The CardBoard
We're #7! We're #7! - 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: We're #7! We're #7! (/thread-2773.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - OutsiderFan - 01-10-2012

The polls are so ridiculous that it isn't even fun to debate anymore.  It is patently absurd for Stanford to be anything less than #5. 

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - OutsiderFan - 01-10-2012

The polls are so ridiculous that it isn't even fun to debate anymore.  It is patently absurd for Stanford to be anything less than #5. 

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - OutsiderFan - 01-10-2012

The polls are so ridiculous that it isn't even fun to debate anymore.  It is patently absurd for Stanford to be anything less than #5. 

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - OutsiderFan - 01-10-2012

The polls are so ridiculous that it isn't even fun to debate anymore.  It is patently absurd for Stanford to be anything less than #5. 

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Leftcoast - 01-10-2012

Take a deep breath and enjoy the top 10 finish. 

First, the swing of two position in a subjective poll is hardly worth a moments outrage.  Secondly, in a scenario where Oregon beat Stanford,  who beat USC who beat Oregon SOMEONE was going to have a beef.  Third, and most importantly, an errant poll should NOT be allowed to take one moment away from basking in the afterglow of a Cardinal run that included a brand of Stanford-friendly football (daring, innovative and disciplined) we only dreamed about during every other season of the past 39 years.

Chalk those two missing slots to the hazards and vagaries of caring too passionately about a game played by 18-22 year olds. 

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Leftcoast - 01-10-2012

Take a deep breath and enjoy the top 10 finish. 

First, the swing of two position in a subjective poll is hardly worth a moments outrage.  Secondly, in a scenario where Oregon beat Stanford,  who beat USC who beat Oregon SOMEONE was going to have a beef.  Third, and most importantly, an errant poll should NOT be allowed to take one moment away from basking in the afterglow of a Cardinal run that included a brand of Stanford-friendly football (daring, innovative and disciplined) we only dreamed about during every other season of the past 39 years.

Chalk those two missing slots to the hazards and vagaries of caring too passionately about a game played by 18-22 year olds. 

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Leftcoast - 01-10-2012

Take a deep breath and enjoy the top 10 finish. 

First, the swing of two position in a subjective poll is hardly worth a moments outrage.  Secondly, in a scenario where Oregon beat Stanford,  who beat USC who beat Oregon SOMEONE was going to have a beef.  Third, and most importantly, an errant poll should NOT be allowed to take one moment away from basking in the afterglow of a Cardinal run that included a brand of Stanford-friendly football (daring, innovative and disciplined) we only dreamed about during every other season of the past 39 years.

Chalk those two missing slots to the hazards and vagaries of caring too passionately about a game played by 18-22 year olds. 

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Leftcoast - 01-10-2012

Take a deep breath and enjoy the top 10 finish. 

First, the swing of two position in a subjective poll is hardly worth a moments outrage.  Secondly, in a scenario where Oregon beat Stanford,  who beat USC who beat Oregon SOMEONE was going to have a beef.  Third, and most importantly, an errant poll should NOT be allowed to take one moment away from basking in the afterglow of a Cardinal run that included a brand of Stanford-friendly football (daring, innovative and disciplined) we only dreamed about during every other season of the past 39 years.

Chalk those two missing slots to the hazards and vagaries of caring too passionately about a game played by 18-22 year olds. 

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Leftcoast - 01-10-2012

Well, I DID rewatch the Fiesta bowl after the gawd-awful NCS game.  Turns out Williamson STILL missed that kick - and I was rooting for him HARD to make it this time.  Didn't work.

Let's chalk it up to PTSD and my desire to deny emotional victory to brain-dead east coast voters.  I loved watching this team and the team we saw week-in and week-out isn't defined by their final AP poll spot.

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Leftcoast - 01-10-2012

Well, I DID rewatch the Fiesta bowl after the gawd-awful NCS game.  Turns out Williamson STILL missed that kick - and I was rooting for him HARD to make it this time.  Didn't work.

Let's chalk it up to PTSD and my desire to deny emotional victory to brain-dead east coast voters.  I loved watching this team and the team we saw week-in and week-out isn't defined by their final AP poll spot.

