[oman]

Hmm.  That doesn't make me feel any better.

[oman]

Hmm.  That doesn't make me feel any better.

[CowboyIndian]

My fear is that Shaw has a 5-year contract and we have a new AD who isn't as decisive as Bowlsby was, so we will endure many more years of boring, play-not-to-lose football.

This "get rid of Shaw" stuff is really getting ridiculous.

Bowlsby's "decisiveness" focused on a guy who'd just gone 1-11 with a team that hated him to the extent they sent a legation to Bowlsby to beg/demand he get rid of him.
The current coach is, what, 15-4 with a team that supports him.

Get real, folks.

[CowboyIndian]

My fear is that Shaw has a 5-year contract and we have a new AD who isn't as decisive as Bowlsby was, so we will endure many more years of boring, play-not-to-lose football.

This "get rid of Shaw" stuff is really getting ridiculous.

Bowlsby's "decisiveness" focused on a guy who'd just gone 1-11 with a team that hated him to the extent they sent a legation to Bowlsby to beg/demand he get rid of him.
The current coach is, what, 15-4 with a team that supports him.

Get real, folks.

[doug]

I was expressing my fear, not directly advocating that Shaw be fired. There obviously is no credible case for firing him based on performance. Nevertheless this team is not fun to watch. Shaw's overly controlled, conservative, play-not-to-lose approach is not in the least appealing to me under any circumstances, but it is so much worse in light of the talent and effort being wasted. My Stanford grad daughter who has season tickets watched the ND game with me. She said afterwards she is so bored watching Stanford this year that she will not renew her tickets. I agreed.

My fear is that all the excitement of the resurrection from the 2006 catastrophe will be lost very quickly if this continues.

[doug]

I was expressing my fear, not directly advocating that Shaw be fired. There obviously is no credible case for firing him based on performance. Nevertheless this team is not fun to watch. Shaw's overly controlled, conservative, play-not-to-lose approach is not in the least appealing to me under any circumstances, but it is so much worse in light of the talent and effort being wasted. My Stanford grad daughter who has season tickets watched the ND game with me. She said afterwards she is so bored watching Stanford this year that she will not renew her tickets. I agreed.

My fear is that all the excitement of the resurrection from the 2006 catastrophe will be lost very quickly if this continues.

[CowboyIndian]

She said afterwards she is so bored watching Stanford this year that she will not renew her tickets. I agreed.

Bored? Really? 2 overtime games in a row? You and your daughter set a high bar.

[CowboyIndian]

She said afterwards she is so bored watching Stanford this year that she will not renew her tickets. I agreed.

Bored? Really? 2 overtime games in a row? You and your daughter set a high bar.

[doug]

CI, you are consistently a voice of reason on this board, so none of this is personal. But can you honestly say watching this team is fun and entertaining? The 2nd half vs. UA was entertaining -- and also quite unexpected to me and in stark contrast is almost every other game this year. Though our defense was outstanding, ND game was dreadful almost throughout, as was UW, as was SJS. Even USC, although the defense was spectacular and puncturing the over-hyped fantasies of such a despised rival is always sublime, the 1st half was frustrating and, dare I say, a little bit boring (save Taylor's run -- which was all individual effort and skill). If we were truly as limited in terms of skill and athleticism as Shaw's game plans suggest, I (and I expect many other fans) could live with that. But we clearly are not so limited.

[doug]

CI, you are consistently a voice of reason on this board, so none of this is personal. But can you honestly say watching this team is fun and entertaining? The 2nd half vs. UA was entertaining -- and also quite unexpected to me and in stark contrast is almost every other game this year. Though our defense was outstanding, ND game was dreadful almost throughout, as was UW, as was SJS. Even USC, although the defense was spectacular and puncturing the over-hyped fantasies of such a despised rival is always sublime, the 1st half was frustrating and, dare I say, a little bit boring (save Taylor's run -- which was all individual effort and skill). If we were truly as limited in terms of skill and athleticism as Shaw's game plans suggest, I (and I expect many other fans) could live with that. But we clearly are not so limited.

