[yvonne]

I can make arguments for many teams being critical to the overall season next year:

• San Jose State — It's the opener. It's critical to set a rhythm and to come out healthy. It can set a tone for the whole year.
  
• USC — It's the conference opener against a team that will be primed to beat us. A win could propel us into the national scene
  
• Oregon — It's the defending Pac-12 North champion. A win would obviously shake things up. We haven't beaten them in two years.
  
• Washington — Is thought by some to be in position to challenge for the division's No. 2 spot.
  
• Cal — same as above, except that it's the Big Game
  

[yvonne]

I can make arguments for many teams being critical to the overall season next year:

• San Jose State — It's the opener. It's critical to set a rhythm and to come out healthy. It can set a tone for the whole year.
  
• USC — It's the conference opener against a team that will be primed to beat us. A win could propel us into the national scene
  
• Oregon — It's the defending Pac-12 North champion. A win would obviously shake things up. We haven't beaten them in two years.
  
• Washington — Is thought by some to be in position to challenge for the division's No. 2 spot.
  
• Cal — same as above, except that it's the Big Game
  

[76lsjumb]

I know it's a wimp-out and a cliche, but I would have to go with "all of the above" and include the other seven games as well.  For a variety of different reasons depending on who you're talking about, we are likely to be one of the most important games on the schedule of every team we face this season.  And, in conference, with all of the new coaches, very few games may "play to form", at least as we have come to understand "form" over the past few seasons.  Thus, we may be facing a whole season of either "crucial" or "trap" games, with nothing in between.

It seems to me that one of the unique characteristics of the past two seasons has been that we really didn't play "like Stanford" during either season, by which I mean the following.  At the Reunion Roundtable Retrospective on the Rose Bowls, Jim Plunkett said that, when he was asked [repeatedly] how in the world Stanford could lose to Air Force and Cal and then beat one of the great Ohio State teams of all time in the next game [i.e., the Rose Bowl], he always answered:  "because we're Stanford."  After clinching the Rose Bowl, those last two games just weren't "critical."

These days that won't work any more.  ALL games are critical...unless we're simply looking forward to taking BART to the Kraft Fight Boredom Bowl...

[76lsjumb]

I know it's a wimp-out and a cliche, but I would have to go with "all of the above" and include the other seven games as well.  For a variety of different reasons depending on who you're talking about, we are likely to be one of the most important games on the schedule of every team we face this season.  And, in conference, with all of the new coaches, very few games may "play to form", at least as we have come to understand "form" over the past few seasons.  Thus, we may be facing a whole season of either "crucial" or "trap" games, with nothing in between.

It seems to me that one of the unique characteristics of the past two seasons has been that we really didn't play "like Stanford" during either season, by which I mean the following.  At the Reunion Roundtable Retrospective on the Rose Bowls, Jim Plunkett said that, when he was asked [repeatedly] how in the world Stanford could lose to Air Force and Cal and then beat one of the great Ohio State teams of all time in the next game [i.e., the Rose Bowl], he always answered:  "because we're Stanford."  After clinching the Rose Bowl, those last two games just weren't "critical."

These days that won't work any more.  ALL games are critical...unless we're simply looking forward to taking BART to the Kraft Fight Boredom Bowl...

[yvonne]

All games are critical, but which is most critical?

C'mon, I know you know that when answering multiple choice questions, you never answer those that say "most," "least," "best," "worst," and so on with "all of the above."

[yvonne]

All games are critical, but which is most critical?

C'mon, I know you know that when answering multiple choice questions, you never answer those that say "most," "least," "best," "worst," and so on with "all of the above."

[fullmetal]

Oregon is in our division.  Win our division and then we can worry about a likely rematch with $C, whatever the previous result was.  And Stanford will need to win that one--recency will help assuage a hypothetical early season loss.

SJSU will be SJSU.  UW gave up 400+ yds rushing to Stanford's offense last year, and I don't think one year will turn that around--at least, I don't think so anyway.  I know DeCastro and Martin are gone, but is the UW run defense really going to improve that much?

[fullmetal]

Oregon is in our division.  Win our division and then we can worry about a likely rematch with $C, whatever the previous result was.  And Stanford will need to win that one--recency will help assuage a hypothetical early season loss.

