[LuckE2Bhere]

All fair and legitimate points, but clearly the Quarterback-U approach (gross oversimplification of Stanford's history) hasn't created that "many years of winning", as our defense has often been sub-par.  While I obviously want all of the elements of our game (and, first and foremost, the character of our team) to be as strong as possible, there is clearly more than one way to skin the college football cat (not all of which require a great passing game).  Of course, there are many other dynamics affecting our fan base (including the simple alumni number to which you refer, as well as the local "entertainment competition", etc.), but all things being equal, I'd put my money on your "many years of winning" theory, as opposed to Teejers' myopic (in my view) focus on QB production.

[LuckE2Bhere]

All fair and legitimate points, but clearly the Quarterback-U approach (gross oversimplification of Stanford's history) hasn't created that "many years of winning", as our defense has often been sub-par.  While I obviously want all of the elements of our game (and, first and foremost, the character of our team) to be as strong as possible, there is clearly more than one way to skin the college football cat (not all of which require a great passing game).  Of course, there are many other dynamics affecting our fan base (including the simple alumni number to which you refer, as well as the local "entertainment competition", etc.), but all things being equal, I'd put my money on your "many years of winning" theory, as opposed to Teejers' myopic (in my view) focus on QB production.

[LuckE2Bhere]

All fair and legitimate points, but clearly the Quarterback-U approach (gross oversimplification of Stanford's history) hasn't created that "many years of winning", as our defense has often been sub-par.  While I obviously want all of the elements of our game (and, first and foremost, the character of our team) to be as strong as possible, there is clearly more than one way to skin the college football cat (not all of which require a great passing game).  Of course, there are many other dynamics affecting our fan base (including the simple alumni number to which you refer, as well as the local "entertainment competition", etc.), but all things being equal, I'd put my money on your "many years of winning" theory, as opposed to Teejers' myopic (in my view) focus on QB production.

[LuckE2Bhere]

All fair and legitimate points, but clearly the Quarterback-U approach (gross oversimplification of Stanford's history) hasn't created that "many years of winning", as our defense has often been sub-par.  While I obviously want all of the elements of our game (and, first and foremost, the character of our team) to be as strong as possible, there is clearly more than one way to skin the college football cat (not all of which require a great passing game).  Of course, there are many other dynamics affecting our fan base (including the simple alumni number to which you refer, as well as the local "entertainment competition", etc.), but all things being equal, I'd put my money on your "many years of winning" theory, as opposed to Teejers' myopic (in my view) focus on QB production.

[teejers1]

First the SEC, and now Michigan.  Amazing.

In addition to the distinguishing points Yvonne noted, Michigan's QB also has an attribute that our guy does not.  You know, that running thing.

Tell you what, if the offenses under Shaw continues to be mired in 250 yards/game performances and the team tops out at 7-5 over the next few years, and attendance in 2014 averages 22K, you can come see me and say "Teejers, you were right."  I hope that never happens.  I've already suffered through that once under Teevens/Harris, and I have no desire to go back there again.  Hopefully, our offensive braintrust pulls its collective head out and gets this thing on the right track.  If they do not, we'll be quoting The Robot from the old "Lost in Space" TV series.

[teejers1]

First the SEC, and now Michigan.  Amazing.

In addition to the distinguishing points Yvonne noted, Michigan's QB also has an attribute that our guy does not.  You know, that running thing.

Tell you what, if the offenses under Shaw continues to be mired in 250 yards/game performances and the team tops out at 7-5 over the next few years, and attendance in 2014 averages 22K, you can come see me and say "Teejers, you were right."  I hope that never happens.  I've already suffered through that once under Teevens/Harris, and I have no desire to go back there again.  Hopefully, our offensive braintrust pulls its collective head out and gets this thing on the right track.  If they do not, we'll be quoting The Robot from the old "Lost in Space" TV series.

[teejers1]

First the SEC, and now Michigan.  Amazing.

