# NCAA Bowl Season



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Now that the bowls are set, is anyone else disappointed? 

OU vs. UConn in the Fiesta? Really? I guess the BCS wants to give Stoops a BCS bowl win since he's lost the last 5.

Nebraska vs. Washington in the Holiday Bowl? They played already this year & Nebraska blasted them. Also, UW was 6-6. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

*Wisconsin* vs TCU in the Rose Bowl - WOO HOO!!!

Go Badgers.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Utah vs Boise State at the Maaco Bowl Yahoo.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Oklahoma State & Arizona in the Alamo Bowl. 

Only disappointment for me is I would not mind seeing Arizona get some revenge on Nebraska for last years Holiday Bowl disaster.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Very disappointed.

Stanford should be playing Oregon for the national championship.

Short of that, we should be playing Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.

But we have to play the #11 team in the Orange Bowl. And the Orange Bowl committee expects us to travel for that?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Stanford should be playing Oregon for the national championship.


I can't agree with that. While I appreciate that Stanford is a really good team... We already had Oregon vs Stanford this year and Oregon won big. No need to replay that for the national championship even if Auburn and TCU had both lost their final games.

Some of the matchups, incidentally, are poor because of the BCS agreements to take teams from certain conferences. That's how UConn gets into a BCS bowl when they are hardly worthy of playing in that kind of a bowl.

It's also ironic to me to compare Boise St and Virginia Tech.

Consider... Boise beats Va Tech in game #1, and then Va Tech loses to James Madison... and for weeks everyone says that de-values Boise's win... but then Va Tech doesn't lose the rest of the season... Boise has 1 loss to a good and ranked Nevada team... and Va Tech gets a BCS bowl as the ACC champ, while Boise is relegated to the Generic Afterthought Bowl game.

Clearly all the games do NOT count as they would have you believe... otherwise Uconn wouldn't be in a bowl instead of Michigan St or some other highly ranked team... and Va Tech wouldn't be in a better game than Boise, after Boise beat them and Va Tech lost to a lower division team... a James Madison team that IF Va Tech had won, wouldn't even have counted as a win towards bowl eligibility!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Very disappointed.
> 
> Stanford should be playing Oregon for the national championship.
> 
> ...


Stanford got blasted by Oregon once already...What would 2 blowouts prove? How can you not think Auburn's better than Stanford?? They went undefeated in the best conference in America.

TCU was picked over Stanford because they had to be by a new rule requiring the Rose Bowl to pick an eligible team from a league without an automatic BCS spot once every four years if a Pac-10 or Big Ten team is in the national title game.

VA Tech will beat Stanford.


----------



## chevyguy559 (Sep 19, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I can't agree with that. While I appreciate that Stanford is a really good team... We already had Oregon vs Stanford this year and Oregon won big. No need to replay that for the national championship even if Auburn and TCU had both lost their final games.
> 
> Some of the matchups, incidentally, are poor because of the BCS agreements to take teams from certain conferences. That's how UConn gets into a BCS bowl when they are hardly worthy of playing in that kind of a bowl.
> 
> ...


Couldn't have said it better :bowdown::bowdown:

My Bulldogs are playing in Boise again this year, but this time against Northen Illinois in the Humanitarian Bowl....I went when we beat Virginia in 2004, looking into travel for this years, but with a 10 month old son, probably gonna just enjoy it at home in front of the fire and the HDTV :lol:


----------



## stevenv (Aug 4, 2004)

Missouri plays Iowa in the Insight Bowl. Go Tigers!:goodjob:


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Very disappointed.
> 
> Stanford should be playing Oregon for the national championship.
> 
> ...


I still don't get why they didn't flip us.

You guys would go better to Phoenix.
We would go better to Miami.

Makes no sense...


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

hancox said:


> I still don't get why they didn't flip us.
> 
> You guys would go better to Phoenix.
> We would go better to Miami.
> ...