SJSU will be SJSU.  UW gave up 400+ yds rushing to Stanford's offense last year, and I don't think one year will turn that around--at least, I don't think so anyway.  I know DeCastro and Martin are gone, but is the UW run defense really going to improve that much?

[pincemob]

Always Big Game.  Even last year, imagine what a Big Game loss would have done to the season, even if we'd beaten Oregon.  Individual games with other teams can certainly make or break a season.  Games with k.al can make or break a lifetime of sports memories. 

[pincemob]

Always Big Game.  Even last year, imagine what a Big Game loss would have done to the season, even if we'd beaten Oregon.  Individual games with other teams can certainly make or break a season.  Games with k.al can make or break a lifetime of sports memories. 

[Hurlburt88]

Big game.  A win confirms a good season or at least applies balm to a poor one . . . a loss exactly opposite

[Hurlburt88]

Big game.  A win confirms a good season or at least applies balm to a poor one . . . a loss exactly opposite

[76lsjumb]

All games are critical, but which is most critical?

C'mon, I know you know that when answering multiple choice questions, you never answer those that say "most," "least," "best," "worst," and so on with "all of the above."

Well, okay, I guess I'll have to go all Harbaugh on you, then...  My answer?  The next game!  ;)

[76lsjumb]

All games are critical, but which is most critical?

C'mon, I know you know that when answering multiple choice questions, you never answer those that say "most," "least," "best," "worst," and so on with "all of the above."

Well, okay, I guess I'll have to go all Harbaugh on you, then...  My answer?  The next game!  ;)

[FarmBoy]

By "most critical", I interpret "must win." Therefore, I selected Big Game. UW would be second. I would love nothing better than a continued run of national prominence and BCS contention, but I don't expect it. In all likelihood, we will lose to both U.SC and the Ducks. With that in mind, it's critical to maintain the balance of power in the Bay Area and the North Division in general. Beating Oregon and/or U.SC would be great, but no one will think less of Stanford for dropping either or both. Losing to Kal, and UW to a lesser extent, would suddenly drop us to second tier in the conference. The chants of "you were only good because of Harbaugh and Luck" will grow louder and carry more weight with recruits, casual fans, and the national media.

Now, if you ask me which game, if I could choose a guaranteed win in, would I want a guaranteed win in, I would say U.SC hands down. Sure, Oregon is in our division and there's no way to win the north if we don't beat them (they're not losing more than one game unless they lose to us). But a fourth straight against the Trojans, sending their "all-time T.rojan QB" to a lifetime 0-4 record against the Cardinal, would be more valuable than a win in any of the other games.

[FarmBoy]

By "most critical", I interpret "must win." Therefore, I selected Big Game. UW would be second. I would love nothing better than a continued run of national prominence and BCS contention, but I don't expect it. In all likelihood, we will lose to both U.SC and the Ducks. With that in mind, it's critical to maintain the balance of power in the Bay Area and the North Division in general. Beating Oregon and/or U.SC would be great, but no one will think less of Stanford for dropping either or both. Losing to Kal, and UW to a lesser extent, would suddenly drop us to second tier in the conference. The chants of "you were only good because of Harbaugh and Luck" will grow louder and carry more weight with recruits, casual fans, and the national media.

Now, if you ask me which game, if I could choose a guaranteed win in, would I want a guaranteed win in, I would say U.SC hands down. Sure, Oregon is in our division and there's no way to win the north if we don't beat them (they're not losing more than one game unless they lose to us). But a fourth straight against the Trojans, sending their "all-time T.rojan QB" to a lifetime 0-4 record against the Cardinal, would be more valuable than a win in any of the other games.

[Gauss]

I agree with FarmBoy.
The Big Game is the most critical game, especially being this early in the season. But I am hoping to win that one, so if I got the power to guarantee one win, it would be against the Trojans.

One should also note that, if by "critical" you mean "must win", then San Jose State state should be up there. A loss against them would be a very bad sign for the rest of Stanford's season.

[Gauss]

I agree with FarmBoy.
The Big Game is the most critical game, especially being this early in the season. But I am hoping to win that one, so if I got the power to guarantee one win, it would be against the Trojans.

