[yvonne]

This time last year, we were on our way to our third BCS bowl in as many. We were nationally relevant. This year, the team is no longer elite, merely good.

Next year, we lose Murphy, Skov, (Gardner), Mauro, Lancaster, and Amanam on defense. We lose Gaffney, Wilkerson, and Hewitt on offense. We also lose a couple of linemen, but with the haul of recruits we had two years ago, I'm not worried there.

Our offense relies on power running, which means a good fullback and some power running backs. This team's known for its defense, and half the starters are going.

I still think we'll be a winning team next year, but can't see any way we'll be elite. Do we regress to the mean now and go through cycles of somewhat strong seasons interspersed with poor seasons?

In other words, did we just finish the Good Old Days?

[yvonne]

This time last year, we were on our way to our third BCS bowl in as many. We were nationally relevant. This year, the team is no longer elite, merely good.

Next year, we lose Murphy, Skov, (Gardner), Mauro, Lancaster, and Amanam on defense. We lose Gaffney, Wilkerson, and Hewitt on offense. We also lose a couple of linemen, but with the haul of recruits we had two years ago, I'm not worried there.

Our offense relies on power running, which means a good fullback and some power running backs. This team's known for its defense, and half the starters are going.

I still think we'll be a winning team next year, but can't see any way we'll be elite. Do we regress to the mean now and go through cycles of somewhat strong seasons interspersed with poor seasons?

In other words, did we just finish the Good Old Days?

[Rando]

It's a great day to post a thread like this.

To answer your question? No. We will stay relevant, we will stay ranked, and we will be in the BCS hunt again next year. Have some confidence. The world is not ending after 1 bad game. I think you thought the world was crashing after we lost to Washington last year. Was the dream over then, too?

[Rando]

It's a great day to post a thread like this.

To answer your question? No. We will stay relevant, we will stay ranked, and we will be in the BCS hunt again next year. Have some confidence. The world is not ending after 1 bad game. I think you thought the world was crashing after we lost to Washington last year. Was the dream over then, too?

[yvonne]

Well, the dream actually is over this year. My point, however, is the long term.

BTW, I predicted an SC loss several weeks ago. It was a trap game. We win out the season and go to a bowl, probably the third or fourth place bowl.

I think we'll be about the same next year, maybe losing four games. That's good, but not great. Most teams in the conference, including Colorado, will be better next year. Will we be a year from greatness or will we remain in a kinda good mode? If the latter, then, it's very likely that we will have poor seasons, too.

This could be like the 1970s.

[yvonne]

Well, the dream actually is over this year. My point, however, is the long term.

BTW, I predicted an SC loss several weeks ago. It was a trap game. We win out the season and go to a bowl, probably the third or fourth place bowl.

I think we'll be about the same next year, maybe losing four games. That's good, but not great. Most teams in the conference, including Colorado, will be better next year. Will we be a year from greatness or will we remain in a kinda good mode? If the latter, then, it's very likely that we will have poor seasons, too.

This could be like the 1970s.

[washingtonismoney]

Who knows?

NOTE: when making projections, it's rarely as bad as it seems after a disaster, and rarely as good as it seems after a miracle.

[washingtonismoney]

Who knows?

NOTE: when making projections, it's rarely as bad as it seems after a disaster, and rarely as good as it seems after a miracle.

[stupac2]

I realize that rooting for Stanford for a long time apparently causes extreme cases of pessimism, but I think that, at some point, one needs to shake it off. Did anyone expect going into last season to win the Rose Bowl? I certainly didn't. We lost way more before that season than we will this year. (Fleener, Luck, Martin, and DeCastro ALL GONE? How could we possibly recover?) We might be losing some great talent, but we have great talent waiting to replace it. Maybe Noor Davis is the next Skov. Maybe Shiitu and Nwafor will be dominant linemen with another offseason. We don't really know, but given that we've gotten incredible production out of guys who were far less heralded, I think there's reason to be optimistic.

