Is the Stanford run coming to an end?

[fatbuff]

Wrong. I've been to almost every Stanford home game for the last 3 yrs or so and Hogan did just fine with Gaffney doing all the heavy lifting. Shaw's conservative style works just fine when you're getting 4+ yds/rush on early downs and just ask a game manager like Hogan to hit a few key passes here and there. Stephan Taylor was maybe a bit better than Gaffney - more explosive. It's been a big drop-off at RB this yr. If they had either Taylor or Gaffney they would have beat USC easily.

You cant tell Tini he is wrong. You will pay for this.

 

[onealcd]

Wrong. I've been to almost every Stanford home game for the last 3 yrs or so and Hogan did just fine with Gaffney doing all the heavy lifting. Shaw's conservative style works just fine when you're getting 4+ yds/rush on early downs and just ask a game manager like Hogan to hit a few key passes here and there. Stephan Taylor was maybe a bit better than Gaffney - more explosive. It's been a big drop-off at RB this yr. If they had either Taylor or Gaffney they would have beat USC easily.

the weirdest part is that the o line sees to have regressed this year despite it being called "the greatest o line recruiting class in college football history." They we're supposed to really take Stanford to the next level this year but they did not appear ass physical as in years past.

and I would much rather root for a fan base like Stanford's that lacks support than one like Oregonian that people like because of their uniforms. God I hate those people.

 

[Quattro]

Wrong. I've been to almost every Stanford home game for the last 3 yrs or so and Hogan did just fine with Gaffney doing all the heavy lifting. Shaw's conservative style works just fine when you're getting 4+ yds/rush on early downs and just ask a game manager like Hogan to hit a few key passes here and there. Stephan Taylor was maybe a bit better than Gaffney - more explosive. It's been a big drop-off at RB this yr. If they had either Taylor or Gaffney they would have beat USC easily.

The guys with the top 3 carries all average at least 4.4 ypc and two average more than 6.0 ypc...

 

[WizzersGhost]

We never saw the drop off coming either when it happened. Neuheisel had inherited a top 5 program from McCartney and proceeded to have two nice 10 win seasons to start out his tenure. His 3rd year Colorado was ranked in the top 5 and expected to compete for the national championship. The team was loaded with talent and playmakers. We then had our first losing season in over 10 years. It happens to everybody.

Tubing, guitar-picking and ice cream socials happen to everybody????

 

[gobuffs58]

There is also less then 0% chance that OSU fires Riley.

Next year will be very interesting however with all the changes at QB we will see in the league.

yes if the beavers fire riley it would be one of the dumbest moves of all time...didnt they just beat asu?...as far as ducks go they will def miss mm (who wouldnt) but there is talent everywhere and royce freeman could be a top 3 back in the country..as far as their d goes its acctually not bad when they play aggressive and very bad when they sit back...

 

[BuffWarHog]

Stanford has really high volatility as a program in terms of their performance. It isn't just now, that's historically been true. They will have a great run of 2-5 years, followed by 2-5 years of absolute ****, rinse, repeat.

They've never just been consistently average, or above average, or good, or bad; they are all over the place. They really do fit in with the culture of the valley: fail big or win big.

I think they're about to enter a fail big phase.

What would you call this year?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 807]

Yeah, well, I think Stanford alums and students have a legit claim on that, probably more than any other school with a legit football team. That school is not like all the others...in many ways.

Stanford is basically a graduate school that also happens to have an undergraduate program. And that undergraduate population has a disproportionate number of trophy athletes. With <7,000 undergrads on campus, there simply isn't the volume of students available to energize a stadium in the same way as any other Pac12 institution. Of that undergraduate population, ~850 are competing and training in varsity athletics. Stanford is a school of doers, not spectators. Stanford's 9,000 graduates students are just not reliable as sports fans because they have dissertations to write, families to raise, and worlds to conquer.

Plus Palo Alto and Silicon Valley isn't exactly blue collar America. Joe Six Pack sports fan in Oakland is not going to get the red carpet treatment on the farm. The Raiders, 49ers, Cal and even San Jose State dilutes and divides the Bay Area fan base. The point of Silicon Valley isn't sports anyway. It's all about innovating the next big thing and paying to live in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world. The sports program at Stanford is as close to an equal opportunity and diversity initiative as you will find in this geek and plutocrat mecca. Those precious little snowflakes that get admitted to that elitist institution pay for a hermetically sealed bubble to keep out riffraff like sports junkies.

Stanford's AD isn't financially hostage to ticket sales. The athletic funding model involves big donations from wealthy benefactors who endow 36 varsity sports. Baseball, Softball, Fencing, Field Hockey, Mens & Womens Gymnastics, Rowing, Sailing, Sand Volleyball, Swimming, synchronized swimming, Diving, Squash, water polo, and wrestling are all Cardinal sports that exist because of charitable donations used to build facilities and endow coaching positions geared at maximizing the volume and quantity of championship caliber athletes.

By way of comparison, CU Boulder has 26,000 undergraduates about 450 student athletes, and only 13 varsity athletic programs. If Stanford's athletic program ratios were applied in Boulder, the CU AD would support 133 varsity sports teams and 3,160 student athletes. And CU's proportional endowment would be $79.5 Billion (it's really $1.5 Billion).