One should also note that, if by "critical" you mean "must win", then San Jose State state should be up there. A loss against them would be a very bad sign for the rest of Stanford's season.

[FarmBoy]

The San Jose State game is always semi-critical: Hugely important if we lose it, of zero importance if we win. That's why I hope we get rid of it.

garvin, are you proposing that Stanford should play 12 games against AQ/BCS teams? Is there any school out there doesn't schedule at least one cream puff? As Ted Miller continually points out, Stanford (and C.al) have made their path to BCS games extremely hard just by requiring the LA games every year. And being in the North, we know we'll be playing Oregon every year, so that's 2 regular BCS contenders guaranteed on our schedule. Our degree of difficulty is extremely high already, without removing our one "gimmee". Or are you proposing finding an even easier creampuff, like Sac St? Any team you replace SJSU will have the same problem. And if we're not good enough to beat SJSU, we're not in contention for an at large bid to the BCS regardless.

Besides, isn't losing to SJSU something of a good luck charm for Stanford? in 2 of our past 3 Rose Bowl seasons, we lost to SJSU, IIRC.

[FarmBoy]

The San Jose State game is always semi-critical: Hugely important if we lose it, of zero importance if we win. That's why I hope we get rid of it.

garvin, are you proposing that Stanford should play 12 games against AQ/BCS teams? Is there any school out there doesn't schedule at least one cream puff? As Ted Miller continually points out, Stanford (and C.al) have made their path to BCS games extremely hard just by requiring the LA games every year. And being in the North, we know we'll be playing Oregon every year, so that's 2 regular BCS contenders guaranteed on our schedule. Our degree of difficulty is extremely high already, without removing our one "gimmee". Or are you proposing finding an even easier creampuff, like Sac St? Any team you replace SJSU will have the same problem. And if we're not good enough to beat SJSU, we're not in contention for an at large bid to the BCS regardless.

Besides, isn't losing to SJSU something of a good luck charm for Stanford? in 2 of our past 3 Rose Bowl seasons, we lost to SJSU, IIRC.

[Farm93]

SC is the most critical.  If Stanford wins that game, then instantly SC is eliminated from the BCS conversation.  And it may signal that it is probable that Stanford and Oregon dominate that Pac-12 conversation for the rest of the year.  Possibly creating yet another mega match-up in the North on November.

If one subscribes to the idea that SC and Oregon only hold upside for Luck-less Stanford, then UW and Notre Dame would be important as any "reload" type perceptions need wins over teams in that #20-#40 range.

If Stanford v UCB is a big deal, then Stanford took a pretty big slide post Luck.  I would prefer to think that Big Game will not be that big.  And that after a victory over Notre Dame the media immediately starts planning to catch the Oregon contest.

From a player perspective...it is all about summer workouts, training camp, and then the SJSU game.  No need to look beyond game #1 vs SJSU, well unless you are Shayne Skov. 

[Farm93]

SC is the most critical.  If Stanford wins that game, then instantly SC is eliminated from the BCS conversation.  And it may signal that it is probable that Stanford and Oregon dominate that Pac-12 conversation for the rest of the year.  Possibly creating yet another mega match-up in the North on November.

If one subscribes to the idea that SC and Oregon only hold upside for Luck-less Stanford, then UW and Notre Dame would be important as any "reload" type perceptions need wins over teams in that #20-#40 range.

If Stanford v UCB is a big deal, then Stanford took a pretty big slide post Luck.  I would prefer to think that Big Game will not be that big.  And that after a victory over Notre Dame the media immediately starts planning to catch the Oregon contest.

From a player perspective...it is all about summer workouts, training camp, and then the SJSU game.  No need to look beyond game #1 vs SJSU, well unless you are Shayne Skov. 

[oman]

SoCal.

Coming off two straight BCS bowl games, you up the ante a bit.  USC will likely be number one.

Last years game was one of the three best games of the season.  In the nation.

The Big Game is great history but the Oregon/USC/Stanford rivalry is NOW.

[oman]

SoCal.

Coming off two straight BCS bowl games, you up the ante a bit.  USC will likely be number one.

Last years game was one of the three best games of the season.  In the nation.

