Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football (/thread-14879.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football (/thread-14879.html)
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - CTcard - 11-12-2017
(11-12-2017, 06:28 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
Different era. Far fewer bowl games than there are now. Back then a .500 record didn't get you squat.
[/quote]
Strictly speaking true, since with an 11 game season it was tough to have an exactly 0.500 record.
But, the expansion of the bowls had at least started by then. In 1982, Elway's senior year, there were 16 bowl games.
It wasn't quite like now, but the following made a bowl game: Wisconsin at 6-5, Kansas St 6-4-1, Air Force 7-5, Tennessee 6-4-1, and a slew of 7-4 teams.
And, of course, sans final play travesty, Stanford was about to be on its way to the Independence Bowl at 6-5 (not sure which of Wisconsin/Kansas St. replaced us).
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - CTcard - 11-12-2017
(11-12-2017, 06:28 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
Different era. Far fewer bowl games than there are now. Back then a .500 record didn't get you squat.
[/quote]
Strictly speaking true, since with an 11 game season it was tough to have an exactly 0.500 record.
But, the expansion of the bowls had at least started by then. In 1982, Elway's senior year, there were 16 bowl games.
It wasn't quite like now, but the following made a bowl game: Wisconsin at 6-5, Kansas St 6-4-1, Air Force 7-5, Tennessee 6-4-1, and a slew of 7-4 teams.
And, of course, sans final play travesty, Stanford was about to be on its way to the Independence Bowl at 6-5 (not sure which of Wisconsin/Kansas St. replaced us).
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - SamAtoms1980 - 11-12-2017
(11-12-2017, 10:27 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=17995.msg212419#msg212419 date=1510536531]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
Different era. Far fewer bowl games than there are now. Back then a .500 record didn't get you squat.
[/quote]
Strictly speaking true, since with an 11 game season it was tough to have an exactly 0.500 record.
But, the expansion of the bowls had at least started by then. In 1982, Elway's senior year, there were 16 bowl games.
It wasn't quite like now, but the following made a bowl game: Wisconsin at 6-5, Kansas St 6-4-1, Air Force 7-5, Tennessee 6-4-1, and a slew of 7-4 teams.
And, of course, sans final play travesty, Stanford was about to be on its way to the Independence Bowl at 6-5 (not sure which of Wisconsin/Kansas St. replaced us).
[/quote]
Air Force replaced us. Our bid was going to be to the Hall of Fame Bowl against Vanderbilt and they took our place
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - SamAtoms1980 - 11-12-2017
(11-12-2017, 10:27 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=17995.msg212419#msg212419 date=1510536531]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
Different era. Far fewer bowl games than there are now. Back then a .500 record didn't get you squat.
[/quote]
Strictly speaking true, since with an 11 game season it was tough to have an exactly 0.500 record.
But, the expansion of the bowls had at least started by then. In 1982, Elway's senior year, there were 16 bowl games.
It wasn't quite like now, but the following made a bowl game: Wisconsin at 6-5, Kansas St 6-4-1, Air Force 7-5, Tennessee 6-4-1, and a slew of 7-4 teams.
And, of course, sans final play travesty, Stanford was about to be on its way to the Independence Bowl at 6-5 (not sure which of Wisconsin/Kansas St. replaced us).
[/quote]
Air Force replaced us. Our bid was going to be to the Hall of Fame Bowl against Vanderbilt and they took our place
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - Snorlax94 - 11-13-2017
What is a good hear, IMO? First and always, its doing things the right way and with high character. No sexual assaults. No cheating scandals. No stolen sunglasses.
Second, no matter what happens or how hard recruiting gets, Stanford should field teams that are sound and well-coached. That is part of what was so infuriating about many Teevens-Harris years. The teams played bad football. Mental errors. Missed assignments. I can tolerate a team losing due to injuries or not finding the right mix of academically-qualified and athletically-talented players, but I couldnt stand watching teams that played sloppy, unprepared football.
Something I read in the Stanford Daily over 25 years ago has influenced my thinking on what is a good year for the program.
When Bill Walsh was re-hired in the early 90s, I recall him stating as a goal the desire to make Stanford a consistent, perennially-ranked team. To become one of those programs that is consistently in the top 20.
By that standard, Stanford has exceeded Bill Walshs stated aspiration, as well as producing teams that ended the season more highly-ranked than Walshs most successful year.
For my part, if a team does things the right way, beats c)al, and ends the season ranked in the top 20, I would argue it has passed The Walsh Test and deserves an A.
If the team beats C)al, wins the conference, and wins the Rose Bowl (or, this year, the Fiesta), thats an A+.
Being a member of nerd nation, I am only interested in As. ð¤
Winning the cfp, while doing things the right way? That would be off the charts.
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - Snorlax94 - 11-13-2017
What is a good hear, IMO? First and always, its doing things the right way and with high character. No sexual assaults. No cheating scandals. No stolen sunglasses.
