How good is Stanford?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:18 pm

Sat 09/02/06 Oregon L 48-10

Sat 09/09/06 San Jose State L 35-34

Sat 09/16/06 Navy L 37-9

Remaining Games:

Washington State
UCLA
Notre Dame
Arizona
Arizona State
USC
Washington
Oregon State
California

A perfect season is looking like a good possibility at this point.

At least the new stadium looks pretty cool.

Where have you gone Ty Willingham?

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:25 pm

They will be lucky to win 2 games this year.

They're really lacking in depth, especially along the lines. Hmm, I wonder where we've heard that before?

Fuck Chauncy and the horse he rode in on. He is an awful coach, and a two faced son of a bitch.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:31 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Sat 09/16/06 Navy L 37-9

Wasn't Stanford really good just recently?

2001.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:33 pm

Last conference championship was in 1999. Lost the 2000 Rose Bowl to Wisconsin.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:36 pm

Killian wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:Sat 09/16/06 Navy L 37-9

Wasn't Stanford really good just recently?
2001.

Yep. That year saw wins over Cal, USC, UCLA and ND.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:18 pm

Thank goodness Walt Harris is righting the ship!

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:26 am

Pretty lame to get blown-out by a team that has to scrape the bottom of the 1A barrel for talent. I do like seeing an option-team kicking ass though. Props Navy.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:40 am

Jsc810 wrote:
Wasn't Stanford really good just recently?

Illinois and Colorado were BCS teams in 01, as well. it's a steep drop.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:47 pm

King Crimson wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:
Wasn't Stanford really good just recently?
Illinois and Colorado were BCS teams in 01, as well. it's a steep drop.

Stanford bought off Jason Fife(whose name won't be mentioned again by me in this thread, and will be referred to only as "he who fixes games") and slipped him enough money to get him to let special teamers get through with a free pass, not once but twice(a NoCal connection, per chance?), to screw Oregon out of an appearance in the Championship game, where they should have been anyway, but for stupid bias against the PAC10.

JayDuck · Post by **JayDuck** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:52 pm

Actually, ironically, we should have won that 2001 Stanford game BUT we got screwed on an onsides kick call.

We were up 14 points in the 4th quarter and got a punt blocked and all that, but we still should have won. Stanford did a "pop-fly" onside kick, and our Tight End signaled for a fair-catch but got taken out by a Stanford player. The refs, later, said they didn't see the fair catch signal, but its pretty obvious on the video.

Yep, our only loss, in the 2001 season came at the hands of getting screwed by the refs at Autzen stadium, on an onsides kick.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:57 pm

JayDuck wrote: Yep, our only loss, in the 2001 season came at the hands of getting screwed by the refs at Autzen stadium, on an onsides kick.

While it certainly doesn't justify OU getting semi-jobbed, if there was a team that was due to get some love after being the all-time-most-screwed-team-in-the-BCS-era, it was the Ducks.

Since then, Nike has learned that you need to grossly outbid your opponent when it comes to fixing games. Never again will a loser like Barney Fife be bought off and throw games.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:52 pm

JayDuck wrote:The refs, later, said they didn't see the fair catch signal, but its pretty obvious on the video.

Pretty obvious? Not good enough.

Sin,
Pac-10 Review Official

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:57 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:
Sin,
Pac-10 Review Official

This situation might be a little easier for the involved parties if the general public had any freaking clue what they were talking about.

Hell, by the time this blows over, there will be reports of the replay official being seen walking out of the stadium with a dufflebag full of money.

The replay official never saw the replays.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:59 pm

Yeah, must be nice to have a convenient electrical switch for the replay booth.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:02 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Yeah, must be nice to have a convenient electrical switch for the replay booth.

Not my fault that OU, along with everyone outside of the Conference of Champions GROSSLY underestimates Ducksfans' resolve.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:34 pm

Get out of my thread. This is about the mighty Cardinal, not Aflac.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:39 pm

Ok, how good is Stanford?

So bad, they don't even get a plural mascot like everyone else.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:04 pm

Not to repeat myself...but Stanford is bad enough, or clueless enough, that they imagined Walt Harris would be a good hire.

That's really bad. I mean shit, if you have some QB talent, he'd be ok "developing" it...as in, being nearby to the QB talent, then placing it on his resume. Remember, Walt lists Boomer fucking ~~Sooner~~ Esiason as the feather in his QB development cap. Never mind that Walt was on the Jets' staff for a year during the twilight hours of Boomer's career. I guess Boomer sucked as a QB until Walt was there to develop him.

He sure isn't down with a hard-nosed recruiting battle. I think he imagined that they don't have those in CA.

Anything that takes Walt away from watching practice from a coordinator's remove is something that Walt feels is someone else's job.

~adjusts lapels

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:51 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Ok, how good is Stanford?

So bad, they don't even get a plural mascot like everyone else.

Hey, they were prolly the first outfit in the country to drop their degrading Indians mascot.
(wish I could find a pic of the cool large nosed redskin cartoon they used to use)

When they voted on a new one two of the leading candidates were "Thunder Chickens" and "Trees".