In addition to the distinguishing points Yvonne noted, Michigan's QB also has an attribute that our guy does not.  You know, that running thing.

Tell you what, if the offenses under Shaw continues to be mired in 250 yards/game performances and the team tops out at 7-5 over the next few years, and attendance in 2014 averages 22K, you can come see me and say "Teejers, you were right."  I hope that never happens.  I've already suffered through that once under Teevens/Harris, and I have no desire to go back there again.  Hopefully, our offensive braintrust pulls its collective head out and gets this thing on the right track.  If they do not, we'll be quoting The Robot from the old "Lost in Space" TV series.

[teejers1]

First the SEC, and now Michigan.  Amazing.

In addition to the distinguishing points Yvonne noted, Michigan's QB also has an attribute that our guy does not.  You know, that running thing.

Tell you what, if the offenses under Shaw continues to be mired in 250 yards/game performances and the team tops out at 7-5 over the next few years, and attendance in 2014 averages 22K, you can come see me and say "Teejers, you were right."  I hope that never happens.  I've already suffered through that once under Teevens/Harris, and I have no desire to go back there again.  Hopefully, our offensive braintrust pulls its collective head out and gets this thing on the right track.  If they do not, we'll be quoting The Robot from the old "Lost in Space" TV series.

[washingtonismoney]

Teejers' ability to project with certainty that the 14th ranked team will finish 1-3 is really wonderful. Also the inability to acknowledge that 7-5, while terrible relative to current expectations, is in another universe entirely than B.uddy/W.alt years, is pretty darn special too.

Good trolling!

[washingtonismoney]

Teejers' ability to project with certainty that the 14th ranked team will finish 1-3 is really wonderful. Also the inability to acknowledge that 7-5, while terrible relative to current expectations, is in another universe entirely than B.uddy/W.alt years, is pretty darn special too.

Good trolling!

[washingtonismoney]

Teejers' ability to project with certainty that the 14th ranked team will finish 1-3 is really wonderful. Also the inability to acknowledge that 7-5, while terrible relative to current expectations, is in another universe entirely than B.uddy/W.alt years, is pretty darn special too.

Good trolling!

[washingtonismoney]

Teejers' ability to project with certainty that the 14th ranked team will finish 1-3 is really wonderful. Also the inability to acknowledge that 7-5, while terrible relative to current expectations, is in another universe entirely than B.uddy/W.alt years, is pretty darn special too.

Good trolling!

[yvonne]

Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

[yvonne]

Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

[yvonne]

Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

[yvonne]

Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

[teejers1]

WIM, what don't you understand about 250 yard/game on offense being a death knell for the program over the semi-long term?  Hell, we are already seeing it (WSU game attendance), with a 5-2 team no less.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it has nothing to do with W/L record.

Finally, I expect Stanford to finish 8-4 this season (with 9-3 and 7-5 equal possibilities).  I'm talking 7-5 over the next couple years if - and I hope it's a BIG IF that does not prove out - the offense remains mired in the crap we are seeing far too often this season and some projected early outs do, in fact, leave Stanford with eligibility remaining. 

[teejers1]

WIM, what don't you understand about 250 yard/game on offense being a death knell for the program over the semi-long term?  Hell, we are already seeing it (WSU game attendance), with a 5-2 team no less.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it has nothing to do with W/L record.

Finally, I expect Stanford to finish 8-4 this season (with 9-3 and 7-5 equal possibilities).  I'm talking 7-5 over the next couple years if - and I hope it's a BIG IF that does not prove out - the offense remains mired in the crap we are seeing far too often this season and some projected early outs do, in fact, leave Stanford with eligibility remaining. 

[teejers1]

WIM, what don't you understand about 250 yard/game on offense being a death knell for the program over the semi-long term?  Hell, we are already seeing it (WSU game attendance), with a 5-2 team no less.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it has nothing to do with W/L record.

