[OutsiderFan]

http://www.nationalchamps.net/2013/earlybird/index.htm

These predictions are usually pretty darn accurate. 

[OutsiderFan]

http://www.nationalchamps.net/2013/earlybird/index.htm

These predictions are usually pretty darn accurate. 

[fullmetal]

But I like the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude...!  Wonder how these guys are going to respond going in as favorites.  Hope Shaw intends to score more than 17-20 points per game...

[fullmetal]

But I like the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude...!  Wonder how these guys are going to respond going in as favorites.  Hope Shaw intends to score more than 17-20 points per game...

[StannyBoy]

LSU should not be #3 after they lost so many juniors and redshirt juniors.

[StannyBoy]

LSU should not be #3 after they lost so many juniors and redshirt juniors.

[fullmetal]

That 6, 7, 8, 10 cluster of $EC overratedness needs to go away.

[fullmetal]

That 6, 7, 8, 10 cluster of $EC overratedness needs to go away.

[Cardinal96]

His article seems to imply that we get Ertz and Toilolo back.  My guess is we will be somewhere between 4 and 8 in the preseason.

[Cardinal96]

His article seems to imply that we get Ertz and Toilolo back.  My guess is we will be somewhere between 4 and 8 in the preseason.

[Farm93]

But I like the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude...!  Wonder how these guys are going to respond going in as favorites.  Hope Shaw intends to score more than 17-20 points per game...

I suspect if Stanford scores at least 20 points in every game, then that might just be good enough to get into the BCS.
This year's D held most opponents under 17, and next year's D will be much better.

It would be a stressful season, but many BCS champs from the SEC have had won the crystal ball with that low scoring, defense-oriented model.
Personally, I liked 20-14.  The 1999 team scored a lot during the season, but ultimately lost 17-9.  Though, 20 points would have worked then too!

20 points?  Likely good enough.  And the beauty of starting a season closer to the top is that winning pretty will not be necessary.

So I hope Shaw (and the team) have plans on winning each game.  The entertaining, high scoring thing is optional IMHO.

[Farm93]

But I like the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude...!  Wonder how these guys are going to respond going in as favorites.  Hope Shaw intends to score more than 17-20 points per game...

I suspect if Stanford scores at least 20 points in every game, then that might just be good enough to get into the BCS.
This year's D held most opponents under 17, and next year's D will be much better.

It would be a stressful season, but many BCS champs from the SEC have had won the crystal ball with that low scoring, defense-oriented model.
Personally, I liked 20-14.  The 1999 team scored a lot during the season, but ultimately lost 17-9.  Though, 20 points would have worked then too!

20 points?  Likely good enough.  And the beauty of starting a season closer to the top is that winning pretty will not be necessary.

So I hope Shaw (and the team) have plans on winning each game.  The entertaining, high scoring thing is optional IMHO.

[yvonne]

We'll probably go back to running back by committee, with Wilkerson, Young, Wright, and Sanders sharing the load. Receivers are a bigger concern.

Kaumatule will have to step up as tight end. Hewitt will have to catch out of the backfield, and Meinken will I hope be healed from his knee injury. We need wide receivers. Defense alone will not win a Pac-12 championship, so BCS championship is very premature. We'll see what things look like in the spring game.

[yvonne]

We'll probably go back to running back by committee, with Wilkerson, Young, Wright, and Sanders sharing the load. Receivers are a bigger concern.

Kaumatule will have to step up as tight end. Hewitt will have to catch out of the backfield, and Meinken will I hope be healed from his knee injury. We need wide receivers. Defense alone will not win a Pac-12 championship, so BCS championship is very premature. We'll see what things look like in the spring game.

[slide]

if Ertz and Toilolo are gone, expectation is that Hewitt will move to TE with Luke the other inline TE.  it looks like Cajuste will be the Ertz/Fleener hybrid TE/WR.  Ward and Skov would handle the FB spot, with Meinken more likely to handle short yardage situations.  Ward is said to be the most effective blocker of the 3 (Ward, Skov, Meinken).

[slide]

if Ertz and Toilolo are gone, expectation is that Hewitt will move to TE with Luke the other inline TE.  it looks like Cajuste will be the Ertz/Fleener hybrid TE/WR.  Ward and Skov would handle the FB spot, with Meinken more likely to handle short yardage situations.  Ward is said to be the most effective blocker of the 3 (Ward, Skov, Meinken).

