Blogging with the Wildcats - Printable Version

Blogging with the Wildcats - 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: Blogging with the Wildcats (/thread-18016.html)

Blogging with the Wildcats - Hank 91 - 08-30-2019

First game, first preview. https://www.gomightycard.com/2019/08/blogging-with-the-enemy-northwestern-wildcats.html

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - OutsiderFan - 08-30-2019

(08-30-2019, 08:57 AM)Hank 91 Wrote: First game, first preview. https://www.gomightycard.com/2019/08/blogging-with-the-enemy-northwestern-wildcats.html

That writer is a little too biased toward Northwestern, IMO. Sure, they could win, but let's be real here. Stanford doesn't lose many home games, and doesn't lose OOC home games. Stanford has an exceptionally experienced QB and Northwestern will have one making his first start in a road game. East Coast teams don't do well traveling West in general.  I'd believe what the writer said more if he predicted a Stanford victory. The fact he doesn't makes me question pretty much everything he says. Anyone who thinks Northwestern's run defense will carry the day for a Northwestern win, doesn't understand what Stanford's offense is all about this year.   My assessment of advantages: QB - StanfordOL - StanfordTE - StanfordWR - StanfordRB - PushDL - PushLB - NorthwesternDB - Stanford (only Stanford has Adebo)ST - StanfordCoaching: PushHome: Stanford

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - CTcard - 08-30-2019

(08-30-2019, 10:29 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: That writer is a little too biased toward Northwestern, IMO. ... I'd believe what the writer said more if he predicted a Stanford victory. The fact he doesn't makes me question pretty much everything he says.

I'd say that a home town blogger who picks his own team to squeak out a victory by 3 points and then follows that with "I would also like to caution this pick with the fact that I am notoriously optimistic" is about as unbiased as you are going to find out there. I also don't think the guy predicted that Northwestern's run defense specifically would carry the day. To a direct question, he said that Northwestern's run defense is a strength of the team (which appears to be true). As to how the game will play out, he said "both defenses dominate" and that "Hunter Johnson's Wildcats score early" and hold on for the win - which I take as predicting that game key would be Johnson's performance. I tend to agree with the first part. For the second part to happen, Hunter Johnson has to be on the field early - and, yes, the fact he hasn't secured that position makes me wonder how far along he is.

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - OutsiderFan - 08-30-2019

I will admit my comments were meant to drum up some passionate discussion about this game, maybe even some good-natured smack talk.  But I guess that's kind of hard when there are no Northwestern fans on this board, and Stanford fans IN GENERAL have the least bravado of any fan base I've ever seen.  Not a dig at the Stanford fan base, just a reality. I do still believe anyone picking Northwestern can't be an objective analyst. They have to be biased to Northwestern or the Big Ten. Fans can make Northwestern predictions because fans are usually not objective about their team. My comments are made with an effort to maintain objectivity, but I too slip into unwarranted exuberance sometimes!

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - BostonCard - 08-30-2019

Stanford is a 6 point favorite in this game; that translates to a 66% chance of winning typically. ESPN's FPI is a bit more generous to us and gives us a 75% chance of winning. By either metric, Northwestern has a substantial, though less than even, chance of winning. I'm not sure how you can say that it would not be objective to pick a mild underdog.

BC

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - Mick - 08-31-2019

Stanford hasn't played a Big 10 team since losing to Northwestern in 2015, though overall Shaw is 3-2 against the Big 10. Northwestern has won three of four against the Pac-12, and are 15-5 in their last 20 road/neutral games. They've won 15 of their last 21 against Power 5 schools; Stanford has gone 15-7 in their last 22 against Power 5 schools.

Five of the seven CBS analysts pick Northwestern against the spread. They think it's going to be a tight game:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/stanford-vs-northwestern-prediction-pick-odds-line-point-spread-football-game-kickoff-time-preview/

In a not-too-surprising prognostication, www.insidenu.com predicts a Northwestern upset. The predictor with the best track record (75%) predicts a six point Northwestern victory:

https://www.insidenu.com/2019/8/31/20837893/northwestern-stanford-predictions-inside-nu-picks-results-fitzgerald-shaw-week-one-costello

I like Stanford 27-20.

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - OutsiderFan - 08-31-2019

Stanford 45 Iowa 16 on Jan. 1, 2016

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - martyup - 08-31-2019

(08-31-2019, 10:39 AM)Mick Wrote: Stanford hasn't played a Big 10 team since losing to Northwestern in 2015 . . .

[Image: christian-mccaffrey-td-in-rose-bowl.gif?w=500]

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - BostonCard - 08-31-2019

Love the .gifs but key question. Do you pronounce it jif or gif with a hard g?

BC

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - CowboyIndian - 08-31-2019

(08-31-2019, 12:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Love the .gifs but key question. Do you pronounce it jif or gif with a hard g?

BC

I just recently read a headline that said the guy who invented the .gif pronounces it JIFF.

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - martyup - 08-31-2019

(08-31-2019, 12:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Love the .gifs but key question. Do you pronounce it jif or gif with a hard g?

BC

Hard G for me.

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - washingtonismoney - 08-31-2019

(08-31-2019, 12:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Love the .gifs but key question. Do you pronounce it jif or gif with a hard g?

BC

nothing like a granfalloon for a saturday night

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - Mick - 09-01-2019

(08-31-2019, 12:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Love the .gifs but key question. Do you pronounce it jif or gif with a hard g?

BC

Apparently either pronunciation is acceptable:

<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=.gif+definition&rlz=1C1GKLO_enUS827US827&oq=.gif+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2860j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">https://www.google.com/search?q=.gif+definition&rlz=1C1GKLO_enUS827US827&oq=.gif+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2860j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8</a>

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - martyup - 09-01-2019

(08-31-2019, 07:42 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote: 
(08-31-2019, 12:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Love the .gifs but key question. Do you pronounce it jif or gif with a hard g?

BC

 nothing like a granfalloon for a saturday night

The Cardboard = granfalloon?

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - stupac2 - 09-01-2019

I was a camp counselor at an educational summer camp at Stanford (that I think WiM did as well) and the instructor arranged a guest lecture with some older physicist, whose name I can't recall, that I would have completely forgotten had it not been the one and only time I have actually heard someone pronounce "gigawatt" as "jiggawatt". I think everyone in the audience who had seen Back to the Future lost their damn minds, at least as much as you can while respectfully listening to a lecture. Turns out that's just the way the science consultant on BttF said gigawatt. I guess it used to be more common? Certainly not any more. Anyway, count me as a hard-g giffer.

RE: Blogging with the Wildcats - Mick - 09-01-2019

(09-01-2019, 02:15 PM)stupac2 Wrote: I was a camp counselor at an educational summer camp at Stanford (that I think WiM did as well) and the instructor arranged a guest lecture with some older physicist, whose name I can't recall, that I would have completely forgotten had it not been the one and only time I have actually heard someone pronounce "gigawatt" as "jiggawatt". I think everyone in the audience who had seen Back to the Future lost their damn minds, at least as much as you can while respectfully listening to a lecture. Turns out that's just the way the science consultant on BttF said gigawatt. I guess it used to be more common? Certainly not any more. Anyway, count me as a hard-g giffer.

Merriam Webster uses the soft "g' for gigawatt, with hard "g" as alternative.

<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gigawatt">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gigawatt</a>

 Dictionary.com is the opposite.  Hard "g" for gigawatt, soft "g" as alternative.

<a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gigawatt">https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gigawatt</a>