[fullmetal]

His Pac-10 prediction is that Stanford finishes 6th (7-5, 5-4 Pac-10).  Ahead of Stanford, in ranked order, are Oregon, Oregon St., Arizona, USC, and Washington.  Ouch.

Arizona at Stanford is a key conference game because, "If the Wildcats hope to get over the hump and contend for a title, they need to start winning road games like this. (They lost at Washington and Cal last season.)"

Cold shower here.

[fullmetal]

His Pac-10 prediction is that Stanford finishes 6th (7-5, 5-4 Pac-10).  Ahead of Stanford, in ranked order, are Oregon, Oregon St., Arizona, USC, and Washington.  Ouch.

Arizona at Stanford is a key conference game because, "If the Wildcats hope to get over the hump and contend for a title, they need to start winning road games like this. (They lost at Washington and Cal last season.)"

Cold shower here.

[calumnus]

His Pac-10 prediction is that Stanford finishes 6th (7-5, 5-4 Pac-10).  Ahead of Stanford, in ranked order, are Oregon, Oregon St., Arizona, USC, and Washington.  Ouch.

Arizona at Stanford is a key conference game because, "If the Wildcats hope to get over the hump and contend for a title, they need to start winning road games like this. (They lost at Washington and kal last season.)"

Cold shower here.

The media predictions are strange this year, but in their defense, it is tough to know how Oregon does with a new QB and SC does without a head coach and no chance of a bowl, which leaves the conference wide open for everyone except WSU to step up. At least Mandel has you guys with a winning record and finishing above UCLA, whose coaches are waiting for kids to show up on campus this week and check into the dorms so they can find some offensive linemen.

[calumnus]

His Pac-10 prediction is that Stanford finishes 6th (7-5, 5-4 Pac-10).  Ahead of Stanford, in ranked order, are Oregon, Oregon St., Arizona, USC, and Washington.  Ouch.

Arizona at Stanford is a key conference game because, "If the Wildcats hope to get over the hump and contend for a title, they need to start winning road games like this. (They lost at Washington and kal last season.)"

Cold shower here.

The media predictions are strange this year, but in their defense, it is tough to know how Oregon does with a new QB and SC does without a head coach and no chance of a bowl, which leaves the conference wide open for everyone except WSU to step up. At least Mandel has you guys with a winning record and finishing above UCLA, whose coaches are waiting for kids to show up on campus this week and check into the dorms so they can find some offensive linemen.

[washingtonismoney]

Nowhere has the media been stranger than on the subject of USC. You\'d think last year would have convinced them not to allow their reputation to precede them, yet here we are: I haven\'t seen anyone pick USC below fifth, and many have USC "winning" the conference.

[washingtonismoney]

Nowhere has the media been stranger than on the subject of USC. You\'d think last year would have convinced them not to allow their reputation to precede them, yet here we are: I haven\'t seen anyone pick USC below fifth, and many have USC "winning" the conference.

[JohnR34231]

Just like no one ever got fired for buying from IBM, no sports writer ever got fired for picking USC to finish high in the conference.

[JohnR34231]

Just like no one ever got fired for buying from IBM, no sports writer ever got fired for picking USC to finish high in the conference.

[Mick]

How many players and recruits have they lost?

[Mick]

How many players and recruits have they lost?

[washingtonismoney]

As to how many players Lane Kiffin has at his disposal: he claims 53 (see: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/preview10/...id=5484021), which is excluding players he intends to redshirt.

As to the logic behind Mandel\'s prediction: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...?eref=sihp

After seeing it, I don\'t think it makes much sense. He thinks Stanford\'s defense will become more of a liability because...other defenses will be better? This doesn\'t seem to make much sense on its face and I think the factual claim is lacking: Pac-10 defenses weren\'t much last year and most of its top performers (i.e. All-Pac-10) left (I seem to remember Ted Miller providing the exact numbers on this, but alas I can\'t find it at the moment.) (Though this link does make it clear that fewer defensive than offensive players are returning: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/...g-starters)

Mandel, I think, is fairly knowledgeable though not particularly insightful about the media-hogging conferences (i.e. Big Ten and SEC), and not so knowledgeable and less insightful about the rest of them.

