FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20

FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - 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: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 (/thread-25860.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: FB -- South Carolina Thread - 82lsju - 11-08-2025

(11-08-2025, 05:43 PM)d4cohn Wrote:
(11-08-2025, 05:38 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(11-08-2025, 05:33 PM)d4cohn Wrote:
(11-08-2025, 05:13 PM)BostonCard Wrote: WE should give serious consideration to giving up football.

BC

Football is the mechanism by which our (championships-winning) Olympic sports are supported. Plus let's see what the big new investment can bring in terms of at least getting us back to respectable performances.

Is it, though? Given the reduced ACC TV rights, virtually nonexistent gameday revenue, and increased costs, I doubt football breaks even.

BC

Football allows us to be in a P4 conference, which is competitive/good enough to keep bringing in that top level talent. It keeps in play, if we can pull ourselves off the mat in football, a chance in the future to get into a P2 conference if/when college sports heads in that direction. Plus at some point in the future, there is the potential for greater P4/P2 money.

I can't think of a non P4 program that matches the all-around performance in the Olympic sports of Stanford and its other peers (e.g. UT, UVA, UNC etc.).

and one of the P2 conferences does not currently have any PT or MT zone teams so they will likely be looking for some....

RE: FB -- South Carolina Thread - PVTree - 11-08-2025

Block the punt!

RE: FB -- South Carolina Thread - ADPinWDC - 11-08-2025

Hey - 40 seconds. And the Promised Land only 80 yards away.
Make that 70 yards.... Just need a DB to fall down

RE: FB -- South Carolina Thread - BostonCard - 11-08-2025

Marty, was there a reason you labeled the thread *South* Carolina? Before I fix it, I wanted to make sure it wasn't intentional on your part for some reason.

BC

Well, that was fun. Not. Should have rearranged my socks. Or scheduled a root canal or something else more enjoyable than whatever the hell that was.

BC

RE: FB -- South Carolina Thread - needle - 11-08-2025

Caden High had a good game. Stanford covered the spread.

That's my complete list of positives.

RE: FB -- South Carolina Thread - PVTree - 11-08-2025

So far to go to make us competitive. I hate being so bad to the point that we have the worst record of power conference teams in the last few years.

I don't think we have a starting caliber Div 1 QB. Our best receivers are average (in comparison to an average Div 1 starter). I think our best running backs are slightly below average. Our defense is not consistent and our special teams is also inconsistent.

We need to lease a top OL and hire a studly QB to lead the team next year.

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - JeebsOak - 11-08-2025

Nine sacks lol

RE: SkiBum80 - newguy - 11-08-2025

(11-08-2025, 05:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(11-08-2025, 05:40 PM)needle Wrote:
(11-08-2025, 05:39 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I’d like to see us score a TD here
Not cause will make any difference in the game outcome
But just cause I’ll be slightly more believable when claiming we coulda/shoulda won this game

Stanford is not scoring a TD, lol.

Anyone know the logic for going for two on our prior touchdown? Even if we had converted, it would have remained a two possession game.

BC

Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?

RE: SkiBum80 - KartyFan - 11-08-2025

(11-08-2025, 07:09 PM)newguy Wrote:
(11-08-2025, 05:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(11-08-2025, 05:40 PM)needle Wrote:
(11-08-2025, 05:39 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I’d like to see us score a TD here
Not cause will make any difference in the game outcome
But just cause I’ll be slightly more believable when claiming we coulda/shoulda won this game

Stanford is not scoring a TD, lol.

Anyone know the logic for going for two on our prior touchdown? Even if we had converted, it would have remained a two possession game.

BC

Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?

Same reason you should go for it down 8:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28100383/going-2-8-points-why-nfl-teams-keep-doing-why-analytics-backs-up

RE: FB -- South Carolina Thread - ADPinWDC - 11-09-2025

(11-08-2025, 06:02 PM)PVTree Wrote: So far to go to make us competitive. I hate being so bad to the point that we have the worst record of power conference teams in the last few years.

I don't think we have a starting caliber Div 1 QB. Our best receivers are average (in comparison to an average Div 1 starter). I think our best running backs are slightly below average. Our defense is not consistent and our special teams is also inconsistent.

We need to lease a top OL and hire a studly QB to lead the team next year.

Sadly -- Totally agree.
Put NIL$ on O-Line. They looked atrocious last night. Our O-Line was chasing the Tar Heel D-Line to the QB, to then left Elijah off the turf.
Our great teams with Gerhart - Luck - Hogan - McCaffrey had excellent O-Lines.

