[CardinalSagehen]

One dominant win over a good team doesn’t solve all our problems. That said, I believe the evidence of great coaching - actual fundamental improvement, particularly among our freshmen and inexperienced starting ILBs - is starting to show.  

So it’s not entirely crazy to begin reconsidering our ever-so-slim chances of winning the North. We often speculate on far-fetched matters here. In addition, it would please me enough if we merely entered temporary contention for the North, which would only take Oregon losing their next game before we do. This could have happened this past Saturday, had Cal been able to muster any offense with their backup QB.

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.

[CardinalSagehen]

One dominant win over a good team doesn’t solve all our problems. That said, I believe the evidence of great coaching - actual fundamental improvement, particularly among our freshmen and inexperienced starting ILBs - is starting to show.  

So it’s not entirely crazy to begin reconsidering our ever-so-slim chances of winning the North. We often speculate on far-fetched matters here. In addition, it would please me enough if we merely entered temporary contention for the North, which would only take Oregon losing their next game before we do. This could have happened this past Saturday, had Cal been able to muster any offense with their backup QB.

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.

[Brickcity]

Love it. For me...though I try to stay away from thinking about "next year" this early...IF the coaching staff really has figured out how to get the team playing like it was 2013 all over again...and IF the strength and conditioning staff can get us back to pre-2018 injury levels...then next season could be awesome. Assuming those two things happen, we'd have a deep and experienced team at virtually every position. On offense, only Colby Parkinson doesn't seem easily replaceable. But, with all the wide receivers, we may simply not emphasize the tight end as a receiver as much next year nor need to. As for the defense, we may not have a pass rusher as good as Toohill, but with everyone else returning in the front seven, damn, we should (in theory) have a good pass rush. Adebo is likely gone but Kelly looks like a star in the making and apparently the staff is high on Zahran Manley and I know they're high on Bonner. Really need the latter to get healthy - if he gets experience this year, he and Kelly could be quite a pair next year.

Anyway, this is my form of dreaming - one can envision one of our dominant teams next year if the two massive variables I noted work out in our favor. 

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.
[/quote]

I'm no

[Brickcity]

Love it. For me...though I try to stay away from thinking about "next year" this early...IF the coaching staff really has figured out how to get the team playing like it was 2013 all over again...and IF the strength and conditioning staff can get us back to pre-2018 injury levels...then next season could be awesome. Assuming those two things happen, we'd have a deep and experienced team at virtually every position. On offense, only Colby Parkinson doesn't seem easily replaceable. But, with all the wide receivers, we may simply not emphasize the tight end as a receiver as much next year nor need to. As for the defense, we may not have a pass rusher as good as Toohill, but with everyone else returning in the front seven, damn, we should (in theory) have a good pass rush. Adebo is likely gone but Kelly looks like a star in the making and apparently the staff is high on Zahran Manley and I know they're high on Bonner. Really need the latter to get healthy - if he gets experience this year, he and Kelly could be quite a pair next year.

Anyway, this is my form of dreaming - one can envision one of our dominant teams next year if the two massive variables I noted work out in our favor. 

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.
[/quote]

I'm no

[Snorlax94]

One dominant win over a good team doesn’t solve all our problems. That said, I believe the evidence of great coaching - actual fundamental improvement, particularly among our freshmen and inexperienced starting ILBs - is starting to show.  

So it’s not entirely crazy to begin reconsidering our ever-so-slim chances of winning the North. We often speculate on far-fetched matters here. In addition, it would please me enough if we merely entered temporary contention for the North, which would only take Oregon losing their next game before we do. This could have happened this past Saturday, had Cal been able to muster any offense with their backup QB.

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.

Cardinal Sagehen,  I have to admit that in my hope of hopes I have entertained the exact same delusional dreams.

I was so wishful that I even looked up the pac 12 tiebreaker rules. It would seem somewhat possible that Washington could beat Oregon, then Oregon could lose Some other game in the pac 12 N., maybe even to Oregon State.

