[washingtonismoney]

As speculated, starting LT and CB out for the season: https://twitter.com/SeaTimesSports/statu...6410514434

Hate to hear it.

[washingtonismoney]

As speculated, starting LT and CB out for the season: https://twitter.com/SeaTimesSports/statu...6410514434

Hate to hear it.

[Goose]

As speculated, starting LT and CB out for the season: https://twitter.com/SeaTimesSports/statu...6410514434

Hate to hear it.

This is really unfortunate. We want to beat them, but I am sure we all would want no asterisks beside a win. Also, very hard for the two guys involved.

[Goose]

As speculated, starting LT and CB out for the season: https://twitter.com/SeaTimesSports/statu...6410514434

Hate to hear it.

This is really unfortunate. We want to beat them, but I am sure we all would want no asterisks beside a win. Also, very hard for the two guys involved.

[OutsiderFan]

Funny, I don't think UW had any asterisks put next to their Stanford win last year, when Stanford was missing both starting CBs, McCaffery was banged up, and we all now believe AT Hall wasn't healthy either.

[OutsiderFan]

Funny, I don't think UW had any asterisks put next to their Stanford win last year, when Stanford was missing both starting CBs, McCaffery was banged up, and we all now believe AT Hall wasn't healthy either.

[Goose]

Funny, I don't think UW had any asterisks put next to their Stanford win last year, when Stanford was missing both starting CBs, McCaffery was banged up, and we all now believe AT Hall wasn't healthy either.

Very True. But we aren't them.

[Goose]

Funny, I don't think UW had any asterisks put next to their Stanford win last year, when Stanford was missing both starting CBs, McCaffery was banged up, and we all now believe AT Hall wasn't healthy either.

Very True. But we aren't them.

[Spiny_Norman]

Well Stanford has lost a starting LB (Barton) for the season and has not seen the starting nickelback (Alexander) and backup LB (Branch) in weeks.  Next Man Up.

[Spiny_Norman]

Well Stanford has lost a starting LB (Barton) for the season and has not seen the starting nickelback (Alexander) and backup LB (Branch) in weeks.  Next Man Up.

[stupac2]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17715.msg206817#msg206817 date=1508185014]
Funny, I don't think UW had any asterisks put next to their Stanford win last year, when Stanford was missing both starting CBs, McCaffery was banged up, and we all now believe AT Hall wasn't healthy either.

Very True. But we aren't them.
[/quote]

And? It doesn't matter. None of it matters. Stanford's path to a NY6 bowl is very, very, very simple:

1) Win the conference.

That's it. There's no plan B. We were 9-3 last year and saw what that got us. If we lose another conference game we'll have fun rooting for maybe the Holiday bowl.

Meanwhile, the only conceivable path to the playoff is:

1) Win out.
2) Hope for some truly spectacular chaos.

Again, perceptions about UW won't matter. We'd need at least one other conference (probably the ACC and/or Big 12) to implode and produce a 2-loss winner. Beating UW at full strength vs hobbled won't move the needle at all and I don't know why anyone thinks it would. Look at 2015 when we clearly had the #3 resume, but it didn't matter because even the committee still does the stupid cult of zero "sort by loss column" ranking method.

[stupac2]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17715.msg206817#msg206817 date=1508185014]
Funny, I don't think UW had any asterisks put next to their Stanford win last year, when Stanford was missing both starting CBs, McCaffery was banged up, and we all now believe AT Hall wasn't healthy either.

Very True. But we aren't them.
[/quote]

And? It doesn't matter. None of it matters. Stanford's path to a NY6 bowl is very, very, very simple:

1) Win the conference.

That's it. There's no plan B. We were 9-3 last year and saw what that got us. If we lose another conference game we'll have fun rooting for maybe the Holiday bowl.

Meanwhile, the only conceivable path to the playoff is:

1) Win out.
2) Hope for some truly spectacular chaos.

Again, perceptions about UW won't matter. We'd need at least one other conference (probably the ACC and/or Big 12) to implode and produce a 2-loss winner. Beating UW at full strength vs hobbled won't move the needle at all and I don't know why anyone thinks it would. Look at 2015 when we clearly had the #3 resume, but it didn't matter because even the committee still does the stupid cult of zero "sort by loss column" ranking method.

