Stanford Coughs Up Victory to Ducks; Luck Loses Heisman?; CU NOT the Worst Pac-12 Team
Luck misses Harbaugh. He's not the same quarterback that we've seen the past two years...He's really not a good quarterback.
As I was leaving the stadium Saturday night, I managed to walk by Phil Knight as he was heading (I assume) to the Oregon locker room. He was surrounded by two handlers who were looking for people that may have caused trouble, but no one acted up. Instead, the near-silence of Stanford fans leaving the stadium allowed for Knight's opinion of Andrew Luck to be heard loud and clear.
On a cool Saturday night in November, the Stanford Cardinal football team played one of its biggest games in school history against the Oregon Ducks. Instead of showing the country that it belonged with the nation's traditional elite football schools, the Cardinal fell flat in performance that got progressively worse as the game went on. While there is plenty of blame to go around for the embarrassing performance, there seemed to be one certainty.
For at least one night, Andrew Luck was not a good football player.
Stanford won the coin toss and elected to receive. In retrospect, Stanford should have deferred to the second half. At this point in the season, practically everyone in college sports knows that Stanford is a notoriously slow start team. While its understandable why David Shaw and the captains wanted to dictate play in the first half, Stanford just doesn't know how to start off games in a positive manner for the offense, especially when it receives the ball first. In fact, Stanford has scored on its opening drive when receiving to begin the game only once this season, against Washington. Against a supposedly inferior team in Corvallis last weekend, Stanford appeared to spend the first half sizing up the Beavers before pulling away in the middle of the third quarter. At least in my opinion, the decision to receive was curious and just one of several questionable decisions.
As I mentioned, Stanford didn't score on its first drive and managed to move the ball only five yards on that first drive. After a David Green punt, Stanford's defense held Oregon to a punt, and for a moment, it appeared as this game might be living up to its potential as a shootout. After both Stanford and Oregon punted on their next possessions, a brief thought of this being a replay of Alabama-LSU crossed my mind. Unfortunately, on the Cardinal's third possession, the problems started, and it just went downhill from there.
Facing a 3rd and 9, Luck needed to throw at midfield in order get a first down. For whatever reason, Luck threw an interception to Dewitt Stuckey on an extremely poorly thought out throw. Stuckey returned the ball all the way to the Stanford 20, and Luck added his third interception in as many games, notable since he had thrown only two interceptions before the USC game, both of which were the result of tipped balls. Oregon then went on to score off of the turnover. In another moment of a mental lapse on the part of Stanford's defenders, the Ducks' trademark swinging gate formation for extra points, the majority of Stanford's defenders were near the sidelines, allowing for a near clear pass for a two-point conversion.
At the end of the first quarter, Stanford fans should have known that it was going to be a long game. Look at these stats:
Oregon rushing: -5 yards
Oregon passing: 4 yards
Oregon total offense: -1 yards
Thomas: 2-3, 1 TD, 0 int
Stanford rushing: 83 yards
Stanford passing: 15 yards
Stanford total offense: 98 yards
Luck: 3-8, 0 TD, 1 int
Oregon 8, Stanford 0
If we look at the positives from that first quarter, Stanford's defense forced two punts and sacked Darron Thomas for a 20 yard loss on their second possession. Speaking of that sack, if anyone can explain how that was a sack and not an interception, I'd like to know. It was one of two times during the game where the officiating utterly confused me.
With possession of the ball to begin the second quarter, Stanford opened up play with a touchdown on that first drive. Unfortunately for the Cardinal, the fact that Eric Whitaker is a back-up kicker became quite obvious when the PAT went wide right, one of two missed kicks for Whitaker for the game. In fact, it could have easily been three if not for the fact that he sent a PAT in the third quarter closer to the crossbar than the 2OT kick back in Los Angeles last month.
Oregon responded with a touchdown of there own, and from there it seemed that the game was going to be a matter of trading scores and seeing who had possession of the ball last. Unfortunately, Stanford had to resort to a field goal. Oregon responded with a 41 yard De'Anthony Thomas touchdown. On 4th and 7. Stanford ended the half down six. Even though Stanford prevented Oregon from scoring again just before the half, the Ducks were set to receive the ball in the third quarter.
From there the rout was on. Similar to last year's game in Eugene, Oregon began to pull away in the third quarter. The Ducks opened up the half with 14 unanswered points. Oregon scored their touchdowns while holding the ball for only 1:37 and 1:05 on their first two possessions. Of course, it certainly helped that Luck fumbled the ball at the Stanford 31, giving the Ducks a short field to play with on their second touchdown. Luck would end the game with three sacks for 28 yards lost, almost doubling the number of sacks Stanford had allowed all season.