But when I reviewed the tiebreaker rules, my impression was that it doesn’t matter whether oregon got two conference losses in the north or one in the north, one in the south: division standings are based on the conference, not division, record.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pac-12.com/...tion%3famp

So if Oregon had two conference losses, even if both were in the north, they would have the head-to-head tiebreaker over Stanford. So Not only would Stanford have to run the table in conference,Oregon would have to lose *three* conference games, which seems unlikely barring a crazy number of injuries.

But yes, like you, I am sayin’ there’s a chance.

[Snorlax94]

One dominant win over a good team doesn’t solve all our problems. That said, I believe the evidence of great coaching - actual fundamental improvement, particularly among our freshmen and inexperienced starting ILBs - is starting to show.  

So it’s not entirely crazy to begin reconsidering our ever-so-slim chances of winning the North. We often speculate on far-fetched matters here. In addition, it would please me enough if we merely entered temporary contention for the North, which would only take Oregon losing their next game before we do. This could have happened this past Saturday, had Cal been able to muster any offense with their backup QB.

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.

Cardinal Sagehen,  I have to admit that in my hope of hopes I have entertained the exact same delusional dreams.

I was so wishful that I even looked up the pac 12 tiebreaker rules. It would seem somewhat possible that Washington could beat Oregon, then Oregon could lose Some other game in the pac 12 N., maybe even to Oregon State.

But when I reviewed the tiebreaker rules, my impression was that it doesn’t matter whether oregon got two conference losses in the north or one in the north, one in the south: division standings are based on the conference, not division, record.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pac-12.com/...tion%3famp

So if Oregon had two conference losses, even if both were in the north, they would have the head-to-head tiebreaker over Stanford. So Not only would Stanford have to run the table in conference,Oregon would have to lose *three* conference games, which seems unlikely barring a crazy number of injuries.

But yes, like you, I am sayin’ there’s a chance.

[Austroturf]

One dominant win over a good team doesn’t solve all our problems. That said, I believe the evidence of great coaching - actual fundamental improvement, particularly among our freshmen and inexperienced starting ILBs - is starting to show.  

So it’s not entirely crazy to begin reconsidering our ever-so-slim chances of winning the North. We often speculate on far-fetched matters here. In addition, it would please me enough if we merely entered temporary contention for the North, which would only take Oregon losing their next game before we do. This could have happened this past Saturday, had Cal been able to muster any offense with their backup QB.

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.

Cardinal Sagehen,  I have to admit that in my hope of hopes I have entertained the exact same delusional dreams.

I was so wishful that I even looked up the pac 12 tiebreaker rules. It would seem somewhat possible that Washington could beat Oregon, then Oregon could lose Some other game in the pac 12 N., maybe even to Oregon State.

But when I reviewed the tiebreaker rules, my impression was that it doesn’t matter whether oregon got two conference losses in the north or one in the north, one in the south: division standings are based on the conference, not division, record.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pac-12.com/...tion%3famp

So if Oregon had two conference losses, even if both were in the north, they would have the head-to-head tiebreaker over Stanford. So Not only would Stanford have to run the table in conference,Oregon would have to lose *three* conference games, which seems unlikely barring a crazy number of injuries.

But yes, like you, I am sayin’ there’s a chance.

I agree that the Cardinal is dreaming, but his two-loss scenario necessitates a three-way tie for first, with Oregon, Washington and Stanford all sitting at 7-2 in conference play, with each holding the tie-breaker over a different team (Oregon over Stanford, Stanford over Washington and Washington over Oregon).  My understanding of the rules says that, in such a situation, the north-only record is relevant.  So if Oregon lost to Washington and one other north team, and both Washington and Stanford managed to win out in conference play, Stanford would have a north record of 4-1, while Oregon and Washington would both be 3-2, which would tip the balance in favor of Stanford.

This scenario fails if Washington is not in a three-way tie with Oregon and Stanford at the top, or if Oregon's second loss (assuming Washington beats them) comes at the hands of a south team.  Washington has already lost to two north teams (Cal and Stanford), so they have no chance in such a three-way tie.  

