[Hurlburt88]

Hank, surprised you haven't posted this yet.   Always enjoy reading your analyses!   

https://www.gomightycard.com/2019/07/201....html#more

[Hurlburt88]

Hank, surprised you haven't posted this yet.   Always enjoy reading your analyses!   

https://www.gomightycard.com/2019/07/201....html#more

[JeffInCorvallis]

Executive summary: We play a lot of teams this year that might be really good.

(I do appreciate the analysis.)

[JeffInCorvallis]

Executive summary: We play a lot of teams this year that might be really good.

(I do appreciate the analysis.)

[CornFed]

Hank, you really provide quality writeups.  Thanks for sharing.

[CornFed]

Hank, you really provide quality writeups.  Thanks for sharing.

[CTcard]

The usual fun article Hank.


One big question for Stanford next year is how difficult will the schedule really be.

The arguments that it will be incredibly tough are well known, and pretty much covered by Hank.
There are some counter trends however ...

- It is unclear just how good some of Stanford's opponents will really be; there seem to be a particularly large number of teams with potential to be considerably better or worse than expected.
Northwestern: In recent times always at least a pretty good team and there is some chance they'll be particularly good this year. They won the Big Ten West last year, finished the season off with a bowl game victory over Utah, and have a previously very highly rated HS QB coming on line. On the other hand, computer based rankings systems almost universally said NWU was lucky last year with rankings from #32 (Sagarin) to #68 (Connelly's S&P+), they have to replace their NFL-level QB (drafted by Eagles), their top WR, 3/5 OL, and I think 5 starters on defense. Where does that all end up - and by the first game?
UCF. In their case, there's no real question that they were very good the past two years - with perhaps some quibble about exactly how good. However, there appears to be a ton of turnover including QB and much of their two-deep on defense - particularly up the middle. But they'll still be very fast with a lot of good skill players. Whatever happens to UCF, I hate our chances here; we seem to rarely play well east of the Mississippi.
U$C. Projections for $C are all over the map. As Hank notes $C always has a ton of raw talent. This year they won't have to play a true frosh QB. But they were only 5-7 last year, are retooling their offense, and lose quite a bit on defense back 7 (though does that matter at $C?).
WSU. They seem to be picked to be worse this coming season by most. They return a lot, but will be trying to break in a new QB (another grad transfer - this one with a history of injuries) in a QB dependent system. If it works as well they could be very good.

- Other schedule dynamics.
Conference misses: Stanford misses Utah and ASU from the south. Utah is the south favorite. ASU I have seen projected from 2nd to 5th. Probably good teams to miss.
Home/away: As always, the odd-year schedule features many of the better teams at home: NWU, Oregon, UW, cal, und. 
Breaks: A pseudo-bye (with following Thursday game) and a real bye. A little close together, but well placed: after game #6 and game #8.


Another year with a front-heavy schedule could mean the national media forgets us despite again finishing with at least a pretty good record.

[CTcard]

The usual fun article Hank.


One big question for Stanford next year is how difficult will the schedule really be.

The arguments that it will be incredibly tough are well known, and pretty much covered by Hank.
There are some counter trends however ...

- It is unclear just how good some of Stanford's opponents will really be; there seem to be a particularly large number of teams with potential to be considerably better or worse than expected.
Northwestern: In recent times always at least a pretty good team and there is some chance they'll be particularly good this year. They won the Big Ten West last year, finished the season off with a bowl game victory over Utah, and have a previously very highly rated HS QB coming on line. On the other hand, computer based rankings systems almost universally said NWU was lucky last year with rankings from #32 (Sagarin) to #68 (Connelly's S&P+), they have to replace their NFL-level QB (drafted by Eagles), their top WR, 3/5 OL, and I think 5 starters on defense. Where does that all end up - and by the first game?
UCF. In their case, there's no real question that they were very good the past two years - with perhaps some quibble about exactly how good. However, there appears to be a ton of turnover including QB and much of their two-deep on defense - particularly up the middle. But they'll still be very fast with a lot of good skill players. Whatever happens to UCF, I hate our chances here; we seem to rarely play well east of the Mississippi.
U$C. Projections for $C are all over the map. As Hank notes $C always has a ton of raw talent. This year they won't have to play a true frosh QB. But they were only 5-7 last year, are retooling their offense, and lose quite a bit on defense back 7 (though does that matter at $C?).
WSU. They seem to be picked to be worse this coming season by most. They return a lot, but will be trying to break in a new QB (another grad transfer - this one with a history of injuries) in a QB dependent system. If it works as well they could be very good.

