Stanford or App. State? Which upset is bigger?

Here's the best evidence I could find to parry the notion that Stanford beating USC is "impossible".

Code:

Score by Quarters     1  2  3  4   Score
-----------------    -- -- -- --   -----
USC................. 10  7  7  7  - 31       Record: (4-0,1-0)
Stanford............  7 21  0  0  - 28       Record: (2-1,0-1)
Scoring Summary:
1st 10:40 USC - Killeen, Ryan 23 yd field goal, 11-69 4:20, USC 3 - STAN 0
    05:36 USC - Smith, Steve 2 yd pass from Leinart, Matt (Killeen, Ryan kick), 1-2 0:04, USC 10 - STAN 0
    00:45 STAN - Moore, Evan 3 yd pass from Edwards, Trent (Sgroi, Michael kick), 11-79 4:51, USC 10 - STAN 7
2nd 06:03 STAN - Danahy, Patrick 2 yd pass from Edwards, Trent (Sgroi, Michael kick), 15-76 7:26, USC 10 - STAN 14
    03:00 STAN - Matter, Kyle 11 yd run (Sgroi, Michael kick), 7-33 2:50, USC 10 - STAN 21
    00:52 USC - Bush, Reggie 17 yd run (Killeen, Ryan kick), 6-66 2:08, USC 17 - STAN 21
    00:00 STAN - Lemon, J.R. 82 yd run (Sgroi, Michael kick), 2-80 0:52, USC 17 - STAN 28
3rd 03:06 USC - Leinart, Matt 1 yd run (Killeen, Ryan kick), 4-63 1:34, USC 24 - STAN 28
4th 06:15 USC - White, LenDale 2 yd run (Killeen, Ryan kick), 8-41 3:06, USC 31 - STAN 28

                                    USC     STAN
FIRST DOWNS...................       23       17
RUSHES-YARDS (NET)............    34-99   30-144
PASSING YDS (NET).............      284      183
Passes Att-Comp-Int...........  30-23-1  35-23-1
TOTAL OFFENSE PLAYS-YARDS.....   64-383   65-327
Fumble Returns-Yards..........      0-0      0-0
Punt Returns-Yards............     3-40     3-22
Kickoff Returns-Yards.........     4-85    5-147
Interception Returns-Yards....     1-66      1-0
Punts (Number-Avg)............   3-40.3   5-42.4
Fumbles-Lost..................      2-0      3-0
Penalties-Yards...............     2-20     6-35
Possession Time...............    29:01    30:59
Third-Down Conversions........  7 of 12  9 of 16
Fourth-Down Conversions.......   0 of 0   1 of 2
Red-Zone Scores-Chances.......      5-8      3-3
Sacks By: Number-Yards........     3-28     2-19

RUSHING: USC-Bush, Reggie 16-95; White, LenDale 11-24; Dennis,
Hershel 1-1; Team 2-minus 5; Leinart, Matt 4-minus 16. Stanford-Lemon, J.R.
10-96; Tolon, Kenneth 9-26; Matter, Kyle 1-11; Edwards, Trent 10-11.
PASSING: USC-Leinart, Matt 23-30-1-284. Stanford-Edwards, Trent
23-35-1-183.
RECEIVING: USC-Smith, Steve 7-129; Jarrett, Dwayne 5-54; Bush, Reggie
4-25; Holmes, Alex 2-29; McFoy, Chris 2-28; Kirtman, David 2-4; Davis, Fred
1-15. Stanford-Moore, Evan 5-47; Smith, Alex 5-45; McCullum, Justin 5-36;
Bradford, Mark 4-30; Marrero, David 3-23; Danahy, Patrick 1-2.
INTERCEPTIONS: USC-Arbet, Kevin 1-66. Stanford-Silva, Mike 1-0.
FUMBLES: USC-White, LenDale 1-0; Davis, Fred 1-0. Stanford-Edwards,
Trent 1-0; Bradford, Mark 1-0; Smith, Alex 1-0.

That game was from 2004. The year USC went 13-0 and won its national championship. Stanford went 4-7 and fired its coach.

Conference upsets and near-upsets happen all the time folks. Don't get sucked into ESPN-ization.

 

Yeah, that's great, except that Stanford team was light years better than this one. That Stanford team didn't lose its first three Pac-10 games while giving up an average of 47 points per game. That Stanford team had a future pro at quarterback, while this one had a kid who was only playing because the starter, who sucks, by the way, had suffered a seizure. If this Stanford team goes 4-7 their coach won't get fired, he'll be hailed as the next Bill Walsh. No, it's not a historic upset any time that last-place Stanford beats second-ranked USC. But this upset, between these two teams under this particular set of circumstances, belongs in the same conversation with Appy St-Michigan.

 

I wonder how many people on here would have taken Appalachian State as 41-point underdogs against Michigan. Odds probably would have been much higher. I would have bet on Stanford to beat USC before betting on some place called App State.

 

There was a betting line on the App St.-Michigan game, and Stanford was the bigger underdog. In fact, Stanford was the biggest underdog to win outright in 22 years.
From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/9583912.html

The Hilton opened then-No. 5 Michigan as a 28 1/2-point home favorite, and the line closed at 31 1/2. Most books don't post lines on games involving Division I-AA teams (now classified as the Football Championship Subdivision), but the Hilton put Appalachian State-Michigan on the "Extra Added Games" board with a $1,000 limit.

Kornegay said Michigan drew minimal action.

It was the biggest pointspread upset since 1985, when Texas-El Paso beat Brigham Young 23-16 as a 36-point home underdog.

 

interesting twist of events.

 

Heard on the radio this morning that according to the Vegas books, Stanford is the first underdog of 40 points or more to win outright. Ever.

This was not just another upset.

 

you just added a "hmmm factor."

thanks. everything is much better with the "hmmm factor" included.

 

I think I'll base what's a major upset on something more tangible than what a bunch of fucking bookies think the point spread should be.

 

hater

 

It's more tangible than conference affiliation or the fact that Stanford has beaten USC before, which from what I can tell is the major point for those who think the Appalachian State upset was bigger.

 

The Appalachian State upset was bigger.

Point spreads have very little to do with the relative merits of the teams and a hell of a lot more to do with what will encourage more people to bet on a particular game. Using it as a benchmark for gauging what's a bigger upset is ridiculous.

 

For at least the fifth time on this thread: The betting line has no bearing on this discussion. None. Zero. Zilch.

The betting line is there to get people to bet. The betting line reflects way too many other factors than what is expected to happen on the field to be relevant in this discussion -- namely, how many people usually bet on or against the teams in question, what other games are drawing big action, etc.

Please, please tell me that people who write sports for a living understand this.