[Papa John]

In 96-97, everything was clicking in the big three (four including baseball) and people were very happy with the year over year progress in those three/four sports.  That just isn't true today.

On November 2, Stanford football played UCLA in the Rose Bowl (I was there). Stanford's record at the time was 2-5. A week earlier, Mark Soltau of the Examiner wrote:

"A billboard outside Stanford Stadium reads, 'On The Right Track.' If so, the 1996 Cardinal football team is on the wrong train."

However, that Stanford team defeated UCLA 21-20. I remember an awesome sideline catch and run for a TD by Troy Walters and another last minute touchdown to steal the game from the Bruins. The Cardinal rolled off three more wins to reach 6-5 and then destroyed Nick Saban's Michigan State team in the Sun Bowl. While things were indeed looking rosy for the future, the football team had some tough breaks and went 5-6 in 1997.

As much as I love 1996-97, I'm still thinking that, for my big three, this year gets the edge. But I do appreciate your argument Farm93.

[Papa John]

In 96-97, everything was clicking in the big three (four including baseball) and people were very happy with the year over year progress in those three/four sports.  That just isn't true today.

On November 2, Stanford football played UCLA in the Rose Bowl (I was there). Stanford's record at the time was 2-5. A week earlier, Mark Soltau of the Examiner wrote:

"A billboard outside Stanford Stadium reads, 'On The Right Track.' If so, the 1996 Cardinal football team is on the wrong train."

However, that Stanford team defeated UCLA 21-20. I remember an awesome sideline catch and run for a TD by Troy Walters and another last minute touchdown to steal the game from the Bruins. The Cardinal rolled off three more wins to reach 6-5 and then destroyed Nick Saban's Michigan State team in the Sun Bowl. While things were indeed looking rosy for the future, the football team had some tough breaks and went 5-6 in 1997.

As much as I love 1996-97, I'm still thinking that, for my big three, this year gets the edge. But I do appreciate your argument Farm93.

[Papa John]

As you noted at the beginning those are YOUR big three.  They are not THE big three.  In NCAA terms baseball and hockey are probably right there with women's hoops nationally. And 20 years ago baseball was definitely bigger than women's hoops.

My guess is that you will discover as this thread grows that Stanford does not have a big three.

Great points, but in the relatively brief time that I've participated, it seems to me that football and women's and men's basketball are the big three for the CARDBoard. Sure, the other NCAA sports are mentioned, especially when they are in the running for a NC or an alumna/ae makes it big (e.g. Julie Foudy, Tiger Woods). But if someone generated a word cloud of CARDBoard text over its history, wouldn't my big three be the most mentioned? Also, baseball and hockey certainly have their shining moments for the NCAA, but I believe that, across the entire country, nothing generates revenue and/or visibility like my big three.

[Papa John]

As you noted at the beginning those are YOUR big three.  They are not THE big three.  In NCAA terms baseball and hockey are probably right there with women's hoops nationally. And 20 years ago baseball was definitely bigger than women's hoops.

My guess is that you will discover as this thread grows that Stanford does not have a big three.

Great points, but in the relatively brief time that I've participated, it seems to me that football and women's and men's basketball are the big three for the CARDBoard. Sure, the other NCAA sports are mentioned, especially when they are in the running for a NC or an alumna/ae makes it big (e.g. Julie Foudy, Tiger Woods). But if someone generated a word cloud of CARDBoard text over its history, wouldn't my big three be the most mentioned? Also, baseball and hockey certainly have their shining moments for the NCAA, but I believe that, across the entire country, nothing generates revenue and/or visibility like my big three.

[Mick]

Thanks for the corrections re: men's and women's volleyball. I had a feeling I was off somewhere...
(And how I missed volleyball I don't know, since that's one of my favorite sports to watch in person.)

My favorite sport to watch.  Athleticism, strength, power, agility, dexterity, team play, all involved, strategy, endurance, emotional highs and lows.  If you've been close to the culture, it's terrific, warm and inviting, typically the antithesis of in-your-face.  Invented in America.  Actors play it (Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise), other athletes play it (Chamberlain, Richard Jefferson) and you can play it on the beach or on the grass or in a gym, and men and women can play together.  It can't be beat.

[Mick]

Thanks for the corrections re: men's and women's volleyball. I had a feeling I was off somewhere...
(And how I missed volleyball I don't know, since that's one of my favorite sports to watch in person.)

