[BostonCard]

We finally come home, but face the two remaining ranked teams in the PAC-12, #24 UCLA and #3 Oregon, followed by a trip to ASU, who is in the others receiving votes (#31 by that metric) category.

We’ve already played #25 Kansas State and USC (who had been ranked at the time, but would now be #33).

Fwiw, we are also “receiving votes” and would be #42.

If we can somehow go 1-2 and end 3-3, that would be a major upside surprise.  2-4 with a lot of grumpy cardboarders is my expectation.

BC

[BostonCard]

We finally come home, but face the two remaining ranked teams in the PAC-12, #24 UCLA and #3 Oregon, followed by a trip to ASU, who is in the others receiving votes (#31 by that metric) category.

We’ve already played #25 Kansas State and USC (who had been ranked at the time, but would now be #33).

Fwiw, we are also “receiving votes” and would be #42.

If we can somehow go 1-2 and end 3-3, that would be a major upside surprise.  2-4 with a lot of grumpy cardboarders is my expectation.

BC

[Papa John]

Really, BC? You expect us to lose the next three games? Of course it's possible, but I don't think UCLA and ASU are great teams. They have talent, but they aren't great. And we just finished a 6-1 road trip.

I would rank the likelihood of wins in the next three games, from most likely to least likely: 1, 2, 0, 3


All predicated on the usual admonitions about staying healthy, no false positive C tests, etc.

[Papa John]

Really, BC? You expect us to lose the next three games? Of course it's possible, but I don't think UCLA and ASU are great teams. They have talent, but they aren't great. And we just finished a 6-1 road trip.

I would rank the likelihood of wins in the next three games, from most likely to least likely: 1, 2, 0, 3


All predicated on the usual admonitions about staying healthy, no false positive C tests, etc.

[JohnR34231]

We finally come home, but face the two remaining ranked teams in the PAC-12, #24 UCLA and #3 Oregon, followed by a trip to ASU, who is in the others receiving votes (#31 by that metric) category.

We’ve already played #25 Kansas State and USC (who had been ranked at the time, but would now be #33).

Fwiw, we are also “receiving votes” and would be #42.

If we can somehow go 1-2 and end 3-3, that would be a major upside surprise.  2-4 with a lot of grumpy cardboarders is my expectation.

BC

A lot of grumpy Cardboarders? That's kind of the norm here, although we did have a brief hiatus for the week after the U$C game.
I think we have a reasonable shot at winning 1 out of the next three games, although I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

[JohnR34231]

We finally come home, but face the two remaining ranked teams in the PAC-12, #24 UCLA and #3 Oregon, followed by a trip to ASU, who is in the others receiving votes (#31 by that metric) category.

We’ve already played #25 Kansas State and USC (who had been ranked at the time, but would now be #33).

Fwiw, we are also “receiving votes” and would be #42.

If we can somehow go 1-2 and end 3-3, that would be a major upside surprise.  2-4 with a lot of grumpy cardboarders is my expectation.

BC

A lot of grumpy Cardboarders? That's kind of the norm here, although we did have a brief hiatus for the week after the U$C game.
I think we have a reasonable shot at winning 1 out of the next three games, although I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

[BostonCard]

Really, BC? You expect us to lose the next three games? Of course it's possible, but I don't think UCLA and ASU are great teams. They have talent, but they aren't great. And we just finished a 6-1 road trip.

I would rank the likelihood of wins in the next three games, from most likely to least likely: 1, 2, 0, 3


All predicated on the usual admonitions about staying healthy, no false positive C tests, etc.

May the football gods reward your faith.

BC

[BostonCard]

Really, BC? You expect us to lose the next three games? Of course it's possible, but I don't think UCLA and ASU are great teams. They have talent, but they aren't great. And we just finished a 6-1 road trip.

I would rank the likelihood of wins in the next three games, from most likely to least likely: 1, 2, 0, 3


All predicated on the usual admonitions about staying healthy, no false positive C tests, etc.

May the football gods reward your faith.