While Stanford made a concerted effort to come back, there were some questionable coaching decisions by Shaw and his staff in the second half that may have played a role in Stanford's loss. First, there was the decision to kick a field goal from the 30 yard line on 4th and 6. Whitaker, having already missed a PAT, missed the field goal and Stanford turned the ball over down 13 points. While the defense was able to force a punt, the Luck fumble happened on the following possession.
Another questionable coaching decision happened after Stanford, down 20 points, was able to pull the game to within two possessions in the middle of the fourth quarter. At that point, the clock was not in Stanford's favor, given Oregon's tendency to milk the clock when holding comfortable leads in the fourth quarter. Why Stanford did not try for an onside kick is puzzling. At that point in the game, it seemed that Stanford's defense would not be able to stop the Ducks and Darron Thomas and LaMichael James. At least with the people I was with, it would have been better at that point to try the onside kick and risk giving Oregon favorable position as opposed to hoping Stanford's defense would be able to hold.
Oh, and about that clock. I couldn't tell what in the world happened, it was so loud with booing around me, but for some reason, head referee Jack Folliard played a game of back and forth with the clock operator. All I know is that in the fourth quarter the time went from 8:30 to magically 8:20, and the play clock was jumping all around. At one point, I thought I heard Folliard tell the clock operator to wind down the game clock without running the play clock, so again, utter confusion on the officiating.
After Oregon scored a field goal with just over five minutes remaining, making the differential 16 points, the wheels on the Stanford train just all fell off at once. After that field goal, on 2nd and 5 from the Stanford 34, Luck threw a pick six that was eerily similar to the pick six from the USC game. The lead upped to 23 points. Then, on the ensuing kickoff, Tyler Gaffney fumbled the ball, only to have it recovered by Oregon's kicker Rob Beard. After milking the clock and turning the ball over on downs, on the very first play of Stanford's possession, Drew Terrell fumbled the ball at 26 yard line, ending any chance that Stanford had for reducing the blowout loss. What Stanford fans that didn't head for the exits and remained booed, justifiably perhaps, at Stanford's collapse to end the game while Oregon fans began their chants of "Our house!", "Overrated!", and "Hey hey hey, goodbye!" And so the game ended with Stanford fans upset at their team's failure to close the game on a somewhat positive note while some Oregon fans sent a smoke bomb into the tunnel just before Stanford exited the field.
After the game, Luck told reporters that he guessed this was his "worst game of the year." Guessed? Luck perhaps hasn't had as terrible a game since Big Game 2009, nearly two years ago. Not even last year's debacle at Oregon was as bad as this game. Meanwhile, the Ducks' own Heisman candidate LaMichael James played lights out against Stanford, and despite missing two games due to injury, certainly made the case that he is the better overall college football player than Luck. Much like Tennessee's Peyton Manning, despite beating the Ducks in 2009, Luck has had an "Oregon problem" in both of his Heisman candidacy years. As with Manning, voters look for how a candidate did in the big games. If they do well, even in losing efforts, voters won't knock the candidate down. Luck neither contributed to a win nor played well. In the end, he lead Stanford to an even worse defeat to Oregon on his home field than last year's game in Eugene. Luck's ball control (or lack of it) was in part responsible for 22 Duck points. If Stanford had prevented those points, and Whitaker made his missed PAT or FG, then this game would have been much, much more interesting.
So now Stanford has to regroup and find motivation for Big Game despite being knocked out of the national title picture. Stanford remained in the top-10 of the BCS poll (barely), but will need help in order to make it to a BCS bowl. At this point, Stanford could land anywhere from the Holiday bowl (if Oregon loses once more and is upset in the Pac-12 championship game) to the Fiesta or Sugar Bowl as one of the three at-large bids, depending on whether or not Oklahoma defeats the Cowboys in December. This kind of uncertainty may have been diminished if Stanford had managed to keep it close at home, but there's no use guessing how the coaches and Harris poll voters would have judged a close game as opposed to the blowout at the hands of the Ducks.
