[Phogge]

I didn't catch the humor but I bow to you. Went over my head I guess.

[Phogge]

I didn't catch the humor but I bow to you. Went over my head I guess.

[SamuelMcF]

1-11 seems harsh but not sure I see where another win would come from. We match up terribly vs WSU and Cal will be favored against us and those are our two "easiest" games based on Vegas win over/unders. The next two "easiest", OSU and ASU, crushed us last year.

ASU is predicted by a bunch of pundits to finish dead last in the Pac-12 South. Yes, below Arizona and Colorado. Why were they good last year? They were old. Something like half their starters were 5th and 6th year seniors.

They lose 9 offensive starters and 8 defensive starters, including:
- Offense: their starting QB, top 4 of 5 WRs, top TE, top 2 RBs, and 3 of 5 starting OL. 
- Defense: 3 of 4 starting DL (not including the stud who was SUPPOSED to start but got hurt and left anyway), their frosh All-American LB transferred to USC (ugh), and their entire starting secondary.

Of course, there is a major dip into the transfer portal for replacements (the new QB starter, Emory Jones from Florida, wasn't that good a passer but can run, and they are bringing in some P5 OL grad transfers), but this level of turnover is simply horrid. Anyone who has actually looked at their offseason would see they are a vulnerable team this year.

[SamuelMcF]

1-11 seems harsh but not sure I see where another win would come from. We match up terribly vs WSU and Cal will be favored against us and those are our two "easiest" games based on Vegas win over/unders. The next two "easiest", OSU and ASU, crushed us last year.

ASU is predicted by a bunch of pundits to finish dead last in the Pac-12 South. Yes, below Arizona and Colorado. Why were they good last year? They were old. Something like half their starters were 5th and 6th year seniors.

They lose 9 offensive starters and 8 defensive starters, including:
- Offense: their starting QB, top 4 of 5 WRs, top TE, top 2 RBs, and 3 of 5 starting OL. 
- Defense: 3 of 4 starting DL (not including the stud who was SUPPOSED to start but got hurt and left anyway), their frosh All-American LB transferred to USC (ugh), and their entire starting secondary.

Of course, there is a major dip into the transfer portal for replacements (the new QB starter, Emory Jones from Florida, wasn't that good a passer but can run, and they are bringing in some P5 OL grad transfers), but this level of turnover is simply horrid. Anyone who has actually looked at their offseason would see they are a vulnerable team this year.

[msqueri]

Stanford, Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington State, and Cal all look like very mediocre teams, squarely bottom half of Power Five conference teams. At that level games are really tossups. When somebody says these teams will be "favored" over Stanford, we're probably talking about them being favored by 1-4 points. This is the mediocre morass.

A related point: part of the reason I like things like Sagarin is to have a more insightful picture on team quality than the information captured in a simple win-loss record. The truth is that there is not much difference between 3/4/5 win teams.

And for those who don't like the Poindexter-esque hairsplitting of things like Sagarin I think the basic insight of what I'm saying is that evaluating our season is actually pretty simple: getting to a sixth win is a simple binary test of whether the season is acceptable or not. I really can't imagine a losing season that would be encouraging (ok, maybe if there are multiple competitive losses AND McKee and the offensive line come back.....yeah right). Given the questions around the program, a bowl could be something to build on. It's about whether we can beat the mediocre teams and take one or two wins that look like long shots right now. And we shouldn't exaggerate how long the shots are as some of the games this thread isn't even talking about as winnable (Washington, UCLA) are also pretty mediocre teams (7-9-ish point spreads only because we're on the road).

[msqueri]

Stanford, Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington State, and Cal all look like very mediocre teams, squarely bottom half of Power Five conference teams. At that level games are really tossups. When somebody says these teams will be "favored" over Stanford, we're probably talking about them being favored by 1-4 points. This is the mediocre morass.

A related point: part of the reason I like things like Sagarin is to have a more insightful picture on team quality than the information captured in a simple win-loss record. The truth is that there is not much difference between 3/4/5 win teams.

