[Goose]

Sure, having more TOP in some situations would sure be nice, but so would having, I dunno, more points. The point of the game is to get more points than the other guy. There are close to infinite ways to try to arrange that, and explosive plays are one. Ball control is another. There are explosive offenses with suffocating defenses, and ball control offenses with wet-paper-bag defenses. But the real problem here is that you're assuming it's either-or and it's not.

For sure, more points is nice  :). I would argue that I am not assuming it is either-or. I am saying that empirically, Stanford has had real trouble having a suffocating defense while at the same time being explosive. We have accomplished this at times, but we haven't demonstrated we can do it reliably. Several of our teams had a defense that could be suffocating for a while, but that was too thin to do it for over about 30 minutes a game, and maybe not that. That is one reason Shaw likes "turtle mode". Eat clock, keep the other team off the field, and don't ask your defense to make too many stops. That is how we are built. Now, when we are both explosive and efficient on offense, great. We can do whatever we want and our opponent is screwed. However, there are days you aren't as much that as you want.

You can be efficient and explosive. Our problem at SDSU was that, outside of one Love run, we were really neither.

True. Our offense played poorly. Those are the times that a few first downs cure a multitude of sins. You aren't explosive, but you do at least seek competent.

In general, for this season, given our thin personnel on the DL, maybe in a vacuum you'd want more TOP, but I don't think it really matters all that much in this day and age of 4-hour games and constant timeouts. Going 3-and-out vs one-play-TD constantly? Sure, that's bad, you want to move the chains at least a little. But that's not what our offense is doing.

The game against SDSU was a result of a whole bunch of problems, ball control is really far down the list I'd draw up.

Yes, there are tons of things we could have improved. However, if we had had just a little more TOP, i.e. if Chryst hadn't thrown the ball into the ground with a wide open receiver, we keep the ball and win. In that game, playing as crappy as we were, it was important not to ask the defense for one more stop. Shaw will tell you, and in fact told us all, that he expected the defense to hold them. I didn't. I hoped they would, but we were pretty much done. It is not just being tired. It is that the other team sees blood in the water. It also is sometimes that they have figured out the clever schemes we were using against them. More chances they get, the more likely they figure us out. So there are plenty of "should, coulda, woulda", BUT Stanford is built to win ugly by holding onto the ball. It has worked for us pretty well. It is often possible to do that when we are not "explosive and efficient".

[Goose]

Sure, having more TOP in some situations would sure be nice, but so would having, I dunno, more points. The point of the game is to get more points than the other guy. There are close to infinite ways to try to arrange that, and explosive plays are one. Ball control is another. There are explosive offenses with suffocating defenses, and ball control offenses with wet-paper-bag defenses. But the real problem here is that you're assuming it's either-or and it's not.

For sure, more points is nice  :). I would argue that I am not assuming it is either-or. I am saying that empirically, Stanford has had real trouble having a suffocating defense while at the same time being explosive. We have accomplished this at times, but we haven't demonstrated we can do it reliably. Several of our teams had a defense that could be suffocating for a while, but that was too thin to do it for over about 30 minutes a game, and maybe not that. That is one reason Shaw likes "turtle mode". Eat clock, keep the other team off the field, and don't ask your defense to make too many stops. That is how we are built. Now, when we are both explosive and efficient on offense, great. We can do whatever we want and our opponent is screwed. However, there are days you aren't as much that as you want.

You can be efficient and explosive. Our problem at SDSU was that, outside of one Love run, we were really neither.

True. Our offense played poorly. Those are the times that a few first downs cure a multitude of sins. You aren't explosive, but you do at least seek competent.

In general, for this season, given our thin personnel on the DL, maybe in a vacuum you'd want more TOP, but I don't think it really matters all that much in this day and age of 4-hour games and constant timeouts. Going 3-and-out vs one-play-TD constantly? Sure, that's bad, you want to move the chains at least a little. But that's not what our offense is doing.