Also, BCS hopes aren't gone this season either. Projections have us at #9, the highest two-loss team. Several of the teams ahead of us play each other (Aurburn and Missouri both likely get second losses), and many of those teams are already slotted in BCS bowls. Of teams ahead of us right now, none are likely at-large selections (I'm not counting Clemson and an SEC team since those will likely be picked to replace Alabama and FSU, and the third SEC team ahead of us can't go). I think that we actually have decent odds to get into one of these games as an at-large, especially if the non-AQ teams stumble and none get an AQ bid.

Anyway, this loss hurts and it literally made me lose sleep last night, but the sky isn't falling. Try to be positive!

[stupac2]

I realize that rooting for Stanford for a long time apparently causes extreme cases of pessimism, but I think that, at some point, one needs to shake it off. Did anyone expect going into last season to win the Rose Bowl? I certainly didn't. We lost way more before that season than we will this year. (Fleener, Luck, Martin, and DeCastro ALL GONE? How could we possibly recover?) We might be losing some great talent, but we have great talent waiting to replace it. Maybe Noor Davis is the next Skov. Maybe Shiitu and Nwafor will be dominant linemen with another offseason. We don't really know, but given that we've gotten incredible production out of guys who were far less heralded, I think there's reason to be optimistic.

Also, BCS hopes aren't gone this season either. Projections have us at #9, the highest two-loss team. Several of the teams ahead of us play each other (Aurburn and Missouri both likely get second losses), and many of those teams are already slotted in BCS bowls. Of teams ahead of us right now, none are likely at-large selections (I'm not counting Clemson and an SEC team since those will likely be picked to replace Alabama and FSU, and the third SEC team ahead of us can't go). I think that we actually have decent odds to get into one of these games as an at-large, especially if the non-AQ teams stumble and none get an AQ bid.

Anyway, this loss hurts and it literally made me lose sleep last night, but the sky isn't falling. Try to be positive!

[Farm93]

The challenge with supporting Stanford is that too many people actually understand the random walk, 50/50, nature of sports.

The USC fans really believe, and believed pre-Stanford game, that they will win the Pac-12 South and then go to the Rose Bowl.  Even though ASU must lose to UCLA, USC must then beat Stanford and UCLA, and then USC must go to Eugene to beat the Ducks.  Crazy?  Sure, but they believe at some level.

Here is all that needs to happen for Stanford to go to a BCS bowl THIS year.
Path #1 - Oregon loses their rivalry game to a decent Oregon State team and then Stanford hosts and then wins the Pac-12 CG.  That is a far more likely path to Roses than USC's crazy dream BTW.

Path #2 - Stanford beats the stuffing out of UCB and UND.  This allows Stanford to get back up to BCS #8 or so.  The right mix of teams falls into the top 14 slots of the BCS forcing one of the other BCS bowls to either want or need to pick Stanford.  The biggest problem here is Northern Illinois/CSFU, but hey no reason to let that stuff trouble us.  Keep the faith.

Stanford can also be a BCS force for several years because....sometimes schools stay relevant for quite a while if they can stay at the top long enough to recruit excellence to replace excellence.  The insane faith that many schools have in their excellence is really built of the same sketchy foundation.  Rational Stanford types can't help but see that the belief is not exactly solid, but it would be enough for most programs.  Believe because it is possible.

It does bother me that Stanford plays UCLA and USC every year.  Not only does Stanford get the honor of playing far and away the two biggest powers in the Pac-12 South, but Oregon and Washington will generally avoid playing both (USC did not play Oregon or Washington, for example).  That's such a crazy schedule disadvantage that it is hard to believe Stanford and UCB wanted this insanity and it is that schedule that probable makes our walk more like 45/55 than 50/50.  UCB needs the money game for their sorry budget issues, but now just three years into the Pac-12 Stanford's loyalty to tradition has already had a big negative impact.  I would have been perfectly happy making our one annual trip to the LA market in January rather than November.  >:(

[Farm93]

The challenge with supporting Stanford is that too many people actually understand the random walk, 50/50, nature of sports.

The USC fans really believe, and believed pre-Stanford game, that they will win the Pac-12 South and then go to the Rose Bowl.  Even though ASU must lose to UCLA, USC must then beat Stanford and UCLA, and then USC must go to Eugene to beat the Ducks.  Crazy?  Sure, but they believe at some level.

