Is Stanford the best 1 loss team in America?

[rmilia1]

I understand where you are coming from, but a loss to Utah isn't the same as a loss to LSU. When it gets down to it, if you are picking between Stanford and a loss to Iowa or Missou and a loss to SC in a game their QB was hurt, who would you pick?

And I'm saying this as someone who would love to see Stanford vs a Big time SEC school or FSU.

I get what you are saying but thats not a resume. You are talking about a "best loss" argument. Some people vote for teams based on that so thats OK. But your resume is who you beat, who you lost to, where you played the games etc. While people look at that they also use the "eyeball test" whcih is just a fancy way of saying they vote based off of what team they think is best as opposed to what the actual results are.

 

[cane_man]

I am going to merge these two and try one more time with my reasoning.

There is no question that Stanford dominated the first 3.5 quarters of the game. That got them a 26-0 lead. There is no question that Oregon dominated the last .5 quarters of the game that got them to within an onside kick to drive for a potential winning TD. Could they had done it? Who knows, but a game is 60 minutes, not 54 minutes. It's one thing to say that the score is not indicative when a team puts their scrubs in and the other team scores some points. That isn't what happened last night.

As to lucky breaks, a blocked field goal, and an onside kick ... the last I checked all of those are part of football. Oregon executed on those plays and Stanford didn't. And, it almost cost them. If you want to point at that luck, how about we point at the stupidity of Oregon not getting 3 on the board at the beginning of the game, and then the lack of luck - to use your logic - of fumbling within the 5 yard line.

Last time ... it was not a good night for Oregon. Stanford dominated them for most of the game. But if you weren't concerned that the game was in doubt the last few minutes, I think you would be in the minority. I am sure that the Stanford fans and team were glad to see the onside kick get fielded.

Say what you want ... I've made my point as best I can.

Its ok, you can completely dismiss the point that stanford switched up its D when the game was in hand. Nobody ever scores on any variant of the prevent D anyway.

 

[LawDawg]

Its ok, you can completely dismiss the point that stanford switched up its D when the game was in hand. Nobody ever scores on any variant of the prevent D anyway.

And you can continue to dismiss the point that a game is 60 minutes long. That's on Stanford. Do you deny that the outcome was in question in the last 5 minutes ... yes or no?

 

[Shanemansj13]

It is damn near impossible to comare teams when they play different competition. But one thing is for sure, regardless of schedule bullshit, michigan st's defense has been the most dominant defense in clllege football all year. Yeah you could say Bama's defense is better and I could agree, but Michigan St has been dominant all year and by far. The true test is if/when they play tOSU who is a top 5 offense and nothing compared to Michigan's offense. Great o-line, power but shifty back, speed, and depth. That doesn't even include Brax.

 

[sakau2007]

Dude you are out of it. Texas's D sucked when they layed Ole Miss first off and you lose all credibility when you say Bamas D has been more dominant than MSU's. The stats say otherwise. BTW LOL at an Iowa fan sticking up for MSU and an Auburn fan sticking up for Bama. We should be permabanned just for doing that

if you were to take the 22 players on each of their defensive 2 depths and assemble the best 2 deep defense you could... you would have 2 options... take the alabama unit because they are better and already have chemistry. take the best from each team which would consist of about 17-18 alabama players and 4-5 michigan state players.

i'm not sticking up for alabama really. i'm just pointing out that look what they have done against teams that are on the level of michigan state's schedule. more dominant, especially when you consider most of the points and yards they did concede in those matchups was after the game was well out of hand. has michigan state played a game all season where they had their benchwarmers in the game?

 

[HawkeyesRuleURFace]

I would say *Wisconsin is

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

lol

 

[BucksFanInGA]

I would say *Wisconsin is

lol

 

[cane_man]

Also, I'd like to see any top teams that have played teams with a combined winning record so far... I'd be there aren't many....

Huh! Only had to look up one. Cane opp 30-29. Unless you wanna count fcs schools. Usually not, but I can look up a second if you do, lol

 

[BucksFanInGA]

Huh! Only had to look up one. Cane opp 30-29. Unless you wanna count fcs schools. Usually not, but I can look up a second if you do, lol

Fair enough, just typically most teams don't have an over .500 combined schedule due to cupcakes etc...

 

[sakau2007]

Huh! Only had to look up one. Cane opp 30-29. Unless you wanna count fcs schools. Usually not, but I can look up a second if you do, lol

actually isn't miami's opposition 27-33? and like 10+ of those games are against FCS teams.

 

[cane_man]

And you can continue to dismiss the point that a game is 60 minutes long. That's on Stanford. Do you deny that the outcome was in question in the last 5 minutes ... yes or no?

You confuse me. You keep emphatically stating a game is 60 minutes long YET keep refrencing only the last 5 minutes, talking about if the game were 10 minutes longer nshit.

