I'm OK with being 11

But ND at 5 is a headscratcher. That is way too high, they definitely don’t look 5/6 spots better than Florida/Stanford and multiple undefeateds. Might be a case of taking "quality" loss too far

By John Nguyen on 11.03.15 8:37pm

It is way too high

But that will be one heck of a quality win for Stanford at the end of the season if it comes to it. So I’m not too worried about it. The amount of guruanteed carnage still ahead this month is going to make these rankings tonight seem quaint.

By nickdempsey on 11.03.15 8:47pm

Nick, I think you have the right thought. If Stanford is going to beat them, it's better that ND is ranked very high.

By Cardinal-in-TX on 11.04.15 9:15am

It might not be obvious

but Alabama does indeed have one loss, so there are three one-loss teams ahead of Stanford. Alabama’s hardly being punished for it though.

By JYTLM on 11.03.15 8:53pm

And when those undefeated teams lose

It will be a loss of highest quality, and those 3 one lossers will turn into 5 or 6 one lossers ahead of Stanford/Utah….Or haven’t you heard? Only the B1G/SEC/ACC/B12 have backloaded tough schedules left….Stanford only has ND….At least that’s the story line

By Stanley F on 11.04.15 12:05am

Let The Carnage Begin!

It is axiomatic that if Stanford wins out, there will be only one surviving member of the SEC and Big Ten potentially ahead of them. That moves Stanford ahead to #7. Stanford beats Notre Dame, that puts them at #6. TCU or Baylor loses to each other, and OK State probably loses to both. So that puts Stanford at #5. So Stanford needs Clemson to lose or for the Big 12 champ to end up with one loss to guarantee a spot in the playoffs. I don’t see Stanford getting in ahead of an undefeated ACC or Big 12 champ this year (despite the arguments). Depending on how the Big 10 plays out, there might be a little wiggle room. The SEC, though, will have their team in the playoff.

Very interesting to see Northwestern at #21 at this point. And it is very possible that USC climbs back into the rankings.

Things could be a lot different after just this upcoming week-end! But we need to focus on Colorado.

By hoyaparanoia on 11.03.15 10:19pm

Who will lobby for the PAC champ?

Seems like an important tidbit that everyone is overlooking. Willingham (daughter works for Stanford) and Rice will have to recuse if Stanford wins the PAC. Haden slipped out the back door, and that only leaves Jernstedt the Oregon fella. Does anyone think he can out-sell a 1 loss ACC or B12 champ for the last slot when there is Clemson and B12 tied members that WON’T have to recuse?…Then of course there is a bunch of SEC hacks who’d rather not meet a PAC champ (after they witnessed how Auburn with a ringer qb almost lost to Oregon, then saw Oregon eviscerate undefeated FSU), Oh, and let’s not forget Barry Alvarez whom I’m sure would love to put the PAC champ in the Rose bowl. Even more so if it’s Stanford, exact a little payback for his last coaching stint. Stanford could be the first ever CFB team to win 10 conference games, an amazing achievement. But, there is an extreme likelihood they’d still be locked out, relegated to an also ran with the boobie prize of the Rose bowl against another "NOT the best" B1G team<—-jobber trifecta.
Nope the precipitous drop in ranking is no coincidence, the writing is on the wall.

By Stanley F on 11.03.15 11:49pm

Pump the brakes

Still a lot of football to be played. Lets take care of our end. Maybe put up style points if possible. In that last weekend of championships, OSU put out such a statement that they got in over TCU and Baylor. So its still possible that we sneak in at the last poll when it might seem impossible.

By layman on 11.04.15 12:20am

correct! Stanford needs to win out. That will not be easy. Three Rose Bowls in four years is a nice recruiting statement.

By Cardinal-in-TX on 11.04.15 9:19am

That's not the point, though

Historically, three Rose Bowls in four years is a great thing More recently, though, continuously going to a non-BCS/Semifinal New Year’s Six Bowl is more of a disappointment since you are no longer playing on the biggest stage.

In other words, the Rose Bowl is only the "Grandaddy of them all" when it comes to age and playoff years.

By RedOscar on 11.04.15 9:27am

If we continue to play ND, USC and UCLA (plus another legitimate Power 5 team) every year

and the other Power 5 conferences continue to fill their OCC schedule with the Lamars and SMUs of the world thereby assisting them to get into the CFP, regular Rose Bowls (New Year’s Six) may be a realistic goal.
The rest of Pac12 is going to be tough enough year after year – some rising in a particular year (e.g. Wazzu), others falling (UofA).
I don’t see the bottom half of the Big 12, ACC or Big 10 ever rising up the ranks like they have periodically done in the Pac 12.
How many undefeated or one-loss season have we ever had? – I’m sure it’s in the media guide somewhere.
Certainly a CFP spot would be spectacular for our guys (and always top goal at the beginning of the year), but the road is always going to be a very difficult one.