- Other schedule dynamics.
Conference misses: Stanford misses Utah and ASU from the south. Utah is the south favorite. ASU I have seen projected from 2nd to 5th. Probably good teams to miss.
Home/away: As always, the odd-year schedule features many of the better teams at home: NWU, Oregon, UW, cal, und. 
Breaks: A pseudo-bye (with following Thursday game) and a real bye. A little close together, but well placed: after game #6 and game #8.


Another year with a front-heavy schedule could mean the national media forgets us despite again finishing with at least a pretty good record.

[Phogge]

Love The Pirate. Always entertaining.

[Phogge]

Love The Pirate. Always entertaining.

[JohnR34231]

Love The Pirate. Always entertaining.

Who would have thought ten years ago that in 2019 Washington State would be the team in the conference with the longest winning streak against us.

[JohnR34231]

Love The Pirate. Always entertaining.

Who would have thought ten years ago that in 2019 Washington State would be the team in the conference with the longest winning streak against us.

[BostonCard]

Love The Pirate. Always entertaining.

Who would have thought ten years ago that in 2019 Washington State would be the team in the conference with the longest winning streak against us.

Who would have thought ten years ago that in 2019 UCLA would be the team in the conference with the longest losing streak against us.

BC

[BostonCard]

Love The Pirate. Always entertaining.

Who would have thought ten years ago that in 2019 Washington State would be the team in the conference with the longest winning streak against us.

Who would have thought ten years ago that in 2019 UCLA would be the team in the conference with the longest losing streak against us.

BC

[Hank 91]

Thanks for posting this here. I agree with all the comments above. As challenging as the schedule appears to be right now, who knows what these teams will look like when they actually get on the field? Since I wrote the preview, for example, UCF lost another quarterback. But like most things in sports, the growth and development of the Stanford players will matter far more than anything else.

[Hank 91]

Thanks for posting this here. I agree with all the comments above. As challenging as the schedule appears to be right now, who knows what these teams will look like when they actually get on the field? Since I wrote the preview, for example, UCF lost another quarterback. But like most things in sports, the growth and development of the Stanford players will matter far more than anything else.

[JJJ]

I didn't want to steal Hank91's thunder, but it appeared on my facebook feed so I thought it should be shared here too.
(If it needs to be a new thread, Hank can start it!)

https://www.gomightycard.com/2019/07/sta...fense.html

[JJJ]

I didn't want to steal Hank91's thunder, but it appeared on my facebook feed so I thought it should be shared here too.
(If it needs to be a new thread, Hank can start it!)

https://www.gomightycard.com/2019/07/sta...fense.html

[CTcard]

I didn't want to steal Hank91's thunder, but it appeared on my facebook feed so I thought it should be shared here too.
(If it needs to be a new thread, Hank can start it!)

https://www.gomightycard.com/2019/07/sta...fense.html

A couple of topics from the article. These are more for further discussion here rather than any quibble with the article.

1. "given the prior history of Stanford football, no Golden Age would seem more improbable."

I wonder if that is true.
No doubt it is true given considering only the five years preceding the arrival of Harbaugh.
And really, there weren't all that many great seasons since the start of the 1980s (7 out of 26 winning seasons from 1981 through 2006). 
But Stanford did have some things going for it all along:
- A lot of history. Stanford is tied for the third most appearances in the Rose Bowl and has a 61% winning percentage all time.
- Even in the darker days, lots of individually noted players and coaches keeping the Stanford name alive with recruits, like John Elway, Darrin Nelson, Bill Walsh.
- Stanford's academic reputation is a double-edged sword in recruiting, where we sometimes forget about the positive edge. For athletes with an interest in being a student and can gain admission, Stanford has a very compelling case to make that goes beyond simply being the notable school in the immediate geographic area.

On the other hand, I am not immediately able to suggest another golden age that was more improbable.
Maybe someplace like Oregon? Not in a particularly strong recruiting area, a relatively small state university in a relatively small state in a smaller city, terrible football records from the mid-60s through late 80s, they had to hold on to Brooks for 12 years before he broke through - of those 12 only four were winning records and those just barely.
Or ... TCU? Baylor (before the crash)?


