Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era (/thread-26337.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era (/thread-26337.html)
Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - KartyFan - 10-03-2026
The timing of this post will likely bring out some strong reactions...
With five games under our belts, I thought this would be a good time to reflect on how Stanford is faring so far with Tavita and Andrew at the helm.
First, some grounding. I am judging the Pritchard/Luck era based on what Luck inherited when he was hired in November 2024. I believe this was a terrible situation: poor talent, a coach with anger issues, and a Stanford administration that prior to Levin showed little interest in supporting Stanford Football. I am not comparing the state of the program to what I wish it were or what it was 15 years ago.
I believe Stanford should adapt to the times while staying true to itself and preserve some semblance of the term “student athlete.” So in assessing our potential outcomes to date, I've discarded the idea that we could have gotten 35 transfers from the portal and fielded a 9-3 team this year. It will take time to get back to respectability.
I also recognize that it's way too early to draw any real conclusions. But message boards would be pretty boring if we all waited a few years to judge a coach.
Pre-Pritchard Era
Luck has been GM for two seasons, having been introduced at the end of November 2024. I am going to assume Luck did not have enough time to make much of a difference in our recruiting and transfer portal management in the 2024-2025 cycle and haven’t bothered to go back and look at those results.
In the offseason, the Troy Taylor issue surfaced, which one could argue he fumbled a bit before making the right call letting Taylor go. I believe the Frank Reich hire was the absolute best option, giving Stanford legitimacy at the coaching position while Luck searched for a permanent solution. 4-8 was a reasonable result considering the circumstances. And hey, we won the Big Game.
Pritchard Era
Tavita Pritchard was announced as head coach at the end of the 2025 season. My assessment will be purely based on results so far. I don’t think it is possible for someone without a football background or inside knowledge of the options we had to judge the hire before seeing results.
Grades are Stanford grades :) – a B is meeting expectations considering the circumstances inherited.
Portal: A-
As I’ve said before, by far the biggest positive I have seen in the new era is retention in the 2025-2026 offseason. We lost 10 players to the portal (per On3), and the only one we seem to really be missing right now is OT Emeka Ugorji (a big one, don’t get me wrong).
Conversely, of our six incoming transfers, two have been key players: Davis Warren (!) and Nico Brown. Aidan Kilstrom was a starting OL before unfortunately getting hurt. I think we have to say unequivocally that our team gained more than it lost in the transfer portal. Think about that: we are better off due to the transfer portal in a year where our head coach changed!
Recruiting: B-
Our recruiting class (per On3) ranked 39th in the country and 9th (dead middle) in the ACC. Compare to Harbaugh’s first year, where we ranked 56th and last in the Pac-10 (RIP). Is it where we want to be? No. But not bad considering how little time Pritchard had in the seat. I’d be thrilled to be the 39th best team in the country next year.
2027 recruiting doesn't look all that encouraging, which brings my grade from B to B-.
Now onto the season.
Win-loss record (2-3): B+
Remember, this is relative to preseason expectations. Stanford’s over/under was a 3.5 wins. While the Wake Forest result makes it feel unlikely we will ever win another game, Elon + 1 more win is more likely than not. Again, nobody aspires to be 4-8, but we have to be realistic about what is possible.
So far, we have won two tossup games (you would expect us to win one of two on average) and have gotten completely destroyed in two games where we were significant underdogs but winning should not have been out of the question. We were also destroyed by Miami, as expected, and will likely get destroyed again by ND.
All that said, I consider us half a game ahead of expectations so far this year.
Offense: B+
We have shown flashes of competence against bad teams, with stretches of Hawaii and Georgia Tech games downright encouraging. Warren is very good if not under intense pressure, and we have at least four WRs who can get open (but only two who can catch consistently). I didn't think we would see a game with 398 passing yards this year.
The OL is the glaring problem, again. We seem to be able to pass protect against bad teams and run against nobody. We’re going nowhere if that doesn’t change.
Running backs look good on the rare occasion they have space.
It feels like our offensive scheme/playcalling is maximizing the talent we have. We get open, and we are putting Davis Warren in a position to succeed when our OL isn’t getting manhandled. I would give our playcalling and scheme an A- grade.