Here is all that needs to happen for Stanford to go to a BCS bowl THIS year.
Path #1 - Oregon loses their rivalry game to a decent Oregon State team and then Stanford hosts and then wins the Pac-12 CG.  That is a far more likely path to Roses than USC's crazy dream BTW.

Path #2 - Stanford beats the stuffing out of UCB and UND.  This allows Stanford to get back up to BCS #8 or so.  The right mix of teams falls into the top 14 slots of the BCS forcing one of the other BCS bowls to either want or need to pick Stanford.  The biggest problem here is Northern Illinois/CSFU, but hey no reason to let that stuff trouble us.  Keep the faith.

Stanford can also be a BCS force for several years because....sometimes schools stay relevant for quite a while if they can stay at the top long enough to recruit excellence to replace excellence.  The insane faith that many schools have in their excellence is really built of the same sketchy foundation.  Rational Stanford types can't help but see that the belief is not exactly solid, but it would be enough for most programs.  Believe because it is possible.

It does bother me that Stanford plays UCLA and USC every year.  Not only does Stanford get the honor of playing far and away the two biggest powers in the Pac-12 South, but Oregon and Washington will generally avoid playing both (USC did not play Oregon or Washington, for example).  That's such a crazy schedule disadvantage that it is hard to believe Stanford and UCB wanted this insanity and it is that schedule that probable makes our walk more like 45/55 than 50/50.  UCB needs the money game for their sorry budget issues, but now just three years into the Pac-12 Stanford's loyalty to tradition has already had a big negative impact.  I would have been perfectly happy making our one annual trip to the LA market in January rather than November.  >:(

[Spiny_Norman]

BCS hopes aren't gone this season either.

There are 4 at-large spots available.  Fresno St is certain to take one if it wins out.  The SEC will get one.  Clemson will likely get one.  The final spot would go to a 2nd team from the Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12.  The open slot right now appears to be in the Orange Bowl.  Maybe the Orange Bowl Committee was pleased with the Stanford attendance in 2011.  But the attendance for that game was among the smallest in Orange Bowl history and among the lowest rated too.

Stanford's best hope (assuming that it wins out) is for Fresno St to lose a game and for Northern Illinois to lose a game or remain outside of the eligible pool.  In this scenario, Stanford could be matched against Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl.

As for Stanford football going forward, how about we wait until 2014 to start the angst about the 2014 season.  Are the Good Old Days over?  I think the Good Old Days continue the next two weeks when Stanford keeps the STANFORD AXE and then gets a very satisfying win over ND.  We can then say farewell and thank you to the wonderful group of seniors who have been such a joy to watch over the years.

[Spiny_Norman]

BCS hopes aren't gone this season either.

There are 4 at-large spots available.  Fresno St is certain to take one if it wins out.  The SEC will get one.  Clemson will likely get one.  The final spot would go to a 2nd team from the Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12.  The open slot right now appears to be in the Orange Bowl.  Maybe the Orange Bowl Committee was pleased with the Stanford attendance in 2011.  But the attendance for that game was among the smallest in Orange Bowl history and among the lowest rated too.

Stanford's best hope (assuming that it wins out) is for Fresno St to lose a game and for Northern Illinois to lose a game or remain outside of the eligible pool.  In this scenario, Stanford could be matched against Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl.

As for Stanford football going forward, how about we wait until 2014 to start the angst about the 2014 season.  Are the Good Old Days over?  I think the Good Old Days continue the next two weeks when Stanford keeps the STANFORD AXE and then gets a very satisfying win over ND.  We can then say farewell and thank you to the wonderful group of seniors who have been such a joy to watch over the years.

[Rando]

I'd rather play the LA teams every year then every other. I don't mind a incredibly tough schedule. It's given us some great football so far this season.

[Rando]

I'd rather play the LA teams every year then every other. I don't mind a incredibly tough schedule. It's given us some great football so far this season.

[Farm93]

I'd rather play the LA teams every year then every other. I don't mind a incredibly tough schedule. It's given us some great football so far this season.

I would rather play in their division so that it is tough and fair.

