<p>Well, THAT didn't work out.</p>
<p>No kidding. At least Osaisai gave us something to cheer about for a while.</p>
<p>Perhaps they can outperform expectations next week.</p>
<p>It is interesting to note that - this week at least - the amateur teams fielded by Harvard, Yale and Princeton all outrank the semi-professional squads wearing the school colors at Stanford and Duke!</p>
<p>I can tell that that makes you giddy with excitement, Byerly. Try not to soil yourself.</p>
<p>You can't really rank Division I teams with teams from Division II. I mean, Stanford's not doing so hot this year, but Harvard isn't playing the likes of Oregon, USC, and Cal.</p>
<p>The computerized Sagarin rankings, which are published in USAToday, are based on strength of schedule, records vs common opponents, scoring margin, etc., and include both Div 1A and Div 1AA</p>
<p>Here's another combined ranking, which has Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Penn all ranked higher than Stanford. Presumably the Ivy rankings will fluctuate one they all have played each other.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>At least Stanford wasn't blown away by every Pac-10 team; however, I am sure the same Pac-10 teams Stanford has faced would have scored 50, 60 or even 70 points a game against Harvard easily. Even Harvard's non-conference games are jokes. Instead of playing better conferences like Altantic Ten, Big Sky, or Great West, they played all those games against Patriot League, one of the worst among even the Div-1AA. By the way, are you the type of person that gets satisfaction by beating small kids or girls?</p>
<p>Pretty poor return on the athletic dollar this year for the tree-less Cardinal. Winless despite the highest payroll in college football! They are paying the price for banishing the band! :) </p>
<p>Ah well ... hope springs eternal, sammy. Perhaps your boys can handle Arizona State - also winless in the Pac 10 - and then spring an upset against the overrated lads from USC.</p>
<p>You should do better in accounting. Highest payroll in athletics doesn't mean highest payroll in football. Return on the "athletic" (again, not football alone) dollar has been great:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford University has won the award for the best Division I collegiate athletics program for 12 straight years, winning 12 out of the 13 years it has been offered.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I live in LA and from what I'd seen, people who whine about USC are usually the jealous type or sore losers.</p>
<p>I don't think USC is overrated, Byerly. They have the hated, despised ND at home and shouldn't have much of a problem with the rest of the Pac-10. </p>
<p>They could very well run the table.</p>
<p>I'd say Cal has been more dominant than USC in the past month. Certainly on the basis of comparative scores, Cal is the superior team.</p>
<p>I do agree that Cal looks like a better team. But I am rooting for USC. It looks better for Pac-10 when a Pac-10 team plays NC. That's why fans of other conferences are rooting for Cal. :)</p>
<p>Some people just root against Pete Carroll. And the Cal QB has an appealing personality. (I can do without the RB's "grills", however.)</p>
<p>I'm looking forward to an excellent offensive display when the Trojans come to town.</p>
<p>Rarely does Stanford play top-5 teams, so I would like to see a national championship contender in action.</p>
<p>A Preparation-H problem here, I see...</p>
<p>How did Stanford look today?</p>
<p>A rhetorical question, I assume. How did Harvard do today? :)</p>