1. Perspective

Walking out of the stadium after Stanford had just lost a second consecutive game for the first time in five years, I was reminded that it wasn’t just me. I wasn’t going crazy. All season, my daydreams and sleep patterns have been haunted by the vision of David Shaw opting to punt from the opponent’s twenty-something yard line. Or thirty-something. Whatever. I can’t stand it. Leaving the stadium, I could tell I wasn’t alone. Multiple people nearby were complaining out-loud about Shaw’s decision to punt on 4^th down from the Utah 34. I was pleased to know that I wasn’t the only one nitpicking David Shaw’s 4^th down decision-making. It was a tie-game with little scoring. A 51-yard field goal could have won the game. Shaw made the wrong decision. At the time, the television announcer said, “He knows his kicker. He must know there’s no way he makes that FG.” Of course. The only way you don’t kick there is if you simply have no chance of making it. But Shaw knows Williamson has the leg. It was simply that Shaw, instead of playing to win, plays not to lose. After the game, Shaw said, “It’s not even close. If you miss, they have 20 yards before they try their own attempt. It’s an easy decision.” So Shaw is both wrong and stubborn. First of all, if they move the ball twenty yards, Phillips would have had to make a 63-yard kick. OK, so Shaw’s being a bit hyperbolic with his stubborn quote. But what is Shaw’s point? The fact that Williamson could have missed and Utah could have driven the ball thirty yards and Phillips could have made a long kick doesn’t even address the question of whether or not it was a good decision. Simply, Stanford should not have been playing for overtime. Stanford has a horrible red zone offense and a mediocre kicker—the two things you don’t want if you are headed to overtime. Plus, there isn’t any real difference between a 45-yard kick and a 51-yard kick as long as the kicker has the leg. Williamson has the leg—that is clearly the case. Williamson makes 46% of his kicks 40+ yards. Shaw gave up a 46% chance at the go-ahead score for a few yards of field position.

Thank God Williamson nailed the 51-yard kick in double OT. Shaw should have apologized to his team and to Williamson.

I watched the tape with my dad, and he made a great point about the decision-making on the Stanford’s long, 16-play, 4^th quarter drive. After 14 plays, Stanford faced a 3^rd and 11. Shaw called a time out. Utah’s defense was gassed! We gave them a breather. Mistake. Afterwards, of course, we didn’t even run a play that stood a good chance of gaining 11 yards.

2. Play-Calling and Execution

I watched the tape of the game and actually thought that the play-calling was pretty good. I think there were too many short-yardage plays on 2^nd or 3^rd and long. But other than that, there was great variety, lots of McCaffrey, lots of Montgomery. Shaw screws up some big decisions and wastes time-outs, but the day-to-day, general play-calls seemed very respectable.

The execution, however, was not good. Hogan missed throws. Hogan didn’t find the FB or TE outlet when he was pressured. Michael Rector dropped passes. Wright dropped a big pass. Everyone and their sister fumbled ball. Personal fouls, holding penalties, false starts. And Utah owned third down, and Stanford didn’t.

3. Up Next: Cal (5-5)

Stanford won last year’s Big Game by fifty points. This year, Cal is last in the nation in passing yards allowed at 375 yds/game. It isn’t even close—they are 50 yards behind the next-to-last team, Bowling Green. Despite some major offensive struggles, I expect Stanford to score some points. Even last year the Stanford offense was limping its way into the Big Game. Stanford failed to score more than 26 points in each of its 5 games before the Cal game. Then, it lit up the scoreboard for 63. Stanford can beat Cal in game with a decent amount of scoring. But, Shaw needs to be aggressive. We need to go for it on 4^th down. And we need to get Montgomery at least 5, preferably 10 carries. But I don’t need Montgomery to embarrass the Bears again this year. I’d be happy with a 38-28 win.

4. Around the Pac-12

If Stanford’s results were typical of most teams, it would be pretty easy to rank teams. Stanford has lost to five ranked teams, and has beaten five unranked teams. It is fairly easy to slot Stanford as about the 35^th best team in the country. They will be behind everyone they have lost to, and ahead of everyone they have beaten.

On Friday night, the NCAA basketball season got underway, and the 23 ranked teams that played that day went 23-0 against their unranked opponents. In basketball, a few mistakes or amazing shots don’t mean much—there are enough possessions in the game such that quality and performance are not easily muddled by a small sample size. In football, however a few keys plays can turn a game on its head. Last Saturday, Oregon State went 1-12 on 3^rd down against Arizona State, but still pulled the upset. It scored touchdowns on a 78-yard run, a 66-yard run, a 20-yard pass, a 67-yard pass, and a 35-yard interception return. Also, decision-making combined with poor execution can really change a game. In two first half drives, ASU faced 3^rd and 3 from OSU’s 11 and its 13. ASU tried and failed on passing plays each time, and then attempted two field goals. It came away with only 3 points.

Arizona State’s loss really hurt the Pac-12 chances at the Playoff. All eyes now turn to the Ducks. If the Ducks lose, the Pac-12 will likely be shut out. Anyone for a serving of 8-conference games and a November matchup with Presbyterian?

5. The Playoff Rankings

The Playoff picture is getting clearer. We have a feel for what the committee is prioritizing, and two things are standing out so far: wins against good (ranked) opponents, and head-to-head results. By the end of the season, conference championships and results against common opponents will also be used to give teams an added bump. For now, I think the hierarchy of admission to the four-team Playoff looks like this:

1. Alabama, then Mississippi State (1-loss SEC Champion)
2. Oregon (1-loss PAC-12 Champion)
3. Florida State (undefeated ACC Champion)
4. Mississippi State (1-loss SEC non-champion)
5. Baylor, then TCU (1-loss Big-12 Champion)
6. Ohio State (1-loss Big-10 Champion)
7. Ole Miss or Georgia (2-loss SEC Champion)
8. UCLA (2-loss Pac-12 champion)

It will still be interesting to see what the committee does when these criteria do not clarify which team is better. The big issue is the MSU vs Baylor/TCU quandary. It will all come down to this: how much will a conference championship matter? I believe the committee will only let it matter if they are considering teams with similar resumes. So, Baylor would obviously get the edge over TCU, but is Baylor’s resume similar to Mississippi State? Using current RPI rankings, both teams would have played six games against teams with an RPI over 70, and six games with an RPI under 70. They will have both played 3 teams in the current top-25. They would both have one loss. Clearly, the resumes would be very similar. I’m not going to list who has the edge on various criteria until we actually get to the last week of the regular season. For now, my hunch is that the best case could be made for MSU. Keep in mind that the SEC West went 3-0 against the Big-12. The committee doesn’t really look at things that way, but I think the SEC West has earned the right to have any one-loss teams in the playoff. Its nonconference wins just keep looking stronger and stronger. It is more than just the wins over the Big-12. While Oklahoma State and Notre Dame’s losses make Florida State’s wins less appealing, Ole Miss’ win against Boise State and LSU’s win against Wisconsin are looking better and better. Furthermore, the SEC-West still has zero non-conference losses.

That said, I don’t have much interest in watching Mississippi State in the Playoff. I’d rather the various conference champions get a shot at the title.