[Gauss]

And now #3 in ESPN's early top-25
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...013-top-25

As flattering as it is, I don't like it. I do think the chip on the shoulder helps us a bit, although it was getting tiresome, to be honest.
My main problem is that if they rank us this high next season, we'll be verging on being overrated. The defense will probably be stellar, but the offense can be anything between mediocre and very good.
If we have offensive problems, all the hordes of people who already doubt Stanford can sustain success, will be out in force.

I'd rather start in the 10-15 range, or even in the 5-10 range. From there, we're high enough that if we win our games we won't be snubbed, but not as high that the screams of "overrated!" can become defeaning (cough, U.SC, cough).

[Gauss]

And now #3 in ESPN's early top-25
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...013-top-25

As flattering as it is, I don't like it. I do think the chip on the shoulder helps us a bit, although it was getting tiresome, to be honest.
My main problem is that if they rank us this high next season, we'll be verging on being overrated. The defense will probably be stellar, but the offense can be anything between mediocre and very good.
If we have offensive problems, all the hordes of people who already doubt Stanford can sustain success, will be out in force.

I'd rather start in the 10-15 range, or even in the 5-10 range. From there, we're high enough that if we win our games we won't be snubbed, but not as high that the screams of "overrated!" can become defeaning (cough, U.SC, cough).

[estephan500]

And now #3 in ESPN's early top-25
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...013-top-25

As flattering as it is, I don't like it. I do think the chip on the shoulder helps us a bit, although it was getting tiresome, to be honest.
My main problem is that if they rank us this high next season, we'll be verging on being overrated. The defense will probably be stellar, but the offense can be anything between mediocre and very good.
If we have offensive problems, all the hordes of people who already doubt Stanford can sustain success, will be out in force.

I'd rather start in the 10-15 range, or even in the 5-10 range. From there, we're high enough that if we win our games we won't be snubbed, but not as high that the screams of "overrated!" can become defeaning (cough, U.SC, cough).

I agree with this. I see very little value in national fawning attention, especially while I am a bit more cognizant of (or paranoid about)  the skeletons in the closet.  All the media glamor during the Luck era seemed like more than a hassle than anything. And one thing I loved about this year was just a chance for our team to focus on itself, its several stars, its own issues, without corny Sports Illustrated articles dredging up superlatives.  (Here is where someone replies with "yes but it is good for recruiting." OK, yeah.)

[estephan500]

And now #3 in ESPN's early top-25
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...013-top-25

As flattering as it is, I don't like it. I do think the chip on the shoulder helps us a bit, although it was getting tiresome, to be honest.
My main problem is that if they rank us this high next season, we'll be verging on being overrated. The defense will probably be stellar, but the offense can be anything between mediocre and very good.
If we have offensive problems, all the hordes of people who already doubt Stanford can sustain success, will be out in force.

I'd rather start in the 10-15 range, or even in the 5-10 range. From there, we're high enough that if we win our games we won't be snubbed, but not as high that the screams of "overrated!" can become defeaning (cough, U.SC, cough).

I agree with this. I see very little value in national fawning attention, especially while I am a bit more cognizant of (or paranoid about)  the skeletons in the closet.  All the media glamor during the Luck era seemed like more than a hassle than anything. And one thing I loved about this year was just a chance for our team to focus on itself, its several stars, its own issues, without corny Sports Illustrated articles dredging up superlatives.  (Here is where someone replies with "yes but it is good for recruiting." OK, yeah.)

[oman]

Too late.  Three straight BCS bowls and two of them wins and one of them "should have won".

So being ranked lower somehow helps recruiting given the same final won loss record?  Basically, being overrated at the beginning of the season is a part of why the SEC has been able to retain its dominance.

Being overrated in and of itself has gotten Alabama to a couple of BCS championships.

[oman]

Too late.  Three straight BCS bowls and two of them wins and one of them "should have won".

So being ranked lower somehow helps recruiting given the same final won loss record?  Basically, being overrated at the beginning of the season is a part of why the SEC has been able to retain its dominance.

Being overrated in and of itself has gotten Alabama to a couple of BCS championships.

[oman]

I'd rather start in the 10-15 range, or even in the 5-10 range. From there, we're high enough that if we win our games we won't be snubbed, but not as high that the screams of "overrated!" can become defeaning (cough, U.SC, cough).

So basically what you are saying is that you would prefer increasingly the likelihood that we would be ranked 1-2 places lower than we should at the end of the season, given the same record, than have to bear the slings and arrows of cries of being overrated?