BC

[winflop]

I expected Stanford to be 2-1 after the first three games, but obviously not the specific wins & losses.

The next three games are going to tell us an awful lot about this team.

[winflop]

I expected Stanford to be 2-1 after the first three games, but obviously not the specific wins & losses.

The next three games are going to tell us an awful lot about this team.

[gailtate]

I expected Stanford to be 2-1 after the first three games, but obviously not the specific wins & losses.

The next three games are going to tell us an awful lot about this team.

Not to mention a lot about player strength/conditioning.

[gailtate]

I expected Stanford to be 2-1 after the first three games, but obviously not the specific wins & losses.

The next three games are going to tell us an awful lot about this team.

Not to mention a lot about player strength/conditioning.

[pcgoode]

UCLA is a good, but not great, team this year. Their QB is not the best passer, and their pass defense is questionable.  I am also not convinced Oregon is a playoff caliber team. Their win against Ohio State, while impressive at the time, may well end up being against a team that is no better than the third or perhaps the fourth best team in the BIG. I think it is entirely possible we beat both of these teams at home in shootouts, and then lay an egg on the road against ASU.

[pcgoode]

UCLA is a good, but not great, team this year. Their QB is not the best passer, and their pass defense is questionable.  I am also not convinced Oregon is a playoff caliber team. Their win against Ohio State, while impressive at the time, may well end up being against a team that is no better than the third or perhaps the fourth best team in the BIG. I think it is entirely possible we beat both of these teams at home in shootouts, and then lay an egg on the road against ASU.

[CardinalSagehen]

We finally come home, but face the two remaining ranked teams in the PAC-12, #24 UCLA and #3 Oregon, followed by a trip to ASU, who is in the others receiving votes (#31 by that metric) category.

We’ve already played #25 Kansas State and USC (who had been ranked at the time, but would now be #33).

Fwiw, we are also “receiving votes” and would be #42.

If we can somehow go 1-2 and end 3-3, that would be a major upside surprise.  2-4 with a lot of grumpy cardboarders is my expectation.

BC

Your forecast is less controversial to me now that we know how many injury problems we have, particularly in our secondary.  But to me, the probabilities don't support it.

"A major upside surprise" suggests maybe a 30% chance of winning 1 game.  This would correspond roughly to a 5% chance of winning vs. Oregon and a 15% chance vs. UCLA and ASU.  (1 - (0.95 x 0.85 x 0.85) = 31%)  Don't those odds strike you as overly pessimistic, especially here in the "Conference of Parity"?

Even if you assumed we had just a 10% chance of beating Oregon and a 25% chance of beating UCLA and ASU, that would give us roughly 50/50 odds of winning one game.

I think our odds are considerably better than that.  1-2 is the most likely outcome, but 2-1 wouldn't surprise me more than 0-3.  I hope I don't regret these words in 3 weeks!

I will leave you with this.  UCLA Fan does not expect to beat us.  Not at all.  They have been properly conditioned by going 1-11 against us.

[CardinalSagehen]

We finally come home, but face the two remaining ranked teams in the PAC-12, #24 UCLA and #3 Oregon, followed by a trip to ASU, who is in the others receiving votes (#31 by that metric) category.

We’ve already played #25 Kansas State and USC (who had been ranked at the time, but would now be #33).

Fwiw, we are also “receiving votes” and would be #42.

If we can somehow go 1-2 and end 3-3, that would be a major upside surprise.  2-4 with a lot of grumpy cardboarders is my expectation.

BC

Your forecast is less controversial to me now that we know how many injury problems we have, particularly in our secondary.  But to me, the probabilities don't support it.

"A major upside surprise" suggests maybe a 30% chance of winning 1 game.  This would correspond roughly to a 5% chance of winning vs. Oregon and a 15% chance vs. UCLA and ASU.  (1 - (0.95 x 0.85 x 0.85) = 31%)  Don't those odds strike you as overly pessimistic, especially here in the "Conference of Parity"?

