[OutsiderFan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OutsiderFan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tfeldstein]

I think the image of the NFL is under siege and it may be at a critical point. When I lived in Australia I used to marvel at how out of control the Rugby League Guys were and how that affected the image of League.  But I don't think the NFL is any different. There is a thug mentality which is very pervasive. I wonder if at some point advertisers start to cool to it. Probably not but possible.

[tfeldstein]

I think the image of the NFL is under siege and it may be at a critical point. When I lived in Australia I used to marvel at how out of control the Rugby League Guys were and how that affected the image of League.  But I don't think the NFL is any different. There is a thug mentality which is very pervasive. I wonder if at some point advertisers start to cool to it. Probably not but possible.

[Canard]

You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

[Canard]

You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

[Bruce Wang]

I guess the popular image is that Stanford is Bruce Banner and the rest of the NCAA is the Incredible Hulk (with Oregon actually being Quicksilver).  What people are coming to realize is that Stanford football is actually the Incredible Hulk with Banner's mind (which happens from time to time).  Nothing more intimidating than guys with brawn and brains.

[Bruce Wang]

I guess the popular image is that Stanford is Bruce Banner and the rest of the NCAA is the Incredible Hulk (with Oregon actually being Quicksilver).  What people are coming to realize is that Stanford football is actually the Incredible Hulk with Banner's mind (which happens from time to time).  Nothing more intimidating than guys with brawn and brains.

[OutsiderFan]

You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Why so defensive?  It is as much a fact that my post didn't say Incognito was product of Oregon as much as one that Icognito was welcomed into the Oregon program at some point.  Nothing was said about any Oregon football player being a criminal, bully, or bad teammate, was there?  So why this sanctimony?

It isn't possible to argue Oregon values academics and good citizen behavior in its football players more than winning football games.  And it isn't possible to argue Stanford will make similar compromises. 

Oregon certainly has its share of role-model student athletes like Marcus Mariota.  That doesn't change the fact Oregon, and most of Stanford's peers have embraced thug players in the name of winning football games.  It also doesn't change the fact that there is an anti-intellectual bias in the football culture that Stanford has an opportunity to significantly chip away at as past its time in the wake of the Martin/Incognito incident, by beating Oregon tomorrow.

[OutsiderFan]

You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Why so defensive?  It is as much a fact that my post didn't say Incognito was product of Oregon as much as one that Icognito was welcomed into the Oregon program at some point.  Nothing was said about any Oregon football player being a criminal, bully, or bad teammate, was there?  So why this sanctimony?

It isn't possible to argue Oregon values academics and good citizen behavior in its football players more than winning football games.  And it isn't possible to argue Stanford will make similar compromises. 

Oregon certainly has its share of role-model student athletes like Marcus Mariota.  That doesn't change the fact Oregon, and most of Stanford's peers have embraced thug players in the name of winning football games.  It also doesn't change the fact that there is an anti-intellectual bias in the football culture that Stanford has an opportunity to significantly chip away at as past its time in the wake of the Martin/Incognito incident, by beating Oregon tomorrow.

[Canard]

[quote author=Canard link=topic=8755.msg73648#msg73648 date=1383753679]
You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Why so defensive?  It is as much a fact that my post didn't say Incognito was product of Oregon as much as one that Icognito was welcomed into the Oregon program at some point.  Nothing was said about any Oregon football player being a criminal, bully, or bad teammate, was there?  So why this sanctimony?

It isn't possible to argue Oregon values academics and good citizen behavior in its football players more than winning football games.  And it isn't possible to argue Stanford will make similar compromises. 

Oregon certainly has its share of role-model student athletes like Marcus Mariota.  That doesn't change the fact Oregon, and most of Stanford's peers have embraced thug players in the name of winning football games.  It also doesn't change the fact that there is an anti-intellectual bias in the football culture that Stanford has an opportunity to significantly chip away at as past its time in the wake of the Martin/Incognito incident, by beating Oregon tomorrow.
[/quote]

Forgive me for thinking that since you linked Incognito to his briefest collegiate connection that you meant something by that association.