This is BCS football.  Everyone who is not your favorite highly regarded team is overrated. As if a team that lost to Washington should even be in the top 10. 

[oman]

I'd rather start in the 10-15 range, or even in the 5-10 range. From there, we're high enough that if we win our games we won't be snubbed, but not as high that the screams of "overrated!" can become defeaning (cough, U.SC, cough).

So basically what you are saying is that you would prefer increasingly the likelihood that we would be ranked 1-2 places lower than we should at the end of the season, given the same record, than have to bear the slings and arrows of cries of being overrated?

This is BCS football.  Everyone who is not your favorite highly regarded team is overrated. As if a team that lost to Washington should even be in the top 10. 

[OutsiderFan]

And now #3 in ESPN's early top-25
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...013-top-25

As flattering as it is, I don't like it. I do think the chip on the shoulder helps us a bit, although it was getting tiresome, to be honest.
My main problem is that if they rank us this high next season, we'll be verging on being overrated. The defense will probably be stellar, but the offense can be anything between mediocre and very good.
If we have offensive problems, all the hordes of people who already doubt Stanford can sustain success, will be out in force.

I'd rather start in the 10-15 range, or even in the 5-10 range. From there, we're high enough that if we win our games we won't be snubbed, but not as high that the screams of "overrated!" can become defeaning (cough, U.SC, cough).

I can't believe I am reading this.  It's straight from the California fan "I'd rather be under the radar and sneak up on people so success doesn't go to our heads and make us overconfident" school of thinking.  If a team can't handle having expectations, it doesn't have a chance to win a championship.  Stanford fans are better than this.

Every fan base wants their team to get respect, to be talked about as one of the best, and here Stanford is, having performed at a level in the last four seasons to have earned the program such respect, and it isn't wanted?

There is no advantage to being ranked lower and the only disadvantage of a high ranking is maybe that you have a bulls eye on your chest.  But if you want to win championships, that can only be embraced as a positive.  Stanford's players and coaches have worked far too hard and have much higher goals than to be afraid of a high ranking.  Who cares if people say Stanford is overrated if the team wins?  And if the team doesn't win, it won't be ranked high anyway, so what's the issue here?

Having a whole off season with the team ranked pre-season Top 5 can do nothing but strengthen the national perception of the program among the people who end up voting for who the best teams are, and especially with recruits.  A whole off-season of Stanford being talked about as a National Title contender is invaluable.  Once the season does start, the higher you are ranked to start, the easier it is to absorb a loss and still be in title contention. 

None of the reasons given for wanting to avoid a high ranking stand up to much scrutiny, and I doubt there are any others that do either.

[OutsiderFan]

And now #3 in ESPN's early top-25
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...013-top-25

As flattering as it is, I don't like it. I do think the chip on the shoulder helps us a bit, although it was getting tiresome, to be honest.
My main problem is that if they rank us this high next season, we'll be verging on being overrated. The defense will probably be stellar, but the offense can be anything between mediocre and very good.
If we have offensive problems, all the hordes of people who already doubt Stanford can sustain success, will be out in force.

I'd rather start in the 10-15 range, or even in the 5-10 range. From there, we're high enough that if we win our games we won't be snubbed, but not as high that the screams of "overrated!" can become defeaning (cough, U.SC, cough).

I can't believe I am reading this.  It's straight from the California fan "I'd rather be under the radar and sneak up on people so success doesn't go to our heads and make us overconfident" school of thinking.  If a team can't handle having expectations, it doesn't have a chance to win a championship.  Stanford fans are better than this.

Every fan base wants their team to get respect, to be talked about as one of the best, and here Stanford is, having performed at a level in the last four seasons to have earned the program such respect, and it isn't wanted?

There is no advantage to being ranked lower and the only disadvantage of a high ranking is maybe that you have a bulls eye on your chest.  But if you want to win championships, that can only be embraced as a positive.  Stanford's players and coaches have worked far too hard and have much higher goals than to be afraid of a high ranking.  Who cares if people say Stanford is overrated if the team wins?  And if the team doesn't win, it won't be ranked high anyway, so what's the issue here?

Having a whole off season with the team ranked pre-season Top 5 can do nothing but strengthen the national perception of the program among the people who end up voting for who the best teams are, and especially with recruits.  A whole off-season of Stanford being talked about as a National Title contender is invaluable.  Once the season does start, the higher you are ranked to start, the easier it is to absorb a loss and still be in title contention. 

None of the reasons given for wanting to avoid a high ranking stand up to much scrutiny, and I doubt there are any others that do either.