[Roberton3]

Doug, there's no question that watching games this season has been hugely frustrating.  But boring?  I don't understand how you could possibly say that the ND game was boring.

[Roberton3]

Doug, there's no question that watching games this season has been hugely frustrating.  But boring?  I don't understand how you could possibly say that the ND game was boring.

[Leftcoast]

Season ticket holders bored?

Ouch!  If you are bored after watching our last two home games (Thriller to beat  USC, OT win against Arizona) then you clearly wouldn't have made it through the early 2000s.

I'd say you are getting value for your ticket dollar.

[Leftcoast]

Season ticket holders bored?

Ouch!  If you are bored after watching our last two home games (Thriller to beat  USC, OT win against Arizona) then you clearly wouldn't have made it through the early 2000s.

I'd say you are getting value for your ticket dollar.

[doug]

The 2nd half v. UA was not boring -- but that is the anomaly this year. While the ND came down to an objectively (but not subjectively) exciting finish, the offense (which is historically what Stanford football offers) produced no TDs, 125 yards passing, around 275 total yards, no big or exciting plays, multiple bad plays and play-calling (JN's badly underthrown pick on ND's goal line, 4 straight line plunges into a defense that had totally sold out with all 11 defenders inside the tackle box) and perhaps most troublingly, an ever-growing sense that we would not deviate from trying things that had already repeatedly failed to work, yes, that was boring to me. If it were an anomaly, the product of bad weather, hostile crowd and one bad outing, I would not be writing this. But it is not an anomaly, it is a clearly established pattern at this point.

Let me ask you: suppose next year, our defense is not as dominant and opponents are scoring more on us, and our offense is similarly anemic. Would you be entertained or excited to renew season tickets? 

[doug]

The 2nd half v. UA was not boring -- but that is the anomaly this year. While the ND came down to an objectively (but not subjectively) exciting finish, the offense (which is historically what Stanford football offers) produced no TDs, 125 yards passing, around 275 total yards, no big or exciting plays, multiple bad plays and play-calling (JN's badly underthrown pick on ND's goal line, 4 straight line plunges into a defense that had totally sold out with all 11 defenders inside the tackle box) and perhaps most troublingly, an ever-growing sense that we would not deviate from trying things that had already repeatedly failed to work, yes, that was boring to me. If it were an anomaly, the product of bad weather, hostile crowd and one bad outing, I would not be writing this. But it is not an anomaly, it is a clearly established pattern at this point.

Let me ask you: suppose next year, our defense is not as dominant and opponents are scoring more on us, and our offense is similarly anemic. Would you be entertained or excited to renew season tickets? 

[fullmetal]

With Luck at the helm, each offensive play was anticipation of a good play and awesomeness happening.  With Nunes/Hamilton calling the shots, each offensive play is now fraught with dread about what could next go wrong.  A whole game's worth of solely either kind of offense is the difference in my enjoyment of last year's games vs. this year's games.  Wins would have taken the edge off of the pit in my stomach, but losses just kind of compound the cumulative pessimism like an ulcer.

[fullmetal]

With Luck at the helm, each offensive play was anticipation of a good play and awesomeness happening.  With Nunes/Hamilton calling the shots, each offensive play is now fraught with dread about what could next go wrong.  A whole game's worth of solely either kind of offense is the difference in my enjoyment of last year's games vs. this year's games.  Wins would have taken the edge off of the pit in my stomach, but losses just kind of compound the cumulative pessimism like an ulcer.

[Rando]

I don't get bored watching my favorite team. Ever.

I'm a Broncos fan and a Stanford fan. Win or lose, I'm going to watch and I'm going to try my best to save up the money needed for season tickets to Stanford. It wouldn't matter to me if we were 0-6. I'd still be there. I love this team. I don't care if we ran the ball 95% of the time and that was our strategy. I'm entertained watching the game of football. Every aspect of it. Never bores me. The Houston/SMU//Hawaii spread passing offenses I don't consider more exciting either.

Everybody is different.

[Rando]

I don't get bored watching my favorite team. Ever.