Defense: C-
The strength of 2025 is the weakness of 2026. Seems like some of our better players in 2025 (Galvan, Green, etc.) have regressed this year, which is really concerning. I wonder how their PFF scores compare so far year-to-year. Add on recent injuries (see below), and this has to be a serious concern for Tavita.
Special Teams: C+
Punting: OK
Kickoff return: bad
Kickoff coverage: feels like the other team is about to break one most of the time
Field goals: low sample size but looks shaky
Injuries: D-
I don’t know what it is, but this continues to kill us. Our makeshift offensive line is our biggest issue, and we have like seven injured DBs and are missing maybe our two best linebackers. When you aren’t a very good team to start with, playing your second team isn’t going to work. We have to figure something out here. The most frustrating part is that we start the season already heavily injured.
A few other notes
How great (and thank goodness) that we finished the two games where we were competitive. Hawaii stormed back to take the lead, and we scored when we had to and got a turnover to ice it. Georgia Tech led by 10 at the half, and we took it to them with 24 unanswered points. This positive experience will come in handy if we can get into a couple more tight games this year.
I am perplexed by how much worse we are against good teams. Of course, good teams make you look bad. But we’ve had three games as 2+ score underdogs and have looked like 40-point underdogs against all of them. Miami I understand – the other two are concerning and frankly embarrassing results you don’t want to post as you try to turn around a program. That said, we got destroyed by ASU in 2007 the week before USC.
Looking forward
I think it is really important to get to four wins this year to maintain/build on the momentum of the 2025-2026 offseason. It is also important to be competitive in more games. Players don’t want to get run off the field in games. We need some tangible evidence of progress, or at least potential. A five win season, while unlikely at this stage, would be a tremendous success. Sad to say that, but true.
I believe we will learn a lot about this new era in the upcoming offseason. Another top 40 recruiting class, good player retention, and a few key portal snags (another QB?) would show that players are buying into this leadership. In the meantime, I hope we have some fun games to watch this year and snag 2-3 more wins. And Beat Cal.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 10-04-2026
KartyFan dateline='[url=tel:1791090908' Wrote: 1791090908[/url]']
The timing of this post will likely bring out some strong reactions...
With five games under our belts, I thought this would be a good time to reflect on how Stanford is faring so far with Tavita and Andrew at the helm.
First, some grounding. I am judging the Pritchard/Luck era based on what Luck inherited when he was hired in November 2024. I believe this was a terrible situation: poor talent, a coach with anger issues, and a Stanford administration that prior to Levin showed little interest in supporting Stanford Football. I am not comparing the state of the program to what I wish it were or what it was 15 years ago.
I believe Stanford should adapt to the times while staying true to itself and preserve some semblance of the term “student athlete.” So in assessing our potential outcomes to date, I've discarded the idea that we could have gotten 35 transfers from the portal and fielded a 9-3 team this year. It will take time to get back to respectability.
I also recognize that it's way too early to draw any real conclusions. But message boards would be pretty boring if we all waited a few years to judge a coach.
Pre-Pritchard Era
Luck has been GM for two seasons, having been introduced at the end of November 2024. I am going to assume Luck did not have enough time to make much of a difference in our recruiting and transfer portal management in the 2024-2025 cycle and haven’t bothered to go back and look at those results.
In the offseason, the Troy Taylor issue surfaced, which one could argue he fumbled a bit before making the right call letting Taylor go. I believe the Frank Reich hire was the absolute best option, giving Stanford legitimacy at the coaching position while Luck searched for a permanent solution. 4-8 was a reasonable result considering the circumstances. And hey, we won the Big Game.
Pritchard Era
Tavita Pritchard was announced as head coach at the end of the 2025 season. My assessment will be purely based on results so far. I don’t think it is possible for someone without a football background or inside knowledge of the options we had to judge the hire before seeing results.
Grades are Stanford grades :) – a B is meeting expectations considering the circumstances inherited.
Portal: A-
As I’ve said before, by far the biggest positive I have seen in the new era is retention in the 2025-2026 offseason. We lost 10 players to the portal (per On3), and the only one we seem to really be missing right now is OT Emeka Ugorji (a big one, don’t get me wrong).
