When both opponents are within the Pac 12 conference, I'd argue that we usually want the better team to win.  I assume that Stanford will beat the weaker team, and the win or loss against the stronger team will look better the stronger that team looks.  Conferences and schedules seem to be measured based on the strength of the top 2-3 teams rather than the overall top-to-bottom strength.

What about when it's a Pac 12 team vs. a solid non-conference team?  (e.g., SDSU - ASU, ND - USC)  For the same reason, the Pac 12 team's win isn't always in our best interests.  It almost seems like we should be pulling for whichever team is likeliest to end up with the highest ranking.  This would imply (at the moment) that we prefer ASU over SDSU and ND over USC.  But the differences are fairly small and hard to predict.

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

BC

[murky]

When two teams on our schedule play each other, which team's win provides the greater boost to our strength of schedule and/or national perception?

When both opponents are within the Pac 12 conference, I'd argue that we usually want the better team to win.  I assume that Stanford will beat the weaker team, and the win or loss against the stronger team will look better the stronger that team looks.  Conferences and schedules seem to be measured based on the strength of the top 2-3 teams rather than the overall top-to-bottom strength.

What about when it's a Pac 12 team vs. a solid non-conference team?  (e.g., SDSU - ASU, ND - USC)  For the same reason, the Pac 12 team's win isn't always in our best interests.  It almost seems like we should be pulling for whichever team is likeliest to end up with the highest ranking.  This would imply (at the moment) that we prefer ASU over SDSU and ND over USC.  But the differences are fairly small and hard to predict.

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

BC

That about sums it up for me.

---

When two teams on our schedule play each other, which team's win provides the greater boost to our strength of schedule and/or national perception?

When both opponents are within the Pac 12 conference, I'd argue that we usually want the better team to win.  I assume that Stanford will beat the weaker team, and the win or loss against the stronger team will look better the stronger that team looks.  Conferences and schedules seem to be measured based on the strength of the top 2-3 teams rather than the overall top-to-bottom strength.

What about when it's a Pac 12 team vs. a solid non-conference team?  (e.g., SDSU - ASU, ND - USC)  For the same reason, the Pac 12 team's win isn't always in our best interests.  It almost seems like we should be pulling for whichever team is likeliest to end up with the highest ranking.  This would imply (at the moment) that we prefer ASU over SDSU and ND over USC.  But the differences are fairly small and hard to predict.

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

BC

That about sums it up for me.

7) If I need a tie breaker, and I'm watching a game with a fan of another team, root with them.

[murky]

When two teams on our schedule play each other, which team's win provides the greater boost to our strength of schedule and/or national perception?

When both opponents are within the Pac 12 conference, I'd argue that we usually want the better team to win.  I assume that Stanford will beat the weaker team, and the win or loss against the stronger team will look better the stronger that team looks.  Conferences and schedules seem to be measured based on the strength of the top 2-3 teams rather than the overall top-to-bottom strength.

What about when it's a Pac 12 team vs. a solid non-conference team?  (e.g., SDSU - ASU, ND - USC)  For the same reason, the Pac 12 team's win isn't always in our best interests.  It almost seems like we should be pulling for whichever team is likeliest to end up with the highest ranking.  This would imply (at the moment) that we prefer ASU over SDSU and ND over USC.  But the differences are fairly small and hard to predict.

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

BC

That about sums it up for me.

---

When two teams on our schedule play each other, which team's win provides the greater boost to our strength of schedule and/or national perception?

When both opponents are within the Pac 12 conference, I'd argue that we usually want the better team to win.  I assume that Stanford will beat the weaker team, and the win or loss against the stronger team will look better the stronger that team looks.  Conferences and schedules seem to be measured based on the strength of the top 2-3 teams rather than the overall top-to-bottom strength.

What about when it's a Pac 12 team vs. a solid non-conference team?  (e.g., SDSU - ASU, ND - USC)  For the same reason, the Pac 12 team's win isn't always in our best interests.  It almost seems like we should be pulling for whichever team is likeliest to end up with the highest ranking.  This would imply (at the moment) that we prefer ASU over SDSU and ND over USC.  But the differences are fairly small and hard to predict.

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

BC

That about sums it up for me.

7) If I need a tie breaker, and I'm watching a game with a fan of another team, root with them.

[CTcard]

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

I'd pretty much stick with #6 since everything else is pretty much in the weeds. 

I'd note that my 10 year old has already anointed those three the "axis of evil" - which not only makes me proud but also makes me wonder how a 10 year old knows how to play off G.W. Bush quotations.

[CTcard]

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

I'd pretty much stick with #6 since everything else is pretty much in the weeds. 

I'd note that my 10 year old has already anointed those three the "axis of evil" - which not only makes me proud but also makes me wonder how a 10 year old knows how to play off G.W. Bush quotations.