The game against SDSU was a result of a whole bunch of problems, ball control is really far down the list I'd draw up.

Yes, there are tons of things we could have improved. However, if we had had just a little more TOP, i.e. if Chryst hadn't thrown the ball into the ground with a wide open receiver, we keep the ball and win. In that game, playing as crappy as we were, it was important not to ask the defense for one more stop. Shaw will tell you, and in fact told us all, that he expected the defense to hold them. I didn't. I hoped they would, but we were pretty much done. It is not just being tired. It is that the other team sees blood in the water. It also is sometimes that they have figured out the clever schemes we were using against them. More chances they get, the more likely they figure us out. So there are plenty of "should, coulda, woulda", BUT Stanford is built to win ugly by holding onto the ball. It has worked for us pretty well. It is often possible to do that when we are not "explosive and efficient".

[lex24]

I think we remember those few games when she was packed. And not those when it was half full. Or less.  Bottom line - attendance was good vs attractive opponents. Not so much vs the others. Same as it is today.

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17760.msg207524#msg207524 date=1508780923]
I don't think it's TV in a vacuum, but TV is most of the reason. 

Not only do you get to see more games by not attending them, but you also don't have to pay upwards of $30/ticket and at least 5 hrs. of your day to attend.  Attendance is down all over college football, and probably the NFL too, particularly for teams that aren't doing a lot of winning lately.

This trend has been going on for a long time.  My uncle told me how his Sequoia High School team played at a near sold-out  Stanford stadium in the early 1960's when Gary Beban was the QB.  Apparently high school football was very big in the Bay Area back then.  Stanford used to draw 60K+ when I was a season ticket holder from 1999-2001, and Big Games would routinely put 80K in seats for years.

Look at the attendance in the media guide from when Elway was QB...and weep.  I remember long lines at the Page Mill exit when I was a kid just to get to the stadium.  Very, very exciting.

1982, last Elway game at Stanford against U$C...73,859.  That year, Stanford drew 57k+ for SJSU, just 39k for  OSU, 55k for #2 Washington and 45k for Arizona.  Finished 5-6, even after beating #13 Ohio State in Ohio, 23-20 in front of 89k fans.

Walsh attendance; 59k for Oklahoma, 42k for SJSU, 40k for Tulane, 58k for Washington, 39k for oregon, 84k for U$C.
[/quote]

[lex24]

I think we remember those few games when she was packed. And not those when it was half full. Or less.  Bottom line - attendance was good vs attractive opponents. Not so much vs the others. Same as it is today.

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17760.msg207524#msg207524 date=1508780923]
I don't think it's TV in a vacuum, but TV is most of the reason. 

Not only do you get to see more games by not attending them, but you also don't have to pay upwards of $30/ticket and at least 5 hrs. of your day to attend.  Attendance is down all over college football, and probably the NFL too, particularly for teams that aren't doing a lot of winning lately.

This trend has been going on for a long time.  My uncle told me how his Sequoia High School team played at a near sold-out  Stanford stadium in the early 1960's when Gary Beban was the QB.  Apparently high school football was very big in the Bay Area back then.  Stanford used to draw 60K+ when I was a season ticket holder from 1999-2001, and Big Games would routinely put 80K in seats for years.

Look at the attendance in the media guide from when Elway was QB...and weep.  I remember long lines at the Page Mill exit when I was a kid just to get to the stadium.  Very, very exciting.

1982, last Elway game at Stanford against U$C...73,859.  That year, Stanford drew 57k+ for SJSU, just 39k for  OSU, 55k for #2 Washington and 45k for Arizona.  Finished 5-6, even after beating #13 Ohio State in Ohio, 23-20 in front of 89k fans.

Walsh attendance; 59k for Oklahoma, 42k for SJSU, 40k for Tulane, 58k for Washington, 39k for oregon, 84k for U$C.
[/quote]

[CTcard]

1.  CT, let's see where the season numbers end up (we have some good defenses awaiting the Cardinal) - and nice job cherry picking the 2 best other seasons;

This year's numbers may get better, or may get worse, but weren't really the crux of the post - just thrown in because some may be interested.