The Big Game is great history but the Oregon/USC/Stanford rivalry is NOW.

[oman]

Always Big Game.  Even last year, imagine what a Big Game loss would have done to the season, even if we'd beaten Oregon.  Individual games with other teams can certainly make or break a season.  Games with k.al can make or break a lifetime of sports memories.

There is an inverse relationship between how seriously I take the Stanford football program and how seriously I take the Big Game.

I don't live in an area where I meet lots of Cal fans, so that probably plays into it.  Always like beating SoCal more than Cal.

[oman]

Always Big Game.  Even last year, imagine what a Big Game loss would have done to the season, even if we'd beaten Oregon.  Individual games with other teams can certainly make or break a season.  Games with k.al can make or break a lifetime of sports memories.

There is an inverse relationship between how seriously I take the Stanford football program and how seriously I take the Big Game.

I don't live in an area where I meet lots of Cal fans, so that probably plays into it.  Always like beating SoCal more than Cal.

[JohnR34231]

I think Oregon.

Lose to U$C and we still have a reasonable shot at winning our division and the Conference Championship. Lose to the Ducks and we're probably playing for second place in the North again. Besides, we need to get the monkey (duck?) of the last two years off our backs.

I agree that we shouldn't dump SJS because the game is one of those only significant if we lose ones. You can say that about every relatively weak team we play. Does that mean we should play twelve powerhouses? I don't think so.

[JohnR34231]

I think Oregon.

Lose to U$C and we still have a reasonable shot at winning our division and the Conference Championship. Lose to the Ducks and we're probably playing for second place in the North again. Besides, we need to get the monkey (duck?) of the last two years off our backs.

I agree that we shouldn't dump SJS because the game is one of those only significant if we lose ones. You can say that about every relatively weak team we play. Does that mean we should play twelve powerhouses? I don't think so.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I think UW is the most critical.  Beating $C would mean a lot, but losing to them won't really tell us anything (unless we get creamed, which better not happen). 

UW is seen as a team on the rise though, while most think we're on a downward slope.  If we beat them (and/or crush them) it says "hold on a minute, Stanford is still the non-Oregon team to beat in the North, we're not going anywhere."  If we lose, it means everyone was right and we've fallen into a muddled middle of the Pac.  Also, being the first road game of the season, in a hostile place, I think there will be more pressure on the team and it will be good to see how they respond.

Of course, if we were to lose either game 1 or game 2, or beat $C, it stops having as much meaning...

[CrazedZooChimp]

I think UW is the most critical.  Beating $C would mean a lot, but losing to them won't really tell us anything (unless we get creamed, which better not happen). 

UW is seen as a team on the rise though, while most think we're on a downward slope.  If we beat them (and/or crush them) it says "hold on a minute, Stanford is still the non-Oregon team to beat in the North, we're not going anywhere."  If we lose, it means everyone was right and we've fallen into a muddled middle of the Pac.  Also, being the first road game of the season, in a hostile place, I think there will be more pressure on the team and it will be good to see how they respond.

Of course, if we were to lose either game 1 or game 2, or beat $C, it stops having as much meaning...

[oman]

I think UW is the most critical.  Beating $C would mean a lot, but losing to them won't really tell us anything (unless we get creamed, which better not happen). 

UW is seen as a team on the rise though, while most think we're on a downward slope.  If we beat them (and/or crush them) it says "hold on a minute, Stanford is still the non-Oregon team to beat in the North, we're not going anywhere."  If we lose, it means everyone was right and we've fallen into a muddled middle of the Pac.

I think you have to look at the pluses and minuses of each one.  You do mention that beating socal would mean something, but that something is really substantial  -- it immediately answer the question of post-Luck probability of success and would be an extremely large boost of confidence for the lads.  I would agree that depending on the type of lose, it may not tell us much.

I also think you overstate the upside of beating UW, which won't mean much to anyone if we lose to socal -- no one is going to even bother with "hold on a minute" -- it will just highlight the critical nature of our game against Oregon.  I kind of agree with your thoughts if we lose to Washington.

To me, the monumental upside of a win against socal (including related to recruiting) answers the question.

