[chrisk]

Muir and/or Taylor will not be let go before the Trustees finish their plan.

A competent person would be a fool to take either job without knowing what the administration is planning.

---

After this week, Stanford is alone in 16th place. With the right results next week, Stanford can move up to a tie for 13th.

[chrisk]

Muir and/or Taylor will not be let go before the Trustees finish their plan.

A competent person would be a fool to take either job without knowing what the administration is planning.

---

After this week, Stanford is alone in 16th place. With the right results next week, Stanford can move up to a tie for 13th.

[CompSci87]

1732417519[/url]']
By the way, w/ 5:30 left in Q3, we had 4th and 8 at the Cal 18, ahead 21-7. Instead of kicking an easy FG, TT calls for a pass from Conor Weselman to Sam Roush that went incomplete. We could have been ahead 24-7. Instead, having stopped us from scoring anything, they came alive and went on to score the last 17 points. Why in God's name did TT forego those 3 points? I just don't get it. Was the play that he called one that had a high percentage of getting us a first down? Hard for me to see that. Grrrrrgggghhhh.

I feel like if you are going to comment on the game, you should probably actually watch what you comment on.  If you had, you would have known that we were going for a field goal, but the snap was mishandled, and Weselman flinged it in Roush’ general direction to avoid being taken down for a big loss.

Tough that a week after our field goal kicking won us the game, it was one (of several) reasons we lost; one missed field goal (to be fair, from about 52 yards) and one botched field goal.  Had we made them both we would have won the game.

BC

It would also have helped to read the two previous responses in this thread when MV asked about the play once before.

[CompSci87]

1732417519[/url]']
By the way, w/ 5:30 left in Q3, we had 4th and 8 at the Cal 18, ahead 21-7. Instead of kicking an easy FG, TT calls for a pass from Conor Weselman to Sam Roush that went incomplete. We could have been ahead 24-7. Instead, having stopped us from scoring anything, they came alive and went on to score the last 17 points. Why in God's name did TT forego those 3 points? I just don't get it. Was the play that he called one that had a high percentage of getting us a first down? Hard for me to see that. Grrrrrgggghhhh.

I feel like if you are going to comment on the game, you should probably actually watch what you comment on.  If you had, you would have known that we were going for a field goal, but the snap was mishandled, and Weselman flinged it in Roush’ general direction to avoid being taken down for a big loss.

Tough that a week after our field goal kicking won us the game, it was one (of several) reasons we lost; one missed field goal (to be fair, from about 52 yards) and one botched field goal.  Had we made them both we would have won the game.

BC

It would also have helped to read the two previous responses in this thread when MV asked about the play once before.

[MV72018]

Weenies in BG 127: Superior QB and a superior coaching staff. 

YOU DON'T PISS AWAY 98 YARDS IN THE CLOSING MINUTES.
Imagine what it's like to be out-coached by JUSTIN WILCOX.

Couldn't agree more. Our coaching STUNK! Nada the last 25 minutes of the game.  
I was particularly INFURIATED with the play calls on our drive after they went ahead.
We had plenty of time left, even though we'd burned one of our 3 TOs. But the
longish pass playcalls were absolutely mystifying to me.

---

By the way, w/ 5:30 left in Q3, we had 4th and 8 at the Cal 18, ahead 21-7. Instead of kicking an easy FG, TT calls for a pass from Conor Weselman to Sam Roush that went incomplete. We could have been ahead 24-7. Instead, having stopped us from scoring anything, they came alive and went on to score the last 17 points. Why in God's name did TT forego those 3 points? I just don't get it. Was the play that he called one that had a high percentage of getting us a first down? Hard for me to see that. Grrrrrgggghhhh.

TT didn't forgo anything. It was a bobbled snap, with the holder's weak attempt at a pass just a desperation play.

Needle, thanks for the clarification. I was only able to intermittently follow the game on ESPN online and now see that I failed to consider that the "pass" might have been a desperation heave after a botched field goal attempt. Erroneous assumption on my part.

[MV72018]

Weenies in BG 127: Superior QB and a superior coaching staff. 

YOU DON'T PISS AWAY 98 YARDS IN THE CLOSING MINUTES.
Imagine what it's like to be out-coached by JUSTIN WILCOX.

Couldn't agree more. Our coaching STUNK! Nada the last 25 minutes of the game.  
I was particularly INFURIATED with the play calls on our drive after they went ahead.
We had plenty of time left, even though we'd burned one of our 3 TOs. But the
longish pass playcalls were absolutely mystifying to me.

