[OutsiderFan]

I don't recall a Stanford--UCLA game that has generated less interest than this one.
Even during the Buddy/Walt years UCLA fans showed pretty well.
For Saturday's game StubHub has end zone tickets for less than $9 and tickets between the 40s for less than $20.
The free Stanford tailgate has 16 people signed up so far!

Usually when we play UCLA at least one of the teams is in the running for the CC game. This year neither is, and that may have something to do with the lack of interest in the game.
Prediction? We win a fairly close, fairly high scoring game. Stanford 34 Bruins 27.

I think the definition of fairly high scoring has changed.

Didn't realize there was a formal definition, but FWIW here is mine.
Low scoring. Teams score less than 20.
Fairly high scoring. Teams score 20-35.
High scoring. Teams score over 35.

On the day I bring this up...

Ohio State 62 Michigan 39
Stanford 49 UCLA 42
Texas A&M 74 LSU 72 (Granted, it went 7 OTs, but neither team could stop the other in OT either)
ASU 41 UA 40
Alabama 52 Auburn 21
Clemson 56 South Carolina 35
OU 59 WVU 56

LOL.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't recall a Stanford--UCLA game that has generated less interest than this one.
Even during the Buddy/Walt years UCLA fans showed pretty well.
For Saturday's game StubHub has end zone tickets for less than $9 and tickets between the 40s for less than $20.
The free Stanford tailgate has 16 people signed up so far!

Usually when we play UCLA at least one of the teams is in the running for the CC game. This year neither is, and that may have something to do with the lack of interest in the game.
Prediction? We win a fairly close, fairly high scoring game. Stanford 34 Bruins 27.

I think the definition of fairly high scoring has changed.

Didn't realize there was a formal definition, but FWIW here is mine.
Low scoring. Teams score less than 20.
Fairly high scoring. Teams score 20-35.
High scoring. Teams score over 35.

On the day I bring this up...

Ohio State 62 Michigan 39
Stanford 49 UCLA 42
Texas A&M 74 LSU 72 (Granted, it went 7 OTs, but neither team could stop the other in OT either)
ASU 41 UA 40
Alabama 52 Auburn 21
Clemson 56 South Carolina 35
OU 59 WVU 56

LOL.

[JPR36]

I don't recall a Stanford--UCLA game that has generated less interest than this one.
Even during the Buddy/Walt years UCLA fans showed pretty well.
For Saturday's game StubHub has end zone tickets for less than $9 and tickets between the 40s for less than $20.
The free Stanford tailgate has 16 people signed up so far!

Usually when we play UCLA at least one of the teams is in the running for the CC game. This year neither is, and that may have something to do with the lack of interest in the game.
Prediction? We win a fairly close, fairly high scoring game. Stanford 34 Bruins 27.

I think the definition of fairly high scoring has changed.

Didn't realize there was a formal definition, but FWIW here is mine.
Low scoring. Teams score less than 20.
Fairly high scoring. Teams score 20-35.
High scoring. Teams score over 35.

On the day I bring this up...

Ohio State 62 Michigan 39
Stanford 49 UCLA 42
Texas A&M 74 LSU 72 (Granted, it went 7 OTs, but neither team could stop the other in OT either)
ASU 41 UA 40
Alabama 52 Auburn 21
Clemson 56 South Carolina 35
OU 59 WVU 56

LOL.

OK, I'll bite. What scores would you consider to be in these categories?

[JPR36]

I don't recall a Stanford--UCLA game that has generated less interest than this one.
Even during the Buddy/Walt years UCLA fans showed pretty well.
For Saturday's game StubHub has end zone tickets for less than $9 and tickets between the 40s for less than $20.
The free Stanford tailgate has 16 people signed up so far!

Usually when we play UCLA at least one of the teams is in the running for the CC game. This year neither is, and that may have something to do with the lack of interest in the game.
Prediction? We win a fairly close, fairly high scoring game. Stanford 34 Bruins 27.

I think the definition of fairly high scoring has changed.

Didn't realize there was a formal definition, but FWIW here is mine.
Low scoring. Teams score less than 20.
Fairly high scoring. Teams score 20-35.
High scoring. Teams score over 35.

On the day I bring this up...