Conversely, of our six incoming transfers, two have been key players: Davis Warren (!) and Nico Brown. Aidan Kilstrom was a starting OL before unfortunately getting hurt. I think we have to say unequivocally that our team gained more than it lost in the transfer portal. Think about that: we are better off due to the transfer portal in a year where our head coach changed!
Recruiting: B-
Our recruiting class (per On3) ranked 39th in the country and 9th (dead middle) in the ACC. Compare to Harbaugh’s first year, where we ranked 56th and last in the Pac-10 (RIP). Is it where we want to be? No. But not bad considering how little time Pritchard had in the seat. I’d be thrilled to be the 39th best team in the country next year.
2027 recruiting doesn't look all that encouraging, which brings my grade from B to B-.
Now onto the season.
Win-loss record (2-3): B+
Remember, this is relative to preseason expectations. Stanford’s over/under was a 3.5 wins. While the Wake Forest result makes it feel unlikely we will ever win another game, Elon + 1 more win is more likely than not. Again, nobody aspires to be 4-8, but we have to be realistic about what is possible.
So far, we have won two tossup games (you would expect us to win one of two on average) and have gotten completely destroyed in two games where we were significant underdogs but winning should not have been out of the question. We were also destroyed by Miami, as expected, and will likely get destroyed again by ND.
All that said, I consider us half a game ahead of expectations so far this year.
Offense: B+
We have shown flashes of competence against bad teams, with stretches of Hawaii and Georgia Tech games downright encouraging. Warren is very good if not under intense pressure, and we have at least four WRs who can get open (but only two who can catch consistently). I didn't think we would see a game with 398 passing yards this year.
The OL is the glaring problem, again. We seem to be able to pass protect against bad teams and run against nobody. We’re going nowhere if that doesn’t change.
Running backs look good on the rare occasion they have space.
It feels like our offensive scheme/playcalling is maximizing the talent we have. We get open, and we are putting Davis Warren in a position to succeed when our OL isn’t getting manhandled. I would give our playcalling and scheme an A- grade.
Defense: C-
The strength of 2025 is the weakness of 2026. Seems like some of our better players in 2025 (Galvan, Green, etc.) have regressed this year, which is really concerning. I wonder how their PFF scores compare so far year-to-year. Add on recent injuries (see below), and this has to be a serious concern for Tavita.
Special Teams: C+
Punting: OK
Kickoff return: bad
Kickoff coverage: feels like the other team is about to break one most of the time
Field goals: low sample size but looks shaky
Injuries: D-
I don’t know what it is, but this continues to kill us. Our makeshift offensive line is our biggest issue, and we have like seven injured DBs and are missing maybe our two best linebackers. When you aren’t a very good team to start with, playing your second team isn’t going to work. We have to figure something out here. The most frustrating part is that we start the season already heavily injured.
A few other notes
How great (and thank goodness) that we finished the two games where we were competitive. Hawaii stormed back to take the lead, and we scored when we had to and got a turnover to ice it. Georgia Tech led by 10 at the half, and we took it to them with 24 unanswered points. This positive experience will come in handy if we can get into a couple more tight games this year.
I am perplexed by how much worse we are against good teams. Of course, good teams make you look bad. But we’ve had three games as 2+ score underdogs and have looked like 40-point underdogs against all of them. Miami I understand – the other two are concerning and frankly embarrassing results you don’t want to post as you try to turn around a program. That said, we got destroyed by ASU in 2007 the week before USC.
Looking forward
I think it is really important to get to four wins this year to maintain/build on the momentum of the 2025-2026 offseason. It is also important to be competitive in more games. Players don’t want to get run off the field in games. We need some tangible evidence of progress, or at least potential. A five win season, while unlikely at this stage, would be a tremendous success. Sad to say that, but true.
I believe we will learn a lot about this new era in the upcoming offseason. Another top 40 recruiting class, good player retention, and a few key portal snags (another QB?) would show that players are buying into this leadership. In the meantime, I hope we have some fun games to watch this year and snag 2-3 more wins. And Beat Cal.
Nailed it! Thanks for a dispassionate, thoughtful assessment. I particularly appreciate an analysis with objective success measurements. My number one take away is your emphasis on our inability to retain the quality linemen we have recruited and to attract high talent transfers for the offensive line. The traditional way of building one takes two or three years. We are not making progress… unless the injury bug is concealing it.
