[doug]

To clarify in response to garvin's question, I definitely like winning better than losing. But winning alone is not the only part of the experience that matters to me. In the 60's and 70's, I thought Michigan and Ohio State played boring football. Even though they almost always won, I couldn't understand why people would pack their stadiums in a frenzy for every home game -- ~100,000 at Michigan's Big House. I mocked those teams, and I think that most Stanford students then agreed. 

In my posts above, I perhaps overemphasized the boring aspect of Stanford football this year. The defense is certainly not boring. While I do find our offense predictable, uncreative, unimaginative and ultimately boring to watch, what is really dispiriting is the combination of predictable/uncreative/boring offense with a profound sense of frustration that we are using so little of our talent on offense, and wasting so much talent, skill, work and effort while playing not to lose on offense. The frustration from a playing-not-to-lose approach is the thing I most dislike and that leaves me deeply dissatisfied. For those same reasons, I would have been very frustrated and dissatisfied even had we stopped UW's winning TD and managed to squeak by (just as I was very frustrated and dissatisfied after we managed to squeak by SJS). The only parts of the ND game I enjoyed watching was when our defense was on the field. I was frustrated throughout the game watching our offense. Even though I detest ND and ND fans, I would still have been very frustrated and dissatisfied even had the replay officials overturned the bad call in OT as they should have and Stanford had gone on to win. I would still have thought we were playing not to lose. I was frustrated by the anemic, unimaginative offense and resulting avoidable loss, and I was mad that I had wasted 4 hours of an otherwise beautiful watching such a frustrating game. That's why I agreed when my daughter said she did not intend to renew her season tickets.

Winning matters, but it's not just about winning. It is the combination of boredom and frustration that disinclines me to watch. This team will probably finish somewhere around 8-4. In 1977, Bill Walsh coached a far less talented team to 8-4. That team had significant athletic shortcomings vs. its main rivals but it was a joy to watch. It was crisp, imaginative, well-coached, aggressive and always playing to win. I loved watching that team. I went to Harbaugh's 1st game, a 45-17 loss to UCLA. It was refreshing after the dispiriting prior 6 years to see a Stanford team (albeit with evident shortcomings) playing with a go-for-it, we-bow-to-no-program, playing-to-win attitude. So it isn't an offense full of trickeration or "fumblerooskies and fleaflickers and swinging gates" I want to see. I'd be very happy with creative, imaginative, intelligent, attacking, playing-to-win approach.

[doug]

To clarify in response to garvin's question, I definitely like winning better than losing. But winning alone is not the only part of the experience that matters to me. In the 60's and 70's, I thought Michigan and Ohio State played boring football. Even though they almost always won, I couldn't understand why people would pack their stadiums in a frenzy for every home game -- ~100,000 at Michigan's Big House. I mocked those teams, and I think that most Stanford students then agreed. 

In my posts above, I perhaps overemphasized the boring aspect of Stanford football this year. The defense is certainly not boring. While I do find our offense predictable, uncreative, unimaginative and ultimately boring to watch, what is really dispiriting is the combination of predictable/uncreative/boring offense with a profound sense of frustration that we are using so little of our talent on offense, and wasting so much talent, skill, work and effort while playing not to lose on offense. The frustration from a playing-not-to-lose approach is the thing I most dislike and that leaves me deeply dissatisfied. For those same reasons, I would have been very frustrated and dissatisfied even had we stopped UW's winning TD and managed to squeak by (just as I was very frustrated and dissatisfied after we managed to squeak by SJS). The only parts of the ND game I enjoyed watching was when our defense was on the field. I was frustrated throughout the game watching our offense. Even though I detest ND and ND fans, I would still have been very frustrated and dissatisfied even had the replay officials overturned the bad call in OT as they should have and Stanford had gone on to win. I would still have thought we were playing not to lose. I was frustrated by the anemic, unimaginative offense and resulting avoidable loss, and I was mad that I had wasted 4 hours of an otherwise beautiful watching such a frustrating game. That's why I agreed when my daughter said she did not intend to renew her season tickets.

Winning matters, but it's not just about winning. It is the combination of boredom and frustration that disinclines me to watch. This team will probably finish somewhere around 8-4. In 1977, Bill Walsh coached a far less talented team to 8-4. That team had significant athletic shortcomings vs. its main rivals but it was a joy to watch. It was crisp, imaginative, well-coached, aggressive and always playing to win. I loved watching that team. I went to Harbaugh's 1st game, a 45-17 loss to UCLA. It was refreshing after the dispiriting prior 6 years to see a Stanford team (albeit with evident shortcomings) playing with a go-for-it, we-bow-to-no-program, playing-to-win attitude. So it isn't an offense full of trickeration or "fumblerooskies and fleaflickers and swinging gates" I want to see. I'd be very happy with creative, imaginative, intelligent, attacking, playing-to-win approach.