Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - 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: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State (/thread-25245.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: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State (/thread-25245.html)
Pages:
1
2
Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - msqueri - 11-03-2024
1. The inescapable bottom line for Stanford football is that we are deep into the spiral of a catastrophic system-wide failure that requires fundamentally changing the way we operate. We can debate the details of what needs changing most urgently - priorities and sequencing - but the fact that we have catastrophically and comprehensively failed seems undeniable. Nobody living on Planet Earth can think anything is going right in the Taylor era. We keep plumbing depths I don't think anybody thought possible, now #115 in Sagarin. When @BigJohn043 shared computer algorithm data going all the way back to 1960, the worst Stanford teams in history were the winless 1960 team at #109 and the 1983 and 2006 teams at #104. There has never been a time in history in which there were more teams better than Stanford than is the case right now. Going back to 1960, our worst two year stretches were being #109 and #83 in 1960-1961 and being #89 and #87 in Shaw's last two years in 2021-2022. Now in Taylor's first two years we have set a new unequivocal low at #101 and #115. It seemed a given after last year that we had found bottom and could embark on the more rewarding process of slowly building. Instead, we keep getting worse and it's unclear when we will hit rock bottom considering that the performance keeps declining and recruiting is struggling enough that it appears likely the roster will be even less talented next year than it is this year.
2. Even by our standards, yesterday was heinous, the worst game of our season in terms of scoring margin relative to opponent. [Our games this year have been befitting the #91, #65, #27, #115, #158, #156, #162, #116, and #201 teams in the nation.] On some level, this is unsurprising given that we have been at a consistently abysmal level for over a month and were playing a 9am body clock game across the country, a circumstance that empirically essentially guarantees relatively poor performance for Stanford. Still, when you are already playing like the worst team in Stanford history fans could be forgiven for thinking it couldn't get worse. Nope. It got worse. This raises the specter of self-belief being completely destroyed, morale being in the toilet, and the dreaded situation of a team giving up on themselves/each other/the coaches. Taylor claims he didn't see that yesterday, but losing by 31 to a team as mediocre as NC State raises the question. #91 Wake Forest, #106 Northern Illinois, and #144 Louisiana Tech kept it within 10 against these guys and even #149 Western Carolina was only 17 back. I don't think you can be trying and lose to NC State by 31. This team is not only lost but deeply depressed. It's becoming clear our staff doesn't have a clue how to turn this around.
3. The argument we hear from some is that it needs to be a turnaround via the transfer portal and that it is focusing on the wrong thing to call for a change in coaching; others go further and argue our success is impossible. What these points of view miss is that more than one thing can be holding us back and until we have credible coaching there is no way to know what the talent on the roster can do. When the program reaches depths like this it is hard to argue anything isn't a problem and I find it incredible to hear arguments the coaching isn't a problem. I fully understand the headwinds we face but the idea this roster is #115 talent bad does not hold water. By recruiting rankings we are top 50. We will likely be top 50 in terms of how many players on the 2024 roster play in the NFL. By objective measures of returning production we were top five. I think people who question whether any coach could do better do not understand how bad #115 is. Honestly, it shouldn't come as a complete shock to see this staff fail. We have a head coach who had never been a major college football head coach a day in his life, a defensive coordinator who had never been a defensive coordinator a day in his life, and an entire offensive staff that had combined for zero days as major college football position coaches. In retrospect it seems we (yes, including me) may have deluded ourselves into thinking this was a serious staff.
4. It remains to be seen whether this offseason sees self-reflection and changes that reflect seriousness of purpose as a program but anything short of fundamental change should raise doubts. I do not think it would be excessive or premature to replace the athletic director and entire football coaching staff, double the number of incoming transfers, and pursue a revenue sharing model in line with the House settlement back pay formula. I do think it is unlikely we see all of that, making the debates about priorities and sequencing highly salient. I also think that this catastrophic failure coming at an inflection point for the sport on the cusp of revenue sharing raises questions about how much change and how many financial sacrifices Stanford can accept at once. This is an uncertain, depressing time. But Stanford has to do something and something fundamental. They won't deserve even the few hundred fans they do have if this off-season is another one of just letting Taylor pursue his theory of the case.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - msqueri - 11-03-2024
5. It seems beside the point to dissect the particulars of a game like this but if I am trying to will into existence a Stanford football team worth taking seriously I guess it's once more into the breach. The most interesting thing about this game is how well the offense played in a game in which the final score was our most embarrassing of the season. We scored 2.33 points per non-garbage drive, making the #105 points per drive defense look like the #76 points per drive defense. Bad, but far from worst game of the season bad. And it looked even better than that from a yardage standpoint. Thanks in large part to Daniels' two massive touchdown runs but not only due to those plays, the offense moved the ball a fair bit against NC State, though it was too dependent on big plays rather than consistent moving of the chains. Believe it or not, yesterday was the most yards per play we've ever had under Taylor and aside from Colgate 2022 the most we've had since September 2021 against Vanderbilt. It's the most we've had against a (for now) top 100 yards per play defense since the first game of the pandemic in 2020. It was also a great yardage performance even relative to other Power Four teams, with Clemson the only offense to gain yards per play like that against the Wolfpack this year. The problem was that our offense only got to run 55 plays yesterday, the fewest in the Taylor era (only 24 in the first half!). Fundamentally, NC State's offense could do whatever they wanted against our defense and that was all she wrote. Taylor's side of the ball didn't have a chance given April's side allowing 6.5 points per non-garbage drive (!), making the #98 points per drive offense look like the greatest offense in college football history. This is the second time in four games in which we have let an opposing offense score at will to the point their production exceeded the best offenses in history. But at least Notre Dame has a very good offense. NC State's offense kind of sucks. This was the most yards per play we've given up this season despite NC State being the seventh best SP+ offense and eighth best FEI offense we've faced, which is to say the worst FBS offense we've faced. To let such a bad offense score a touchdown every time is a special kind of failure.