9 sacks last night for -73 yards.
We still had more Total Yards than NCAR. But 2 TOs.

And here we sit at 3-7, with two more losses to go.
What are the odds of going 3-9? High.

Start the recruiting with Big Man Aleem Davis
https://twitter.com/i/status/1987007274607423558
VERY LARGE, thundering Pick-6. Scholarship!
LARGEST PICK-6 in HS football this season.

RE: FB -- South Carolina Thread - PalmTree - 11-09-2025

(11-09-2025, 05:02 AM)ADPinWDC Wrote:
(11-08-2025, 06:02 PM)PVTree Wrote: So far to go to make us competitive. I hate being so bad to the point that we have the worst record of power conference teams in the last few years.

I don't think we have a starting caliber Div 1 QB. Our best receivers are average (in comparison to an average Div 1 starter). I think our best running backs are slightly below average. Our defense is not consistent and our special teams is also inconsistent.

We need to lease a top OL and hire a studly QB to lead the team next year.

Sadly -- Totally agree.
Put NIL$ on O-Line. They looked atrocious last night. Our O-Line was chasing the Tar Heel D-Line to the QB, to then left Elijah off the turf.
Our great teams with Gerhart - Luck - Hogan - McCaffrey had excellent O-Lines.

9 sacks last night for -73 yards.
We still had more Total Yards than NCAR. But 2 TOs.

And here we sit at 3-7, with two more losses to go.
What are the odds of going 3-9? High.

Start the recruiting with Big Man Aleem Davis
https://twitter.com/i/status/1987007274607423558
VERY LARGE, thundering Pick-6. Scholarship!
LARGEST PICK-6 in HS football this season.

Thanks, needed a good laugh after last nite's game - they're dubbing that "the Thick 6". Class of 2027, btw. Can he count to 10? Does he know how many countries there are in the United States? $ign him up - $ubito!

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - Mick - 11-09-2025

Just for grins, I checked our yardage achieved/yardage allowed NCAA rankings on espn.com this morning. Out of 136 teams, we ranked:

119th for defense
125th for offense

And now back to the fifth 3-9 season in a row...

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - jacket3ree - 11-09-2025

Yeah, that was a terrible game. So bad I found other games to watch while occasionally looking in to understand Stanford looks like its record says it looks. Worst P4 team over several years. Barring something I don't foresee, this will the the fifth straight 3-9 record, and barring something really weird, Stanford will finish with 4 or fewer wins in a season for the seventh straight year. Uncharted territory. Stanford has never been this bad for this long. The second longest streak of such ineptitude was with Cactus Jack and four years from 1958-1961. We can argue what the 4-2 Covid season means, but probably best to toss that and leave it as six historically wretched years.

Look at Indiana though. They were almost never at Stanford's level. Nothing for more than a century, the rules change, they hire some dude from James Madison, and they get to lose to Ohio State with all the marbles on the line.

But losing by 5 to a poor ACC school doesn't call for disbanding the program. Normally we chalk that up to fanaticism and heat of the moment during a frustrating game, but I think BC is serious. I'm not sure I'm down for his brave new world of watching Stanford get their skulls crushed in on the court by the likes of St. Mary's twice a year. Not worried though. Stanford is brand conscious and prostrating to the ACC for the express purpose of not having to play Fresno State, then dropping out altogether within five years is not good for the brand. Couldn't figure it out, so took their ball and went home.

I fear Levin played tag you're it with Luck, but I think Luck cares so much about this that he will figure out a way not to fail. I little scared they are just going to get the old band back together and assume it will work.

I'll read Matt's post-mortem but I can save him a few thousand words. Stanford is not good.

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - Goose - 11-09-2025

(11-09-2025, 11:15 AM)jacket3ree Wrote: I'll read Matt's post-mortem but I can save him a few thousand words. Stanford is not good.

I disagree. Stanford is not just "not good". Stanford is bad. There is no way to sugar coat it. Of course that doesn't mean every Stanford player is bad. However, a lot of them are, particularly on the offensive line. There is simply no way to scheme around an OL as bad as ours. We lack talent in other areas as well, and that does limit our upside, but IMO the OL problems dwarf the other problems.

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - JeebsOak - 11-09-2025

I just want to know what they saw in several of those guys on the offensive line. Two of them have zero business being on a division one football field

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - needle - 11-09-2025

I believe Stanford has one legit tackle. The other guys lack the type of technique/athleticism or strength for that position, though they might have a future at guard.

Stanford's starter at RT last season (Baklenko) has been a sometimes starter for Oklahoma this season. FWIW.

