Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - 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: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State (/thread-25245.html)

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Giants - 11-04-2024

Yes, it was Steve Bates.  Tom Bates was a teammate of Steve’s that season.  

IMO, the loss of the annual visit by USC to the Bay Area is one the worst parts of the latest round of realignment.  On and off the field, those games were a great example of the uniqueness of college football.

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Mick - 11-04-2024

(11-04-2024, 10:50 AM)Giants Wrote:  Yes, it was Steve Bates.  Tom Bates was a teammate of Steve’s that season.  

IMO, the loss of the annual visit by USC to the Bay Area is one the worst parts of the latest round of realignment.  On and off the field, those games were a great example of the uniqueness of college football.

I definitely miss that game. Most years, it was the second-best attended game after the Cal game. Sometimes, it drew more fans than the Cal game; e.g., 1968 when USC was 2nd ranked, 1969, 1970, 1972...and then I stopped looking. It was a great rivalry.

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - JohnR34231 - 11-04-2024

My dislike for U$C started in the '50's when my dad was a coach at Washington, and he used to say that the Condoms purposely tried to injure his players.

It has continued for decades.

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Giants - 11-04-2024

(11-04-2024, 01:44 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(11-04-2024, 10:50 AM)Giants Wrote:  Yes, it was Steve Bates.  Tom Bates was a teammate of Steve’s that season.  

IMO, the loss of the annual visit by USC to the Bay Area is one the worst parts of the latest round of realignment.  On and off the field, those games were a great example of the uniqueness of college football.

I definitely miss that game. Most years, it was the second-best attended game after the Cal game. Sometimes, it drew more fans than the Cal game; e.g., 1968 when USC was 2nd ranked, 1969, 1970, 1972...and then I stopped looking. It was a great rivalry.

Cal hosted SC in the years when the Big Game was at Stanford and vice versa. Both games were regularly sold out in the era you cited. Since Memorial Stadium seated fewer fans than Stanford Stadium, it stands to reason that the SC/ Stanford game drew larger crowds.

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - jacket3ree - 11-04-2024

In the entire 71-year history of the Atlantic Coast Conference, charter member NC State has never scored more points in a conference game.

I'm completely flummoxed that fellow conference newbie SMU has a great chance of making the conference title game and perhaps the playoff while getting no money from the conference, yet 'world class' Stanford can't seem to figure it out. It seems off brand to say you are too good for a reconstituted west coast conference, go hat in hand across the country, and totally crap the bed in the one sport that matters if all sports are going to survive.

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - vataha - 11-04-2024

I remember watching both the Mike Mitchell injury, I believe no penalty was called, I remember it as quite brutal, and the Leigh Torrance blow up of the Cal player which really disgusted me and I knew then it was the end of Buddyball.

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - Mick - 11-05-2024

(11-04-2024, 07:36 PM)jacket3ree Wrote:  In the entire 71-year history of the Atlantic Coast Conference, charter member NC State has never scored more points in a conference game.

I'm completely flummoxed that fellow conference newbie SMU has a great chance of making the conference title game and perhaps the playoff while getting no money from the conference, yet 'world class' Stanford can't seem to figure it out. It seems off brand to say you are too good for a reconstituted west coast conference, go hat in hand across the country, and totally crap the bed in the one sport that matters if all sports are going to survive.

In my mid-30s, I was hired into a newly created position, but one I had executed successfully at two prior firms. I was speaking with the Board about what needed to happen for the role to be a success. One of the regional managing partners suggested a course of action that was totally untenable. It had never worked, ever, other firms had tried it, it was the kind of revenue development plan that only an accountant would suggest. I told him it wouldn't work and why. He rephrased the question, I gave him the same answer. He rephrased it a third time, I reformatted the answer to match his phrasing, at which point he said "I don't think you understand my question."

Yeah, I understand your question. I understood it completely. You just didn't like my answer, and you're trying to bully me into committing to an unworkable approach.

I get the feeling that the University hierarchy doesn't quite understand the answer here. It appears to me that they keep trying solutions that are untenable. If they want Stanford football to work, they need to tear down the whole approach and structure and start anew.

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - martyup - 11-05-2024

(11-05-2024, 08:48 AM)Mick Wrote:  If they want Stanford football to work, they need to tear down the whole approach and structure and start anew.