[washingtonismoney]

It's nice to be highly rated and respected. I don't have a problem with high expectations per se.

That said, I do think putting us #3 is a case of irrational exuberance.

[washingtonismoney]

It's nice to be highly rated and respected. I don't have a problem with high expectations per se.

That said, I do think putting us #3 is a case of irrational exuberance.

[jayasena]

It's possible that a lot of the media types grossly underestimated Stanford last preseason and are over-correcting this year.

I'm not that concerned about the bulls eye on our back though. That was already on our back in the games that are going to be most challenging. Does anyone think Oregon needs additional motivation  when they play us next year? ND will see us as their ticket to another high raking because we'll be the highest ranked team on their schedule regardless of whether we are #2 or #10 and also their last regular season game. UCLA will be out for revenge. So the only time it will "matter" is in the games we are heavily favored.

[jayasena]

It's possible that a lot of the media types grossly underestimated Stanford last preseason and are over-correcting this year.

I'm not that concerned about the bulls eye on our back though. That was already on our back in the games that are going to be most challenging. Does anyone think Oregon needs additional motivation  when they play us next year? ND will see us as their ticket to another high raking because we'll be the highest ranked team on their schedule regardless of whether we are #2 or #10 and also their last regular season game. UCLA will be out for revenge. So the only time it will "matter" is in the games we are heavily favored.

[Leftcoast]

Deja Vu, anyone?

I remember having this EXACT conversation during Montgomery's years near the top of the basketball world.  Particularly the year we were Sports Illustrated's pre-season #1 (following our Final Four appearance).  Folks on this message board wondered whether Stanford would wilt under the pressure and had only thrived by being able to play "under the radar".    Needless to say, this is no longer a top concern.

My takeaways from that long ago time?  Being a perennial preseason Top 5 is much, much better than being a hungry second division Pac 12 team.  The national expectations made the team tougher, games more important (UConn at Maples or Duke at the Colliseum anyone?) and, from a fan perspective, Stanford Basketball MATTERED on the national stage.  Students camped out for tickets, Maples was rocking and players seemed to relish the big games and maintaining what they built.  Think Peter Sauer, Chris Hernandes, Michael Montgomery, Jason and Jaron Collins, Casey Jacobsen - all players who relished and thrived in the hot house environment of a high national ranking.  Recruits flocked to our games - even the ones who went elsewhere.

I'd rather have that environment any day than to be a hungry team on the periphery.  Right now Stanford football is very, very good, the nation's noticed and that is OK.  My advice: Embrace and Enjoy the moment!

[Leftcoast]

Deja Vu, anyone?

I remember having this EXACT conversation during Montgomery's years near the top of the basketball world.  Particularly the year we were Sports Illustrated's pre-season #1 (following our Final Four appearance).  Folks on this message board wondered whether Stanford would wilt under the pressure and had only thrived by being able to play "under the radar".    Needless to say, this is no longer a top concern.

My takeaways from that long ago time?  Being a perennial preseason Top 5 is much, much better than being a hungry second division Pac 12 team.  The national expectations made the team tougher, games more important (UConn at Maples or Duke at the Colliseum anyone?) and, from a fan perspective, Stanford Basketball MATTERED on the national stage.  Students camped out for tickets, Maples was rocking and players seemed to relish the big games and maintaining what they built.  Think Peter Sauer, Chris Hernandes, Michael Montgomery, Jason and Jaron Collins, Casey Jacobsen - all players who relished and thrived in the hot house environment of a high national ranking.  Recruits flocked to our games - even the ones who went elsewhere.

I'd rather have that environment any day than to be a hungry team on the periphery.  Right now Stanford football is very, very good, the nation's noticed and that is OK.  My advice: Embrace and Enjoy the moment!

[FarmBoy]

I agree with Leftcoast and others. The only time being overrated is bad is if you are perennially expected to win big games and you fall flat on your face and you establish a reputation/culture of a team that can't get over the hump. Even then, you've had to have done something to gain the faith of the voters. Perhaps being overrated is a bad thing if it determines which bowl you're going to and you end up getting your ass handed to you on national TV like N.otre Dame, rather than playing a more competitive game in a lesser bowl. And even that's debatable.

Blog commentors are always saying things like "I'm so glad that we're the underdogs. We'll come out that much hungrier." Peronally, I would rather always my team be the favorite because the track record of success and the talent of the team makes it clear that you can rely on the Cardinal to come out deliver a beat down on lesser foes. Everyone wants to be part of a winner. (actually, I just thought of the rare cases where someone wants to MAKE a winner. think of Richard Sherman turning down U.SC because he wanted to show the world that smart guys can play football. but that's a rare bird.)