One thing we really haven't discussed is how the game looks on a national level.  the University of South Central is on par with the University of South Bend and Texas in terms of teams that lots of people like to see get beat.  Stanford is generally liked and respected amongs non-Stanford football fans who all remember last year's game.

Stanford v. SoCal -- of extremely large proportions drama, big TV audience.

Stanford v. Washington - kind of meh on a national scale.  Especially if Washington gets mauled by LSU.

[oman]

I think UW is the most critical.  Beating $C would mean a lot, but losing to them won't really tell us anything (unless we get creamed, which better not happen). 

UW is seen as a team on the rise though, while most think we're on a downward slope.  If we beat them (and/or crush them) it says "hold on a minute, Stanford is still the non-Oregon team to beat in the North, we're not going anywhere."  If we lose, it means everyone was right and we've fallen into a muddled middle of the Pac.

I think you have to look at the pluses and minuses of each one.  You do mention that beating socal would mean something, but that something is really substantial  -- it immediately answer the question of post-Luck probability of success and would be an extremely large boost of confidence for the lads.  I would agree that depending on the type of lose, it may not tell us much.

I also think you overstate the upside of beating UW, which won't mean much to anyone if we lose to socal -- no one is going to even bother with "hold on a minute" -- it will just highlight the critical nature of our game against Oregon.  I kind of agree with your thoughts if we lose to Washington.

To me, the monumental upside of a win against socal (including related to recruiting) answers the question.

One thing we really haven't discussed is how the game looks on a national level.  the University of South Central is on par with the University of South Bend and Texas in terms of teams that lots of people like to see get beat.  Stanford is generally liked and respected amongs non-Stanford football fans who all remember last year's game.

Stanford v. SoCal -- of extremely large proportions drama, big TV audience.

Stanford v. Washington - kind of meh on a national scale.  Especially if Washington gets mauled by LSU.

[Extra Point]

In regards to SJ, they are not on the schedule for 2014 or 2015. In 2016 Stanford is scheduled to play Notre Dame, Northwestern, and Rice. In 2017 Stanford is scheduled to Play Notre Dame, Virginia, and Rice. We will not be playing SJ in 2016 or 2017. The schedules beyond 2017 are not complete, but SJ is not scheduled.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/pac-10/s...rdinal.php

I know the AD was more than a little upset about SJ rescheduling a body bag game with use, and later with ASU. There was a lot of talk about about never playing them again. There was also talk about scheduling UC Davis for an out of conference game at one point. Does anyone know anything about this?

[Extra Point]

In regards to SJ, they are not on the schedule for 2014 or 2015. In 2016 Stanford is scheduled to play Notre Dame, Northwestern, and Rice. In 2017 Stanford is scheduled to Play Notre Dame, Virginia, and Rice. We will not be playing SJ in 2016 or 2017. The schedules beyond 2017 are not complete, but SJ is not scheduled.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/pac-10/s...rdinal.php

I know the AD was more than a little upset about SJ rescheduling a body bag game with use, and later with ASU. There was a lot of talk about about never playing them again. There was also talk about scheduling UC Davis for an out of conference game at one point. Does anyone know anything about this?

[oman]

I'm fine with playing one cream puff game. But I think it's better to rotate it around. Sacramento State, Texas State, New Mexico, etc.

UTSA -- nice little home and away with drinks on the Riverwalk and in the stadium?

Went to their first game last year -- was pretty great for one of the biggest football starved cities in the nation..

[oman]

I'm fine with playing one cream puff game. But I think it's better to rotate it around. Sacramento State, Texas State, New Mexico, etc.

UTSA -- nice little home and away with drinks on the Riverwalk and in the stadium?

Went to their first game last year -- was pretty great for one of the biggest football starved cities in the nation..

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=5960.msg44011#msg44011 date=1338580226]
I think UW is the most critical.  Beating $C would mean a lot, but losing to them won't really tell us anything (unless we get creamed, which better not happen). 

UW is seen as a team on the rise though, while most think we're on a downward slope.  If we beat them (and/or crush them) it says "hold on a minute, Stanford is still the non-Oregon team to beat in the North, we're not going anywhere."  If we lose, it means everyone was right and we've fallen into a muddled middle of the Pac.