"It isn't possible. . .?" Those are bold and unsubstantiated claims. If you were paying attention, a much tighter ship has been run since Belloti was in charge. LaGarette Blount served a 10 game suspension. Masoli was kicked off the team. Cliff Harris was kicked off the team. How can such actions be construed as winning counting for more than citizenship does?

If Oregon over signed players, forced medical hardship retirements, and otherwise ran players off for perceived non-performance, I'd readily agree that we are a win at all costs program. However, we are not. Compared with many SEC and Big XIi programs, we're minor saints.

And it is entirely possible to argue the case that Stanford has compromised its own academic standards to win. It can hardly be realistic that the football players possess academic profiles that neatly track those of the general undergraduate population. I remember reading at several sources that Harbaugh petitioned the admissions office for a relaxation of standards compared to where they were in the decidedly not winning Teevins/Harris years.

I realize that you guys cherish the myth that you haven't compromised, but you have done so relative to the Ivies and the University of Chicago, institutions that look rather unstinting on standards about sports by comparison.

Yes, you can be snooty about rather average Oregon, but if you weren't compromising yourselves, you'd be the Duke Football of this coast.

[Canard]

[quote author=Canard link=topic=8755.msg73648#msg73648 date=1383753679]
You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Why so defensive?  It is as much a fact that my post didn't say Incognito was product of Oregon as much as one that Icognito was welcomed into the Oregon program at some point.  Nothing was said about any Oregon football player being a criminal, bully, or bad teammate, was there?  So why this sanctimony?

It isn't possible to argue Oregon values academics and good citizen behavior in its football players more than winning football games.  And it isn't possible to argue Stanford will make similar compromises. 

Oregon certainly has its share of role-model student athletes like Marcus Mariota.  That doesn't change the fact Oregon, and most of Stanford's peers have embraced thug players in the name of winning football games.  It also doesn't change the fact that there is an anti-intellectual bias in the football culture that Stanford has an opportunity to significantly chip away at as past its time in the wake of the Martin/Incognito incident, by beating Oregon tomorrow.
[/quote]

Forgive me for thinking that since you linked Incognito to his briefest collegiate connection that you meant something by that association.

"It isn't possible. . .?" Those are bold and unsubstantiated claims. If you were paying attention, a much tighter ship has been run since Belloti was in charge. LaGarette Blount served a 10 game suspension. Masoli was kicked off the team. Cliff Harris was kicked off the team. How can such actions be construed as winning counting for more than citizenship does?

If Oregon over signed players, forced medical hardship retirements, and otherwise ran players off for perceived non-performance, I'd readily agree that we are a win at all costs program. However, we are not. Compared with many SEC and Big XIi programs, we're minor saints.

And it is entirely possible to argue the case that Stanford has compromised its own academic standards to win. It can hardly be realistic that the football players possess academic profiles that neatly track those of the general undergraduate population. I remember reading at several sources that Harbaugh petitioned the admissions office for a relaxation of standards compared to where they were in the decidedly not winning Teevins/Harris years.

I realize that you guys cherish the myth that you haven't compromised, but you have done so relative to the Ivies and the University of Chicago, institutions that look rather unstinting on standards about sports by comparison.

Yes, you can be snooty about rather average Oregon, but if you weren't compromising yourselves, you'd be the Duke Football of this coast.

[Roberton3]

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Canard has a point here.  Oregon has really cleaned up it's act.  It's been a full two weeks since the last time a player recruited by Kelly or Helfrich got arrested.  :P

[Roberton3]

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Canard has a point here.  Oregon has really cleaned up it's act.  It's been a full two weeks since the last time a player recruited by Kelly or Helfrich got arrested.  :P

[OutsiderFan]

Canard,

Why the need to refute points that were never made?  I'm not here to make you color inside the lines.  It's entirely your prerogative to rebut points you are making and tearing down yourself, as if you are somehow winning an argument against me. 

I never said Stanford hasn't made some compromises to win football games.  What I did say is Stanford will not make the kind of compromises Oregon will.  Do you have any evidence that suggests this point is incorrect?  If so, many people here will be eager to challenge your evidence.  If not, what is the point of arguing against yourself?

