[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=10382.msg94659#msg94659 date=1408461088]
In 1969 we were really three plays away from being undefeated. Purdue's two point conversion (to add insult to injury the receiver is a Stanford Biz school graduate), the U$C last second field goal (after we failed to hold them earlier in the drive on 4th and long), and our blocked field goal against UCLA.

We were at that 1969 game in the Colleseum, and I well remember the heartbreak of SC's final drive with only 57 seconds left.  Has kept me from ever getting excited about a Standord win until the final whistle has blown.  Unlike the ridiculousness of the Big Game more recently, that one was legit.
[/quote]

Big Game that year was something else, also. Fortunately we won that one, but IIRC we came very close to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on that one too.  The next year Ralston brought a sports psychologist in to talk to the team before the season started. Everyone was laughing about it, but maybe it helped.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=10382.msg94659#msg94659 date=1408461088]
In 1969 we were really three plays away from being undefeated. Purdue's two point conversion (to add insult to injury the receiver is a Stanford Biz school graduate), the U$C last second field goal (after we failed to hold them earlier in the drive on 4th and long), and our blocked field goal against UCLA.

We were at that 1969 game in the Colleseum, and I well remember the heartbreak of SC's final drive with only 57 seconds left.  Has kept me from ever getting excited about a Standord win until the final whistle has blown.  Unlike the ridiculousness of the Big Game more recently, that one was legit.
[/quote]

Big Game that year was something else, also. Fortunately we won that one, but IIRC we came very close to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on that one too.  The next year Ralston brought a sports psychologist in to talk to the team before the season started. Everyone was laughing about it, but maybe it helped.

[teejers1]

So what's the point of a season:  to get to the NC game (prove yourself more deserving than all but one other team in the nation), or just to be a really good team?  I'm actually okay with the latter - Stanford has been a very good team the last several years.  But I'm actually more interested in seeing the team play to its talent level (a much harder and subjective evaluation).

Let me ask you this: do you think Stanford should have been in the NC game in any of the last 5 years (i.e., that Stanford  underperformed to talent)?  Despite Stanford's gaudy record over that span, I think that's a legit question.

[teejers1]

So what's the point of a season:  to get to the NC game (prove yourself more deserving than all but one other team in the nation), or just to be a really good team?  I'm actually okay with the latter - Stanford has been a very good team the last several years.  But I'm actually more interested in seeing the team play to its talent level (a much harder and subjective evaluation).

Let me ask you this: do you think Stanford should have been in the NC game in any of the last 5 years (i.e., that Stanford  underperformed to talent)?  Despite Stanford's gaudy record over that span, I think that's a legit question.

[stupac2]

Let me ask you this: do you think Stanford should have been in the NC game in any of the last 5 years (i.e., that Stanford  underperformed to talent)?  Despite Stanford's gaudy record over that span, I think that's a legit question.

2010. I think that team was better than Auburn that year, and that Oregon game could look a lot different if Owusu doesn't go down.

[stupac2]

Let me ask you this: do you think Stanford should have been in the NC game in any of the last 5 years (i.e., that Stanford  underperformed to talent)?  Despite Stanford's gaudy record over that span, I think that's a legit question.

2010. I think that team was better than Auburn that year, and that Oregon game could look a lot different if Owusu doesn't go down.

[washingtonismoney]

So what's the point of a season:  to get to the NC game (prove yourself more deserving than all but one other team in the nation), or just to be a really good team?

False choice. The point of being a really good team is to give yourself the best chance of getting to, and winning, the national championship game.

Let me ask you this: do you think Stanford should have been in the NC game in any of the last 5 years (i.e., that Stanford  underperformed to talent)?  Despite Stanford's gaudy record over that span, I think that's a legit question.

Do I think they should have? Absolutely not; it's silly to suggest otherwise, for any team in college football. Because the field is limited to two teams, luck plays by far the biggest role in determining who goes and who doesn't. It's really just basic math. A team that has a 90% chance of winning each and every game only has a ~25% chance of being undefeated over 13 games.