None of these scenarios is likely, but calculating the paths to a north title is still entertaining.  I also agree that Oregon does not look invulnerable, so a few losses are not totally improbable.  Let's see.

[Austroturf]

One dominant win over a good team doesn’t solve all our problems. That said, I believe the evidence of great coaching - actual fundamental improvement, particularly among our freshmen and inexperienced starting ILBs - is starting to show.  

So it’s not entirely crazy to begin reconsidering our ever-so-slim chances of winning the North. We often speculate on far-fetched matters here. In addition, it would please me enough if we merely entered temporary contention for the North, which would only take Oregon losing their next game before we do. This could have happened this past Saturday, had Cal been able to muster any offense with their backup QB.

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.

Cardinal Sagehen,  I have to admit that in my hope of hopes I have entertained the exact same delusional dreams.

I was so wishful that I even looked up the pac 12 tiebreaker rules. It would seem somewhat possible that Washington could beat Oregon, then Oregon could lose Some other game in the pac 12 N., maybe even to Oregon State.

But when I reviewed the tiebreaker rules, my impression was that it doesn’t matter whether oregon got two conference losses in the north or one in the north, one in the south: division standings are based on the conference, not division, record.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pac-12.com/...tion%3famp

So if Oregon had two conference losses, even if both were in the north, they would have the head-to-head tiebreaker over Stanford. So Not only would Stanford have to run the table in conference,Oregon would have to lose *three* conference games, which seems unlikely barring a crazy number of injuries.

But yes, like you, I am sayin’ there’s a chance.

I agree that the Cardinal is dreaming, but his two-loss scenario necessitates a three-way tie for first, with Oregon, Washington and Stanford all sitting at 7-2 in conference play, with each holding the tie-breaker over a different team (Oregon over Stanford, Stanford over Washington and Washington over Oregon).  My understanding of the rules says that, in such a situation, the north-only record is relevant.  So if Oregon lost to Washington and one other north team, and both Washington and Stanford managed to win out in conference play, Stanford would have a north record of 4-1, while Oregon and Washington would both be 3-2, which would tip the balance in favor of Stanford.

This scenario fails if Washington is not in a three-way tie with Oregon and Stanford at the top, or if Oregon's second loss (assuming Washington beats them) comes at the hands of a south team.  Washington has already lost to two north teams (Cal and Stanford), so they have no chance in such a three-way tie.  

None of these scenarios is likely, but calculating the paths to a north title is still entertaining.  I also agree that Oregon does not look invulnerable, so a few losses are not totally improbable.  Let's see.

[CardinalSagehen]

One dominant win over a good team doesn’t solve all our problems. That said, I believe the evidence of great coaching - actual fundamental improvement, particularly among our freshmen and inexperienced starting ILBs - is starting to show.  

So it’s not entirely crazy to begin reconsidering our ever-so-slim chances of winning the North. We often speculate on far-fetched matters here. In addition, it would please me enough if we merely entered temporary contention for the North, which would only take Oregon losing their next game before we do. This could have happened this past Saturday, had Cal been able to muster any offense with their backup QB.

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.

Cardinal Sagehen,  I have to admit that in my hope of hopes I have entertained the exact same delusional dreams.

I was so wishful that I even looked up the pac 12 tiebreaker rules. It would seem somewhat possible that Washington could beat Oregon, then Oregon could lose Some other game in the pac 12 N., maybe even to Oregon State.

But when I reviewed the tiebreaker rules, my impression was that it doesn’t matter whether oregon got two conference losses in the north or one in the north, one in the south: division standings are based on the conference, not division, record.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pac-12.com/...tion%3famp

So if Oregon had two conference losses, even if both were in the north, they would have the head-to-head tiebreaker over Stanford. So Not only would Stanford have to run the table in conference,Oregon would have to lose *three* conference games, which seems unlikely barring a crazy number of injuries.

But yes, like you, I am sayin’ there’s a chance.