[OutsiderFan]

Canard,

Why the need to refute points that were never made?  I'm not here to make you color inside the lines.  It's entirely your prerogative to rebut points you are making and tearing down yourself, as if you are somehow winning an argument against me. 

I never said Stanford hasn't made some compromises to win football games.  What I did say is Stanford will not make the kind of compromises Oregon will.  Do you have any evidence that suggests this point is incorrect?  If so, many people here will be eager to challenge your evidence.  If not, what is the point of arguing against yourself?

[fullmetal]

Some quick Googling has taught me that Fulmer Cup points may only be accrued during the off-season. 

[fullmetal]

Some quick Googling has taught me that Fulmer Cup points may only be accrued during the off-season. 

[FarmBoy]

Winning at the collegiate level won't solve that. Winning at the pro level does. One of the great and omniscient Skip Bayless's arguments for why RGII over Luck was that that #12 was too nerdy to be a leader in the huddle, too intellectual to fit in comfortably with his teammates. Well he's been proven time and again that a smart, well-spoken guy like Luck won't find any traction in an NFL locker room. He won't be able to motivate and direct players in the huddle. You have to have cool dreds, not a fugly neard to lead...

I bristle at Outsider's notion that Stanford needs to prove it is elite. Haven't we done that in the past 5 years with 3 consecutive BCS bowls, a Pac12 championship, 3 Voldemort finalists, and numerous NFL impact players? Yes, football is a meritocracy and you have to prove your worth over and over, but I don't think that's any more true for Stanford than any other (non-SEC) program. We're the highest ranked 1-loss team, despite having perhaps the worst loss of any teams in that category (Utah is not the team I'd hoped they were after they beat us.) Clearly, the voters already recognize Stanford is elite.

Canard - I appreciate what Oregon has done with its program (and Knight's money) the past 15 years. But in the end, Oregon represents the "Shock and Awe" style of modern football. Recruit players based on the value they place on image (flashy uniforms and slick facilities). Compromise for personalities like Masoli and Harris and only take action when you lose control of the public image. Don't feel bad. You're no worse than 90% of other program in that regard. I don't think you're "buying" athletes or roiding your players or anything. But you represent the indecent investment in resources to cultivate a winning program and lack of balance in values that pervades NCAA athletics and particularly football.

[FarmBoy]

Winning at the collegiate level won't solve that. Winning at the pro level does. One of the great and omniscient Skip Bayless's arguments for why RGII over Luck was that that #12 was too nerdy to be a leader in the huddle, too intellectual to fit in comfortably with his teammates. Well he's been proven time and again that a smart, well-spoken guy like Luck won't find any traction in an NFL locker room. He won't be able to motivate and direct players in the huddle. You have to have cool dreds, not a fugly neard to lead...

I bristle at Outsider's notion that Stanford needs to prove it is elite. Haven't we done that in the past 5 years with 3 consecutive BCS bowls, a Pac12 championship, 3 Voldemort finalists, and numerous NFL impact players? Yes, football is a meritocracy and you have to prove your worth over and over, but I don't think that's any more true for Stanford than any other (non-SEC) program. We're the highest ranked 1-loss team, despite having perhaps the worst loss of any teams in that category (Utah is not the team I'd hoped they were after they beat us.) Clearly, the voters already recognize Stanford is elite.

Canard - I appreciate what Oregon has done with its program (and Knight's money) the past 15 years. But in the end, Oregon represents the "Shock and Awe" style of modern football. Recruit players based on the value they place on image (flashy uniforms and slick facilities). Compromise for personalities like Masoli and Harris and only take action when you lose control of the public image. Don't feel bad. You're no worse than 90% of other program in that regard. I don't think you're "buying" athletes or roiding your players or anything. But you represent the indecent investment in resources to cultivate a winning program and lack of balance in values that pervades NCAA athletics and particularly football.

[Hulk01]

You don't really mean this do you?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

I defer to Damon Stoudamire and my old neighbor Kevin Love on this subject of Oregon's athletic programs and the people associated with them. If the opinions of those two fellows ever change, then mine might, too.  Until then I am a passionate Oregonian who loves and misses everything about my native state except the overcast, the rain, and the Oregon Ducks. 

