[d4cohn]

Here are the PPG stats for comparison.  The trend is less clear, but the poor point margin in 2018 already stands out like a sore thumb.  The first number is Stanford's PPG average for each year, while the second number is PPG for our opponents.  

2011: 43.2   21.9  +21.3
2012: 27.9   17.2  +10.7
2013: 32.3   19.0  +13.3
2014: 27.2   16.4  +  8.8
2015: 37.8   22.6  +15.2
2016: 26.3   20.4  +  5.9
2017: 32.4   22.7  +  9.7
2018: 25.7   22.0  +  3.7 (first six games)

So our PPG so far this year (including a game against an FCS opponent) is the lowest in the Shaw era, while the PPG for our opponents is near an all-time high; and the gap (+3.7), accordingly, is the narrowest it has been in Shaw's eight years. If we remove the tremendous 2015 campaign with McCaffrey and Hogan, there is a clear saw-tooth motion downward.  There shouldn't be any surprises here, but this data certainly corroborates the rushing data for offense and defense.  Shaw's best team remains the 2011 squad with Andrew Luck, with 2015 a close second (yes, maybe at the end of the year, the Hogan-McCaffrey team might have been the best ever in the Shaw era.  Harbaugh's 2010 squad is still the best ever for my money).

Respectfully, so what is your argument here? That the program would have been better off if Harbaugh had stayed after the 2010 season? That  institutional rot has progressed? I will set aside the "clear saw-tooth motion downward" part for now, but three Pac-12 championships, four division titles, four NY6 bowls, 10 win seasons in all but 2014 and 2017 (with the floor being an 8-5 season with wins over UCLA and Cal) is an amazing run of success that literally no other program in the conference can match (Washington and Oregon may have made the CFP, so their highs may be slightly higher than ours, but they have also been bad or atrocious at various points in the last 8 years; in contrast, Stanford under Coach Shaw has been a high-floor, model of consistency program throughout).

Now, returning to the "clear saw-tooth motion downward" part, the stats alone that you present are an incomplete picture for three critical reasons:

1) Incomplete 2018 season
2) Increased competitiveness in the Pac-12
3) Stanford's recruiting rankings

1) Elaborating on each of these more thoroughly, with the exception of the upcoming game against Washington, the front half of our schedule is tougher than the back half of our schedule (that is not saying, however, that challenges don't remain on the docket). In particular, the defenses that we have faced in the first half of the season, with the exception of Washington, are markedly better in the first half of our schedule than the second half (as the strength of SDSU, USC and Utah, I believe, is in their defense, regardless of what their overall quality may be). You will have a point if the offensive and defensive struggles continue against the Cals, Oregon States, and UCLAs of the world, or even Arizona State, but we don't have that data yet, so it is pre-mature to argue that 2018 is our worst year for PPG or even Point Differential. Let's see where the final numbers end up before taking this argument too definitively. 

2) The Pac-12 may not necessarily be a better conference nationally now than it was at the end of Coach Harbaugh's tenure/beginning of Coach Shaw's tenure, but the conference is definitely more competitive. During the end of the Harbaugh era/beginning of the Shaw era, the conference was dominated by two teams (Stanford and Oregon). USC was on probation, and coached by Lane Kiffin. Washington was coached by Sark and was a mediocre 7-6 outfit every year. Wazzu before Mike Leach was awful, as was Cal in the final years of the Tedford era. Colorado and Utah had just joined the Pac-12, and in the case of Utah, did not have the depth initially to compete in the conference. Colorado under Embree was possibly the worst Power 5 school in the country. ASU at the end of the Erickson era was a perennial underachiever, with the talent and resources available in Tempe.

Flash forward to the present, Colorado has since won a Pac-12 South title, and I would argue, are the favorites to win the division this year. Washington under Chris Petersen has been outstanding during the Gaskin-Browning era, Oregon appears to have found its footing again after the rough end to the Helfrich era. SC had Darnold and were a juggernaut in the conference last year. Utah has been able to build up Pac-12 level depth on its roster after the transition from the Mountain West.

It is possible we are not as good of an outfit as we were in the early 2010's, but it is important context to consider the overall strength of the conference. Even outside the conference, since we play Notre Dame every year, Notre Dame in the second half of the Brian Kelly era has been better than the beginning of his tenure or the end of the Charlie Weis era.

3) Recruiting rankings vary from site to site, but I think it is fair to say that while we have recruited fairly well, we have never been a top 10 recruiting powerhouse. We may have had a class here or there that was top 10 according to a couple of sites, but I would argue we are now at least a Top 15-25 recruiter. As such, perhaps 2016 and 2017 (and depending on how 2018 ends up), are a regression to the mean of our recruiting ranking (i.e. solid Top 15-25 side, but not a perennial NY6 team). For example, even the best recruiters/coaches cannot develop the Ben Garners of the world consistently out of 2-3 star talent. We are now getting more 3-4 star talent, but my point is perhaps the first half of the Shaw era was an overachievement relative to our recruiting rankings, and now we are just no longer overachieving on our ranking.

