The CardBoard
Stanford and USC vs. common opponents - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford and USC vs. common opponents (/thread-10865.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - BostonCard - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:39 PM)ferrari link Wrote:A few days left . . . Hoping for a drowning nephew, balcony leap, attempted rape scandal, cocaine in the coaches' offices, misuse of handicap plates (oh, wait, that was the Bruins) . . .  something.

I'm just hoping our guys come out focused, and administer a good, old-fashioned butt-kicking to USC, and end the season with an exclamation point.

BC

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - stupac2 - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:25 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Here's something that makes me nervous. I assume we all agree that Stanford must score at least in the low thirties, if not in the mid to high thirties to win. What worries me, looking at the matchup's statistics (and recalling it), was what an outlier it was offensively. Hogan was, of course, on fire -- fitting some throws into tiny, momentary openings. In terms of degree of difficulty, I don't think Hogan's had another similar performance this year. (N.D. was less difficult -- they sold out to stop McCaffrey and exposed their DBs.)

Meanwhile, SC did quite a good job against McCaffrey, limiting him to 4.4 yards per carry.

On the upside, I think we're a better offense since then. The line gave up a few sacks and QB pressures that maybe they won't this time around. But I'm worried that instead of providing excellent output, it'll only be good output. And with our defense, well...

Keep in mind that not only has our offense probably improved since that time, but USC's appears to have gotten worse.

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - Rally - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:41 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=13838.msg145065#msg145065 date=1449013150]
A few days left . . . Hoping for a drowning nephew, balcony leap, attempted rape scandal, cocaine in the coaches' offices, misuse of handicap plates (oh, wait, that was the Bruins) . . .  something.

I'm just hoping our guys come out focused, and administer a good, old-fashioned butt-kicking to Unbelievably Spoiled Children, and end the season with an exclamation point.

BC
[/quote]

I have no doubt at all the guys will be focused.  This is what they have been working towards since the end of last season.  Every player I have heard on an interview is too mature to lose focus now with the goal 60 minutes away.

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - ColoradoTree - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:11 PM)larkinforever link Wrote:The ND victory seemed to be more emotionally charged and potentially more emotionally draining than a typical victory. I worry about a letdown, particularly from our QB (who declared it the #1 victory in his career).

Please tell me that I'm worrying about nothing. My blood pressure is extremely high; I might not be able to survive until kickoff.

I wouldn't want to lie to you, because I'm also in a panic about this game (though that is pretty well in line with how I feel before just about every big game Stanford plays).  I hate this matchup.  Our SC games are usually extremely competitive, so it's highly likely to be a close game.  While SC is inconsistent and often appears to lack intestinal fortitude, they remain incredibly talented.  It's always possible that SC decides that they're going to play their absolute best on Saturday, in which case they will be very difficult to beat.  It's also possible that their older guys mail it in so as not to mess up their NFL draft stock, and we win comfortably. 

But it's not unreasonable to think that Kessler plays well, JuJu Smith destroys our young secondary, and that SC runs at will.  If our offense plays a clean game and our defense continues its solid red zone play, I think we win the game, but I won't stop feeling nervous about it until the game clock hits all zeroes. 

Frustrating that UCLA couldn't have beaten them.  Then, not only would our opponent be more highly ranked (and thus give us a more impressive exclamation point for the CFP committee), but I'd be more confident that we'd win.  SC games just terrify me. 

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - Tycho124 - 12-01-2015

I work with a LOT of SC alums and I can tell you that for them The Rose Bowl is "absolutely going to happen."  One of them lives in Pasadena and has already booked a caterer for her Home "Tail Gate" (She lives within a bike ride of the Rose Bowl).  One wonders if the players feel the same sense touch of destiny's hands upon their shoulders.

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - BostonCard - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:49 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=13838.msg145051#msg145051 date=1449011464]
The ND victory seemed to be more emotionally charged and potentially more emotionally draining than a typical victory. I worry about a letdown, particularly from our QB (who declared it the #1 victory in his career).

Please tell me that I'm worrying about nothing. My blood pressure is extremely high; I might not be able to survive until kickoff.

I wouldn't want to lie to you, because I'm also in a panic about this game (though that is pretty well in line with how I feel before just about every big game Stanford plays).  I hate this matchup.  Our SC games are usually extremely competitive, so it's highly likely to be a close game.  While SC is inconsistent and often appears to lack intestinal fortitude, they remain incredibly talented.  It's always possible that SC decides that they're going to play their absolute best on Saturday, in which case they will be very difficult to beat.  It's also possible that their older guys mail it in so as not to mess up their NFL draft stock, and we win comfortably. 

But it's not unreasonable to think that Kessler plays well, JuJu Smith destroys our young secondary, and that SC runs at will.  If our offense plays a clean game and our defense continues its solid red zone play, I think we win the game, but I won't stop feeling nervous about it until the game clock hits all zeroes. 

Frustrating that UCLA couldn't have beaten them.  Then, not only would our opponent be more highly ranked (and thus give us a more impressive exclamation point for the CFP committee), but I'd be more confident that we'd win.  SC games just terrify me.
[/quote]

More frustrating yet that Utah couldn't beat UCLA.  Then our opponent would have been the Utes.

BC

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - stupac2 - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:53 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:More frustrating yet that Utah couldn't beat UCLA.  Then our opponent would have been the Utes.