Without being "over-rated" at the start of the 2011 season, would we have been ranked highly enough after losing to Oregon to gain a guaranteed spot in the BCS? ANd if we weren't guaranteed, would the Fiesta still have taken us? Perhaps, but I felt a lot better know that we were guaranteed a spot based on a top-4 finish in the BCS polls.

[FarmBoy]

I agree with Leftcoast and others. The only time being overrated is bad is if you are perennially expected to win big games and you fall flat on your face and you establish a reputation/culture of a team that can't get over the hump. Even then, you've had to have done something to gain the faith of the voters. Perhaps being overrated is a bad thing if it determines which bowl you're going to and you end up getting your ass handed to you on national TV like N.otre Dame, rather than playing a more competitive game in a lesser bowl. And even that's debatable.

Blog commentors are always saying things like "I'm so glad that we're the underdogs. We'll come out that much hungrier." Peronally, I would rather always my team be the favorite because the track record of success and the talent of the team makes it clear that you can rely on the Cardinal to come out deliver a beat down on lesser foes. Everyone wants to be part of a winner. (actually, I just thought of the rare cases where someone wants to MAKE a winner. think of Richard Sherman turning down U.SC because he wanted to show the world that smart guys can play football. but that's a rare bird.)

Without being "over-rated" at the start of the 2011 season, would we have been ranked highly enough after losing to Oregon to gain a guaranteed spot in the BCS? ANd if we weren't guaranteed, would the Fiesta still have taken us? Perhaps, but I felt a lot better know that we were guaranteed a spot based on a top-4 finish in the BCS polls.

[fullmetal]

I think fans like their teams to be underrated, but players probably prefer to be rated accurately or higher than accurate...it's outside validation of their work, process, and results.  I suppose I'm changing my stance on this...good rankings are great for recruiting anyway, and that's crucial to program development.

[fullmetal]

I think fans like their teams to be underrated, but players probably prefer to be rated accurately or higher than accurate...it's outside validation of their work, process, and results.  I suppose I'm changing my stance on this...good rankings are great for recruiting anyway, and that's crucial to program development.

[Farm93]

I would like to look at this a different way.  Since Coach Shaw returned to The Farm for the 2007 season, Stanford has exceeded the preseason expectations every year.  So in my view, exceeding #3 will require going to Pasadena for the game the week after the parade.  Sounds great!

At some point the team, the coach and the program will need to deal with lofty pre-season expectations.  No other program really could go to 3 BCS bowls, return with a sophomore QB and not be in the top 5, so the expectations are pretty reasonable.  Besides without lofty preseason expectations it is very difficult to dream of the crystal that is given at the end of the season.  Alabama got into the game with one loss because they were THE preseason favorite.  Oregon was in some way not worthy because one loss Alabama was OBVIOUSLY better than one loss Oregon.  That belief was created in January-August, not November.

Stanford will have two games with other preseason top 10 teams, and both games are at Stanford Stadium.  For preseason magazines that is too much to overlook.

BTW - What exactly needs to happen for the stadium to get those temporary seats in for a game or two or three?  I would think the Big Game followed the next week by a game that could decide a lot of BCS stuff would be a good time to bring in the temporary seats.  Also it is not out of the question that the Oregon game will also be in November.  Stanford could easily have three massive games at home in November.

[Farm93]

I would like to look at this a different way.  Since Coach Shaw returned to The Farm for the 2007 season, Stanford has exceeded the preseason expectations every year.  So in my view, exceeding #3 will require going to Pasadena for the game the week after the parade.  Sounds great!

At some point the team, the coach and the program will need to deal with lofty pre-season expectations.  No other program really could go to 3 BCS bowls, return with a sophomore QB and not be in the top 5, so the expectations are pretty reasonable.  Besides without lofty preseason expectations it is very difficult to dream of the crystal that is given at the end of the season.  Alabama got into the game with one loss because they were THE preseason favorite.  Oregon was in some way not worthy because one loss Alabama was OBVIOUSLY better than one loss Oregon.  That belief was created in January-August, not November.

Stanford will have two games with other preseason top 10 teams, and both games are at Stanford Stadium.  For preseason magazines that is too much to overlook.

