The CardBoard
Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) (/thread-607.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - CowboyIndian - 10-13-2010

This is copied from a post on another SU site by a man whose handle is "Stanford Man"; if it breaks any rules, so be it. It explains eloquently what long-time rivalries can mean:

    On Monday, October 4, 2010, my dad passed away at the age of 89.  
He had been in failing health, and endured a poor quality of life.  His passing was a blessing.  
But my dad was my hero, and his passing has left an enormous void in my heart.  Every son has their story about their relationship with their dad.  For me, my story begins and ends with
Stanford.

My dad was a graduate of the Stanford class of 1942, and he received his MD from
Stanford Medical School in 1946.  He was on the freshman basketball team, and he also
lettered in gymnastics.  Additionally, he was a Yell Leader at Stanford, and served as Yell
King during his senior year.  He was a Yell Leader during an era when it was a very, very big
deal.  In fact, at every one of his class reunions, he was exhorted by his classmates to lead them in the Axe Yell.  God, I loved to watch him lead the Axe Yell, and I was fortunate to videotape him doing it at his 50th class reunion.  Newsreels from his years at Stanford showed him leading yells to a student section that followed his prompts with military precision.  Moreover, he was a Yell Leader at Stanford during its greatest season in football--when the team went 10-0, and beat Nebraska in the Rose Bowl.

My dad went on from his Stanford days to become an ear, nose and throat specialist, and
related plastic surgeon.  He settled in the San Fernando Valley, and quickly became the
premier surgeon in his field in the Los Angeles area.  He was a founder of Northridge
Hospital, and served as Chief of Staff and Chief Surgeon at Northridge, Holly Cross and
Encino hospitals.  He had an exceptional medical practice, and an exceptional life.  He raised
four children, and excelled at hobbies that utilized his gifted hands (like jewelry making, stain
glass design, painting and model building).

Not surprisingly, I was exposed to Stanford at a very early age.  From my earliest memory,
I wanted to go to Stanford, just like my dad.  As a young boy, I started following Stanford
with a passion.  In those days, there was no internet, and the local media barely ever
mentioned Stanford.  Regardless, I found ways to follow the Indians--whether it was going to
the library to read bay area newspapers or listen to a static plagued broadcast of a Stanford
game that barely reached the Los Angeles area.  But the true nirvana of my Stanford experience as a kid was attending games with my dad.  We\'d always attend the particular game that was in Los Angeles that year--UCLA or USC--both of which were played in the Coliseum in those days.  We\'d also get up to the Farm for at least one game each year--typically Big Game.  So many of those games against USC resulted in a miserable loss for Stanford.  From age 5 to age 15,  Stanford never beat SC.  In 1968, Stanford came close, but no cigar.  In 1969, SC stole victory from the jaws of defeat by beating Stanford with a last second field goal --a crushing defeat for the Stanford players and fans.  I will never forget the image of my fallen Stanford heroes lying prone on the ground, beating their fists into the turf in disbelief and agony.  My passionate opposition to USC was forever etched into my DNA after that game.  

My dad\'s devotion to share his love of Stanford with me, may best be illustrated by what
happened during the 1970 season.  Shortly after Stanford\'s upset win over highly ranked
Arkansas in the season opener, my family lost its home and all of our possessions in a Santa
Ana windblown brush fire.  When the fire approached the house, and the blowing embers
caught hold on the shake roof, my dad abandoned the garden hose that he was using to wet
down the roof, and prepared to leave the property before it was too late.  But before he left,
and with only moments to decide what to take, he decided to grab the tickets for the
Stanford-USC football game that would be played the following month.  Despite the family
being uprooted by the fire, and despite the enormous loss my parents suffered, as well as the
daunting task of having to literally start over in their life, my dad still made sure that we travelled up to Stanford to see them play USC--a game that would hopefully end a ten year drought oflosing to them; and would likely be a springboard to a Pac-8 Championship, and a trip to the Rose Bowl.  Well, we did beat SC that Saturday afternoon; and my parents made sure that I got my game program autographed by Jim Plunkett.

After that, my dad and I shared countless games together over the years.  My love and passion for Stanford continued to grow; and it was nurtured by my relationship with my dad.  And during my first year at Stanford, I can remember my dad sending me a letter that he addressed to me as "Stanford Man".

Re: Uh-oh - terry - 10-13-2010

[The post above got cut off in the middle. Here\'s the rest of it --]

He knew how happy I was to be at Stanford; and I knew how proud he was of me.