My favorite sport to watch.  Athleticism, strength, power, agility, dexterity, team play, all involved, strategy, endurance, emotional highs and lows.  If you've been close to the culture, it's terrific, warm and inviting, typically the antithesis of in-your-face.  Invented in America.  Actors play it (Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise), other athletes play it (Chamberlain, Richard Jefferson) and you can play it on the beach or on the grass or in a gym, and men and women can play together.  It can't be beat.

[Leftcoast]

Even if we accept your definition of the big 3 (and for me it's the big 5, I always follow Baseball and Women's volleyball which are down this year when judged against their historic standards) then I can't accept a year without a bowl win, a final four or an NC as our greatest. 

I believe what makes this topic hard is that seldom in Stanford history have both Men's Basketball and Football been ascendant at the same time.  They are inscribed at opposite sides of a wheel and when one reigns at the top the other is down in the dirt.  We're reduced to looking for those transitional periods where the wheel is turning to find a best fit for some weighted standard. 

And yet the transitional years don't satisfy.  As a fan stacking a bunch of near great but fell just short seasons will never match the high of a year where one sport truly excelled.  So give me our Orange Bowl year, our Final Four year, our Rose Bowl vs Wisconsin or the year Tyrone Willingham beat Michigan State.  Make sure we also beat Cal and had a great season in the other sports in my Big 5.  Those are the years that stick with me as a fan.

[Leftcoast]

Even if we accept your definition of the big 3 (and for me it's the big 5, I always follow Baseball and Women's volleyball which are down this year when judged against their historic standards) then I can't accept a year without a bowl win, a final four or an NC as our greatest. 

I believe what makes this topic hard is that seldom in Stanford history have both Men's Basketball and Football been ascendant at the same time.  They are inscribed at opposite sides of a wheel and when one reigns at the top the other is down in the dirt.  We're reduced to looking for those transitional periods where the wheel is turning to find a best fit for some weighted standard. 

And yet the transitional years don't satisfy.  As a fan stacking a bunch of near great but fell just short seasons will never match the high of a year where one sport truly excelled.  So give me our Orange Bowl year, our Final Four year, our Rose Bowl vs Wisconsin or the year Tyrone Willingham beat Michigan State.  Make sure we also beat Cal and had a great season in the other sports in my Big 5.  Those are the years that stick with me as a fan.

[Nan3cy]

Here's Business Insider's take on why Stanford had the best year of any U. in 2013. Includes athletics... so no OT required (as if we ever need an OT reference around here...)



http://www.businessinsider.com/stanford-...ar-2013-12

[Nan3cy]

Here's Business Insider's take on why Stanford had the best year of any U. in 2013. Includes athletics... so no OT required (as if we ever need an OT reference around here...)



http://www.businessinsider.com/stanford-...ar-2013-12

[Farm93]

Here's Business Insider's take on why Stanford had the best year of any U. in 2013. Includes athletics... so no OT required (as if we ever need an OT reference around here...)

Well if we move beyond just athletics, 2013-2014 is looking great.  The giving rate, the total gift dollars, the admissions rate and the football success would be very hard to beat.

[Farm93]

Here's Business Insider's take on why Stanford had the best year of any U. in 2013. Includes athletics... so no OT required (as if we ever need an OT reference around here...)

Well if we move beyond just athletics, 2013-2014 is looking great.  The giving rate, the total gift dollars, the admissions rate and the football success would be very hard to beat.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9825.msg87607#msg87607 date=1397225213]
In 96-97, everything was clicking in the big three (four including baseball) and people were very happy with the year over year progress in those three/four sports.  That just isn't true today.

On November 2, Stanford football played UCLA in the Rose Bowl (I was there). Stanford's record at the time was 2-5. A week earlier, Mark Soltau of the Examiner wrote:

"A billboard outside Stanford Stadium reads, 'On The Right Track.' If so, the 1996 Cardinal football team is on the wrong train."

However, that Stanford team defeated UCLA 21-20. I remember an awesome sideline catch and run for a TD by Troy Walters and another last minute touchdown to steal the game from the Bruins. The Cardinal rolled off three more wins to reach 6-5 and then destroyed Nick Saban's Michigan State team in the Sun Bowl. While things were indeed looking rosy for the future, the football team had some tough breaks and went 5-6 in 1997.

As much as I love 1996-97, I'm still thinking that, for my big three, this year gets the edge. But I do appreciate your argument Farm93.
[/quote]
I went to the Sun Bowl in 1996, and the Rose Bowl in 2014.  Trust me, it was a lot better to be at the Sun Bowl.  That might have been the best bowl game ever for a Stanford fan as the 38-0 win just created this sense of optimism.  It felt as if EVERYTHING about Stanford athletics was clicking, including Football.  And that made that year great.

