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

Stanford and USC vs. common opponents - BostonCard - 12-01-2015

vs. Arizona: Stanford 55-17 (+38), USC 38-30 (+8); Stanford 30 points better
vs. UCLA: Stanford 56-35 (+21), USC 40-21 (+19); Stanford 2 points better
vs. UW: Stanford 31-14 (+17), USC lost 17-12 (-5); Stanford 22 points better
vs. Colorado: Stanford 42-10 (+32), USC 27-24 (+3); Stanford 29 points better
vs. Oregon: Stanford lost 38-36 (-2), USC lost 48-28 (-20); Stanford 18 points less bad
vs. Cal: Stanford 35-22 (+13), USC 27-21 (+6); Stanford 7 points better
vs. Notre Dame: Stanford 38-36 (+2), USC lost 41-31 (-10); Stanford 12 points better

Stanford was an average of 17 points better against common opponents, and didn't have a single game in which we didn't have a higher scoring differential (or, in Oregon's case, a lower deficit).  We also won two games they lost, and then there is that head-to-head.

So why am I nervous about the game?

BC

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

I guess it won't make us feel any less nervous splitting out Sark vs Helton.
And I am really, really nervous.

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

Sark's only game against a common opponent was UW, and of course the head-to-head game.

BC

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

They are going to bring their "A+" game. And I've been holding off on making any travel arrangements that would've normally been made a month ago (since I waited this long, I might as well wait until Dec 6). The fact that I didn't make these arrangements makes me more nervous. But there were no scholarships being thrown our way, and finances rule, or at least, they influence decisions. If that sounds less than clear, it's probably the beers... 8)

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

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

BC

Same reason I was terrified about Oregon.
Because they have the horses and at some point, they get them to pull together. Not sure previous scores are all that relevant when the talent is there, other than it makes it a bit easier to break their spirit if things don't initially go their way.
A lot riding on this one, the team deserves it and I hope they get it. A win legitimises the amazing season this has been.
I'm all for the memories of nailbiters that we end up winning, but my nervous and cardiovascular health could really use a comfortable win here!




Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - Hulk01 - 12-01-2015

Why do we think this collection of Spoiled Players can bring an A+ game?

Isn't that, in the end, their real weakness?  They never lack for talent; for ever 4.5 player Stanford puts on the field, they can put three.
But the salient trait of USC teams for the last many seasons is not their talent, but their failure to play to it.

They don't lack talent; they lack guts, resilence, football intelligence, resolve, and unselfishness; they lack character. They're bright and shiny and one inch deep.

USC cannot bring to this game something it doesn't have.  They will have to depend on sheer talent, and I'm  putting money  on character.

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - 81alum - 12-01-2015

I'll tell you why I am nervous.  It's because I was nervous before Oregon, said so here, and got lots of reassurance from many of you about how well we would do.  And my intuitive foreboding wound up coming true. 

Now, the fact that I have such foreboding before nearly every game is neither here nor there....all that matters to my emotional state is that I had it once and it proved true in a key game.  That  is enough reinforcement to bring it back in spades this week!  So any effort on your part to reassure me now will simply inflame my fears more!

My hope is that memory of the Oregon loss and the narrow wins over WSU and the ND will keep a sense of anxiety in our players.  I think some anxiety is healthy in cases like this.   

By the way, is the first game available on replay somewhere?

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

(12-01-2015, 06:48 AM)81alum link Wrote:By the way, is the first game available on replay somewhere?

My house.

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

U$C is an interesting team to consider. I would generically describe them as dangerous because they have good players and can play good games, but also rather liable to not play a good game.

One common narrative is that they have played much better under Helton. That doesn't seem so clear to me.

Their season:

Sark   
Team                Result    Op Rec    %run plays
Arkansas State W 55-6    (8-3)      50%
Idaho              W 59-9    (4-8)      50%
Stanford          L  31-41  (10-2)    47%
ASU                W 42-14  (6-6)      48%
UW                  L  12-17  (6-6)      57%

Helton
und                L  31-41  (10-2)    39%
Utah              W 42-24  (9-3)      61%
c.a.l.              W 27-21  (7-5)      68%
Arizona          W 38-30  (6-6)      53%
Colorado        W 27-24  (4-9)      58%
Oregon          L  28-48  (9-3)      48%
UCLA              W 40-21  (8-4)        69%

The best performances would seem to be ASU, Utah, and UCLA. That's 66% for Helton, who coached 58% of their games. About on par.

Looking closer at those best performances, one might note that the key element of all three games were TOs.  U$C went 4-0 on TOs vs Utah, 3-1 on TOs vs UCLA, and 4-2 on TOs vs ASU. They weren't so dominating on things like yds from scrimmage; that being even vs ASU (455-454), a slight edge vs Utah (380-353), and a somewhat larger edge vs UCLA (410-367).