[CTcard]

Meanwhile, the only conceivable path to the playoff is:

1) Win out.
2) Hope for some truly spectacular chaos.

Again, perceptions about UW won't matter.

True.

It would certainly be a long shot as no two loss team has ever made the CFP; though of course there have only been three playoffs so far.
FWIW, on ESPNU radio driving in this morning, Stanford was mentioned as the only current two-loss team in the nation with any chance of making the playoff.

[CTcard]

Meanwhile, the only conceivable path to the playoff is:

1) Win out.
2) Hope for some truly spectacular chaos.

Again, perceptions about UW won't matter.

True.

It would certainly be a long shot as no two loss team has ever made the CFP; though of course there have only been three playoffs so far.
FWIW, on ESPNU radio driving in this morning, Stanford was mentioned as the only current two-loss team in the nation with any chance of making the playoff.

[ChicagoCard]

Is UW's other corner, Byron Murphy, expected back this year?

[ChicagoCard]

Is UW's other corner, Byron Murphy, expected back this year?

[Spiny_Norman]

Is UW's other corner, Byron Murphy, expected back this year?

From the Seattle Times article linked in the tweet above - "The Huskies are already without another starting cornerback, Byron Murphy, who is expected to return at some point this season from a broken foot."

[Spiny_Norman]

Is UW's other corner, Byron Murphy, expected back this year?

From the Seattle Times article linked in the tweet above - "The Huskies are already without another starting cornerback, Byron Murphy, who is expected to return at some point this season from a broken foot."

[ChicagoCard]

[quote author=ChicagoTree link=topic=17715.msg206829#msg206829 date=1508187670]
Is UW's other corner, Byron Murphy, expected back this year?

From the Seattle Times article linked in the tweet above - "The Huskies are already without another starting cornerback, Byron Murphy, who is expected to return at some point this season from a broken foot."
[/quote]

Oops, thanks. I saw twitter links. Here's the URL for the Seattle Times article on UW injury outlook:

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-h...he-season/

[ChicagoCard]

[quote author=ChicagoTree link=topic=17715.msg206829#msg206829 date=1508187670]
Is UW's other corner, Byron Murphy, expected back this year?

From the Seattle Times article linked in the tweet above - "The Huskies are already without another starting cornerback, Byron Murphy, who is expected to return at some point this season from a broken foot."
[/quote]

Oops, thanks. I saw twitter links. Here's the URL for the Seattle Times article on UW injury outlook:

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-h...he-season/

[Goose]

Well Stanford has lost a starting LB (Barton) for the season and has not seen the starting nickelback (Alexander) and backup LB (Branch) in weeks.  Next Man Up.

Correct. Injuries are part of football, and every team has them. Some are worse than others.

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17715.msg206818#msg206818 date=1508185173]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17715.msg206817#msg206817 date=1508185014]
Funny, I don't think UW had any asterisks put next to their Stanford win last year, when Stanford was missing both starting CBs, McCaffery was banged up, and we all now believe AT Hall wasn't healthy either.

Very True. But we aren't them.
[/quote]

And? It doesn't matter. None of it matters. Stanford's path to a NY6 bowl is very, very, very simple:

1) Win the conference.

That's it. There's no plan B. We were 9-3 last year and saw what that got us. If we lose another conference game we'll have fun rooting for maybe the Holiday bowl.

[/quote]
Yes, it matters. It doesn't matter to the NY6 bowl choices. You don't get style points unless you are Alabama (or maybe ND). However, that isn't the only reason Stanford plays football. I would much prefer, and I think the team would much prefer, to beat UW when they are more or less at full strength. I would prefer that at least partially to spare me the comments (both on this board and elsewhere) about the 2016 game, where people say something like "Well, if our corners weren't hurt, and CMac was full strength, things may (or would have been) different." We will never know. We will not know because those players were injured. I wish they hadn't been. Maybe lots of things would have been different (who knows), but for sure there wouldn't be speculation that the result was somehow devalued by injuries. We ourselves often seem to put an asterisk on that ass-kicking. The words are "Next man up" are followed by "but ...". I would prefer that UW fans could not do the same. A pure" victory that cant be denied or explained away is much more satisfying.