Over the last few years, my dad\'s health prevented him from attending the games. But the
expansion of television coverage, we could still watch lots of games together.  Even this year,
while I was attending the games, I made sure that my dad\'s caregiver put the game on the
television for him to watch.  In fact, despite my dad\'s failing body, his mind stayed in tack;
and after the rout of UCLA, he insightfully said to me, "we need to hang onto this guy
(Harbaugh)."

And just as my dad had given me the gift of passionately following Stanford football, I too
was able to make it a family tradition with my three daughters.  Throughout my girls’ childhood years, I shared with them the experience of Village Cheese Shop sandwiches; tailgating in Chuck Taylor Grove; and watching the team do The Walk.  They learned to love it as much as me.  In fact, we had plans to rent an RV, and drive it to Stanford to attend this year’s game against SC.  But when my dad passed away, our plans to attend the SC game were very much in doubt.

Still, we pulled together and gave my dad an amazing tribute last Thursday.  Despite our profound sadness, we decided to keep to our plans, and go to the game.  My dad would have wanted that way.

Needless to say, the game was extremely emotional for all of us.  We desperately wanted Stanford to win this game for my dad.  As we all know, the chances for Stanford were looking extremely bleak after Nate’s missed extra point, and SC’s go ahead touchdown.  “Of all times, how could SC do this to Stanford again,” I was saying to myself.  But when Stanford marched down the field, and kicked the winning field goal to run out the clock, it was truly a remarkable outcome.  It was redemption for all those miserable losses to SC when I was a kid.  It was redemption for the 1969 game.

Not surprising, there was a lot of emotion displayed by my girls and me.  In a word, I lost it.  I can only imagine what some of the Stanford faithful sitting nearby thought as they witnessed this guy uncork.  But they didn’t know—this was a win for my dad.  I will never forget this game.

Thanks, dad.

StanfordMan

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - CowboyIndian - 10-13-2010

Thanks, Terry. Apparently there is a limit to the volume of drivel any one individual can purvey here at one time.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - needle - 10-13-2010

That\'s definitely not drivel. Heartfelt stuff, and I\'d like to thank the author for sharing it.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - CowboyIndian - 10-13-2010

Quote:That\'s definitely not drivel. Heartfelt stuff, and I\'d like to thank the author for sharing it.
You\'re right; that\'s not what I meant, but that\'s how it sounds. It\'s a heartfelt and touching paean to, among other things, an underappreciated value of Stanford football....and rivalries. That\'s why I copied it and posted it.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Farm93 - 10-13-2010

It is a great story, but the conferences are all about TV revenue.

Oklahoma v Nebraska.  Remember how epic that rivalry was?  Literally that game defined college football in the Central and Mountain Time zones.  But then poof!  The Big 12 ripped that up.

Penn State played West Virginia every year for generations.  West Virginians could only dream of beating Penn State, as the Nittany Lions won 25 years in a row.  That rivalry meant so much to the entire State of West Virginia, but the Big Ten came a callin\' and Penn State said bye-bye.

Penn State and Pitt\'s rivalry was epic too.  Same problem...new conference, more revenue, see you later!

BYU v Utah...
Colorado vs. Colorado State...
Even Fresno State vs. San Jose State...

When conferences switch it up, the rivalries routinely get tossed.  It\'s not new.  And far bigger football powers and even entire states have been been dissed.

In this new Pac-12 deal Colorado has been told their natural rival is Utah.  What about poor Colorado State?  Now they have nothing.  My guess is in 20 years, Colorado State will be a distant memory to Buffs students on campus in 2030.

It\'s all part of the deal.  It is all part of the quest to get a few million from TV.

FWIW, the Pac-10 is almost certainly going to spread the rivalry games over several weeks to improve ratings.

Crying about SC and UCLA?  
Wait until you are told to get excited about a Big Game in mid-October!

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - stanfan - 10-13-2010

Great post!  I\'d very like to contact the author of the post as his father and mine were in Stanford medical school at the same time.  If someone can send me a pm with Stanford Man\'s email address, I\'d very much appreciate it.  Grazie

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - jacketree - 10-14-2010

Farm93 is entirely correct.  Rivalries come and go, but it isn\'t like Stanford and USC will never play each other, even if they aren\'t aligned in the same division or annual cross-division matrix row.  Does anyone really believe that the (pretty one-sided) rivalry with the Trojans would be that diminished if they play 3 out of every 4 or 5 years?