[d4cohn]

Here are the PPG stats for comparison.  The trend is less clear, but the poor point margin in 2018 already stands out like a sore thumb.  The first number is Stanford's PPG average for each year, while the second number is PPG for our opponents.  

2011: 43.2   21.9  +21.3
2012: 27.9   17.2  +10.7
2013: 32.3   19.0  +13.3
2014: 27.2   16.4  +  8.8
2015: 37.8   22.6  +15.2
2016: 26.3   20.4  +  5.9
2017: 32.4   22.7  +  9.7
2018: 25.7   22.0  +  3.7 (first six games)

So our PPG so far this year (including a game against an FCS opponent) is the lowest in the Shaw era, while the PPG for our opponents is near an all-time high; and the gap (+3.7), accordingly, is the narrowest it has been in Shaw's eight years. If we remove the tremendous 2015 campaign with McCaffrey and Hogan, there is a clear saw-tooth motion downward.  There shouldn't be any surprises here, but this data certainly corroborates the rushing data for offense and defense.  Shaw's best team remains the 2011 squad with Andrew Luck, with 2015 a close second (yes, maybe at the end of the year, the Hogan-McCaffrey team might have been the best ever in the Shaw era.  Harbaugh's 2010 squad is still the best ever for my money).

Respectfully, so what is your argument here? That the program would have been better off if Harbaugh had stayed after the 2010 season? That  institutional rot has progressed? I will set aside the "clear saw-tooth motion downward" part for now, but three Pac-12 championships, four division titles, four NY6 bowls, 10 win seasons in all but 2014 and 2017 (with the floor being an 8-5 season with wins over UCLA and Cal) is an amazing run of success that literally no other program in the conference can match (Washington and Oregon may have made the CFP, so their highs may be slightly higher than ours, but they have also been bad or atrocious at various points in the last 8 years; in contrast, Stanford under Coach Shaw has been a high-floor, model of consistency program throughout).

Now, returning to the "clear saw-tooth motion downward" part, the stats alone that you present are an incomplete picture for three critical reasons:

1) Incomplete 2018 season
2) Increased competitiveness in the Pac-12
3) Stanford's recruiting rankings

1) Elaborating on each of these more thoroughly, with the exception of the upcoming game against Washington, the front half of our schedule is tougher than the back half of our schedule (that is not saying, however, that challenges don't remain on the docket). In particular, the defenses that we have faced in the first half of the season, with the exception of Washington, are markedly better in the first half of our schedule than the second half (as the strength of SDSU, USC and Utah, I believe, is in their defense, regardless of what their overall quality may be). You will have a point if the offensive and defensive struggles continue against the Cals, Oregon States, and UCLAs of the world, or even Arizona State, but we don't have that data yet, so it is pre-mature to argue that 2018 is our worst year for PPG or even Point Differential. Let's see where the final numbers end up before taking this argument too definitively. 

2) The Pac-12 may not necessarily be a better conference nationally now than it was at the end of Coach Harbaugh's tenure/beginning of Coach Shaw's tenure, but the conference is definitely more competitive. During the end of the Harbaugh era/beginning of the Shaw era, the conference was dominated by two teams (Stanford and Oregon). USC was on probation, and coached by Lane Kiffin. Washington was coached by Sark and was a mediocre 7-6 outfit every year. Wazzu before Mike Leach was awful, as was Cal in the final years of the Tedford era. Colorado and Utah had just joined the Pac-12, and in the case of Utah, did not have the depth initially to compete in the conference. Colorado under Embree was possibly the worst Power 5 school in the country. ASU at the end of the Erickson era was a perennial underachiever, with the talent and resources available in Tempe.

Flash forward to the present, Colorado has since won a Pac-12 South title, and I would argue, are the favorites to win the division this year. Washington under Chris Petersen has been outstanding during the Gaskin-Browning era, Oregon appears to have found its footing again after the rough end to the Helfrich era. SC had Darnold and were a juggernaut in the conference last year. Utah has been able to build up Pac-12 level depth on its roster after the transition from the Mountain West.

It is possible we are not as good of an outfit as we were in the early 2010's, but it is important context to consider the overall strength of the conference. Even outside the conference, since we play Notre Dame every year, Notre Dame in the second half of the Brian Kelly era has been better than the beginning of his tenure or the end of the Charlie Weis era.

3) Recruiting rankings vary from site to site, but I think it is fair to say that while we have recruited fairly well, we have never been a top 10 recruiting powerhouse. We may have had a class here or there that was top 10 according to a couple of sites, but I would argue we are now at least a Top 15-25 recruiter. As such, perhaps 2016 and 2017 (and depending on how 2018 ends up), are a regression to the mean of our recruiting ranking (i.e. solid Top 15-25 side, but not a perennial NY6 team). For example, even the best recruiters/coaches cannot develop the Ben Garners of the world consistently out of 2-3 star talent. We are now getting more 3-4 star talent, but my point is perhaps the first half of the Shaw era was an overachievement relative to our recruiting rankings, and now we are just no longer overachieving on our ranking.