I think you have to look at the pluses and minuses of each one.  You do mention that beating socal would mean something, but that something is really substantial  -- it immediately answer the question of post-Luck probability of success and would be an extremely large boost of confidence for the lads.  I would agree that depending on the type of lose, it may not tell us much.

I also think you overstate the upside of beating UW, which won't mean much to anyone if we lose to socal -- no one is going to even bother with "hold on a minute" -- it will just highlight the critical nature of our game against Oregon.  I kind of agree with your thoughts if we lose to Washington.

To me, the monumental upside of a win against socal (including related to recruiting) answers the question.

One thing we really haven't discussed is how the game looks on a national level.  the University of South Central is on par with the University of South Bend and Texas in terms of teams that lots of people like to see get beat.  Stanford is generally liked and respected amongs non-Stanford football fans who all remember last year's game.

Stanford v. SoCal -- of extremely large proportions drama, big TV audience.

Stanford v. Washington - kind of meh on a national scale.  Especially if Washington gets mauled by LSU.
[/quote]

Must be because I'm more of a pessimist, not an optimist.  I think the most critical game is the game it's  bad to lose, not the game it's really good to win.  I don't consider $C must-win for a successful season, I think if we lose to UW it means we have dropped off significantly.  Yeah, $C would be amazing to win, but I don't think it's critical for us to win that to have a successful season as much as it's critical to win at UW. 

Being the first road game for our new QB and O-line is the other thing that puts UW above $C in my mind.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=5960.msg44011#msg44011 date=1338580226]
I think UW is the most critical.  Beating $C would mean a lot, but losing to them won't really tell us anything (unless we get creamed, which better not happen). 

UW is seen as a team on the rise though, while most think we're on a downward slope.  If we beat them (and/or crush them) it says "hold on a minute, Stanford is still the non-Oregon team to beat in the North, we're not going anywhere."  If we lose, it means everyone was right and we've fallen into a muddled middle of the Pac.

I think you have to look at the pluses and minuses of each one.  You do mention that beating socal would mean something, but that something is really substantial  -- it immediately answer the question of post-Luck probability of success and would be an extremely large boost of confidence for the lads.  I would agree that depending on the type of lose, it may not tell us much.

I also think you overstate the upside of beating UW, which won't mean much to anyone if we lose to socal -- no one is going to even bother with "hold on a minute" -- it will just highlight the critical nature of our game against Oregon.  I kind of agree with your thoughts if we lose to Washington.

To me, the monumental upside of a win against socal (including related to recruiting) answers the question.

One thing we really haven't discussed is how the game looks on a national level.  the University of South Central is on par with the University of South Bend and Texas in terms of teams that lots of people like to see get beat.  Stanford is generally liked and respected amongs non-Stanford football fans who all remember last year's game.

Stanford v. SoCal -- of extremely large proportions drama, big TV audience.

Stanford v. Washington - kind of meh on a national scale.  Especially if Washington gets mauled by LSU.
[/quote]

Must be because I'm more of a pessimist, not an optimist.  I think the most critical game is the game it's  bad to lose, not the game it's really good to win.  I don't consider $C must-win for a successful season, I think if we lose to UW it means we have dropped off significantly.  Yeah, $C would be amazing to win, but I don't think it's critical for us to win that to have a successful season as much as it's critical to win at UW. 

Being the first road game for our new QB and O-line is the other thing that puts UW above $C in my mind.

[oman]

I've never played football, but to me a game against a top 3 loaded for bear opponent at home is a bigger test than first road game against an unranked 2-1 team.

To me, Stanford football should always be about swinging for the fences.  I went to Stanford when to me the score didn't matter -- I just wanted to see Elway work magic. 

But I do see your point and it is a solid argument to build with P12 North wins.    Especially with a pessimists view that we need to be solid this year -- and make sure we beat the teams that we should beat.

[oman]

I've never played football, but to me a game against a top 3 loaded for bear opponent at home is a bigger test than first road game against an unranked 2-1 team.

To me, Stanford football should always be about swinging for the fences.  I went to Stanford when to me the score didn't matter -- I just wanted to see Elway work magic. 

But I do see your point and it is a solid argument to build with P12 North wins.    Especially with a pessimists view that we need to be solid this year -- and make sure we beat the teams that we should beat.