If ya wanna say stanford went prevent too early, fine. Ill also say that if stan went prevent that early vs #3 an whoopin must have taken place.

 

[cane_man]

And you can continue to dismiss the point that a game is 60 minutes long. That's on Stanford. Do you deny that the outcome was in question in the last 5 minutes ... yes or no?

....oh, and to answer your question, no. someone else already answered that anyway. You just didnt like the aswer.

 

[LawDawg]

You confuse me. You keep emphatically stating a game is 60 minutes long YET keep refrencing only the last 5 minutes, talking about if the game were 10 minutes longer nshit.

If ya wanna say stanford went prevent too early, fine. Ill also say that if stan went prevent that early vs #3 an whoopin must have taken place.

I'll try again ... my point is very simple.

I am not only referencing the last 5 minutes. On several occasions I have stated that Stanford dominated the first 55 minutes. Everyone else, including you, wants to forget that the last 5 minutes happened. It's you guys want to talk about the game as if it were 55 minutes long, not 60 minutes long. The very simply fact is that no matter how dominating Stanford was in the first 55 minutes, that was a damn close game at the end. If you were pulling for Oregon you had hope. If you were pulling for Stanford, you were worried (remember the cut to the crowed that had gone silent and was worried as shit).

As to whether they went prevent too early, what does that have to do with anything? It's part of the fucking game and damn near cost them (if they did it ... I don't know whether they did or not ... just taking your word for it).

I just wish people would quit saying the score isn't indicative of the whole game ... it sure as hell was. It was indicative of a game where one team dominated totally, but let up too early at the end and almost let the game slip away. That is what it indicative of.

 

[cane_man]

Fair enough, just typically most teams don't have an over .500 combined schedule due to cupcakes etc...

Thought it was funny it was the first one I looked up, and really wasnt expecting ot

 

[Chicago-Bama]

I loved Palmer's excuse when Pollack brought up that Stanford had lost to Utah

"They weren't playing Stanford Football"

Crack analysis there, Jesse.

Yep I caught that to. I was like

 

[jjc2009]

Palmer is an idiot and its tough to say who the best 1 loss team is.


Lets use the blowhards media score card commonly called "the eye test"

Now a few years back they eye test was "who ya beat". If we use this example, Stanford looks great.

A few years after the "who ya beat eye test" the media did a 180 and decided it was "who ya lost too". If we use this example, Oregon looks great.

So which "eye test" are we using? Those blowhards in the media have many ways to judge the best 1 loss team.

You should look at both who you beat and who you lost to. Hard to argue Oregon is a better one loss team than Stanford, less than 24 hours after Stanford beat them. Miami's wins have been unimpressive, and were demolished by the only team they'll face that will be ranked, granted FSU is solid this year, but eeking out wins against UNC and Wake and thier signature win being against a bad UF team, hard to say they are better than Stanford at this point.

That said, Stanford has looked very mortal at times this year, and thats not even factoring the Utah loss. They struggled early against Army (people seem to forget that was a pretty close game at one point). Last night was as good as they have looked all year. I'd say Stanford and Oregon are 1 2 in this category right now.

 

[Steelboy84]

Yes and I don't think any other team can make much of an argument.

this

 

[cane_man]

I'll try again ... my point is very simple.

I am not only referencing the last 5 minutes. On several occasions I have stated that Stanford dominated the first 55 minutes. Everyone else, including you, wants to forget that the last 5 minutes happened. It's you guys want to talk about the game as if it were 55 minutes long, not 60 minutes long. The very simply fact is that no matter how dominating Stanford was in the first 55 minutes, that was a damn close game at the end. If you were pulling for Oregon you had hope. If you were pulling for Stanford, you were worried (remember the cut to the crowed that had gone silent and was worried as shit).

As to whether they went prevent too early, what does that have to do with anything? It's part of the fucking game and damn near cost them (if they did it ... I don't know whether they did or not ... just taking your word for it).

I just wish people would quit saying the score isn't indicative of the whole game ... it sure as hell was. It was indicative of a game where one team dominated totally, but let up too early at the end and almost let the game slip away. That is what it indicative of.

Keep trying. Oregon would have needed a fucking miracle to win. Stanford knew it, I knew it, most knew it. Why would they have needed a miracle? Because they were absolutely crushed for about 90% of those precious 60 minutes. Ok, uo was able to get a little going, a lot too late, after stan leashed its D and uo got two lucky breaks that are rarities in football by themselves. The second after uo made it 20-26 I woulda laid a grand on stan winning the game still........and been happy with 1:10.

 

[Smart]

meh, auburn beat texas a&m on the road, and they are ranked ahead of arizona state. if wisconsin had actually beaten arizona state (which given their FG kicker is hardly a given) then texas a&m would definitely be ranked much higher than wisconsin.

really only disputing the part that i bolded.

Fair enough. And FWIW, I have Auburn ranked #6 this week and my top-rated one loss team.