[BostonCard]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211085#msg211085 date=1510082266]
As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).

If you don't want to be thought an idiot, do not say idiotic things.
[/quote]

I was going to go with this...



BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211085#msg211085 date=1510082266]
As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).

If you don't want to be thought an idiot, do not say idiotic things.
[/quote]

I was going to go with this...



BC

[Mick]

If the only way to get enjoyment out of rooting for a football team is to watch them win, I suggest you become an Alabama fan.

Yes, all told I prefer winning over losing, and I prefer winning with a dynamic offense over winning with a butt-ugly offense.  But save for disappointment, my enjoyment of rooting for Stanford is not entirely predicated on us winning.  I first came to Stanford during Walsh' second term.  I became hooked on college football when we beat Colorado in a shootout in the fall of 1993 (before I even stepped foot on campus).  Ironically, that was the high water mark for Stanford for the next two years; we had losing seasons in Walsh' last two years.  I then got to enjoy two years of dramatic improvement under Willingham, highlighted by a 7-5 year in 1996 where we drubbed Nick Saban and WSU in the Sun Bowl, a game I enjoyed from the Great Barrier reef.  Ironically, the Sun Bowl was the bowl we went to last year after a "disappointing" season under Shaw, and a 7-5 record is what our "disappointment" this year is likely to be.  Then, back to losing, until 1999 when we started with the disaster against Texas.  We lost 69-17, and I remember the comments on TOS when that happened.  I mean, that was butt-ugly offense and, frankly, it would be hard to call it a butt ugly defense, because the defense was just not there.  And yet... we went to the Rose Bowl that year as the Pac-10 champions.  It is hard to believe, given the results of that first game, and a butt-ugly loss to San Jose friggin State.  But UW lost to UCLA giving them their second Pac-10 loss, and we backed into the Rose Bowl, and nobody was going to look at the first Rose Bowl game in almost 30 years and say we were not worthy.  And then, another losing season... before we beat #5 Oregon and #4 UCLA on consecutive weeks.  The Oregon game was something else (it featured not one, but two blocked punts as we came back from about 14 points down, if I remember).  But that turned out to be the high water mark for sometime.  We finished in a three-way tie for second in the Pac-10, got relegated to the friggin Seattle Bowl, where we played like crap against Georgia Tech in a game we should have dominated, then watched our coach bolt for the Domers, and for all our troubles were rewarded with Buddy Teevens, and later, Walt Harris.

Frankly, I don't see how anybody who survived the ensuing five years, and I know you were one of those, could think that this team is unwatchable or intolerable.

I suppose the upshot is that there is nothing like 3 Rose Bowls in 4 years to give even Stanford fans a sense of entitlement.

BC

Well said.  It's a little bit like golf.  I don't have to shoot 75 to enjoy it.  I can have great days and lousy days.  But a few really good shots...and I always have those...keep me coming back.

[Mick]

If the only way to get enjoyment out of rooting for a football team is to watch them win, I suggest you become an Alabama fan.

Yes, all told I prefer winning over losing, and I prefer winning with a dynamic offense over winning with a butt-ugly offense.  But save for disappointment, my enjoyment of rooting for Stanford is not entirely predicated on us winning.  I first came to Stanford during Walsh' second term.  I became hooked on college football when we beat Colorado in a shootout in the fall of 1993 (before I even stepped foot on campus).  Ironically, that was the high water mark for Stanford for the next two years; we had losing seasons in Walsh' last two years.  I then got to enjoy two years of dramatic improvement under Willingham, highlighted by a 7-5 year in 1996 where we drubbed Nick Saban and WSU in the Sun Bowl, a game I enjoyed from the Great Barrier reef.  Ironically, the Sun Bowl was the bowl we went to last year after a "disappointing" season under Shaw, and a 7-5 record is what our "disappointment" this year is likely to be.  Then, back to losing, until 1999 when we started with the disaster against Texas.  We lost 69-17, and I remember the comments on TOS when that happened.  I mean, that was butt-ugly offense and, frankly, it would be hard to call it a butt ugly defense, because the defense was just not there.  And yet... we went to the Rose Bowl that year as the Pac-10 champions.  It is hard to believe, given the results of that first game, and a butt-ugly loss to San Jose friggin State.  But UW lost to UCLA giving them their second Pac-10 loss, and we backed into the Rose Bowl, and nobody was going to look at the first Rose Bowl game in almost 30 years and say we were not worthy.  And then, another losing season... before we beat #5 Oregon and #4 UCLA on consecutive weeks.  The Oregon game was something else (it featured not one, but two blocked punts as we came back from about 14 points down, if I remember).  But that turned out to be the high water mark for sometime.  We finished in a three-way tie for second in the Pac-10, got relegated to the friggin Seattle Bowl, where we played like crap against Georgia Tech in a game we should have dominated, then watched our coach bolt for the Domers, and for all our troubles were rewarded with Buddy Teevens, and later, Walt Harris.