[Goose]

Well Stanford has lost a starting LB (Barton) for the season and has not seen the starting nickelback (Alexander) and backup LB (Branch) in weeks.  Next Man Up.

Correct. Injuries are part of football, and every team has them. Some are worse than others.

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17715.msg206818#msg206818 date=1508185173]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17715.msg206817#msg206817 date=1508185014]
Funny, I don't think UW had any asterisks put next to their Stanford win last year, when Stanford was missing both starting CBs, McCaffery was banged up, and we all now believe AT Hall wasn't healthy either.

Very True. But we aren't them.
[/quote]

And? It doesn't matter. None of it matters. Stanford's path to a NY6 bowl is very, very, very simple:

1) Win the conference.

That's it. There's no plan B. We were 9-3 last year and saw what that got us. If we lose another conference game we'll have fun rooting for maybe the Holiday bowl.

[/quote]
Yes, it matters. It doesn't matter to the NY6 bowl choices. You don't get style points unless you are Alabama (or maybe ND). However, that isn't the only reason Stanford plays football. I would much prefer, and I think the team would much prefer, to beat UW when they are more or less at full strength. I would prefer that at least partially to spare me the comments (both on this board and elsewhere) about the 2016 game, where people say something like "Well, if our corners weren't hurt, and CMac was full strength, things may (or would have been) different." We will never know. We will not know because those players were injured. I wish they hadn't been. Maybe lots of things would have been different (who knows), but for sure there wouldn't be speculation that the result was somehow devalued by injuries. We ourselves often seem to put an asterisk on that ass-kicking. The words are "Next man up" are followed by "but ...". I would prefer that UW fans could not do the same. A pure" victory that cant be denied or explained away is much more satisfying.

[Snorlax94]

If we beat UW with the players they have now, it'll be a pure victory. There will be no asterisk.

Injuries are part of the game of football, I would say, especially college football.

If you want to go far consistently, you need a two deep, and sometimes a three deep.

Ohio State won a national championship with their third string qb.

UW's injurues to be seem pretty run-of-the-mill typical for being around halfway through the season. When they put in their replacement left tackle, I didn't see any particular weakness there.

USC gets a small note vs Wazoo because they had a stunningly large number of injuries.

There's a case to be made if a superstar is injuried, like when Mariota was hurt.

UW's real problem is due to lost players, yes, but they lost them last year to the nfl. None of this season's injuries comes anywhere close to the absence of John Ross or Budda Baker.

[Snorlax94]

If we beat UW with the players they have now, it'll be a pure victory. There will be no asterisk.

Injuries are part of the game of football, I would say, especially college football.

If you want to go far consistently, you need a two deep, and sometimes a three deep.

Ohio State won a national championship with their third string qb.

UW's injurues to be seem pretty run-of-the-mill typical for being around halfway through the season. When they put in their replacement left tackle, I didn't see any particular weakness there.

USC gets a small note vs Wazoo because they had a stunningly large number of injuries.

There's a case to be made if a superstar is injuried, like when Mariota was hurt.

UW's real problem is due to lost players, yes, but they lost them last year to the nfl. None of this season's injuries comes anywhere close to the absence of John Ross or Budda Baker.

[stupac2]

Yes, it matters. It doesn't matter to the NY6 bowl choices. You don't get style points unless you are Alabama (or maybe ND). However, that isn't the only reason Stanford plays football. I would much prefer, and I think the team would much prefer, to beat UW when they are more or less at full strength. I would prefer that at least partially to spare me the comments (both on this board and elsewhere) about the 2016 game, where people say something like "Well, if our corners weren't hurt, and CMac was full strength, things may (or would have been) different." We will never know. We will not know because those players were injured. I wish they hadn't been. Maybe lots of things would have been different (who knows), but for sure there wouldn't be speculation that the result was somehow devalued by injuries. We ourselves often seem to put an asterisk on that ass-kicking. The words are "Next man up" are followed by "but ...". I would prefer that UW fans could not do the same. A pure" victory that cant be denied or explained away is much more satisfying.

Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.