[CardinalSagehen]

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

I'd pretty much stick with #6 since everything else is pretty much in the weeds. 

I'd note that my 10 year old has already anointed those three the "axis of evil" - which not only makes me proud but also makes me wonder how a 10 year old knows how to play off G.W. Bush quotations.

Nice to see that powerful rhetoric applied to something lighthearted, for a change!

As for CFP rooting interests, although it’s too soon to say, as of now it seems to boil down to BC’s #1 above.  Root for Clemson and Oklahoma to lose twice (not happening), Auburn or just one great team to lay waste to the rest of the SEC, and chaos in the Big Ten (ideally wins by Nebraska or MSU against OSU / Wisc / PSU).  Everything else, including my original question, is almost certainly in the noise. 

But that’s one thing to love about college football - you can find some sort of oblique rooting interest in just about every Power 5 game!

[CardinalSagehen]

If you want a purely utilitarian approach that does not take into account the effect of other teams winning on recruiting, and we are already Pac-12 north champions (or likely to be P12N Champs):
1) if one of the teams is in contention to make the playoffs, then we root for that team to lose

2) if neither is a playoff contender, if we played (or are playing) one of the teams but not the other, root for the team we played
3) If we played both teams and one or both is ranked, root for the more highly ranked team (or the team you expect to be more highly ranked at the end of the year)
4) If both teams are unranked, or their rankings are very close, root for the Pac-12 team since it affects perceptions of the  conference as a whole
5) If the match features two Pac-12 teams, root for the Pac-12 North team, unless it impacts our chances of making the Pac-12 championship.
6) If all else fails, root against Cal, USC, and Notre Dame

I'd pretty much stick with #6 since everything else is pretty much in the weeds. 

I'd note that my 10 year old has already anointed those three the "axis of evil" - which not only makes me proud but also makes me wonder how a 10 year old knows how to play off G.W. Bush quotations.

Nice to see that powerful rhetoric applied to something lighthearted, for a change!

As for CFP rooting interests, although it’s too soon to say, as of now it seems to boil down to BC’s #1 above.  Root for Clemson and Oklahoma to lose twice (not happening), Auburn or just one great team to lay waste to the rest of the SEC, and chaos in the Big Ten (ideally wins by Nebraska or MSU against OSU / Wisc / PSU).  Everything else, including my original question, is almost certainly in the noise. 

But that’s one thing to love about college football - you can find some sort of oblique rooting interest in just about every Power 5 game!

[oman]

Early yet for a thread but I see Texas is favored by 3.5 against SC this weekend: https://twitter.com/MattRHinton/status/1...1804953601

This may not be the best-received take in the history of this board, but I think we're rooting for SC here.

We?

Speak for yourself, you terrible college football fan.

[oman]

Early yet for a thread but I see Texas is favored by 3.5 against SC this weekend: https://twitter.com/MattRHinton/status/1...1804953601

This may not be the best-received take in the history of this board, but I think we're rooting for SC here.

We?

Speak for yourself, you terrible college football fan.

[washingtonismoney]

We?

Speak for yourself, you terrible college football fan.

Like Venom, I contain multitudes.

[washingtonismoney]

We?

Speak for yourself, you terrible college football fan.

Like Venom, I contain multitudes.

[pcgoode]

Another interesting game is Washington vs Utah in SLC.  Huskies are favored by 5 points.  The Utes came very close to beating them in Seattle last year.

[pcgoode]

Another interesting game is Washington vs Utah in SLC.  Huskies are favored by 5 points.  The Utes came very close to beating them in Seattle last year.

[bbm233]

Go Utes!

[bbm233]

Go Utes!

[Goose]

Go Utes!

Not so sure I can go along with this idea. We will almost certainly have to beat Washington to win the North anyway. Under those conditions, we should hope Washington has the best possible record when we play them.

[Goose]

Go Utes!

Not so sure I can go along with this idea. We will almost certainly have to beat Washington to win the North anyway. Under those conditions, we should hope Washington has the best possible record when we play them.

[stupac2]

Go Utes!

Not so sure I can go along with this idea. We will almost certainly have to beat Washington to win the North anyway. Under those conditions, we should hope Washington has the best possible record when we play them.

We only care if you think we're a playoff quality team but will drop 2 games. If we drop only 1 game and win the Pac-12 then it's very likely that we're in, and UW having losses helps that. Besides, if Utah surprises we play them too.

In general, given the obscenely large number of ways the season can play out, I think people are overconfident about which non-Stanford matchups matter. I also think people overrate the importance of perceptions about SOS, the path to the playoff so far has been "have at most one loss, win your conference, or be Alabama". The outcome of the Utah-UW game that helps us do that is for UW to lose.

[stupac2]

Go Utes!