And for those who don't like the Poindexter-esque hairsplitting of things like Sagarin I think the basic insight of what I'm saying is that evaluating our season is actually pretty simple: getting to a sixth win is a simple binary test of whether the season is acceptable or not. I really can't imagine a losing season that would be encouraging (ok, maybe if there are multiple competitive losses AND McKee and the offensive line come back.....yeah right). Given the questions around the program, a bowl could be something to build on. It's about whether we can beat the mediocre teams and take one or two wins that look like long shots right now. And we shouldn't exaggerate how long the shots are as some of the games this thread isn't even talking about as winnable (Washington, UCLA) are also pretty mediocre teams (7-9-ish point spreads only because we're on the road).

[Spiny_Norman]

Stanford is coming off an historic year in 2021 - tied for the most points ever given up by a Stanford team. I foresee more of the same this year. Even if the offense is improved (a big "if"), I don't think the Cardinal can score enough points to win many games. I'm taking the under.

[Spiny_Norman]

Stanford is coming off an historic year in 2021 - tied for the most points ever given up by a Stanford team. I foresee more of the same this year. Even if the offense is improved (a big "if"), I don't think the Cardinal can score enough points to win many games. I'm taking the under.

[Jamesy]

1-11 seems harsh but not sure I see where another win would come from. We match up terribly vs WSU and Cal will be favored against us and those are our two "easiest" games based on Vegas win over/unders. The next two "easiest", OSU and ASU, crushed us last year.

ASU is predicted by a bunch of pundits to finish dead last in the Pac-12 South. Yes, below Arizona and Colorado. Why were they good last year? They were old. Something like half their starters were 5th and 6th year seniors.

They lose 9 offensive starters and 8 defensive starters, including:
- Offense: their starting QB, top 4 of 5 WRs, top TE, top 2 RBs, and 3 of 5 starting OL. 
- Defense: 3 of 4 starting DL (not including the stud who was SUPPOSED to start but got hurt and left anyway), their frosh All-American LB transferred to USC (ugh), and their entire starting secondary.

Of course, there is a major dip into the transfer portal for replacements (the new QB starter, Emory Jones from Florida, wasn't that good a passer but can run, and they are bringing in some P5 OL grad transfers), but this level of turnover is simply horrid. Anyone who has actually looked at their offseason would see they are a vulnerable team this year.

Thanks, that's helpful context for ASU. 

We haven't beaten WSU since 2015 and see no reason that'll change soon. OSU seems to be on the rise after they just ended their long losing streak to us. Cal is probably the most likely 2nd win on the schedule, but if we're 2-7 going into that game, not sure how motivated the players will be.

[Jamesy]

1-11 seems harsh but not sure I see where another win would come from. We match up terribly vs WSU and Cal will be favored against us and those are our two "easiest" games based on Vegas win over/unders. The next two "easiest", OSU and ASU, crushed us last year.

ASU is predicted by a bunch of pundits to finish dead last in the Pac-12 South. Yes, below Arizona and Colorado. Why were they good last year? They were old. Something like half their starters were 5th and 6th year seniors.

They lose 9 offensive starters and 8 defensive starters, including:
- Offense: their starting QB, top 4 of 5 WRs, top TE, top 2 RBs, and 3 of 5 starting OL. 
- Defense: 3 of 4 starting DL (not including the stud who was SUPPOSED to start but got hurt and left anyway), their frosh All-American LB transferred to USC (ugh), and their entire starting secondary.

Of course, there is a major dip into the transfer portal for replacements (the new QB starter, Emory Jones from Florida, wasn't that good a passer but can run, and they are bringing in some P5 OL grad transfers), but this level of turnover is simply horrid. Anyone who has actually looked at their offseason would see they are a vulnerable team this year.

Thanks, that's helpful context for ASU. 