And given the difficulty of Stanford's schedule over the past five years, it's silly to think Stanford had those kind of odds to begin with. Everyone, even the most talented, slip up. Whether it's Florida losing to Ole Miss or Alabama falling to Texas A&M, teams slip up. Stanford isn't exempt; it's fan blindness to think otherwise.

So that's not how I judge it. I think coaches put teams in position to be one of the seven or so best teams in the country and see what happens from there. They had the talent to do so -- and did -- in 2010 and 2013. They didn't really have the talent in 2012; winning the conference and the Rose Bowl was overachieving. 2011 is the closest Stanford has come to underachievement given the talent on hand, and I really don't think it was all that great. (Esp. with the number of injuries.)

[washingtonismoney]

So what's the point of a season:  to get to the NC game (prove yourself more deserving than all but one other team in the nation), or just to be a really good team?

False choice. The point of being a really good team is to give yourself the best chance of getting to, and winning, the national championship game.

Let me ask you this: do you think Stanford should have been in the NC game in any of the last 5 years (i.e., that Stanford  underperformed to talent)?  Despite Stanford's gaudy record over that span, I think that's a legit question.

Do I think they should have? Absolutely not; it's silly to suggest otherwise, for any team in college football. Because the field is limited to two teams, luck plays by far the biggest role in determining who goes and who doesn't. It's really just basic math. A team that has a 90% chance of winning each and every game only has a ~25% chance of being undefeated over 13 games.

And given the difficulty of Stanford's schedule over the past five years, it's silly to think Stanford had those kind of odds to begin with. Everyone, even the most talented, slip up. Whether it's Florida losing to Ole Miss or Alabama falling to Texas A&M, teams slip up. Stanford isn't exempt; it's fan blindness to think otherwise.

So that's not how I judge it. I think coaches put teams in position to be one of the seven or so best teams in the country and see what happens from there. They had the talent to do so -- and did -- in 2010 and 2013. They didn't really have the talent in 2012; winning the conference and the Rose Bowl was overachieving. 2011 is the closest Stanford has come to underachievement given the talent on hand, and I really don't think it was all that great. (Esp. with the number of injuries.)

[CrazedZooChimp]

I think this is sort of an odd way to analyze it, comparing our expectations of players in 2010 to our expectations of how guys will perform this season just tells me that we'd better hope that our team exceeds our expectations like they did in 2010.  Yes, we didn't think Baldwin would be a star going into that season because he hadn't been the year before, but he still came out and had an amazing year.  Similar to low expectations for some of our defense, like Marecic.  But by the end of the year, for example, I would say Bulcke was very good, and I'm not sure I'm ready to think that Lueders or Shittu will outperform how he did.  But if they do show the same improvement, I think you might be right Hulk.  It's just hard to say that we're necessarily going to do that.

I would say even based on our preseason prediction, the guy I think should be there is Konrad Reuland.  He had started 3 games in 2009, and was a key player in 2010.  I'd certainly put him above any of the current TEs.  I'd also consider Gaffney and Wilkerson.  I think by then Gaffney was more than a highly rated FB prospect, and Wilkerson was a highly rated RB frosh that people thought could be big.  Both were major contributors.  The one other guy is Ryan Hewitt.  I don't remember thinking about him much back then, but as our back-up FB I probably thought at least as highly as I do about Pat Skov or Marx.

Anyways, the real question isn't can this be our best team ever, but will they.  If the roster gels and improves as much as 2010, I think the certainly will be.  I am bullish on this years performance, but I'm not sure I'm ready to say we might be the best team in the country yet :)

edit:  Oh, and I'd definitely say the combo of Zychlinski and Green over Rhyne.  But all are very capable.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I think this is sort of an odd way to analyze it, comparing our expectations of players in 2010 to our expectations of how guys will perform this season just tells me that we'd better hope that our team exceeds our expectations like they did in 2010.  Yes, we didn't think Baldwin would be a star going into that season because he hadn't been the year before, but he still came out and had an amazing year.  Similar to low expectations for some of our defense, like Marecic.  But by the end of the year, for example, I would say Bulcke was very good, and I'm not sure I'm ready to think that Lueders or Shittu will outperform how he did.  But if they do show the same improvement, I think you might be right Hulk.  It's just hard to say that we're necessarily going to do that.

