[Hank 91]

I think it takes a long time for perceptions to change. Even though Auburn had been down for a while, it didn't take long last season for people to start believing in them because, well, they're Auburn. It's the opposite with Stanford. Even as we were steam rolling people last year, whenever I reached out to an opposing blog for a preview I always got the same thing. "Yes, Stanford is doing well, but there defense looks really slow, and it will be exposed this week." Or, "Stanford's having a nice season, but we should beat them 27-24."

I know this thread is about  the professional prognosticators, but I think we're still talking about the same issue. If the Cardinal makes a run to a BCS game again this year, then performs well next year without Andrew Luck, people will be forced to change their minds. Until, then Stanford is just a nice story. They got lucky with Toby Gerhart, then lucky again with Andrew Luck, but once those guys are gone, the team will return to mediocrity.

Many of you have already mentioned this, but you can see this most obviously when people predict a drop-off for Luck because he lost all his top receivers. Most national experts are analyzing hundreds of teams, so they can only look at the surface. They see that Griff Whalen, Doug Baldwin, and Konrad Reuland have graduated, so they assume Luck will have no experienced targets. You'd think they might look at the roster and notice Chris Owusu, who could be one of the top receivers in the country this year, but they don't. Also, you'd think they'd be able to remember Coby Fleener's performance in the Orange Bowl, but it's understandable that they'd know little about Zach Ertz and nothing about Levine Toilolo. (More evidence of surface analysis: Fleener is on the Mackey watch list, but he's currently third on the Stanford depth chart.)

Here's the good news, though. A week from today none of this preseason nonsense will matter.

[Hank 91]

I think it takes a long time for perceptions to change. Even though Auburn had been down for a while, it didn't take long last season for people to start believing in them because, well, they're Auburn. It's the opposite with Stanford. Even as we were steam rolling people last year, whenever I reached out to an opposing blog for a preview I always got the same thing. "Yes, Stanford is doing well, but there defense looks really slow, and it will be exposed this week." Or, "Stanford's having a nice season, but we should beat them 27-24."

I know this thread is about  the professional prognosticators, but I think we're still talking about the same issue. If the Cardinal makes a run to a BCS game again this year, then performs well next year without Andrew Luck, people will be forced to change their minds. Until, then Stanford is just a nice story. They got lucky with Toby Gerhart, then lucky again with Andrew Luck, but once those guys are gone, the team will return to mediocrity.

Many of you have already mentioned this, but you can see this most obviously when people predict a drop-off for Luck because he lost all his top receivers. Most national experts are analyzing hundreds of teams, so they can only look at the surface. They see that Griff Whalen, Doug Baldwin, and Konrad Reuland have graduated, so they assume Luck will have no experienced targets. You'd think they might look at the roster and notice Chris Owusu, who could be one of the top receivers in the country this year, but they don't. Also, you'd think they'd be able to remember Coby Fleener's performance in the Orange Bowl, but it's understandable that they'd know little about Zach Ertz and nothing about Levine Toilolo. (More evidence of surface analysis: Fleener is on the Mackey watch list, but he's currently third on the Stanford depth chart.)

Here's the good news, though. A week from today none of this preseason nonsense will matter.