6. As we could all see, it was a comprehensive defensive failure. That was the highest passer rating we've allowed since September 2022 against USC. CJ Bailey is the #45 Total QBR guy in the country and was #1 this week. Just had his way. With Bailey being a true freshman thrust into action mid-season, a Pollyanna might cite the possibility he's the real deal as the explanation for this torching and I'd like to believe that, but this game was consistent with our endemic pass defense incompetence. To wit: we are now #131 in defensive passer rating. Fact is nobody in Power Four is as incapable of pass defense as we are. To date we've told ourselves a story of compensating somewhat for that with a competitive run defense. Alas, that went down in an inglorious blaze yesterday too. After consistently holding opponents under their average, we gave up three yards more per carry than NC State's average. This was the second worst we've been carved up by a run game in the April era and the most success NC State has had on the ground since the first game of the 2021 season. Complete disaster for our run defense. I noted earlier in the year that the April run defense showed some signs of life last year - doing better than the opponent's average seven times - but in the final analysis it was a bad run defense (#100 in yards per carry allowed). It is sobering to think that after all the signs of progress we perceived seeing this season in the run defense we now head into the final three games #79 in yards per carry allowed. This could be deja vu with last year in terms of run defense progress turning out to be fool's gold. The fact the breakdown happened at this stage of the season against a very bad run game (even after yesterday NC State is #86 in yards per carry) raises the alarm for me that we are seeing the breakdown of will and fight in our defense.
7. The offensive stats kind of shocked me when I dug into them this morning. This was easily our most efficient passing day (aside from Cal Poly) in the two year Taylor era AND the most yards per carry in a game in the Taylor era. Simply put, the Taylor offense has never gobbled up yards like it did yesterday. The passing game was not able to take more advantage of the efficiency because we only passed 16 times, the lowest in the last eight seasons. Part of this was the offense being hamstrung by what the defense allowed NC State to do in controlling the game but it also, like the Notre Dame game, may speak to a lack of trust in our passing. Still, the chunk plays to Ayomanor and Mosley may be something to build on. There were also things to build on in the run game. Daniels' enormous runs to paydirt had a lot to do with the rushing stats being so good but it was a very good rushing performance independent of that with Tabb's extremely encouraging debut (72 yards on 6.2 yards per carry) as well. NC State has a bad run defense but so do TCU, Wake Forest, Clemson, Syracuse, and Cal Poly yet in no other game have we run like this. Encouraging. Three of our four best run blocking performances in PFF's lights have been in the last month. Stanford also joins SMU and NC State as the only teams with three players in the top 30 in the ACC in yards per carry (Davis, Daniels, and Ford), and that's before Tabb is now added to the mix. If the Taylor regime sticks around it is easier to see the hopes for the run game's future than it was a year ago this time. I think that's about all that qualifies for longer term optimism these days, but I'd be remiss not to point out the glimmer of hope for the run game going forward (which IMHO has more to do with RBs than with the OL rounding into shape).
8. Bummer for Daniels and for us that he got knocked out of the game. He was playing extremely well, #4 of 98 quarterbacks nationally in Total QBR this week (Lamson was #89), which I find remarkable given the fumbles. You turn the ball over on a strip-sack and also give up a big loss because you don't keep your eyes on the center's snap and you still end up with one of the better QB weeks nationally? Has to be a heck of a game to do that, and he did have a heck of a game. I presume (but don't know) it was a concussion or something close enough to that ballpark we didn't risk it; hope he's ok. One of my better in-season predictions this season was my call that Daniels would start reverting to the mean and play much better than his miserable September. Yesterday was not only the best game of his career but he's been much better these last three games than he had been prior to that. He's now #95 of 130 QBs nationally in Total QBR on the season, with seven Power Four QBs worse, and clearly trending in the right direction. Meanwhile, our (my) certitude that QB was what was holding the team back appears to have been a bit overstated. #95 of 130 is bad, but it's becoming increasingly clear a great many things on our team are that bad or worse. It's kind of sobering but Daniels is one of the ten or so best players on our team. Looking forward, people in and out of the program are going to wonder if we run it back with him as QB1 next year. Too early to say and one has to imagine Taylor (if he keeps his job) presents it once again as a competition. But with the new indications that we are going to try to preserve Brown's redshirt if we can (he is allowed one more game but if he plays in two of the remaining games that burns his year), it seems that we won't get many more data points on Brown this year. I'd be very open to a transfer but my guess is that Daniels puts together another solid game or two this season and we go into the off-season with happy talk that we have multiple QBs we believe in. I don't think fans should trust in that/Taylor as much as we did heading into this season.
9. Where I think Taylor's confidence has been most reinforced by what we've seen on the field this year is his talk about the young running backs. His anticipation preseason was palpable and I don't think the young backs have disappointed, especially considering they are running behind what PFF considers the #107 run blocking in the nation. I mentioned above that Ford and Davis are both top 30 in the ACC in yards per carry, and Tabb's college debut yesterday was an even better yards per carry than either. We'll see what it all looks like at the end of the year, but I am more confident than I have been in years that Stanford has talent and depth at running back. If we could ever block for these guys I think they'd be fun (and effective) as hell. Elsewhere among skill players, Ayomanor has been really heating up the last few weeks, Mosley is not quite as advertised but had one great big play yesterday, and Roush had a quiet game statistically but PFF thought he dominated in run blocking. [Moving the sticks (first down) leader board: Ayomanor (4, also drew a pass interference), Daniels (3), Lamson (3), Tabb (2), Mosley, Roush, Irvin] Along the offensive line, PFF thought House and Baklenko had the best games of their careers (Baklenko swapping in for McLaughlin after the latter's early failures got him benched again), Leyrer had a second consecutive solid game, Maikkula was meh (but continuing a trend of being more serviceable than the early games this season), and Pale's slump continued.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - msqueri - 11-03-2024
10. One of my game balls will be controversial given the egregious breakdown in discipline and sportsmanship shown in the kick that led to disqualification, but football is about making plays and Bailey just makes them so much more than others on our team. He is now 31st in the nation in sacks after being 74th last year. At the moment he has the most sacks per game we've had in the last decade, right around where Casey Toohill, Henry Anderson, and Solomon Thomas were at their peak and over a two year span getting to the QB like nothing we've seen since the Trent Murphy #PartyInTheBackfield days (nowhere close to that level of course). Bailey is also now fourth in the nation in fumbles forced per game (though one of the two yesterday may have been generous). PFF grades Bailey as the #3 edge player in America. Quite simply our best player. He was one of a somewhat modest seven players who showed up multiple times with positive contributions in the box score (Bernadel, Edwards, Bailey, Cooper, Phillips, Rose, Asiain), even more modest when considering that Cooper and Asiain did all their damage in garbage time. I do want to give some credit to the garbage time, however. Cooper being a whirling dervish when the game was out of hand is better than the alternative, to the cliche about coaches learning a lot about their team by seeing who is hustling in the fourth quarter of blowouts (but also disappointing Cooper did nothing before that). Asiain is one of several defensive freshmen who got in for late season playing time now that their redshirts are preserved, and he didn't just get his feet wet but made red zone and third down plays. In the same vein as running back having a young core that is appealing for the future one could perhaps say the same thing about DL (though it's been a bummer to see Staples undermine his effectiveness so much recently with bad hands to the face penalties). Outside of garbage time, Edwards and Bernadel were winning players yesterday, with five positive box score plays each (Edwards getting into the backfield and helping a notable amount in general in run defense and Bernadel as usual one of our better run defenders), and it was nice to see Tafiti with another turnover that hopefully continues to build confidence. There are a lot of players PFF think graded poorly and many who graded disastrously. Since it is so many guys I remain thinking that our focus needs to be on guys who can make plays, which is why I'm not going to disavow unsportsmanlike (at least in that moment) Bailey when he's the only guy making opponents sweat.