You picked the two best of the Willingham years. He coached at Stanford for seven years.
To compare, I picked the two best of Shaw's first six years, which not only seems to be the appropriate comparison, but I stated exactly that I picked the two best Shaw years.


If you wish to compare all years of Willingham vs Shaw, those are listed below. It's not all that close.

Willingham*
1995: 381 yds/gm; 5.42 yds/play; 58% run plays; 73.2 plays/gm; 28.7 pts/gm
1996: 330 yds/gm; 4.62 yds/play; 53% run plays; 68.4 plays/gm; 20.6 pts/gm
1997: 363 yds/gm; 5.01 yds/play; 51% run plays; 72.4 plays/gm; 25.1 pts/gm
1998: 395 yds/gm; 5.06 yds/play; 40% run plays; 78.1 plays/gm; 23.7 pts/gm
1999: 450 yds/gm; 6.48 yds/play; 51% run plays; 72.1 plays/gm; 34.8 pts/gm
2000: 376 yds/gm; 4.94 yds/play; 54% run plays; 76.1 plays/gm; 23.7 pts/gm
2001: 443 yds/gm; 5.91 yds/play; 60% run plays; 76.4 plays.gm; 35.2 pts/gm

* yds/gm and pts/gm numbers come from Stanford media guide and include bowls. Other numbers come from sportsreference.com, and do not include bowls per NCAA policy.

Shaw
2011: 489 yds/gm; 6.80 yds/play; 55% run plays; 71.9 plays/gm; 43.2 pts/gm
2012: 374 yds/gm; 5.53 yds/play; 58% run plays; 67.7 plays/gm; 27.9 pts/gm
2013: 406 yds/gm; 6.35 yds/play; 65% run plays; 63.9 plays/gm; 32.3 pts/gm
2014: 389 yds/gm; 5.89 yds/play; 55% run plays; 66.0 plays/gm; 27.2 pts/gm
2015: 436 yds/gm; 6.57 yds/play; 66% run plays; 66.3 plays/gm; 37.8 pts/gm
2016: 367 yds/gm; 5.77 yds/play; 63% run plays; 63.6 plays/gm; 26.3 pts/gm
2017: 457 yds/gm; 7.61 yds/play; 56% run plays; 59.9 plays/gm; 38.1 pts/gm


[Most of these stats are best considered on a per drive basis, but I don't know how to find those pre-2007.]

[CTcard]

1.  CT, let's see where the season numbers end up (we have some good defenses awaiting the Cardinal) - and nice job cherry picking the 2 best other seasons;

This year's numbers may get better, or may get worse, but weren't really the crux of the post - just thrown in because some may be interested.

You picked the two best of the Willingham years. He coached at Stanford for seven years.
To compare, I picked the two best of Shaw's first six years, which not only seems to be the appropriate comparison, but I stated exactly that I picked the two best Shaw years.


If you wish to compare all years of Willingham vs Shaw, those are listed below. It's not all that close.

Willingham*
1995: 381 yds/gm; 5.42 yds/play; 58% run plays; 73.2 plays/gm; 28.7 pts/gm
1996: 330 yds/gm; 4.62 yds/play; 53% run plays; 68.4 plays/gm; 20.6 pts/gm
1997: 363 yds/gm; 5.01 yds/play; 51% run plays; 72.4 plays/gm; 25.1 pts/gm
1998: 395 yds/gm; 5.06 yds/play; 40% run plays; 78.1 plays/gm; 23.7 pts/gm
1999: 450 yds/gm; 6.48 yds/play; 51% run plays; 72.1 plays/gm; 34.8 pts/gm
2000: 376 yds/gm; 4.94 yds/play; 54% run plays; 76.1 plays/gm; 23.7 pts/gm
2001: 443 yds/gm; 5.91 yds/play; 60% run plays; 76.4 plays.gm; 35.2 pts/gm

* yds/gm and pts/gm numbers come from Stanford media guide and include bowls. Other numbers come from sportsreference.com, and do not include bowls per NCAA policy.