Is there a solution other than a significant, focused NIL infusion ? If we don’t address the O Line issue , we will,find it very hard to attract or keep quality QBs and RBs.
Thanks again
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - JeebsOak - 10-04-2026
Ten years of garbage and slim pickings of Ivy League transfers and he gets an a minus lol
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - cardcrimson - 10-04-2026
With reviews and analysis like this, we are doomed as a program.
Who was it who signed his posts with "Oranges slices for all"? My therapy kitten (now cat) can't even help me with this team. . . .
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - needle - 10-04-2026
Amazingly, Stanford rushing offense at 2.9 ypc after Wake game is actually better than last year's 2.6 ypc. I guess sacks are included?
Feeling like your grades are reasonable.
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - ADPinWDC - 10-04-2026
Address "$NIL MANAGEMENT".
-- not discussed under Recruiting and Portal.
We got $50 million from Brad Freeman.
How much is being put toward Linemen?!!
First things first.
==> Better linemen help recruit better QBs,
like Andrew Luck in 2008.
And better RBs
And a better QB means better WRs.
... Virtuous circle
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - Orange Mark - 10-04-2026
I am dumbfounded by how vulnerable this roster remains to injury.
The O-line has been a patchwork quilt since Week 1. Kilstrom is probably out for the year; Mejia hasn’t seen the field all season. Against Wake Forest, Stanford was also without three injured defensive starters: LBs Jahsiah Galvan and Rose, and CB Brandon Nicholson.
It’s one thing to be completely outmanned, as Stanford has been—and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
It’s another issue entirely when player availability, durability and physical development continue to look like liabilities.
I would have expected Tavita to arrive with a distinct plan to course-correct here. This problem really began to emerge after Shannon Turley was fired in 2018, and it hasn’t abated.
Five games into Tavita’s tenure, I’m seeing too many of the same old problems.
The injuries. The physical inferiority. The lack of depth incapable of absorbing either.
When is that going to end?
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - JeffInCorvallis - 10-04-2026
(10-04-2026, 09:25 AM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Address "$NIL MANAGEMENT".
-- not discussed under Recruiting and Portal.
We got $50 million from Brad Freeman.
How much is being put toward Linemen?!!
First things first.
==> Better linemen help recruit better QBs,
like Andrew Luck in 2008.
And better RBs
And a better QB means better WRs.
... Virtuous circle
Can somebody who's been to one of the talks by Donahoe or Luck elaborate a strategy for Stanford sports in general and football specifically? I love Andrew, but he doesn't strike me as a strategist. Perhaps there's a lot going on behind the scenes to which we are not privy, but I don't see a coherent strategy. Stanford had to climb into the ACC lifeboat to stay in a P4 conference - that was before Luck's appointment to Football GM. He had the unfortunate Troy Taylor affair to navigate; bringing in Reich was a good tactical move that partly salvaged a bad situation. I completely admire Luck's enthusiasm and passion for Stanford. He gives lots of interviews, he posts on social media, he tries to fire up our anemic fan base. I question the hiring of his buddy Pritchard who has barely any experience coaching at a place other than Stanford. Beyond that, it's not clear what Luck's duties are. Is he trying to fund raise so that Stanford can spend on NIL? Is Stanford even going to consent to that? Does somebody have a vision for how football is going to stay competitive? We're scheduling Miami and Notre Dame (yes, I know we get our in-conference schedule dictated to us), but we're getting blown out by Wake. To paraphrase a former coach, What's our deal?
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - Row80Critic - 10-04-2026
I appreciate your ability to remain positive while I melt down over what we saw yesterday. Good on you.
That said, I would argue this is the same kind of thinking that has resulted in nearly a decade of losing seasons (and counting). If you accept as a given that Stanford football was expected to be a train wreck this year, you look past the core problem(s), convince yourself things aren't so bad, and doom yourself to repeat the same cycle over and over and over (and over). See, e.g. the last 8 seasons.