Finally, I expect Stanford to finish 8-4 this season (with 9-3 and 7-5 equal possibilities).  I'm talking 7-5 over the next couple years if - and I hope it's a BIG IF that does not prove out - the offense remains mired in the crap we are seeing far too often this season and some projected early outs do, in fact, leave Stanford with eligibility remaining. 

[teejers1]

WIM, what don't you understand about 250 yard/game on offense being a death knell for the program over the semi-long term?  Hell, we are already seeing it (WSU game attendance), with a 5-2 team no less.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it has nothing to do with W/L record.

Finally, I expect Stanford to finish 8-4 this season (with 9-3 and 7-5 equal possibilities).  I'm talking 7-5 over the next couple years if - and I hope it's a BIG IF that does not prove out - the offense remains mired in the crap we are seeing far too often this season and some projected early outs do, in fact, leave Stanford with eligibility remaining. 

[76lsjumb]

Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

I know teejers.  I like teejers.  Teejers is no troll.

But, with all due respect -- and I readily concede a lot of respect is, indeed, due -- the virulent anti-Shaw nature of the posts does, on occasion, bear at least a passing "troll-like" resemblance.  Also, the notion that a couple of 7-5 seasons [which I, too, certainly hope does not come to pass] will inevitably send us into the depths of pre-Harbaugh football oblivion for eternity [thereby confirming Shaw's utter inability to coach] strikes me as a little over-the-top. 

After all, even if that DOES happen, Shaw's career head-coaching record at Stanford would still be...signficantly better than Bill Walsh's.

And, no, I'm not saying that Shaw is a better coach than Bill Walsh.  I do believe, though, that Shaw was probably a better wide receiver than Carson Palmer...  ;D

[76lsjumb]

Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

I know teejers.  I like teejers.  Teejers is no troll.

But, with all due respect -- and I readily concede a lot of respect is, indeed, due -- the virulent anti-Shaw nature of the posts does, on occasion, bear at least a passing "troll-like" resemblance.  Also, the notion that a couple of 7-5 seasons [which I, too, certainly hope does not come to pass] will inevitably send us into the depths of pre-Harbaugh football oblivion for eternity [thereby confirming Shaw's utter inability to coach] strikes me as a little over-the-top. 

After all, even if that DOES happen, Shaw's career head-coaching record at Stanford would still be...signficantly better than Bill Walsh's.

And, no, I'm not saying that Shaw is a better coach than Bill Walsh.  I do believe, though, that Shaw was probably a better wide receiver than Carson Palmer...  ;D

[76lsjumb]

Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

I know teejers.  I like teejers.  Teejers is no troll.

But, with all due respect -- and I readily concede a lot of respect is, indeed, due -- the virulent anti-Shaw nature of the posts does, on occasion, bear at least a passing "troll-like" resemblance.  Also, the notion that a couple of 7-5 seasons [which I, too, certainly hope does not come to pass] will inevitably send us into the depths of pre-Harbaugh football oblivion for eternity [thereby confirming Shaw's utter inability to coach] strikes me as a little over-the-top. 

After all, even if that DOES happen, Shaw's career head-coaching record at Stanford would still be...signficantly better than Bill Walsh's.

And, no, I'm not saying that Shaw is a better coach than Bill Walsh.  I do believe, though, that Shaw was probably a better wide receiver than Carson Palmer...  ;D

[76lsjumb]

Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

I know teejers.  I like teejers.  Teejers is no troll.

But, with all due respect -- and I readily concede a lot of respect is, indeed, due -- the virulent anti-Shaw nature of the posts does, on occasion, bear at least a passing "troll-like" resemblance.  Also, the notion that a couple of 7-5 seasons [which I, too, certainly hope does not come to pass] will inevitably send us into the depths of pre-Harbaugh football oblivion for eternity [thereby confirming Shaw's utter inability to coach] strikes me as a little over-the-top. 

After all, even if that DOES happen, Shaw's career head-coaching record at Stanford would still be...signficantly better than Bill Walsh's.

