[ColoradoTree]

The specifics of the article are obviously objectionable, but depending on how one defines the term "powerhouse," calling Stanford a "regional powerhouse" in terms of the on-field product seems less objectionable. 

In recruiting, we certainly can't be called regional given our national reach, and I'd argue that we've been recruiting near the ceiling of what is possible at Stanford, so in that sense we're not merely a regional powerhouse.

But what does it mean to be a powerhouse?  I took the article to be arguing that Stanford is a very good team that hasn't broken through to the unquestioned top level for various reasons.  The arguments are Baylessian, the takes hotter than molten lava, but I guess I'm just not offended by the notion that some people think of us as a very good team that usually falls short of unquestioned national hegemony.  If we think of powerhouse as those programs that look at their roster each summer and think, "we should absolutely be in the mix for a national title, and I expect that," that's a pretty narrow definition that would seem to include Alabama and maybe Ohio State these days, perhaps with an Oklahoma or FSU or someone else like that mixed in.  I've usually seen Stanford football as a "maybe we could sneak into the playoff if things go perfectly and we catch a couple breaks" program, but that's not a bad thing!  We've unquestionably been the best team in the Pac-12 over the last several years.  We also haven't made either the playoff or the BCS championship game.  I think we're on a rung below the Alabamas and the Ohio States of the world in terms of on-field product, but really, so is the rest of college football.  When all of the stars align, we've got a shot; we just have more stars to align than other schools, given academic/admissions requirements and how our roster needs don't necessarily line up with the positions that qualified applicants play in a given class. 

Of course, if we define powerhouse more broadly, to include consistency of top-level performance, all of the 10-win seasons and the Rose Bowl wins make it pretty hard to consider us as anything other than a national powerhouse right now. 

Obviously, I love Stanford football or I wouldn't be spending so much darn time on this board talking about them to you folks.  But when I hear folks describe Stanford as merely a "regional powerhouse," I think to myself, "wait, that's supposed to be a bad thing?"  It seems like a pretty great place to be from where I sit. 

[ColoradoTree]

The specifics of the article are obviously objectionable, but depending on how one defines the term "powerhouse," calling Stanford a "regional powerhouse" in terms of the on-field product seems less objectionable. 

In recruiting, we certainly can't be called regional given our national reach, and I'd argue that we've been recruiting near the ceiling of what is possible at Stanford, so in that sense we're not merely a regional powerhouse.

But what does it mean to be a powerhouse?  I took the article to be arguing that Stanford is a very good team that hasn't broken through to the unquestioned top level for various reasons.  The arguments are Baylessian, the takes hotter than molten lava, but I guess I'm just not offended by the notion that some people think of us as a very good team that usually falls short of unquestioned national hegemony.  If we think of powerhouse as those programs that look at their roster each summer and think, "we should absolutely be in the mix for a national title, and I expect that," that's a pretty narrow definition that would seem to include Alabama and maybe Ohio State these days, perhaps with an Oklahoma or FSU or someone else like that mixed in.  I've usually seen Stanford football as a "maybe we could sneak into the playoff if things go perfectly and we catch a couple breaks" program, but that's not a bad thing!  We've unquestionably been the best team in the Pac-12 over the last several years.  We also haven't made either the playoff or the BCS championship game.  I think we're on a rung below the Alabamas and the Ohio States of the world in terms of on-field product, but really, so is the rest of college football.  When all of the stars align, we've got a shot; we just have more stars to align than other schools, given academic/admissions requirements and how our roster needs don't necessarily line up with the positions that qualified applicants play in a given class. 

Of course, if we define powerhouse more broadly, to include consistency of top-level performance, all of the 10-win seasons and the Rose Bowl wins make it pretty hard to consider us as anything other than a national powerhouse right now. 

Obviously, I love Stanford football or I wouldn't be spending so much darn time on this board talking about them to you folks.  But when I hear folks describe Stanford as merely a "regional powerhouse," I think to myself, "wait, that's supposed to be a bad thing?"  It seems like a pretty great place to be from where I sit.