[Hulk01]

You don't really mean this do you?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

I defer to Damon Stoudamire and my old neighbor Kevin Love on this subject of Oregon's athletic programs and the people associated with them. If the opinions of those two fellows ever change, then mine might, too.  Until then I am a passionate Oregonian who loves and misses everything about my native state except the overcast, the rain, and the Oregon Ducks. 

[FarmBoy]

That Kevin Love story is pretty darn shocking. Weren't the fans abusing his grandma too? All fan bases have their share, but outside of Ca'l, Oregon fans have been the worst in my experience.

[FarmBoy]

That Kevin Love story is pretty darn shocking. Weren't the fans abusing his grandma too? All fan bases have their share, but outside of Ca'l, Oregon fans have been the worst in my experience.

[Leftcoast]

Here's the SI article with Stan and Kevin Love's comments on Oregon fans.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/wr...?mobile=no

For reference, Kevin Love is the son of Stan Love, an all-time Oregon basketball great.  The Oregon faithful were following Kevin's exploits in Junior High and High School sports including frequent updates on their fan forums where the strong assumption was made that Kevin would one day be a Duck.  When he received several Player of the Year honors and then chose to play for UCLA things got very ugly for Kevin and his family.

I appreciate that Kelly and Helfrich are taking steps toward cleaning up Oregon football's culture and raising standards.  Oregon is in the top half of the Pac 12 now in GSR and APR scoring.  It will take a while to live down some of their more notorious players and Oregon athlete's prominent appearances on the police blotters.

As an aside to Canard,  I wouldn't lead with Blount and Harris when you are arguing that standards are high at Oregon.  While you are proud that Kelly dealt with the trouble makers other folks wonder how their attitudes were built and allowed to thrive in the Oregon program.

Hey, we have our black-eyes too as a quick Google search will show.  In general, I'll still stack up the men that come out of Stanford's program with the men that come out of any other school in the Pac 12.

[Leftcoast]

Here's the SI article with Stan and Kevin Love's comments on Oregon fans.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/wr...?mobile=no

For reference, Kevin Love is the son of Stan Love, an all-time Oregon basketball great.  The Oregon faithful were following Kevin's exploits in Junior High and High School sports including frequent updates on their fan forums where the strong assumption was made that Kevin would one day be a Duck.  When he received several Player of the Year honors and then chose to play for UCLA things got very ugly for Kevin and his family.

I appreciate that Kelly and Helfrich are taking steps toward cleaning up Oregon football's culture and raising standards.  Oregon is in the top half of the Pac 12 now in GSR and APR scoring.  It will take a while to live down some of their more notorious players and Oregon athlete's prominent appearances on the police blotters.

As an aside to Canard,  I wouldn't lead with Blount and Harris when you are arguing that standards are high at Oregon.  While you are proud that Kelly dealt with the trouble makers other folks wonder how their attitudes were built and allowed to thrive in the Oregon program.

Hey, we have our black-eyes too as a quick Google search will show.  In general, I'll still stack up the men that come out of Stanford's program with the men that come out of any other school in the Pac 12.

[larkinforever]

I realize that you guys cherish the myth that you haven't compromised, but you have done so relative to the Ivies and the University of Chicago, institutions that look rather unstinting on standards about sports by comparison.

Just wanted to comment on this one point as I believe no one has (yet). Though this is clearly not on the main point related to Stanford-Oregon, I couldn't let this opportunity pass. I feel that there is actually an Ivies myth, which is a bit outdated (if it was ever true in the first instance) - Harvard's basketball team is a case in point. In other words, I think sometimes there is a tendency by some to conflate not giving official, formal athletic scholarships to athletes with not compromising standards for those same athletes in admissions.

[larkinforever]

I realize that you guys cherish the myth that you haven't compromised, but you have done so relative to the Ivies and the University of Chicago, institutions that look rather unstinting on standards about sports by comparison.

Just wanted to comment on this one point as I believe no one has (yet). Though this is clearly not on the main point related to Stanford-Oregon, I couldn't let this opportunity pass. I feel that there is actually an Ivies myth, which is a bit outdated (if it was ever true in the first instance) - Harvard's basketball team is a case in point. In other words, I think sometimes there is a tendency by some to conflate not giving official, formal athletic scholarships to athletes with not compromising standards for those same athletes in admissions.