Ohio State 62 Michigan 39
Stanford 49 UCLA 42
Texas A&M 74 LSU 72 (Granted, it went 7 OTs, but neither team could stop the other in OT either)
ASU 41 UA 40
Alabama 52 Auburn 21
Clemson 56 South Carolina 35
OU 59 WVU 56

LOL.

OK, I'll bite. What scores would you consider to be in these categories?

[OutsiderFan]

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

[OutsiderFan]

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

[winflop]

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

Very Low Scoring should be renamed "Big Ten Game"

[winflop]

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

Very Low Scoring should be renamed "Big Ten Game"

[JPR36]

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

Actually what I meant was scores for each team rather than combined ones. I probably should have clarified that. So we aren't that far in disagreement.

[JPR36]

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

Actually what I meant was scores for each team rather than combined ones. I probably should have clarified that. So we aren't that far in disagreement.

[Redrum]

...AND This, from Cardboard Eminence Gris and Govt. in Exile, Glenn Garvin:

"Regardless of what happens the rest of the season, our football team should get a brobdingnagian trophy for today's game. In all the years I've been watching, no Stanford team has ever tried more desperately to lose a game. Their efforts were ultimately overcome by epic UCLA ineptitude. but nobody can say Stanford didn't make an Olympian effort to blow it.

Among the heroes:

** the defensive backs, who took the day off after the first quarter, giving up 466 yard to a lightweight UCLA quarterback -- a third of his SEASON PASSING TOTAL. Practically the only passes he didn't complete were one that fell out of his hand for a fumble, and one thrown directly into the hands of Paulson Adebo, who was lying on the ground five yard from the nearest Bruin receiver, trying to make himself inconspicuous.

** whichever thoroughgoing imbecile on the offensive line let a UCLA defender come charging through, untouched and even un-breathed-upon, to tackle Bryce Love five yards deep in the end zone on a first and goal from the Stanford two-yard-line.

** the entire kicking team on the subsequent free kick, which let Bruin KR Darnay Holmes go 93 years for a touchdown. The only serious effort to tackle him was by the kicker, Jake Bailey.

** David Shaw. I'm not going to call him a moron because he's the winningest football coach in Stanford history. But he coached like one today. With a bit over five minutes left in the game, Stanford got the ball at its own 36 after UCLA missed a long field goal.

We led by a touchdown; it was obvious to everyone in America that the way our defense was being trampled,  we needed to make it a two-score game. Obvious to everyone but Shaw, that is. He tried to run out the clock, calling three straight running plays and then punting with 3:42 left. Incredibly, UCLA got TWO more possessions and twice penetrated deep into Stanford territory...but couldn't quite get it done.

If we play like this next weekend, kal will give us a merciless ass-whipping. And we will deserve it."



"

[Redrum]

...AND This, from Cardboard Eminence Gris and Govt. in Exile, Glenn Garvin:

"Regardless of what happens the rest of the season, our football team should get a brobdingnagian trophy for today's game. In all the years I've been watching, no Stanford team has ever tried more desperately to lose a game. Their efforts were ultimately overcome by epic UCLA ineptitude. but nobody can say Stanford didn't make an Olympian effort to blow it.

Among the heroes:

** the defensive backs, who took the day off after the first quarter, giving up 466 yard to a lightweight UCLA quarterback -- a third of his SEASON PASSING TOTAL. Practically the only passes he didn't complete were one that fell out of his hand for a fumble, and one thrown directly into the hands of Paulson Adebo, who was lying on the ground five yard from the nearest Bruin receiver, trying to make himself inconspicuous.

** whichever thoroughgoing imbecile on the offensive line let a UCLA defender come charging through, untouched and even un-breathed-upon, to tackle Bryce Love five yards deep in the end zone on a first and goal from the Stanford two-yard-line.

** the entire kicking team on the subsequent free kick, which let Bruin KR Darnay Holmes go 93 years for a touchdown. The only serious effort to tackle him was by the kicker, Jake Bailey.

** David Shaw. I'm not going to call him a moron because he's the winningest football coach in Stanford history. But he coached like one today. With a bit over five minutes left in the game, Stanford got the ball at its own 36 after UCLA missed a long field goal.

