11-06-2013, 10:50 AM
Winning at the collegiate level won't solve that. Winning at the pro level does. One of the great and omniscient Skip Bayless's arguments for why RGII over Luck was that that #12 was too nerdy to be a leader in the huddle, too intellectual to fit in comfortably with his teammates. Well he's been proven time and again that a smart, well-spoken guy like Luck won't find any traction in an NFL locker room. He won't be able to motivate and direct players in the huddle. You have to have cool dreds, not a fugly neard to lead...
I bristle at Outsider's notion that Stanford needs to prove it is elite. Haven't we done that in the past 5 years with 3 consecutive BCS bowls, a Pac12 championship, 3 Voldemort finalists, and numerous NFL impact players? Yes, football is a meritocracy and you have to prove your worth over and over, but I don't think that's any more true for Stanford than any other (non-SEC) program. We're the highest ranked 1-loss team, despite having perhaps the worst loss of any teams in that category (Utah is not the team I'd hoped they were after they beat us.) Clearly, the voters already recognize Stanford is elite.
Canard - I appreciate what Oregon has done with its program (and Knight's money) the past 15 years. But in the end, Oregon represents the "Shock and Awe" style of modern football. Recruit players based on the value they place on image (flashy uniforms and slick facilities). Compromise for personalities like Masoli and Harris and only take action when you lose control of the public image. Don't feel bad. You're no worse than 90% of other program in that regard. I don't think you're "buying" athletes or roiding your players or anything. But you represent the indecent investment in resources to cultivate a winning program and lack of balance in values that pervades NCAA athletics and particularly football.
I bristle at Outsider's notion that Stanford needs to prove it is elite. Haven't we done that in the past 5 years with 3 consecutive BCS bowls, a Pac12 championship, 3 Voldemort finalists, and numerous NFL impact players? Yes, football is a meritocracy and you have to prove your worth over and over, but I don't think that's any more true for Stanford than any other (non-SEC) program. We're the highest ranked 1-loss team, despite having perhaps the worst loss of any teams in that category (Utah is not the team I'd hoped they were after they beat us.) Clearly, the voters already recognize Stanford is elite.
Canard - I appreciate what Oregon has done with its program (and Knight's money) the past 15 years. But in the end, Oregon represents the "Shock and Awe" style of modern football. Recruit players based on the value they place on image (flashy uniforms and slick facilities). Compromise for personalities like Masoli and Harris and only take action when you lose control of the public image. Don't feel bad. You're no worse than 90% of other program in that regard. I don't think you're "buying" athletes or roiding your players or anything. But you represent the indecent investment in resources to cultivate a winning program and lack of balance in values that pervades NCAA athletics and particularly football.