It's because Fiesta had the last pick for a team to play OU. The Orange folks wanted a higher ranked team.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> *Wisconsin* vs TCU in the Rose Bowl - WOO HOO!!!
> 
> Go Badgers.


I like your style. Bielema was under a little scrutiny at the start of the season around here, but has proven himself well.

The icing on the cake will be a Rose Bowl Victory. There will be lots of beer, brats and cheese/sausage trays at this house come gametime!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

TCU will win if Dalton is healthy.

I can't wait to see how "cream of the crop" hdtvfan's Big Ten is.  I bolded my picks. 
*Missouri *vs. Iowa
Illinois vs. *Baylor*
Northwestern vs. *Texas Tech*
Florida vs. *Penn State*
*Alabama *vs. Michigan State
*Mississippi State *vs. Michigan
Wisconsin vs. *TCU*
Ohio State vs. *Arkansas*


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I guess I'm just too old, but I agree with this take:


> Kids are making their lists. Santa Claus is checking them twice.
> 
> You know what that means.
> 
> ...


There was a time I always felt invested in a team the Rose Bowl. Now it's "who?"

But then I had enough trouble adjusting when the Pacific Coast Conference became known as the Pac-8. And then I had apoplexy when it became the Pac-10.


----------



## hoophead (Feb 10, 2008)

codespy said:


> I like your style. Bielema was under a little scrutiny at the start of the season around here, but has proven himself well.
> 
> The icing on the cake will be a Rose Bowl Victory. There will be lots of beer, brats and cheese/sausage trays at this house come gametime!


Should be one of the better, if not the best, NYD game....*ON WISCONSIN! VV*

(Another SE WI fan here since 1962)


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> *Wisconsin* vs TCU in the Rose Bowl - WOO HOO!!!
> 
> Go Badgers.


Should be MSU in that game.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

They would have been had they lost early in the season and not later.....

The key was Wisconsin beating Ohio State when Ohio State was #1 in the nation.

And I don't remember (off the top of my head) Wisconsin losing a Rose Bowl game...at least in my era.

Sorry TCU.....not looking good.....as long as all 3 of our running backs are healthy.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

codespy said:


> They would have been had they lost early in the season and not later.....
> 
> The key was Wisconsin beating Ohio State when Ohio State was #1 in the nation.
> 
> ...


How old are ya?  There last Rose Bowl loss was the 63 one. They're 3-3 in Rose Bowls & haven't been since 2000.

TCU will win...Or I'll put a UW Badger avatar up.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

63....that would be a couple years before before my dad even dreamed of me! :lol:

No matter who wins...it's a good excuse to have a party. The 47" HDTV above the fireplace during the cold Wisconsin winter....can't beat it (unless I was in Pasadena of course)!

I'm cheering for red roses and jerseys.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Should be MSU in that game.


Naaaa....their schedule was too weak to hit the ranking high enough. Maybe if their uniforms were a more appealing shade of green? :lol: Sorry.


sigma1914 said:


> How old are ya?  There last Rose Bowl loss was the 63 one. They're 3-3 in Rose Bowls & haven't been since 2000.
> 
> *TCU will win...Or I'll put a UW Badger avatar up*.


Some of us are gonna hold ya to that.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

UConn has no business in a major bowl.

But file this away for some other year. Say one of this woeful collection of disfunctional programs actually was good. It probably, expecially if it played lightweights in its non-conf. schedule, would be undefeated. You are prepared to see something like UConn win a national championship, when we all know it would have gone 3-9 vs. Auburn's schedule?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SamC said:


> UConn has no business in a major bowl.
> 
> But file this away for some other year. Say one of this woeful collection of disfunctional programs actually was good. It probably, expecially if it played lightweights in its non-conf. schedule, would be undefeated. You are prepared to see something like UConn win a national championship, when we all know it would have gone 3-9 vs. Auburn's schedule?


Yeah, and that is what bugs me...