We led by a touchdown; it was obvious to everyone in America that the way our defense was being trampled,  we needed to make it a two-score game. Obvious to everyone but Shaw, that is. He tried to run out the clock, calling three straight running plays and then punting with 3:42 left. Incredibly, UCLA got TWO more possessions and twice penetrated deep into Stanford territory...but couldn't quite get it done.

If we play like this next weekend, kal will give us a merciless ass-whipping. And we will deserve it."



"

[2006alum]

Eh. Calling our coach a moron and our players imbeciles is a bit overbaked, IMHO. They all work exceptionally hard and I'm truly proud for them to represent my alma mater, even when everything doesn't go quite right on the field. But then again, I'm not of a mind to take my ball and go home just because other kids on the playground want to play a different game than I do. To each their own, I suppose.

[2006alum]

Eh. Calling our coach a moron and our players imbeciles is a bit overbaked, IMHO. They all work exceptionally hard and I'm truly proud for them to represent my alma mater, even when everything doesn't go quite right on the field. But then again, I'm not of a mind to take my ball and go home just because other kids on the playground want to play a different game than I do. To each their own, I suppose.

[martyup]

I sense a bitterness in Gavin's comments that indicate unhappiness unrelated to Stanford football.  I hope he is okay.  I always enjoyed his contributions here on the Cardboard.

[martyup]

I sense a bitterness in Gavin's comments that indicate unhappiness unrelated to Stanford football.  I hope he is okay.  I always enjoyed his contributions here on the Cardboard.

[lex24]

I will take a Big 10 game over a Big 12 game anyday. Course OSU- Mich combined for 102.

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

Very Low Scoring should be renamed "Big Ten Game"

[lex24]

I will take a Big 10 game over a Big 12 game anyday. Course OSU- Mich combined for 102.

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

Very Low Scoring should be renamed "Big Ten Game"

[GoodGrief]

Oh man, how I miss Garvin’s imagery-filled, grumpy-old-man writing style.  For those of you unfamiliar with Garvin, he used to write a great recap of every football game that rendered all other recaps obsolete. He self-exiled from the board after a policy disagreement. 

Redrum, if he sends you a write up after every game, feel free to post it, because hey, I won’t tell anyone, and he won’t see it anyway...

[GoodGrief]

Oh man, how I miss Garvin’s imagery-filled, grumpy-old-man writing style.  For those of you unfamiliar with Garvin, he used to write a great recap of every football game that rendered all other recaps obsolete. He self-exiled from the board after a policy disagreement. 

Redrum, if he sends you a write up after every game, feel free to post it, because hey, I won’t tell anyone, and he won’t see it anyway...

[BostonCard]

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

Very Low Scoring should be renamed "Big Ten Game"

Like Michigan/Ohio State?

BC

[BostonCard]

I only put in the scores that met my - now revised given rule changes - bar for high scoring. That means not only in-game penalties that favor offense, but also limited practice time with less physical contact.

Anyway, would stack it up like this these days in terms of point totals:

Very low scoring - Less than 30 combined points (Ex. 14-10)
Low scoring - Between 31-45 combined points (Ex. 24-20)
Moderate scoring - Between 46-55 (Ex. 28-27)
Fairly high scoring - Between 56-70 (Ex. 38-24)
High scoring - Between 71-84 (Ex. 45-31)
Big 12 game - 85+ (Ex. 49-42) 

Don't know how agreeable this is, but it's what I'm going to be using from here on out.

Very Low Scoring should be renamed "Big Ten Game"

Like Michigan/Ohio State?

BC

[Erika]

Oh man, how I miss Garvin’s imagery-filled, grumpy-old-man writing style.  For those of you unfamiliar with Garvin, he used to write a great recap of every football game that rendered all other recaps obsolete. He self-exiled from the board after a policy disagreement. 

Redrum, if he sends you a write up after every game, feel free to post it, because hey, I won’t tell anyone, and he won’t see it anyway...

Agreed, I miss Garvin's acerbic wit.  He used to make me laugh out loud (really!) on a daily basis.

[Erika]

Oh man, how I miss Garvin’s imagery-filled, grumpy-old-man writing style.  For those of you unfamiliar with Garvin, he used to write a great recap of every football game that rendered all other recaps obsolete. He self-exiled from the board after a policy disagreement. 

Redrum, if he sends you a write up after every game, feel free to post it, because hey, I won’t tell anyone, and he won’t see it anyway...