I'm a Broncos fan and a Stanford fan. Win or lose, I'm going to watch and I'm going to try my best to save up the money needed for season tickets to Stanford. It wouldn't matter to me if we were 0-6. I'd still be there. I love this team. I don't care if we ran the ball 95% of the time and that was our strategy. I'm entertained watching the game of football. Every aspect of it. Never bores me. The Houston/SMU//Hawaii spread passing offenses I don't consider more exciting either.

Everybody is different.

[Farm93]

With Luck at the helm, each offensive play was anticipation of a good play and awesomeness happening.  With Nunes/Hamilton calling the shots, each offensive play is now fraught with dread about what could next go wrong.  A whole game's worth of solely either kind of offense is the difference in my enjoyment of last year's games vs. this year's games.  Wins would have taken the edge off of the pit in my stomach, but losses just kind of compound the cumulative pessimism like an ulcer.

In truth, we are NOW playing 80s style Big 10 football.  1st and 10, 2nd and 6, 3rd and 2...and then first down.  If at any moment the pattern is broken by a run for less than 4 yards, a dropped pass or a penalty then a punt will happen on 4th down.  Luck enabled Stanford to break beyond classic Big 10 football with his ability to convert 3rd and 6+ routinely.  It was a luxury that enabled all Stanford fans to be stress-free on most Saturdays.

In true Big 10 style back in the day, the offense can not commit penalties and the defense must help with the field position battle.  It is not Stanford football of the 80s to be sure.  Nunes could be playing better, but the offense has not exactly been on schedule with runs eithers.  Big 10 football meant we will run, we will run here and we will get 4 or 5 yards.  This Stanford run game is more like we will run, we will run here and we will get 2 yards now and maybe 3 or 4 yards in the fourth quarter.

But again, one really bad game against UW and decent execution in all other games.  That is IF you believe Notre Dame in South Bend plays defense like a top 15 team.

Stanford is on schedule for that 7-5 to 9-3 season.  The wins probably will be current SEC or classic Big Ten stressful where the D must do their game dominating thing all game long on every play and the team then wins by 3 to 10 points.  And FWIW - Giving up a TD on a 3rd and 18 play from outside the redzone is not THAT thing.

[Farm93]

With Luck at the helm, each offensive play was anticipation of a good play and awesomeness happening.  With Nunes/Hamilton calling the shots, each offensive play is now fraught with dread about what could next go wrong.  A whole game's worth of solely either kind of offense is the difference in my enjoyment of last year's games vs. this year's games.  Wins would have taken the edge off of the pit in my stomach, but losses just kind of compound the cumulative pessimism like an ulcer.

In truth, we are NOW playing 80s style Big 10 football.  1st and 10, 2nd and 6, 3rd and 2...and then first down.  If at any moment the pattern is broken by a run for less than 4 yards, a dropped pass or a penalty then a punt will happen on 4th down.  Luck enabled Stanford to break beyond classic Big 10 football with his ability to convert 3rd and 6+ routinely.  It was a luxury that enabled all Stanford fans to be stress-free on most Saturdays.

In true Big 10 style back in the day, the offense can not commit penalties and the defense must help with the field position battle.  It is not Stanford football of the 80s to be sure.  Nunes could be playing better, but the offense has not exactly been on schedule with runs eithers.  Big 10 football meant we will run, we will run here and we will get 4 or 5 yards.  This Stanford run game is more like we will run, we will run here and we will get 2 yards now and maybe 3 or 4 yards in the fourth quarter.

But again, one really bad game against UW and decent execution in all other games.  That is IF you believe Notre Dame in South Bend plays defense like a top 15 team.

Stanford is on schedule for that 7-5 to 9-3 season.  The wins probably will be current SEC or classic Big Ten stressful where the D must do their game dominating thing all game long on every play and the team then wins by 3 to 10 points.  And FWIW - Giving up a TD on a 3rd and 18 play from outside the redzone is not THAT thing.

[doug]

Rando, I hope enough people in the Bay Area share your loyalty, but I fear they don't. I think entertainment value matters. And I think home crowds of 25,000 are in our future unless the product is more entertaining, and I don't think that would be good for the future of the program.