I agree that the Cardinal is dreaming, but his two-loss scenario necessitates a three-way tie for first, with Oregon, Washington and Stanford all sitting at 7-2 in conference play, with each holding the tie-breaker over a different team (Oregon over Stanford, Stanford over Washington and Washington over Oregon).  My understanding of the rules says that, in such a situation, the north-only record is relevant.  So if Oregon lost to Washington and one other north team, and both Washington and Stanford managed to win out in conference play, Stanford would have a north record of 4-1, while Oregon and Washington would both be 3-2, which would tip the balance in favor of Stanford.

This scenario fails if Washington is not in a three-way tie with Oregon and Stanford at the top, or if Oregon's second loss (assuming Washington beats them) comes at the hands of a south team.  Washington has already lost to two north teams (Cal and Stanford), so they have no chance in such a three-way tie.  

None of these scenarios is likely, but calculating the paths to a north title is still entertaining.  I also agree that Oregon does not look invulnerable, so a few losses are not totally improbable.  Let's see.

Exactly, Astroturf. It’s probably the case that (three Oregon losses) is more likely than (two Oregon losses in the North + UW wins out). Either scenario is multiplied by the slim probability that we win out, not counting ND. But stranger things have happened. We did just dominate the defending champs, which has to count for something.  

I also now feel like we could have beaten Oregon with a healthy QB.  Now that KJ has sat for two weeks, it seems like his injury was every bit as bad as it appeared. It’s probably a small fracture.  Imagine how different the race would look had we won that game, in which total offense was roughly even and our defense played well enough to win.  We’d be in first place having played three of our four toughest games, holding the tie-breakers over Oregon and Washington, which both have more games remaining.  I’m not saying we were all that close to beating Oregon, but QB is the most important position on the field and KJ’s heart was in the right place but he was awful on that day.

Coulda shoulda woulda. I’m still excited to see how it all plays out. Given the bye and our next opponent at home, we’re unlikely to lose for a few weeks, which leaves quite a bit of time for the Ducks to start discombobulating.

[CardinalSagehen]

One dominant win over a good team doesn’t solve all our problems. That said, I believe the evidence of great coaching - actual fundamental improvement, particularly among our freshmen and inexperienced starting ILBs - is starting to show.  

So it’s not entirely crazy to begin reconsidering our ever-so-slim chances of winning the North. We often speculate on far-fetched matters here. In addition, it would please me enough if we merely entered temporary contention for the North, which would only take Oregon losing their next game before we do. This could have happened this past Saturday, had Cal been able to muster any offense with their backup QB.

Our chances seem to depend on (a) going 5-0 in our remaining conference games; and (b) Oregon going 5-2 (with two North losses) or 4-3. (The two-loss scenario presumes a three-way tie with Oregon and UW, in which all teams would be 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker would be our better North Division record - quite unlikely.)  

Basically, we want Huskies wins and Ducks losses the rest of the way - so that's what I'll be watching this weekend as Stanford takes its bye. Oregon does not strike me as such a great or dominant team that a loss to any team on their remaining schedule would be totally inconceivable. In fact, I was much more surprised when they lost at Arizona in late-November back in 2013, catapulting us to the CCG and the Rose Bowl, than I'd be if this year's team lost two games. I think the biggest problem is that we have no margin for error, and we're not all that great (or healthy) ourselves.

Thank you for permitting me my daily delusion.  Now back to the real world.

Cardinal Sagehen,  I have to admit that in my hope of hopes I have entertained the exact same delusional dreams.

I was so wishful that I even looked up the pac 12 tiebreaker rules. It would seem somewhat possible that Washington could beat Oregon, then Oregon could lose Some other game in the pac 12 N., maybe even to Oregon State.

But when I reviewed the tiebreaker rules, my impression was that it doesn’t matter whether oregon got two conference losses in the north or one in the north, one in the south: division standings are based on the conference, not division, record.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pac-12.com/...tion%3famp

So if Oregon had two conference losses, even if both were in the north, they would have the head-to-head tiebreaker over Stanford. So Not only would Stanford have to run the table in conference,Oregon would have to lose *three* conference games, which seems unlikely barring a crazy number of injuries.

