[Rally]

"9 - 3 would be a very good year over the last 10 years, but would cause anguish here and elsewhere."  

I'm not in this camp as a per se rule.  Same would apply for 8-4.  Or even 10-2.

As stated elsewhere, I don't think any of us can evaluate if the team played well or poorly - or was coached well or poorly - until after the games are played.  A good example is SC, if the Literature's Most Famous Losers are truly depleted when we play them next weekend, then it's possible a W over them isn't necessarily a great one and a L would be a bad one.  The reverse is true, too, if Stanford were to lose a key player or two for game(s) in 2014.

And then there will undoubtedly be teams that are unexpectedly better (and worse) than anticipated, and that affects the calculus, too.  9-3 could be a good season, or it could be a season of lost opportunities - it all depends on stuff we don't know yet.

See 10 pt underdog A&M vs South Carolina.

[Rally]

"9 - 3 would be a very good year over the last 10 years, but would cause anguish here and elsewhere."  

I'm not in this camp as a per se rule.  Same would apply for 8-4.  Or even 10-2.

As stated elsewhere, I don't think any of us can evaluate if the team played well or poorly - or was coached well or poorly - until after the games are played.  A good example is SC, if the Literature's Most Famous Losers are truly depleted when we play them next weekend, then it's possible a W over them isn't necessarily a great one and a L would be a bad one.  The reverse is true, too, if Stanford were to lose a key player or two for game(s) in 2014.

And then there will undoubtedly be teams that are unexpectedly better (and worse) than anticipated, and that affects the calculus, too.  9-3 could be a good season, or it could be a season of lost opportunities - it all depends on stuff we don't know yet.

See 10 pt underdog A&M vs South Carolina.