[CornFed]

Just re-watched the PAC12CG again and this time I focused exclusively on watching Will Sutton and Trent Murphy.  Was Sutton's performance consistent with his performance throughout the season?  Presumably NOT!  He never required our line to double-team and was simply a non-factor.  I acknowledge that he got a sack and on that one play he definitely got leverage on Yankey and pushed him back into Hogan.  However, even that play looked a bit fluky - Hogan held the ball quite long and made a poor effort to escape the pressure.  Murphy, on the other hand, seemed to create pressure in a variety of ways and his presence was felt even on many plays in which he never touched the ball carrier.  Sutton was named the Most Valuable Defensive Player in the PAC12 for the second year in a row (I can't comment knowledgeably about his performance last year).  I had really expected Murphy to win the award this year.

I think the reason I am surprised he didn't win, instead of shocked he didn't win, is I am becoming a bit cynical after Luck and Gerhardt's Voldemort disappointments.  I know we have many players who have been recognized over the years for their excellence.  But a Stanford player rarely seems to be the surprise upset pick of the voters.  The absence of an outcry from our opponents objecting to a "Stanford bias" seems to confirm that we don't really get the close calls on subjective judgments of this kind.  I wonder if a time will come when we do derive an advantage from a long history of dominant play.  I guess only time will tell.

[CornFed]

Just re-watched the PAC12CG again and this time I focused exclusively on watching Will Sutton and Trent Murphy.  Was Sutton's performance consistent with his performance throughout the season?  Presumably NOT!  He never required our line to double-team and was simply a non-factor.  I acknowledge that he got a sack and on that one play he definitely got leverage on Yankey and pushed him back into Hogan.  However, even that play looked a bit fluky - Hogan held the ball quite long and made a poor effort to escape the pressure.  Murphy, on the other hand, seemed to create pressure in a variety of ways and his presence was felt even on many plays in which he never touched the ball carrier.  Sutton was named the Most Valuable Defensive Player in the PAC12 for the second year in a row (I can't comment knowledgeably about his performance last year).  I had really expected Murphy to win the award this year.

I think the reason I am surprised he didn't win, instead of shocked he didn't win, is I am becoming a bit cynical after Luck and Gerhardt's Voldemort disappointments.  I know we have many players who have been recognized over the years for their excellence.  But a Stanford player rarely seems to be the surprise upset pick of the voters.  The absence of an outcry from our opponents objecting to a "Stanford bias" seems to confirm that we don't really get the close calls on subjective judgments of this kind.  I wonder if a time will come when we do derive an advantage from a long history of dominant play.  I guess only time will tell.

[rudruff]

For all the success Stanford has had on the field, there are a bunch of hurdles for our players to overcome for individual awards.

West Coast, small school, no real angle for plucky underdog story

After Gerhart, I got pretty cynical as well. However, I don't think this is a bad thing.

A big part of our message to recruits has a lot to do with the belief that the best thing they ever do will not be playing college football.

[rudruff]

For all the success Stanford has had on the field, there are a bunch of hurdles for our players to overcome for individual awards.

West Coast, small school, no real angle for plucky underdog story

After Gerhart, I got pretty cynical as well. However, I don't think this is a bad thing.

A big part of our message to recruits has a lot to do with the belief that the best thing they ever do will not be playing college football.

[Spartandawg]

There are three reasons that come to mind... First, and most importantly, the PAC doesn't have a monster deal with BSPN who just so happens to be the loudest and most influential entity in college athletics at the moment.  That means there is no incentive to hype your program or individual players.  Why would they want to promote Stanford when they can hype teams to generate ratings on their own SEC/ESPN network next August?

Second, you run a pro-style program that emphasizes ball control and defense.  The low brows find that less appealing than shotgun read-option gimmick teams scoring 67 points a game against other gimmick teams who employ the same ridiculous mickey mouse philosophy.

Third, you are on the west coast.  If anything, I think Stanford has received an amazing amount of respect considering you've lost to Utah and USC.  You hardly dropped in the polls after those defeats.
 

 

[Spartandawg]

There are three reasons that come to mind... First, and most importantly, the PAC doesn't have a monster deal with BSPN who just so happens to be the loudest and most influential entity in college athletics at the moment.  That means there is no incentive to hype your program or individual players.  Why would they want to promote Stanford when they can hype teams to generate ratings on their own SEC/ESPN network next August?

Second, you run a pro-style program that emphasizes ball control and defense.  The low brows find that less appealing than shotgun read-option gimmick teams scoring 67 points a game against other gimmick teams who employ the same ridiculous mickey mouse philosophy.

Third, you are on the west coast.  If anything, I think Stanford has received an amazing amount of respect considering you've lost to Utah and USC.  You hardly dropped in the polls after those defeats.
 

 

[Leftcoast]

Well, if you want voters respect it's always helpful to best Oregon and, ahem, Notre Dame.

[Leftcoast]

Well, if you want voters respect it's always helpful to best Oregon and, ahem, Notre Dame.

[fullmetal]

Yup, low scores + close games = not interesting to the sports media world...and that world is ESPN's, and most of us are just living in it (except for FOX, which is trying to create another world in which to live).