But yes, like you, I am sayin’ there’s a chance.

I agree that the Cardinal is dreaming, but his two-loss scenario necessitates a three-way tie for first, with Oregon, Washington and Stanford all sitting at 7-2 in conference play, with each holding the tie-breaker over a different team (Oregon over Stanford, Stanford over Washington and Washington over Oregon).  My understanding of the rules says that, in such a situation, the north-only record is relevant.  So if Oregon lost to Washington and one other north team, and both Washington and Stanford managed to win out in conference play, Stanford would have a north record of 4-1, while Oregon and Washington would both be 3-2, which would tip the balance in favor of Stanford.

This scenario fails if Washington is not in a three-way tie with Oregon and Stanford at the top, or if Oregon's second loss (assuming Washington beats them) comes at the hands of a south team.  Washington has already lost to two north teams (Cal and Stanford), so they have no chance in such a three-way tie.  

None of these scenarios is likely, but calculating the paths to a north title is still entertaining.  I also agree that Oregon does not look invulnerable, so a few losses are not totally improbable.  Let's see.

Exactly, Astroturf. It’s probably the case that (three Oregon losses) is more likely than (two Oregon losses in the North + UW wins out). Either scenario is multiplied by the slim probability that we win out, not counting ND. But stranger things have happened. We did just dominate the defending champs, which has to count for something.  

I also now feel like we could have beaten Oregon with a healthy QB.  Now that KJ has sat for two weeks, it seems like his injury was every bit as bad as it appeared. It’s probably a small fracture.  Imagine how different the race would look had we won that game, in which total offense was roughly even and our defense played well enough to win.  We’d be in first place having played three of our four toughest games, holding the tie-breakers over Oregon and Washington, which both have more games remaining.  I’m not saying we were all that close to beating Oregon, but QB is the most important position on the field and KJ’s heart was in the right place but he was awful on that day.

Coulda shoulda woulda. I’m still excited to see how it all plays out. Given the bye and our next opponent at home, we’re unlikely to lose for a few weeks, which leaves quite a bit of time for the Ducks to start discombobulating.

[CTcard]

Now that KJ has sat for two weeks, it seems like his injury was every bit as bad as it appeared. It’s probably a small fracture. 

I suspect there is something more than a small fracture with KJ. He did not play well at all in the two games after coming back from the Northwestern head-shot, even before hitting his hand on the helmet (that's about 1.5 games of pre-helmet struggles). Given KJ's previous level of performance, including in the first half of the Northwestern game, I attribute that to some lingering injury issue - head or otherwise.

[CTcard]

Now that KJ has sat for two weeks, it seems like his injury was every bit as bad as it appeared. It’s probably a small fracture. 

I suspect there is something more than a small fracture with KJ. He did not play well at all in the two games after coming back from the Northwestern head-shot, even before hitting his hand on the helmet (that's about 1.5 games of pre-helmet struggles). Given KJ's previous level of performance, including in the first half of the Northwestern game, I attribute that to some lingering injury issue - head or otherwise.

[Renaissance Man]

All of this speculation seems to center on things breaking the way that they did in 1999--the season ends and, somehow, Stanford is in the Rose Bowl.  Hoping for lightning to strike twice!

[Renaissance Man]

All of this speculation seems to center on things breaking the way that they did in 1999--the season ends and, somehow, Stanford is in the Rose Bowl.  Hoping for lightning to strike twice!

[cardcrimson]

All of this speculation seems to center on things breaking the way that they did in 1999--the season ends and, somehow, Stanford is in the Rose Bowl.  Hoping for lightning to strike twice!

Remember that quite well, and was going to post similarly. At the end of the Big Game, I stood in the north end of the old stadium, stunned. We were going to the Rose Bowl.