Frankly, I don't see how anybody who survived the ensuing five years, and I know you were one of those, could think that this team is unwatchable or intolerable.

I suppose the upshot is that there is nothing like 3 Rose Bowls in 4 years to give even Stanford fans a sense of entitlement.

BC

Well said.  It's a little bit like golf.  I don't have to shoot 75 to enjoy it.  I can have great days and lousy days.  But a few really good shots...and I always have those...keep me coming back.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211085#msg211085 date=1510082266]
As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).

If you don't want to be thought an idiot, do not say idiotic things.
[/quote]

+1

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211085#msg211085 date=1510082266]
As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).

If you don't want to be thought an idiot, do not say idiotic things.
[/quote]

+1

[Stymie]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17909.msg211137#msg211137 date=1510105460]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211085#msg211085 date=1510082266]
As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).

If you don't want to be thought an idiot, do not say idiotic things.
[/quote]

I was going to go with this...



BC
[/quote]

I'll fully agree with the slut word, but "ignorant?", no evidence anybody who knows me......

[Stymie]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17909.msg211137#msg211137 date=1510105460]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211085#msg211085 date=1510082266]
As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).

If you don't want to be thought an idiot, do not say idiotic things.
[/quote]

I was going to go with this...



BC
[/quote]

I'll fully agree with the slut word, but "ignorant?", no evidence anybody who knows me......

[CornFed]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17909.msg211144#msg211144 date=1510107394]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17909.msg211137#msg211137 date=1510105460]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211085#msg211085 date=1510082266]
As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).

If you don't want to be thought an idiot, do not say idiotic things.
[/quote]

I was going to go with this...



BC
[/quote]

I'll fully agree with the slut word, but "ignorant?", no evidence anybody who knows me......
[/quote]

Other than your post at 11:17:46

[CornFed]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17909.msg211144#msg211144 date=1510107394]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17909.msg211137#msg211137 date=1510105460]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211085#msg211085 date=1510082266]
As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).

If you don't want to be thought an idiot, do not say idiotic things.
[/quote]

I was going to go with this...



BC
[/quote]

I'll fully agree with the slut word, but "ignorant?", no evidence anybody who knows me......
[/quote]

Other than your post at 11:17:46

[Mick]

As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).  The 71 and 72 wins (which were top end contests) were massively better than the recent 3 out of 4 against fellow 2nd rate opponents.  No contest.

You cannot be serious.

That "second tier" bowl has been the best attended bowl game since 1945 by more than 10,000 per game, and last year was the best attended by almost 20,000.  The Rose Bowl was attended by 95,128, the second-most attendance was the Peach Bowl (featuring another Pac-12 team, Washington) had 75,996 in attendance.  By comparison, the national title game had less than 75k in attendance. 

As part of the BCS Rotation, its payout is tied for first when it's a championship game, tied for third when it isn't.  It was the fourth highest rated bowl game by television viewers at 16.25 million, #5 was the Orange Bowl at 11.7 million.

That doesn't even include the massively-attended, nationally-televised Rose parade watched by 46.79 million people nationwide in 2017.  If the national title game were to add 60% more viewers, it still wouldn't touch the Rose parade viewership.

Sports Illustrated's #1 bowl game of all time was the Texas vs. U$C 2006 Rose Bowl, when Texas had a 19 game winning streak and U$C had a 34 game winning streak.  Television audience was 35.6 million, ten million more than this year's Alabama vs. whoever game.  And in 2004, U$C won the #1 AP ranking when they won the Rose Bowl, even though they weren't in the championship game.  This past season, both the Chicago Tribune and Sports Illustrated rated the Rose Bowl as the second best bowl game of forty.  Incidentally, they rated the Sun Bowl featuring Stanford as the fourth best bowl game of forty.  The year before, USA Today rated the Rose Bowl as the third-best Bowl, stating "'the Granddaddy' easily heads the list of non-playoff matchups."