We haven't beaten WSU since 2015 and see no reason that'll change soon. OSU seems to be on the rise after they just ended their long losing streak to us. Cal is probably the most likely 2nd win on the schedule, but if we're 2-7 going into that game, not sure how motivated the players will be.

[TrumpCard]

Most of you seem like nattering nabobs of negativity.  This is a fan site.  I'm taking the over and feel good about it.

[TrumpCard]

Most of you seem like nattering nabobs of negativity.  This is a fan site.  I'm taking the over and feel good about it.

[gailtate]

Stanford, Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington State, and Cal all look like very mediocre teams, squarely bottom half of Power Five conference teams. At that level games are really tossups. When somebody says these teams will be "favored" over Stanford, we're probably talking about them being favored by 1-4 points. This is the mediocre morass.

A related point: part of the reason I like things like Sagarin is to have a more insightful picture on team quality than the information captured in a simple win-loss record. The truth is that there is not much difference between 3/4/5 win teams.

And for those who don't like the Poindexter-esque hairsplitting of things like Sagarin I think the basic insight of what I'm saying is that evaluating our season is actually pretty simple: getting to a sixth win is a simple binary test of whether the season is acceptable or not. I really can't imagine a losing season that would be encouraging (ok, maybe if there are multiple competitive losses AND McKee and the offensive line come back.....yeah right). Given the questions around the program, a bowl could be something to build on. It's about whether we can beat the mediocre teams and take one or two wins that look like long shots right now. And we shouldn't exaggerate how long the shots are as some of the games this thread isn't even talking about as winnable (Washington, UCLA) are also pretty mediocre teams (7-9-ish point spreads only because we're on the road).

Describing Stanford as "mediocre" this year is generous. It will be a struggle for this outfit to notch two wins. Beyond the season opener, I see no realistic prospects for anything more, and there is a greater-than-zero possibility of an Oh-Fer if they go all UC-Davis against the mighty Red Raiders in game 1. Of course I hope I'm wrong, heh-heh.

[gailtate]

Stanford, Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington State, and Cal all look like very mediocre teams, squarely bottom half of Power Five conference teams. At that level games are really tossups. When somebody says these teams will be "favored" over Stanford, we're probably talking about them being favored by 1-4 points. This is the mediocre morass.

A related point: part of the reason I like things like Sagarin is to have a more insightful picture on team quality than the information captured in a simple win-loss record. The truth is that there is not much difference between 3/4/5 win teams.

And for those who don't like the Poindexter-esque hairsplitting of things like Sagarin I think the basic insight of what I'm saying is that evaluating our season is actually pretty simple: getting to a sixth win is a simple binary test of whether the season is acceptable or not. I really can't imagine a losing season that would be encouraging (ok, maybe if there are multiple competitive losses AND McKee and the offensive line come back.....yeah right). Given the questions around the program, a bowl could be something to build on. It's about whether we can beat the mediocre teams and take one or two wins that look like long shots right now. And we shouldn't exaggerate how long the shots are as some of the games this thread isn't even talking about as winnable (Washington, UCLA) are also pretty mediocre teams (7-9-ish point spreads only because we're on the road).

Describing Stanford as "mediocre" this year is generous. It will be a struggle for this outfit to notch two wins. Beyond the season opener, I see no realistic prospects for anything more, and there is a greater-than-zero possibility of an Oh-Fer if they go all UC-Davis against the mighty Red Raiders in game 1. Of course I hope I'm wrong, heh-heh.

[CardinalSagehen]

Most of you seem like nattering nabobs of negativity.  This is a fan site.  I'm taking the over and feel good about it.

I hear you.  I am usually with you on this. The fact that we're all still here after the last few years proves that our fanaticism is unimpeachable.  

But I have to ask - did you attend the Utah game last year?  Or try to watch it?  I forced myself to remember that visceral feeling of watching our team be utterly dominated when avoiding the "over" pick for this season. We did not even deserve to be on the same field with Utah last year. They did to us what we would do to Rice or Sacramento State.

So my motto for this season is, "Don't expect too much - you might be disappointed."  I would love to be pleasantly surprised, though.