2. "Andrew Luck is the best quarterback in school history"
Is he?
He certainly is among those with a claim, but at least a few others deserve some serious consideration.
Those others might include Frankie Albert (1940), Jim Plunkett (1970 for the Rose Bowl, though his stats were better in 1969), John Elway (1982, though really his whole career). Maybe there are others who should be considered as well (Kerkorian 1951?).

3. Offensive Line
I think there is something to be said for most years between 2009-2015 (maybe not 2014), but you made a good case for 2010. [I would make the minor correction that from the stats I saw, they were only the nation's second best in sacks allowed per game behind Air Force, but I suspect they were tops in sacks per passing attempt.]

4. Tight End
Not only do I agree with your choice of Zach Ertz 2012, I think that if anything you undersell it. He basically was our pass offense in 2012 by himself. Not often a TE does that. And he blocked at least reasonably well. That was a truly great season by a position player.

[CTcard]

I didn't want to steal Hank91's thunder, but it appeared on my facebook feed so I thought it should be shared here too.
(If it needs to be a new thread, Hank can start it!)

https://www.gomightycard.com/2019/07/sta...fense.html

A couple of topics from the article. These are more for further discussion here rather than any quibble with the article.

1. "given the prior history of Stanford football, no Golden Age would seem more improbable."

I wonder if that is true.
No doubt it is true given considering only the five years preceding the arrival of Harbaugh.
And really, there weren't all that many great seasons since the start of the 1980s (7 out of 26 winning seasons from 1981 through 2006). 
But Stanford did have some things going for it all along:
- A lot of history. Stanford is tied for the third most appearances in the Rose Bowl and has a 61% winning percentage all time.
- Even in the darker days, lots of individually noted players and coaches keeping the Stanford name alive with recruits, like John Elway, Darrin Nelson, Bill Walsh.
- Stanford's academic reputation is a double-edged sword in recruiting, where we sometimes forget about the positive edge. For athletes with an interest in being a student and can gain admission, Stanford has a very compelling case to make that goes beyond simply being the notable school in the immediate geographic area.

On the other hand, I am not immediately able to suggest another golden age that was more improbable.
Maybe someplace like Oregon? Not in a particularly strong recruiting area, a relatively small state university in a relatively small state in a smaller city, terrible football records from the mid-60s through late 80s, they had to hold on to Brooks for 12 years before he broke through - of those 12 only four were winning records and those just barely.
Or ... TCU? Baylor (before the crash)?


2. "Andrew Luck is the best quarterback in school history"
Is he?
He certainly is among those with a claim, but at least a few others deserve some serious consideration.
Those others might include Frankie Albert (1940), Jim Plunkett (1970 for the Rose Bowl, though his stats were better in 1969), John Elway (1982, though really his whole career). Maybe there are others who should be considered as well (Kerkorian 1951?).

3. Offensive Line
I think there is something to be said for most years between 2009-2015 (maybe not 2014), but you made a good case for 2010. [I would make the minor correction that from the stats I saw, they were only the nation's second best in sacks allowed per game behind Air Force, but I suspect they were tops in sacks per passing attempt.]

4. Tight End
Not only do I agree with your choice of Zach Ertz 2012, I think that if anything you undersell it. He basically was our pass offense in 2012 by himself. Not often a TE does that. And he blocked at least reasonably well. That was a truly great season by a position player.

[BobK]

Frankie Albert. Undefeated
Would the T formation moved forward without Albert ?

[BobK]

Frankie Albert. Undefeated
Would the T formation moved forward without Albert ?

[CardinalSagehen]

Another year with a front-heavy schedule could mean the national media forgets us despite again finishing with at least a pretty good record.

True, but there's one big opportunity for redemption late in the year that we didn't have on last year's schedule - Notre Dame at home on November 30. I hope we're still in the Pac 12 picture by then. But if we're completely out of it, at least we might have an opportunity to play spoiler on national TV against the Domers. That's way better than playing them on September 29 on the road.

[CardinalSagehen]

Another year with a front-heavy schedule could mean the national media forgets us despite again finishing with at least a pretty good record.

True, but there's one big opportunity for redemption late in the year that we didn't have on last year's schedule - Notre Dame at home on November 30. I hope we're still in the Pac 12 picture by then. But if we're completely out of it, at least we might have an opportunity to play spoiler on national TV against the Domers. That's way better than playing them on September 29 on the road.