Agree. What worked when they hired Harbaugh will not work today.  Shaw didn't adapt and the program suffered.  Muir couldn't make it work under the old rules, and he certainly has shown no aptitude for being successful under the new rules.  We need fresh minds open to new ideas for navigating the crazy landscape of NIL and transfer mania.

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - BostonCard - 11-05-2024

(11-05-2024, 08:48 AM)Mick Wrote:  

(11-04-2024, 07:36 PM)jacket3ree Wrote:  In the entire 71-year history of the Atlantic Coast Conference, charter member NC State has never scored more points in a conference game.

I'm completely flummoxed that fellow conference newbie SMU has a great chance of making the conference title game and perhaps the playoff while getting no money from the conference, yet 'world class' Stanford can't seem to figure it out. It seems off brand to say you are too good for a reconstituted west coast conference, go hat in hand across the country, and totally crap the bed in the one sport that matters if all sports are going to survive.

In my mid-30s, I was hired into a newly created position, but one I had executed successfully at two prior firms. I was speaking with the Board about what needed to happen for the role to be a success. One of the regional managing partners suggested a course of action that was totally untenable. It had never worked, ever, other firms had tried it, it was the kind of revenue development plan that only an accountant would suggest. I told him it wouldn't work and why. He rephrased the question, I gave him the same answer. He rephrased it a third time, I reformatted the answer to match his phrasing, at which point he said "I don't think you understand my question."

Yeah, I understand your question. I understood it completely. You just didn't like my answer, and you're trying to bully me into committing to an unworkable approach.

I get the feeling that the University hierarchy doesn't quite understand the answer here. It appears to me that they keep trying solutions that are untenable. If they want Stanford football to work, they need to tear down the whole approach and structure and start anew.

Could also be that the administration views this as some senior stakeholder’s passion project that they are allowing but ultimately don’t believe in because it is not central to their core business.  My experience is that these usually fail.

Could we succeed in athletics generally?  Probably.  Will we?  Probably not, because at the end of the day, it is probably a “nice to have” not a “must have”, so while folks are happy to support the endeavor when it all goes well, they won’t be willing to bail it out when it struggles.

BC

---

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - NC State - qwerty49 - 11-05-2024

(11-05-2024, 02:30 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(11-05-2024, 08:48 AM)Mick Wrote:  

(11-04-2024, 07:36 PM)jacket3ree Wrote:  In the entire 71-year history of the Atlantic Coast Conference, charter member NC State has never scored more points in a conference game.

I'm completely flummoxed that fellow conference newbie SMU has a great chance of making the conference title game and perhaps the playoff while getting no money from the conference, yet 'world class' Stanford can't seem to figure it out. It seems off brand to say you are too good for a reconstituted west coast conference, go hat in hand across the country, and totally crap the bed in the one sport that matters if all sports are going to survive.

In my mid-30s, I was hired into a newly created position, but one I had executed successfully at two prior firms. I was speaking with the Board about what needed to happen for the role to be a success. One of the regional managing partners suggested a course of action that was totally untenable. It had never worked, ever, other firms had tried it, it was the kind of revenue development plan that only an accountant would suggest. I told him it wouldn't work and why. He rephrased the question, I gave him the same answer. He rephrased it a third time, I reformatted the answer to match his phrasing, at which point he said "I don't think you understand my question."

Yeah, I understand your question. I understood it completely. You just didn't like my answer, and you're trying to bully me into committing to an unworkable approach.

I get the feeling that the University hierarchy doesn't quite understand the answer here. It appears to me that they keep trying solutions that are untenable. If they want Stanford football to work, they need to tear down the whole approach and structure and start anew.

Could also be that the administration views this as some senior stakeholder’s passion project that they are allowing but ultimately don’t believe in because it is not central to their core business.  My experience is that these usually fail.

Could we succeed in athletics generally?  Probably.  Will we?  Probably not, because at the end of the day, it is probably a “nice to have” not a “must have”, so while folks are happy to support the endeavor when it all goes well, they won’t be willing to bail it out when it struggles.

BC

Well BC it’s been a “nice to have” for 130 years now, so maybe that counts for something.

But how well the administration can recognize, understand and adapt to the changing environment seems the real issue IMHO.

---