[CardinalSagehen]

Most of you seem like nattering nabobs of negativity.  This is a fan site.  I'm taking the over and feel good about it.

I hear you.  I am usually with you on this. The fact that we're all still here after the last few years proves that our fanaticism is unimpeachable.  

But I have to ask - did you attend the Utah game last year?  Or try to watch it?  I forced myself to remember that visceral feeling of watching our team be utterly dominated when avoiding the "over" pick for this season. We did not even deserve to be on the same field with Utah last year. They did to us what we would do to Rice or Sacramento State.

So my motto for this season is, "Don't expect too much - you might be disappointed."  I would love to be pleasantly surprised, though.

[TrumpCard]

Most of you seem like nattering nabobs of negativity.  This is a fan site.  I'm taking the over and feel good about it.

I hear you.  I am usually with you on this. The fact that we're all still here after the last few years proves that our fanaticism is unimpeachable.  

But I have to ask - did you attend the Utah game last year?  Or try to watch it?  I forced myself to remember that visceral feeling of watching our team be utterly dominated when avoiding the "over" pick for this season. We did not even deserve to be on the same field with Utah last year. They did to us what we would do to Rice or Sacramento State.

So my motto for this season is, "Don't expect too much - you might be disappointed."  I would love to be pleasantly surprised, though.

As my wife says, stop lawyering me.

[TrumpCard]

Most of you seem like nattering nabobs of negativity.  This is a fan site.  I'm taking the over and feel good about it.

I hear you.  I am usually with you on this. The fact that we're all still here after the last few years proves that our fanaticism is unimpeachable.  

But I have to ask - did you attend the Utah game last year?  Or try to watch it?  I forced myself to remember that visceral feeling of watching our team be utterly dominated when avoiding the "over" pick for this season. We did not even deserve to be on the same field with Utah last year. They did to us what we would do to Rice or Sacramento State.

So my motto for this season is, "Don't expect too much - you might be disappointed."  I would love to be pleasantly surprised, though.

As my wife says, stop lawyering me.

[BostonCard]

Sadly, we can’t expect a vastly overrated Oregon team hand us a win through sheer coaching incompetence again.

I too struggle to see where we get 5 wins here, but weird stuff does happen, like the wins against Oregon and USC last year.

I am hoping we get to six, and until they play the games, anything is possible, even if my imagination is limited.

BC

[BostonCard]

Sadly, we can’t expect a vastly overrated Oregon team hand us a win through sheer coaching incompetence again.

I too struggle to see where we get 5 wins here, but weird stuff does happen, like the wins against Oregon and USC last year.

I am hoping we get to six, and until they play the games, anything is possible, even if my imagination is limited.

BC

[old spanish trail]

Over easy. McKee named 3rd rated qb in conference.

[old spanish trail]

Over easy. McKee named 3rd rated qb in conference.

[82lsju]

Pac-12 media poll

(first place votes) - total points
1.  Utah (26) - 384
2.  Oregon (2) - 345
3.  USC (5) - 341
4.  UCLA - 289
5.  Oregon State - 246
6.  Washington - 212
7.  Washington State - 177
8.  Stanford - 159
9.  California - 154
10.  Arizona State - 123
11.  Arizona - 86
12.  Colorado - 58


https://athlonsports.com/college-footbal...n-released

[82lsju]

Pac-12 media poll

(first place votes) - total points
1.  Utah (26) - 384
2.  Oregon (2) - 345
3.  USC (5) - 341
4.  UCLA - 289
5.  Oregon State - 246
6.  Washington - 212
7.  Washington State - 177
8.  Stanford - 159
9.  California - 154
10.  Arizona State - 123
11.  Arizona - 86
12.  Colorado - 58


https://athlonsports.com/college-footbal...n-released

[BostonCard]

If the poll is accurate, then it looks like Oregon and a morass of mediocre teams in the North and then a binomial distribution in the South, with Utah and the LA schools towards the top, and Colorado and the Arizona schools towards the bottom.