11. Special teams feels like it's kind of falling apart to be honest. Kick coverage was especially harmful in this one, giving up a 45 yard return on the opening kickoff, one to the 30 on the next one, and then the devastating 91 yard one to erase the momentum of a touchdown. We don't do enough on offense to allow Kenney to be a weapon. In the punting game, which we do have to rely on because of offensive shortcomings, we are not achieving big net advantages; in this one Flintoft had net punts of 43 to the 30 (solid but in that situation, flipping the field near the end of the first half in a game that wasn't out of control yet, it would have been nice for more), 33 to the 42 (very bad), and 36 to the 49 (also very bad). Notably, Flintoft had three punts out of bounds. Not sure if that was a game plan in light of opponent or something he was trying to do situationally or what, but we left some field position on the table. I've been a Flintoft fan/apologist much of the last two years but #80 in net punting on the season is not going to cut it. In the return game, Bachmeier had a 26 yard return to the 30, ad 25 yard return to the 31, and a zero yard punt return. I think he's ok.
12. Game balls: Daniels, Bailey, Bachmeier, Byham
13. The bye provides an opportunity for a reset and gut check to show some pride and end the season on a better note. Frankly we've seen enough to know who we are. This team is straight garbage, possibly the worst team in the history of the school. The team can maybe avoid those indictments if it can win enough that people won't have occasion to dredge up the worst historical comparisons. We probably can't avoid comparisons to our recent crappiness but if we can find a way to win another game (realistically the San Jose State game is the remaining opportunity) at least we can slot into the unbroken stretch of awful three win seasons. That kind of feels like a best case this year, a season that provides no sense of forward momentum for the program but at least isn't a historically inept dumpster fire in the win/loss column. At this point I am not sure if that's even in the best interest of the program. We are in the terrible situation we were late in the Shaw era of wondering if abject failure might be for the best to shock decision-makers into action. Because make no mistake that action - fundamental changes - is needed. I will hate it for fans and players and everybody if we sulk our way to the off-season with more games getting blown out and not belonging on the field and looking like we've given up, but maybe that will jostle us into reality.
TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 11-03-2024
The big change would be opting out of major conference football.
RE: TrumpCard - Mick - 11-03-2024
(11-03-2024, 02:20 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: The big change would be opting out of major conference football.
Yes. MWC. As I suggested a year ago. Local competition. SJSU, SDSU, Hawaii, Fresno State, UNLV, UNR, Sac St., and a string of 7-6 and 8-5 seasons with 15,000 to 20,000 fans as far as the eye can see.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Mick - 11-03-2024
(11-03-2024, 01:42 PM)msqueri Wrote: 1. The inescapable bottom line for Stanford football is that we are deep into the spiral of a catastrophic system-wide failure that requires fundamentally changing the way we operate. We can debate the details of what needs changing most urgently - priorities and sequencing - but the fact that we have catastrophically and comprehensively failed seems undeniable. Nobody living on Planet Earth can think anything is going right in the Taylor era. We keep plumbing depths I don't think anybody thought possible, now #115 in Sagarin. When @BigJohn043 shared computer algorithm data going all the way back to 1960, the worst Stanford teams in history were the winless 1960 team at #109 and the 1983 and 2006 teams at #104. There has never been a time in history in which there were more teams better than Stanford than is the case right now. Going back to 1960, our worst two year stretches were being #109 and #83 in 1960-1961 and being #89 and #87 in Shaw's last two years in 2021-2022. Now in Taylor's first two years we have set a new unequivocal low at #101 and #115. It seemed a given after last year that we had found bottom and could embark on the more rewarding process of slowly building. Instead, we keep getting worse and it's unclear when we will hit rock bottom considering that the performance keeps declining and recruiting is struggling enough that it appears likely the roster will be even less talented next year than it is this year.
2. Even by our standards, yesterday was heinous, the worst game of our season in terms of scoring margin relative to opponent. [Our games this year have been befitting the #91, #65, #27, #115, #158, #156, #162, #116, and #201 teams in the nation.] On some level, this is unsurprising given that we have been at a consistently abysmal level for over a month and were playing a 9am body clock game across the country, a circumstance that empirically essentially guarantees relatively poor performance for Stanford. Still, when you are already playing like the worst team in Stanford history fans could be forgiven for thinking it couldn't get worse. Nope. It got worse. This raises the specter of self-belief being completely destroyed, morale being in the toilet, and the dreaded situation of a team giving up on themselves/each other/the coaches. Taylor claims he didn't see that yesterday, but losing by 31 to a team as mediocre as NC State raises the question. #91 Wake Forest, #106 Northern Illinois, and #144 Louisiana Tech kept it within 10 against these guys and even #149 Western Carolina was only 17 back. I don't think you can be trying and lose to NC State by 31. This team is not only lost but deeply depressed. It's becoming clear our staff doesn't have a clue how to turn this around.
3. The argument we hear from some is that it needs to be a turnaround via the transfer portal and that it is focusing on the wrong thing to call for a change in coaching; others go further and argue our success is impossible. What these points of view miss is that more than one thing can be holding us back and until we have credible coaching there is no way to know what the talent on the roster can do. When the program reaches depths like this it is hard to argue anything isn't a problem and I find it incredible to hear arguments the coaching isn't a problem. I fully understand the headwinds we face but the idea this roster is #115 talent bad does not hold water. By recruiting rankings we are top 50. We will likely be top 50 in terms of how many players on the 2024 roster play in the NFL. By objective measures of returning production we were top five. I think people who question whether any coach could do better do not understand how bad #115 is. Honestly, it shouldn't come as a complete shock to see this staff fail. We have a head coach who had never been a major college football head coach a day in his life, a defensive coordinator who had never been a defensive coordinator a day in his life, and an entire offensive staff that had combined for zero days as major college football position coaches. In retrospect it seems we (yes, including me) may have deluded ourselves into thinking this was a serious staff.
