[Red State]

Disagree on nothing being better for team or fans than winning a close game.  IMO, Stanford has played WAY too many close games against inferior opponents in the last few years.  It's been frustrating as hell, and takes away from the enjoyment of the game.  Watching a team underperform to talent is NOT fun and not particularly enjoyable, even if Stanford wins 7 of 12  (of course, it is more enjoyable than losing 7 of 12, but still . . . ).

And as a fan, beating the ever-living crap out of an opponent is quite enjoyable.  See last half of the 2010 season.  God, that was beautiful football. And I suspect building confidence while destroying opponents is equally as important as "the mental toughness" you claim is created by gutting out close wins. 

And just so you don't think this is solely a Shaw-bashing post, I distinctly recall being pi$$ed after the ND win at home when Harbaugh failed to do the obviously smart thing and take a knee (at least once) late in the game with the score tied.  ND predictably played "ole" defense and then gave themselves a chance to win the game.  Same with an earlier W over Oregon State, where Stanford shut down its offense in the 2H, only to see OSU come roaring back.  If not for a fumble going out of bounds in Stanford's end zone very late in the game, I am certain that OSU would have won the game.

In short, underperforming is not fun or enjoyable to watch, even when winning.

This reminds me of what Lou Holtz said while he was HC at Notre Dame. 'When I first took the job here, people said they wanted a return to winning football. Once we started to win, people said they wanted an undefeated season. After we went undefeated, people said they wanted us to beat everybody by 40 points.'

[Red State]

Disagree on nothing being better for team or fans than winning a close game.  IMO, Stanford has played WAY too many close games against inferior opponents in the last few years.  It's been frustrating as hell, and takes away from the enjoyment of the game.  Watching a team underperform to talent is NOT fun and not particularly enjoyable, even if Stanford wins 7 of 12  (of course, it is more enjoyable than losing 7 of 12, but still . . . ).

And as a fan, beating the ever-living crap out of an opponent is quite enjoyable.  See last half of the 2010 season.  God, that was beautiful football. And I suspect building confidence while destroying opponents is equally as important as "the mental toughness" you claim is created by gutting out close wins. 

And just so you don't think this is solely a Shaw-bashing post, I distinctly recall being pi$$ed after the ND win at home when Harbaugh failed to do the obviously smart thing and take a knee (at least once) late in the game with the score tied.  ND predictably played "ole" defense and then gave themselves a chance to win the game.  Same with an earlier W over Oregon State, where Stanford shut down its offense in the 2H, only to see OSU come roaring back.  If not for a fumble going out of bounds in Stanford's end zone very late in the game, I am certain that OSU would have won the game.

In short, underperforming is not fun or enjoyable to watch, even when winning.

This reminds me of what Lou Holtz said while he was HC at Notre Dame. 'When I first took the job here, people said they wanted a return to winning football. Once we started to win, people said they wanted an undefeated season. After we went undefeated, people said they wanted us to beat everybody by 40 points.'