Shaw
2011: 489 yds/gm; 6.80 yds/play; 55% run plays; 71.9 plays/gm; 43.2 pts/gm
2012: 374 yds/gm; 5.53 yds/play; 58% run plays; 67.7 plays/gm; 27.9 pts/gm
2013: 406 yds/gm; 6.35 yds/play; 65% run plays; 63.9 plays/gm; 32.3 pts/gm
2014: 389 yds/gm; 5.89 yds/play; 55% run plays; 66.0 plays/gm; 27.2 pts/gm
2015: 436 yds/gm; 6.57 yds/play; 66% run plays; 66.3 plays/gm; 37.8 pts/gm
2016: 367 yds/gm; 5.77 yds/play; 63% run plays; 63.6 plays/gm; 26.3 pts/gm
2017: 457 yds/gm; 7.61 yds/play; 56% run plays; 59.9 plays/gm; 38.1 pts/gm


[Most of these stats are best considered on a per drive basis, but I don't know how to find those pre-2007.]

[lex24]

You cannot compare Stanford to southern or midwestern teams. Talk about apples and oranges.

I'll give CI the inartful phrasing on my part - what I meant to convey is that on most of the TV games on Saturday that I tuned into (and some think TV is the #1 culprit why Stanford attendance is so low), the much larger stadia had a greater percentage of butts in seats than does Stanford on most Saturdays.

And sure, some program attendance is down.  But how many teams who have Stanford's winning percentage over the last several years have attendance that is so soft/low?  Not (m)any.

And to BC, I already asked the rhetorical question:  could you imagine this offense without Love?  He is a generational talent.  And one point that doesn't get much run here because we're all too polite in these parts:  there were rumblings that a big factor in our RB's decision NOT to play in the Sun Bowl had to do with the family's displeasure with how the RB was used (or overused, between the tackles).  If true, does that deserve any consideration when it comes to selecting an offensive scheme/approach?

And I still have yet to hear from anyone why Stanford shouldn't model its O circa Rose Bowl/Seattle Bowl seasons.  I guess it's because all of us just enjoy the between-the-tackle O so much.  [Hey, I admit to liking it more this year because of Love - but I also have a sneaking suspicion that he might do some damage if he were given the ball in space, too].

[lex24]

You cannot compare Stanford to southern or midwestern teams. Talk about apples and oranges.

I'll give CI the inartful phrasing on my part - what I meant to convey is that on most of the TV games on Saturday that I tuned into (and some think TV is the #1 culprit why Stanford attendance is so low), the much larger stadia had a greater percentage of butts in seats than does Stanford on most Saturdays.

And sure, some program attendance is down.  But how many teams who have Stanford's winning percentage over the last several years have attendance that is so soft/low?  Not (m)any.

And to BC, I already asked the rhetorical question:  could you imagine this offense without Love?  He is a generational talent.  And one point that doesn't get much run here because we're all too polite in these parts:  there were rumblings that a big factor in our RB's decision NOT to play in the Sun Bowl had to do with the family's displeasure with how the RB was used (or overused, between the tackles).  If true, does that deserve any consideration when it comes to selecting an offensive scheme/approach?

And I still have yet to hear from anyone why Stanford shouldn't model its O circa Rose Bowl/Seattle Bowl seasons.  I guess it's because all of us just enjoy the between-the-tackle O so much.  [Hey, I admit to liking it more this year because of Love - but I also have a sneaking suspicion that he might do some damage if he were given the ball in space, too].

[teejers1]

Guys, The Old Lady half-filled would darn near pack the current stadium.  40K butts-in-seats in the cavernous Old Lady would look really lame, but I don't think we've yet had 40K butts in seats this season.  (Though I admit the good viewing from the concourse ==> a significant number of fans watching from that vantage point. 