As an aside, Colorado v. Colorado State is an interesting case.  Natural rivals, particularly for high school kids in the state, but they didn\'t play against each other from 1958-1983. Th state legislature finally intervened and mandated it. When I was growing up, Nebraska was Colorado\'s big rival and Wyoming was Colorado State\'s.

Yes, the story is a good one; but division re-alignment wouldn\'t really change it much. This isn\'t like Stanford is leaving the conference.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Extra Point - 10-14-2010

\'Does anyone really believe that the (pretty one-sided) rivalry with the Trojans would be that diminished if they play 3 out of every 4 or 5 years?"

If all of the proposed North division teams get an equal shot at the LA schools, it would mean playing USC and UCLA in 2 out of 3 years. This would be fine by me though. I consider bowl games very important. They are good for recruiting and give the team 2 more weeks of practice. In the years where Stanford would play the best teams in the North and South divisions the chances of getting to a bowl game are reduced. Since the LA schools are more likely to produce the better teams, I would just as soon not play them every year. 2 out of 3 years is fine by me.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Canalejas - 10-14-2010

2 out of 3 is not fine with me.  I won\'t insult anybody else\'s arguments about wanting to play weaker teams, but I care about bragging rights among my friends.  As most in my circle are UCB, UCLA or USC alums, I care about those games most.  And I would prefer to play them every year.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Farm93 - 10-14-2010

Quote:2 out of 3 is not fine with me.  I won\'t insult anybody else\'s arguments about wanting to play weaker teams, but I care about bragging rights among my friends.  As most in my circle are UCB, UCLA or USC alums, I care about those games most.  And I would prefer to play them every year.

But history says you/we will lose and once the losing trend is clear it will be tough to break.  Once Stanford starts losing it gets very hard to break the trend because winning gets bowl invites that produce extra practice time and a significant recruiting edge.  Those goodies produce more winning advantages.

In the divisional alignment if C.a.l and Stanford are playing UCLA and USC.  That will mean that the other teams will NOT be playing UCLA and USC.  They will play one or the other, but not both.  The balance of power in the North and the South will almost certainly get cemented in stone.

UW and Oregon will rule the North.  Their consistent strength generated by the forced alignment will give them a recruiting edge, more practice time, more winning, more fans, and more conference power.
USC and UCLA will rule the South.  Not only will they be in LA, but thanks to an arrangement made in 2010 they will also avoid playing Oregon and UW consistently.

Kids will learn that UW, Oregon, UCLA and USC all have a systematic advantage that significantly increases their odds of getting into the conference championship game and big time bowl games.

Meanwhile Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU will fight for third in the South and OSU, WSU, C.a.l and Stanford will fight for third in the North.  One of you lucky eight will get an invite to the VEGAS Bowl.  Woo hoo!

FWIW, my gripes go away if C.a.l and Stanford are in the Cali division.   Then the schools would just be playing everyone in their division, just like the others.  That\'s fine, at least for me.

FWIW2, it is almost like the poor Baltimore Orioles.  Their fans insist on playing in the division with the Red Sox and the Yankees.  Tradition, rivalries, etc.  But all that really does is destroy any chance they might have at ever reaching the playoffs.  Good players don\'t want to go there, which creates more losing.  And oddly, the worse they get the more they then NEED to play the Red Sox and the Yankees to fill their stadium.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Farm93 - 10-14-2010

According to WeareSC (as quoted by SJMN) the final alignment vote was 7-5.
If the alignment is the Cali protection plan, I wonder which 5 were against the alignment?  I feel like I am watching Survivor.
If 5 were unhappy with the plan that would tell me that this is a very unstable marriage since far too many have already expressed a desire for a different plan.
I can almost see the divorce already.

Alternatively, Boise State, Wyoming, Colorado State and BYU could join the Pac.  If that happened it should be very easy to create an 8 by 8 style conference.  Most of the Mountain 8 would be familiar with BYU\'s Saturday rules, and the Pacific 8 would get to finally come together.

Oh to dream.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - jayasena - 10-15-2010

Looks like this is heading the way I feared. According to Haden from http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/29844/cal-and-stanford-to-the-north
Quote:We’re going for the money, sadly, that’s what it is. We need a conference title game. I went to my first athletic directors meeting last week and we discussed expansion. We made a recommendation that passed 7 to 5 and the presidents of the schools will vote on it later this month. There’s no guarantee it will pass, it was only a 7 to 5 vote, certainly not unanimous. The alignment that got 7 votes was one that puts USC/UCLA, the Arizona schools and Col/Utah in the same division. I told them my alumni will kill me if we don’t play the Northern California schools and have the weekender every year. I proposed a 5-2-2 model that has us playing the five schools (UCLA, AZ schools and Co/Ut) every year and then have the Northern California schools as part of our regular 2 and then rotate the other two. We need to play Stanford and Cal.