---

By the way, w/ 5:30 left in Q3, we had 4th and 8 at the Cal 18, ahead 21-7. Instead of kicking an easy FG, TT calls for a pass from Conor Weselman to Sam Roush that went incomplete. We could have been ahead 24-7. Instead, having stopped us from scoring anything, they came alive and went on to score the last 17 points. Why in God's name did TT forego those 3 points? I just don't get it. Was the play that he called one that had a high percentage of getting us a first down? Hard for me to see that. Grrrrrgggghhhh.

TT didn't forgo anything. It was a bobbled snap, with the holder's weak attempt at a pass just a desperation play.

Needle, thanks for the clarification. I was only able to intermittently follow the game on ESPN online and now see that I failed to consider that the "pass" might have been a desperation heave after a botched field goal attempt. Erroneous assumption on my part.

[newguy]

i need a therapy kitten

I need a therapy kitten if it comes strapped with a whiskey flask on its back

---

i need a therapy kitten

I'd lend you the original, but she's consoling me after a pair of bad losses today. . . .

i think we should have therapy kittens for all.

[newguy]

i need a therapy kitten

I need a therapy kitten if it comes strapped with a whiskey flask on its back

---

i need a therapy kitten

I'd lend you the original, but she's consoling me after a pair of bad losses today. . . .

i think we should have therapy kittens for all.

[SkiBum80]

Watched Coach’s post game conference
In reply to a question about if the team would be very down from this loss, Coach replied something to the effect: they’ll be back. 
I know he probably meant “back” as in get ready for last game.
But It occurred to me it was sugarcoating a bit the true disappointment of this moment
That is, a bunch of guys on the team that are graduating and/or out of eligibility, and will not be back. And they never experienced beating Cal. Add to that those that transfer out.
And so actually Coach, this was their chance. Their moment. That moment was lost. Booted. Those guys will never “be back”.

[SkiBum80]

Watched Coach’s post game conference
In reply to a question about if the team would be very down from this loss, Coach replied something to the effect: they’ll be back. 
I know he probably meant “back” as in get ready for last game.
But It occurred to me it was sugarcoating a bit the true disappointment of this moment
That is, a bunch of guys on the team that are graduating and/or out of eligibility, and will not be back. And they never experienced beating Cal. Add to that those that transfer out.
And so actually Coach, this was their chance. Their moment. That moment was lost. Booted. Those guys will never “be back”.

[gailtate]

Watched Coach’s post game conference
In reply to a question about if the team would be very down from this loss, Coach replied something to the effect: they’ll be back. 
I know he probably meant “back” as in get ready for last game.
But It occurred to me it was sugarcoating a bit the true disappointment of this moment
That is, a bunch of guys on the team that are graduating and/or out of eligibility, and will not be back. And they never experienced beating Cal. Add to that those that transfer out.
And so actually Coach, this was their chance. Their moment. That moment was lost. Booted. Those guys will never “be back”.

I hear you. Thing is, if this is the worst thing to befall these young men, they still will have lived enviable lives.

[gailtate]

Watched Coach’s post game conference
In reply to a question about if the team would be very down from this loss, Coach replied something to the effect: they’ll be back. 
I know he probably meant “back” as in get ready for last game.
But It occurred to me it was sugarcoating a bit the true disappointment of this moment
That is, a bunch of guys on the team that are graduating and/or out of eligibility, and will not be back. And they never experienced beating Cal. Add to that those that transfer out.
And so actually Coach, this was their chance. Their moment. That moment was lost. Booted. Those guys will never “be back”.

I hear you. Thing is, if this is the worst thing to befall these young men, they still will have lived enviable lives.

[Jamesy]

I do feel bad for the seniors. This is the first Stanford class since the class of 2006 to never win Big Game.

[Jamesy]

I do feel bad for the seniors. This is the first Stanford class since the class of 2006 to never win Big Game.

[Mick]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

[Mick]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

[Giants]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

[Giants]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

[Mick]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

[Mick]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

[Giants]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

[Giants]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

[Mick]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

[Mick]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

[jacket3ree]

Leaving aside all the existential discussion about Stanford football, that was an old school Big Game sans a big Stanford contingent in the stands. One mediocre team salvaging a season in close fashion over a worse team. As I told Calfan wife to ever-increasing irritation as the game wore on: "Don't worry. Stanford knows how to lose. They'll find a way to lose." Right after the kickoff fumble recovery before Stanford puked on its own shoes, I started, briefly, to think I was full of ****. Briefly.