I don't want to belabor the fan support issue because it has been trending down at Stanford for a long time.  It's troubling that it persists in this Golden Age of Stanford Football, but it does.  And I think if the University wants to ensure long-term health of program, then every little thing matters, including trying to get the police officers to direct traffic in a manner that enhances ingress and egress, and including an entertaining product (again, with Love's explosiveness, the O has had a high entertainment coefficient - but so much of that is him).

P.S.  CTC, do you think the roster talent in the 1999 and 2001 teams is worse, better, or comparable to the 2011 and 2015 squads?  And do you think the level of competition in the Pac was stronger back then or in more recent years.  I have my gut feels on those, which are a bit offsetting, but they are for sure factors in evaluating performance of those units.

[teejers1]

Guys, The Old Lady half-filled would darn near pack the current stadium.  40K butts-in-seats in the cavernous Old Lady would look really lame, but I don't think we've yet had 40K butts in seats this season.  (Though I admit the good viewing from the concourse ==> a significant number of fans watching from that vantage point. 

I don't want to belabor the fan support issue because it has been trending down at Stanford for a long time.  It's troubling that it persists in this Golden Age of Stanford Football, but it does.  And I think if the University wants to ensure long-term health of program, then every little thing matters, including trying to get the police officers to direct traffic in a manner that enhances ingress and egress, and including an entertaining product (again, with Love's explosiveness, the O has had a high entertainment coefficient - but so much of that is him).

P.S.  CTC, do you think the roster talent in the 1999 and 2001 teams is worse, better, or comparable to the 2011 and 2015 squads?  And do you think the level of competition in the Pac was stronger back then or in more recent years.  I have my gut feels on those, which are a bit offsetting, but they are for sure factors in evaluating performance of those units.

[BostonCard]

1999 had the weakest Pac-10 conference in a generation.  Stanford went to the Rose Bowl as the #22 team in the country.  Oregon was the only team that ended the season ranked.  No team mustered 10 wins or fewer than 3 losses.  In a 10 team conference, 6 teams had a .500 record or lower.

2001 was a much better Pac-10 conference season; it featured four teams ranked at the end of the year, including #2 Oregon, #10 WSU, #16 Stanford, and #19 UW (interestingly, all from the future Pac-12 North).  On the other hand, the rest of the teams were pretty mediocre that year (USC, for example ended the year at 6-6, in Pete Carroll's first year as head coach).

2011 was a top-heavy year in the Pac-12; it featured 3 teams ranked in the top 10 (#4 Oregon, #6 but ineligible for post-season USC , and 7 Stanford).  However, there was a pretty big gap between those top teams (who had 4 conference losses between them) and the next group of teams who were all mediocre (7-6 Cal and UW, 6-8 Pac-12 South champion UCLA, 8-5 Utah, and 6-7 ASU).

2015 was a bit more meh at the top; 3 Pac-12 teams were ranked (#3 Stanford, #19 Oregon, and #17 Utah), but it was an incredibly deep conference.  10/12 teams were bowl eligible (only OSU and Colorado missed out on bowls).  In its 14 game slate that year, Stanford played 11 games against bowl teams (including USC twice), including Northwestern, who ended the season ranked 23, Notre Dame (#4 at the time, but ended the season #11), and Iowa (#5, ended the season #9) . 

It's subjective, but if I were to rank our schedules, 2015 would have been the toughest, 2001 would be second, 2011 would be third, and 1999 would have been a distant fourth.

BC

[BostonCard]

1999 had the weakest Pac-10 conference in a generation.  Stanford went to the Rose Bowl as the #22 team in the country.  Oregon was the only team that ended the season ranked.  No team mustered 10 wins or fewer than 3 losses.  In a 10 team conference, 6 teams had a .500 record or lower.

