10-04-2026, 10:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2026, 10:57 AM by Row80Critic.)
I appreciate your ability to remain positive while I melt down over what we saw yesterday. Good on you.
That said, I would argue this is the same kind of thinking that has resulted in nearly a decade of losing seasons (and counting). If you accept as a given that Stanford football was expected to be a train wreck this year, you look past the core problem(s), convince yourself things aren't so bad, and doom yourself to repeat the same cycle over and over and over (and over). See, e.g. the last 8 seasons.
If you are simply saying Tavita hasn't done such a bad job based on what he was handed, I'd probably agree for the most part. Could Harbaugh or Saban done better in the exact same circumstances? Maybe, maybe not. But I bet they would have challenged the administration in ways Luck/Pritchard haven't. The problem as I see it is that the University isn't doing any of the things necessary to change course and become competitive in modern FBS football -- i.e., admitting the best athletes and paying them competitive rates -- and they've hand-picked people who they believe are least likely to challenge them on that. If Luck wants to make a name for himself as a GM, he'll need to rock the boat. End of story. Unless/until he does, it will be more of the same. He's a warrior under it all, so here's hoping he snaps.
Portal -- objectively, Stanford was dead last among ALL power-4 schools. Football results are all relative to the competition -- i.e., graded on a curve -- so it's hard for me to see this as anything but an F. In 2026, the portal is an extremely important aspect of college football, whether we like it or not. And Stanford is dead last.
Recruiting -- objectively, ranked 45th by 247 for 2026; so on a curve maybe a C, but after factoring in retention, is goes down from there.
Win-loss record (2-3) --objectively, this is a C at best (for now). I agree that many feared worse, but that doesn't make a losing record any better than it really is, and an outside shot at 4-8 is not progress.
Offense -- much more entertaining to watch, and more traditional in many ways. Warren is clearly better than most in recent years. But, objectively, every single Power-4 school has scored more than Stanford this year; and on a points-per-game basis, Stanford is 131 out of 138 FBS teams. There's no way to put lipstick on that. On a curve, that's an F.
Defense -- even worse. 134 of 138 in total yards; 137 of 138 in passing yards (only 3 yards away from dead last); 104 of 138 in rushing; and 133 of 138 in points allowed. How is that anything but terrible? I couldn't help but think how good Matt Rose must be after seeing the defense without him.
That said, I would argue this is the same kind of thinking that has resulted in nearly a decade of losing seasons (and counting). If you accept as a given that Stanford football was expected to be a train wreck this year, you look past the core problem(s), convince yourself things aren't so bad, and doom yourself to repeat the same cycle over and over and over (and over). See, e.g. the last 8 seasons.
If you are simply saying Tavita hasn't done such a bad job based on what he was handed, I'd probably agree for the most part. Could Harbaugh or Saban done better in the exact same circumstances? Maybe, maybe not. But I bet they would have challenged the administration in ways Luck/Pritchard haven't. The problem as I see it is that the University isn't doing any of the things necessary to change course and become competitive in modern FBS football -- i.e., admitting the best athletes and paying them competitive rates -- and they've hand-picked people who they believe are least likely to challenge them on that. If Luck wants to make a name for himself as a GM, he'll need to rock the boat. End of story. Unless/until he does, it will be more of the same. He's a warrior under it all, so here's hoping he snaps.
Portal -- objectively, Stanford was dead last among ALL power-4 schools. Football results are all relative to the competition -- i.e., graded on a curve -- so it's hard for me to see this as anything but an F. In 2026, the portal is an extremely important aspect of college football, whether we like it or not. And Stanford is dead last.
Recruiting -- objectively, ranked 45th by 247 for 2026; so on a curve maybe a C, but after factoring in retention, is goes down from there.
Win-loss record (2-3) --objectively, this is a C at best (for now). I agree that many feared worse, but that doesn't make a losing record any better than it really is, and an outside shot at 4-8 is not progress.
Offense -- much more entertaining to watch, and more traditional in many ways. Warren is clearly better than most in recent years. But, objectively, every single Power-4 school has scored more than Stanford this year; and on a points-per-game basis, Stanford is 131 out of 138 FBS teams. There's no way to put lipstick on that. On a curve, that's an F.
Defense -- even worse. 134 of 138 in total yards; 137 of 138 in passing yards (only 3 yards away from dead last); 104 of 138 in rushing; and 133 of 138 in points allowed. How is that anything but terrible? I couldn't help but think how good Matt Rose must be after seeing the defense without him.