4. It remains to be seen whether this offseason sees self-reflection and changes that reflect seriousness of purpose as a program but anything short of fundamental change should raise doubts. I do not think it would be excessive or premature to replace the athletic director and entire football coaching staff, double the number of incoming transfers, and pursue a revenue sharing model in line with the House settlement back pay formula. I do think it is unlikely we see all of that, making the debates about priorities and sequencing highly salient. I also think that this catastrophic failure coming at an inflection point for the sport on the cusp of revenue sharing raises questions about how much change and how many financial sacrifices Stanford can accept at once. This is an uncertain, depressing time. But Stanford has to do something and something fundamental. They won't deserve even the few hundred fans they do have if this off-season is another one of just letting Taylor pursue his theory of the case.
Great review, as always, msqueri. Incisive and penetrating.
In light of Stanford's season, here's a serious question. How do you think Stanford would do against the #1-ranked community college football program, Mt. San Antonio? MSA is currently 7-1 having beaten every team by between 12 and 59 points, losing by two to the #2 ranked team in California, Riverside CC.
Here's their schedule: 2023-24 Mt. SAC Football Schedule - Mt. San Antonio College
Here's their roster: 2024-25 Mt. SAC Football Roster - Mt. San Antonio College
Their OL averages 306 lbs, their DL averages 263. TEs are 235, QBs about 227, LBs a little undersized, averaging 215. Their best RB is Jon Volpe, I mean Devin Miles, 5'11", 185 lbs. Second best is Jayson Cortes, 5'8", 200 lbs.
How do you think that team would do against Stanford? Could they stay within four TDs?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Goose - 11-03-2024
As always msqueri has provided an incisive analysis of "what happened" on Saturday. This was such a pig mess it amazes me such an analysis was even possible. I really find points 1 through 3 to be spot on and compelling reading.
When Stanford hired TT it seemed probable he would bring a lot of his staff from Sacramento State with him. Stanford was going to get a coaching staff transplant. That didn't happen. Not only has TT never been a head coach at this level before but his staff has no experience either. On top of that they have no long history of working together successfully. From what we have seen TT doesn't seem to have a lot of known-good assistants breaking down his door to join the staff. That was and is "concerning". The fact TT is his own OC and QB coach is also concerning when QB play has been an issue. On could argue (and many did) that it was an out-of-the-box brilliant hire, TT "got" Stanford and would recruit well. The probability that next year's team will have less talent than this year's due to poor recruiting is chilling. Obviously TT et al haven't been able to deliver a narrative that brings good players to Stanford. Yes, the poor record doesn't help, but TT earned that. He has to rise above it, and so far he hasn't.
I am not sure this team is the worst team in Stanford history, but the data presented in heading 1 makes a good case for it. Sagarin may not be able to precisely analyze the relative rankings of teams that are off-the-charts bad. The data is undoubtedly very noisy. Dropping further year over year however lends support to the idea that if we weren't the worst team in Stanford history this year we have every chance of being so next year :-).
I find the introduction to item 6 to be an absolute gem. "As we could all see, it was a comprehensive defensive failure." This dictated the course of the game. Stanford's offensive statistics are IMO largely a chimera. Two long TD runs by your QB is a fluke. Daniels is a good runner but he isn't that good of a runner. Take those two runs away and you have an entirely different picture. Indeed there are some bright spots. I heartily agree that having better running backs (and being willing to stick with using them) is a bright spot. I am not totally sure but I think it is now possible to see a universe where Baklenko plays instead of McLaughlin :-). I also like a lot this from item 8 "Meanwhile, our (my) certitude that QB was what was holding the team back appears to have been a bit overstated. #95 of 130 is bad, but it's becoming increasingly clear a great many things on our team are that bad or worse. It's kind of sobering but Daniels is one of the ten or so best players on our team.". I think this is exactly correct. I think it is true despite the fact his accuracy is questionable and his ability to read the field is poor. That says a lot about where this team is.
There is (predictably) one area where I have to disagree with your take. From item 10 "One of my game balls will be controversial given the egregious breakdown in discipline and sportsmanship shown in the kick that led to disqualification, but football is about making plays and Bailey just makes them so much more than others on our team.". Indeed Bailey at times makes plays. It is true our defense lacks playmakers. It must also be said that at times Bailey's undisciplined play causes him to be in the wrong place and he therefore is unable to make what would have been a routine play. It may be that is happening less often than before. That said, kicking an opponent in the head intentionally has to be inadmissible. The poor performance by the defense coupled with an offensive player saying something or doing something improper can lead to massive frustration. This can lead to a defensive player taking a swing at somebody. That isn't supposed to happen and shows poor discipline. It is however understandable. Kicking somebody who is on the ground in the head isn't. It is just plain dirty play and reflects very badly on the player who does it and the University that tolerates it.
Remember the outrage when the USC players were stepping on the opponents? Well, right now that is us. I get it that he can make plays. Unfortunately in this game he did something highly improper. It can't be ignored because he is a good football player. It must be addressed in a public manner since it was a public act. The coaches can't let this kind of stuff be ignored. It has to be more than a slap on the wrist.
As I have said before I think Bailey will be in the transfer portal this year. I want to be able to follow that prediction up with "I hope I am wrong.". As of now, I can't say that. IMO he at least needs a trip to Canossa.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - JJJ - 11-03-2024
(11-03-2024, 03:01 PM)branner Wrote:(11-03-2024, 01:42 PM)msqueri Wrote: 1. The inescapable bottom line for Stanford football is that we are deep into the spiral of a catastrophic system-wide failure that requires fundamentally changing the way we operate.
Brilliant analysis, Matt. Your opening sentence is perfect.
I've been far away from the university for many years. In my experience, when people speak of Stanford, they do so with reverence for its ability to have excelled in academics and athletics. Many are gobsmacked that the university has been so strong in both domains for so long. But their attention often turns to football and they ask "What happened?"
Many people loved Intellectual Brutality, even if their hearts were dedicated to a different team. They loved seeing a small university physically overpower much larger opponents.
For Stanford to ignore how important athletics are to its reputation is institutional malpractice. Worse, allowing the years-long decline in football and men's basketball is symptomatic of a rot in the core of the university's leadership. I see the rot in how students are treated, how dissenting faculty are treated, in the explosion of the bureaucracy, in the tolerance of research malfeasance and conflicts of interest.