Not so sure I can go along with this idea. We will almost certainly have to beat Washington to win the North anyway. Under those conditions, we should hope Washington has the best possible record when we play them.

We only care if you think we're a playoff quality team but will drop 2 games. If we drop only 1 game and win the Pac-12 then it's very likely that we're in, and UW having losses helps that. Besides, if Utah surprises we play them too.

In general, given the obscenely large number of ways the season can play out, I think people are overconfident about which non-Stanford matchups matter. I also think people overrate the importance of perceptions about SOS, the path to the playoff so far has been "have at most one loss, win your conference, or be Alabama". The outcome of the Utah-UW game that helps us do that is for UW to lose.

[SamuelMcF]

Go Utes!

Not so sure I can go along with this idea. We will almost certainly have to beat Washington to win the North anyway. Under those conditions, we should hope Washington has the best possible record when we play them.

We only care if you think we're a playoff quality team but will drop 2 games. If we drop only 1 game and win the Pac-12 then it's very likely that we're in, and UW having losses helps that. Besides, if Utah surprises we play them too.

In general, given the obscenely large number of ways the season can play out, I think people are overconfident about which non-Stanford matchups matter. I also think people overrate the importance of perceptions about SOS, the path to the playoff so far has been "have at most one loss, win your conference, or be Alabama". The outcome of the Utah-UW game that helps us do that is for UW to lose.

I completely agree with you here, although I have one small quibble: the path to the playoff so far has been "have at most one loss OR win your P5 conference." Alabama has fit this every year, so "being Alabama" isn't relevant.

[SamuelMcF]

Go Utes!

Not so sure I can go along with this idea. We will almost certainly have to beat Washington to win the North anyway. Under those conditions, we should hope Washington has the best possible record when we play them.

We only care if you think we're a playoff quality team but will drop 2 games. If we drop only 1 game and win the Pac-12 then it's very likely that we're in, and UW having losses helps that. Besides, if Utah surprises we play them too.

In general, given the obscenely large number of ways the season can play out, I think people are overconfident about which non-Stanford matchups matter. I also think people overrate the importance of perceptions about SOS, the path to the playoff so far has been "have at most one loss, win your conference, or be Alabama". The outcome of the Utah-UW game that helps us do that is for UW to lose.

I completely agree with you here, although I have one small quibble: the path to the playoff so far has been "have at most one loss OR win your P5 conference." Alabama has fit this every year, so "being Alabama" isn't relevant.

[Goose]

We only care if you think we're a playoff quality team but will drop 2 games. If we drop only 1 game and win the Pac-12 then it's very likely that we're in, and UW having losses helps that.

How? One might say that if we win the North, it doesn't matter what Washington's record is. That I could sort of go along with. But, otherwise, how does Washington losing to Utah help us? I guess it could if 1) Strength of schedule somehow comes into play, and 2)Utah is undefeated except for a loss to Stanford. Even then, there is a national perception that Utah isn't really a very good team. OTOH, Washington is perceived by the world as the "class" of the PAC-12, or at least they were before Auburn beat them. Undermining that perception with other losses doesn't help us in any way I can envision.

Besides, if Utah surprises we play them too.

In general, given the obscenely large number of ways the season can play out, I think people are overconfident about which non-Stanford matchups matter. I also think people overrate the importance of perceptions about SOS, the path to the playoff so far has been "have at most one loss, win your conference, or be Alabama". The outcome of the Utah-UW game that helps us do that is for UW to lose.

Again, how? If UW beats us and loses to Utah, they still win the North. They won't be in the final group, because they have two losses. But that helps us not at all. If UW beats us, we are out, period, unless just possibly UW loses two games to schools in the North. Losing to Utah helps us only in some complex tiebreaker, as I see it.

[Goose]

We only care if you think we're a playoff quality team but will drop 2 games. If we drop only 1 game and win the Pac-12 then it's very likely that we're in, and UW having losses helps that.

How? One might say that if we win the North, it doesn't matter what Washington's record is. That I could sort of go along with. But, otherwise, how does Washington losing to Utah help us? I guess it could if 1) Strength of schedule somehow comes into play, and 2)Utah is undefeated except for a loss to Stanford. Even then, there is a national perception that Utah isn't really a very good team. OTOH, Washington is perceived by the world as the "class" of the PAC-12, or at least they were before Auburn beat them. Undermining that perception with other losses doesn't help us in any way I can envision.

Besides, if Utah surprises we play them too.

In general, given the obscenely large number of ways the season can play out, I think people are overconfident about which non-Stanford matchups matter. I also think people overrate the importance of perceptions about SOS, the path to the playoff so far has been "have at most one loss, win your conference, or be Alabama". The outcome of the Utah-UW game that helps us do that is for UW to lose.

