The CardBoard
Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - 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: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 (/thread-721.html)


Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - fyao - 11-13-2010

Harbaugh was patting Wilkerson on the back after the sit down, so obviously he did what the coach wanted.  

Maybe if Nate hadn\'t missed the field goal earlier, Harbaugh would have felt comfortable letting him run it in.

Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - washingtonismoney - 11-13-2010

No, Wilkerson\'s sitting down is absolutely the right play, and not for any b.s. running up the score reasons. If Wilkerson sits down, you ice the game with the victory formation. The last time someone won in this situation was with Herm Edwards, and that was pre-victory formation.

On the other hand, coming back from 11 down with a minute left is highly unlikely but doable--Arizona nearly did it against USC.

Wilkerson made the right percentage play; bravo to him to realize the (admittedly very slight) change in odds.

Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - Farm93 - 11-13-2010

Sorry,

Here to back up Wilkerson.  The odds of what you outlined are slim.

Luck would need a bad snap.  There would need to be a fumble.  Arizona would need to recover that fumble.  And then Arizona would then have the ball near the 5.  They would then need to drive the ball all the way for a TD in under a minute with no timeouts.  All of that is unlikely, at best.

If Wilkerson scores...
The Stanford team must kickoff.  Injuries happen on kickoffs all of the time, ask Stewart.  Arizona would have the ball.  Arizona would then rifle through 4-10 plays.  On each and every one of those plays are already depleted DB core would be challenged.  Those event would have certainly happened.

Honestly, Arizona would not win if Wilkerson scored that TD.  They likely would lose by 11, but each play would increase the possibility of a special teams or DB injury.

Thankfully, Anthony took a seat.  He was praised by the commentators.  No one seemed to yell at him on the sidelines, so I will presume that they were cool with it.  Luck didn\'t fumble away the ball.  And the game ended harmlessly with minimal additional effort.  If that prevented one Stanford or Arizona State injury then great.

Oh, BTW, it is not out of the question that he was told by the coaches not to go out of bounds or do anything that would prevent the clock from starting up after the chains were set.  Just a thought.

Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - JeffInCorvallis - 11-13-2010

ASU was out of timeouts.  There was only a minute and a half left in the game.  All Luck had to do was kneel down twice and the game was over.

If there had been 3-4 minutes left I would have felt differently, but at that point once Wilkerson had the 1st down the game was iced.


Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - Ratmandoo - 11-13-2010

I guess the question comes down to which option would you rather have:

1. Having the ball with a four point lead at the 4 yard line with a minute left in the game and ASU having no timeouts or

2. Kicking the ball to ASU with an 11 point lead with a minute left.

I would take two knee downs by Luck in victory formation everytime. I completely agree with Washington is Money. I even had a bet with a co-worker who went to ASU and gave him the 5 points. But I would take Wilkerson sitting down on that play everytime because it guaranteed the victory. So I\'m out a lunch... oh well.

Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - washingtonismoney - 11-13-2010

I mean, it\'s really this simple:

How many times has the opposing team ever won versus a victory formation? Once, and that was before they completely reinvented the victory formation to deal with that one specific instance.

How many times has a team come back from 11 points with a minute or so left? I\'ll bet literally anything that the answer is more than once.

Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - KartyFan - 11-14-2010

Garvin, you are very wrong. To my knowledge, never in history has a college or pro team lost by fumbling the ball from the Victory Formation. (The Miracle in the Meadowlands was a handoff). The only reference I could find to a fumble from this formation was Oklahoma State against Troy in 2007 (they won anyway).

There are countless instances of a team coming back from two scores with 1:30 on the clock.  Just think of the 1990 Big Game, when Stanford scored twice in 12 seconds.  

It\'s a 1% vs 0.001% comparison.

"Get down victory" - jacketree - 11-14-2010

Wilkerson didn\'t do anything wrong; his coach told him to sit down if he broke free.  Although the thought of a running back calculating probabilities as he breaks untouched toward the end zone is pretty funny.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/13/SPJF1GBP7N.DTL#ixzz15F6651nD

What they did is the percentage play.  You aren\'t going to lose taking a knee twice.  A TD return, onside kick and another TD in 90 seconds are way more likely than Andrew Luck blowing those kneel-downs.

Sounds like Garvin lost some money.


Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - fullmetal - 11-14-2010

About my description of the holding call--yeah, I guess it\'s likely that the FSN Arizona camera crew could have been focused on the wrong receiver getting held--maybe an earlier read in Luck\'s progression.  I couldn\'t really hear who was being penalized.  I also remember the camera crew still focusing on Luck in the second half for one play after he completed a pass--we were not happy to miss the play.

What\'s nice to know - JohnR34231 - 11-14-2010

You always wondered what was going to happen when the day inevitably came when the offense wouldn\'t be able to hang 30+ on the opposition. The reassuring answer is that we are still capable of winning.

If the Kal defense plays next weekend the way they played against the Ducks, I suspect we will have another test of that proposition.

Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - JohnR34231 - 11-14-2010

Both chances are very remote, but IMO Stanford losing the ball on a couple of kneel downs and ASU going the length of the field to score is slightly less likely than ASU getting a quick score and a two point conversion after a kickoff, and then recovering an onside kick and getting a long field goal to send the game into OT.

So I guess I support JH\'s decision, although I admit it seems a little bizarre.

Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - Mick - 11-14-2010

Quote:Both chances are very remote, but IMO Stanford losing the ball on a couple of kneel downs and ASU going the length of the field to score is slightly less likely than ASU getting a quick score and a two point conversion after a kickoff, and then recovering an onside kick and getting a long field goal to send the game into OT.

So I guess I support JH\'s decision, although I admit it seems a little bizarre.

I don\'t think it\'s remotely bizarre for the very reasons you state.  Victory formation kneeldowns win every single time.  Every time.  Period.  Stanford is on the brink of a very special season, possibly a Rose Bowl, possibly a BCS bowl.  Scoring twice in 90 seconds is definitely at least doable.

Re: Final: Stanford 17, ASU 13 - Farm93 - 11-14-2010

Everyone is missing the real benefit.

In both cases Stanford wins 99.99% of the time.  That is not the issue.

If Wilkerson scores the team looks better for the people voters, and the gamblers that bet on Stanford.

If Wilkerson sits down the game ends faster with fewer plays.

As a coach with DB injuries it was better to just end this thing.  Sherman was out.  Bademosi still plays with a cast.  If ASU gets some plays someone could get hurt.

FWIW - All of the pro go for 11 types clearly were not at the end of the Wazzu game.  In that game, Wazzu completed a miracle drive in the last minute to lose by 10.  If ASU completed a similar drive, then that would have looked bad.

But that was not the deal IMHO.  Stanford wins both ways.  With the injury situation on D, and the possibility of additional injuries made Wilkerson a hero.  Or as we are learning, explains why Wilkerson properly executed the requests from the coaches.