2001 was a much better Pac-10 conference season; it featured four teams ranked at the end of the year, including #2 Oregon, #10 WSU, #16 Stanford, and #19 UW (interestingly, all from the future Pac-12 North).  On the other hand, the rest of the teams were pretty mediocre that year (USC, for example ended the year at 6-6, in Pete Carroll's first year as head coach).

2011 was a top-heavy year in the Pac-12; it featured 3 teams ranked in the top 10 (#4 Oregon, #6 but ineligible for post-season USC , and 7 Stanford).  However, there was a pretty big gap between those top teams (who had 4 conference losses between them) and the next group of teams who were all mediocre (7-6 Cal and UW, 6-8 Pac-12 South champion UCLA, 8-5 Utah, and 6-7 ASU).

2015 was a bit more meh at the top; 3 Pac-12 teams were ranked (#3 Stanford, #19 Oregon, and #17 Utah), but it was an incredibly deep conference.  10/12 teams were bowl eligible (only OSU and Colorado missed out on bowls).  In its 14 game slate that year, Stanford played 11 games against bowl teams (including USC twice), including Northwestern, who ended the season ranked 23, Notre Dame (#4 at the time, but ended the season #11), and Iowa (#5, ended the season #9) . 

It's subjective, but if I were to rank our schedules, 2015 would have been the toughest, 2001 would be second, 2011 would be third, and 1999 would have been a distant fourth.

BC

[Remy74]

I have a unique perspective on this topic, given that I was born and raised in Alabama and have been an Alabama fan since the age of 4 when a close relative was an undergrad at UA.  College football was like a religion in Alabama when I was growing up in the 1980s and early 1990s.  So much so that on the Friday before the Iron Bowl there was typically a "face-off" at school between the Alabama & Auburn fans.....in fact it turned into an actual fight during my 8th grade year (1988). 

I ended up attending Duke University in the early/mid 1990s where football was of interest perhaps the first 2-3 games of each season before reality set in that the Blue Devils were simply not that good.  Even in 1994 when Duke began the season 7-0, the fervor for football was not remotely on the level that I witnessed in Alabama.  I attended Grad School at UNC-Chapel Hill from 2002-2004 and recall attending the UNC vs #9 Texas game in Chapel Hill in September 2002.  The game was a sell-out (60,000) and had a semi- SEC feel....yet again it was not quite at the level of excitement as an Alabama game. 

After moving to Atlanta in early 2007, I attended 3-5 Alabama football games each year [from 2007-2016].  Many of the games were in Tuscaloosa but also included games at Georgia, Auburn, about 2 games each year at the Georgia Dome (Chic-Fil-A Kickoff Classic and the SEC Title Game), as well as the National Championship Games against Texas (2009 season at the Rose Bowl) and Clemson (2015 season in Glendale, AZ).  Thrown in were 2 games at Cowboys Stadium (Michigan 2012 & USC 2016) and the CFP Semifinal against Washington (2016 season).

Each of aforementioned games was a sellout, with several of the games having attendance in excess of 100K fans.  Needless to say, purchasing tickets for the games was quite expensive. 

2017 Season
I attended the Alabama vs Florida St game in Atlanta on Labor Day Weekend, 2017, in the new Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta and given that I am currently residing in the Bay area, I attended the Oregon vs Stanford game 1.5 weeks ago.  Bama vs FSU was a sellout with a crowd gathered outside the stadium 3-4 hours before kickoff. I walked into Stanford Stadium 90 minutes before kick-off of the Oregon game with very few people in line at the time of my arrival. 

Perhaps it's due to the quality of the games [as I have attended around 10 Alabama games over the past 10 years that were top 5 match-ups] but attending an Alabama game in comparison to Duke, Stanford, and even UNC games are drastically different experiences.  There isn't much to do in Tuscaloosa but Atlanta isn't much different than the Bay Area in terms of entertainment, yet Alabama vs Florida (Tim Tebow tenure) SEC Championship Games in 2008  & 2009 in Atlanta were the most expensive/"in-demand" sporting events in Atlanta history. 