UConn could have been just a little bit better and ran the table in the Big East... and they would have had a better shot at a title game than Boise or TCU or Utah or any number of other better teams that weren't in a big conference.

That's why you have TCU joining the Big East! It makes no geographic sense... but TCU has a good shot at still running the table in the Big East, and then getting at least an automatic qualifying BCS bowl AND a much better chance of a championship game.

I really really wish there was a better way (and people would be truly honest) to evaluate teams if they aren't going to have a playoff at the end of the season.

I've seen Oregon and Auburn, so I can't say they aren't deserving... but consider for a moment that Auburn barely beat Clemson and Kentucky... arguable not that good of teams this year... so I can't say that we are getting the absolute best possible teams in the title game without a little reservation.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Temple 8-4 and Western Michigan 6-6 left did not get invited to a bowl game. Come on BCS how about The Last Man Standing Bowl. The could also change the rule to allow 5-7 or 6-7 teams to be eligible for a bowl game.That would have given them 6 more games.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

yosoyellobo said:


> Temple 8-4 and Western Michigan 6-6 left did not get invited to a bowl game. Come on BCS how about The Last Man Standing Bowl. The could also change the rule to allow 5-7 or 6-7 teams to be eligible for a bowl game.That would have given them 6 more games.


They might still be considered for the Tidy Bowl.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Naaaa....their schedule was too weak to hit the ranking high enough.




OSU: 50
MSU: 57
Wisconsin: 59

Strength of Schedule


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> OSU: 50
> MSU: 57
> Wisconsin: 59
> 
> Strength of Schedule


You do realize...of course...that the *BCS* system or those rankings has 1 extra letter in it... :lol:

In reality...Wisconsin beating Ohio State when they were #1, as well as Iowa at #10, and then Michigan as well...was viewed by most pundits as a higher ranking. Apparently in the end...the other so-called "experts thought so too.

Not sure any of those rankings is on target...but glad the Badgers had a stellar season and good enough to go to the Rose Bowl.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

The cotton bowl is the only one I'm really looking forward to, but that's mostly just my regional interest. Don't really care about the others, but I'm going to pick Oregon for the championship.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I like how you get extra points for beating a team when they are #1, even if that team goes on to lose 2 more games.

Like South Carolina gets benefit for beating #1 Alabama even though Alabama finished the season with 3 losses and outside of the top 10.

It seems a little disingenuous to get credit for beating a top-ranked team that turns out to be not-so-top-ranked later.

Same goes for TCU beating #5 Utah by a bunch, and then Utah blows more after that...

I know the losses do weigh in a little over time, but the first big-bump for beating a high-ranked team sticks in the calculations.

Also bad is that... even though the BCS waits 5 weeks before issuing a poll... the voter/human poll that is included in the BCS calculations starts in the pre-season when we don't really know how anyone is going to play. So many top-ranked teams with an easy early schedule get the benefit of increased voter confidence that lets them more easily survive a loss.

Consider Stanford... who lost early to Oregon, and was able to move back up to #4 by the end of the season... BUT if that same Stanford team had lost to Oregon later in the season (especially in the last weekend) then they might not even be in the top 10!

I'm not sure it should matter when you lost... if you lose... In Stanford's case, it was a quality loss to a #1/2 team so it shouldn't punish as bad as a loss to a team outside the top 10 or top 25... but you can be sure that the timing of the loss figures into the equation almost as much as the loss itself.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> *Wisconsin* vs TCU in the Rose Bowl - WOO HOO!!!
> 
> Go Badgers.


Meh. I would have much rather seen Wisconsin vs. Stanford. If you aren't going to do a playoff, I'd rather see the Rose Bowl stay with the Big 10 vs Pac 10 tradition. But I know the Rose Bowl had no choice and had to put TCU in there. Nothing against TCU, they are a quality team, but that match up doesn't do anything for me.