I would say even based on our preseason prediction, the guy I think should be there is Konrad Reuland.  He had started 3 games in 2009, and was a key player in 2010.  I'd certainly put him above any of the current TEs.  I'd also consider Gaffney and Wilkerson.  I think by then Gaffney was more than a highly rated FB prospect, and Wilkerson was a highly rated RB frosh that people thought could be big.  Both were major contributors.  The one other guy is Ryan Hewitt.  I don't remember thinking about him much back then, but as our back-up FB I probably thought at least as highly as I do about Pat Skov or Marx.

Anyways, the real question isn't can this be our best team ever, but will they.  If the roster gels and improves as much as 2010, I think the certainly will be.  I am bullish on this years performance, but I'm not sure I'm ready to say we might be the best team in the country yet :)

edit:  Oh, and I'd definitely say the combo of Zychlinski and Green over Rhyne.  But all are very capable.

[Rally]

I think this is sort of an odd way to analyze it, comparing our expectations of players in 2010 to our expectations of how guys will perform this season just tells me that we'd better hope that our team exceeds our expectations like they did in 2010.  Yes, we didn't think Baldwin would be a star going into that season because he hadn't been the year before, but he still came out and had an amazing year.  Similar to low expectations for some of our defense, like Marecic.  But by the end of the year, for example, I would say Bulcke was very good, and I'm not sure I'm ready to think that Lueders or Shittu will outperform how he did.  But if they do show the same improvement, I think you might be right Hulk.  It's just hard to say that we're necessarily going to do that.

I would say even based on our preseason prediction, the guy I think should be there is Konrad Reuland.  He had started 3 games in 2009, and was a key player in 2010.  I'd certainly put him above any of the current TEs.  I'd also consider Gaffney and Wilkerson.  I think by then Gaffney was more than a highly rated FB prospect, and Wilkerson was a highly rated RB frosh that people thought could be big.  Both were major contributors.  The one other guy is Ryan Hewitt.  I don't remember thinking about him much back then, but as our back-up FB I probably thought at least as highly as I do about Pat Skov or Marx.

Anyways, the real question isn't can this be our best team ever, but will they.  If the roster gels and improves as much as 2010, I think the certainly will be.  I am bullish on this years performance, but I'm not sure I'm ready to say we might be the best team in the country yet :)

edit:  Oh, and I'd definitely say the combo of Zychlinski and Green over Rhyne.  But all are very capable.

I think the Oline is going to be great, right out of the gate.  I think these guys get it, have been thinking of nothing else all summer or longer, and will shock the world.  Remember, you read it here first.

Starting the season, I think the less-than-NC-caliber expectations serve us well, but by the time we are 7 - 0 the pressure will be building.  That's when the boys have to believe they still must go 1 - 0 each week, right up to the end.  That may be when the cheese, as they say, may get a little binding.  Go Stanford!

[Rally]

I think this is sort of an odd way to analyze it, comparing our expectations of players in 2010 to our expectations of how guys will perform this season just tells me that we'd better hope that our team exceeds our expectations like they did in 2010.  Yes, we didn't think Baldwin would be a star going into that season because he hadn't been the year before, but he still came out and had an amazing year.  Similar to low expectations for some of our defense, like Marecic.  But by the end of the year, for example, I would say Bulcke was very good, and I'm not sure I'm ready to think that Lueders or Shittu will outperform how he did.  But if they do show the same improvement, I think you might be right Hulk.  It's just hard to say that we're necessarily going to do that.

I would say even based on our preseason prediction, the guy I think should be there is Konrad Reuland.  He had started 3 games in 2009, and was a key player in 2010.  I'd certainly put him above any of the current TEs.  I'd also consider Gaffney and Wilkerson.  I think by then Gaffney was more than a highly rated FB prospect, and Wilkerson was a highly rated RB frosh that people thought could be big.  Both were major contributors.  The one other guy is Ryan Hewitt.  I don't remember thinking about him much back then, but as our back-up FB I probably thought at least as highly as I do about Pat Skov or Marx.