BTW - What exactly needs to happen for the stadium to get those temporary seats in for a game or two or three?  I would think the Big Game followed the next week by a game that could decide a lot of BCS stuff would be a good time to bring in the temporary seats.  Also it is not out of the question that the Oregon game will also be in November.  Stanford could easily have three massive games at home in November.

[76lsjumb]

Deja Vu, anyone?

I remember having this EXACT conversation during Montgomery's years near the top of the basketball world.  Particularly the year we were Sports Illustrated's pre-season #1 (following our Final Four appearance).  Folks on this message board wondered whether Stanford would wilt under the pressure and had only thrived by being able to play "under the radar".    Needless to say, this is no longer a top concern.

My takeaways from that long ago time?  Being a perennial preseason Top 5 is much, much better than being a hungry second division Pac 12 team.  The national expectations made the team tougher, games more important (UConn at Maples or Duke at the Colliseum anyone?) and, from a fan perspective, Stanford Basketball MATTERED on the national stage.  Students camped out for tickets, Maples was rocking and players seemed to relish the big games and maintaining what they built.  Think Peter Sauer, Chris Hernandes, Michael Montgomery, Jason and Jaron Collins, Casey Jacobsen - all players who relished and thrived in the hot house environment of a high national ranking.  Recruits flocked to our games - even the ones who went elsewhere.

I'd rather have that environment any day than to be a hungry team on the periphery.  Right now Stanford football is very, very good, the nation's noticed and that is OK.  My advice: Embrace and Enjoy the moment!

Unfortunately, what I remember about that season following our Final Four appearance is the great price I subsequently got on my pre-season purchase of plane tickets to St. Petersburg [which, fortunately, were at least partially refundable]...

As many have noted, there are all sorts of advantages to being highly ranked pre-season, ... just as long as the players know those rankings mean absolutely nothing during practices and games.

Listening to Nick Saban after the NCG, I had two thoughts.  First, I was remembering how much fun it was to sit there in El Paso watching Chad Hutchinson, et al. administer an epic beatdown to Saban's MSU team.  Second, I was thinking that he was probably right about his "2-day rule" for celebrating wins, and, since the Rose Bowl happened more than two days earlier, I sure hoped our guys already had a few days' jump on Alabama for next year.  I remember Shaw making a big deal after the Orange Bowl about taking the trophy, putting it on the shelf, and concentrating on next season.  If the players maintain that attitude, we'll be okay.  If not,...

[76lsjumb]

Deja Vu, anyone?

I remember having this EXACT conversation during Montgomery's years near the top of the basketball world.  Particularly the year we were Sports Illustrated's pre-season #1 (following our Final Four appearance).  Folks on this message board wondered whether Stanford would wilt under the pressure and had only thrived by being able to play "under the radar".    Needless to say, this is no longer a top concern.

My takeaways from that long ago time?  Being a perennial preseason Top 5 is much, much better than being a hungry second division Pac 12 team.  The national expectations made the team tougher, games more important (UConn at Maples or Duke at the Colliseum anyone?) and, from a fan perspective, Stanford Basketball MATTERED on the national stage.  Students camped out for tickets, Maples was rocking and players seemed to relish the big games and maintaining what they built.  Think Peter Sauer, Chris Hernandes, Michael Montgomery, Jason and Jaron Collins, Casey Jacobsen - all players who relished and thrived in the hot house environment of a high national ranking.  Recruits flocked to our games - even the ones who went elsewhere.

I'd rather have that environment any day than to be a hungry team on the periphery.  Right now Stanford football is very, very good, the nation's noticed and that is OK.  My advice: Embrace and Enjoy the moment!

Unfortunately, what I remember about that season following our Final Four appearance is the great price I subsequently got on my pre-season purchase of plane tickets to St. Petersburg [which, fortunately, were at least partially refundable]...

As many have noted, there are all sorts of advantages to being highly ranked pre-season, ... just as long as the players know those rankings mean absolutely nothing during practices and games.

Listening to Nick Saban after the NCG, I had two thoughts.  First, I was remembering how much fun it was to sit there in El Paso watching Chad Hutchinson, et al. administer an epic beatdown to Saban's MSU team.  Second, I was thinking that he was probably right about his "2-day rule" for celebrating wins, and, since the Rose Bowl happened more than two days earlier, I sure hoped our guys already had a few days' jump on Alabama for next year.  I remember Shaw making a big deal after the Orange Bowl about taking the trophy, putting it on the shelf, and concentrating on next season.  If the players maintain that attitude, we'll be okay.  If not,...