[GoodGrief]

You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Chill out dude. The only thing OutsiderFan said was, "Richie Incognito (who once was welcomed into the Oregon program)." That is exactly what happened. Everything else that you alleged that he said was you jumping to conclusions. Quit being paranoid.

[GoodGrief]

You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Chill out dude. The only thing OutsiderFan said was, "Richie Incognito (who once was welcomed into the Oregon program)." That is exactly what happened. Everything else that you alleged that he said was you jumping to conclusions. Quit being paranoid.

[oman]

Hmm, this thread didn't go where I thought it was going to go.

The football world needs Alabama to lose in the MNC. 

All of your other points are well taken.

[oman]

Hmm, this thread didn't go where I thought it was going to go.

The football world needs Alabama to lose in the MNC. 

All of your other points are well taken.

[Oasis]

When I was listening to the pre-Oregon interview with David Yankey I was thinking how he would fit in (size notwithstanding) very well in a board-room environment.  He is so obviously smart and articulate, it's easy to imagine a guy like that excelling in a world  completely unrelated to football.  Then we've seen Conor McFadden with his amazing mind, who turned down Princeton to come to Stanford.  These are just two examples, maybe not representative (although I believe they are), but I would put guys like that up against what the Ivies have for smarts any day.

Stanford has done something very fine in putting the Yankeys and McFaddens (also Lucks, Gerhardts et al.) on the field.  Our competitors select for athletic ability and hope the academic side will limp in just enough.  They can't do it the way we do it.

[Oasis]

When I was listening to the pre-Oregon interview with David Yankey I was thinking how he would fit in (size notwithstanding) very well in a board-room environment.  He is so obviously smart and articulate, it's easy to imagine a guy like that excelling in a world  completely unrelated to football.  Then we've seen Conor McFadden with his amazing mind, who turned down Princeton to come to Stanford.  These are just two examples, maybe not representative (although I believe they are), but I would put guys like that up against what the Ivies have for smarts any day.

Stanford has done something very fine in putting the Yankeys and McFaddens (also Lucks, Gerhardts et al.) on the field.  Our competitors select for athletic ability and hope the academic side will limp in just enough.  They can't do it the way we do it.

[Spiny_Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Spiny_Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canard]

"Our competitors select for athletic ability and hope the academic side will limp in just enough."

If this were truly the case, you'd never lose a recruiting battle to anyone else after making your golden ticket schollie offer. Yet you still do. I am curious to know how those '"lost" players suddenly become cretinous by going elsewhere and wind up simply hoping to limp by academically.

[Canard]

"Our competitors select for athletic ability and hope the academic side will limp in just enough."

If this were truly the case, you'd never lose a recruiting battle to anyone else after making your golden ticket schollie offer. Yet you still do. I am curious to know how those '"lost" players suddenly become cretinous by going elsewhere and wind up simply hoping to limp by academically.

[Canard]

"Canard - I'm with you on this point.  But you are on your own when you go after Stanford athletic admissions.  All evidence points to the integrity of the process."

I'm not against your having higher standards than the established NCAA minimum. That's commendable. I am irked by the attendant self-righteousness that some adopt because of those standards. The choice of a football program is far more complicated than, "Did I get an offer to go to Stanford?" After all, not everyone accepts your invitations—for a whole host of reasons that have noting to do with academics.  I applied to, and was accepted by the FSI. For familial considerations, I chose a less "prestigious" path. It happens in the collegiate football recruiting process too.

[Canard]

"Canard - I'm with you on this point.  But you are on your own when you go after Stanford athletic admissions.  All evidence points to the integrity of the process."

I'm not against your having higher standards than the established NCAA minimum. That's commendable. I am irked by the attendant self-righteousness that some adopt because of those standards. The choice of a football program is far more complicated than, "Did I get an offer to go to Stanford?" After all, not everyone accepts your invitations—for a whole host of reasons that have noting to do with academics.  I applied to, and was accepted by the FSI. For familial considerations, I chose a less "prestigious" path. It happens in the collegiate football recruiting process too.