[BostonCard]

On the other hand, I am not immediately able to suggest another golden age that was more improbable. 
Maybe someplace like Oregon? Not in a particularly strong recruiting area, a relatively small state university in a relatively small state in a smaller city, terrible football records from the mid-60s through late 80s, they had to hold on to Brooks for 12 years before he broke through - of those 12 only four were winning records and those just barely.
Or ... TCU? Baylor (before the crash)?

Three other "golden ages" in the Pac-12 that you could argue are improbable:
Cal during the Jeff Tedford age.  Like us, he inherited a team that had gone 1-10 the year before (Tom Holmoe's 2001 team).  He proceeded to make them bowl eligible the very next year (though I don't think they went to a bowl that year), and they had a winning record for 8 consecutive years, two with 10 win seasons.  I would say it was improbable, because the coach before (Holmoe) did not have a single winning season, and the coach after had 1 winning season in 4 years (and included a 1-11 season the year after Tedford's departure).  Add to it Cal's lack of history since the 50's the poor (at the time) facilities and a questionable commitment to football by the administration and the University at large, and it's a friggin miracle that Cal had the success they did during Tedford's early years, and that he didn't bolt to the NFL or a higher profile school at the earliest opportunity (as Mariucci did after a single 6-6 season).

OSU during the Dennis Erickson/Mike Riley era.  Not a single winning season between 1971 and 1998, a span that included 1 winless season and 8 one-win seasons, and not a single winning season since Mike Riley's departure.  They were so bad that after Mike Riley's first stint, in which he posted records of 3-8 and 5-6, he was hired by the Chargers.  But over the 14 year period between 1999 and 2013, they went to 11 bowl games in 15 years, and had an 11-win season in which they won the Fiesta Bowl and finished #4 in the country.  And yeah, it's Corvalis, the most improbable of places to have a "golden age".

WSU in the Mike Leach era.  This is maybe less crazy, because WSU had another golden age with Mike Price, but still, I think there is no harder place to recruit players to in the Pac-12 than WSU.  And yet he has had 37 wins in the last four seasons, and five bowl games in the last 6 years.

BC

[BostonCard]

On the other hand, I am not immediately able to suggest another golden age that was more improbable. 
Maybe someplace like Oregon? Not in a particularly strong recruiting area, a relatively small state university in a relatively small state in a smaller city, terrible football records from the mid-60s through late 80s, they had to hold on to Brooks for 12 years before he broke through - of those 12 only four were winning records and those just barely.
Or ... TCU? Baylor (before the crash)?

Three other "golden ages" in the Pac-12 that you could argue are improbable:
Cal during the Jeff Tedford age.  Like us, he inherited a team that had gone 1-10 the year before (Tom Holmoe's 2001 team).  He proceeded to make them bowl eligible the very next year (though I don't think they went to a bowl that year), and they had a winning record for 8 consecutive years, two with 10 win seasons.  I would say it was improbable, because the coach before (Holmoe) did not have a single winning season, and the coach after had 1 winning season in 4 years (and included a 1-11 season the year after Tedford's departure).  Add to it Cal's lack of history since the 50's the poor (at the time) facilities and a questionable commitment to football by the administration and the University at large, and it's a friggin miracle that Cal had the success they did during Tedford's early years, and that he didn't bolt to the NFL or a higher profile school at the earliest opportunity (as Mariucci did after a single 6-6 season).

OSU during the Dennis Erickson/Mike Riley era.  Not a single winning season between 1971 and 1998, a span that included 1 winless season and 8 one-win seasons, and not a single winning season since Mike Riley's departure.  They were so bad that after Mike Riley's first stint, in which he posted records of 3-8 and 5-6, he was hired by the Chargers.  But over the 14 year period between 1999 and 2013, they went to 11 bowl games in 15 years, and had an 11-win season in which they won the Fiesta Bowl and finished #4 in the country.  And yeah, it's Corvalis, the most improbable of places to have a "golden age".

WSU in the Mike Leach era.  This is maybe less crazy, because WSU had another golden age with Mike Price, but still, I think there is no harder place to recruit players to in the Pac-12 than WSU.  And yet he has had 37 wins in the last four seasons, and five bowl games in the last 6 years.

BC