[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.