By Cardinal-in-TX on 11.04.15 11:39am

Twice

How many undefeated season have we ever had? If you’re talking about Stanford the answer is never in the modern era (advent of PAC8)
If you’re talking about any PAC team(while a member of the PAC), the answer is twice in 40 years <—-which is what the PAC can expect for NC playoff invites if there are two or more undefeateds from other conferences plus ND

By Stanley F on 11.04.15 12:12pm

It's not the grandaddy

when you’re are playing an un ranked B1G loser…More like grand-irrelevant, zero recognition for winning and major shame for losing. Sounds like a good deal eh? Ask the SEC how much they care about going to a non playoff Sugar. Or Oregon to a non playoff Rose? The Rose has withered for many, now it is just thorns. I agree, for Stanford it’s a major achievement though, kinda like being a cuckold is cool.
Win 10 PAC games and you get to be a cuckold, yay team…

By Stanley F on 11.04.15 11:46am

We were sure crowing about four straight BCS games without being in the NC game.

By Cardinal-in-TX on 11.04.15 12:10pm

True

Given the state of the program prior to the Sun Bowl (and the increased speculation about dropping to I-AA or football all together), I’d say Stanford fans were more appreciative than anything. The four BCS bowls in four years is in direct comparison to going 1-11 four seasons prior to the Orange Bowl.

Plus we really should never have lost to Washington or had blind (Pac-12!) refs and phantom whistles in South Bend, else we may have ended up playing in as many national championship games as Oregon.

By RedOscar on 11.04.15 12:29pm

We were only

8 PAC game conference winners, should we have expected more than the booby prize?

By Stanley F on 11.04.15 12:33pm

I'm not saying the CFP shouldn't be the goal every year.

I’m saying expectations for us need to be realistic since our hurdles are higher.
Otherwise we sound like SC, ND, Texas, Ohio St and Alabama fans (there’s an obnoxious quintet) who flip out when they don’t win a NC every year.

By Cardinal-in-TX on 11.04.15 12:52pm

Look I'm not proclaiming

Stanford will win 10 PAC games, in fact I give them about 5% chance of pulling that off.
I’m simply pointing out there are still very real hurdles should the Card succeed in such a heroic feat…There is a very serious reality that a boy from another school is jumping in our limo and taking our date to the prom.

By Stanley F on 11.04.15 1:05pm

If Stanford can get through an entire year undefeated or with one lose, they should always qualify for the CFP and

not be regulated to a NY6 games.
Only exception might be, a blowout loss to ND at the end of the year (timing would be awful) in certain years.

By Cardinal-in-TX on 11.04.15 1:14pm

I don't think recusing themselves means they can't argue on their behalf

I think it was ESPN a few weeks ago that ran a story on Condi that said when she’s with the committee, she can make arguments on behalf of the teams she thinks are best, including Stanford, but Stanford is not a permissible school for her to include in her rankings (it’s greyed out on the voter screen).

Pat Haden resigning his position on the committee, for a very good reason, is more damaging for West Coast football since apparently he, Alvarez, and Osborne were the three that reportedly really drove the committee’s train of thought.

By RedOscar on 11.04.15 9:34am

That's not the problem

The problem is direct current ties vs former ties….Former ties are fair game when it comes to chirping in and voting…current ties are not, and Condi and Willingham have current ties. Haden would just have been a PAC cheerleader, but an important one.

By Stanley F on 11.04.15 12:45pm

The CFP’s official language wants you to know it’s really serious about preventing lobbying:
A recused member shall not participate in any votes involving the team from which the individual is recused. A recused member is permitted to answer only factual questions about the institution from which the member is recused, but shall not be present during any deliberations regarding that team’s selection or seeding. Recused members shall not participate in discussions regarding the placement of the recused team into a bowl game.

So Willingham and Rice cannot discuss, lobby, or vote for Stanford, The Clemson AD cannot discuss, lobby, or vote for Clemson, but Bobby Johnson (a former Clemson player and coach) Can lobby and vote for Clemson.
There is probably only one member out the 12 that may have an interest in lobbying for the PAC, the Oregon graduate without any FB experience. If there is any question about which one loss team deserves the fourth and final spot, ACC or PAC, Only UTAH would stand a chance, Stanford will get shut out in favor of a one loss ACC team.

By Stanley F on 11.04.15 7:10pm

I'm OK with being behind Bama, Florida, and ND

All three of those one-loss schools have higher strength of schedule. But not TCU & Baylor. At least a dozen other teams would be undefeated playing either of those teams’ schedules (36 & 55, respectively). That the committee hasn’t punished them more for it does not bode well for a one-loss Pac-12 champion getting in.

Back to focusing on our boys taking care of their business.

By winflop on 11.04.15 8:03am

Poll for puzzle solvers

This poll is categorically wrong, and the CFP team knows it. Most can agree with their Nos. 1-3; but #4 Bama sticks out like a sore thumb. But who would you put in their place? Since they have a death match with LSU this weekend, we can see the Top 4 is already going to change. That ND is ranked 5 makes it the game that if Stanford wins, is their springboard to the Top 4 prior to the PAC12 championship. Because other conference schedules are so backloaded, they will murder each other. I actually was daydreaming today of a Final 4 lineup of Iowa, Stanford, TCU/Baylor, and Memphis. Scoff if you like, but go look at the schedules. All hell is going to break loose in the last quarter of the season. All Stanford has to do is win out, and they will be in as #1 or #2 seed.

By jafco99 on 11.04.15 4:33pm