This is as simple as Stanford really knows how to lose. I mean 98 yards. Really?

One small correction to a point made above. Stanford has absolutely cemented 16th place in the ACC.  They, along with Clemson, Louisville, Georgia Tech, and FSU (the half pairs of ACC-SEC rivalry games) have completed the 8-game conference schedule. Stanford has six losses and will end with six losses. Of the remaining teams that could also end with six losses - Cal, NC State, and Wake Forest - all of them beat Stanford, so Stanford doesn't tie any one of them. All of those teams also have better overall records with only Wake Forest not having already won five games.

Thanks FSU for sucking so badly this year, or Stanford could be the anchor. Pretty damn close to the anchor, so well done Coach Taylor.....

[jacket3ree]

Leaving aside all the existential discussion about Stanford football, that was an old school Big Game sans a big Stanford contingent in the stands. One mediocre team salvaging a season in close fashion over a worse team. As I told Calfan wife to ever-increasing irritation as the game wore on: "Don't worry. Stanford knows how to lose. They'll find a way to lose." Right after the kickoff fumble recovery before Stanford puked on its own shoes, I started, briefly, to think I was full of ****. Briefly.

This is as simple as Stanford really knows how to lose. I mean 98 yards. Really?

One small correction to a point made above. Stanford has absolutely cemented 16th place in the ACC.  They, along with Clemson, Louisville, Georgia Tech, and FSU (the half pairs of ACC-SEC rivalry games) have completed the 8-game conference schedule. Stanford has six losses and will end with six losses. Of the remaining teams that could also end with six losses - Cal, NC State, and Wake Forest - all of them beat Stanford, so Stanford doesn't tie any one of them. All of those teams also have better overall records with only Wake Forest not having already won five games.

Thanks FSU for sucking so badly this year, or Stanford could be the anchor. Pretty damn close to the anchor, so well done Coach Taylor.....

[SkiBum80]

Leaving aside all the existential discussion about Stanford football, that was an old school Big Game sans a big Stanford contingent in the stands. One mediocre team salvaging a season in close fashion over a worse team. As I told Calfan wife to ever-increasing irritation as the game wore on: "Don't worry. Stanford knows how to lose. They'll find a way to lose." Right after the kickoff fumble recovery before Stanford puked on its own shoes, I started, briefly, to think I was full of ****. Briefly.

This is as simple as Stanford really knows how to lose. I mean 98 yards. Really?

One small correction to a point made above. Stanford has absolutely cemented 16th place in the ACC.  They, along with Clemson, Louisville, Georgia Tech, and FSU (the half pairs of ACC-SEC rivalry games) have completed the 8-game conference schedule. Stanford has six losses and will end with six losses. Of the remaining teams that could also end with six losses - Cal, NC State, and Wake Forest - all of them beat Stanford, so Stanford doesn't tie any one of them. All of those teams also have better overall records with only Wake Forest not having already won five games.

Thanks FSU for sucking so badly this year, or Stanford could be the anchor. Pretty damn close to the anchor, so well done Coach Taylor.....

So you're saying we're not the ACC's worst?!
All Right Now!

[SkiBum80]

Leaving aside all the existential discussion about Stanford football, that was an old school Big Game sans a big Stanford contingent in the stands. One mediocre team salvaging a season in close fashion over a worse team. As I told Calfan wife to ever-increasing irritation as the game wore on: "Don't worry. Stanford knows how to lose. They'll find a way to lose." Right after the kickoff fumble recovery before Stanford puked on its own shoes, I started, briefly, to think I was full of ****. Briefly.

This is as simple as Stanford really knows how to lose. I mean 98 yards. Really?

One small correction to a point made above. Stanford has absolutely cemented 16th place in the ACC.  They, along with Clemson, Louisville, Georgia Tech, and FSU (the half pairs of ACC-SEC rivalry games) have completed the 8-game conference schedule. Stanford has six losses and will end with six losses. Of the remaining teams that could also end with six losses - Cal, NC State, and Wake Forest - all of them beat Stanford, so Stanford doesn't tie any one of them. All of those teams also have better overall records with only Wake Forest not having already won five games.

Thanks FSU for sucking so badly this year, or Stanford could be the anchor. Pretty damn close to the anchor, so well done Coach Taylor.....