And, no, I'm not saying that Shaw is a better coach than Bill Walsh.  I do believe, though, that Shaw was probably a better wide receiver than Carson Palmer...  ;D

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, what don't you understand about 250 yard/game on offense being a death knell for the program over the semi-long term?  Hell, we are already seeing it (WSU game attendance), with a 5-2 team no less.

Fantastic straw man. Allow me to retort:
a) I've never claimed that being a 250 yard/game program is somehow acceptable to me in terms of its effects on the W/L, which is pretty much my exclusive concern
b) You don't exactly have a causal mechanism for the 22k, let alone an official statistic for it (the 22k an estimate, if a plausible one). The offense is one possibility. The other is that we were playing WSU, which has been a poor draw ever since I stepped foot on campus. WSU didn't exactly draw well in 2010, which was a pretty darn good offensive team. The other possibility is that the Giants played a role. A lot of different things could be the case!
c) The fans surely couldn't've known ahead of time that the game would be a 250 yard/game was in the offing. Most available evidence indicated the team was an inconsistent team, offensively -- capable of subjecting U.S.C. to its then-worst game on defense, but also capable of, well, you know.

And, at any rate, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean the presence of a 250 yard game, ever is somehow a taint from which attendance will never recover? Do you mean this team is somehow a 250 yard/game team? The latter argument seems more plausible than the former (but is still kind of ridiculous, as evidenced by the argument above). So I really don't know what you mean.

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, what don't you understand about 250 yard/game on offense being a death knell for the program over the semi-long term?  Hell, we are already seeing it (WSU game attendance), with a 5-2 team no less.

Fantastic straw man. Allow me to retort:
a) I've never claimed that being a 250 yard/game program is somehow acceptable to me in terms of its effects on the W/L, which is pretty much my exclusive concern
b) You don't exactly have a causal mechanism for the 22k, let alone an official statistic for it (the 22k an estimate, if a plausible one). The offense is one possibility. The other is that we were playing WSU, which has been a poor draw ever since I stepped foot on campus. WSU didn't exactly draw well in 2010, which was a pretty darn good offensive team. The other possibility is that the Giants played a role. A lot of different things could be the case!
c) The fans surely couldn't've known ahead of time that the game would be a 250 yard/game was in the offing. Most available evidence indicated the team was an inconsistent team, offensively -- capable of subjecting U.S.C. to its then-worst game on defense, but also capable of, well, you know.

And, at any rate, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean the presence of a 250 yard game, ever is somehow a taint from which attendance will never recover? Do you mean this team is somehow a 250 yard/game team? The latter argument seems more plausible than the former (but is still kind of ridiculous, as evidenced by the argument above). So I really don't know what you mean.

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, what don't you understand about 250 yard/game on offense being a death knell for the program over the semi-long term?  Hell, we are already seeing it (WSU game attendance), with a 5-2 team no less.

Fantastic straw man. Allow me to retort:
a) I've never claimed that being a 250 yard/game program is somehow acceptable to me in terms of its effects on the W/L, which is pretty much my exclusive concern
b) You don't exactly have a causal mechanism for the 22k, let alone an official statistic for it (the 22k an estimate, if a plausible one). The offense is one possibility. The other is that we were playing WSU, which has been a poor draw ever since I stepped foot on campus. WSU didn't exactly draw well in 2010, which was a pretty darn good offensive team. The other possibility is that the Giants played a role. A lot of different things could be the case!
c) The fans surely couldn't've known ahead of time that the game would be a 250 yard/game was in the offing. Most available evidence indicated the team was an inconsistent team, offensively -- capable of subjecting U.S.C. to its then-worst game on defense, but also capable of, well, you know.

And, at any rate, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean the presence of a 250 yard game, ever is somehow a taint from which attendance will never recover? Do you mean this team is somehow a 250 yard/game team? The latter argument seems more plausible than the former (but is still kind of ridiculous, as evidenced by the argument above). So I really don't know what you mean.