[doug]

Rando, I hope enough people in the Bay Area share your loyalty, but I fear they don't. I think entertainment value matters. And I think home crowds of 25,000 are in our future unless the product is more entertaining, and I don't think that would be good for the future of the program.

[81alum]

In truth, we are NOW playing 80s style Big 10 football.  1st and 10, 2nd and 6, 3rd and 2...and then first down.  If at any moment the pattern is broken by a run for less than 4 yards, a dropped pass or a penalty then a punt will happen on 4th down.  Luck enabled Stanford to break beyond classic Big 10 football with his ability to convert 3rd and 6+ routinely.  It was a luxury that enabled all Stanford fans to be stress-free on most Saturdays.

Woody Hayes coached at Ohio State from 1951-1978.  So I agree with your analysis except to say that we are now playing 1950s style Big 10 football. And 1960s style.  And 1970s style. 

Bo Schembechler--Harbaugh's coach and idol--was a player and assistant coach for Woody Hayes--before he became his rival.  You could say almost that Woody Hayes was Harbaugh's coaching grandpa.

Here is something else that might sound familiar.  In 1968, Ohio State was beating Michigan 42-14 when Woody Hayes elected to go for two.  When he was asked why he went for two, he answered "Because the rules won't let you go for three."  Harbaugh would have been 5 at the time, but I bet he heard that Woody lore from Schembechler and applied it in the analagous situation against SC.

Woody quotes do sound like the sorts of things our offensive line might say or enjoy hearing: football should be a "crunching, frontal assault of muscle against muscle, bone upon bone, will against will."  Hence power off tackle and fullback off guard--over and over again, also known as "three yeards and a cloud of dust" until the opposing line was worn down and could be dominated in the 4th quarter.  When you had the right personnel it worked very well, but the intricate blocking schemes were wasted on the casual fan who could only see piles of bodies in the middle of the field.  The only thing that made it acceptable as a form of entertainment was winning.

What Woody said about passing the ball would have been laughable last year, but I am increasingly sympathetic given how inconsistent our passing attack has been.  "Only three things can happen when you pass (a completion, an incompletion, and an interception) and two of them are bad."

Thank goodness Walsh came along in 1977 when he did and made football interesting again, or else I'm sure I would never have become a fan. 

[81alum]

In truth, we are NOW playing 80s style Big 10 football.  1st and 10, 2nd and 6, 3rd and 2...and then first down.  If at any moment the pattern is broken by a run for less than 4 yards, a dropped pass or a penalty then a punt will happen on 4th down.  Luck enabled Stanford to break beyond classic Big 10 football with his ability to convert 3rd and 6+ routinely.  It was a luxury that enabled all Stanford fans to be stress-free on most Saturdays.

Woody Hayes coached at Ohio State from 1951-1978.  So I agree with your analysis except to say that we are now playing 1950s style Big 10 football. And 1960s style.  And 1970s style. 

Bo Schembechler--Harbaugh's coach and idol--was a player and assistant coach for Woody Hayes--before he became his rival.  You could say almost that Woody Hayes was Harbaugh's coaching grandpa.

Here is something else that might sound familiar.  In 1968, Ohio State was beating Michigan 42-14 when Woody Hayes elected to go for two.  When he was asked why he went for two, he answered "Because the rules won't let you go for three."  Harbaugh would have been 5 at the time, but I bet he heard that Woody lore from Schembechler and applied it in the analagous situation against SC.

Woody quotes do sound like the sorts of things our offensive line might say or enjoy hearing: football should be a "crunching, frontal assault of muscle against muscle, bone upon bone, will against will."  Hence power off tackle and fullback off guard--over and over again, also known as "three yeards and a cloud of dust" until the opposing line was worn down and could be dominated in the 4th quarter.  When you had the right personnel it worked very well, but the intricate blocking schemes were wasted on the casual fan who could only see piles of bodies in the middle of the field.  The only thing that made it acceptable as a form of entertainment was winning.

What Woody said about passing the ball would have been laughable last year, but I am increasingly sympathetic given how inconsistent our passing attack has been.  "Only three things can happen when you pass (a completion, an incompletion, and an interception) and two of them are bad."