[stupac2]

Yes, it matters. It doesn't matter to the NY6 bowl choices. You don't get style points unless you are Alabama (or maybe ND). However, that isn't the only reason Stanford plays football. I would much prefer, and I think the team would much prefer, to beat UW when they are more or less at full strength. I would prefer that at least partially to spare me the comments (both on this board and elsewhere) about the 2016 game, where people say something like "Well, if our corners weren't hurt, and CMac was full strength, things may (or would have been) different." We will never know. We will not know because those players were injured. I wish they hadn't been. Maybe lots of things would have been different (who knows), but for sure there wouldn't be speculation that the result was somehow devalued by injuries. We ourselves often seem to put an asterisk on that ass-kicking. The words are "Next man up" are followed by "but ...". I would prefer that UW fans could not do the same. A pure" victory that cant be denied or explained away is much more satisfying.

Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17715.msg206857#msg206857 date=1508199698]Yes, it matters. It doesn't matter to the NY6 bowl choices. You don't get style points unless you are Alabama (or maybe ND). However, that isn't the only reason Stanford plays football. I would much prefer, and I think the team would much prefer, to beat UW when they are more or less at full strength. I would prefer that at least partially to spare me the comments (both on this board and elsewhere) about the 2016 game, where people say something like "Well, if our corners weren't hurt, and CMac was full strength, things may (or would have been) different." We will never know. We will not know because those players were injured. I wish they hadn't been. Maybe lots of things would have been different (who knows), but for sure there wouldn't be speculation that the result was somehow devalued by injuries. We ourselves often seem to put an asterisk on that ass-kicking. The words are "Next man up" are followed by "but ...". I would prefer that UW fans could not do the same. A pure" victory that cant be denied or explained away is much more satisfying.

Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.
[/quote]

Literally every loss in the existence of ever has been blamed on some exogenous factor by fans. Oregon fans never gave Stanford credit for 2012 and 2013 -- and then celebrated like hell when they finally got the win in 2014. It doesn't matter.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17715.msg206857#msg206857 date=1508199698]Yes, it matters. It doesn't matter to the NY6 bowl choices. You don't get style points unless you are Alabama (or maybe ND). However, that isn't the only reason Stanford plays football. I would much prefer, and I think the team would much prefer, to beat UW when they are more or less at full strength. I would prefer that at least partially to spare me the comments (both on this board and elsewhere) about the 2016 game, where people say something like "Well, if our corners weren't hurt, and CMac was full strength, things may (or would have been) different." We will never know. We will not know because those players were injured. I wish they hadn't been. Maybe lots of things would have been different (who knows), but for sure there wouldn't be speculation that the result was somehow devalued by injuries. We ourselves often seem to put an asterisk on that ass-kicking. The words are "Next man up" are followed by "but ...". I would prefer that UW fans could not do the same. A pure" victory that cant be denied or explained away is much more satisfying.

Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.
[/quote]

Literally every loss in the existence of ever has been blamed on some exogenous factor by fans. Oregon fans never gave Stanford credit for 2012 and 2013 -- and then celebrated like hell when they finally got the win in 2014. It doesn't matter.

[Goose]

Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.

Well, as you might expect, I don't agree. I am sure you are not naive enough to believe that reputation, politics, and spin has no effect on how bowl teams are chosen, and how the candidate 4 teams for the national championship are selected. I am sure you also remember all the news coverage and opinion pieces about how "Washington is back", "The new King of the North", etc. when they beat us last year. Then USC beats them. Suddenly, is is USC that is back. But Stanford beat USC, so how can they be back? Our victory didn't "count" because Darnold wasn't the QB. Why did that explanation gain traction? Because it was certainly reasonable, and even probably true. Why did it matter? It matters because "perennial" powers like USC and Washington get preferential evaluations based on their historical narrative. This narrative is often replete with revisionist history and explanations for some missteps. I want Stanford to become one of those perennial powers, so we get the same benefit of the doubt. Based on the last 9 or so years, it is clear we were better than Washington, and better than USC. Yet, we do not have the "halo" of these other programs. I don't want there to be any credible reason that anyone, including UW fans can use to explain away their defeat when it occurs. I want no reasonable excuses, because I want the world at large to be forced to recognize what Shaw has accomplished. In today's world of talking heads, tweets, and blogs, cutting through the BS isn't easy. The ESPN boys can turn any convenient fact into a "reason".  See the trophy that shall not be named coverage in the recent past. Eliminating possible explanations/reasons helps. So, no, I don't think it is ridiculous to want to avoid such noise. Yes, there is always noise, you can blame it on having the sun in the kicker's eyes in a night game if you want, but any excuse that has some measure of credibility can and has diminished the impact of otherwise great wins. It is not just the results that matter, unfortunately. How the result is viewed sometimes matters just as much.
Certainly, I also have concern and sympathy for the UW players, as this really does impact them, whatever else happens.

