11-13-2017, 04:16 AM
What is a good hear, IMO? First and always, its doing things the right way and with high character. No sexual assaults. No cheating scandals. No stolen sunglasses.
Second, no matter what happens or how hard recruiting gets, Stanford should field teams that are sound and well-coached. That is part of what was so infuriating about many Teevens-Harris years. The teams played bad football. Mental errors. Missed assignments. I can tolerate a team losing due to injuries or not finding the right mix of academically-qualified and athletically-talented players, but I couldnt stand watching teams that played sloppy, unprepared football.
Something I read in the Stanford Daily over 25 years ago has influenced my thinking on what is a good year for the program.
When Bill Walsh was re-hired in the early 90s, I recall him stating as a goal the desire to make Stanford a consistent, perennially-ranked team. To become one of those programs that is consistently in the top 20.
By that standard, Stanford has exceeded Bill Walshs stated aspiration, as well as producing teams that ended the season more highly-ranked than Walshs most successful year.
For my part, if a team does things the right way, beats c)al, and ends the season ranked in the top 20, I would argue it has passed The Walsh Test and deserves an A.
If the team beats C)al, wins the conference, and wins the Rose Bowl (or, this year, the Fiesta), thats an A+.
Being a member of nerd nation, I am only interested in As. ð¤
Winning the cfp, while doing things the right way? That would be off the charts.
Second, no matter what happens or how hard recruiting gets, Stanford should field teams that are sound and well-coached. That is part of what was so infuriating about many Teevens-Harris years. The teams played bad football. Mental errors. Missed assignments. I can tolerate a team losing due to injuries or not finding the right mix of academically-qualified and athletically-talented players, but I couldnt stand watching teams that played sloppy, unprepared football.
Something I read in the Stanford Daily over 25 years ago has influenced my thinking on what is a good year for the program.
When Bill Walsh was re-hired in the early 90s, I recall him stating as a goal the desire to make Stanford a consistent, perennially-ranked team. To become one of those programs that is consistently in the top 20.
By that standard, Stanford has exceeded Bill Walshs stated aspiration, as well as producing teams that ended the season more highly-ranked than Walshs most successful year.
For my part, if a team does things the right way, beats c)al, and ends the season ranked in the top 20, I would argue it has passed The Walsh Test and deserves an A.
If the team beats C)al, wins the conference, and wins the Rose Bowl (or, this year, the Fiesta), thats an A+.
Being a member of nerd nation, I am only interested in As. ð¤
Winning the cfp, while doing things the right way? That would be off the charts.