[qwerty49]

I think people are whistling past the graveyard. Maybe I am being Chicken Little, but I see lots of chinks in the armor of Stanford football right now that I haven’t noticed since the pre-2006 days. Most of them have to do with changes in the college football industry that are happening in the environment Stanford Football lives in.

It’s like Stanford is a Polar Bear and the warming climate melting the ice pack is college football.

You are right that there are some big question marks going forward, which suggest that in the near future will likely not have been as successful as it has been for the last ten or so years.  And in the long run, I agree the demographic and social trends probably disfavor Stanford remaining a long-term football powerhouse.

However, it is really tough to look at our recent past and come to the conclusion that it has affected us very much at all.  I found this website helpful for finding the winning percentage of teams over time:

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/...since_2007

Stanford's winning percentage since 2007, when John Harbaugh was hired, was 70.2% (13th in the country and 11th among P5 teams, 2nd in the Pac-12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2009, when our current bowl run started, was 76.1% (6th in the country, 5th among P5 teams, tops in the Pac-12; only Alabama, Ohio State, Boise State, Clemson, and Oklahoma have been better)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2011, when David Shaw took over for Harbaugh, was 75.9% (6th overall, 5th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2014, which eliminates the '08 and '09 classes that Harbaugh recruited and led us to four NY6 bowls (and some people consider the start of the Shaw-induced downfall), is still 71.6% (9th overall, 7th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2016, which is the most cherry picked data, is 70% (19th overall, 12th in P5, 3rd in P12).

Since 2016, the following teams have worse winning percentages than Stanford: USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Utah and everyone else except for Washington and Washington State in the Pac-12; Texas, Oklahoma State, TCU and all of the Big-12 save Oklahoma; Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia Tech, and all of the ACC save Clemson;  Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan State and much of the Big Ten (except Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin); Auburn, Florida, and the entire SEC except Alabama, LSU, and Georgia; Notre Dame.  I'm sure many of the teams on the list are teams you think have left Stanford in the dust and have revolutionary offensive schemes that make it look like Stanford is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I think there are reasons to be concerned going forward.  But I would not highlight historical data to make the point.  Because the results suggest that a lot of the teams you think are doing a better job in the new world of football... aren't winning more games.

BC

I'm one of those who has to slap myself and wonder why I feel let down after a 9-win season.  I think it's because, after 50 years, over the last decade I've finally seen what consistent high-level football is like, and can be like, at Stanford.  And I'm probably starting to appreciate what a fine line there can be between success and failure at that level, especially given that our recruiting is even more subject to cyclicality than other schools who have a much, much larger recruiting pool.

But yeah, I really wonder about next year, and about the foreseeable future.  Is it a knife to a gunfight, is it regression to the mean, or is it just a perfect storm that puts me in this position of dread?

1) How much of the injury bug can be linked to Turley's promotion to the next level?

2) Where did Intellectual Brutality go?  Or are our personnel on OL and DL just not that physical to begin with?  Where are the next big nasty guys on the roster?

3) Akina looked like he was recruiting and developing a dynasty in the secondary.  But our CB play was soft and our safeties can't tackle (or even take the right angles to attempt a tackle).  Adebo, who is all-Universe, is the only reliable returner, and he can go pro after next year.  

4) All of a sudden our QB pipeline looks really shaky

Lots of pearls to clutch this off season.  But at least we can relax somewhat and just hope things are better by August.  Shaw doesn't have that luxury.

[qwerty49]

I think people are whistling past the graveyard. Maybe I am being Chicken Little, but I see lots of chinks in the armor of Stanford football right now that I haven’t noticed since the pre-2006 days. Most of them have to do with changes in the college football industry that are happening in the environment Stanford Football lives in.

It’s like Stanford is a Polar Bear and the warming climate melting the ice pack is college football.

You are right that there are some big question marks going forward, which suggest that in the near future will likely not have been as successful as it has been for the last ten or so years.  And in the long run, I agree the demographic and social trends probably disfavor Stanford remaining a long-term football powerhouse.

However, it is really tough to look at our recent past and come to the conclusion that it has affected us very much at all.  I found this website helpful for finding the winning percentage of teams over time:

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/...since_2007

Stanford's winning percentage since 2007, when John Harbaugh was hired, was 70.2% (13th in the country and 11th among P5 teams, 2nd in the Pac-12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2009, when our current bowl run started, was 76.1% (6th in the country, 5th among P5 teams, tops in the Pac-12; only Alabama, Ohio State, Boise State, Clemson, and Oklahoma have been better)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2011, when David Shaw took over for Harbaugh, was 75.9% (6th overall, 5th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2014, which eliminates the '08 and '09 classes that Harbaugh recruited and led us to four NY6 bowls (and some people consider the start of the Shaw-induced downfall), is still 71.6% (9th overall, 7th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2016, which is the most cherry picked data, is 70% (19th overall, 12th in P5, 3rd in P12).

Since 2016, the following teams have worse winning percentages than Stanford: USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Utah and everyone else except for Washington and Washington State in the Pac-12; Texas, Oklahoma State, TCU and all of the Big-12 save Oklahoma; Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia Tech, and all of the ACC save Clemson;  Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan State and much of the Big Ten (except Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin); Auburn, Florida, and the entire SEC except Alabama, LSU, and Georgia; Notre Dame.  I'm sure many of the teams on the list are teams you think have left Stanford in the dust and have revolutionary offensive schemes that make it look like Stanford is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I think there are reasons to be concerned going forward.  But I would not highlight historical data to make the point.  Because the results suggest that a lot of the teams you think are doing a better job in the new world of football... aren't winning more games.

BC

I'm one of those who has to slap myself and wonder why I feel let down after a 9-win season.  I think it's because, after 50 years, over the last decade I've finally seen what consistent high-level football is like, and can be like, at Stanford.  And I'm probably starting to appreciate what a fine line there can be between success and failure at that level, especially given that our recruiting is even more subject to cyclicality than other schools who have a much, much larger recruiting pool.

But yeah, I really wonder about next year, and about the foreseeable future.  Is it a knife to a gunfight, is it regression to the mean, or is it just a perfect storm that puts me in this position of dread?

1) How much of the injury bug can be linked to Turley's promotion to the next level?

2) Where did Intellectual Brutality go?  Or are our personnel on OL and DL just not that physical to begin with?  Where are the next big nasty guys on the roster?

3) Akina looked like he was recruiting and developing a dynasty in the secondary.  But our CB play was soft and our safeties can't tackle (or even take the right angles to attempt a tackle).  Adebo, who is all-Universe, is the only reliable returner, and he can go pro after next year.  

4) All of a sudden our QB pipeline looks really shaky

Lots of pearls to clutch this off season.  But at least we can relax somewhat and just hope things are better by August.  Shaw doesn't have that luxury.