Right now, the best thing that the Cardinal can do is just continue to win (big), keep the Axe, and ensure that Notre Dame is relegated to the Capital One Bowl. It enters Big Game in an eerily similar position that Cal had in 2004. In fact, Stanford's 2011 campaign shares a remarkable amount of the same story with the Bears' 2004 season. Stellar quarterbacks in their final year, impressive defenses, a great running game... and an inability to beat one team in particular several years in a row. Stanford fans, though, I think, will prove that this year was not a fluke experiment in fan support and show that yes, Santa Claus, there are Stanford fans, even in a loss and with little possibility of making the Pac-12 Championship Game. If Stanford's GameDay turnout is any indication, it may show that the fanbase has turned a corner from being bandwagon fans to dedicated supporters. In any case, Stanford must shake off its disappointing showing against the Ducks and prepare for the 114th playing of Big Game.
Oregon 53, Stanford 30

While the Pac-12 game of the year was played in Palo Alto, there were five other notable games across the conference (where every home team won). And, as could easily be expected, the Pac-12 South again provided surprises.
Arizona 29, Colorado 48 -- Colorado Buffaloes: you are not the worst team in the conference. [/Maury Povich voice] On Senior Day in Boulder, the Buffs won their first Pac-12 football game in an electric Folsom Field. Arizona, meanwhile, continued their spiral downward, losing their eighth game of the year. It's hard to believe that this is almost the same team that was ranked in the top 10 nationally just a little over a year ago.
Washington 17, USC 40 -- There would be no threepeat for the Huskies this year over the Trojans as Barkley and Woods lead USC to a comfortable 23 point home win. Instead, Washington has now lost its third game out of four with a trip to Corvallis coming up.
Oregon State 6, California 30 -- Cal's woes against the Beavers finally ended Saturday with a "home" win to close out their time at AT&T Park to get their sixth win, assuring them of a bowl game and taking the pressure off of the remaining games against Stanford and ASU. The Beavers woes continued, though, sending OSU back home to face the Huskies hoping to send out James Rodgers and the rest of the seniors on a winning note.
UCLA 6, Utah 31 -- In a snowy Rice-Eccles Stadium, Utah pulled out another win to become bowl-eligible for the ninth consecutive season. UCLA, meanwhile, continued its road agony in a loss that could have ended their South division title hopes were it not for...
Arizona State 27, Washington State 37 -- Don't look now, Pac-12 fans, but Wazzu is two wins over Utah and Washington away from making its first bowl appearance in almost a decade. While UCLA may be a bad road team, ASU is an even worse one. ASU must now hope for a UCLA and Utah loss and beat the Bears and Wildcats at home in order to even hope for competing for the Rose Bowl. With Utah defeating UCLA to stay in the division race, the Pac-12 South is just one big mess without USC competiting for representation in the championship game.
26 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not much in the article really paints the picture of a “bad” quarterback that erases all his previous successes this season. The first interception was a bad decision, but surely Thomas’ almost-interception-but-somehow-a-sack was equally a poorly-thought-out throw. He lost 2 of his favored receivers, and some of the incomplete passes were the receiver’s faults. You could say the pressure of such a big game got to him but that’s hardly enough for people to simply see this one case of “bad” playing as how he actually is as a quarterback.
by smartazjb0y on Nov 13, 2025 10:26 PM PST reply actions
Yeah, that's something I didn't mention
Luck’s receivers dropped numerous balls, including the pick-six. Plus, the monsoon that happened in the Bay Area Friday probably played a very significant part in all of Stanford’s falls and inability to run.
But the analogy to Manning still remains — Luck couldn’t beat Oregon in his Heisman candidacy years, and if it follows the same path as Manning, it won’t have a good ending for Stanford fans for the third year in a row.
by RedOscar on Nov 13, 2025 10:32 PM PST up reply actions
Rose?
If Oregon does go to the NCG, I think we have at least a shot at going to the Rose, right? Admittedly, we need A LOT for that to happen (OK State Loss + Bama Loss would do it), we’d need to win big in the next 2 games, and we’d need the Rose Bowl to look kindly on us. But it’s possible. Right?
by porters on Nov 13, 2025 10:26 PM PST reply actions
It’s definitely possible. The new rule is that a non-AQ team that finishes at least #4 gets in automatically over another #2 in BIg Ten/Pac 10, which they did last year with TCU. They don’t have to do that again, since a non-AQ team won’t be in the top 4 probably. I’m betting that IF Oregon gets in the NCG, we’d get the the Rose Bowl bid.
by smartazjb0y on Nov 13, 2025 10:42 PM PST up reply actions
RE: AQ
I looked this very thing up last night, I thinkt he rule states that the Rose is only obligated the non-AQ school the first time it happens between 2011-2014. As it happened last year, I think that requirement is satisfied.