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, what don't you understand about 250 yard/game on offense being a death knell for the program over the semi-long term?  Hell, we are already seeing it (WSU game attendance), with a 5-2 team no less.

Fantastic straw man. Allow me to retort:
a) I've never claimed that being a 250 yard/game program is somehow acceptable to me in terms of its effects on the W/L, which is pretty much my exclusive concern
b) You don't exactly have a causal mechanism for the 22k, let alone an official statistic for it (the 22k an estimate, if a plausible one). The offense is one possibility. The other is that we were playing WSU, which has been a poor draw ever since I stepped foot on campus. WSU didn't exactly draw well in 2010, which was a pretty darn good offensive team. The other possibility is that the Giants played a role. A lot of different things could be the case!
c) The fans surely couldn't've known ahead of time that the game would be a 250 yard/game was in the offing. Most available evidence indicated the team was an inconsistent team, offensively -- capable of subjecting U.S.C. to its then-worst game on defense, but also capable of, well, you know.

And, at any rate, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean the presence of a 250 yard game, ever is somehow a taint from which attendance will never recover? Do you mean this team is somehow a 250 yard/game team? The latter argument seems more plausible than the former (but is still kind of ridiculous, as evidenced by the argument above). So I really don't know what you mean.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Fantastic straw man. Allow me to retort:
a) I've never claimed that being a 250 yard/game program is somehow acceptable to me in terms of its effects on the W/L, which is pretty much my exclusive concern
b) You don't exactly have a causal mechanism for the 22k, let alone an official statistic for it (the 22k an estimate, if a plausible one). The offense is one possibility. The other is that we were playing WSU, which has been a poor draw ever since I stepped foot on campus. WSU didn't exactly draw well in 2010, which was a pretty darn good offensive team. The other possibility is that the Giants played a role. A lot of different things could be the case!
c) The fans surely couldn't've known ahead of time that the game would be a 250 yard/game was in the offing. Most available evidence indicated the team was an inconsistent team, offensively -- capable of subjecting U.S.C. to its then-worst game on defense, but also capable of, well, you know.

And, at any rate, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean the presence of a 250 yard game, ever is somehow a taint from which attendance will never recover? Do you mean this team is somehow a 250 yard/game team? The latter argument seems more plausible than the former (but is still kind of ridiculous, as evidenced by the argument above). So I really don't know what you mean.

Frankly, Washington..., I find your condescension more troll-like than Teejers' doom-and-gloom. You accused me of being a conspiracy theorist (suggesting that I felt Shaw was purposefully sabotaging the program) when I posited that there's more to the story than meets the eye re: Nottingham. Spare us whom you disagree with the snide condescension you continually dole out. Just make your point and we can converse, ok?

[AlbanyCardinal]

Fantastic straw man. Allow me to retort:
a) I've never claimed that being a 250 yard/game program is somehow acceptable to me in terms of its effects on the W/L, which is pretty much my exclusive concern
b) You don't exactly have a causal mechanism for the 22k, let alone an official statistic for it (the 22k an estimate, if a plausible one). The offense is one possibility. The other is that we were playing WSU, which has been a poor draw ever since I stepped foot on campus. WSU didn't exactly draw well in 2010, which was a pretty darn good offensive team. The other possibility is that the Giants played a role. A lot of different things could be the case!
c) The fans surely couldn't've known ahead of time that the game would be a 250 yard/game was in the offing. Most available evidence indicated the team was an inconsistent team, offensively -- capable of subjecting U.S.C. to its then-worst game on defense, but also capable of, well, you know.

And, at any rate, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean the presence of a 250 yard game, ever is somehow a taint from which attendance will never recover? Do you mean this team is somehow a 250 yard/game team? The latter argument seems more plausible than the former (but is still kind of ridiculous, as evidenced by the argument above). So I really don't know what you mean.