[Goose]

Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.

Well, as you might expect, I don't agree. I am sure you are not naive enough to believe that reputation, politics, and spin has no effect on how bowl teams are chosen, and how the candidate 4 teams for the national championship are selected. I am sure you also remember all the news coverage and opinion pieces about how "Washington is back", "The new King of the North", etc. when they beat us last year. Then USC beats them. Suddenly, is is USC that is back. But Stanford beat USC, so how can they be back? Our victory didn't "count" because Darnold wasn't the QB. Why did that explanation gain traction? Because it was certainly reasonable, and even probably true. Why did it matter? It matters because "perennial" powers like USC and Washington get preferential evaluations based on their historical narrative. This narrative is often replete with revisionist history and explanations for some missteps. I want Stanford to become one of those perennial powers, so we get the same benefit of the doubt. Based on the last 9 or so years, it is clear we were better than Washington, and better than USC. Yet, we do not have the "halo" of these other programs. I don't want there to be any credible reason that anyone, including UW fans can use to explain away their defeat when it occurs. I want no reasonable excuses, because I want the world at large to be forced to recognize what Shaw has accomplished. In today's world of talking heads, tweets, and blogs, cutting through the BS isn't easy. The ESPN boys can turn any convenient fact into a "reason".  See the trophy that shall not be named coverage in the recent past. Eliminating possible explanations/reasons helps. So, no, I don't think it is ridiculous to want to avoid such noise. Yes, there is always noise, you can blame it on having the sun in the kicker's eyes in a night game if you want, but any excuse that has some measure of credibility can and has diminished the impact of otherwise great wins. It is not just the results that matter, unfortunately. How the result is viewed sometimes matters just as much.
Certainly, I also have concern and sympathy for the UW players, as this really does impact them, whatever else happens.

[Hulk01]

These may be tough losses for the Huskies to absorb.  The gap between the conference's best left tackle, Trey Adams, and his backup is likely to be significant.  And the Dawgs already had lost two corners, Kevin King and Sidney Jones, to the draft  So these two injuries to their new corners leave them with their third string corners from 2016, far cries from King and Jones. 

Plus the Huskies have lost Chico McClatcher, their only good, speedy and experienced wide receiver other than Dante Pettis.  They're very weak there now.

[Hulk01]

These may be tough losses for the Huskies to absorb.  The gap between the conference's best left tackle, Trey Adams, and his backup is likely to be significant.  And the Dawgs already had lost two corners, Kevin King and Sidney Jones, to the draft  So these two injuries to their new corners leave them with their third string corners from 2016, far cries from King and Jones. 

Plus the Huskies have lost Chico McClatcher, their only good, speedy and experienced wide receiver other than Dante Pettis.  They're very weak there now.

[StanfordIndians1]

Big Deal.

Injuries are part of the game.  Every team is dealing with them.

That's why there are 100 players on sidelines. 

True team victory is next man up.  Deal w it.

After sitting thru that crap @Washington last year, I hope we run it up on them.  We owe them.

[StanfordIndians1]

Big Deal.

Injuries are part of the game.  Every team is dealing with them.

That's why there are 100 players on sidelines. 

True team victory is next man up.  Deal w it.

After sitting thru that crap @Washington last year, I hope we run it up on them.  We owe them.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17715.msg206864#msg206864 date=1508204299]
Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.