[cardcrimson]

All of this speculation seems to center on things breaking the way that they did in 1999--the season ends and, somehow, Stanford is in the Rose Bowl.  Hoping for lightning to strike twice!

Remember that quite well, and was going to post similarly. At the end of the Big Game, I stood in the north end of the old stadium, stunned. We were going to the Rose Bowl.

[Spiny_Norman]

My dream of dreams is that Stanford finishes the year with enough healthy offensive linemen to field a team.

It seems like a long-shot. But I believe it can happen.

[Spiny_Norman]

My dream of dreams is that Stanford finishes the year with enough healthy offensive linemen to field a team.

It seems like a long-shot. But I believe it can happen.

[winflop]

I'm taking a more muted approach to this. It was an awesome win, but it was one great week. And it came after 5 weeks of mostly putrid football.

I'll get more excited when this performance is backed up with good games against UCLA and Arizona. UCLA sucks and we should win by at least two scores, but I'm looking to Arizona as a real measuring stick as to whether what we saw on Saturday night is a trend or a blip.

[winflop]

I'm taking a more muted approach to this. It was an awesome win, but it was one great week. And it came after 5 weeks of mostly putrid football.

I'll get more excited when this performance is backed up with good games against UCLA and Arizona. UCLA sucks and we should win by at least two scores, but I'm looking to Arizona as a real measuring stick as to whether what we saw on Saturday night is a trend or a blip.

[qwerty49]

All of this speculation seems to center on things breaking the way that they did in 1999--the season ends and, somehow, Stanford is in the Rose Bowl.  Hoping for lightning to strike twice!

Remember that quite well, and was going to post similarly. At the end of the Big Game, I stood in the north end of the old stadium, stunned. We were going to the Rose Bowl.

And what a great moment that was. I had just landed in Melbourne, Australia and it was Sunday morning there. The front desk clerk at the hotel was kind enough to open up their business center so that I could use their desktop PC to find the KZSU audio feed and listen, live, to Casey’s Run For the Roses.

[qwerty49]

All of this speculation seems to center on things breaking the way that they did in 1999--the season ends and, somehow, Stanford is in the Rose Bowl.  Hoping for lightning to strike twice!

Remember that quite well, and was going to post similarly. At the end of the Big Game, I stood in the north end of the old stadium, stunned. We were going to the Rose Bowl.

And what a great moment that was. I had just landed in Melbourne, Australia and it was Sunday morning there. The front desk clerk at the hotel was kind enough to open up their business center so that I could use their desktop PC to find the KZSU audio feed and listen, live, to Casey’s Run For the Roses.

[BostonCard]

All of this speculation seems to center on things breaking the way that they did in 1999--the season ends and, somehow, Stanford is in the Rose Bowl.  Hoping for lightning to strike twice!

Remember that quite well, and was going to post similarly. At the end of the Big Game, I stood in the north end of the old stadium, stunned. We were going to the Rose Bowl.

And what a great moment that was. I had just landed in Melbourne, Australia and it was Sunday morning there. The front desk clerk at the hotel was kind enough to open up their business center so that I could use their desktop PC to find the KZSU audio feed and listen, live, to Casey’s Run For the Roses.

Ha!  I was in Melbourne (or maybe Cairnes) for our win over MSU in the Sun Bowl a few years earlier.  No way to listen to it; I just remember opening the newspaper two days later and seeing the box score hidden away deep in the paper.  I couldn't believe we had shut out MSU.

BC

[BostonCard]

All of this speculation seems to center on things breaking the way that they did in 1999--the season ends and, somehow, Stanford is in the Rose Bowl.  Hoping for lightning to strike twice!

Remember that quite well, and was going to post similarly. At the end of the Big Game, I stood in the north end of the old stadium, stunned. We were going to the Rose Bowl.

And what a great moment that was. I had just landed in Melbourne, Australia and it was Sunday morning there. The front desk clerk at the hotel was kind enough to open up their business center so that I could use their desktop PC to find the KZSU audio feed and listen, live, to Casey’s Run For the Roses.