[washingtonismoney]

As to how many players Lane Kiffin has at his disposal: he claims 53 (see: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/preview10/...id=5484021), which is excluding players he intends to redshirt.

As to the logic behind Mandel\'s prediction: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...?eref=sihp

After seeing it, I don\'t think it makes much sense. He thinks Stanford\'s defense will become more of a liability because...other defenses will be better? This doesn\'t seem to make much sense on its face and I think the factual claim is lacking: Pac-10 defenses weren\'t much last year and most of its top performers (i.e. All-Pac-10) left (I seem to remember Ted Miller providing the exact numbers on this, but alas I can\'t find it at the moment.) (Though this link does make it clear that fewer defensive than offensive players are returning: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/...g-starters)

Mandel, I think, is fairly knowledgeable though not particularly insightful about the media-hogging conferences (i.e. Big Ten and SEC), and not so knowledgeable and less insightful about the rest of them.

[fullmetal]

And now we know why Mandel is down on Stanford: defense.

I keep hearing all this talk about Stanford being a darkhorse team this year (ranked in most publications) and all the focus is Andrew Luck. But I think people are missing how bad their defense was last year -- they gave up 26.5 points a game. I don\'t think their offense will be as powerful as it was with Toby Gerhart in the backfield. Can Luck still score 35-plus points a game, because that is what it\'s going to take against a Pac-10 full of experienced QBs.
-- Tyler, Los Angeles

You hit the nail on the head, Tyler. The Cardinal have become semi-media darlings because A) We writers love whenever one of the academic-minded schools does well, B) Jim Harbaugh is such a quotable, intriguing fellow, and C) Luck is being hailed as a possible No. 1 pick. In reality, Stanford will be hard-pressed to match last year\'s eight wins -- and especially its six Pac-10 wins -- and it would be no surprise to see the Cardinal slip back to around 6-6.

My concern isn\'t with Luck. He\'s the real deal, and we only began to see his full potential last season, when Gerhart was still the focal point of the offense. I\'ve heard some speculation that defenses will be able to focus more on Luck with Gerhart out of the picture, but it\'s not like Stanford\'s fundamental scheme will change. Defenses will still have to account for the threat of play-action. And he\'s got the benefit of a very good offensive line, fullback (Owen Marecic) and receivers (led by Ryan Whalen).

It\'s that defense -- ranked 110th against the pass last year, with more experience than this year\'s unit -- that makes you cringe. Stanford got away with it a bit last year because most Pac-10 defenses stunk, but you\'re going to see a lot of improvement around the league on that side of the ball, from Washington to Oregon and Oregon State to USC. But like Tyler said, the offenses will only be getting more potent with all those returning QBs. Harbaugh has improved Stanford\'s talent level immensely, but not to the point where it can shut down dynamic offenses.

Link here.

[fullmetal]

And now we know why Mandel is down on Stanford: defense.

I keep hearing all this talk about Stanford being a darkhorse team this year (ranked in most publications) and all the focus is Andrew Luck. But I think people are missing how bad their defense was last year -- they gave up 26.5 points a game. I don\'t think their offense will be as powerful as it was with Toby Gerhart in the backfield. Can Luck still score 35-plus points a game, because that is what it\'s going to take against a Pac-10 full of experienced QBs.
-- Tyler, Los Angeles

You hit the nail on the head, Tyler. The Cardinal have become semi-media darlings because A) We writers love whenever one of the academic-minded schools does well, B) Jim Harbaugh is such a quotable, intriguing fellow, and C) Luck is being hailed as a possible No. 1 pick. In reality, Stanford will be hard-pressed to match last year\'s eight wins -- and especially its six Pac-10 wins -- and it would be no surprise to see the Cardinal slip back to around 6-6.