Well, as you might expect, I don't agree. I am sure you are not naive enough to believe that reputation, politics, and spin has no effect on how bowl teams are chosen, and how the candidate 4 teams for the national championship are selected. I am sure you also remember all the news coverage and opinion pieces about how "Washington is back", "The new King of the North", etc. when they beat us last year. Then U$C beats them. Suddenly, is is U$C that is back. But Stanford beat U$C, so how can they be back? Our victory didn't "count" because Darnold wasn't the QB. Why did that explanation gain traction? Because it was certainly reasonable, and even probably true. Why did it matter? It matters because "perennial" powers like U$C and Washington get preferential evaluations based on their historical narrative. This narrative is often replete with revisionist history and explanations for some missteps. I want Stanford to become one of those perennial powers, so we get the same benefit of the doubt. Based on the last 9 or so years, it is clear we were better than Washington, and better than U$C. Yet, we do not have the "halo" of these other programs. I don't want there to be any credible reason that anyone, including UW fans can use to explain away their defeat when it occurs. I want no reasonable excuses, because I want the world at large to be forced to recognize what Shaw has accomplished. In today's world of talking heads, tweets, and blogs, cutting through the BS isn't easy. The ESPN boys can turn any convenient fact into a "reason".  See the trophy that shall not be named coverage in the recent past. Eliminating possible explanations/reasons helps. So, no, I don't think it is ridiculous to want to avoid such noise. Yes, there is always noise, you can blame it on having the sun in the kicker's eyes in a night game if you want, but any excuse that has some measure of credibility can and has diminished the impact of otherwise great wins. It is not just the results that matter, unfortunately. How the result is viewed sometimes matters just as much.
Certainly, I also have concern and sympathy for the UW players, as this really does impact them, whatever else happens.
[/quote]

The problem with this thinking is that it manifestly doesn't matter. I've never heard any talking head say "oh but this team had thus and such player out so the win doesn't count" with the possible exception of top-20 quarterbacks. And the committee doesn't and won't care. I have absolutely no idea why you think this, there's just no indication whatsoever that it matters.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17715.msg206864#msg206864 date=1508204299]
Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.

Well, as you might expect, I don't agree. I am sure you are not naive enough to believe that reputation, politics, and spin has no effect on how bowl teams are chosen, and how the candidate 4 teams for the national championship are selected. I am sure you also remember all the news coverage and opinion pieces about how "Washington is back", "The new King of the North", etc. when they beat us last year. Then U$C beats them. Suddenly, is is U$C that is back. But Stanford beat U$C, so how can they be back? Our victory didn't "count" because Darnold wasn't the QB. Why did that explanation gain traction? Because it was certainly reasonable, and even probably true. Why did it matter? It matters because "perennial" powers like U$C and Washington get preferential evaluations based on their historical narrative. This narrative is often replete with revisionist history and explanations for some missteps. I want Stanford to become one of those perennial powers, so we get the same benefit of the doubt. Based on the last 9 or so years, it is clear we were better than Washington, and better than U$C. Yet, we do not have the "halo" of these other programs. I don't want there to be any credible reason that anyone, including UW fans can use to explain away their defeat when it occurs. I want no reasonable excuses, because I want the world at large to be forced to recognize what Shaw has accomplished. In today's world of talking heads, tweets, and blogs, cutting through the BS isn't easy. The ESPN boys can turn any convenient fact into a "reason".  See the trophy that shall not be named coverage in the recent past. Eliminating possible explanations/reasons helps. So, no, I don't think it is ridiculous to want to avoid such noise. Yes, there is always noise, you can blame it on having the sun in the kicker's eyes in a night game if you want, but any excuse that has some measure of credibility can and has diminished the impact of otherwise great wins. It is not just the results that matter, unfortunately. How the result is viewed sometimes matters just as much.
Certainly, I also have concern and sympathy for the UW players, as this really does impact them, whatever else happens.
[/quote]

The problem with this thinking is that it manifestly doesn't matter. I've never heard any talking head say "oh but this team had thus and such player out so the win doesn't count" with the possible exception of top-20 quarterbacks. And the committee doesn't and won't care. I have absolutely no idea why you think this, there's just no indication whatsoever that it matters.

[FarmBoy]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17715.msg206872#msg206872 date=1508210771]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17715.msg206864#msg206864 date=1508204299]
Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.