So you're saying we're not the ACC's worst?!
All Right Now!

[Giants]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

Correct.  Four of those games are subject to dispute.

[Giants]

Speaking as an outsider, it's a very entertaining, very close, storied rivalry with the second most college rivalry meetings. The series record is 66-54-11, pretty close as rivalries go, similar to Michigan v. tOSU or Auburn v. Georgia.

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

Correct.  Four of those games are subject to dispute.

[Mick]

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

Correct.  Four of those games are subject to dispute.

Out of general curiosity, what's the nature of the dispute?

[Mick]

Per Wikipedia, The Big Game is #6 in most games played between FBS rivals.

1. Wisconsin/Minnesota 133
2. Auburn/Georgia 129
3. NorthCarolina/Virginia 129
4. Cincinnati/Miami-Ohio 128
5. Oregon/Oregon State 128
6. Stanford/California 127

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

Correct.  Four of those games are subject to dispute.

Out of general curiosity, what's the nature of the dispute?

[Giants]

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

Correct.  Four of those games are subject to dispute.

Out of general curiosity, what's the nature of the dispute?

I believe the disagreement related to Stanford’s desire to play freshmen and Cal’s refusal to allow them to participate.  I got the impression from reading some material about college football in general that the rules of engagement were far less structured in those days and disagreements between schools were not uncommon.  How frequently those disputes reached a point of taking an opponent off the schedule, I don’t know.

[Giants]

I thought Stanford v. Cal was second with 131? That's what it says here...

List of NCAA college football rivalry games - Wikipedia

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

Correct.  Four of those games are subject to dispute.

Out of general curiosity, what's the nature of the dispute?

I believe the disagreement related to Stanford’s desire to play freshmen and Cal’s refusal to allow them to participate.  I got the impression from reading some material about college football in general that the rules of engagement were far less structured in those days and disagreements between schools were not uncommon.  How frequently those disputes reached a point of taking an opponent off the schedule, I don’t know.

[Mick]

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

Correct.  Four of those games are subject to dispute.

Out of general curiosity, what's the nature of the dispute?

I believe the disagreement related to Stanford’s desire to play freshmen and Cal’s refusal to allow them to participate.  I got the impression from reading some material about college football in general that the rules of engagement were far less structured in those days and disagreements between schools were not uncommon.  How frequently those disputes reached a point of taking an opponent off the schedule, I don’t know.

Got it, thanks.

[Mick]

The difference is the result of a disagreement between the schools regarding whether several games played in the 1910’s should count in the total number of games played.  Consequently, the official number is 127.

I assume you're not referring to the rugby games, played between 1906 and 1918?

Correct.  Four of those games are subject to dispute.

Out of general curiosity, what's the nature of the dispute?

I believe the disagreement related to Stanford’s desire to play freshmen and Cal’s refusal to allow them to participate.  I got the impression from reading some material about college football in general that the rules of engagement were far less structured in those days and disagreements between schools were not uncommon.  How frequently those disputes reached a point of taking an opponent off the schedule, I don’t know.

Got it, thanks.

[KartyFan]

Leaving aside all the existential discussion about Stanford football, that was an old school Big Game sans a big Stanford contingent in the stands.

I was at the game, it was a sellout crowd and the Stanford sections were filled with red as well. Not sure how the ticket allocation compared to historical years. Cal put tarps over a couple sections in the south end zone in favor of some kind of porch for a few people with food/drink, so maybe it was fewer people than last time I was there (2018). Either way, Stanford section was lively and must have had more people than several of our home games. Maybe it didn't sound that way on TV.

Honestly the most fun I have had in a loss, and I HATE losing to Cal. With our conference picked apart, this was the one day this year that really felt like Stanford football.

[KartyFan]

Leaving aside all the existential discussion about Stanford football, that was an old school Big Game sans a big Stanford contingent in the stands.

I was at the game, it was a sellout crowd and the Stanford sections were filled with red as well. Not sure how the ticket allocation compared to historical years. Cal put tarps over a couple sections in the south end zone in favor of some kind of porch for a few people with food/drink, so maybe it was fewer people than last time I was there (2018). Either way, Stanford section was lively and must have had more people than several of our home games. Maybe it didn't sound that way on TV.

Honestly the most fun I have had in a loss, and I HATE losing to Cal. With our conference picked apart, this was the one day this year that really felt like Stanford football.