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - Maple Leaf - 11-09-2025

Oline woes started when Mike Blumberg (sp) left to be the head coach at Rice. Both Shaw and Taylor thought they could scheme around a less than steller oline. If the online gets fixed then there is a chance. Two of the online transfers who were slated to start we're injured at the start of the season which has not helped.

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - PalmTree - 11-09-2025

(11-09-2025, 11:15 AM)jacket3ree Wrote: I fear Levin played tag you're it with Luck, but I think Luck cares so much about this that he will figure out a way not to fail. I little scared they are just going to get the old band back together and assume it will work.

This! I don't know who/what the best solution(s) will be and I'm all for AL's EUTM but I also agree coaching lineage re-treads are not the way to go, personnel-wise. This program needs a major shakeup UTM to get things turned around, otherwise, in 4-5 years we'll be spending our Saturdays wistfully watching shows at the Arrillaga/Freeman Concert. Arena.

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - BostonCard - 11-09-2025

(11-09-2025, 11:15 AM)jacket3ree Wrote: Yeah, that was a terrible game. So bad I found other games to watch while occasionally looking in to understand Stanford looks like its record says it looks. Worst P4 team over several years. Barring something I don't foresee, this will the the fifth straight 3-9 record, and barring something really weird, Stanford will finish with 4 or fewer wins in a season for the seventh straight year. Uncharted territory. Stanford has never been this bad for this long. The second longest streak of such ineptitude was with Cactus Jack and four years from 1958-1961. We can argue what the 4-2 Covid season means, but probably best to toss that and leave it as six historically wretched years.

Look at Indiana though. They were almost never at Stanford's level. Nothing for more than a century, the rules change, they hire some dude from James Madison, and they get to lose to Ohio State with all the marbles on the line.

But losing by 5 to a poor ACC school doesn't call for disbanding the program. Normally we chalk that up to fanaticism and heat of the moment during a frustrating game, but I think BC is serious. I'm not sure I'm down for his brave new world of watching Stanford get their skulls crushed in on the court by the likes of St. Mary's twice a year. Not worried though. Stanford is brand conscious and prostrating to the ACC for the express purpose of not having to play Fresno State, then dropping out altogether within five years is not good for the brand. Couldn't figure it out, so took their ball and went home.

I fear Levin played tag you're it with Luck, but I think Luck cares so much about this that he will figure out a way not to fail. I little scared they are just going to get the old band back together and assume it will work.

I'll read Matt's post-mortem but I can save him a few thousand words. Stanford is not good.

YEah, one bad game doesn't call for disbanding the program, but ineptitude over 7 years (or six historically wretched years) does call for evaluating it. And truth be told, it's not so much that we have sucked, but the cost of not sucking that concerns me. I've railed against the academic compromises needed (most recently with the post-bac program, though that one doesn't bother me as much). But also, literally, the cost, at a time when universities face unprecedented headwinds (not just the political situation, which is out of scope here, but also changing demographics and a broader changing attitude about the value of college). I think it will be really tough for Levin to justify to the academic senate why we need to be subsidizing the football team by tens of millions of dollars a year while academic programs face a hiring freeze and funding cuts. This is a broader reckoning than just Stanford, but I think it will come to a head at Stanford because of the combination of the recent turmoil in college athletics (Northwestern and Vanderbilt, for example, didn't have to join a conference on the other side of the country, get full TV rights from the conferences that are coming out ahead). It's going to be a lot to swallow for the faculty to subsidize a loser program, operating in a non-sensical conference, getting a reduced share of revenue, and did I mention that it isn't good? Remind me why the English department should shed jobs to support this?

BC

RE: FB -- Stanford 15 -- North Carolina 20 - TriangleTree - 11-09-2025

The world isn’t coming to an end.

I was at the game last night and saw a motivated team that didn’t give up and gave it it’s all.

I saw a really tough run defense and a competent passing defense.

Stanford was the better team 3 out of 4 quarters, but things didnt break our way and our team is not at a level that can overcome these things.

Our running backs are good and our running game is competent.

Our passing game was non existent and our qb struggled throughout the first half, but i saw glimpses of potential on the last drive of the first half and through spells in the second half.

I can’t help but wonder whether this team would have been a top half ACC team had we not had the player exodus following the HC scandal/debacle.

I’m grateful for Andrew Luck and for all the players that keep competing, they deserve my support.

I have no idea whether we can reach the level of the early 2000s under the new model, but I believe we’re well positioned to build a foundation that can make us competitive. Until Andrew Luck says otherwise, I choose to believe we can.