My concern isn\'t with Luck. He\'s the real deal, and we only began to see his full potential last season, when Gerhart was still the focal point of the offense. I\'ve heard some speculation that defenses will be able to focus more on Luck with Gerhart out of the picture, but it\'s not like Stanford\'s fundamental scheme will change. Defenses will still have to account for the threat of play-action. And he\'s got the benefit of a very good offensive line, fullback (Owen Marecic) and receivers (led by Ryan Whalen).

It\'s that defense -- ranked 110th against the pass last year, with more experience than this year\'s unit -- that makes you cringe. Stanford got away with it a bit last year because most Pac-10 defenses stunk, but you\'re going to see a lot of improvement around the league on that side of the ball, from Washington to Oregon and Oregon State to USC. But like Tyler said, the offenses will only be getting more potent with all those returning QBs. Harbaugh has improved Stanford\'s talent level immensely, but not to the point where it can shut down dynamic offenses.

Link here.

[Redrum]

and I\'ll be reading his column after results of the Sac St. game are in.

[Redrum]

and I\'ll be reading his column after results of the Sac St. game are in.

[Redrum]

...so useful in helping glenn get through a kal wedding has now worn off.   Yeah, glenn.  one of the lingering effects of the tranquilizer is it makes you numb to irony in others for about a week.   I should have been more explicit or liberal with the smileys.   Either that, or I really DO think that Sac State will tell us all we need to know about our defense.   ;D (smiley to denote, well, denote something).

Of course,  there is this:   If our defense lays shows poorly vs. Sac St., it really DOES tell us how it will fare against the Pac-10.  Gaaaaah!

[Redrum]

...so useful in helping glenn get through a kal wedding has now worn off.   Yeah, glenn.  one of the lingering effects of the tranquilizer is it makes you numb to irony in others for about a week.   I should have been more explicit or liberal with the smileys.   Either that, or I really DO think that Sac State will tell us all we need to know about our defense.   ;D (smiley to denote, well, denote something).

Of course,  there is this:   If our defense lays shows poorly vs. Sac St., it really DOES tell us how it will fare against the Pac-10.  Gaaaaah!

[fullmetal]

Speaking of games, there is no TV coverage listed for the UCLA game on the 11th.  Is this just an oversight in the updating responsibilities of the website?  I need to plan that game-watching party last week :p

[fullmetal]

Speaking of games, there is no TV coverage listed for the UCLA game on the 11th.  Is this just an oversight in the updating responsibilities of the website?  I need to plan that game-watching party last week :p

[jayasena]

Gostanford.com says the UCLA game is on ESPN.

[jayasena]

Gostanford.com says the UCLA game is on ESPN.

[washingtonismoney]

I\'m not sure Mandel\'s logic is terribly logical or factually-based. Stanford\'s defense will be worse because...other defenses will be better? Tough to see how that argument makes much sense, and tough to even say that the assertion underlying the argument is true: defenses will be decimated all around the Pac-10--something like 16 of the 22 All-Pac-10 First and Second teams left for whatever reason.

[washingtonismoney]

I\'m not sure Mandel\'s logic is terribly logical or factually-based. Stanford\'s defense will be worse because...other defenses will be better? Tough to see how that argument makes much sense, and tough to even say that the assertion underlying the argument is true: defenses will be decimated all around the Pac-10--something like 16 of the 22 All-Pac-10 First and Second teams left for whatever reason.

[fullmetal]

Thanks--I guess I need to look harder.  I always check in that little schedule box on the left side underneath the main photo/caption summary where they have the gametracker/web audio links.  Maybe I should try the actual schedule page too.

[fullmetal]

Thanks--I guess I need to look harder.  I always check in that little schedule box on the left side underneath the main photo/caption summary where they have the gametracker/web audio links.  Maybe I should try the actual schedule page too.