[Hank 91]

As for Harbaugh, he lost me at "I wanted to put fifty on them" when explaining his two point conversion attempt during a beat down of SC and Petey. While probably deserving, not quite Stanford level sportsmanship. 

Nine times out of ten, I would agree -- or shall we say, ten teams out of eleven Pac-12 opponents, I would agree, even for C.al.  But after all the years of humiliation at USC's hands, and I mean eight separate games in which USC had won by 30+ over Stanford, after six losses in seven years prior to the 55-21 win (five of the six losses having come by double digits) I think a single win by 34 points is warranted over the coach who administered those multiple losses, particularly on the road in a football recruiting hotbed.  And we're 8-4 against USC since that win, with three of the four losses by just three points.  Prior to that win, Stanford was 26-57-3 against the T.rojans.

Frankly, I thought it took some stones for Carroll to say "What's your deal?"  In the seven prior games, USC hung 49, 44, 31, 51, 42, 23 (in the Greatest Game Ever) and 45 points on Stanford.  And that 55-21 win was the first of four straight over USC, the only time in history that's happened.

I'd agree with this. I was at that game, and it resonated throughout the region for a few days after that. The only time in my life that I called into a sports radio show was that Monday when the topic was whether or not Stanford should have run up the score. The SoCal audience was very down on the idea, and kept harping on the lack of sportsmanship. When I called, I explained that this wasn't just about USC, it was about sending a message to the entire conference that Stanford football was here, and here to stay. That game meant something, and I firmly believe we wouldn't be where we are right now if we hadn't blown them out like that.

[Hank 91]

As for Harbaugh, he lost me at "I wanted to put fifty on them" when explaining his two point conversion attempt during a beat down of SC and Petey. While probably deserving, not quite Stanford level sportsmanship. 

Nine times out of ten, I would agree -- or shall we say, ten teams out of eleven Pac-12 opponents, I would agree, even for C.al.  But after all the years of humiliation at USC's hands, and I mean eight separate games in which USC had won by 30+ over Stanford, after six losses in seven years prior to the 55-21 win (five of the six losses having come by double digits) I think a single win by 34 points is warranted over the coach who administered those multiple losses, particularly on the road in a football recruiting hotbed.  And we're 8-4 against USC since that win, with three of the four losses by just three points.  Prior to that win, Stanford was 26-57-3 against the T.rojans.

Frankly, I thought it took some stones for Carroll to say "What's your deal?"  In the seven prior games, USC hung 49, 44, 31, 51, 42, 23 (in the Greatest Game Ever) and 45 points on Stanford.  And that 55-21 win was the first of four straight over USC, the only time in history that's happened.

I'd agree with this. I was at that game, and it resonated throughout the region for a few days after that. The only time in my life that I called into a sports radio show was that Monday when the topic was whether or not Stanford should have run up the score. The SoCal audience was very down on the idea, and kept harping on the lack of sportsmanship. When I called, I explained that this wasn't just about USC, it was about sending a message to the entire conference that Stanford football was here, and here to stay. That game meant something, and I firmly believe we wouldn't be where we are right now if we hadn't blown them out like that.