And if you couldn't put Stanford in Rose, put them against Ohio State in the Sugar or Orange. Much rather see that matchup than Ohio State vs Arkansas or Stanford vs V Tech in the Orange.

And poor Fiesta bowl getting stuck with the best of the Big East.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

anleva said:


> Meh. I would have much rather seen Wisconsin vs. Stanford. If you aren't going to do a playoff, I'd rather see the Rose Bowl stay with the Big 10 vs Pac 10 tradition. But I know the Rose Bowl had no choice and had to put TCU in there. Nothing against TCU, they are a quality team, but that match up doesn't do anything for me.
> 
> And if you couldn't put Stanford in Rose, put them against Ohio State in the Sugar or Orange. Much rather see that matchup than Ohio State vs Arkansas or Stanford vs V Tech in the Orange.
> 
> And poor Fiesta bowl getting stuck with the best of the Big East.


Arkansas and Ohio St. is a great match up, IMO. OSU has a great D against the pass & Arkansas has an excellent passing offense.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Arkansas and Ohio St. is a great match up, IMO. OSU has a great D against the pass & Arkansas has an excellent passing offense.


It is, my comment was more about trying to have at least one Big 10/Pac 10 matchup for traditions sake. But having B10/SEC matchups work to. Have 4 of them:

- Ohio State vs Arkansas
- Michigan vs Mississippi State
- Michigan State vs Alabama
- Penn State vs Florida

It will be interesting to see how those 4 games play out.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

anleva said:


> It is, my comment was more about trying to have at least one Big 10/Pac 10 matchup for traditions sake. But having B10/SEC matchups work to. Have 4 of them:
> 
> - Ohio State vs Arkansas
> - Michigan vs Mississippi State
> ...


It'll be fun. hdtvfan thought the Big 10 was the cream of the crop this year...I say the SEC & Big 12 are better. :lol:

Missouri vs. Iowa
Illinois vs. Baylor
Northwestern vs. Texas Tech
Florida vs. Penn State
Alabama vs. Michigan State
Mississippi State vs. Michigan
Wisconsin vs. TCU (only non SEC/Big XII opponent)
Ohio State vs. Arkansas


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not sure it should matter when you lost... if you lose... In Stanford's case, it was a quality loss to a #1/2 team so it shouldn't punish as bad as a loss to a team outside the top 10 or top 25... but you can be sure that the timing of the loss figures into the equation almost as much as the loss itself.


But the timing of a loss has always been important in college football. If you are #1 and lose the first game of the season or if you are #1 and lose the last game of the season, it makes a big difference, because human voting says if you lose your last game you can't be #1!


anleva said:


> Meh. I would have much rather seen Wisconsin vs. Stanford. If you aren't going to do a playoff, I'd rather see the Rose Bowl stay with the Big 10 vs Pac 10 tradition. But I know the Rose Bowl had no choice and had to put TCU in there. Nothing against TCU, they are a quality team, but that match up doesn't do anything for me.


I go back to a fight I tend to instigate on these boards often:

Sure many would love to see a Wisconsin/Stanford Rose Bowl. Unfortunately, welcome to the world of "rights", where the ability to create a #1/#2 matchup rotating amongst four major bowl sites has assigned a process for each bowl to pick the teams for their matchup.

It's a business. And I'll put money down that the Big1T1en ends up with more members over the next few years. One cannot have the cash-cow that the Big Ten Network is without seeing the amount of revenue it can generate with even more members, especially in more populous states.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> It'll be fun. hdtvfan thought the Big 10 was the cream of the crop this year...I say the SEC & Big 12 are better. :lol:


This year I think the strongest conferences top to bottom were the SEC and Big 10.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

anleva said:


> This year I think the strongest conferences top to bottom were the SEC and Big 10.


Really? Big 10 just seems to be 3 teams and 8 average or crap teams.


----------



## Spicoli (Jun 7, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> *Wisconsin* vs TCU in the Rose Bowl - WOO HOO!!!
> 
> Go Badgers.