If you are simply saying Tavita hasn't done such a bad job based on what he was handed, I'd probably agree for the most part. Could Harbaugh or Saban done better in the exact same circumstances? Maybe, maybe not. But I bet they would have challenged the administration in ways Luck/Pritchard haven't. The problem as I see it is that the University isn't doing any of the things necessary to change course and become competitive in modern FBS football -- i.e., admitting the best athletes and paying them competitive rates -- and they've hand-picked people who they believe are least likely to challenge them on that. If Luck wants to make a name for himself as a GM, he'll need to rock the boat. End of story. Unless/until he does, it will be more of the same. He's a warrior under it all, so here's hoping he snaps.
Portal -- objectively, Stanford was dead last among ALL power-4 schools. Football results are all relative to the competition -- i.e., graded on a curve -- so it's hard for me to see this as anything but an F. In 2026, the portal is an extremely important aspect of college football, whether we like it or not. And Stanford is dead last.
Recruiting -- objectively, ranked 45th by 247 for 2026; so on a curve maybe a C, but after factoring in retention, is goes down from there.
Win-loss record (2-3) --objectively, this is a C at best (for now). I agree that many feared worse, but that doesn't make a losing record any better than it really is, and an outside shot at 4-8 is not progress.
Offense -- much more entertaining to watch, and more traditional in many ways. Warren is clearly better than most in recent years. But, objectively, every single Power-4 school has scored more than Stanford this year; and on a points-per-game basis, Stanford is 131 out of 138 FBS teams. There's no way to put lipstick on that. On a curve, that's an F.
Defense -- even worse. 134 of 138 in total yards; 137 of 138 in passing yards (only 3 yards away from dead last); 104 of 138 in rushing; and 133 of 138 in points allowed. How is that anything but terrible? I couldn't help but think how good Matt Rose must be after seeing the defense without him.
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - msqueri - 10-04-2026
I appreciate the thoughtful original post but side squarely closer to Row80Critic's viewpoint. The original post is too rosy almost across the board and not conducive to the kind of standards and accountability we need to have any hope.
If we want to look at objective metrics of where the program is, try these:
Record
2021 (Shaw): 3-9 (highlight an overtime home win against #26 Oregon and had road wins against #73 USC and #142 Vanderbilt)
2022 (Shaw): 3-9 (highlight a road win against #17 Notre Dame and had home wins against #72 Arizona State and #223 Colgate)
2023 (Taylor): 3-9 (emotional highlight a double overtime road win against #59 Colorado, statistical highlight a road win against #39 Washington State, and also had a road win against #136 Hawai'i)
2024 (Taylor): 3-9 (highlights were a home win against #20 Louisville and a road win against #44 Syracuse, also had a home win against #215 Cal Poly)
2025 (Reich): 4-8 (highlight was taking advantage of an easy home schedule with wins over #43 Florida State, #76 Cal, #88 Boston College, and #144 San Jose State)
2026 so far (Pritchard): 2-3 trending toward most likely 4-8 but far from assured we win that many (so far the closest thing to a highlight beating #77 Georgia Tech at home)
We finally broke through for four wins and gave fans reasons to go home happy after games, a tangible step in the rebuild. One shouldn't overread signs of progress as zero wins against top 40 teams is very, very pathetic (the most recent that could have been the case was 2006 but I'm not positive a five win Washington wasn't top 40). 2026 is likely hoping we can repeat four wins so we can squint and call that stabilizing an upward tick from a pathetic baseline.
Sagarin
2021: #89
2022: #87
2023: #101
2024: #102
2025: #78
2026 so far: #109
Notwithstanding the sad lack of beating any good teams, last year was clearly a significant step forward in Sagarin's view. This year is looking like an utterly demoralizing step back to contend with the worst teams in our history, despite having one of the 25 oldest rosters in the country, which objective and biased observers alike thought set us up to have a team about the quality of last year's team.
SP+
2021: #105
2022: #93
2023: #108
2024: #103
2025: #112
2026 so far: #114
Bill Connelly is the other supposed sage of algorithms and he dissented from Sagarin's view last year was a step forward. One of the absolute worst teams in Stanford history in SP+'s view, almost surely owing to that shocking lack of beating any good teams. And this year all algorithms think this is looking like one of the worst Stanford teams ever.