The Rose Bowl is the "Granddaddy of All Bowl Games," having first been played in 1902, then every year since 1916, even during wartime.  The next oldest bowl are the orange and sugar bowls (they deserve lower case) having first been played in 1935, then the cotton bowl in 1937.

The Rose Bowl was the first Bowl game to have attendance of 20k (Oregon vs. Penn), 30k (Oregon vs. Harvard), 40k (C.al vs. Ohio State, and yes, it was a long time ago in 1921), 50k (Stanford vs. 4 pony ND in 1925), 60k (Stanford v. Pitt, 1928), 70k (U$C vs. Pitt, 1930), 80k (Stanford vs. Alabama, 1934), 90k (C.al vs. Alabama) and 100k (C.al vs. Ohio State, 1950).

The best-attended Orange bowl had just over 80k in attendance.  Every Rose Bowl since 1944 has had more than that (thanks wartime travel restrictions!).  That year, 56k watched the Rose bowl, 24k attended the Orange bowl.

Pac-12 teams have won 50 Rose Bowls, Big Ten teams have won 31.  Stanford has won seven of them, same as Ohio State and Washington.  Penn, Brown, Harvard, Columbia, Navy, SMU and ND have all appeared in Rose Bowls.  Alabama has won four of them.

The Rose Bowl all-century class include George Halas (who played for Navy) and Ernie Nevers.  See, the Rose Bowl is the only Bowl that has an all-century class because -- well -- they're the only bowl that's been around for a century.  The first inductees to the Rose Bowl hall of fame included three coaches -- Bump Elliott (UM), Woody Hayes (tOSU), Howard Jones (SC) and just one player, #16 for Stanford.  I feel like I need to tell you to look up that player.

The 1952 Rose Bowl was the first nationally-televised bowl game and the first nationally televised college game in any sport.

The Rose Bowl has a number of famous events associated with it, including the Lawry's Beef Bowl (look it up), the Hall of Fame ceremony, the Kickoff luncheon, the Rose Bowl Game Public tailgate, and of course, the Rose Parade.  It's even been the subject of the greatest collegiate prank of all time (thanks, CalTech!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rose_Bowl_Hoax

"If there are any Big Ten teams that shoot for a national championship, they're damn fools...  You play to win the Big Ten championship, and if you win it and go to the Rose Bowl and win it, then you've had a great season."  Bo Schembechler.  of course, he only went 2-8 in the Rose Bowl.

But most of all, The Rose Bowl is a major bowl because Stanford has been in it 15 times, third most in the history of the game.  By definition then, it is a major, first tier bowl...  :P

[Mick]

As for the Rose Bowl, it is a second-tier venue (except when it is a CFB final).  The 71 and 72 wins (which were top end contests) were massively better than the recent 3 out of 4 against fellow 2nd rate opponents.  No contest.

You cannot be serious.

That "second tier" bowl has been the best attended bowl game since 1945 by more than 10,000 per game, and last year was the best attended by almost 20,000.  The Rose Bowl was attended by 95,128, the second-most attendance was the Peach Bowl (featuring another Pac-12 team, Washington) had 75,996 in attendance.  By comparison, the national title game had less than 75k in attendance. 

As part of the BCS Rotation, its payout is tied for first when it's a championship game, tied for third when it isn't.  It was the fourth highest rated bowl game by television viewers at 16.25 million, #5 was the Orange Bowl at 11.7 million.

That doesn't even include the massively-attended, nationally-televised Rose parade watched by 46.79 million people nationwide in 2017.  If the national title game were to add 60% more viewers, it still wouldn't touch the Rose parade viewership.

Sports Illustrated's #1 bowl game of all time was the Texas vs. U$C 2006 Rose Bowl, when Texas had a 19 game winning streak and U$C had a 34 game winning streak.  Television audience was 35.6 million, ten million more than this year's Alabama vs. whoever game.  And in 2004, U$C won the #1 AP ranking when they won the Rose Bowl, even though they weren't in the championship game.  This past season, both the Chicago Tribune and Sports Illustrated rated the Rose Bowl as the second best bowl game of forty.  Incidentally, they rated the Sun Bowl featuring Stanford as the fourth best bowl game of forty.  The year before, USA Today rated the Rose Bowl as the third-best Bowl, stating "'the Granddaddy' easily heads the list of non-playoff matchups."