+1


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Really? Big 10 just seems to be 3 teams and 8 average or crap teams.


Yes really.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> But the timing of a loss has always been important in college football. If you are #1 and lose the first game of the season or if you are #1 and lose the last game of the season, it makes a big difference, because human voting says if you lose your last game you can't be #1!


I know that it does factor into the voting... I'm just saying that I don't believe that it should.

Using the Stanford and Oregon teams as examples... If Oregon is undefeated and impressive in getting there... and Stanford only loses one game all year, and that is to the Oregon team that is beating everyone convincingly... in my mind it doesn't matter if Stanford is 0-1 before running the table OR starts 11-0 before losing to Oregon in the final game.

I'd still think highly of Stanford, though obviously less-so than I would of Oregon by that comparison.

Similarly... if we have Wisconsin also at 11-1 I wouldn't care when they lost that 1... I would only care who they lost it to, and how that compares to who beat Stanford.

I know people are prisoners of the moment... and will vote a team down after a loss... and at the end of the season there is no more time to climb back in the rankings... I just think it is a shame that people think that way.

In Stanford's case... there is no shame in losing your only game to Oregon this year. I'm not making a case for Stanford to play for the title... just making the case that they deserve their #4 ranking and I'd feel the same even if that loss were last week instead of a couple of months ago.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Really? Big 10 just seems to be 3 teams and 8 average or crap teams.


OK, so I've finally had a chance to go back and look at this a little more analytically and go by more than just gut feel. I'm now placing the B10 fourth behind SEC, B12 and P10.

I used the Massey consensus ranking (which is an aggregate, consensus ranking across ranking services) for all the FBS teams and averaged them for conference. Here is the result by conference:

SEC - 38
B12 - 39
P10 - 41
B10 - 47
ACC - 51
BEast - 60
MWC - 64
WAC - 64
CUSA - 79
MAC - 90

What hurts the Big 10 are the bottom 3 teams which are boat anchors pulling the average score down. Purdue 83, Indiana 84, Minnesota 85. So the B10 is basically 3 really good teams, 4 teams in the top 30-50 range and 3 bad teams. Northwestern is slightly above the bad range.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Thirty-five bowl games and Florida International vs Toledo is the best Espn can do.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

It was a good game though, and so was the Utah Boise st game.


Now here is the truly sad part of this yrs bowl season:

There are 4, count em FOUR total bowl games on Broadcast television. wtf???? This will be the 1st year that the following Bowl games are NOT on broadcast TV: Rose Bowl, Capital1 Bowl, Gator, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, and yes, even the National Championship game. 

incredible.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

yosoyellobo said:


> Thirty-five bowl games and Florida International vs Toledo is the best Espn can do.


?? I am watching the Tulsa-Hawaii game the famous Sheraton Hawai'i Bowl! (On ESPN).

Kinda got a shock a minute ago as the crawl announced Singletary is now history with the Niners. Not that it wasn't expected, or deserved, or .....? I just hope it marks a new era for the team.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> TCU will win if Dalton is healthy.
> 
> I can't wait to see how "cream of the crop" hdtvfan's Big Ten is.  I bolded my picks.
> *Missouri *vs. Iowa
> ...


Well, I'm 3-3 so far. The "cream of the crop" started 2-0, now they're 2-4.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> Well, I'm 3-3 so far. The "cream of the crop" started 2-0, now they're 2-4.


And yet people that vote will conveniently forget that next year when they rank the Big Ten as a better conference than wherever a team like Boise St is... even though Boise wins their bowls, but the "big" teams don't do so well always.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

There is just too many bowl games. Now they are even extending them more into January. I'm sick of college football. The players should be compensated for thier play. All games should all be finished on Jan. the first. The NCAA is a money mongrul. May your team win now or later this month.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> ...
> TCU will win...Or I'll put a UW Badger avatar up.