Frankly, Washington..., I find your condescension more troll-like than Teejers' doom-and-gloom. You accused me of being a conspiracy theorist (suggesting that I felt Shaw was purposefully sabotaging the program) when I posited that there's more to the story than meets the eye re: Nottingham. Spare us whom you disagree with the snide condescension you continually dole out. Just make your point and we can converse, ok?

[AlbanyCardinal]

Fantastic straw man. Allow me to retort:
a) I've never claimed that being a 250 yard/game program is somehow acceptable to me in terms of its effects on the W/L, which is pretty much my exclusive concern
b) You don't exactly have a causal mechanism for the 22k, let alone an official statistic for it (the 22k an estimate, if a plausible one). The offense is one possibility. The other is that we were playing WSU, which has been a poor draw ever since I stepped foot on campus. WSU didn't exactly draw well in 2010, which was a pretty darn good offensive team. The other possibility is that the Giants played a role. A lot of different things could be the case!
c) The fans surely couldn't've known ahead of time that the game would be a 250 yard/game was in the offing. Most available evidence indicated the team was an inconsistent team, offensively -- capable of subjecting U.S.C. to its then-worst game on defense, but also capable of, well, you know.

And, at any rate, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean the presence of a 250 yard game, ever is somehow a taint from which attendance will never recover? Do you mean this team is somehow a 250 yard/game team? The latter argument seems more plausible than the former (but is still kind of ridiculous, as evidenced by the argument above). So I really don't know what you mean.

Frankly, Washington..., I find your condescension more troll-like than Teejers' doom-and-gloom. You accused me of being a conspiracy theorist (suggesting that I felt Shaw was purposefully sabotaging the program) when I posited that there's more to the story than meets the eye re: Nottingham. Spare us whom you disagree with the snide condescension you continually dole out. Just make your point and we can converse, ok?

[AlbanyCardinal]

Fantastic straw man. Allow me to retort:
a) I've never claimed that being a 250 yard/game program is somehow acceptable to me in terms of its effects on the W/L, which is pretty much my exclusive concern
b) You don't exactly have a causal mechanism for the 22k, let alone an official statistic for it (the 22k an estimate, if a plausible one). The offense is one possibility. The other is that we were playing WSU, which has been a poor draw ever since I stepped foot on campus. WSU didn't exactly draw well in 2010, which was a pretty darn good offensive team. The other possibility is that the Giants played a role. A lot of different things could be the case!
c) The fans surely couldn't've known ahead of time that the game would be a 250 yard/game was in the offing. Most available evidence indicated the team was an inconsistent team, offensively -- capable of subjecting U.S.C. to its then-worst game on defense, but also capable of, well, you know.

And, at any rate, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean the presence of a 250 yard game, ever is somehow a taint from which attendance will never recover? Do you mean this team is somehow a 250 yard/game team? The latter argument seems more plausible than the former (but is still kind of ridiculous, as evidenced by the argument above). So I really don't know what you mean.

Frankly, Washington..., I find your condescension more troll-like than Teejers' doom-and-gloom. You accused me of being a conspiracy theorist (suggesting that I felt Shaw was purposefully sabotaging the program) when I posited that there's more to the story than meets the eye re: Nottingham. Spare us whom you disagree with the snide condescension you continually dole out. Just make your point and we can converse, ok?

[teejers1]

76LSJUMB:  I am not virulently anti-Shaw (that is your spin/take).  I actually have met the man through kids' sports in Palo Alto (I coached his older son in one sport) and like him.  I love what he has shown on recruiting front.  And I really like the fact that he could be a lifer at Stanford (something I have always thought Stanford needed and should be able to attract).

And I love this defense - arguably the best D since at least the Thunderchicken Rose Bowl defense.

But, I am virulently anti-crappy offense (Teevensesque), especially when I firmly believe that such an offense is underperforming to its roster.  I believe that if this persists - and I hope it does not, and believe it will not (but I believed the same thing under Teevens) - it will cripple the program, irrespective of the W/L record.  This is so because few fans will show and no one will want to play in an empty stadium.