FEI
2021: #80
2022: #86
2023: #86
2024: #85
2025: #84
2026 so far: #92 BEFORE our biggest blowout loss since 1954, so this will be ugly too
If one wanted to use FEI as a tiebreaker, it turns out that it's a wash. No meaningful improvement, we are who we are and are still looking to turn the corner to put it charitably.
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - msqueri - 10-04-2026
FEI Offense
2021: #78
2022: #89
2023: #72
2024: #97
2025: #100
2026 so far: #90 BEFORE one of the four worst offensive games of the decade so this will be really ugly
Pritchard inherited a lowly offense with a lot of room to improve and has not made it better.
SP+ Offense
2021: #104
2022: #70
2023: #95
2024: #91
2025: #117
2026 so far: #103
Connelly vociferously agrees the offense has been terrible and is still terrible.
FEI Defense
2021: #84
2022: #88
2023: #115
2024: #90
2025: #54
2026 so far: #96 BEFORE one of the dozen worst performances of the decade so this will be really ugly
Kris Richard inherited the best Stanford defense in years, which SP+ predicted would be #57 in the nation this year and he's turned in worse performance than even the bad years of this era. Utter catastrophe.
SP+ Defense
2021: #107
2022: #103
2023: #116
2024: #112
2025: #78
2026 so far: #115
Connelly wasn't quite as impressed last year but most definitely agreed Richard inherited the best Stanford defense in years (going even further back than the pandemic even) and that 2026 is an utter catastrophe.
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - msqueri - 10-04-2026
FEI Special Teams
2021: #47
2022: #15
2023: #5
2024: #19
2025: #102
2026 so far: #66 before the Wake Forest game
Special teams has been an equalizer for Stanford for a long time and it fell apart disastrously under Reich. It's not good this year, worse than one would hope with our investment in specialists and coaching.
SP+ Special Teams
2021: #22
2022: #18
2023: #36
2024: #23
2025: #126
2026 so far: #128
Nobody needed stats to tell them Reich's special teams were a joke for us. That 2026 isn't good with Kaczor's addition is depressing.
247 Team Talent Composite
2021: #25
2022: #23
2023: #37
2024: #42
2025: #46
2026: #50
Talent has been dropping precipitously for years and we've been unable to stop the bleeding. 2027 will likely not even mark the year this stabilizes as our high school recruiting is poorer than the cycling out class.
247 Overall Recruiting Rankings (inclusive of high school and transfers)
2021: #43 (only one ranking that year)
2022: #27
2023: #59
2024: #49
2025: #54
2026: #37
2027 so far: #52
Stuck in below average territory for bringing in talent, may not have found bottom yet on overall roster quality.
247 Composite Recruiting Rankings
2021: #43
2022: #19
2023: #44
2024: #31
2025: #56
2026: #37
2027: #51
Similar picture of consistent inability to break through to above average recruiting. Most depressing of all is that with supposedly charismatic and hard-working Pritchard and Luck in lieu of caretaker Reich we have stepped back toward historically low levels of high school recruiting. For a program that claims it will build through high school and retention, that's pathetic. Other programs are putting more eggs in transfers, we're not, and they're still taking our high school lunch money.
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - msqueri - 10-04-2026
On3 Transfer Rankings (net of incoming and outgoing, only ranks power teams)
2021: N/A
2022: #60
2023: #69 (dead last)
2024: #62
2025: #67
2026: #38
2027: TBD
The portal has been a massive headwind for Stanford as long as it's existed. Not last year, thanks to very good retention. Bar none the biggest - and I'm sad to say probably only, if we're being clear-eyed - success of the Luck-Pritchard era. What we do in this dimension in the weeks following the season is the most important thing facing the program. We have no prayer next year without massive transfer infusion in both volume and quality.
247 Transfer Rankings (strictly incoming)
2021: N/A
2022: #116
2023: #75
2024: #128
2025: #54
2026: #130
While we did a great job retaining, we did a minimal job adding transfer talent. Even still, arguably the two best players on our team (certainly two of the ten best, but I think that's underselling them), Davis Warren and Nico Brown, were part of this haul. Even when we bring in transfers at the extreme low end of college football, they're still quite disproportionately among our best players (see also CJ Williams, Clay Patterson, Niki Prongos, Gaethan Bernadel, Jay Green, Jahsiah Galvan, etc.). Why is obvious - selecting people who have established themselves in college is far easier than projecting 16 year olds. This program has no chance at all without 15+ transfers, mostly highly paid, every year. Need to get used to and accommodate in terms of university politics and admissions processes the kind of roster turnover and agility that will require. Non-negotiable or this is a fool's errand.