My son attends a D1 school in Texas with ~25,000 students. When my wife and I attend football and baseball games, we regularly see the president of the university leading cheers, mixing and taking photographs with students, and sitting in the stands with everyone else. He has high energy, enthusiasm, charm, and charisma. He's fun! He seems genuinely to love the university and his job. I wonder if Stanford's president or provost are similarly involved with student activities. I hope they at least go to the games, but do they? Is there a Fred Hargadon around, driving his convertible, classic Mustang into the tailgate areas, or memorizing the names of freshmen?
Whatever we choose to do, we need to do it well. You well illustrated how miserably we are failing in football. I could well believe that we are failing in other, less-visible enterprises as well. Somehow I doubt that football is the exception.
I am hopeful that new president Jon Levin (Class of ‘94) will be *that* guy that “gets” Stanford and will be a visible and frequent presence as cheerleader. No guarantees that this will be so, but he sounded good and we certainly need it!
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - old spanish trail - 11-03-2024
Great, as usual, Square. Re particulars, I agree with your position re Bailey. Though he doesn't play a full game, he clearly excels above the others. My guess is that he is/was frustrated as hell and it spilled over in reaction to a slimy play by NCS. One play illustrates my view re Bailey. During the 91 yd return, Bailey is steamrolled at midfield. Yet, there he is, running faster than everyone else down the field and almost reaching the returner being pushed out of bounds. If every player had that determination,...
RE: TrumpCard - 82lsju - 11-03-2024
(11-03-2024, 02:53 PM)Mick Wrote:(11-03-2024, 02:20 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: The big change would be opting out of major conference football.
Yes. MWC. As I suggested a year ago. Local competition. SJSU, SDSU, Hawaii, Fresno State, UNLV, UNR, Sac St., and a string of 7-6 and 8-5 seasons with 15,000 to 20,000 fans as far as the eye can see.
I'm not sure we'd have either a string of 7-6/8-5 seasons or draw 15,000 people per game....
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - msqueri - 11-03-2024
(11-03-2024, 03:52 PM)Goose Wrote: As always msqueri has provided an incisive analysis of "what happened" on Saturday. This was such a pig mess it amazes me such an analysis was even possible. I really find points 1 through 3 to be spot on and compelling reading.
When Stanford hired TT it seemed probable he would bring a lot of his staff from Sacramento State with him. Stanford was going to get a coaching staff transplant. That didn't happen. Not only has TT never been a head coach at this level before but his staff has no experience either. On top of that they have no long history of working together successfully. From what we have seen TT doesn't seem to have a lot of known-good assistants breaking down his door to join the staff. That was and is "concerning". The fact TT is his own OC and QB coach is also concerning when QB play has been an issue. On could argue (and many did) that it was an out-of-the-box brilliant hire, TT "got" Stanford and would recruit well. The probability that next year's team will have less talent than this year's due to poor recruiting is chilling. Obviously TT et al haven't been able to deliver a narrative that brings good players to Stanford. Yes, the poor record doesn't help, but TT earned that. He has to rise above it, and so far he hasn't.
I am not sure this team is the worst team in Stanford history, but the data presented in heading 1 makes a good case for it. Sagarin may not be able to precisely analyze the relative rankings of teams that are off-the-charts bad. The data is undoubtedly very noisy. Dropping further year over year however lends support to the idea that if we weren't the worst team in Stanford history this year we have every chance of being so next year :-).
I find the introduction to item 6 to be an absolute gem. "As we could all see, it was a comprehensive defensive failure." This dictated the course of the game. Stanford's offensive statistics are IMO largely a chimera. Two long TD runs by your QB is a fluke. Daniels is a good runner but he isn't that good of a runner. Take those two runs away and you have an entirely different picture. Indeed there are some bright spots. I heartily agree that having better running backs (and being willing to stick with using them) is a bright spot. I am not totally sure but I think it is now possible to see a universe where Baklenko plays instead of McLaughlin :-). I also like a lot this from item 8 "Meanwhile, our (my) certitude that QB was what was holding the team back appears to have been a bit overstated. #95 of 130 is bad, but it's becoming increasingly clear a great many things on our team are that bad or worse. It's kind of sobering but Daniels is one of the ten or so best players on our team.". I think this is exactly correct. I think it is true despite the fact his accuracy is questionable and his ability to read the field is poor. That says a lot about where this team is.
There is (predictably) one area where I have to disagree with your take. From item 10 "One of my game balls will be controversial given the egregious breakdown in discipline and sportsmanship shown in the kick that led to disqualification, but football is about making plays and Bailey just makes them so much more than others on our team.". Indeed Bailey at times makes plays. It is true our defense lacks playmakers. It must also be said that at times Bailey's undisciplined play causes him to be in the wrong place and he therefore is unable to make what would have been a routine play. It may be that is happening less often than before. That said, kicking an opponent in the head intentionally has to be inadmissible. The poor performance by the defense coupled with an offensive player saying something or doing something improper can lead to massive frustration. This can lead to a defensive player taking a swing at somebody. That isn't supposed to happen and shows poor discipline. It is however understandable. Kicking somebody who is on the ground in the head isn't. It is just plain dirty play and reflects very badly on the player who does it and the University that tolerates it.
Remember the outrage when the USC players were stepping on the opponents? Well, right now that is us. I get it that he can make plays. Unfortunately in this game he did something highly improper. It can't be ignored because he is a good football player. It must be addressed in a public manner since it was a public act. The coaches can't let this kind of stuff be ignored. It has to be more than a slap on the wrist.
As I have said before I think Bailey will be in the transfer portal this year. I want to be able to follow that prediction up with "I hope I am wrong.". As of now, I can't say that. IMO he at least needs a trip to Canossa.
On our disagreement on Bailey:
The sleaziest, most dangerous, most inexcusable play I have ever seen as a Stanford fan was by Leigh Torrence in the Big Game on a punt coverage when in his frustration he just annihilated the defenseless Cal punt returner Tim Mixon in the 2004 Big Game blowout. It was the coup de grace on Teevens' tenure. One of our most admired, disciplined, and classy players of all becoming full thug, far worse than pretty much anything I have ever seen an opposing player do to us in the last 40 years. He was frustrated. I give our players a lot more grace than the highly paid coaches responsible for the demoralization.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - martyup - 11-03-2024
Great analysis Matt. Do you have a prediction of which players we will lose to the portal after this season?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Row80Critic - 11-03-2024
I haven't missed a home game in 50+ years, save a few funerals over the years, and maybe an ill-scheduled wedding or two.
The question I'm struggling with is this: if Stanford doesn't take meaningful action of some kind, should we continue to give them money for tickets? Do we become part of the problem by showing up year after year, no matter how negligent the administration?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - msqueri - 11-03-2024
(11-03-2024, 06:56 PM)martyup Wrote: Great analysis Matt. Do you have a prediction of which players we will lose to the portal after this season?
