10-17-2012, 06:31 AM
Doug, I pretty well agree with your perspective. To me, boring football is:
1. A team that struggles mightily on Offense and/or Defense to move and/or stop the ball
2. A team that makes lots of mistakes (penalties, dropped passes, turnovers, missed tackles)
3. Unimaginative and predictable
4. Features no players you want to see play
5. Playing to empty stadiums with no fan passion
6. A team led by a coach who plays not to lose and slow to make changes when things aren't working
Right now, I would say Stanford football:
Struggles and is predictable on Offense, and has a coach who plays not to lose and doesn't seem to change what isn't working. But the Defense is fun to watch. The team doesn't make excessive mistakes, has some players (Taylor, Ertz, Thomas, Murphy, Skov, Gardner, Richards, Lyons, Carter), you are excited to see play, and so far has played in front of pretty good crowds for the most part, with three games on national TV. So it hasn't hit the tipping point of boring just yet. But it certainly could if the team starts making mistakes and the crowds disappear.
You'll notice I didn't point out style of play. I have a hunch that if Stanford was averaging 7 YPC, Nunes was a 65% passer, Stanford was 45% on 3rd down conversions, and 6-0, you'd find Stanford football plenty entertaining, with the same scheme and play calling you've seen this year. It's amazing how watching a team with 7 OL on the field bulldozing the other team with savage impunity is entertaining and watching a team with 7 OL on the field getting regularly stuffed is boring.
As a fan of California and Stanford, I have gone back and forth between the two programs in terms of their ability entertain me. I started with Cal in 1990 with Bruce Snyder. Then when Gibertson/Holmoe made California boring, Stanford became entertaining with Willingham. When Willingham left Stanford became boring and California was more entertaining with Tedford. Then, Tedford lost his mojo and Harbaugh came on the scene to make Stanford more entertaining.
Now, it seems both California and Stanford are on the verge of becoming boring at the same time. Tedford needs to be replaced, and Shaw needs this year to learn from his mistakes after Luck, and make Stanford more entertaining on Offense by the time the 2013 season starts. But as long as at least one side of the ball is entertaining, fans will stay interested, even if they are frustrated a bit by the fact the other side of the ball is boring.
1. A team that struggles mightily on Offense and/or Defense to move and/or stop the ball
2. A team that makes lots of mistakes (penalties, dropped passes, turnovers, missed tackles)
3. Unimaginative and predictable
4. Features no players you want to see play
5. Playing to empty stadiums with no fan passion
6. A team led by a coach who plays not to lose and slow to make changes when things aren't working
Right now, I would say Stanford football:
Struggles and is predictable on Offense, and has a coach who plays not to lose and doesn't seem to change what isn't working. But the Defense is fun to watch. The team doesn't make excessive mistakes, has some players (Taylor, Ertz, Thomas, Murphy, Skov, Gardner, Richards, Lyons, Carter), you are excited to see play, and so far has played in front of pretty good crowds for the most part, with three games on national TV. So it hasn't hit the tipping point of boring just yet. But it certainly could if the team starts making mistakes and the crowds disappear.
You'll notice I didn't point out style of play. I have a hunch that if Stanford was averaging 7 YPC, Nunes was a 65% passer, Stanford was 45% on 3rd down conversions, and 6-0, you'd find Stanford football plenty entertaining, with the same scheme and play calling you've seen this year. It's amazing how watching a team with 7 OL on the field bulldozing the other team with savage impunity is entertaining and watching a team with 7 OL on the field getting regularly stuffed is boring.
As a fan of California and Stanford, I have gone back and forth between the two programs in terms of their ability entertain me. I started with Cal in 1990 with Bruce Snyder. Then when Gibertson/Holmoe made California boring, Stanford became entertaining with Willingham. When Willingham left Stanford became boring and California was more entertaining with Tedford. Then, Tedford lost his mojo and Harbaugh came on the scene to make Stanford more entertaining.
Now, it seems both California and Stanford are on the verge of becoming boring at the same time. Tedford needs to be replaced, and Shaw needs this year to learn from his mistakes after Luck, and make Stanford more entertaining on Offense by the time the 2013 season starts. But as long as at least one side of the ball is entertaining, fans will stay interested, even if they are frustrated a bit by the fact the other side of the ball is boring.