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Leftcoast - 01-10-2012

Well, I DID rewatch the Fiesta bowl after the gawd-awful NCS game.  Turns out Williamson STILL missed that kick - and I was rooting for him HARD to make it this time.  Didn't work.

Let's chalk it up to PTSD and my desire to deny emotional victory to brain-dead east coast voters.  I loved watching this team and the team we saw week-in and week-out isn't defined by their final AP poll spot.

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Leftcoast - 01-10-2012

Well, I DID rewatch the Fiesta bowl after the gawd-awful NCS game.  Turns out Williamson STILL missed that kick - and I was rooting for him HARD to make it this time.  Didn't work.

Let's chalk it up to PTSD and my desire to deny emotional victory to brain-dead east coast voters.  I loved watching this team and the team we saw week-in and week-out isn't defined by their final AP poll spot.

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Farm93 - 01-10-2012

I think a strong case could be made that with Owusu on the bench, that SC would be favored to beat Stanford.  I have no real problem with them finishing at #6 while Stanford is at #7.  It implies both 2 loss teams would be evenly matched, and I would not disagree with that assessment. Now, if this was #1 vs #2, then I would be more upset.  #6 vs #7...whatever.

NACDA Cup points are coming to The Farm in football and probably men's basketball too.  Life is OK.

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Farm93 - 01-10-2012

I think a strong case could be made that with Owusu on the bench, that SC would be favored to beat Stanford.  I have no real problem with them finishing at #6 while Stanford is at #7.  It implies both 2 loss teams would be evenly matched, and I would not disagree with that assessment. Now, if this was #1 vs #2, then I would be more upset.  #6 vs #7...whatever.

NACDA Cup points are coming to The Farm in football and probably men's basketball too.  Life is OK.

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Farm93 - 01-10-2012

I think a strong case could be made that with Owusu on the bench, that SC would be favored to beat Stanford.  I have no real problem with them finishing at #6 while Stanford is at #7.  It implies both 2 loss teams would be evenly matched, and I would not disagree with that assessment. Now, if this was #1 vs #2, then I would be more upset.  #6 vs #7...whatever.

NACDA Cup points are coming to The Farm in football and probably men's basketball too.  Life is OK.

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - Farm93 - 01-10-2012

I think a strong case could be made that with Owusu on the bench, that SC would be favored to beat Stanford.  I have no real problem with them finishing at #6 while Stanford is at #7.  It implies both 2 loss teams would be evenly matched, and I would not disagree with that assessment. Now, if this was #1 vs #2, then I would be more upset.  #6 vs #7...whatever.

NACDA Cup points are coming to The Farm in football and probably men's basketball too.  Life is OK.

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - washingtonismoney - 01-10-2012

(01-10-2012, 06:28 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:I think a strong case could be made that with Owusu on the bench, that SC would be favored to beat Stanford.

It would be a wrong case. Montgomery 2011 > Owusu 2011, and the casinos agree.

http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/blog/_/name/millman_chad/id/7446750/the-final-2011-vegas-college-football-rankings

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - washingtonismoney - 01-10-2012

(01-10-2012, 06:28 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:I think a strong case could be made that with Owusu on the bench, that SC would be favored to beat Stanford.

It would be a wrong case. Montgomery 2011 > Owusu 2011, and the casinos agree.

http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/blog/_/name/millman_chad/id/7446750/the-final-2011-vegas-college-football-rankings

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - washingtonismoney - 01-10-2012

(01-10-2012, 06:28 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:I think a strong case could be made that with Owusu on the bench, that SC would be favored to beat Stanford.

It would be a wrong case. Montgomery 2011 > Owusu 2011, and the casinos agree.

http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/blog/_/name/millman_chad/id/7446750/the-final-2011-vegas-college-football-rankings

Re: We're #7! We're #7! - washingtonismoney - 01-10-2012

(01-10-2012, 06:28 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:I think a strong case could be made that with Owusu on the bench, that SC would be favored to beat Stanford.

It would be a wrong case. Montgomery 2011 > Owusu 2011, and the casinos agree.

http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/blog/_/name/millman_chad/id/7446750/the-final-2011-vegas-college-football-rankings