The Rose Bowl is the "Granddaddy of All Bowl Games," having first been played in 1902, then every year since 1916, even during wartime.  The next oldest bowl are the orange and sugar bowls (they deserve lower case) having first been played in 1935, then the cotton bowl in 1937.

The Rose Bowl was the first Bowl game to have attendance of 20k (Oregon vs. Penn), 30k (Oregon vs. Harvard), 40k (C.al vs. Ohio State, and yes, it was a long time ago in 1921), 50k (Stanford vs. 4 pony ND in 1925), 60k (Stanford v. Pitt, 1928), 70k (U$C vs. Pitt, 1930), 80k (Stanford vs. Alabama, 1934), 90k (C.al vs. Alabama) and 100k (C.al vs. Ohio State, 1950).

The best-attended Orange bowl had just over 80k in attendance.  Every Rose Bowl since 1944 has had more than that (thanks wartime travel restrictions!).  That year, 56k watched the Rose bowl, 24k attended the Orange bowl.

Pac-12 teams have won 50 Rose Bowls, Big Ten teams have won 31.  Stanford has won seven of them, same as Ohio State and Washington.  Penn, Brown, Harvard, Columbia, Navy, SMU and ND have all appeared in Rose Bowls.  Alabama has won four of them.

The Rose Bowl all-century class include George Halas (who played for Navy) and Ernie Nevers.  See, the Rose Bowl is the only Bowl that has an all-century class because -- well -- they're the only bowl that's been around for a century.  The first inductees to the Rose Bowl hall of fame included three coaches -- Bump Elliott (UM), Woody Hayes (tOSU), Howard Jones (SC) and just one player, #16 for Stanford.  I feel like I need to tell you to look up that player.

The 1952 Rose Bowl was the first nationally-televised bowl game and the first nationally televised college game in any sport.

The Rose Bowl has a number of famous events associated with it, including the Lawry's Beef Bowl (look it up), the Hall of Fame ceremony, the Kickoff luncheon, the Rose Bowl Game Public tailgate, and of course, the Rose Parade.  It's even been the subject of the greatest collegiate prank of all time (thanks, CalTech!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rose_Bowl_Hoax

"If there are any Big Ten teams that shoot for a national championship, they're damn fools...  You play to win the Big Ten championship, and if you win it and go to the Rose Bowl and win it, then you've had a great season."  Bo Schembechler.  of course, he only went 2-8 in the Rose Bowl.

But most of all, The Rose Bowl is a major bowl because Stanford has been in it 15 times, third most in the history of the game.  By definition then, it is a major, first tier bowl...  :P

[Stymie]

I can in fact be very serious, but not when discussing trivial matters such as the Rose Bowl.

PS-nice last paragraph, Mick!

[Stymie]

I can in fact be very serious, but not when discussing trivial matters such as the Rose Bowl.

PS-nice last paragraph, Mick!

[teejers1]

BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

And Goose, I agree that an OL that is worthless will lead to a butt-ugly offense every time.  But these guys are so above "worthless" it's ridiculous.  They are good players. 

How did AZ bury WSU?  How did Cal win so easily? (I know TOs had a lot to do with it). 

At some point, after multiple games of pathetic offensive showings (with a good roster of O talent) - and there have been so many games of underperformance under this regime - you have to start accepting that there is a problem on the  sidelines.  The kids are not being coached up to anywhere near their peak performance.

And it is killing fan interest in this program.

[teejers1]

BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

And Goose, I agree that an OL that is worthless will lead to a butt-ugly offense every time.  But these guys are so above "worthless" it's ridiculous.  They are good players. 

How did AZ bury WSU?  How did Cal win so easily? (I know TOs had a lot to do with it). 

At some point, after multiple games of pathetic offensive showings (with a good roster of O talent) - and there have been so many games of underperformance under this regime - you have to start accepting that there is a problem on the  sidelines.  The kids are not being coached up to anywhere near their peak performance.

And it is killing fan interest in this program.

[cardcrimson]

BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

And Goose, I agree that an OL that is worthless will lead to a butt-ugly offense every time.  But these guys are so above "worthless" it's ridiculous.  They are good players. 