So, of course we play the three best teams in the South, two on the road.

BC

[BostonCard]

If the poll is accurate, then it looks like Oregon and a morass of mediocre teams in the North and then a binomial distribution in the South, with Utah and the LA schools towards the top, and Colorado and the Arizona schools towards the bottom.

So, of course we play the three best teams in the South, two on the road.

BC

[Maple Leaf]

This is how the season goes:

• Colgate 7 Stanford 9; more painful than a root canal.
  
• usc 10 Stanford 49; the Trees burst the condoms, B1G pulls the condoms membership, usc NIL's drop in $$$ faster than bitcoin.  
  
• Washington 28; Stanford 42; the Trees DB's save the day. The edge rushers start to show promise, Udub has no running game which saved the Trees from getting felled.
  
• Quackers 13, Stanford 45; the Trees go duck hunting and bag their limit, the Quackers are starting to develop a "Stanford Problem".
  
• Beves 21, Stanford 24; hunting beavers is harder than hunting quackers, but the Trees show resiliency, and are too hard for the beves to chew through.
  
• Delusional Domers 7, Stanford 42; Shaw calls the same running play (6 times) from the domer's 5-yard line and scores each time.  When asked why he called the same play, Shaw's response was "because we scored 7 times", the 7th time was Stephan Taylor's TD.
  
• Devils 3, Stanford 21; The Trees do just enough and fight through the long(travel) week following dumping the Domers.  Ray Anderson asks Bernie for any financial tips he might be willing to share regarding balancing the budget, Bernie says he has 11 tips that might be of help.
  
• Baby Bears 28, Stanford 56; Chip is still having problems with finding a DC and is starting to think that retiring to Florida and kissing off the B1G and the cold weather is the way to go. The B1G is now looking for two replacements for usc and ucla.
  
• The Cougs 0, Stanford 38; the Trees solve their WSU problem.
  
• Utes 14, Stanford 32; the Trees show how strong they have become up front which took the Utes by surprise after last year's game.
  
• Cal 3, Stanford 10; the Trees doing everything possible to lose, Shaw states they were just 4 plays away from an all-time record of points scored by Stanford in the Big Game.
  
• BYU 14, Stanford 21; the visitors spent too much time before the game at the Dutch Goose, Shaw states they were just 4 plays away from being a complete football team.
  
• Conference Championship Game: Cal 3, Stanford 77; Shaw says, "see what fours plays can do!".  Yes, Cal made the Conference Championship Game, ucla finishes 1-11, condoms finish 0-12.
  
• Bernie leaves Stanford, which goes unnoticed.
  
• Shaw retires and writes his mems and calls it "see what four plays can do".
  
• All the big money on Sand Hill Road is looking to cash in on Stanford Football NIL, but too their shock they are too late, the Thunderdome has locked up the Stanford Football NIL, which has a net worth greater than Amazon.
  
• While Stanford waits to see who their opponent will be in the National Championship Payoff, the Stanford Daily runs and in-depth article on the Thunderdome's NIL finances and discovers that ALL the $$$ has been spent on Tonga Juice.  When the Thunderdome's Board of Directors are asked why all the Tonga Juice, their response is "see what four plays can do!".
  

[Maple Leaf]

This is how the season goes:

• Colgate 7 Stanford 9; more painful than a root canal.
  
• usc 10 Stanford 49; the Trees burst the condoms, B1G pulls the condoms membership, usc NIL's drop in $$$ faster than bitcoin.  
  
• Washington 28; Stanford 42; the Trees DB's save the day. The edge rushers start to show promise, Udub has no running game which saved the Trees from getting felled.
  
• Quackers 13, Stanford 45; the Trees go duck hunting and bag their limit, the Quackers are starting to develop a "Stanford Problem".
  
• Beves 21, Stanford 24; hunting beavers is harder than hunting quackers, but the Trees show resiliency, and are too hard for the beves to chew through.
  