No, most frustrating is that Utah couldn't beat Arizona. That also would've made them our opponent and was a much easier game for Utah that they really ought to have won. UCLA is at least a good team.

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - ColoradoTree - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:53 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:More frustrating yet that Utah couldn't beat UCLA.  Then our opponent would have been the Utes.

BC

Oh, fully agreed.  I feel like this year, we would match up with Utah better than in past years, and they would have been an even more impressive boost to our playoff resume. 

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - teejers1 - 12-01-2015

Another reason to be anxious:  Hulk is confident Stanford will win (character over talent . . . um . . . it's quite possible that SC players have character, too). 


Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - BostonCard - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 05:33 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Another reason to be anxious:  Hulk is confident Stanford will win (character over talent . . . um . . . it's quite possible that SC players have character, too).

Well, Hulk is always confident Stanford will win, so should we always be nervous?  I think I'll really worry if you become confident. ;)

Regardless, I won't sleep comfortably until you unload all the reasons why I should be deathly afraid of Saturday, if the rest of us don't kill you first.

BC

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - jacketree - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 12:40 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:So why am I nervous about the game?
BC

A theory:

[Image: pb-130101-stanford-wins-jsw-01.photoblog900.jpg]

vs.

[Image: 84154748_10.jpg]

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - winflop - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 12:40 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:So why am I nervous about the game?

BC

Because the interim tag is off and they are not the same team they were in Week 3 by a much larger degree than our boys.

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - BostonCard - 12-02-2015

(12-01-2015, 10:07 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13838.msg144945#msg144945 date=1448955649]
So why am I nervous about the game?

BC

Because the interim tag is off and they are not the same team they were in Week 3 by a much larger degree than our boys.
[/quote]

The data doesn't seem to support that assertion.

BC

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - indiancardinal - 12-02-2015

For those who may not know... The PAC 12 Network has a Football in 60 series. I have linked our regular season whupping of USC below for those who need reassurance for Saturday that we can kick some condom butt! Let us start off the Clay Helton era in style.

Go STANFORD!

Football: 2015 Football in 60: Stanford at USC on Pac-12. http://pac-12.com/videos/2015-football-60-stanford-usc

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - stupac2 - 12-02-2015

(12-02-2015, 12:43 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=13838.msg145183#msg145183 date=1449032848]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13838.msg144945#msg144945 date=1448955649]
So why am I nervous about the game?

BC

Because the interim tag is off and they are not the same team they were in Week 3 by a much larger degree than our boys.
[/quote]

The data doesn't seem to support that assertion.

BC
[/quote]

Actually, it does support it. It just says that USC is significantly worse than they were when we played them. I can't shake the feeling that the data is wrong about something and that FPI is secretly right that USC is still a really dangerous team, but USC has underperformed in every single game under Helton where they didn't gain 2+ turnovers. I think that as long as we hold onto the ball, we'll be fine. Of course, this was true of our game against Oregon too...

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - Kathy - 12-02-2015

No bungled snaps this time, please


Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - stupac2 - 12-02-2015

I mentioned somewhere (we have so many similar threads that I forget where things are happening) that ESPN has us as an underdog against USC this weekend, which feels quite wrong. This is based on FPI, which makes generating spreads really easy since it's just "points better than an average team on a neutral field", so it's just subtracting the two, then adding/subtracting 3 for home (the actual home field advantage FPI uses isn't stated anywhere, but it's usually 2-3 points and I most commonly see 3).

So I decided to see if FPI has consistently overrated them and/or underrated us. I went through every week of data to generate a spread for the upcoming game (so I used preseason FPI for week 1's game, week 1 FPI for week 2's game, etc) and corrected for home/away. And (surprise!), it has! Over the whole season FPI has, on average, predicted that USC would be 3.6 points better than they have been, and it's predicted that we'd be 3.6 points worse than we have been. Right now it predicts us as being 0.8 points underdogs, so if you add the biases back in, we "ought" to be more like 6.5 point favorites. That's closer to Vegas spread (us by 4) than the standard line.

Interestingly, USC has only outperformed their FPI prediction in two games since Helton took over, and I bet you can guess what they are. (Pausing for you to guess.) Utah and UCLA! Turnovers are worth ~4 points, so if we factor those into those games, only in the UCLA game has USC outperformed the spread, and even then only by a point. (We don't gain many turnovers so the only game we have that turns from positive to negative because of turnovers is UCF.)



The takeaway here is what I've been finding every time I look into USC's stats: they're overrated. As long as we hold onto the ball we should beat them.

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - washingtonismoney - 12-02-2015

stupac will probably also enjoy this article: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/12/2/9834506/college-football-playoff-2015-clemson-north-carolina-acc-championship

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - jacketree - 12-02-2015

Interesting article that gives Stanford an 81% chance of winning Saturday.

Cutting to the chase:

Quote:We have an orderly view of the Playoff, but ...

Oklahoma and the Iowa-Michigan State winner are in, and barring upset, Alabama and Clemson are, too.

But if trends matter, Clemson could have its hands full, and Stanford could win by a large enough margin to make a run at the fourth spot with a UNC win. We might not be done with drama yet.


Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - stupac2 - 12-02-2015

(12-02-2015, 12:51 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:stupac will probably also enjoy this article: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/12/2/9834506/college-football-playoff-2015-clemson-north-carolina-acc-championship

Ah excellent I've been waiting for Connelly's preview to come out.