How did AZ bury WSU?  How did ןɐɔ win so easily? (I know TOs had a lot to do with it). 

At some point, after multiple games of pathetic offensive showings (with a good roster of O talent) - and there have been so many games of underperformance under this regime - you have to start accepting that there is a problem on the  sidelines.  The kids are not being coached up to anywhere near their peak performance.

And it is killing fan interest in this program.

Wow, extremely well put. BTW,  I finally agree with you on something. Common ground is a great thing. +1

[cardcrimson]

BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

And Goose, I agree that an OL that is worthless will lead to a butt-ugly offense every time.  But these guys are so above "worthless" it's ridiculous.  They are good players. 

How did AZ bury WSU?  How did ןɐɔ win so easily? (I know TOs had a lot to do with it). 

At some point, after multiple games of pathetic offensive showings (with a good roster of O talent) - and there have been so many games of underperformance under this regime - you have to start accepting that there is a problem on the  sidelines.  The kids are not being coached up to anywhere near their peak performance.

And it is killing fan interest in this program.

Wow, extremely well put. BTW,  I finally agree with you on something. Common ground is a great thing. +1

[JohnR34231]

Interesting fact.
In Jim Plunkett's senior year (yes the one in which he won the H-man and we won the Rose Bowl) we had four games in which we scored fewer points than we have in a game this year.
Now I realize someone will come up with all sorts of reasons why that is an apples to oranges comparison, but I still thought it was interesting.

[JohnR34231]

Interesting fact.
In Jim Plunkett's senior year (yes the one in which he won the H-man and we won the Rose Bowl) we had four games in which we scored fewer points than we have in a game this year.
Now I realize someone will come up with all sorts of reasons why that is an apples to oranges comparison, but I still thought it was interesting.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=17909.msg211188#msg211188 date=1510159176]
BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

And Goose, I agree that an OL that is worthless will lead to a butt-ugly offense every time.  But these guys are so above "worthless" it's ridiculous.  They are good players. 

How did AZ bury WSU?  How did ןɐɔ win so easily? (I know TOs had a lot to do with it). 

At some point, after multiple games of pathetic offensive showings (with a good roster of O talent) - and there have been so many games of underperformance under this regime - you have to start accepting that there is a problem on the  sidelines.  The kids are not being coached up to anywhere near their peak performance.

And it is killing fan interest in this program.

Wow, extremely well put. BTW,  I finally agree with you on something. Common ground is a great thing. +1
[/quote]

The specifics have been debated ad nauseam for several years all over the internet -- hire a dedicated OC, make someone the OL coach exclusively, upgrade the QB coach, give accountability for red zone playcalling to someone else, widen the OL splits in ogre to prevent the backside defender from pulling the RB down behind the LOS, install a varied blitz package, simplify the 10,000-page playbook, have Shaw step back from x's and o's to a Ralston-like head administrator/motivator model, etc etc.

But nothing happens unless 1) David Shaw first perceives there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  And 2) if he does perceive a problem, the real question is if the various fixes involve "better execution" (which is Shaw's historic party line) or a whole different approach.

I'm not convinced we're even at step 1 yet.  And it is, what it is.  At this point, we don't know what's going on in Shaw's mind, and not much matters unless and until we do.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=17909.msg211188#msg211188 date=1510159176]
BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

And Goose, I agree that an OL that is worthless will lead to a butt-ugly offense every time.  But these guys are so above "worthless" it's ridiculous.  They are good players. 

How did AZ bury WSU?  How did ןɐɔ win so easily? (I know TOs had a lot to do with it). 

At some point, after multiple games of pathetic offensive showings (with a good roster of O talent) - and there have been so many games of underperformance under this regime - you have to start accepting that there is a problem on the  sidelines.  The kids are not being coached up to anywhere near their peak performance.

And it is killing fan interest in this program.

Wow, extremely well put. BTW,  I finally agree with you on something. Common ground is a great thing. +1
[/quote]

The specifics have been debated ad nauseam for several years all over the internet -- hire a dedicated OC, make someone the OL coach exclusively, upgrade the QB coach, give accountability for red zone playcalling to someone else, widen the OL splits in ogre to prevent the backside defender from pulling the RB down behind the LOS, install a varied blitz package, simplify the 10,000-page playbook, have Shaw step back from x's and o's to a Ralston-like head administrator/motivator model, etc etc.