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - KartyFan - 10-04-2026
Thank you as always for the thoughtful and detailed analysis, msqueri. Now I'm depressed!
I must say that after reading this and your Wake Forest thoughts, I agree my analysis of this year is too rosy. While our 2-3 record is at least matching and more likely beating expectations, our complete ineptitude in 3 of our 5 games is really concerning. I think I was wowed by big chunks of competence in two games, particularly in the passing game, and forgot that we have still been unwatchable for 60% of our playing time so far.
Let's see if we can show some improvement in the second half of the year. As you noted, the potential is there on defense. If we can't make progress there, wholesale changes are needed at the end of the season.
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - Sam Leopold - 10-05-2026
(10-04-2026, 07:52 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: With reviews and analysis like this, we are doomed as a program.
Who was it who signed his posts with "Oranges slices for all"? My therapy kitten (now cat) can't even help me with this team. . . .
That would be OutsiderFan, while he posted on TOS as a Cal fan and a Stanford sympathizer.
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - norcard10 - 10-05-2026
(10-04-2026, 07:05 AM)JeebsOak Wrote: Ten years of garbage and slim pickings of Ivy League transfers and he gets an a minus lol
gotta love that patented stanford grade inflation.
i give this program a D+.
RE: Reflections Five Weeks into the Pritchard/Luck Era - rogpodge - 10-06-2026
https://x.com/statsowar/status/2107508081617998243
Stanford's run game has largely disappeared since Kilstrom was injured. The result is the same pattern - long 3rd downs, lots of pressure on passing downs. That being said, Stanford hasn't been bad handling the pressure. It's not easy mode like USC, ND, and Miami, but the situation adjusted pressure rate isn't bad.
lex24 - lex24 - 10-06-2026
[quote="msqueri" pid='453848' dateline='1791167387']
On3 Transfer Rankings (net of incoming and outgoing, only ranks power teams)
2021: N/A
2022: #60
2023: #69 (dead last)
2024: #62
2025: #67
2026: #38
2027: TBD
The portal has been a massive headwind for Stanford as long as it's existed. Not last year, thanks to very good retention. Bar none the biggest - and I'm sad to say probably only, if we're being clear-eyed - success of the Luck-Pritchard era. What we do in this dimension in the weeks following the season is the most important thing facing the program. We have no prayer next year without massive transfer infusion in both volume and quality.
247 Transfer Rankings (strictly incoming)
2021: N/A
2022: #116
2023: #75
2024: #128
2025: #54
2026: #130
While we did a great job retaining, we did a minimal job adding transfer talent. Even still, arguably the two best players on our team (certainly two of the ten best, but I think that's underselling them), Davis Warren and Nico Brown, were part of this haul. Even when we bring in transfers at the extreme low end of college football, they're still quite disproportionately among our best players (see also CJ Williams, Clay Patterson, Niki Prongos, Gaethan Bernadel, Jay Green, Jahsiah Galvan, etc.). Why is obvious - selecting people who have established themselves in college is far easier than projecting 16 year olds. This program has no chance at all without 15+ transfers, mostly highly paid, every year. Need to get used to and accommodate in terms of university politics and admissions processes the kind of roster turnover and agility that will require. Non-negotiable or this is a fool's errand.
(My response - in the wrong place ). Agree completely on the 15+ transfers. That’s the reality of today’s college football. Either join in and play – or drop football. There is no in between. What they’re doing now is unfair to the players, the coaches and the fans.
Flying across country to get destroyed by an average team. Why should anybody want to do that?
You could combine the greatest coaches of all time and put them at the helm and there would be minimal improvement. Maybe Wake Forest only beats them 42-21.
Because the deficit in athleticism is extreme.
The 40 year decision is irrelevant at this point. There is no such thing as a student athlete. So, you either join the game or you quit. Joining the game means loosening your standards academically for transfers and paying them big bucks.