Anyways, the real question isn't can this be our best team ever, but will they.  If the roster gels and improves as much as 2010, I think the certainly will be.  I am bullish on this years performance, but I'm not sure I'm ready to say we might be the best team in the country yet :)

edit:  Oh, and I'd definitely say the combo of Zychlinski and Green over Rhyne.  But all are very capable.

I think the Oline is going to be great, right out of the gate.  I think these guys get it, have been thinking of nothing else all summer or longer, and will shock the world.  Remember, you read it here first.

Starting the season, I think the less-than-NC-caliber expectations serve us well, but by the time we are 7 - 0 the pressure will be building.  That's when the boys have to believe they still must go 1 - 0 each week, right up to the end.  That may be when the cheese, as they say, may get a little binding.  Go Stanford!

[CTcard]

I think this is sort of an odd way to analyze it, comparing our expectations of players in 2010 to our expectations of how guys will perform this season just tells me that we'd better hope that our team exceeds our expectations like they did in 2010. 

This is the key issue here. 2010 was (likely) our best team of recent vintage, but not particularly because we expected it to be so. Quite to the contrary, expectations were still rather limited going into 2010; partly because we'd never been there before and largely because the defense had never been decent yet under the current regime.

The key to the season is how much everyone improves, how well the new guys step up, how those same questions are answered for our opponents, and good ole luck. 

There's enough reason to be optimistic about 2014 that IF it ends up in one of the major bowls this year it will be obvious enough in hind sight. Hulk articulates many of these upside possibilities.

There's enough reason to be pessimistic about 2014 that IF it ends up somewhat down (say 8-4 to 7-5 regular season) then it will be obvious enough in hind sight. Articulating that view is pretty easy to find, particularly so on the other sites.

[Though it seems to me that many of the more pessimistic posters miss the real issues.  If Stanford has a lesser season it seems to me the causes will be a too-green O-line, lack of a full-level passing game (possibly due to pass pro), no fully reliable RB, weakness in the secondary (particularly depth), and similar on the d-line. I suspect it won't be because of too much predictability, smaller RBs running between the tackles, Hogan sucking, lack of understanding defense sans Mason. Play calling is trickier - on the one hand I think worrying about individual play-calling is way over-rated, on the other if there's close games they'll be some bad plays that will be agonized over.]

[CTcard]

I think this is sort of an odd way to analyze it, comparing our expectations of players in 2010 to our expectations of how guys will perform this season just tells me that we'd better hope that our team exceeds our expectations like they did in 2010. 

This is the key issue here. 2010 was (likely) our best team of recent vintage, but not particularly because we expected it to be so. Quite to the contrary, expectations were still rather limited going into 2010; partly because we'd never been there before and largely because the defense had never been decent yet under the current regime.

The key to the season is how much everyone improves, how well the new guys step up, how those same questions are answered for our opponents, and good ole luck. 

There's enough reason to be optimistic about 2014 that IF it ends up in one of the major bowls this year it will be obvious enough in hind sight. Hulk articulates many of these upside possibilities.

There's enough reason to be pessimistic about 2014 that IF it ends up somewhat down (say 8-4 to 7-5 regular season) then it will be obvious enough in hind sight. Articulating that view is pretty easy to find, particularly so on the other sites.

[Though it seems to me that many of the more pessimistic posters miss the real issues.  If Stanford has a lesser season it seems to me the causes will be a too-green O-line, lack of a full-level passing game (possibly due to pass pro), no fully reliable RB, weakness in the secondary (particularly depth), and similar on the d-line. I suspect it won't be because of too much predictability, smaller RBs running between the tackles, Hogan sucking, lack of understanding defense sans Mason. Play calling is trickier - on the one hand I think worrying about individual play-calling is way over-rated, on the other if there's close games they'll be some bad plays that will be agonized over.]