But nothing happens unless 1) David Shaw first perceives there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  And 2) if he does perceive a problem, the real question is if the various fixes involve "better execution" (which is Shaw's historic party line) or a whole different approach.

I'm not convinced we're even at step 1 yet.  And it is, what it is.  At this point, we don't know what's going on in Shaw's mind, and not much matters unless and until we do.

[martyup]

On this issue of whether the Rose Bowl is second tier, Mick just blew it up with a knock out blow.

[martyup]

On this issue of whether the Rose Bowl is second tier, Mick just blew it up with a knock out blow.

[Stymie]

Que?

[Stymie]

Que?

[thunder_chik]

The great Vin Scully says, "Good is not good when better is expected."

I expect us to win 2 of the next 3 games...

[thunder_chik]

The great Vin Scully says, "Good is not good when better is expected."

I expect us to win 2 of the next 3 games...

[CowboyIndian]

I'll fully agree with the slut word, but "ignorant?", no evidence anybody who knows me......

I'll bet there aren't a lot of volunteers.

[CowboyIndian]

I'll fully agree with the slut word, but "ignorant?", no evidence anybody who knows me......

I'll bet there aren't a lot of volunteers.

[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211155#msg211155 date=1510113960]
I'll fully agree with the slut word, but "ignorant?", no evidence anybody who knows me......

I'll bet there aren't a lot of volunteers.
[/quote]

Have a nice day, CI.

[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17909.msg211155#msg211155 date=1510113960]
I'll fully agree with the slut word, but "ignorant?", no evidence anybody who knows me......

I'll bet there aren't a lot of volunteers.
[/quote]

Have a nice day, CI.

[BostonCard]

BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

Perhaps it seems like a strawman because I am having a hard time parsing your exact complaint.  But I will do my best with your last post.

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

Others have made the points for me, but I will recap:
1) Our performance to date (6-3) is broadly in line with what was expected by neutral observers going into the year.  Hell, Wilner has nailed the result of each and every game so far this year.  More broadly, Shaw has over-performed expectations most years, whether measured by his record against the spread, the final ranking versus pre-season ranking, number of wins versus what was expected, or results versus recruiting rankings.  So, I reject your assertion that generally Shaw puts out an underperforming team generally.  Of course, it is hard to outperform expectations all the time (since expectations eventually catch up), which is why I don't get caught up during those relatively few times when the team does underperform (for example, much of 2014).

2) The offense is not as bad as you make it out to be, whether you use advanced metrics or simpler metrics like yards per play.  If you are going to point to individual games where the offense has sucked (SDSU, OSU, WSU), then you should also point to individual games where the offense has played well (Rice, UCLA, ASU, Oregon).  So, while the complaint about inconsistency is valid, I don't think the complaint about not meeting expectations is.

3) As WIM has pointed out, this is one of the youngest offenses in Shaw's tenure, and features a true freshman left tackle, a redshirt freshman quarterback, very few seniors, and only one player (David Bright) who will exhaust eligibility after this year.  The inconsistency we have seen on offense is thus not all that surprising.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

You seem to be blaming Shaw for a long term secular trend.  The reasons for this thread have been well-discussed, and I don't see those fundamental reasons reversing in the near future. I would love to see a graph of average attendance over time.  My guess is that it has more or less continually declined, aside from the odd/even year cycles and a general correlation to our record.

I'm sorry your friend(s) will not come on Friday.  I assume you will be.  I certainly will.  I mean, you and I may disagree, but by choosing not to watch the game (and saving himself from the frustration he will experience when the offense stalls) he will also miss the excitement when Love (or McCaffrey before him) hit the crease and is gone (10 times so far this year from 50 or more yards out).

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

I don't know these folks so I won't characterize them.  The bottom line is that Stanford has been a winner, but I think a lot of it has to do with context.  If we had a season like this 3 years removed from the 1-10 crapola season that Wlat Harris put up, in the context of not having been to a bowl game in 7 years, I think the excitement would be quite palpable, and we would be delighted to be heading to the Sun Bowl, led by a dynamic running back and featuring a redshirt freshman QB who we would expect to only get better (by the way, interestingly in 2009 we scored 35.5 ppg and averaged 6.5 ypp with an offense that featured junior Toby Gerhart and a RS Frosh QB Andrew Luck; this year we are averaging 33.7 ppg and 6.9 ypp).  And lest you suggest the talent on the squad today is better than 2009, that 2009 team had: Andrew Luck, Toby Gerhart, David DeCastro, Jonathan Martin, Own Marecic, Chris Owusu, Ryan Whalen, Jim Dray, Coby Fleener, Konrad Reuland, Chase Beeler, Chris Marinelli, and Andrew Phillips. 