Second, no matter what happens or how hard recruiting gets, Stanford should field teams that are sound and well-coached. That is part of what was so infuriating about many Teevens-Harris years. The teams played bad football. Mental errors. Missed assignments. I can tolerate a team losing due to injuries or not finding the right mix of academically-qualified and athletically-talented players, but I couldnt stand watching teams that played sloppy, unprepared football.
Something I read in the Stanford Daily over 25 years ago has influenced my thinking on what is a good year for the program.
When Bill Walsh was re-hired in the early 90s, I recall him stating as a goal the desire to make Stanford a consistent, perennially-ranked team. To become one of those programs that is consistently in the top 20.
By that standard, Stanford has exceeded Bill Walshs stated aspiration, as well as producing teams that ended the season more highly-ranked than Walshs most successful year.
For my part, if a team does things the right way, beats c)al, and ends the season ranked in the top 20, I would argue it has passed The Walsh Test and deserves an A.
If the team beats C)al, wins the conference, and wins the Rose Bowl (or, this year, the Fiesta), thats an A+.
Being a member of nerd nation, I am only interested in As. ð¤
Winning the cfp, while doing things the right way? That would be off the charts.
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - stupac2 - 11-13-2017
(11-13-2017, 04:16 AM)Snorlax94 link Wrote:What is a good hear, IMO?
Apparently not our PA system!
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - stupac2 - 11-13-2017
(11-13-2017, 04:16 AM)Snorlax94 link Wrote:What is a good hear, IMO?
Apparently not our PA system!
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - Snorlax94 - 11-14-2017
Dangit, I have switched this season to writing most of my posts from my phone, and the typos are rndless.
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - cardcrimson - 11-14-2017
(11-12-2017, 10:54 PM)SamAtoms1980 link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17995.msg212465#msg212465 date=1510550879]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=17995.msg212419#msg212419 date=1510536531]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
Different era. Far fewer bowl games than there are now. Back then a .500 record didn't get you squat.
[/quote]
Strictly speaking true, since with an 11 game season it was tough to have an exactly 0.500 record.
But, the expansion of the bowls had at least started by then. In 1982, Elway's senior year, there were 16 bowl games.
It wasn't quite like now, but the following made a bowl game: Wisconsin at 6-5, Kansas St 6-4-1, Air Force 7-5, Tennessee 6-4-1, and a slew of 7-4 teams.
And, of course, sans final play travesty, Stanford was about to be on its way to the Independence Bowl at 6-5 (not sure which of Wisconsin/Kansas St. replaced us).
[/quote]
Air Force replaced us. Our bid was going to be to the Hall of Fame Bowl against Vanderbilt and they took our place
[/quote]
Weren't the Peach Bowl folks at the game as well?
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - CTcard - 11-14-2017
(11-14-2017, 08:38 AM)cardcrimson link Wrote:[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=17995.msg212466#msg212466 date=1510552481]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17995.msg212465#msg212465 date=1510550879]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=17995.msg212419#msg212419 date=1510536531]
And, of course, sans final play travesty, Stanford was about to be on its way to the Independence Bowl at 6-5 (not sure which of Wisconsin/Kansas St. replaced us).
Air Force replaced us. Our bid was going to be to the Hall of Fame Bowl against Vanderbilt and they took our place
[/quote]
Weren't the Peach Bowl folks at the game as well?
[/quote]
I don't remember so well, and am quite ready to defer to anyone who does.
I have a somewhat clouded memory of LSJUMB planning a Christmas trip to Shreveport LA, which would have meant the Independence Bowl. But lots of reasons that could be off.
The bowl games with teams with barely winning records included Hall of Fame, Peach, and Independence - so by that measure any might have been a possibility.
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - Nan3cy - 11-14-2017
(11-14-2017, 08:38 AM)cardcrimson link Wrote:[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=17995.msg212466#msg212466 date=1510552481]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17995.msg212465#msg212465 date=1510550879]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=17995.msg212419#msg212419 date=1510536531]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
Different era. Far fewer bowl games than there are now. Back then a .500 record didn't get you squat.
[/quote]
Strictly speaking true, since with an 11 game season it was tough to have an exactly 0.500 record.
But, the expansion of the bowls had at least started by then. In 1982, Elway's senior year, there were 16 bowl games.
It wasn't quite like now, but the following made a bowl game: Wisconsin at 6-5, Kansas St 6-4-1, Air Force 7-5, Tennessee 6-4-1, and a slew of 7-4 teams.
And, of course, sans final play travesty, Stanford was about to be on its way to the Independence Bowl at 6-5 (not sure which of Wisconsin/Kansas St. replaced us).
[/quote]
Air Force replaced us. Our bid was going to be to the Hall of Fame Bowl against Vanderbilt and they took our place
[/quote]
Weren't the Peach Bowl folks at the game as well?
[/quote]
I think the Peach Bowl possibility was in 1980. I remember the game day Daily having a headline saying "Reach for the Peach" -- and it might have been peach colored as well.