We are likely stuck playing Oregon, USC, Oregon State, UCLA and Washington every year. Yes, I realize some of those will be weak in any given year but in the long run, on average, those are the toughest teams in the conference and nobody but us and Cal will have to play all of them every year.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Farm93 - 10-15-2010

I suspect that in 5 years the Pac-12 will discover they need more sports content so expansion before 2016 or so appears likely.

Then I will be cheering for a true Mountain Pacific Conference.

Mountain
Arizona/Arizona State
Boise State/Wyoming
Colorado/Colorado State
Utah/BYU

Pacific
C.a.l/Stanford
Oregon/Oregon State
UCLA/USC
Washington/Washington State

With a touch of luck the next five years will be bad for UCLA and USC in football, and that will make the forced 5-2-2 deal OK for Stanford (and C.a.l).

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - yvonne - 10-15-2010

The other option is for USC to pull a BYU and go independent for football. Even now, SC has that kind of leverage. SC could opt to play the California schools, Notre Dame, and a combination of attractive name schools and patsies.

If USC were to threaten that now, it might be enough to swing a few votes toward more California-friendly divisions.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Farm93 - 10-15-2010

Quote:The other option is for USC to pull a BYU and go independent for football. Even now, SC has that kind of leverage. SC could opt to play the California schools, Notre Dame, and a combination of attractive name schools and patsies.

If USC were to threaten that now, it might be enough to swing a few votes toward more California-friendly divisions.

I am pretty sure that is why the 5-2-2 won 7-5.  The threat, likely quite real, was that USC would just get up and leave these 11 deadbeats.  USC likely did not care if C.a.l and Stanford were in a different division as long as they got their precious annual alumni road trip on the I-5.

The 5-2-2 is really good for SC because the only teams in the Pac-10 that were even mild threats to SC\'s historical conference supremacy in football (UW & Oregon) are both in the other division with a built in scheduling bias that avoids a regular season match-up.

For the conference TV ratings this means there is always a chance that the championship game (USC/UCLA vs UW/Oregon) will feature a match-up that did not occur in the regular season.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - yvonne - 10-15-2010

You\'re right. I misunderstood the article I read. The California athletic departments\' preference is to play one another, and be in the same conference. Haden\'s "compromise" is the 5-2-2. However, Northwest schools don\'t like that because it would still cut down on their SoCal trips.

Interestingly, someone on the WeAreSC.com board says he has revenue statistics that indicate that the Northwest schools\' gates do not increase dramatically in years they play in SoCal at home. That does not do anything for the argument that they need the SoCal road trip for recruiting, but it does at least indicate that the SoCal games are more important to us than to other teams in the conference.

Fans on the Cal and SC boards have proposed secession and joining with Texas schools. That\'s a financially attractive option that would preserve the California rivalries.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Canalejas - 10-15-2010

I care so much about the Cali rivalries that I would be in favor of threatening secession and joining a new conference with Texas schools.  

At least until I realized there really is only one Texas school I could stomach.  I\'m sure the TV money would be fantastic for a CA+TX conference, though.

Would we bring any other Pac schools with us?  Let\'s take whoever that 5th No vote was.  My guess is UW.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Extra Point - 10-15-2010

Under the current proposal, it would be possible to schedule a three year rotation with the LA schools:
  USC in LA, no game with UCLA
  UCLA in LA, no game with USC
  USC & UCLA at Stanford

That doesn\'t sound to bad to me. The same could be with the Arizona schools and the mountain schools. The same arrangements could be made throughout the Pac 12.



Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - JeffInCorvallis - 10-16-2010

Quote:Under the current proposal, it would be possible to schedule a three year rotation with the LA schools:
  USC in LA, no game with UCLA
  UCLA in LA, no game with USC
  USC & UCLA at Stanford

That doesn\'t sound to bad to me. The same could be with the Arizona schools and the mountain schools. The same arrangements could be made throughout the Pac 12.

Complete crap.  You\'re talking about taking 100 year old rivalries and stuffing them in the trash for the sake of making more money.  While we\'re at it let\'s just make a super-conference with USC, Ohio State, Florida, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Alabama, and Boise State and chuck all those pesky regional rivals.  Hint: Stanford will NOT be part of such a conference.