But either way, yeah, I don’t see Houston getting to the top 4. But will Oregon get the NCG? Yikes I dunno.
by porters on Nov 14, 2025 8:55 AM PST up reply actions
The way I read it, it seems that they’’re only required to take that rule once from 2011 to 2014 but that they have the option to do it if they choose. But, seeing as a non-AQ school probably won’t get that high, I’m definitely saying Stanford in the Rose….IF Oregon gets the NCG. Yikes.
by smartazjb0y on Nov 14, 2025 8:58 AM PST up reply actions
Yes
That’s true. After Oregon goes, they can basically do whatever they want. And yes, if there was a sexy undefeated Boise State team to take, I could see them going that route.
But yeah, still all of this is predicated upon Oregon going to the NCG.
by porters on Nov 14, 2025 9:00 AM PST up reply actions
Not to burst your bubble
but what with the voters falling over themselves to hand things to the Not-Pac 12 on a silver platter, there’s no way Oregon gets back to the NCG. Even if OK State loses to OU, OU might jump us in the polls. Not mentioning, of course, that all of college football-dom apparently wants to see a Game of the Century: Part 2, in which LSU wins, 2-0.
15-yard penalty for my avatar. /Pereira'd
by Brass-billed on Nov 14, 2025 5:24 AM PST up reply actions
If Bama loses (which he mentioned in his post) then they definitely would not be in the NCG over Oregon. But if OSU loses to OU, then there’s definitely a chance that OU moves above Oregon…unless voters and the computers really dislike the fact that their one loss was to Texas Tech while Oregon’s one loss was to LSU.
by smartazjb0y on Nov 14, 2025 8:57 AM PST up reply actions
Voters SHOULD really dislike
Oklahoma’s HOME loss at the hands of a middling Texas Tech team that is stretching to become bowl eligable.
Again, we’ll have a situation that BEGS for a playoff for college football.
Unfortunately, such a plan would adversly affect the players’ ability to be well-educated by the universities which they attend (as the school presidents always put education ahead of $$$ - ha ha ha)
by Pac? on Nov 15, 2025 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
OU-OK State
Yeah, the more I think about this, the more I think we need OU AND OK State to lose against each other, because you’re right, OU would jump Oregon with a win, and voters will try to vote them into the NCG.
But, they do have 3 games left - at Baylor, vs. Iowa State and at OK State. IF they start to look ahead to OSU, who knows, there could be an L against Baylor.
by porters on Nov 14, 2025 9:04 AM PST up reply actions
It’s actually kind of iffy: OU would have beaten a #2 team and had a strong schedule, but it lost to the honestly terrible Texas Tech at home, while Oregon would have lose to #1 LSU. It all depends on how much voters want to penalize OU for such a bad loss or reward them for a big win over OSU.
But, since even after the loss to Texas Tech OU is still ranked very highly, if they beat OSU, I could probably see them jumping past Oregon.
by smartazjb0y on Nov 14, 2025 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
TV vs Live
Interesting to hear the different take from being at the game. Hank seems to have watched the ABC feed and on TV Luck didn’t look that bad. http://www.gomightycard.com/2011/11/oregon-53-stanford-30.html
To us, being optimistic, he only made about 3 bad decisions, and the fumble and late interception were not his fault. My friends at the game, though, attributed a lot more to Luck.
On TV it was really obvious that everyone was slipping, lots of passes were good and dropped. Regardless, our defense did not look very good.
by michmill on Nov 13, 2025 11:09 PM PST reply actions
The TV vs. Live perception is an interesting one, but not sure how much that might actually influence Heisman polls. Probably not that much.
And honestly, the defense did fairly well, especially in the first half, enough that we should have had a chance. If our offense had actually scored on key drives, with the way the defense played, we could have won. Instead, the offense wasted away those opportunities and the defense became disheartened.
by smartazjb0y on Nov 13, 2025 11:43 PM PST up reply actions
As painful as it might be
I’m planning to watch the game on DVR tonight. I was at the game, in the end zone opposite the Oregon band, and Luck just didn’t look himself. His receivers didn’t help him out with all the drops, but a lot of his throws appeared to be way off target. Some of those might be attributed to his WRs — or maybe even him — slipping; it was hard to tell from the stands.
I thought the fumble was his worst mistake. That’s the type of thing I expected Darron Thomas to do. As it turned out, Thomas was bailed out when his only awful mistake of the game was ruled a sack instead of an interception. He played really well after that.