Ha!  I was in Melbourne (or maybe Cairnes) for our win over MSU in the Sun Bowl a few years earlier.  No way to listen to it; I just remember opening the newspaper two days later and seeing the box score hidden away deep in the paper.  I couldn't believe we had shut out MSU.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

Ha!  I was in Melbourne (or maybe Cairnes) for our win over MSU in the Sun Bowl a few years earlier.  No way to listen to it; I just remember opening the newspaper two days later and seeing the box score hidden away deep in the paper.  I couldn't believe we had shut out MSU.


BC

Wasn't Nick Saban coaching that MSU team? Boy the two head coaches in that game sure went in opposite directions starting a few years later.

[Spiny_Norman]

Ha!  I was in Melbourne (or maybe Cairnes) for our win over MSU in the Sun Bowl a few years earlier.  No way to listen to it; I just remember opening the newspaper two days later and seeing the box score hidden away deep in the paper.  I couldn't believe we had shut out MSU.


BC

Wasn't Nick Saban coaching that MSU team? Boy the two head coaches in that game sure went in opposite directions starting a few years later.

[bbm233]

[/quote]

Ha!  I was in Melbourne (or maybe Cairnes) for our win over MSU in the Sun Bowl a few years earlier.  No way to listen to it; I just remember opening the newspaper two days later and seeing the box score hidden away deep in the paper.  I couldn't believe we had shut out MSU.

BC
[/quote]

Ha! I had just returned to the US from 3 years in Melbourne and a 6 month sabbatical (driving around Oz). I went to the Sun Bowl before going back to work in January. 

P.S. we had an active fantasy football league at work down under, but we couldn't score the games until Wednesday because we had to wait for the USA Today to be available at the international newsstand (no internet). We also created an Aussie Rules fantasy league. That was crazy fun.

P.P.S. my Cardboard handle is the license plate of the van we drove on that trip.

[bbm233]

[/quote]

Ha!  I was in Melbourne (or maybe Cairnes) for our win over MSU in the Sun Bowl a few years earlier.  No way to listen to it; I just remember opening the newspaper two days later and seeing the box score hidden away deep in the paper.  I couldn't believe we had shut out MSU.

BC
[/quote]

Ha! I had just returned to the US from 3 years in Melbourne and a 6 month sabbatical (driving around Oz). I went to the Sun Bowl before going back to work in January. 

P.S. we had an active fantasy football league at work down under, but we couldn't score the games until Wednesday because we had to wait for the USA Today to be available at the international newsstand (no internet). We also created an Aussie Rules fantasy league. That was crazy fun.

P.P.S. my Cardboard handle is the license plate of the van we drove on that trip.

[BostonCard]

Ha! I had just returned to the US from 3 years in Melbourne and a 6 month sabbatical (driving around Oz). I went to the Sun Bowl before going back to work in January. 


P.S. we had an active fantasy football league at work down under, but we couldn't score the games until Wednesday because we had to wait for the USA Today to be available at the international newsstand (no internet). We also created an Aussie Rules fantasy league. That was crazy fun.



P.P.S. my Cardboard handle is the license plate of the van we drove on that trip.

Small world.  My parents were in Melbourne (Black Rock, to be specific) for about three years while I was at Stanford, so I would visit over winter break and enjoy a second summer.  Aussie rules is great fun to watch.

BC

[BostonCard]

Ha! I had just returned to the US from 3 years in Melbourne and a 6 month sabbatical (driving around Oz). I went to the Sun Bowl before going back to work in January. 


P.S. we had an active fantasy football league at work down under, but we couldn't score the games until Wednesday because we had to wait for the USA Today to be available at the international newsstand (no internet). We also created an Aussie Rules fantasy league. That was crazy fun.



P.P.S. my Cardboard handle is the license plate of the van we drove on that trip.

Small world.  My parents were in Melbourne (Black Rock, to be specific) for about three years while I was at Stanford, so I would visit over winter break and enjoy a second summer.  Aussie rules is great fun to watch.

BC