Cardinal isn't so bad after all.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:39 pm

JayDuck · Post by **JayDuck** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:53 pm

Mikey wrote:

Which one of them is your daughter?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:33 pm

That pic is from around 1970. I used to drool over the Dollies when I was in HS.

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:42 pm

stanford had like 400 yards of offense vs navy, what the fuck?

also, can they put some points on the board? no way washington st should be a road favorite of 10pts. they were beat around by baylor

and got lucky to score some late tds to win.

i'm taking stanford+10. they fucked me vs navy(navy -1), so its time they reward me for my faith.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:39 am

Their top 3 WRs are out with injuries. They've now got 4 walk-ons including 2 freshmen and 2 sophs playing the position. The #3 QB is supposedly going to switch over too.

JayDuck · Post by **JayDuck** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:39 am

Mikey wrote:

That pic is from around 1970. I used to drool over the Dollies when I was in HS.

I can see why. They sure look a lot better than what Stanford, currently, seems to have going for them in that department.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:13 am

M2 · Post by M2 » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:24 am

I hate to beat a dead horse to death, but...

You know what I hate about Stanfurd? I hate how they keep blaming their losing seasons on the "high academic standards" they have for recruits. They had high academic standards when they kicked our asses for 8 years in the 90s. Now that they're losing they're making excuses. Either stop whining or join Division IAA already.

But then again, what do you expect from Shallow Alto? They love to pick their battles at their own convenience...

Stanford football is inching ever closer to a pure academic play which is bad for Stanford and the Pac-10.

If a football recruit is strictly interested in Stanford for the academics, he's probably better served going to one of the Ivies who play decent football. He'll get a similar education, play more, and have a much better opportunity to play on a winning team than he would on the farm. It's all well and good to play D-IA football, but not when Davis, SJSU, and Navy, as well as everybody else in the Pac-10 slaps you around.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:44 am

Thing is, they kicked you asses 8 times in the 90s even with high academic standards.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:52 am

Ya. That and Stanford is superior to Kal on a national level as far as academic recognition.

But don't kid yourself, Mikey. You're talking to this bitch like she actually ever went there.

M2 · Post by M2 » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:11 am

Mikey wrote:Thing is, they kicked you asses 8 times in the 90s even with high academic standards.

But once you get in, it's easier than Cal...

As has been discussed over the years, Stanford may be easier on its students academically once they're admitted. An independent study was conducted in which work submitted in classes at Stanford was compared with work of the same caliber submitted in similar classes at Cal. The study showed that the Stanford students received higher grades for their work than the students who submitted the same caliber of work at Cal. In other words, a student has to do better work at Cal to get a "B" than does a student at Stanford. So, who has higher academic standards really? It's not all about admissions.

One thing about Cal in recent years, as relates to the football program, is that it has one of the best programs to assist athletes with studying once they're here. This is a source of pride for the athletic program and the university.

Regarding recruiting, there is a reason Stanford does well in most sports, including football at times. Of the elite athletes who are somewhat academically oriented (i.e. 3.0+ students), Stanford has great appeal, and draws recruits from all over the U.S. Though Cal is every bit as fine an academic institution, with extremely high standards, Stanford has slightly greater name recognition nationally as an elite adademic institution.

It's almost impossible to flunk out at Stanfurd.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:36 am

^ a C&P job if I ever saw one. Whenever m200l's childish spelling improves, you can bet it's a take cribbed from elsewhere.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:37 am

slightly greater name recognition nationally as an elite adademic institution.

Stanford owns Kal on the national level and it's not even open for debate. And spare us the standard Kal party line about grade inflation at the Farm. The bottom line is that Stanford grads are more well-adjusted and, ultimately, more successful than Kal grads.

Not that you could relate.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:39 pm

Stanford may be "easier" once you get in, but only because it's a much smaller school (about 7,000 vs 24,000 undergrads), and as a student you're not lost in classes with 600 other students, and you get much more attention from the faculty and staff.

But calling it "easy" is totally disingenuous, because every student there is probably in the top 1% of their high school class, and therefore they are all high acheivers. Cal is selective too but not nearly so much. You get thrown into a crowd with hundreds of other students and made to compete. In my experience (at UCSD), it seemed like one of the main goals of a lot of classes was to make it so hard to get through that you'd quit. They're trying to thin out the population. Once you get into a school like Stanford the goal is to have you graduate with a high quality education. And believe me, the undergratuate education you get at Stanford is of a much higher quality than your are likely to get at Cal.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:45 pm

m2 wrote:I hate to beat a dead horse to death

Too funny on so many levels.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:56 pm

Mikey wrote:

With a stadium like that Stanford has to be a favorite in the Pac10....

Isnt that how yall play football out there m2?

Whoever has the prettiest stadium wins?

T1B

How good is Stanford?

How good is Stanford?

Re: How good is Stanford?

Re: How good is Stanford?

Re: How good is Stanford?

Re: How good is Stanford?

Re: How good is Stanford?