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford's OL is not too green relative to the talent of the players and their experience in the program.  Many programs are fully capable of plugging in this many new talented OL in their third year out of high school just fine.  Admittedly, if they all started together in 2013, they would be better in 2014, but elite programs have better, more experienced players in front of the young guys, so younger players tend to have to bide their time.

The lack of a "bell cow" RB in the mold of Gaffney, Taylor, and Gerhart, might be considered an issue, but not when you look at the depth of talent available, and the fact the WR corps and QB are very experienced and talented in their own rights.

Stanford's DB depth is the best its ever had.  That's not an issue. 

Relative to other programs, Stanford might be a bit thin on DL depth and have more TE inexperience, but the odds of those other programs being as deeply talented and experienced at all those other positions plus DL and TE, is extremely low.

The only real threats to Stanford are the consistency of the tough games on the schedule and the risk of injury.  Given every team faces injury risk, the only material obstacle Stanford faces that others don't, is the schedule.  This is exactly why Stanford isn't being picked to win the Pac-12 or go to the play-off. 

There may have been some more individually talented players at certain positions in the past, but the LBs, DBs, WRs and RBs are collectively faster and quicker than any Stanford team I can remember, on par with the best teams in the country.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford's OL is not too green relative to the talent of the players and their experience in the program.  Many programs are fully capable of plugging in this many new talented OL in their third year out of high school just fine.  Admittedly, if they all started together in 2013, they would be better in 2014, but elite programs have better, more experienced players in front of the young guys, so younger players tend to have to bide their time.

The lack of a "bell cow" RB in the mold of Gaffney, Taylor, and Gerhart, might be considered an issue, but not when you look at the depth of talent available, and the fact the WR corps and QB are very experienced and talented in their own rights.

Stanford's DB depth is the best its ever had.  That's not an issue. 

Relative to other programs, Stanford might be a bit thin on DL depth and have more TE inexperience, but the odds of those other programs being as deeply talented and experienced at all those other positions plus DL and TE, is extremely low.

The only real threats to Stanford are the consistency of the tough games on the schedule and the risk of injury.  Given every team faces injury risk, the only material obstacle Stanford faces that others don't, is the schedule.  This is exactly why Stanford isn't being picked to win the Pac-12 or go to the play-off. 

There may have been some more individually talented players at certain positions in the past, but the LBs, DBs, WRs and RBs are collectively faster and quicker than any Stanford team I can remember, on par with the best teams in the country.

[martyup]

And . . . our boys are smarter.

[martyup]

And . . . our boys are smarter.

[jacketree]

It is very hard to argue that at least one of the teams from this recent run was Stanford's best modern team, but in my book you have to win your final game on the biggest stage to be considered, so that narrows it to 2010 or 2012.  The 2010 team won more convincingly and lost one fewer game than the 2012 team, so it gets my vote.

That said, I would love to know how these teams would stack up against the 1940 Wow boys.

These teams would absolutely crush the 1940 Wow Boys.  So would Walt Harris' worst team. It would be comical.  I'm not sure that's what you meant, however, although I don't think teams across the years should just be compared on pure W/L records because the competition so variable.

Pure speculation and opinion, but I think 2010 is Stanford's best team of all time by far.  And but for that second half against Oregon, maybe one of the most complete college teams in a long time.

Second best is 2011. The Fiesta Bowl showing against top-flight OSU was outstanding and sometimes you just miss routine field goals as the clock expires.  Oregon was still Stanford's kryptonite.

Then a tier with 2012/1971-72. Rose Bowl wins cover some inconsistencies during the year. Oregon thriller nudges 2012 ahead.

Then 2013 and 1992.  Great defense almost wins championships.  I'd probably give the edge to 2013 (Oregon) over 1992 (UA and UW) and for whatever reason, I watched the 2014 Rose Bowl last night on ESPNU.  Stanford looked pretty good as did Hogan a lot of the time.  Sparty just had a better team, particularly on D.