Well, as you might expect, I don't agree. I am sure you are not naive enough to believe that reputation, politics, and spin has no effect on how bowl teams are chosen, and how the candidate 4 teams for the national championship are selected. I am sure you also remember all the news coverage and opinion pieces about how "Washington is back", "The new King of the North", etc. when they beat us last year. Then U$C beats them. Suddenly, is is U$C that is back. But Stanford beat U$C, so how can they be back? Our victory didn't "count" because Darnold wasn't the QB. Why did that explanation gain traction? Because it was certainly reasonable, and even probably true. Why did it matter? It matters because "perennial" powers like U$C and Washington get preferential evaluations based on their historical narrative. This narrative is often replete with revisionist history and explanations for some missteps. I want Stanford to become one of those perennial powers, so we get the same benefit of the doubt. Based on the last 9 or so years, it is clear we were better than Washington, and better than U$C. Yet, we do not have the "halo" of these other programs. I don't want there to be any credible reason that anyone, including UW fans can use to explain away their defeat when it occurs. I want no reasonable excuses, because I want the world at large to be forced to recognize what Shaw has accomplished. In today's world of talking heads, tweets, and blogs, cutting through the BS isn't easy. The ESPN boys can turn any convenient fact into a "reason".  See the trophy that shall not be named coverage in the recent past. Eliminating possible explanations/reasons helps. So, no, I don't think it is ridiculous to want to avoid such noise. Yes, there is always noise, you can blame it on having the sun in the kicker's eyes in a night game if you want, but any excuse that has some measure of credibility can and has diminished the impact of otherwise great wins. It is not just the results that matter, unfortunately. How the result is viewed sometimes matters just as much.
Certainly, I also have concern and sympathy for the UW players, as this really does impact them, whatever else happens.
[/quote]

The problem with this thinking is that it manifestly doesn't matter. I've never heard any talking head say "oh but this team had thus and such player out so the win doesn't count" with the possible exception of top-20 quarterbacks. And the committee doesn't and won't care. I have absolutely no idea why you think this, there's just no indication whatsoever that it matters.
[/quote]

The only personnel loss I could see mattering is a QB or a H-man type other player. Were we to lose Love or Chryst or UW lost their QB, there might be some asterisk attached to the game outcome. But it's hard to see that impacting bowl selection in the end, except if we were in the running for the CFB, which we most likely are not. All the bowl games care about is whether we'll sell tickets or generate TV eyeballs. Losing Love would certainly make us a less attractive bowl game participant. Love will be a brobdingnagian asset to bowl selection. Any bowl game will want to have access to his highlight reel and stats to pump up the game.

[FarmBoy]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17715.msg206872#msg206872 date=1508210771]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17715.msg206864#msg206864 date=1508204299]
Why do you care what UW fans think? Every team has what-ifs about every season. I get wishing that injuries didn't happen because it sucks for young men to get hurt, but thinking that the other team dealing with injuries taints a victory is ridiculous.

Well, as you might expect, I don't agree. I am sure you are not naive enough to believe that reputation, politics, and spin has no effect on how bowl teams are chosen, and how the candidate 4 teams for the national championship are selected. I am sure you also remember all the news coverage and opinion pieces about how "Washington is back", "The new King of the North", etc. when they beat us last year. Then U$C beats them. Suddenly, is is U$C that is back. But Stanford beat U$C, so how can they be back? Our victory didn't "count" because Darnold wasn't the QB. Why did that explanation gain traction? Because it was certainly reasonable, and even probably true. Why did it matter? It matters because "perennial" powers like U$C and Washington get preferential evaluations based on their historical narrative. This narrative is often replete with revisionist history and explanations for some missteps. I want Stanford to become one of those perennial powers, so we get the same benefit of the doubt. Based on the last 9 or so years, it is clear we were better than Washington, and better than U$C. Yet, we do not have the "halo" of these other programs. I don't want there to be any credible reason that anyone, including UW fans can use to explain away their defeat when it occurs. I want no reasonable excuses, because I want the world at large to be forced to recognize what Shaw has accomplished. In today's world of talking heads, tweets, and blogs, cutting through the BS isn't easy. The ESPN boys can turn any convenient fact into a "reason".  See the trophy that shall not be named coverage in the recent past. Eliminating possible explanations/reasons helps. So, no, I don't think it is ridiculous to want to avoid such noise. Yes, there is always noise, you can blame it on having the sun in the kicker's eyes in a night game if you want, but any excuse that has some measure of credibility can and has diminished the impact of otherwise great wins. It is not just the results that matter, unfortunately. How the result is viewed sometimes matters just as much.
Certainly, I also have concern and sympathy for the UW players, as this really does impact them, whatever else happens.
[/quote]