• Delusional Domers 7, Stanford 42; Shaw calls the same running play (6 times) from the domer's 5-yard line and scores each time.  When asked why he called the same play, Shaw's response was "because we scored 7 times", the 7th time was Stephan Taylor's TD.
  
• Devils 3, Stanford 21; The Trees do just enough and fight through the long(travel) week following dumping the Domers.  Ray Anderson asks Bernie for any financial tips he might be willing to share regarding balancing the budget, Bernie says he has 11 tips that might be of help.
  
• Baby Bears 28, Stanford 56; Chip is still having problems with finding a DC and is starting to think that retiring to Florida and kissing off the B1G and the cold weather is the way to go. The B1G is now looking for two replacements for usc and ucla.
  
• The Cougs 0, Stanford 38; the Trees solve their WSU problem.
  
• Utes 14, Stanford 32; the Trees show how strong they have become up front which took the Utes by surprise after last year's game.
  
• Cal 3, Stanford 10; the Trees doing everything possible to lose, Shaw states they were just 4 plays away from an all-time record of points scored by Stanford in the Big Game.
  
• BYU 14, Stanford 21; the visitors spent too much time before the game at the Dutch Goose, Shaw states they were just 4 plays away from being a complete football team.
  
• Conference Championship Game: Cal 3, Stanford 77; Shaw says, "see what fours plays can do!".  Yes, Cal made the Conference Championship Game, ucla finishes 1-11, condoms finish 0-12.
  
• Bernie leaves Stanford, which goes unnoticed.
  
• Shaw retires and writes his mems and calls it "see what four plays can do".
  
• All the big money on Sand Hill Road is looking to cash in on Stanford Football NIL, but too their shock they are too late, the Thunderdome has locked up the Stanford Football NIL, which has a net worth greater than Amazon.
  
• While Stanford waits to see who their opponent will be in the National Championship Payoff, the Stanford Daily runs and in-depth article on the Thunderdome's NIL finances and discovers that ALL the $$$ has been spent on Tonga Juice.  When the Thunderdome's Board of Directors are asked why all the Tonga Juice, their response is "see what four plays can do!".
  

[msqueri]

And the difference between where we rank in the preseason poll vs. where we rank in over/under wins reinforces my point about the negligible difference between 3/4/5 wins. We have the lower over/under we do because our schedule is harder than other teams, not because Cal/Washington State/Oregon State/Arizona State are actually any good. The bulk of the conference is mediocre, at best.

I'm fine with those who think "mediocre" is too generous. Just for what it's worth, I think of it in terms of how teams rank among the 130 major college football teams. I figure there are something like 30 good teams, 30 terrible teams, and then a morass. That would put the teams between 31-99 in the morass. Or perhaps you can expand the good/bad ends to 40 on each end and end up with 41-89. Either way that "mediocre" middle is where I see Stanford. Whether we win three, four, five, or six games doesn't move us from that middle most likely.

[msqueri]

And the difference between where we rank in the preseason poll vs. where we rank in over/under wins reinforces my point about the negligible difference between 3/4/5 wins. We have the lower over/under we do because our schedule is harder than other teams, not because Cal/Washington State/Oregon State/Arizona State are actually any good. The bulk of the conference is mediocre, at best.

I'm fine with those who think "mediocre" is too generous. Just for what it's worth, I think of it in terms of how teams rank among the 130 major college football teams. I figure there are something like 30 good teams, 30 terrible teams, and then a morass. That would put the teams between 31-99 in the morass. Or perhaps you can expand the good/bad ends to 40 on each end and end up with 41-89. Either way that "mediocre" middle is where I see Stanford. Whether we win three, four, five, or six games doesn't move us from that middle most likely.

[winflop]

Friday is PAC-12 media day.  Shaw is on at 11:15am.

Coach, why are you basically the only D1 coach with 4 or fewer wins this season who made zero changes in your coaching staff?
How do you expect to have a winning record this season being so thin in the trenches on both sides?