I don't. I've seen some murmuring it could be bad. Anything significant would be pretty damaging considering our lackluster recruiting and the difficulty of compensating via incoming transfers. We also have to worry about the NFL, which could take Bailey and/or Ayomanor. Bailey might find a transfer elsewhere an option as well, though he already stuck around one year when many thought he might transfer. Ayomanor strikes me as likely NFL partly because college, either at Stanford or elsewhere, is presumably less attractive than it would be for many as he's on a student visa and thus less able to avail himself of NIL money. I'd like to get sixth years for Rogers and/or McLaughlin but don't know if that's realistic. Wright, Edwards, Ford, Davis, Tabb, Blackburn, Rose, Leigber, Maikkula, Pale, Baklenko, Cisse, Mosley, and others are guys it would be good to avoid losing.
On one level I think any significant attrition would be very bad. On another things on the field and the recruiting trail are so bleak that it doesn't seem to matter too much, much more important that we address very fundamental things related to coaching, culture, and our systematic/structural attraction to recruits and transfers.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Goose - 11-03-2024
(11-03-2024, 05:35 PM)msqueri Wrote: On our disagreement on Bailey:
The sleaziest, most dangerous, most inexcusable play I have ever seen as a Stanford fan was by Leigh Torrence in the Big Game on a punt coverage when in his frustration he just annihilated the defenseless Cal punt returner Tim Mixon in the 2004 Big Game blowout. It was the coup de grace on Teevens' tenure. One of our most admired, disciplined, and classy players of all becoming full thug, far worse than pretty much anything I have ever seen an opposing player do to us in the last 40 years. He was frustrated. I give our players a lot more grace than the highly paid coaches responsible for the demoralization.
We do look at it differently. One of the supposed virtues of athletic competition is that it helps one learn to deal with demoralization and learn how to use that emotion to make you better. Of course, another version of that is that athletics doesn't build character, it reveals it.
That big game was a mess. I don't actually remember the game but I do remember the season. Trent Edwards is the guy who totally deserved to be demoralized that year. Regarding the game itself:
https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/This-time-it-s-personal-More-than-200-yards-in-2633950.php
Quoting Tedford
Quote:"It's always very scary when a guy is defenseless when fielding a punt," Tedford said. "It's our job to see that our guys play with class and don't do things like that.Of course, Tedford himself wasn't necessarily a paragon of virtue. Teevens was fired and never had to decide how to deal with Leigh Torrence. Torrence was a 5th year senior, so that was his last Stanford performance in any case. He signed as an UDFA with Green Bay and played 8 seasons in the NFL. He too could "make plays".
I think that was a little retaliation and frustration. If that had been one of our players, he would not have seen the field for a long, long time. But I know Buddy, and that was not a reflection of him at all. That's not what he stands for."
David Bailey isn't in that situation, nor is TT. How will TT deal with it? Will Bailey "see the field"? What does TT stand for?
IMO everybody involved with Stanford Football is "demoralized". The coaches didn't create the demoralization by themselves. The players are the ones that play (or don't). I give none of them any extra "grace". They all signed up for where they are right now. They all need to be better. TT can't go all Woody Hayes on us when things go wrong. That will get him fired. Similarly David Bailey can't behave like a thug and expect no consequences. I don't buy the idea that adversity excuses bad conduct. It may need to be a definite learning experience.
I fully understand others may not quite see it that way :-).
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - BostonCard - 11-03-2024
(11-03-2024, 07:03 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: I haven't missed a home game in 50+ years, save a few funerals over the years, and maybe an ill-scheduled wedding or two.
The question I'm struggling with is this: if Stanford doesn't take meaningful action of some kind, should we continue to give them money for tickets? Do we become part of the problem by showing up year after year, no matter how negligent the administration?
You should go to the games if you enjoy going to them and not go if you do not enjoy them. You don’t owe Stanford anything either way. Your loyalty will not be rewarded, but conversely, your “message” will not be listened to.
So, go to Stanford football games if you enjoy them and don’t go if you have better things to do.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - needle - 11-03-2024
It finally happened: Stanford now ranks dead last among all FBS teams in tackles for loss allowed, averaging 9.22 per game.
Only four other teams are averaging more than 8 per game: Oklahoma (fired their OC), Houston (first year under head coach Willie Fritz), Southern Mississippi (fired their head coach) and South Carolina (because college football is weird, this week's darlings after upsetting highly-ranked Texas A&M).
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Mick - 11-03-2024
(11-03-2024, 05:35 PM)msqueri Wrote:(11-03-2024, 03:52 PM)Goose Wrote: As always msqueri has provided an incisive analysis of "what happened" on Saturday. This was such a pig mess it amazes me such an analysis was even possible. I really find points 1 through 3 to be spot on and compelling reading.
When Stanford hired TT it seemed probable he would bring a lot of his staff from Sacramento State with him. Stanford was going to get a coaching staff transplant. That didn't happen. Not only has TT never been a head coach at this level before but his staff has no experience either. On top of that they have no long history of working together successfully. From what we have seen TT doesn't seem to have a lot of known-good assistants breaking down his door to join the staff. That was and is "concerning". The fact TT is his own OC and QB coach is also concerning when QB play has been an issue. On could argue (and many did) that it was an out-of-the-box brilliant hire, TT "got" Stanford and would recruit well. The probability that next year's team will have less talent than this year's due to poor recruiting is chilling. Obviously TT et al haven't been able to deliver a narrative that brings good players to Stanford. Yes, the poor record doesn't help, but TT earned that. He has to rise above it, and so far he hasn't.
I am not sure this team is the worst team in Stanford history, but the data presented in heading 1 makes a good case for it. Sagarin may not be able to precisely analyze the relative rankings of teams that are off-the-charts bad. The data is undoubtedly very noisy. Dropping further year over year however lends support to the idea that if we weren't the worst team in Stanford history this year we have every chance of being so next year :-).
I find the introduction to item 6 to be an absolute gem. "As we could all see, it was a comprehensive defensive failure." This dictated the course of the game. Stanford's offensive statistics are IMO largely a chimera. Two long TD runs by your QB is a fluke. Daniels is a good runner but he isn't that good of a runner. Take those two runs away and you have an entirely different picture. Indeed there are some bright spots. I heartily agree that having better running backs (and being willing to stick with using them) is a bright spot. I am not totally sure but I think it is now possible to see a universe where Baklenko plays instead of McLaughlin :-). I also like a lot this from item 8 "Meanwhile, our (my) certitude that QB was what was holding the team back appears to have been a bit overstated. #95 of 130 is bad, but it's becoming increasingly clear a great many things on our team are that bad or worse. It's kind of sobering but Daniels is one of the ten or so best players on our team.". I think this is exactly correct. I think it is true despite the fact his accuracy is questionable and his ability to read the field is poor. That says a lot about where this team is.