Even if you assumed we had just a 10% chance of beating Oregon and a 25% chance of beating UCLA and ASU, that would give us roughly 50/50 odds of winning one game.

I think our odds are considerably better than that.  1-2 is the most likely outcome, but 2-1 wouldn't surprise me more than 0-3.  I hope I don't regret these words in 3 weeks!

I will leave you with this.  UCLA Fan does not expect to beat us.  Not at all.  They have been properly conditioned by going 1-11 against us.

[BostonCard]

I think 5% against Oregon is reasonable.  15% against UCLA and ASU might be a bit pessimistic, but I wouldn't put it much above 20%.  In that case, you get a probability of going winless of 60% (assuming they are independent), so winning one game would be an upside surprise.  Even if you are generous and give us a 1 in 4 chance of winning against UCLA and ASU, you still wind up winless close to 50%.

That being said, ESPN is giving us a 45% chance of winning against UCLA, so maybe I'm too down on the team.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think 5% against Oregon is reasonable.  15% against UCLA and ASU might be a bit pessimistic, but I wouldn't put it much above 20%.  In that case, you get a probability of going winless of 60% (assuming they are independent), so winning one game would be an upside surprise.  Even if you are generous and give us a 1 in 4 chance of winning against UCLA and ASU, you still wind up winless close to 50%.

That being said, ESPN is giving us a 45% chance of winning against UCLA, so maybe I'm too down on the team.

BC

[chrisk]

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

[chrisk]

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

[CardinalSagehen]

That being said, ESPN is giving us a 45% chance of winning against UCLA, so maybe I'm too down on the team.

I suggest listening to some UCLA Bruins Football podcasts to improve your mood.  Yesterday, I briefly checked out one called, "What's Bruin?" (or some stupid name like that).  Hank91 was a special guest - very nice job!  In any case, Bruin fans are thoroughly convinced of their impending doom against us.

[CardinalSagehen]

That being said, ESPN is giving us a 45% chance of winning against UCLA, so maybe I'm too down on the team.

I suggest listening to some UCLA Bruins Football podcasts to improve your mood.  Yesterday, I briefly checked out one called, "What's Bruin?" (or some stupid name like that).  Hank91 was a special guest - very nice job!  In any case, Bruin fans are thoroughly convinced of their impending doom against us.

[cctop]

Bruin fans are thoroughly convinced of their impending doom against us.

My wife and her brother are both UCLA grads.

Losing 12 of the last 13 games -- including a couple of pummellings and a couple of real heartbreakers -- has made them not want to get their hopes up.

[cctop]

Bruin fans are thoroughly convinced of their impending doom against us.

My wife and her brother are both UCLA grads.

Losing 12 of the last 13 games -- including a couple of pummellings and a couple of real heartbreakers -- has made them not want to get their hopes up.

[winflop]

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

Actually, it's an 18.5% chance of 0-3, 49.5% of 1-2, 27.5% of 2-1, and 4.5% of 3-0 based on those probabilities.

Given the injuries, I think 45% is too high. I think the only way Stanford wins tomorrow is in a track meet.

[winflop]

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

Actually, it's an 18.5% chance of 0-3, 49.5% of 1-2, 27.5% of 2-1, and 4.5% of 3-0 based on those probabilities.

Given the injuries, I think 45% is too high. I think the only way Stanford wins tomorrow is in a track meet.

[JohnR34231]

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

Actually, it's an 18.5% chance of 0-3, 49.5% of 1-2, 27.5% of 2-1, and 4.5% of 3-0 based on those probabilities.

Given the injuries, I think 45% is too high. I think the only way Stanford wins tomorrow is in a track meet.

Well, we have won track meets with them in three out of the last four years, so that seems to be the norm.

[JohnR34231]

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

Actually, it's an 18.5% chance of 0-3, 49.5% of 1-2, 27.5% of 2-1, and 4.5% of 3-0 based on those probabilities.

Given the injuries, I think 45% is too high. I think the only way Stanford wins tomorrow is in a track meet.