I don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to "get," yet it evidently has evaded WIM.  You (and others) may disagree with it, but I have 40+ years of attending Stanford football games that inform my conclusions.  You (and others) may think I am Chicken Little ridiculously claiming that the sky is falling.  I consider it a fair warning of a very important matter that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

[teejers1]

76LSJUMB:  I am not virulently anti-Shaw (that is your spin/take).  I actually have met the man through kids' sports in Palo Alto (I coached his older son in one sport) and like him.  I love what he has shown on recruiting front.  And I really like the fact that he could be a lifer at Stanford (something I have always thought Stanford needed and should be able to attract).

And I love this defense - arguably the best D since at least the Thunderchicken Rose Bowl defense.

But, I am virulently anti-crappy offense (Teevensesque), especially when I firmly believe that such an offense is underperforming to its roster.  I believe that if this persists - and I hope it does not, and believe it will not (but I believed the same thing under Teevens) - it will cripple the program, irrespective of the W/L record.  This is so because few fans will show and no one will want to play in an empty stadium.

I don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to "get," yet it evidently has evaded WIM.  You (and others) may disagree with it, but I have 40+ years of attending Stanford football games that inform my conclusions.  You (and others) may think I am Chicken Little ridiculously claiming that the sky is falling.  I consider it a fair warning of a very important matter that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

[teejers1]

76LSJUMB:  I am not virulently anti-Shaw (that is your spin/take).  I actually have met the man through kids' sports in Palo Alto (I coached his older son in one sport) and like him.  I love what he has shown on recruiting front.  And I really like the fact that he could be a lifer at Stanford (something I have always thought Stanford needed and should be able to attract).

And I love this defense - arguably the best D since at least the Thunderchicken Rose Bowl defense.

But, I am virulently anti-crappy offense (Teevensesque), especially when I firmly believe that such an offense is underperforming to its roster.  I believe that if this persists - and I hope it does not, and believe it will not (but I believed the same thing under Teevens) - it will cripple the program, irrespective of the W/L record.  This is so because few fans will show and no one will want to play in an empty stadium.

I don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to "get," yet it evidently has evaded WIM.  You (and others) may disagree with it, but I have 40+ years of attending Stanford football games that inform my conclusions.  You (and others) may think I am Chicken Little ridiculously claiming that the sky is falling.  I consider it a fair warning of a very important matter that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

[teejers1]

76LSJUMB:  I am not virulently anti-Shaw (that is your spin/take).  I actually have met the man through kids' sports in Palo Alto (I coached his older son in one sport) and like him.  I love what he has shown on recruiting front.  And I really like the fact that he could be a lifer at Stanford (something I have always thought Stanford needed and should be able to attract).

And I love this defense - arguably the best D since at least the Thunderchicken Rose Bowl defense.

But, I am virulently anti-crappy offense (Teevensesque), especially when I firmly believe that such an offense is underperforming to its roster.  I believe that if this persists - and I hope it does not, and believe it will not (but I believed the same thing under Teevens) - it will cripple the program, irrespective of the W/L record.  This is so because few fans will show and no one will want to play in an empty stadium.

I don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to "get," yet it evidently has evaded WIM.  You (and others) may disagree with it, but I have 40+ years of attending Stanford football games that inform my conclusions.  You (and others) may think I am Chicken Little ridiculously claiming that the sky is falling.  I consider it a fair warning of a very important matter that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

[pincemob]

Sorry to butt in here, but I think a winning program will attract fans.  I know it's a different sport, but Monty featured a dull, low-scoring system, where we were constantly derided for having players who couldn't dunk, e.g. the Collins twins.  We always crapped out against fast teams like Maryland or UConn, Arizona in the conference.  It was said he stunted the development of players (e.g Julius Barnes or Fred Washington) out of stubbornness while sticking with the Giovacchinis and Grunfelds.  But in spite of all that we won games and Stanford hoops was a really hot ticket for awhile there.  If Shaw can do that, we'll draw and recruit.  And some fans will complain, which is ok. 