Right now the schedule is tough (which is fine) AND unfair (which is not).  It is very hard to maintain this particular dream with that kind of systemic schedule inequality.  USC and UCLA will definitely be the best in the South for a long time.  That means in most years Stanford would need to play in or against LA 4 times to have a successful year.  (USC, UCLA, Pac-12 CG vs USC/UCLA, Rose Bowl).

Stanford is not the only school with a systematically unfair schedule.  LSU really has a raw deal with the SEC's preferred cross division rival system.

[Farm93]

I'd rather play the LA teams every year then every other. I don't mind a incredibly tough schedule. It's given us some great football so far this season.

I would rather play in their division so that it is tough and fair.

Right now the schedule is tough (which is fine) AND unfair (which is not).  It is very hard to maintain this particular dream with that kind of systemic schedule inequality.  USC and UCLA will definitely be the best in the South for a long time.  That means in most years Stanford would need to play in or against LA 4 times to have a successful year.  (USC, UCLA, Pac-12 CG vs USC/UCLA, Rose Bowl).

Stanford is not the only school with a systematically unfair schedule.  LSU really has a raw deal with the SEC's preferred cross division rival system.

[82lsju]

I'd rather play the LA teams every year then every other. I don't mind a incredibly tough schedule. It's given us some great football so far this season.

small correction, we'd play each of them four of every six years.

[82lsju]

I'd rather play the LA teams every year then every other. I don't mind a incredibly tough schedule. It's given us some great football so far this season.

small correction, we'd play each of them four of every six years.

[yvonne]

The real solution is to put us in the South where we belong. Putting us in the North was done to appease the Northwest schools who recruit in Caliornia. They would still play AGAINST  a California school four of six years, and they would have a two thirds likelihood of playing on in the CCG. Utah and Colorado wanted special treatment of. Ring in the more prestigious South, but they've pretty much used up any leverage for special treatment, and it could be argued that they would do better in a division with only two strong teams.

[yvonne]

The real solution is to put us in the South where we belong. Putting us in the North was done to appease the Northwest schools who recruit in Caliornia. They would still play AGAINST  a California school four of six years, and they would have a two thirds likelihood of playing on in the CCG. Utah and Colorado wanted special treatment of. Ring in the more prestigious South, but they've pretty much used up any leverage for special treatment, and it could be argued that they would do better in a division with only two strong teams.

[pincemob]

I don't think the BCS is in play, unfortunately.  You're going to have eligible 10-2 teams like Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oklahoma State, all in the mix with hypothetical 10-2 Stanford for 2 slots, even assuming Fresno doesn't get in the top-12.  Maybe we get lucky and Michigan State loses at Northwestern and Oklahoma State loses to both Baylor and Oklahoma but that all seems really unlikely.  And Oregon is not losing to Oregon State, sorry guys.  Better off hoping we get some breaks in the league and avoid the Los Vegas bowl. 

[pincemob]

I don't think the BCS is in play, unfortunately.  You're going to have eligible 10-2 teams like Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oklahoma State, all in the mix with hypothetical 10-2 Stanford for 2 slots, even assuming Fresno doesn't get in the top-12.  Maybe we get lucky and Michigan State loses at Northwestern and Oklahoma State loses to both Baylor and Oklahoma but that all seems really unlikely.  And Oregon is not losing to Oregon State, sorry guys.  Better off hoping we get some breaks in the league and avoid the Los Vegas bowl. 

[Extra Point]

I'd rather play the LA teams every year then every other. I don't mind a incredibly tough schedule. It's given us some great football so far this season.

I think it would have been a rotation where we played one of the LA schools, both the LA schools, and none of the LA schools. If this was a year where we didn't play USC, we would be going to the Rose Bowl. Should Stanford return to it's statistical norm, playing both LA schools would mean not going to a bowl game in more years than they did in the Pac 10.

[Extra Point]

I'd rather play the LA teams every year then every other. I don't mind a incredibly tough schedule. It's given us some great football so far this season.