Thank goodness Walsh came along in 1977 when he did and made football interesting again, or else I'm sure I would never have become a fan. 

[yvonne]

Does it have to be either/or?

[yvonne]

Does it have to be either/or?

[needle]

I know nobody is saying that this team is as moribund as 2006, Walt Harris' last year, but I was curious and looked up the stats:

In 2006, Stanford ranked 118 out of 119 FBS schools in points scored, with an average of 10.6 per game.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stat.../year/2006

And the team ranked 116 out of 119 teams in yards per game (262).

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stat.../year/2006

So far this year, Stanford ranks 61 out of 120 FBS teams in points per game (28.5).

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stat...ntsPerGame

And 92 out of 120 FBS teams in yards per game (366.2).

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stat...rdsPerGame

+++

In 2006, scoring only 20 points per game would have ranked a school 84th nationally; this year, that same number would result in a ranking of 109th.

[needle]

I know nobody is saying that this team is as moribund as 2006, Walt Harris' last year, but I was curious and looked up the stats:

In 2006, Stanford ranked 118 out of 119 FBS schools in points scored, with an average of 10.6 per game.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stat.../year/2006

And the team ranked 116 out of 119 teams in yards per game (262).

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stat.../year/2006

So far this year, Stanford ranks 61 out of 120 FBS teams in points per game (28.5).

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stat...ntsPerGame

And 92 out of 120 FBS teams in yards per game (366.2).

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stat...rdsPerGame

+++

In 2006, scoring only 20 points per game would have ranked a school 84th nationally; this year, that same number would result in a ranking of 109th.

[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.

[JohnR34231]

I don't know if I would agree with the statement that the 1977 team was far less talented than this one. Maybe it wasn't as deep, but it had people like Guy Benjamin, James Lofton, and Gordon King on offense (not to mention a decent running back named Darrin Nelson). The defense had the likes of Gordy Ceresino.

That's a pretty good group of football players just to start with.

[JohnR34231]

I don't know if I would agree with the statement that the 1977 team was far less talented than this one. Maybe it wasn't as deep, but it had people like Guy Benjamin, James Lofton, and Gordon King on offense (not to mention a decent running back named Darrin Nelson). The defense had the likes of Gordy Ceresino.

That's a pretty good group of football players just to start with.

[Redrum]

Nice turn of phrase, fullmetal.  That's pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell.

[Redrum]

Nice turn of phrase, fullmetal.  That's pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

[jayasena]

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.

While I agree that we need to improve in offense, I disagree that a team needs to be "exciting" in every facet of the game. Being exciting is a luxury a team can afford when they have the talent to be so. We have that luxury on the defensive side today (for the most part). We had that luxury on the offensive side with Luck and the OL and some of the other seniors last year, but less so on defense that year. This team, to me, would be just fine in the excitement department if the offense executed a bit better -- fewer drops, better run blocking etc. At least to me, a predictable offense that executes well is still plenty exciting (think Gerhart's senior year and that OL -- everyone knew what was coming and it was still fun).

I'm fine with just one side of the ball being exciting (as in unpredictable/creative/imaginative) as long as the other aspects of the team are competent. The problem is, we are less than competent on offense at this point. Of course, that's just my take on it and others may certainly have a higher bar.

[jayasena]

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.

While I agree that we need to improve in offense, I disagree that a team needs to be "exciting" in every facet of the game. Being exciting is a luxury a team can afford when they have the talent to be so. We have that luxury on the defensive side today (for the most part). We had that luxury on the offensive side with Luck and the OL and some of the other seniors last year, but less so on defense that year. This team, to me, would be just fine in the excitement department if the offense executed a bit better -- fewer drops, better run blocking etc. At least to me, a predictable offense that executes well is still plenty exciting (think Gerhart's senior year and that OL -- everyone knew what was coming and it was still fun).

I'm fine with just one side of the ball being exciting (as in unpredictable/creative/imaginative) as long as the other aspects of the team are competent. The problem is, we are less than competent on offense at this point. Of course, that's just my take on it and others may certainly have a higher bar.