What scared me about the attendance drop-off this week was the Red Zone.  None of the excuses regarding kids sports conflicts, Giants games, uncertain traveling plans due to network time issues, etc, would apply to a group of students that can walk down to the game in their flip-flops.  And recall the students weren't even here for SJSU and Duke.  They'd seen S.C. and Zona, not exactly boring games.. how do you get football fatigue in your 3rd home game?  I hope that was a fluke.  Lack of student support could doom the program, and that was never a problem when the basketball team was good.

[pincemob]

Sorry to butt in here, but I think a winning program will attract fans.  I know it's a different sport, but Monty featured a dull, low-scoring system, where we were constantly derided for having players who couldn't dunk, e.g. the Collins twins.  We always crapped out against fast teams like Maryland or UConn, Arizona in the conference.  It was said he stunted the development of players (e.g Julius Barnes or Fred Washington) out of stubbornness while sticking with the Giovacchinis and Grunfelds.  But in spite of all that we won games and Stanford hoops was a really hot ticket for awhile there.  If Shaw can do that, we'll draw and recruit.  And some fans will complain, which is ok. 

What scared me about the attendance drop-off this week was the Red Zone.  None of the excuses regarding kids sports conflicts, Giants games, uncertain traveling plans due to network time issues, etc, would apply to a group of students that can walk down to the game in their flip-flops.  And recall the students weren't even here for SJSU and Duke.  They'd seen S.C. and Zona, not exactly boring games.. how do you get football fatigue in your 3rd home game?  I hope that was a fluke.  Lack of student support could doom the program, and that was never a problem when the basketball team was good.

[pincemob]

Sorry to butt in here, but I think a winning program will attract fans.  I know it's a different sport, but Monty featured a dull, low-scoring system, where we were constantly derided for having players who couldn't dunk, e.g. the Collins twins.  We always crapped out against fast teams like Maryland or UConn, Arizona in the conference.  It was said he stunted the development of players (e.g Julius Barnes or Fred Washington) out of stubbornness while sticking with the Giovacchinis and Grunfelds.  But in spite of all that we won games and Stanford hoops was a really hot ticket for awhile there.  If Shaw can do that, we'll draw and recruit.  And some fans will complain, which is ok. 

What scared me about the attendance drop-off this week was the Red Zone.  None of the excuses regarding kids sports conflicts, Giants games, uncertain traveling plans due to network time issues, etc, would apply to a group of students that can walk down to the game in their flip-flops.  And recall the students weren't even here for SJSU and Duke.  They'd seen S.C. and Zona, not exactly boring games.. how do you get football fatigue in your 3rd home game?  I hope that was a fluke.  Lack of student support could doom the program, and that was never a problem when the basketball team was good.

[pincemob]

Sorry to butt in here, but I think a winning program will attract fans.  I know it's a different sport, but Monty featured a dull, low-scoring system, where we were constantly derided for having players who couldn't dunk, e.g. the Collins twins.  We always crapped out against fast teams like Maryland or UConn, Arizona in the conference.  It was said he stunted the development of players (e.g Julius Barnes or Fred Washington) out of stubbornness while sticking with the Giovacchinis and Grunfelds.  But in spite of all that we won games and Stanford hoops was a really hot ticket for awhile there.  If Shaw can do that, we'll draw and recruit.  And some fans will complain, which is ok. 

What scared me about the attendance drop-off this week was the Red Zone.  None of the excuses regarding kids sports conflicts, Giants games, uncertain traveling plans due to network time issues, etc, would apply to a group of students that can walk down to the game in their flip-flops.  And recall the students weren't even here for SJSU and Duke.  They'd seen S.C. and Zona, not exactly boring games.. how do you get football fatigue in your 3rd home game?  I hope that was a fluke.  Lack of student support could doom the program, and that was never a problem when the basketball team was good.