Oddly, your greatest season candidate is great because Men's hoops won two games one one weekend.  Ignore that weekend, and people were screaming for JD to be fired.  Getting a 10 seed is just not that great.  Worse that 10 seed was the crowning achievement for BBall over the last 6 years.  Also if postseason luck trumps everythign, then how can the Rose Bowl loss be dismissed?

1996-1997 was essentially just the opposite story. Football finished strong (not one weekend, but two months).  Women's hoops had a real chance to win the NC, unlike this year sadly.  And men's hoops was on a crazy rise thanks to Knight.  So I believe using your big three Women's hoops and BB were better and football was not.  So it seems that your greatest year simply overweights a Pac-X championship in football because the other two in the big three were much, much better in 1996-1997.  Meanwhile, all of the other sports were at a completely different level.  Stanford won 6 team titles, but probably had 10 teams that were ranked #1 during the season.  We don't have that today.

In the end it really is easy.

Only one school has ever won 6 NCAA team titles in one year.  That was Stanford in 1996-1997.  It is an accomplishment that is unmatched by any other program.  So I will take that year as Stanford's greatest year ever, in part because that year is in the NCAA record book as the greatest ever.

Don't get me wrong 2013-2014 will be nice, but with baseball way down, basketball frustratingly inept, and few chances for any NCAA team titles it thankfully can't be considered as the all time great year.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9825.msg87607#msg87607 date=1397225213]
In 96-97, everything was clicking in the big three (four including baseball) and people were very happy with the year over year progress in those three/four sports.  That just isn't true today.

On November 2, Stanford football played UCLA in the Rose Bowl (I was there). Stanford's record at the time was 2-5. A week earlier, Mark Soltau of the Examiner wrote:

"A billboard outside Stanford Stadium reads, 'On The Right Track.' If so, the 1996 Cardinal football team is on the wrong train."

However, that Stanford team defeated UCLA 21-20. I remember an awesome sideline catch and run for a TD by Troy Walters and another last minute touchdown to steal the game from the Bruins. The Cardinal rolled off three more wins to reach 6-5 and then destroyed Nick Saban's Michigan State team in the Sun Bowl. While things were indeed looking rosy for the future, the football team had some tough breaks and went 5-6 in 1997.

As much as I love 1996-97, I'm still thinking that, for my big three, this year gets the edge. But I do appreciate your argument Farm93.
[/quote]
I went to the Sun Bowl in 1996, and the Rose Bowl in 2014.  Trust me, it was a lot better to be at the Sun Bowl.  That might have been the best bowl game ever for a Stanford fan as the 38-0 win just created this sense of optimism.  It felt as if EVERYTHING about Stanford athletics was clicking, including Football.  And that made that year great.

Oddly, your greatest season candidate is great because Men's hoops won two games one one weekend.  Ignore that weekend, and people were screaming for JD to be fired.  Getting a 10 seed is just not that great.  Worse that 10 seed was the crowning achievement for BBall over the last 6 years.  Also if postseason luck trumps everythign, then how can the Rose Bowl loss be dismissed?

1996-1997 was essentially just the opposite story. Football finished strong (not one weekend, but two months).  Women's hoops had a real chance to win the NC, unlike this year sadly.  And men's hoops was on a crazy rise thanks to Knight.  So I believe using your big three Women's hoops and BB were better and football was not.  So it seems that your greatest year simply overweights a Pac-X championship in football because the other two in the big three were much, much better in 1996-1997.  Meanwhile, all of the other sports were at a completely different level.  Stanford won 6 team titles, but probably had 10 teams that were ranked #1 during the season.  We don't have that today.

In the end it really is easy.

Only one school has ever won 6 NCAA team titles in one year.  That was Stanford in 1996-1997.  It is an accomplishment that is unmatched by any other program.  So I will take that year as Stanford's greatest year ever, in part because that year is in the NCAA record book as the greatest ever.

Don't get me wrong 2013-2014 will be nice, but with baseball way down, basketball frustratingly inept, and few chances for any NCAA team titles it thankfully can't be considered as the all time great year.

[StanFan88]

Don't get me wrong 2013-2014 will be nice, but with baseball way down, basketball frustratingly inept, and few chances for any NCAA team titles it thankfully can't be considered as the all time great year.

THE YEAR'S NOT OVER, PLEASE CLEAR THE FIELD!

[StanFan88]

Don't get me wrong 2013-2014 will be nice, but with baseball way down, basketball frustratingly inept, and few chances for any NCAA team titles it thankfully can't be considered as the all time great year.

THE YEAR'S NOT OVER, PLEASE CLEAR THE FIELD!