The results are really not all that much different from 2009; what is vastly different is our perspective.  Becoming bowl eligible is no longer a dramatic accomplishment.  Having a winning season is de rigeur.  Winning 7, 8, or 9 games in a season does not generate excitement; it  generates disappointment because such a win total would be below Shaw's average.  That this is true is actually a testament to Shaw.

I know a lot of people are worried that the trend is towards mediocrity, whereas in 2009 the trend was unmistakably towards improvement. The "other shoe will drop" crowd keeps expecting a return to the days when we would struggle to have a winning season.  And yes, someday it will happen; we will have a losing season and may even find ourselves mired in a prolonged slump.  But with 6 winning seasons under his belt, I'm ready to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt and wait until he actually loses more games than he wins before proclaiming the end of the golden era of Stanford football.

BC

[BostonCard]

BC, once again, raises the straw man about "if you only enjoy a winner, root for Alabama."  Please.  I've supported Stanford WAY longer than most here and almost all of that period has been for "less than winning" teams.  And in truth, it is YOU who are taking the "root for a winner" position because the "defense" of this regime's pathetic offensive showing is often "hey, look at the W/L record."

Perhaps it seems like a strawman because I am having a hard time parsing your exact complaint.  But I will do my best with your last post.

This goes beyond W/L record.  And if you don't (or won't) see what an underperforming team - and particularly, here, on offense - does to a fan base, then we might as well all throw around straw men in our discussions.

Others have made the points for me, but I will recap:
1) Our performance to date (6-3) is broadly in line with what was expected by neutral observers going into the year.  Hell, Wilner has nailed the result of each and every game so far this year.  More broadly, Shaw has over-performed expectations most years, whether measured by his record against the spread, the final ranking versus pre-season ranking, number of wins versus what was expected, or results versus recruiting rankings.  So, I reject your assertion that generally Shaw puts out an underperforming team generally.  Of course, it is hard to outperform expectations all the time (since expectations eventually catch up), which is why I don't get caught up during those relatively few times when the team does underperform (for example, much of 2014).

2) The offense is not as bad as you make it out to be, whether you use advanced metrics or simpler metrics like yards per play.  If you are going to point to individual games where the offense has sucked (SDSU, OSU, WSU), then you should also point to individual games where the offense has played well (Rice, UCLA, ASU, Oregon).  So, while the complaint about inconsistency is valid, I don't think the complaint about not meeting expectations is.

3) As WIM has pointed out, this is one of the youngest offenses in Shaw's tenure, and features a true freshman left tackle, a redshirt freshman quarterback, very few seniors, and only one player (David Bright) who will exhaust eligibility after this year.  The inconsistency we have seen on offense is thus not all that surprising.

This goes to the heart of program health - unless and until we can all dispense with people in the stands and just put in cardboard cutouts for TV.  Forget the fan boards (which are up in arms), what about your personal emails?  I'm getting a bunch of emails from friends all over the country who are asking WTF is going on?  How can this Stanford team be so pathetic on offense.  And these are my schoolmates from the early '80s - i.e., folks who have attended/supported Stanford football through many non-winning seasons.  A season ticket holder in LA sent me his UW tix and said "I can't watch the game.  I mean, I can, but I won't.  Too frustrating."  That is a very real and growing sentiment.

You seem to be blaming Shaw for a long term secular trend.  The reasons for this thread have been well-discussed, and I don't see those fundamental reasons reversing in the near future. I would love to see a graph of average attendance over time.  My guess is that it has more or less continually declined, aside from the odd/even year cycles and a general correlation to our record.

I'm sorry your friend(s) will not come on Friday.  I assume you will be.  I certainly will.  I mean, you and I may disagree, but by choosing not to watch the game (and saving himself from the frustration he will experience when the offense stalls) he will also miss the excitement when Love (or McCaffrey before him) hit the crease and is gone (10 times so far this year from 50 or more yards out).