Well, we have won track meets with them in three out of the last four years, so that seems to be the norm.

[Austroturf]

I am convinced our success rate over the next three games wholly depends on which players are healthy and available.  Frankly, on any given day, I believe the current incarnation of Stanford football could beat any team in the Pac-12, even Oregon (particularly since we play them in Palo Alto).  But both the offensive and defensive backfields are threadbare due to injury, and if those players do not return soon and a few more join their ranks, the next three games could get ugly.  

From today's perspective, I am joining the 1-2 camp, but would be happy to see 2-1.  If the team can retain some modicum of health, I could see 7-5 or 6-6 as possible outcomes, with potential wins over Oregon State, Wazzu, Cal, Washington and one of the next three.  They could also beat Utah, which has looked shaky in recent games.  

The current ESPN match-up predictor has us favored against Wazzu, Cal, Washington and Utah, which would point to a 6-6 finish.

---

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

Actually, it's an 18.5% chance of 0-3, 49.5% of 1-2, 27.5% of 2-1, and 4.5% of 3-0 based on those probabilities.

Given the injuries, I think 45% is too high. I think the only way Stanford wins tomorrow is in a track meet.

Agree.  We only win if McKee lights up the Bruin secondary and throws for four or five TDs.  If we can't score early and often, we will lose.

[Austroturf]

I am convinced our success rate over the next three games wholly depends on which players are healthy and available.  Frankly, on any given day, I believe the current incarnation of Stanford football could beat any team in the Pac-12, even Oregon (particularly since we play them in Palo Alto).  But both the offensive and defensive backfields are threadbare due to injury, and if those players do not return soon and a few more join their ranks, the next three games could get ugly.  

From today's perspective, I am joining the 1-2 camp, but would be happy to see 2-1.  If the team can retain some modicum of health, I could see 7-5 or 6-6 as possible outcomes, with potential wins over Oregon State, Wazzu, Cal, Washington and one of the next three.  They could also beat Utah, which has looked shaky in recent games.  

The current ESPN match-up predictor has us favored against Wazzu, Cal, Washington and Utah, which would point to a 6-6 finish.

---

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

Actually, it's an 18.5% chance of 0-3, 49.5% of 1-2, 27.5% of 2-1, and 4.5% of 3-0 based on those probabilities.

Given the injuries, I think 45% is too high. I think the only way Stanford wins tomorrow is in a track meet.

Agree.  We only win if McKee lights up the Bruin secondary and throws for four or five TDs.  If we can't score early and often, we will lose.

[winflop]

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

Actually, it's an 18.5% chance of 0-3, 49.5% of 1-2, 27.5% of 2-1, and 4.5% of 3-0 based on those probabilities.

Given the injuries, I think 45% is too high. I think the only way Stanford wins tomorrow is in a track meet.

Well, we have won track meets with them in three out of the last four years, so that seems to be the norm.

True, but this track meet may be a bit more challenging because with only one RB it's going to fall to McKee to move the ball with his arm, whereas in the past the attack has had more options.

[winflop]

The same ESPN that gives Stanford 45% vs UCLA gives win probabilities of 25% vs Oregon and 40% vs ASU.

That results in a 75% chance of winning at least one game and a 25% chance of going winless in all three.

Actually, it's an 18.5% chance of 0-3, 49.5% of 1-2, 27.5% of 2-1, and 4.5% of 3-0 based on those probabilities.

Given the injuries, I think 45% is too high. I think the only way Stanford wins tomorrow is in a track meet.

Well, we have won track meets with them in three out of the last four years, so that seems to be the norm.

True, but this track meet may be a bit more challenging because with only one RB it's going to fall to McKee to move the ball with his arm, whereas in the past the attack has had more options.

[BostonCard]

0-3 is looking good.  3-0 is out of the running.  I give us about a 5% chance against Oregon, if only because Chrystobal’s Ducks are good for one complete meltdown a year, so why not against us?  I give us a 15% chance that ASU self-destructs and we steal a win.  So that gives us roughly a 19% chance of salvaging a win, but that seems generous.  In my heart of hearts, I expect two more bad losses.