I don’t think Luck has lost the Heisman and I’m excited to see how he and the Cardinal respond against Cal. It’ll be tough to top last year’s dominating performance in Berkeley.
by Scott Allen on Nov 14, 2025 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
To explain the referees
1. The sack/interception. One of the referees (probably the head ref since he was closet to the play) decided that Darron Thomas wasn’t going to be able to get out of the grip of the defender and so he blew the play dead before DT threw the ball. This (blowing the play dead) happens a lot, especially when QB’s are in the grasp of linemen, so that players don’t get bodyslammed or take unnecessary hits. Since the play was blown dead there could be no interception.
2. The game/play clock. After a pass downfield, inbounds and for a first down, the game clock failed to start while the play clock ran. The game clock is supposed to start once the chains and everything have been set up. The refs then had the clock operator take the :10 seconds off of the game clock to reflect this. They tried to start play again, starting the play clock, but then stopped play to explain to Chip Kelly/everyone else why the game clock wasn’t running. They then reset the play clock and resumed play.
by KitIsh on Nov 13, 2025 11:51 PM PST reply actions
2. The game/play clock. After a pass downfield, inbounds and for a first down, the game clock failed to start while the play clock ran. The game clock is supposed to start once the chains and everything have been set up. The refs then had the clock operator take the :10 seconds off of the game clock to reflect this. They tried to start play again, starting the play clock, but then stopped play to explain to Chip Kelly/everyone else why the game clock wasn’t running. They then reset the play clock and resumed play.
Yup. The Game clock failed to start after the chains were moved and the referee indicated time was to start. Even though the Play clock was moving fine. Funny how there are these mysterious clock errors in the home-team’s favor in the last two high-profile games on the Farm (USC last year, Oregon this year), isn’t it?
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
by SoCal Oski on Nov 14, 2025 8:20 AM PST up reply actions
while some Oregon fans sent a smoke bomb into the tunnel just before Stanford exited the field
What? This can’t be. Oregon fans are the classiest in the conference!
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
by SoCal Oski on Nov 14, 2025 8:22 AM PST reply actions
Definitely a mixed bag...
We interacted with some very cool ones, and some complete and utter douchebags… there’s a few in every crowd I suppose…
by RickeySteals on Nov 14, 2025 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
My coworker tells me that he witnessed a fight between two DUCK fans at the game. Nice way to keep it classy, guys.
by farmerboy99 on Nov 14, 2025 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Slightly big difference between Cal '04 and your team
We played USC on the road and lost on the final four plays despite outplaying USC. You played Oregon at home and got outplayed. Oh and USC ’04 is arguably better than Oregon this year (probably because USC was cheating).
And I’d even argue that JJ Arrington, Marshawn Lynch and Aaron Rodgers were a better combo than Luck, Taylor and Gaffney.
One thing that was similar is that we both were running out of WRs. We even had to burn the RS of Robert Jordan by the end of the year (and his inexperience cost us the bowl game).
Well that season has been good for you because the BCS fixed the BCS bowl laws so that teams don’t get screwed over like we did thanks to Texas. You were arguably the recipient of that new rule last year and potentially will be this year as well.
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Nov 14, 2025 10:41 AM PST reply actions
Too bad that Cal team didn’t go on to win their Bowl game and prove to the world they were worthy of greater things.
by farmerboy99 on Nov 14, 2025 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
and his inexperience cost us the bowl game
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Nov 14, 2025 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
Luck...
It was his worst game of the year, no doubt… and yet…
He wasn’t the reason Stanford lost the game. Consider:
1) At least 6 dropped catchable passes, including one that led to the pick-6 that iced the game for good. They still had a chance to score and get an onsides kick at that point (and it looked like they could at least score) if not for the Montgomery mistake.
2) The play calling was really strange. They had significant success running the ball in the first half, with little success throwing. Why not just pound the ball until Oregon had to commit more players to the run?
3) The defense - I said before the game that the D needed to get five or six stops for Stanford to have a shot. I think they got 3. The offense was playing from behind the whole time - not a good situation.
by RickeySteals on Nov 14, 2025 12:19 PM PST reply actions
Yeah, totally agreed. Luck wasn’t great but the inability of his receivers to gain separation and the dropped passes by pretty much everyone, even Fleener, made his line look worse than it should have.
long live the jd.
by jksnake99 on Nov 14, 2025 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.

- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!

by RedOscar on 