I could go on with the questions I wished the Pac-12 media had the guts to ask.

---

weird stuff does happen, like the wins against Oregon and USC last year.

BC

And weird stuff like losing your last seven games by a combined total of 255-100 also happens.

[winflop]

Friday is PAC-12 media day.  Shaw is on at 11:15am.

Coach, why are you basically the only D1 coach with 4 or fewer wins this season who made zero changes in your coaching staff?
How do you expect to have a winning record this season being so thin in the trenches on both sides?

I could go on with the questions I wished the Pac-12 media had the guts to ask.

---

weird stuff does happen, like the wins against Oregon and USC last year.

BC

And weird stuff like losing your last seven games by a combined total of 255-100 also happens.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford sure picked a terrible time to suck in Football. When you need your team to be relevant, putting butts in seats, and getting eyeballs on TV to enhance your media rights value for the next contract, you are the worst you have been in 15 years. 

I have so little confidence in David Shaw to coach his team to anything other than irrelevant mediocrity that I can't even bring myself to care who the players are this year. He could change my mind if he outperforms my meager expectations, but my confidence that he will is zero.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford sure picked a terrible time to suck in Football. When you need your team to be relevant, putting butts in seats, and getting eyeballs on TV to enhance your media rights value for the next contract, you are the worst you have been in 15 years. 

I have so little confidence in David Shaw to coach his team to anything other than irrelevant mediocrity that I can't even bring myself to care who the players are this year. He could change my mind if he outperforms my meager expectations, but my confidence that he will is zero.

[Mick]

And weird stuff like losing your last seven games by a combined total of 255-100 also happens.

They were just 63 plays away from reversing that 255-100 total...

[Mick]

And weird stuff like losing your last seven games by a combined total of 255-100 also happens.

They were just 63 plays away from reversing that 255-100 total...

[gailtate]

Stanford sure picked a terrible time to suck in Football. When you need your team to be relevant, putting butts in seats, and getting eyeballs on TV to enhance your media rights value for the next contract, you are the worst you have been in 15 years. 

I have so little confidence in David Shaw to coach his team to anything other than irrelevant mediocrity that I can't even bring myself to care who the players are this year. He could change my mind if he outperforms my meager expectations, but my confidence that he will is zero.

+1

[gailtate]

Stanford sure picked a terrible time to suck in Football. When you need your team to be relevant, putting butts in seats, and getting eyeballs on TV to enhance your media rights value for the next contract, you are the worst you have been in 15 years. 

I have so little confidence in David Shaw to coach his team to anything other than irrelevant mediocrity that I can't even bring myself to care who the players are this year. He could change my mind if he outperforms my meager expectations, but my confidence that he will is zero.

+1

[SamuelMcF]

And weird stuff like losing your last seven games by a combined total of 255-100 also happens.

Next time, use "losing the last 4 games by a combined total of 173-46." It hits harder and is more representative of the ACTUAL collapse/players completely giving up on the staff.

---

I have so little confidence in David Shaw to coach his team to anything other than irrelevant mediocrity that I can't even bring myself to care who the players are this year. He could change my mind if he outperforms my meager expectations, but my confidence that he will is zero.

That sucks. Those aren't mutually exclusive things.

I know who every single player is and support the s*** out of them, while at the same time having zero faith in (some of) the coaching staff. It's possible to do both.

[SamuelMcF]

And weird stuff like losing your last seven games by a combined total of 255-100 also happens.

Next time, use "losing the last 4 games by a combined total of 173-46." It hits harder and is more representative of the ACTUAL collapse/players completely giving up on the staff.

---

I have so little confidence in David Shaw to coach his team to anything other than irrelevant mediocrity that I can't even bring myself to care who the players are this year. He could change my mind if he outperforms my meager expectations, but my confidence that he will is zero.

That sucks. Those aren't mutually exclusive things.

I know who every single player is and support the s*** out of them, while at the same time having zero faith in (some of) the coaching staff. It's possible to do both.