[Mick]

Hypothesis:  Stanford historically has always been at a disadvantage in this game.  In fact, half our coaches have been failures or mediocre while here at Stanford.  Think of the illustrious names of Harris, Teevens, Wiggin, and Curtis.  Even Denny Green was 16-18 and never won a bowl.  Jack Elway had a losing record.  Jack Christianson had a winning record and pro credentials, but was fired after a quarterback controversy.  Many of these "losers" were smart, experienced coaches who flopped at Stanford.  I offer it as a theory only: success at Stanford is far more difficult to attain and even more difficult to sustain than at schools that lack all of our profound differences.  And as college sports become increasingly professionalized (corrupt, in my view) these differences will grow ever larger. 

I was at a Junior Olympics volleyball tournament a few years back, and I happened to be looking over the shoulder of the Stanford volleyball coach.  He had the Top 50 players listed, and four were highlighted.  I asked him if they were the players he really wanted.  He replied, "these are the four -- out of the Top 50 -- that can get into Stanford."  Stanford recruits five players in a typical year.

Same for football.  When you're recruiting from 10% (or less) of the available pool for football talent, you'd better hit on every single one.  It's just too difficult otherwise.

[Mick]

Hypothesis:  Stanford historically has always been at a disadvantage in this game.  In fact, half our coaches have been failures or mediocre while here at Stanford.  Think of the illustrious names of Harris, Teevens, Wiggin, and Curtis.  Even Denny Green was 16-18 and never won a bowl.  Jack Elway had a losing record.  Jack Christianson had a winning record and pro credentials, but was fired after a quarterback controversy.  Many of these "losers" were smart, experienced coaches who flopped at Stanford.  I offer it as a theory only: success at Stanford is far more difficult to attain and even more difficult to sustain than at schools that lack all of our profound differences.  And as college sports become increasingly professionalized (corrupt, in my view) these differences will grow ever larger. 

I was at a Junior Olympics volleyball tournament a few years back, and I happened to be looking over the shoulder of the Stanford volleyball coach.  He had the Top 50 players listed, and four were highlighted.  I asked him if they were the players he really wanted.  He replied, "these are the four -- out of the Top 50 -- that can get into Stanford."  Stanford recruits five players in a typical year.

Same for football.  When you're recruiting from 10% (or less) of the available pool for football talent, you'd better hit on every single one.  It's just too difficult otherwise.