Then 2001/1991.  Decent teams and the good guys won in the end both times.  :P

Other than that......sunny afternoons in the open air aren't the worst things ever.

[jacketree]

It is very hard to argue that at least one of the teams from this recent run was Stanford's best modern team, but in my book you have to win your final game on the biggest stage to be considered, so that narrows it to 2010 or 2012.  The 2010 team won more convincingly and lost one fewer game than the 2012 team, so it gets my vote.

That said, I would love to know how these teams would stack up against the 1940 Wow boys.

These teams would absolutely crush the 1940 Wow Boys.  So would Walt Harris' worst team. It would be comical.  I'm not sure that's what you meant, however, although I don't think teams across the years should just be compared on pure W/L records because the competition so variable.

Pure speculation and opinion, but I think 2010 is Stanford's best team of all time by far.  And but for that second half against Oregon, maybe one of the most complete college teams in a long time.

Second best is 2011. The Fiesta Bowl showing against top-flight OSU was outstanding and sometimes you just miss routine field goals as the clock expires.  Oregon was still Stanford's kryptonite.

Then a tier with 2012/1971-72. Rose Bowl wins cover some inconsistencies during the year. Oregon thriller nudges 2012 ahead.

Then 2013 and 1992.  Great defense almost wins championships.  I'd probably give the edge to 2013 (Oregon) over 1992 (UA and UW) and for whatever reason, I watched the 2014 Rose Bowl last night on ESPNU.  Stanford looked pretty good as did Hogan a lot of the time.  Sparty just had a better team, particularly on D.

Then 2001/1991.  Decent teams and the good guys won in the end both times.  :P

Other than that......sunny afternoons in the open air aren't the worst things ever.

[Hulk01]

Most of us, I assume, still are too angry with the 71-72 team to rate it with the all time best Stanford teams.

That team lost to three bad teams.  The 69-70 team lost only to two outstanding teams, USC and Purdue, and by less than touchdown margins.  The Plunkett Rose Bowl can be more easily excused for its losses because all the focus that year was winning that bowl berth. Once they clinched, there was an enormous let down everywhere; we all felt it.

[Hulk01]

Most of us, I assume, still are too angry with the 71-72 team to rate it with the all time best Stanford teams.

That team lost to three bad teams.  The 69-70 team lost only to two outstanding teams, USC and Purdue, and by less than touchdown margins.  The Plunkett Rose Bowl can be more easily excused for its losses because all the focus that year was winning that bowl berth. Once they clinched, there was an enormous let down everywhere; we all felt it.

[Rally]

Most of us, I assume, still are too angry with the 71-72 team to rate it with the all time best Stanford teams.

That team lost to three bad teams.  The 69-70 team lost only to two outstanding teams, Unabashed Scamming Charlatans and Purdue, and by less than touchdown margins.  The Plunkett Rose Bowl can be more easily excused for its losses because all the focus that year was winning that bowl berth. Once they clinched, there was an enormous let down everywhere; we all felt it.

A friend (Ca.l alum) told me at the start of that season (Plunkett) that we would go to the Rose Bowl but lose to Ca.l.  Still pisses me off.

[Rally]

Most of us, I assume, still are too angry with the 71-72 team to rate it with the all time best Stanford teams.

That team lost to three bad teams.  The 69-70 team lost only to two outstanding teams, Unabashed Scamming Charlatans and Purdue, and by less than touchdown margins.  The Plunkett Rose Bowl can be more easily excused for its losses because all the focus that year was winning that bowl berth. Once they clinched, there was an enormous let down everywhere; we all felt it.

A friend (Ca.l alum) told me at the start of that season (Plunkett) that we would go to the Rose Bowl but lose to Ca.l.  Still pisses me off.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=10382.msg94635#msg94635 date=1408422781]
It is very hard to argue that at least one of the teams from this recent run was Stanford's best modern team, but in my book you have to win your final game on the biggest stage to be considered, so that narrows it to 2010 or 2012.  The 2010 team won more convincingly and lost one fewer game than the 2012 team, so it gets my vote.

That said, I would love to know how these teams would stack up against the 1940 Wow boys.

