OK for starters you should probably use final poll ranks so you're not misleading people with "#2 USC", etc.
I see what you're saying but I still think USC was is a solid victory, Stanford beat them by seven when they still had confidence, weren't as exposed defensively, and with Matt Barkley. Notre Dame beat them by nine at the end of a demoralizing season, fully exposed, and with their backup QB. I don't think we should be scoffing at their margin of victory in what is also a rivalry game (and one in which USC had lost three in a row, for extra motivation).
In general, I don't really get what you're going for... ND gets crushed for struggling with Pitt/Purdue,
Not from me, so this is kinda moot.
but Stanford squeaks by a 6 loss Big Ten team when supposed to be in peak form and gets a completely free pass?
Well I'm on record saying that Michigan State and Wisconsin were two of the most underrated teams in the country last season. Wisconsin lost six games and all by under a touchdown, including three in a row in overtime. That's nuts. The record just doesn't tell you everything and I respect you enough to know that you know that too. Three point losses to Oregon State, Nebraska, Michigan State, and Penn State aren't "WTF!? losses," especially when the last two were in overtime. They lost to Ohio State in overtime, that isn't an embarrassing loss either. Stanford too, by seven, come on. Tough season for them. (Also for the record Wisconsin thumped that Purdue team 38-14.)
Now do I need to build Wisconsin up to defend Stanford? Probably not. But I said on this site leading up to the Rose Bowl that Wisconsin's losses weren't indicative of being a bad team , but being an incomplete one. Wisconsin couldn't pass the ball well enough and that's the type of team that is susceptible to close losses every week. That's exactly why Stanford and Wisconsin were a great match up for each other and it showed.
Truly terrible WSU? This is what I'm trying to hark on.
Yep WSU sucks. I'm not claiming Stanford was the best team in 2012. Besides plenty of good teams have close games with ****** teams. It's college football after all.
The bottom line is that there is a ton of cognitive dissonance right now with the media. People want to punish ND for "luck" and close games but Stanford had just about twice as many close games + 2 losses last year. So why do people think they can dethrone Alabama this year? I mean that's literally what analysts are putting out there on national TV.
Well the media sucks. I think you might be angrier at the media's retarded "ND luck" argument than their defense of Stanford.
Teams can usually be measured for "floor" and "ceiling" of a season by close wins/losses. ND hit their ceiling at 12-1, and had a floor of 5 losses if they would've lost every close game they were in. Stanford had a ceiling of 14-0 if they had pulled out close wins over ND/Washington, but they had a floor of 10 losses. They were extremely fortunate to only lose two games.
And when you can't pass well enough to have a complete offense, that is normally the case in my opinion. I agree with you.
I'm calling Stanford for 8-4/9-3 this year or worse if they pick up a couple injuries at the positions where they severely lack depth. Maybe I'll be wrong, but the ceiling cannot be more than 10 wins at absolute max. Championship? Dethroning Alabama? Get the f*ck out of here. Any media members that think an offense which has very little talent at the skill positions is going to "out tough" an Alabama grind the ball on the ground like they do to the pansy PAC12 teams should be fired on the spot.
I'll disagree here and say that if Hogan can throw the ball and if they find a replacement at RB then 14-0 is absolutely the ceiling. Do I think they will? Hell no, gotta beat Notre Dame for that to happen. Do I think they can and would I say they have a top 5 chance in the country? Yes.