The problem with this thinking is that it manifestly doesn't matter. I've never heard any talking head say "oh but this team had thus and such player out so the win doesn't count" with the possible exception of top-20 quarterbacks. And the committee doesn't and won't care. I have absolutely no idea why you think this, there's just no indication whatsoever that it matters.
[/quote]

The only personnel loss I could see mattering is a QB or a H-man type other player. Were we to lose Love or Chryst or UW lost their QB, there might be some asterisk attached to the game outcome. But it's hard to see that impacting bowl selection in the end, except if we were in the running for the CFB, which we most likely are not. All the bowl games care about is whether we'll sell tickets or generate TV eyeballs. Losing Love would certainly make us a less attractive bowl game participant. Love will be a brobdingnagian asset to bowl selection. Any bowl game will want to have access to his highlight reel and stats to pump up the game.

[Goose]

The problem with this thinking is that it manifestly doesn't matter. I've never heard any talking head say "oh but this team had thus and such player out so the win doesn't count" with the possible exception of top-20 quarterbacks. And the committee doesn't and won't care. I have absolutely no idea why you think this, there's just no indication whatsoever that it matters.

While you are correct that the committee doesn't say "I think this loss by Alabama doesn't count because their left tackle was injured", the Alabama narrative that goes on over time includes this subtext. The talking heads DO talk about these things. Listen to Matt Leinart talk about USC's injury problems. The talking heads say "It isn't an excuse but look at Team A's injury list". Of course it is an excuse. Boards like this DO talk about it. This chatter does affect what the "common wisdom"  about a football program. And that common wisdom DOES affect how choices are made.  You personally are willing to consider the effect of not having a top 20 QB. Others have much lower standards, especially when it matches their confirmation bias. How about the "best left tackle in the PAC-12"? Does that count? Some would say it does. I think there is no question that this adds up, especially in a world where repeatedly saying something makes it true. It becomes propaganda for some program. So, yes, I think things that can cloud the actual game results are undesirable. The polls are opinion. Propaganda affects opinions. History, and revisionist history, affects opinions. The polls affect our national ranking. The national ranking affects the committee. So that's why I prefer as few mitigating factors as possible. We may just disagree on this.

[Goose]

The problem with this thinking is that it manifestly doesn't matter. I've never heard any talking head say "oh but this team had thus and such player out so the win doesn't count" with the possible exception of top-20 quarterbacks. And the committee doesn't and won't care. I have absolutely no idea why you think this, there's just no indication whatsoever that it matters.

While you are correct that the committee doesn't say "I think this loss by Alabama doesn't count because their left tackle was injured", the Alabama narrative that goes on over time includes this subtext. The talking heads DO talk about these things. Listen to Matt Leinart talk about USC's injury problems. The talking heads say "It isn't an excuse but look at Team A's injury list". Of course it is an excuse. Boards like this DO talk about it. This chatter does affect what the "common wisdom"  about a football program. And that common wisdom DOES affect how choices are made.  You personally are willing to consider the effect of not having a top 20 QB. Others have much lower standards, especially when it matches their confirmation bias. How about the "best left tackle in the PAC-12"? Does that count? Some would say it does. I think there is no question that this adds up, especially in a world where repeatedly saying something makes it true. It becomes propaganda for some program. So, yes, I think things that can cloud the actual game results are undesirable. The polls are opinion. Propaganda affects opinions. History, and revisionist history, affects opinions. The polls affect our national ranking. The national ranking affects the committee. So that's why I prefer as few mitigating factors as possible. We may just disagree on this.