There is (predictably) one area where I have to disagree with your take. From item 10 "One of my game balls will be controversial given the egregious breakdown in discipline and sportsmanship shown in the kick that led to disqualification, but football is about making plays and Bailey just makes them so much more than others on our team.". Indeed Bailey at times makes plays. It is true our defense lacks playmakers. It must also be said that at times Bailey's undisciplined play causes him to be in the wrong place and he therefore is unable to make what would have been a routine play. It may be that is happening less often than before. That said, kicking an opponent in the head intentionally has to be inadmissible. The poor performance by the defense coupled with an offensive player saying something or doing something improper can lead to massive frustration. This can lead to a defensive player taking a swing at somebody. That isn't supposed to happen and shows poor discipline. It is however understandable. Kicking somebody who is on the ground in the head isn't. It is just plain dirty play and reflects very badly on the player who does it and the University that tolerates it.
Remember the outrage when the USC players were stepping on the opponents? Well, right now that is us. I get it that he can make plays. Unfortunately in this game he did something highly improper. It can't be ignored because he is a good football player. It must be addressed in a public manner since it was a public act. The coaches can't let this kind of stuff be ignored. It has to be more than a slap on the wrist.
As I have said before I think Bailey will be in the transfer portal this year. I want to be able to follow that prediction up with "I hope I am wrong.". As of now, I can't say that. IMO he at least needs a trip to Canossa.
On our disagreement on Bailey:
The sleaziest, most dangerous, most inexcusable play I have ever seen as a Stanford fan was by Leigh Torrence in the Big Game on a punt coverage when in his frustration he just annihilated the defenseless Cal punt returner Tim Mixon in the 2004 Big Game blowout. It was the coup de grace on Teevens' tenure. One of our most admired, disciplined, and classy players of all becoming full thug, far worse than pretty much anything I have ever seen an opposing player do to us in the last 40 years. He was frustrated. I give our players a lot more grace than the highly paid coaches responsible for the demoralization.
For me, it was the Cal LB who facemasked Mike Mitchell, rupturing both Mitchell's knees. Mitchell, the #1 prep running back in the nation had the 4th highest career yards by a Stanford RB and was headed to the NFL, all ruined by some nobody Cal LB.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Giants - 11-04-2024
(11-03-2024, 09:23 PM)Mick Wrote:(11-03-2024, 05:35 PM)msqueri Wrote:(11-03-2024, 03:52 PM)Goose Wrote: As always msqueri has provided an incisive analysis of "what happened" on Saturday. This was such a pig mess it amazes me such an analysis was even possible. I really find points 1 through 3 to be spot on and compelling reading.
When Stanford hired TT it seemed probable he would bring a lot of his staff from Sacramento State with him. Stanford was going to get a coaching staff transplant. That didn't happen. Not only has TT never been a head coach at this level before but his staff has no experience either. On top of that they have no long history of working together successfully. From what we have seen TT doesn't seem to have a lot of known-good assistants breaking down his door to join the staff. That was and is "concerning". The fact TT is his own OC and QB coach is also concerning when QB play has been an issue. On could argue (and many did) that it was an out-of-the-box brilliant hire, TT "got" Stanford and would recruit well. The probability that next year's team will have less talent than this year's due to poor recruiting is chilling. Obviously TT et al haven't been able to deliver a narrative that brings good players to Stanford. Yes, the poor record doesn't help, but TT earned that. He has to rise above it, and so far he hasn't.
I am not sure this team is the worst team in Stanford history, but the data presented in heading 1 makes a good case for it. Sagarin may not be able to precisely analyze the relative rankings of teams that are off-the-charts bad. The data is undoubtedly very noisy. Dropping further year over year however lends support to the idea that if we weren't the worst team in Stanford history this year we have every chance of being so next year :-).
I find the introduction to item 6 to be an absolute gem. "As we could all see, it was a comprehensive defensive failure." This dictated the course of the game. Stanford's offensive statistics are IMO largely a chimera. Two long TD runs by your QB is a fluke. Daniels is a good runner but he isn't that good of a runner. Take those two runs away and you have an entirely different picture. Indeed there are some bright spots. I heartily agree that having better running backs (and being willing to stick with using them) is a bright spot. I am not totally sure but I think it is now possible to see a universe where Baklenko plays instead of McLaughlin :-). I also like a lot this from item 8 "Meanwhile, our (my) certitude that QB was what was holding the team back appears to have been a bit overstated. #95 of 130 is bad, but it's becoming increasingly clear a great many things on our team are that bad or worse. It's kind of sobering but Daniels is one of the ten or so best players on our team.". I think this is exactly correct. I think it is true despite the fact his accuracy is questionable and his ability to read the field is poor. That says a lot about where this team is.
There is (predictably) one area where I have to disagree with your take. From item 10 "One of my game balls will be controversial given the egregious breakdown in discipline and sportsmanship shown in the kick that led to disqualification, but football is about making plays and Bailey just makes them so much more than others on our team.". Indeed Bailey at times makes plays. It is true our defense lacks playmakers. It must also be said that at times Bailey's undisciplined play causes him to be in the wrong place and he therefore is unable to make what would have been a routine play. It may be that is happening less often than before. That said, kicking an opponent in the head intentionally has to be inadmissible. The poor performance by the defense coupled with an offensive player saying something or doing something improper can lead to massive frustration. This can lead to a defensive player taking a swing at somebody. That isn't supposed to happen and shows poor discipline. It is however understandable. Kicking somebody who is on the ground in the head isn't. It is just plain dirty play and reflects very badly on the player who does it and the University that tolerates it.
Remember the outrage when the USC players were stepping on the opponents? Well, right now that is us. I get it that he can make plays. Unfortunately in this game he did something highly improper. It can't be ignored because he is a good football player. It must be addressed in a public manner since it was a public act. The coaches can't let this kind of stuff be ignored. It has to be more than a slap on the wrist.
As I have said before I think Bailey will be in the transfer portal this year. I want to be able to follow that prediction up with "I hope I am wrong.". As of now, I can't say that. IMO he at least needs a trip to Canossa.