No avatar change for me. Another Big 10 team defeated. Cream of the crop? Pffffffffffffffffffffff. :hurah:


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

Go Horny Toads. Happy for you from a Longhorn fan. They hould just bring back the SW conference.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> No avatar change for me. Another Big 10 team defeated. Cream of the crop? Pffffffffffffffffffffff. :hurah:


Well, obviously, I'm a big ten homer, but lets be realistic.

Michigan and Northwestern should have never been in a bowl game (and Northwestern almost won).

Penn State/Florida could have gone either way
Wisconsin/TCU could have gone either way

And while I didn't quite see the blowout that MSU received coming, even I figured they'd lose by 14 to Alabama, arguably the best team in the country when playing on all cylinders (which they were today). They would have had a better chance against TCU or Arkansas.

They're 2-5, but could easily be 0-7 or 5-2.

Wisconsin, OSU and MSU are still among the top teams in the country this year, regardless of what happened/happens in their bowl games.



Stewart Vernon said:


> And yet people that vote will conveniently forget that next year when they rank the Big Ten as a better conference than wherever a team like Boise St is... even though Boise wins their bowls, but the "big" teams don't do so well always.


Nothing today has anything to do with Boise St. I'm a Boise St. fan, but still don't think they could beat Wisconsin or OSU or probably MSU. They could certainly beat up on Michigan, Penn State, Northwestern, and Iowa though.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> Nothing today has anything to do with Boise St. I'm a Boise St. fan, but still don't think they could beat Wisconsin or OSU or probably MSU. They could certainly beat up on Michigan, Penn State, Northwestern, and Iowa though.


That proves my point...

The "big" schools go in and lose bowl games but will come in next season with a clean slate and a team like 7-6 Michigan will be pre-season ranked... but lots of other teams will be overlooked.

I'm not a Big Ten hater either... I'm a little surprised at some of the results... but the fact remains that next season people will forgive and forget the big conference team losses and will beat up the non-qualifying teams for not playing a tough schedule or some other nonsense. Then we'll get into the bowls and the "good" teams will lose while some of those "weak" teams will win.

I am an ACC fan... but I freely admit that the ACC has been unimpressive in football for a while now. I haven't even been watching this year's ACC-involved bowl games because they are all in do-not-matter bowl games.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The "big" schools go in and lose bowl games but will come in next season with a clean slate and a team like 7-6 Michigan will be pre-season ranked... but lots of other teams will be overlooked.


Don't count on it. Michigan wasn't ranked in the pre-season this year (either was Michigan State) and won't be next year.

Boise State, however, was (some as high as #1) and will be.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

To bad we could not have had a Oklahoma Boise St rematch. Glad TCU beat Wisconsin. Too bad they did not get a chance to play for the championship but the computers gods rule otherwise.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

What domination. Stanford clearly lays claim to a national championship. As Harbaugh said yesterday, he promised his players a championship, and he delivered.

-------------------
Orange Bowl: Stanford Destroys Virginia Tech 40 - 12

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=80251#ixzz1A50EJnFC

Stanford Legend and friend Michael Dotterer sent a text one hour before tonight's Orange Bowl game, reading "GO CARDINAL," so I gave him a call. Dotterer, one of only 24 decorated two sport athletes in Stanford's Hall of Fame, asked me to predict the score of the game. "40 to 10, Cardinal," was my response.

Stanford won 40 to 12, under a 4-touchdown performance by Quarterback Andrew Luck.

As I write this, Stanford Coach Jim Harbaugh's accepting the Orange Bowl trophy. "Hairball," as some Cal Old Blues call him, deserves it. Also, really, and all kidding aside, let's tip our hats to the Stanford Athletics program, which, in an age when athletes as often wind up in a police report as that do on a stats sheet, have produced a number of true student-athletes, who've performed amazingly of late.
-------------------

Had it not been for a fluke game against Oregon, a game we were winning 21-3 at one point, Stanford would be the undisputed national champion.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> What domination. Stanford clearly lays claim to a national championship. As Harbaugh said yesterday, he promised his players a championship, and he delivered.


