No. 16 Stanford beats Oregon State, 27-23
STANFORD, Calif. — Stanford coach David Shaw fought back tears. Running back Stepfan Taylor's voice trembled. Linebacker Alex Debniak's eye black smeared all over his face.
In the home locker room at Stanford Stadium late Saturday afternoon, these were the emotions from surviving Senior Day and the possibility to host one more game this season.
Redshirt freshman Kevin Hogan threw for 254 yards and three touchdowns in his first collegiate start, and No. 16 Stanford overcame four turnovers to rally past No. 13 Oregon State, 27-23, on Saturday and stay in control of its Pac-12 title hopes.
“They came back and made some plays to help us win the game,” Shaw said. “Almost Shakespearean, to a certain degree.”
Oregon State quarterback Cody Vaz fumbled late in the fourth quarter to give the Cardinal (8-2, 6-1) the ball at the Beavers 29. The only Oregon State (7-2, 5-2) turnover turned out to be the difference.
Hogan audibled out of a run and called the play “Special,” which Stanford also ran to convert a fourth-and-9 in an overtime win against Arizona earlier this season, and hit tight end Zach Ertz for a 13-yard touchdown to make it 27-23 with 5:07 left.
Now the Cardinal will head to No. 2 Oregon next in what could be a North Division final.
The Beavers, who haven't played in the Rose Bowl since 1965, had their BCS and Pac-12 title hopes severely damaged.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.