I think it would have been a rotation where we played one of the LA schools, both the LA schools, and none of the LA schools. If this was a year where we didn't play USC, we would be going to the Rose Bowl. Should Stanford return to it's statistical norm, playing both LA schools would mean not going to a bowl game in more years than they did in the Pac 10.

[estephan500]

Will there be no more Skovs, Taylors, Gaffneys, Lucks to be recruited in the world anymore?

What did Stanford have to offer those players when they were recruited?

What does Stanford have to offer such players now?

[estephan500]

Will there be no more Skovs, Taylors, Gaffneys, Lucks to be recruited in the world anymore?

What did Stanford have to offer those players when they were recruited?

What does Stanford have to offer such players now?

[dabigv13]

Oh come on, this thread is absurd. Next year we return plenty of outstanding players, and I think we have clearly talented people to replace the ones who are leaving. We lost Gerhart, then Taylor, now Gaffney...I am unconcerned about our RB depth. As for defense, we lose some good players but we return 8 starters and plenty of great depth, and we've recruited well.

Remember when we lost the best quarterback in a generation, and then won a Rose Bowl?

[dabigv13]

Oh come on, this thread is absurd. Next year we return plenty of outstanding players, and I think we have clearly talented people to replace the ones who are leaving. We lost Gerhart, then Taylor, now Gaffney...I am unconcerned about our RB depth. As for defense, we lose some good players but we return 8 starters and plenty of great depth, and we've recruited well.

Remember when we lost the best quarterback in a generation, and then won a Rose Bowl?

[oman]

Doomed.

[oman]

Doomed.

[CowboyIndian]

First we play Camille, then we play the games.

[CowboyIndian]

First we play Camille, then we play the games.

[AthleticsDynasty]

This thread is silly if we don't lose a ton of guys to the draft and are able to replace some core leadership(Skov, Gardner and Yankey) there is absolutely no reason to think the 2014 team won't be better.

[AthleticsDynasty]

This thread is silly if we don't lose a ton of guys to the draft and are able to replace some core leadership(Skov, Gardner and Yankey) there is absolutely no reason to think the 2014 team won't be better.

[OutsiderFan]

This thread is silly if we don't lose a ton of guys to the draft and are able to replace some core leadership(Skov, Gardner and Yankey) there is absolutely no reason to think the 2014 team won't be better.

Agreed completely, but it's even silly if several guys leave early.  Recruiting, more than individual players, is the seed corn for a program's success.  Stanford's recruiting profile is now stronger than its ever been.  Stanford is a national brand for elite football players now.  David Shaw is considered one of the best head coaches in the country.  Even in the losses over the last couple seasons, Stanford has been in position to win each game late in the fourth quarter and hasn't lost a game by more than 7 points the last two season.  And Stanford has lost just seven games over four seasons. So in reality, "the dream" not only isn't dead, from a practical standpoint, it's really just starting, because Stanford no longer has to sell a dream.  It can now sell a pretty compelling reality.

[OutsiderFan]

This thread is silly if we don't lose a ton of guys to the draft and are able to replace some core leadership(Skov, Gardner and Yankey) there is absolutely no reason to think the 2014 team won't be better.

Agreed completely, but it's even silly if several guys leave early.  Recruiting, more than individual players, is the seed corn for a program's success.  Stanford's recruiting profile is now stronger than its ever been.  Stanford is a national brand for elite football players now.  David Shaw is considered one of the best head coaches in the country.  Even in the losses over the last couple seasons, Stanford has been in position to win each game late in the fourth quarter and hasn't lost a game by more than 7 points the last two season.  And Stanford has lost just seven games over four seasons. So in reality, "the dream" not only isn't dead, from a practical standpoint, it's really just starting, because Stanford no longer has to sell a dream.  It can now sell a pretty compelling reality.

[AthleticsDynasty]

So in reality, "the dream" not only isn't dead, from a practical standpoint, it's really just starting, because Stanford no longer has to sell a dream.  It can now sell a pretty compelling reality.

Could not have said it better myself

[AthleticsDynasty]

So in reality, "the dream" not only isn't dead, from a practical standpoint, it's really just starting, because Stanford no longer has to sell a dream.  It can now sell a pretty compelling reality.

Could not have said it better myself