Now, you and Goose and others may characterize all these folks as "just band-wagoners who only support a winner," and I can authoritatively say you are full of it if you think that.  Unless Stanford turns this around and wins some games down the stretch, I dread what the stands will look like next season (in the bad, even year schedule).

I don't know these folks so I won't characterize them.  The bottom line is that Stanford has been a winner, but I think a lot of it has to do with context.  If we had a season like this 3 years removed from the 1-10 crapola season that Wlat Harris put up, in the context of not having been to a bowl game in 7 years, I think the excitement would be quite palpable, and we would be delighted to be heading to the Sun Bowl, led by a dynamic running back and featuring a redshirt freshman QB who we would expect to only get better (by the way, interestingly in 2009 we scored 35.5 ppg and averaged 6.5 ypp with an offense that featured junior Toby Gerhart and a RS Frosh QB Andrew Luck; this year we are averaging 33.7 ppg and 6.9 ypp).  And lest you suggest the talent on the squad today is better than 2009, that 2009 team had: Andrew Luck, Toby Gerhart, David DeCastro, Jonathan Martin, Own Marecic, Chris Owusu, Ryan Whalen, Jim Dray, Coby Fleener, Konrad Reuland, Chase Beeler, Chris Marinelli, and Andrew Phillips. 

The results are really not all that much different from 2009; what is vastly different is our perspective.  Becoming bowl eligible is no longer a dramatic accomplishment.  Having a winning season is de rigeur.  Winning 7, 8, or 9 games in a season does not generate excitement; it  generates disappointment because such a win total would be below Shaw's average.  That this is true is actually a testament to Shaw.

I know a lot of people are worried that the trend is towards mediocrity, whereas in 2009 the trend was unmistakably towards improvement. The "other shoe will drop" crowd keeps expecting a return to the days when we would struggle to have a winning season.  And yes, someday it will happen; we will have a losing season and may even find ourselves mired in a prolonged slump.  But with 6 winning seasons under his belt, I'm ready to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt and wait until he actually loses more games than he wins before proclaiming the end of the golden era of Stanford football.

BC

[CornFed]

ka-BOOM!!

[CornFed]

ka-BOOM!!

[teejers1]

Cornfed, should you, BC, or I turn out the lights as the last fans to leave?  (I'm assuming you actually go to the games).  Whoever it is, go ahead and say "ka-BOOM!" as you're flipping the switch - it might make you feel better.

[teejers1]

Cornfed, should you, BC, or I turn out the lights as the last fans to leave?  (I'm assuming you actually go to the games).  Whoever it is, go ahead and say "ka-BOOM!" as you're flipping the switch - it might make you feel better.

[BostonCard]

Cornfed, should you, BC, or I turn out the lights as the last fans to leave?  (I'm assuming you actually go to the games).  Whoever it is, go ahead and say "ka-BOOM!" as you're flipping the switch - it might make you feel better.

Let’s stop with the hyperbole.  I think when you spout such ridiculousness you undermine your case for making more substantive arguments that are worth debating.

Stanford football survived the Buddy and Walt years, a time when a significiant fraction of fans wondered aloud whether we should leave Div I football.  For all your complaints, Stanford football under Shaw is much more successful and exciting than back in the days of the shotgun draw behind a crap OL and quick-kicking on third down.

I have questions about the long term (50-plus year) viability of college football generally and Stanford football specifically.  Those questions have nothing to do with Shaw, our perceived offensive inadequacies, or the possibility that we might lose some games this year.

BC

[BostonCard]

Cornfed, should you, BC, or I turn out the lights as the last fans to leave?  (I'm assuming you actually go to the games).  Whoever it is, go ahead and say "ka-BOOM!" as you're flipping the switch - it might make you feel better.

Let’s stop with the hyperbole.  I think when you spout such ridiculousness you undermine your case for making more substantive arguments that are worth debating.

Stanford football survived the Buddy and Walt years, a time when a significiant fraction of fans wondered aloud whether we should leave Div I football.  For all your complaints, Stanford football under Shaw is much more successful and exciting than back in the days of the shotgun draw behind a crap OL and quick-kicking on third down.

I have questions about the long term (50-plus year) viability of college football generally and Stanford football specifically.  Those questions have nothing to do with Shaw, our perceived offensive inadequacies, or the possibility that we might lose some games this year.

BC