Again, how? If UW beats us and loses to Utah, they still win the North. They won't be in the final group, because they have two losses. But that helps us not at all. If UW beats us, we are out, period, unless just possibly UW loses two games to schools in the North. Losing to Utah helps us only in some complex tiebreaker, as I see it.

[CardinalSagehen]

If UW beats us, we are out, period, unless just possibly UW loses two games to schools in the North. Losing to Utah helps us only in some complex tiebreaker, as I see it.

Probably true, but not necessarily.  In 2015, Oregon beat us and was 7-2 in the conference, with losses to Utah and WSU.  If they didn't have that loss to Utah, it would have meant no conference championship, no Rose Bowl victory, and no #3 ranking for us.  Any UW conference loss could end up mattering this year, especially if they end up losing again to ASU, Oregon, etc.

Here's another way of putting this.  A loss by UW has tangible value for us by increasing our odds of winning the Pac 12 North, while a win by UW has ephemeral "national perception" value that could easily change as the season continues.  

I guess I'm with the others - Go Utes!

[CardinalSagehen]

If UW beats us, we are out, period, unless just possibly UW loses two games to schools in the North. Losing to Utah helps us only in some complex tiebreaker, as I see it.

Probably true, but not necessarily.  In 2015, Oregon beat us and was 7-2 in the conference, with losses to Utah and WSU.  If they didn't have that loss to Utah, it would have meant no conference championship, no Rose Bowl victory, and no #3 ranking for us.  Any UW conference loss could end up mattering this year, especially if they end up losing again to ASU, Oregon, etc.

Here's another way of putting this.  A loss by UW has tangible value for us by increasing our odds of winning the Pac 12 North, while a win by UW has ephemeral "national perception" value that could easily change as the season continues.  

I guess I'm with the others - Go Utes!

[Goose]

If UW beats us, we are out, period, unless just possibly UW loses two games to schools in the North. Losing to Utah helps us only in some complex tiebreaker, as I see it.

Probably true, but not necessarily.  In 2015, Oregon beat us and was 7-2 in the conference, with losses to Utah and WSU.  If they didn't have that loss to Utah, it would have meant no conference championship, no Rose Bowl victory, and no #3 ranking for us.  Any UW conference loss could end up mattering this year, especially if they end up losing again to ASU, Oregon, etc.

Here's another way of putting this.  A loss by UW has tangible value for us by increasing our odds of winning the Pac 12 North, while a win by UW has ephemeral "national perception" value that could easily change as the season continues.  

I guess I'm with the others - Go Utes!

It is true that if Washington has a lower winning percentage in the conference than we do, we would win the North championship. So, if Washington lost to Utah and another PAC-12 school, North or South, while we lost only to Washington, we are the North champion. However, in that scenario, we probably aren't getting into the final group of four anyway. I guess we could sneak in if the B1G and/or Big-12 champion also had a loss, but with the anti-PAC12 bias, it is far from a sure thing. I guess I am valuing the "ephemeral" advantage of beating a 1 loss Washington team as the only way we can get into the "final four".

[Goose]

If UW beats us, we are out, period, unless just possibly UW loses two games to schools in the North. Losing to Utah helps us only in some complex tiebreaker, as I see it.

Probably true, but not necessarily.  In 2015, Oregon beat us and was 7-2 in the conference, with losses to Utah and WSU.  If they didn't have that loss to Utah, it would have meant no conference championship, no Rose Bowl victory, and no #3 ranking for us.  Any UW conference loss could end up mattering this year, especially if they end up losing again to ASU, Oregon, etc.

Here's another way of putting this.  A loss by UW has tangible value for us by increasing our odds of winning the Pac 12 North, while a win by UW has ephemeral "national perception" value that could easily change as the season continues.  

I guess I'm with the others - Go Utes!

It is true that if Washington has a lower winning percentage in the conference than we do, we would win the North championship. So, if Washington lost to Utah and another PAC-12 school, North or South, while we lost only to Washington, we are the North champion. However, in that scenario, we probably aren't getting into the final group of four anyway. I guess we could sneak in if the B1G and/or Big-12 champion also had a loss, but with the anti-PAC12 bias, it is far from a sure thing. I guess I am valuing the "ephemeral" advantage of beating a 1 loss Washington team as the only way we can get into the "final four".

[fullmetal]

We?

Speak for yourself, you terrible college football fan.

Like Venom, I contain multitudes.

What oman means is that some of us have Longhorn rooting interests...and some of us always ALWAYS root against U$C, the spoiled children of Southern Cal.

[fullmetal]

We?

Speak for yourself, you terrible college football fan.

Like Venom, I contain multitudes.

What oman means is that some of us have Longhorn rooting interests...and some of us always ALWAYS root against U$C, the spoiled children of Southern Cal.