These teams would absolutely crush the 1940 Wow Boys.  So would Walt Harris' worst team. It would be comical.  I'm not sure that's what you meant, however, although I don't think teams across the years should just be compared on pure W/L records because the competition so variable.

Pure speculation and opinion, but I think 2010 is Stanford's best team of all time by far.  And but for that second half against Oregon, maybe one of the most complete college teams in a long time.

Second best is 2011. The Fiesta Bowl showing against top-flight OSU was outstanding and sometimes you just miss routine field goals as the clock expires.  Oregon was still Stanford's kryptonite.

Then a tier with 2012/1971-72. Rose Bowl wins cover some inconsistencies during the year. Oregon thriller nudges 2012 ahead.

Then 2013 and 1992.  Great defense almost wins championships.  I'd probably give the edge to 2013 (Oregon) over 1992 (UA and UW) and for whatever reason, I watched the 2014 Rose Bowl last night on ESPNU.  Stanford looked pretty good as did Hogan a lot of the time.  Sparty just had a better team, particularly on D.

Then 2001/1991.  Decent teams and the good guys won in the end both times.  :P

Other than that......sunny afternoons in the open air aren't the worst things ever.
[/quote]
Well, yes.  I did mean the degree of domination for the historical context.  And the Wow boys dominated their year more than the 2010 team dominated their year, although not necessarily by as much as one might think.  In 1940 the Wow boys had one close game--a 7-6 win over Santa Clara.  The game was generally more defensive in that era so there were no high scoring games.  Our defense gave up 8.5 ppg.  In 2010 we lost to Oregon and had a close 17-14 win over ASU.  I suppose the fact that in 1940 we finished ranked 2 and should have been ranked 1 compared with 2010 when we finished ranked 4 pretty accurately reflects the relative quality of the two teams for their times.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=10382.msg94635#msg94635 date=1408422781]
It is very hard to argue that at least one of the teams from this recent run was Stanford's best modern team, but in my book you have to win your final game on the biggest stage to be considered, so that narrows it to 2010 or 2012.  The 2010 team won more convincingly and lost one fewer game than the 2012 team, so it gets my vote.

That said, I would love to know how these teams would stack up against the 1940 Wow boys.

These teams would absolutely crush the 1940 Wow Boys.  So would Walt Harris' worst team. It would be comical.  I'm not sure that's what you meant, however, although I don't think teams across the years should just be compared on pure W/L records because the competition so variable.

Pure speculation and opinion, but I think 2010 is Stanford's best team of all time by far.  And but for that second half against Oregon, maybe one of the most complete college teams in a long time.

Second best is 2011. The Fiesta Bowl showing against top-flight OSU was outstanding and sometimes you just miss routine field goals as the clock expires.  Oregon was still Stanford's kryptonite.

Then a tier with 2012/1971-72. Rose Bowl wins cover some inconsistencies during the year. Oregon thriller nudges 2012 ahead.

Then 2013 and 1992.  Great defense almost wins championships.  I'd probably give the edge to 2013 (Oregon) over 1992 (UA and UW) and for whatever reason, I watched the 2014 Rose Bowl last night on ESPNU.  Stanford looked pretty good as did Hogan a lot of the time.  Sparty just had a better team, particularly on D.

Then 2001/1991.  Decent teams and the good guys won in the end both times.  :P

Other than that......sunny afternoons in the open air aren't the worst things ever.
[/quote]
Well, yes.  I did mean the degree of domination for the historical context.  And the Wow boys dominated their year more than the 2010 team dominated their year, although not necessarily by as much as one might think.  In 1940 the Wow boys had one close game--a 7-6 win over Santa Clara.  The game was generally more defensive in that era so there were no high scoring games.  Our defense gave up 8.5 ppg.  In 2010 we lost to Oregon and had a close 17-14 win over ASU.  I suppose the fact that in 1940 we finished ranked 2 and should have been ranked 1 compared with 2010 when we finished ranked 4 pretty accurately reflects the relative quality of the two teams for their times.