Agreed, I miss Garvin's acerbic wit.  He used to make me laugh out loud (really!) on a daily basis.

[BostonCard]

** the defensive backs, who took the day off after the first quarter, giving up 466 yard to a lightweight UCLA quarterback -- a third of his SEASON PASSING TOTAL. Practically the only passes he didn't complete were one that fell out of his hand for a fumble, and one thrown directly into the hands of Paulson Adebo, who was lying on the ground five yard from the nearest Bruin receiver, trying to make himself inconspicuous.

No doubt a forgettable game for the DB's, but it is worth mentioning that Speights has only played in 7 out of UCLA's 12 games.  Nor was this Speight's best game from a PER perspective (though that is a bit misleading because he strangely threw 400+ yards but no touchdowns, and had one interception).  Still, the game against us was comparable to his games against Arizona and ASU, with the exception that he threw more passes yesterday than any other game.

** whichever thoroughgoing imbecile on the offensive line let a UCLA defender come charging through, untouched and even un-breathed-upon, to tackle Bryce Love five yards deep in the end zone on a first and goal from the Stanford two-yard-line.

That would have been Hall, but we did not have first and goal; it was first and 10 from our own two-yard-line.

** the entire kicking team on the subsequent free kick, which let Bruin KR Darnay Holmes go 93 years for a touchdown. The only serious effort to tackle him was by the kicker, Jake Bailey.

That one was at least partly on Bailey, who out-kicked the coverage.  There's a reason most teams punt rather than kick from the tee on the free kick.

** David Shaw. I'm not going to call him a moron because he's the winningest football coach in Stanford history. But he coached like one today. With a bit over five minutes left in the game, Stanford got the ball at its own 36 after UCLA missed a long field goal.

We led by a touchdown; it was obvious to everyone in America that the way our defense was being trampled,  we needed to make it a two-score game. Obvious to everyone but Shaw, that is. He tried to run out the clock, calling three straight running plays and then punting with 3:42 left. Incredibly, UCLA got TWO more possessions and twice penetrated deep into Stanford territory...but couldn't quite get it done.

It may have been obvious to everyone in America, but it was wrong.  As it turned out, we didn't need to make it a two-score game.  Not to say that the ending didn't provoke unneeded stress, but the winningest coach in our history won another one, so maybe he should get the benefit of the doubt here.

If we play like this next weekend, kal will give us a merciless ass-whipping. And we will deserve it."

Well, Cal started off with 14 points on Colorado's first two possessions on two pick-sixes, and then proceeded to get outscored by the Buffs 21-19.  Cal's offense managed 211 yards of total offense and was 1/17 on third downs.  I think we can win if we can protect the ball and not make dumb mistakes, but of course, we need to actually protect the ball.

BC

[BostonCard]

** the defensive backs, who took the day off after the first quarter, giving up 466 yard to a lightweight UCLA quarterback -- a third of his SEASON PASSING TOTAL. Practically the only passes he didn't complete were one that fell out of his hand for a fumble, and one thrown directly into the hands of Paulson Adebo, who was lying on the ground five yard from the nearest Bruin receiver, trying to make himself inconspicuous.

No doubt a forgettable game for the DB's, but it is worth mentioning that Speights has only played in 7 out of UCLA's 12 games.  Nor was this Speight's best game from a PER perspective (though that is a bit misleading because he strangely threw 400+ yards but no touchdowns, and had one interception).  Still, the game against us was comparable to his games against Arizona and ASU, with the exception that he threw more passes yesterday than any other game.

** whichever thoroughgoing imbecile on the offensive line let a UCLA defender come charging through, untouched and even un-breathed-upon, to tackle Bryce Love five yards deep in the end zone on a first and goal from the Stanford two-yard-line.

That would have been Hall, but we did not have first and goal; it was first and 10 from our own two-yard-line.

** the entire kicking team on the subsequent free kick, which let Bruin KR Darnay Holmes go 93 years for a touchdown. The only serious effort to tackle him was by the kicker, Jake Bailey.

That one was at least partly on Bailey, who out-kicked the coverage.  There's a reason most teams punt rather than kick from the tee on the free kick.