[fullmetal]

Yup, low scores + close games = not interesting to the sports media world...and that world is ESPN's, and most of us are just living in it (except for FOX, which is trying to create another world in which to live).

[terry]

If anything, I think Stanford has received an amazing amount of respect considering you've lost to Utah and University of Spoiled Children .  You hardly dropped in the polls after those defeats.

Stanford dropped from #5 to #13 after the Utah game, and from #5 to #10 after the U,S,C game. I don't think I would say we hardly dropped at all.

[terry]

If anything, I think Stanford has received an amazing amount of respect considering you've lost to Utah and University of Spoiled Children .  You hardly dropped in the polls after those defeats.

Stanford dropped from #5 to #13 after the Utah game, and from #5 to #10 after the U,S,C game. I don't think I would say we hardly dropped at all.

[CornFed]

Third, you are on the west coast.  If anything, I think Stanford has received an amazing amount of respect considering you've lost to Utah and University of Spoiled Children .  You hardly dropped in the polls after those defeats.

 
Well, Dawg, you touch w/ excessive insensitivity on a further point of disrespect that Stanford suffered.  Terry's rebuttal to this third point is solid, but further it confuses me that Stanford got passed by MSU in the BCS standings, despite the shellacking we gave the Sand Demons, who were not "chump change?"and who were, in fact, favored in the game.  Granted, MSU beat #3 Ohio State, but honestly, on this and other boards that I frequent OSU was widely thought to be fairly suspect as a NC participant due to SOS questions.  If we were in this position a year from now and the playoffs were construed accordingly I would be truly outraged.

[CornFed]

Third, you are on the west coast.  If anything, I think Stanford has received an amazing amount of respect considering you've lost to Utah and University of Spoiled Children .  You hardly dropped in the polls after those defeats.

 
Well, Dawg, you touch w/ excessive insensitivity on a further point of disrespect that Stanford suffered.  Terry's rebuttal to this third point is solid, but further it confuses me that Stanford got passed by MSU in the BCS standings, despite the shellacking we gave the Sand Demons, who were not "chump change?"and who were, in fact, favored in the game.  Granted, MSU beat #3 Ohio State, but honestly, on this and other boards that I frequent OSU was widely thought to be fairly suspect as a NC participant due to SOS questions.  If we were in this position a year from now and the playoffs were construed accordingly I would be truly outraged.

[Redrum]

Because Stanford women are generally smarter than Stanford males  and won't put up with their immature male bull****.
Because Stanford men are intimidated by women who are: > 6'2" or can shoot threes, or can knock in corner kicks or spike better than they can.  Then there are the women waterpolo players who could intimidate anyone.  Just watch the underwater camera action and you'll know why.  Yikes!

[Redrum]

Because Stanford women are generally smarter than Stanford males  and won't put up with their immature male bull****.
Because Stanford men are intimidated by women who are: > 6'2" or can shoot threes, or can knock in corner kicks or spike better than they can.  Then there are the women waterpolo players who could intimidate anyone.  Just watch the underwater camera action and you'll know why.  Yikes!

[Spartandawg]

The Pac-12 does have a deal with ESPN, which is where the Oregan game was telecast.

So does the Big Ten.  It's peanuts.

[Spartandawg]

The Pac-12 does have a deal with ESPN, which is where the Oregan game was telecast.

So does the Big Ten.  It's peanuts.

[Oasis]

Because Stanford women are generally smarter than Stanford males  and won't put up with their immature male bull****.
Because Stanford men are intimidated by women who are: > 6'2" or can shoot threes, or can knock in corner kicks or spike better than they can.  Then there are the women waterpolo players who could intimidate anyone.  Just watch the underwater camera action and you'll know why.  Yikes!

Hence, social dancing.

[Oasis]

Because Stanford women are generally smarter than Stanford males  and won't put up with their immature male bull****.
Because Stanford men are intimidated by women who are: > 6'2" or can shoot threes, or can knock in corner kicks or spike better than they can.  Then there are the women waterpolo players who could intimidate anyone.  Just watch the underwater camera action and you'll know why.  Yikes!

Hence, social dancing.

[Mick]

Because Stanford women are generally smarter than Stanford males  and won't put up with their immature male bull****.
Because Stanford men are intimidated by women who are: > 6'2" or can shoot threes, or can knock in corner kicks or spike better than they can.  Then there are the women waterpolo players who could intimidate anyone.  Just watch the underwater camera action and you'll know why.  Yikes!

I married a 6' athlete who's way smarter then me.  Two kids and 26 years later, still the best decision I ever made...

[Mick]

Because Stanford women are generally smarter than Stanford males  and won't put up with their immature male bull****.
Because Stanford men are intimidated by women who are: > 6'2" or can shoot threes, or can knock in corner kicks or spike better than they can.  Then there are the women waterpolo players who could intimidate anyone.  Just watch the underwater camera action and you'll know why.  Yikes!

I married a 6' athlete who's way smarter then me.  Two kids and 26 years later, still the best decision I ever made...