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - CompSci87 - 11-14-2017
(11-14-2017, 02:57 AM)Snorlax94 link Wrote:the typos are rndless.
A phrase that speaks for itself.
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - lex24 - 11-14-2017
Well its Stanford. No grade lower than a C. Right?! :P
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - Langdude - 11-14-2017
(11-12-2017, 03:56 PM)martyup link Wrote:Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o]
When I wrote/edited for the Stanford Daily, there were old clippings and headlines from past issues posted all over the offices. Some of them were fake, made up and printed out for fun during late night sessions when editors would get punchy. Anyway, one of those posted on the wall whose yellow tinge betrayed that it had been up on the wall for years and years read thusly (I may not be getting it word-for-word correct):
"Elway to get lobotomy; humanitarians decry operation unnecessary"
-m.
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - lex24 - 11-14-2017
Yeah. Elway was garbage. Is that supposed to be funny?Â
(11-14-2017, 11:13 AM)Langdude link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
When I wrote/edited for the Stanford Daily, there were old clippings and headlines from past issues posted all over the offices. Some of them were fake, made up and printed out for fun during late night sessions when editors would get punchy. Anyway, one of those posted on the wall whose yellow tinge betrayed that it had been up on the wall for years and years read thusly (I may not be getting it word-for-word correct):
"Elway to get lobotomy; humanitarians decry operation unnecessary"
-m.
[/quote]
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - 76lsjumb - 11-14-2017
(11-14-2017, 11:19 AM)lex24 link Wrote:Yeah. Elway was garbage. Is that supposed to be funny?Â]
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=17995.msg212722#msg212722 date=1510683194]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
When I wrote/edited for the Stanford Daily, there were old clippings and headlines from past issues posted all over the offices. Some of them were fake, made up and printed out for fun during late night sessions when editors would get punchy. Anyway, one of those posted on the wall whose yellow tinge betrayed that it had been up on the wall for years and years read thusly (I may not be getting it word-for-word correct):
"Elway to get lobotomy; humanitarians decry operation unnecessary"
-m.
[/quote]
[/quote]
We're talking about two different Elways here, right? Pere and fils...
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - Langdude - 11-14-2017
(11-14-2017, 12:05 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17995.msg212725#msg212725 date=1510683577]]
Yeah. Elway was garbage. Is that supposed to be funny?Â
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=17995.msg212722#msg212722 date=1510683194]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
When I wrote/edited for the Stanford Daily, there were old clippings and headlines from past issues posted all over the offices. Some of them were fake, made up and printed out for fun during late night sessions when editors would get punchy. Anyway, one of those posted on the wall whose yellow tinge betrayed that it had been up on the wall for years and years read thusly (I may not be getting it word-for-word correct):
"Elway to get lobotomy; humanitarians decry operation unnecessary"
-m.
[/quote]
[/quote]
We're talking about two different Elways here, right? Pere and fils...
[/quote]
Goodness me, Lex. Of course John Elway was great. I'm just telling you what the headline in the office said. As 76lsjumb pointed out, the headline might have been referring to Jack Elway, John's father, who was the head coach at Stanford 1984-1988.
Having said that, even if it was referring to John, it is not beyond Stanford fans to criticize even great athletes. In addition, perhaps John was not a top student; I'm not sure. I just thought it was a funny headline!
-m.
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - Hurlburt88 - 11-14-2017
April 1 edition of the Daily?
8)
Re: Random musing...my expectations for Stanford football - lex24 - 11-14-2017
Overreaction. My bad.
(11-14-2017, 01:05 PM)Langdude link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=17995.msg212737#msg212737 date=1510686350]]
[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17995.msg212725#msg212725 date=1510683577]
Yeah. Elway was garbage. Is that supposed to be funny?Â
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=17995.msg212722#msg212722 date=1510683194]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17995.msg212397#msg212397 date=1510527365]
Under this grading curve, Elway would have flunked out. :o
When I wrote/edited for the Stanford Daily, there were old clippings and headlines from past issues posted all over the offices. Some of them were fake, made up and printed out for fun during late night sessions when editors would get punchy. Anyway, one of those posted on the wall whose yellow tinge betrayed that it had been up on the wall for years and years read thusly (I may not be getting it word-for-word correct):
"Elway to get lobotomy; humanitarians decry operation unnecessary"
-m.
[/quote]
[/quote]
We're talking about two different Elways here, right? Pere and fils...
[/quote]
Goodness me, Lex. Of course John Elway was great. I'm just telling you what the headline in the office said. As 76lsjumb pointed out, the headline might have been referring to Jack Elway, John's father, who was the head coach at Stanford 1984-1988.
Having said that, even if it was referring to John, it is not beyond Stanford fans to criticize even great athletes. In addition, perhaps John was not a top student; I'm not sure. I just thought it was a funny headline!
-m.
[/quote]