How can a team with 1 loss lay claim to a national title when 2 (TCU & whoever wins the NC) others will be undefeated when all is said & done?  Stanford played in the weak Pac-10 & got molly whopped by Oregon. Harbaugh is a good coach, but he did not deliver a championship...the best he's done is 2nd in the conference. He'll be in the NFL or Michigan next year.



> Had it not been for a fluke game against Oregon, a game we were winning 21-3 at one point, Stanford would be the undisputed national champion.


Fluke?  Oregon destroyed Stanford 52-27. Not so fast on declaring them undisputed national champions, either. Auburn would probably beat them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I've said it before...

Stanford is a good team... but they were blown out by Oregon. Stanford has no right or reason to claim even a share of the championship.

IF we had a playoff, then Stanford would have as good of a shot as anyone... but without a championship... they simply can't have even a sliver of a claim on a championship in a year when their 1 loss came at the hands of an undefeated team and was a blowout win on top of that.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Had it not been for a fluke game against Oregon, a game we were winning 21-3 at one point, Stanford would be the undisputed national champion.


Fluke? Stanford was leading 21 to 3 after the first quarter then leading 31 to 24 at the half then allowed 28 unanswered points.

That doesn't sound like a fluke but rather a choke!

If it was not for a last minute field goal, Stanford would have lost to USC. How about the touchdown in the last 5 minutes which gave Stanford the win over Arizona State. That doesn't sound like a team worthy of being called 'National Champion'

I'm sorry but Stanford has no legitimate claim to a national championship.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Oh well. Oregon lost.

But Andrew Luck decided to return.

Therefore, I expect Stanford to be the preseason #1 pick.

And barring a disaster, we should win a national championship next year.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Oh well. Oregon lost.
> 
> But Andrew Luck decided to return.
> 
> ...


No, they won't be preseason #1. It'll likely be Ohio State, Oklahoma, Alabama, LSU, or Oregon. With Harbaugh gone to the 49ers, Stanford lacks a good coach. Stanford won't win the Pac-10, either.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I might even root for Stanford next year... but I too have my doubts. Even if they get a good new coach, he'll still be new.

I think even if they are good, it is doubtful they will be pre-season #1. I expect an SEC team or perhaps Ohio St or some other similarly high-profile team will have that ranking.

Even with a new coach, though, I'd expect to see Stanford in the top ten pre-season next year.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Oh well. Oregon lost.
> 
> But Andrew Luck decided to return.
> 
> ...


Please! Oregon lost by a last second field goal. Let's not put more in to their loss then it really was. Had Stanford not gotten lucky a couple of times this year (last second field goal against USC comes to mind), it is very likely they could have found themselves playing in San Diego (with a 9-3 record) not Miami (with 11-1).

I seriously doubt Stanford will be ranked in the pre-season top 10 (may be ranked just outside it) nor do I expect them to finish any higher then 2nd in the North Division of the PAC-12.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> ...
> 
> I seriously doubt Stanford will be ranked in the pre-season top 10 (may be ranked just outside it) nor do I expect them to finish any higher then 2nd in the *North Division of the PAC-12*.


Does the new conference start next year? Hopefully, the conference title game adds some excitement to the conference.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Does the new conference start next year? Hopefully, the conference title game adds some excitement to the conference.


Hard to believe isn't it? The first PAC-12 Championship game is scheduled for December 3, 2011.

I think Utah and Colorado will add plenty of excitement. I am disappointed though that they only implemented divisions for football.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> Hard to believe isn't it? The first PAC-12 Championship game is scheduled for December 3, 2011.
> 
> I think Utah and Colorado will add plenty of excitement. I am disappointed though that they only implemented divisions for football.


Now, my Big 12 is down to 10...Dang, 2011 will be different.


----------

