[Spiny_Norman]

After listening to the NFL.com podcast on college football yesterday, reading the SI story on Trent Murphy, and considering the latest embarrassment plaguing the UCB football outfit, it seems Stanford's game against Oregon can be seen as a proxy battle of sorts, pitting the prevailing "neanderthal," win at all costs football culture against the "evolved," balanced football culture, in a week the football world is being put under the microscope.  It might be thought of as the established giant of industry against a disruptive new start-up.

The Jonathan Martin episode is revealing some ugly truths.  First, that a significant population of the football world finds abusive tactics the preferred way to toughen people up for a game.  Second, that somehow a well-read, worldly intellectual can't be as tough as someone without much education who is tough as a result of an abusive environment. 

David Shaw is actually having people ask him if Stanford players are too soft for the NFL.  Really?  Why is it Stanford is known as one of the most physically tough football programs in the country now?  How is it that Trent Murphy is soft exactly, because he goes to Stanford?  In other words, the evidence shows, beyond doubt that not only can smart guys who are well-rounded and intellectually curious be physically tough individually, they can also combine to create one of the most physical and mentally tough teams in football.

The NFL has prima facie evidence that smart guys can be among the toughest football players there are, yet wants to choose sociopaths and products of abuse as the guys it wants to build teams around?  What am I missing here?  It seems the NFL, not Stanford, is the one making bad choices.  Maybe if the NFL looked at Stanford-type players as an example of how smart guys can be tough and the best teammates (with rare off-field behavior problems to embarrass teams and "the shield"), the NFL would start selecting for those traits in its preferred players.  If the NFL did do that, it would send the message to colleges that they better produce more guys like Andrew Luck and Jonathan Martin, and fewer guys like Richie Incognito (who once was welcomed into the Oregon program).  The desire for Stanford-type players would then be pushed down into high schools.

But none of this thinking starts gaining traction unless Stanford proves it is among the elite of college football, and can knock off a college program that will willingly admit and harbor criminals, and otherwise not place much value on the education of athletes.  No program embodies the win at all costs, and the education is just a formality, mentality than Oregon.  And at the end of the day, the NFL is all about winning.  If Stanford proves it can knock off Oregon, the football world will have to look in the mirror.  It will have to stop questioning if Stanford guys are tough enough for the NFL, and start looking to Stanford as the example to follow.

With all this said, I sincerely hope David Shaw is using the Jonathan Martin situation to rally his team.  Make the players feel an attack on Martin's manhood is an attack on all Stanford football players, past present and future, until they shut up the skeptics and critics questioning their toughness and ability to play football.  It's time to circle the wagons and win one for Moose!

OutsiderFan, I think that you have conflated several different issues and come up with a conclusion that the Stanford-Oregon teams each represent different sides of those issues.  Hence the Stanford-Oregon result will have greater meaning than just who has the inside track to winning the Pac 12 North.

The issue of bullying and harassment in the workplace is front and center right now.  You will hear stories similar to the Dolphins situation about hazing and borderline abuse in professions like medicine, law, military, entertainment.  The public dialogue shows a real split view whether the treatment of Jonathan Martin represents a tolerable or intolerable situation.  Personally I think what Richie Incognito has done is a severe HR situation and borderline criminal.  But a lot of people take the view that Martin has shown weakness and broken a code by going public.

Yet, I don't think that we can say that Oregon represents the anti-Stanford in this case.  In fact, the kind of old-school coaches who use (or at least tolerate) hard line tactics to toughen up players are hard to find in college ball nowadays.

Oregon-Stanford represents contrasts in a number of different areas, but I don't think this is one of them.

Canard - I'm with you on this point.  But you are on your own when you go after Stanford athletic admissions.  All evidence points to the integrity of the process.  There is no other school in the country that requires athletes to submit a full application, then be reviewed and admitted by Admissions before they can be offered a scholarship. 

[Spiny_Norman]

After listening to the NFL.com podcast on college football yesterday, reading the SI story on Trent Murphy, and considering the latest embarrassment plaguing the UCB football outfit, it seems Stanford's game against Oregon can be seen as a proxy battle of sorts, pitting the prevailing "neanderthal," win at all costs football culture against the "evolved," balanced football culture, in a week the football world is being put under the microscope.  It might be thought of as the established giant of industry against a disruptive new start-up.

The Jonathan Martin episode is revealing some ugly truths.  First, that a significant population of the football world finds abusive tactics the preferred way to toughen people up for a game.  Second, that somehow a well-read, worldly intellectual can't be as tough as someone without much education who is tough as a result of an abusive environment. 

David Shaw is actually having people ask him if Stanford players are too soft for the NFL.  Really?  Why is it Stanford is known as one of the most physically tough football programs in the country now?  How is it that Trent Murphy is soft exactly, because he goes to Stanford?  In other words, the evidence shows, beyond doubt that not only can smart guys who are well-rounded and intellectually curious be physically tough individually, they can also combine to create one of the most physical and mentally tough teams in football.

The NFL has prima facie evidence that smart guys can be among the toughest football players there are, yet wants to choose sociopaths and products of abuse as the guys it wants to build teams around?  What am I missing here?  It seems the NFL, not Stanford, is the one making bad choices.  Maybe if the NFL looked at Stanford-type players as an example of how smart guys can be tough and the best teammates (with rare off-field behavior problems to embarrass teams and "the shield"), the NFL would start selecting for those traits in its preferred players.  If the NFL did do that, it would send the message to colleges that they better produce more guys like Andrew Luck and Jonathan Martin, and fewer guys like Richie Incognito (who once was welcomed into the Oregon program).  The desire for Stanford-type players would then be pushed down into high schools.

But none of this thinking starts gaining traction unless Stanford proves it is among the elite of college football, and can knock off a college program that will willingly admit and harbor criminals, and otherwise not place much value on the education of athletes.  No program embodies the win at all costs, and the education is just a formality, mentality than Oregon.  And at the end of the day, the NFL is all about winning.  If Stanford proves it can knock off Oregon, the football world will have to look in the mirror.  It will have to stop questioning if Stanford guys are tough enough for the NFL, and start looking to Stanford as the example to follow.

With all this said, I sincerely hope David Shaw is using the Jonathan Martin situation to rally his team.  Make the players feel an attack on Martin's manhood is an attack on all Stanford football players, past present and future, until they shut up the skeptics and critics questioning their toughness and ability to play football.  It's time to circle the wagons and win one for Moose!

OutsiderFan, I think that you have conflated several different issues and come up with a conclusion that the Stanford-Oregon teams each represent different sides of those issues.  Hence the Stanford-Oregon result will have greater meaning than just who has the inside track to winning the Pac 12 North.

The issue of bullying and harassment in the workplace is front and center right now.  You will hear stories similar to the Dolphins situation about hazing and borderline abuse in professions like medicine, law, military, entertainment.  The public dialogue shows a real split view whether the treatment of Jonathan Martin represents a tolerable or intolerable situation.  Personally I think what Richie Incognito has done is a severe HR situation and borderline criminal.  But a lot of people take the view that Martin has shown weakness and broken a code by going public.

Yet, I don't think that we can say that Oregon represents the anti-Stanford in this case.  In fact, the kind of old-school coaches who use (or at least tolerate) hard line tactics to toughen up players are hard to find in college ball nowadays.

Oregon-Stanford represents contrasts in a number of different areas, but I don't think this is one of them.

Canard - I'm with you on this point.  But you are on your own when you go after Stanford athletic admissions.  All evidence points to the integrity of the process.  There is no other school in the country that requires athletes to submit a full application, then be reviewed and admitted by Admissions before they can be offered a scholarship.