Bear with me. By Vegas standards, we flipped the spread against a favored team. And I certainly did not expect us to win, but was hoping we could play well enough to win.
But, ex post, several things suggest that this game was going to be much closer than Vegas suggested:
1) Stanford's inexperienced defense: I did not know that the Cardinal had ZERO returning starters on defense until it was mentioned during the game (a Cal poster brought it up here too, but I never saw the thread until yesterday). That's amazing, and it really showed in the trenches, especially during the second half. Our ability to run took a lot of pressure of Thorson to make plays (and he still made several), and kept Stanford's (alleged) powerful offense on the sideline.
2) #21 early season ranking don't mean doodly-squat: I think ranking outside the top 10 teams are pretty fluid, and an early season ranking beyond 15 is pretty much a crap shoot. Sure, the Cardinal was ranked and lost to unranked team, but I find this distinction to be almost arbitrary at this point of the season.
3) Early start time: Hogan looked off by quite a bit for a 5th year senior who was throwing very well late last year. His timing was late on several sideline throws, and a few key drops hurt him too. My hypotheses that the early start impacted Stanford, who had several offside/encroachment penalties on defense.
4) Heat and humidity: Stanford's D line was visibly gassed in Q4. They spend a lot of time on the field in conditions that they probably rarely encounter. College teams are never in "game" condition in week 1, but I think the Cardinal was more susceptible to the weather than the Cats.
These things do not explain why Stanford lost. The Cats clearly beat them by controlling the LOS, avoiding turnovers and big mistakes, and making more plays at critical times. I had no idea that the Oline had this type of game in them, and the defense was probably better than most of us expected. But I am not sure this game was the mismatch that many might have expected.
But, ex post, several things suggest that this game was going to be much closer than Vegas suggested:
1) Stanford's inexperienced defense: I did not know that the Cardinal had ZERO returning starters on defense until it was mentioned during the game (a Cal poster brought it up here too, but I never saw the thread until yesterday). That's amazing, and it really showed in the trenches, especially during the second half. Our ability to run took a lot of pressure of Thorson to make plays (and he still made several), and kept Stanford's (alleged) powerful offense on the sideline.
2) #21 early season ranking don't mean doodly-squat: I think ranking outside the top 10 teams are pretty fluid, and an early season ranking beyond 15 is pretty much a crap shoot. Sure, the Cardinal was ranked and lost to unranked team, but I find this distinction to be almost arbitrary at this point of the season.
3) Early start time: Hogan looked off by quite a bit for a 5th year senior who was throwing very well late last year. His timing was late on several sideline throws, and a few key drops hurt him too. My hypotheses that the early start impacted Stanford, who had several offside/encroachment penalties on defense.
4) Heat and humidity: Stanford's D line was visibly gassed in Q4. They spend a lot of time on the field in conditions that they probably rarely encounter. College teams are never in "game" condition in week 1, but I think the Cardinal was more susceptible to the weather than the Cats.
These things do not explain why Stanford lost. The Cats clearly beat them by controlling the LOS, avoiding turnovers and big mistakes, and making more plays at critical times. I had no idea that the Oline had this type of game in them, and the defense was probably better than most of us expected. But I am not sure this game was the mismatch that many might have expected.