While it does look like they have run more under Helton, the standard line that Helton has pushed them away from a pass-happy attack towards a power-run oriented offense seems to be overstated.


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

A lot of SC's best performances under Helton have been turnovers-driven: 4 from Utah; 3 from UCLA... 10 of their 14 picks have come during the Helton regime. Bill Connelly's turnover luck metric has SC gaining about 3.5 points per game in excess turnovers.

Helton's SC is 3-0 in close games. Against Colorado -- one of their close games -- they needed to face a backup to win.

But it seems, subjectively, that SC historically plays good teams better than it plays bad ones; maybe they just aren't focused.

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

I like that everyone looking into it is coming to the same conclusions that I did about Helton. The only games he's won by more than a score had a ton of turnovers, and USC's ypp metrics have actually regressed under him. We're typically not sloppy with the ball, if we don't turn it over I think our odds are quite good.

Also, looking into the ypp stuff has me even more baffled about the advanced stats' love for this team. In their last 7 games they've looked like a completely average team (gaining and allowing almost exactly their opponents' season averages in ypp), so what are they seeing that they love so much? Maybe it's explosiveness, or maybe they don't get a lot of negative plays so they're pretty efficient? I don't know, hopefully Connelly or someone does a breakdown of the game so we can get more idea of what they think USC does well.

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

(12-01-2015, 08:12 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=13838.msg144954#msg144954 date=1448977715]
By the way, is the first game available on replay somewhere?

My house.
[/quote]

What time should we come by?  Would you like me to bring something?

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

(12-01-2015, 09:40 AM)CornFed link Wrote:What time should we come by?  Would you like me to bring something?

I am in Reno flogging cattle. My wife will welcome you, no doubt, if you bring a tri-tip.

Re: Stanford and Unbelievably Spoiled Children vs. common opponents - Hulk01 - 12-01-2015

intuitive forebodings about football games have no predictive value, any more than intuitive confidence--although given that Stanford fans  always assemble considerable data, and have the memory of other facts at their mind's disposal, have can a fan ever say they are relying on intuition in their projection for a future game?

That's not intuition; it's anxiety.

There was an excellent chance Oregon would win that game--at least 45%.  You sensed they would; they did.  You had no worse than a 45% of being "right" about your "intuition"--which wasn't, in reality, an intuition.  And Stanford came within an extra point and a win in overtime of "proving" your "intuition" wrong.  That doesn't sound like a highly predictive tool you are relying on.
:D :P



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

One thing I noticed about the U$C running backs is that they never wait for their blockers. They just take off when they get the ball, running lane or not. This gives the illusion that they are going to bust right through the defensive front for a big gain. More often than not, they are cut down hard for an average gain though.

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

(12-01-2015, 10:43 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=13838.msg144973#msg144973 date=1448988035]
What time should we come by?  Would you like me to bring something?

I am in Reno flogging cattle. My wife will welcome you, no doubt, if you bring a tri-tip.
[/quote]

Party at CI's!

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

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.

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

(12-01-2015, 01:57 AM)el arbol link Wrote:Same reason I was terrified about Oregon.
Because they have the horses and at some point, they get them to pull together. Not sure previous scores are all that relevant when the talent is there, other than it makes it a bit easier to break their spirit if things don't initially go their way.
A lot riding on this one, the team deserves it and I hope they get it. A win legitimises the amazing season this has been.
I'm all for the memories of nailbiters that we end up winning, but my nervous and cardiovascular health could really use a comfortable win here!

There were objective reasons to be terrified of Oregon, who was clearly a much better team with Adams than without, and who had just put up an all-time record number of yards on Cal.  For SC, the fear is not so much based on anything they've done.  After all, anything they've done, we've done better (at least point-wise), which is the point of this post.  The fear is that they have been playing below potential, and this is the game in which it comes out.

Objectively, I feel a lot better about SC than I did before the analysis.  I was expecting us to be better than them against some opponents, worse against others, and maybe a trend that suggested they were doing relatively better of late.  None of that panned out.  There was not a single common opponent who SC outscored by more than we did, and two opponents (UW, UDFG) who SC outright lost to, who we beat.

But anxiety isn't quieted by objective analysis, and I am anxious, mostly because this game has so much riding on it (the difference between the Rose Bowl and the Holiday Bowl), and, of course, because it is USC.

BC

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

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...

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

Before the last US,C game I wasn't nervous at all because I knew we were going to lose.  This time I'm scared to death because I know we might lose.  H.UGE DIFFERENCE.  So much riding on this one game, for both teams really.  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.Â