BC

[BostonCard]

0-3 is looking good.  3-0 is out of the running.  I give us about a 5% chance against Oregon, if only because Chrystobal’s Ducks are good for one complete meltdown a year, so why not against us?  I give us a 15% chance that ASU self-destructs and we steal a win.  So that gives us roughly a 19% chance of salvaging a win, but that seems generous.  In my heart of hearts, I expect two more bad losses.

BC

[Brickcity]

0-3 is looking good.  3-0 is out of the running.  I give us about a 5% chance against Oregon, if only because Chrystobal’s Ducks are good for one complete meltdown a year, so why not against us?  I give us a 15% chance that ASU self-destructs and we steal a win.  So that gives us roughly a 19% chance of salvaging a win, but that seems generous.  In my heart of hearts, I expect two more bad losses.

BC

Tough to beat good teams when you're soft along the line of scrimmage.

[Brickcity]

0-3 is looking good.  3-0 is out of the running.  I give us about a 5% chance against Oregon, if only because Chrystobal’s Ducks are good for one complete meltdown a year, so why not against us?  I give us a 15% chance that ASU self-destructs and we steal a win.  So that gives us roughly a 19% chance of salvaging a win, but that seems generous.  In my heart of hearts, I expect two more bad losses.

BC

Tough to beat good teams when you're soft along the line of scrimmage.

[JohnR34231]

0-3 is looking good.  3-0 is out of the running.  I give us about a 5% chance against Oregon, if only because Chrystobal’s Ducks are good for one complete meltdown a year, so why not against us?  I give us a 15% chance that ASU self-destructs and we steal a win.  So that gives us roughly a 19% chance of salvaging a win, but that seems generous.  In my heart of hearts, I expect two more bad losses.

BC

Tough to beat good teams when you're soft along the line of scrimmage.

Yep, I had hoped our OL weakness was just a function of us needing a couple of games to get it together, especially since the OL was supposed to be a strength of the team going into the season. Now it is beginning to look like something that will plague us all year. If McKee isn't sharp, and he won't be all the time, we have no offense.

[JohnR34231]

0-3 is looking good.  3-0 is out of the running.  I give us about a 5% chance against Oregon, if only because Chrystobal’s Ducks are good for one complete meltdown a year, so why not against us?  I give us a 15% chance that ASU self-destructs and we steal a win.  So that gives us roughly a 19% chance of salvaging a win, but that seems generous.  In my heart of hearts, I expect two more bad losses.

BC

Tough to beat good teams when you're soft along the line of scrimmage.

Yep, I had hoped our OL weakness was just a function of us needing a couple of games to get it together, especially since the OL was supposed to be a strength of the team going into the season. Now it is beginning to look like something that will plague us all year. If McKee isn't sharp, and he won't be all the time, we have no offense.

[Goose]

Yep, I had hoped our OL weakness was just a function of us needing a couple of games to get it together, especially since the OL was supposed to be a strength of the team going into the season. Now it is beginning to look like something that will plague us all year. If McKee isn't sharp, and he won't be all the time, we have no offense.

Totally agree. Nobody plays their "best" all the time. Way too much to expect, and it can get worse if you have a QB that gets "happy feet" from being hit too much. Our OL should be better than this. We probably don't have lots of quickness, but we should be able to push some piles forward. Seems we can't do that either.

[Goose]

Yep, I had hoped our OL weakness was just a function of us needing a couple of games to get it together, especially since the OL was supposed to be a strength of the team going into the season. Now it is beginning to look like something that will plague us all year. If McKee isn't sharp, and he won't be all the time, we have no offense.

Totally agree. Nobody plays their "best" all the time. Way too much to expect, and it can get worse if you have a QB that gets "happy feet" from being hit too much. Our OL should be better than this. We probably don't have lots of quickness, but we should be able to push some piles forward. Seems we can't do that either.