On our disagreement on Bailey:
The sleaziest, most dangerous, most inexcusable play I have ever seen as a Stanford fan was by Leigh Torrence in the Big Game on a punt coverage when in his frustration he just annihilated the defenseless Cal punt returner Tim Mixon in the 2004 Big Game blowout. It was the coup de grace on Teevens' tenure. One of our most admired, disciplined, and classy players of all becoming full thug, far worse than pretty much anything I have ever seen an opposing player do to us in the last 40 years. He was frustrated. I give our players a lot more grace than the highly paid coaches responsible for the demoralization.
For me, it was the Cal LB who facemasked Mike Mitchell, rupturing both Mitchell's knees. Mitchell, the #1 prep running back in the nation had the 4th highest career yards by a Stanford RB and was headed to the NFL, all ruined by some nobody Cal LB.
Look up Mike McKeever (1959 USC) if you are interested in learning about a dirty football player. His hit on Cal’s Tom Bates was easily the most egregious that I have seen in my lifetime. Heck, the President of USC issued an apology to Cal’s Chancellor after the game.
Note: That was the second consecutive game during which McKeever was ejected. The prior week (v. Stanford) he was also tossed out.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Mick - 11-04-2024
(11-04-2024, 12:12 AM)Giants Wrote:(11-03-2024, 09:23 PM)Mick Wrote:(11-03-2024, 05:35 PM)msqueri Wrote:(11-03-2024, 03:52 PM)Goose Wrote: As always msqueri has provided an incisive analysis of "what happened" on Saturday. This was such a pig mess it amazes me such an analysis was even possible. I really find points 1 through 3 to be spot on and compelling reading.
When Stanford hired TT it seemed probable he would bring a lot of his staff from Sacramento State with him. Stanford was going to get a coaching staff transplant. That didn't happen. Not only has TT never been a head coach at this level before but his staff has no experience either. On top of that they have no long history of working together successfully. From what we have seen TT doesn't seem to have a lot of known-good assistants breaking down his door to join the staff. That was and is "concerning". The fact TT is his own OC and QB coach is also concerning when QB play has been an issue. On could argue (and many did) that it was an out-of-the-box brilliant hire, TT "got" Stanford and would recruit well. The probability that next year's team will have less talent than this year's due to poor recruiting is chilling. Obviously TT et al haven't been able to deliver a narrative that brings good players to Stanford. Yes, the poor record doesn't help, but TT earned that. He has to rise above it, and so far he hasn't.
I am not sure this team is the worst team in Stanford history, but the data presented in heading 1 makes a good case for it. Sagarin may not be able to precisely analyze the relative rankings of teams that are off-the-charts bad. The data is undoubtedly very noisy. Dropping further year over year however lends support to the idea that if we weren't the worst team in Stanford history this year we have every chance of being so next year :-).
I find the introduction to item 6 to be an absolute gem. "As we could all see, it was a comprehensive defensive failure." This dictated the course of the game. Stanford's offensive statistics are IMO largely a chimera. Two long TD runs by your QB is a fluke. Daniels is a good runner but he isn't that good of a runner. Take those two runs away and you have an entirely different picture. Indeed there are some bright spots. I heartily agree that having better running backs (and being willing to stick with using them) is a bright spot. I am not totally sure but I think it is now possible to see a universe where Baklenko plays instead of McLaughlin :-). I also like a lot this from item 8 "Meanwhile, our (my) certitude that QB was what was holding the team back appears to have been a bit overstated. #95 of 130 is bad, but it's becoming increasingly clear a great many things on our team are that bad or worse. It's kind of sobering but Daniels is one of the ten or so best players on our team.". I think this is exactly correct. I think it is true despite the fact his accuracy is questionable and his ability to read the field is poor. That says a lot about where this team is.
There is (predictably) one area where I have to disagree with your take. From item 10 "One of my game balls will be controversial given the egregious breakdown in discipline and sportsmanship shown in the kick that led to disqualification, but football is about making plays and Bailey just makes them so much more than others on our team.". Indeed Bailey at times makes plays. It is true our defense lacks playmakers. It must also be said that at times Bailey's undisciplined play causes him to be in the wrong place and he therefore is unable to make what would have been a routine play. It may be that is happening less often than before. That said, kicking an opponent in the head intentionally has to be inadmissible. The poor performance by the defense coupled with an offensive player saying something or doing something improper can lead to massive frustration. This can lead to a defensive player taking a swing at somebody. That isn't supposed to happen and shows poor discipline. It is however understandable. Kicking somebody who is on the ground in the head isn't. It is just plain dirty play and reflects very badly on the player who does it and the University that tolerates it.
Remember the outrage when the USC players were stepping on the opponents? Well, right now that is us. I get it that he can make plays. Unfortunately in this game he did something highly improper. It can't be ignored because he is a good football player. It must be addressed in a public manner since it was a public act. The coaches can't let this kind of stuff be ignored. It has to be more than a slap on the wrist.
As I have said before I think Bailey will be in the transfer portal this year. I want to be able to follow that prediction up with "I hope I am wrong.". As of now, I can't say that. IMO he at least needs a trip to Canossa.
On our disagreement on Bailey:
The sleaziest, most dangerous, most inexcusable play I have ever seen as a Stanford fan was by Leigh Torrence in the Big Game on a punt coverage when in his frustration he just annihilated the defenseless Cal punt returner Tim Mixon in the 2004 Big Game blowout. It was the coup de grace on Teevens' tenure. One of our most admired, disciplined, and classy players of all becoming full thug, far worse than pretty much anything I have ever seen an opposing player do to us in the last 40 years. He was frustrated. I give our players a lot more grace than the highly paid coaches responsible for the demoralization.
For me, it was the Cal LB who facemasked Mike Mitchell, rupturing both Mitchell's knees. Mitchell, the #1 prep running back in the nation had the 4th highest career yards by a Stanford RB and was headed to the NFL, all ruined by some nobody Cal LB.
Look up Mike McKeever (1959 USC) if you are interested in learning about a dirty football player. His hit on Cal’s Tom Bates was easily the most egregious that I have seen in my lifetime. Heck, the President of USC issued an apology to Cal’s Chancellor after the game.
Note: That was the second consecutive game during which McKeever was ejected. The prior week (v. Stanford) he was also tossed out.
I did look him up. Here's USC's article on McKeever's tackle of Steve Bates. McKeever was leading USC in tackles at the time. Appears that dirty play was emblematic of USC at the time. Coach Clark ended up stepping down after the season in favor of that ray of sunshine, John McKay.
USC football throwback: The controversy, injury and tragedy of Mike McKeever
Had extensive head injuries from football including two blood clots on his brain, then died after a car crash, age 27. His son Barry played for Stanford.