** David Shaw. I'm not going to call him a moron because he's the winningest football coach in Stanford history. But he coached like one today. With a bit over five minutes left in the game, Stanford got the ball at its own 36 after UCLA missed a long field goal.

We led by a touchdown; it was obvious to everyone in America that the way our defense was being trampled,  we needed to make it a two-score game. Obvious to everyone but Shaw, that is. He tried to run out the clock, calling three straight running plays and then punting with 3:42 left. Incredibly, UCLA got TWO more possessions and twice penetrated deep into Stanford territory...but couldn't quite get it done.

It may have been obvious to everyone in America, but it was wrong.  As it turned out, we didn't need to make it a two-score game.  Not to say that the ending didn't provoke unneeded stress, but the winningest coach in our history won another one, so maybe he should get the benefit of the doubt here.

If we play like this next weekend, kal will give us a merciless ass-whipping. And we will deserve it."

Well, Cal started off with 14 points on Colorado's first two possessions on two pick-sixes, and then proceeded to get outscored by the Buffs 21-19.  Cal's offense managed 211 yards of total offense and was 1/17 on third downs.  I think we can win if we can protect the ball and not make dumb mistakes, but of course, we need to actually protect the ball.

BC

[CompSci87]

I sense a bitterness in Gavin's comments that indicate unhappiness unrelated to Stanford football.  I hope he is okay.  I always enjoyed his contributions here on the Cardboard.

Yes, I remember Garvin as more of a voice of reason here.

[CompSci87]

I sense a bitterness in Gavin's comments that indicate unhappiness unrelated to Stanford football.  I hope he is okay.  I always enjoyed his contributions here on the Cardboard.

Yes, I remember Garvin as more of a voice of reason here.

[Beeg_Dawg]

I don't recall a Stanford--UCLA game that has generated less interest than this one.
Even during the Buddy/Walt years UCLA fans showed pretty well.
For Saturday's game StubHub has end zone tickets for less than $9 and tickets between the 40s for less than $20.
The free Stanford tailgate has 16 people signed up so far!

Usually when we play UCLA at least one of the teams is in the running for the CC game. This year neither is, and that may have something to do with the lack of interest in the game.
Prediction? We win a fairly close, fairly high scoring game. Stanford 34 Bruins 27.

I think the definition of fairly high scoring has changed.

Didn't realize there was a formal definition, but FWIW here is mine.
Low scoring. Teams score less than 20.
Fairly high scoring. Teams score 20-35.
High scoring. Teams score over 35.

Wow, what do you call the LSU- T A&M game? (Track meet is incorrect) :)

[Beeg_Dawg]

I don't recall a Stanford--UCLA game that has generated less interest than this one.
Even during the Buddy/Walt years UCLA fans showed pretty well.
For Saturday's game StubHub has end zone tickets for less than $9 and tickets between the 40s for less than $20.
The free Stanford tailgate has 16 people signed up so far!

Usually when we play UCLA at least one of the teams is in the running for the CC game. This year neither is, and that may have something to do with the lack of interest in the game.
Prediction? We win a fairly close, fairly high scoring game. Stanford 34 Bruins 27.

I think the definition of fairly high scoring has changed.

Didn't realize there was a formal definition, but FWIW here is mine.
Low scoring. Teams score less than 20.
Fairly high scoring. Teams score 20-35.
High scoring. Teams score over 35.

Wow, what do you call the LSU- T A&M game? (Track meet is incorrect) :)

[stupac2]

I sense a bitterness in Gavin's comments that indicate unhappiness unrelated to Stanford football.  I hope he is okay.  I always enjoyed his contributions here on the Cardboard.

Yes, I remember Garvin as more of a voice of reason here.

That's a... uh, interesting way to recall it, especially given the post above that BC picked up apart as both factually and analytically incorrect.

Garvin has a way with words, but I'm not sure he has much in the way of analytical chops.

[stupac2]

I sense a bitterness in Gavin's comments that indicate unhappiness unrelated to Stanford football.  I hope he is okay.  I always enjoyed his contributions here on the Cardboard.

Yes, I remember Garvin as more of a voice of reason here.

That's a... uh, interesting way to recall it, especially given the post above that BC picked up apart as both factually and analytically incorrect.

Garvin has a way with words, but I'm not sure he has much in the way of analytical chops.