College football (SEC games) is the major topic of discussion at the barbershops, fitness gyms, etc. throughout the Southeast during the Fall.  In the Bay Area, it's rare that I encounter people with a desire to talk college football.

[Remy74]

I have a unique perspective on this topic, given that I was born and raised in Alabama and have been an Alabama fan since the age of 4 when a close relative was an undergrad at UA.  College football was like a religion in Alabama when I was growing up in the 1980s and early 1990s.  So much so that on the Friday before the Iron Bowl there was typically a "face-off" at school between the Alabama & Auburn fans.....in fact it turned into an actual fight during my 8th grade year (1988). 

I ended up attending Duke University in the early/mid 1990s where football was of interest perhaps the first 2-3 games of each season before reality set in that the Blue Devils were simply not that good.  Even in 1994 when Duke began the season 7-0, the fervor for football was not remotely on the level that I witnessed in Alabama.  I attended Grad School at UNC-Chapel Hill from 2002-2004 and recall attending the UNC vs #9 Texas game in Chapel Hill in September 2002.  The game was a sell-out (60,000) and had a semi- SEC feel....yet again it was not quite at the level of excitement as an Alabama game. 

After moving to Atlanta in early 2007, I attended 3-5 Alabama football games each year [from 2007-2016].  Many of the games were in Tuscaloosa but also included games at Georgia, Auburn, about 2 games each year at the Georgia Dome (Chic-Fil-A Kickoff Classic and the SEC Title Game), as well as the National Championship Games against Texas (2009 season at the Rose Bowl) and Clemson (2015 season in Glendale, AZ).  Thrown in were 2 games at Cowboys Stadium (Michigan 2012 & USC 2016) and the CFP Semifinal against Washington (2016 season).

Each of aforementioned games was a sellout, with several of the games having attendance in excess of 100K fans.  Needless to say, purchasing tickets for the games was quite expensive. 

2017 Season
I attended the Alabama vs Florida St game in Atlanta on Labor Day Weekend, 2017, in the new Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta and given that I am currently residing in the Bay area, I attended the Oregon vs Stanford game 1.5 weeks ago.  Bama vs FSU was a sellout with a crowd gathered outside the stadium 3-4 hours before kickoff. I walked into Stanford Stadium 90 minutes before kick-off of the Oregon game with very few people in line at the time of my arrival. 

Perhaps it's due to the quality of the games [as I have attended around 10 Alabama games over the past 10 years that were top 5 match-ups] but attending an Alabama game in comparison to Duke, Stanford, and even UNC games are drastically different experiences.  There isn't much to do in Tuscaloosa but Atlanta isn't much different than the Bay Area in terms of entertainment, yet Alabama vs Florida (Tim Tebow tenure) SEC Championship Games in 2008  & 2009 in Atlanta were the most expensive/"in-demand" sporting events in Atlanta history. 

College football (SEC games) is the major topic of discussion at the barbershops, fitness gyms, etc. throughout the Southeast during the Fall.  In the Bay Area, it's rare that I encounter people with a desire to talk college football.

[BostonCard]

And to BC, I already asked the rhetorical question:  could you imagine this offense without Love?  He is a generational talent.  And one point that doesn't get much run here because we're all too polite in these parts:  there were rumblings that a big factor in our RB's decision NOT to play in the Sun Bowl had to do with the family's displeasure with how the RB was used (or overused, between the tackles).  If true, does that deserve any consideration when it comes to selecting an offensive scheme/approach?

Yes, I can imagine the offense without Love.  It obviously wouldn't be as good, but we would still have one of the best offensive lines in the country.  I would guess that instead of Love's 10+ yards per carry, we would be relying more heavily on Scarlett and his 5.3 ypc, which is comparable to what Toby Gerhart was putting up in 2008 and 2009, or Stepfan Taylor was putting up in 2010 - 2012.  My guess is that if he picked up 15 out of 19 of Love's carries per game (plus the 6 he already is getting), and the rest were given to Speights and Maddox, that Scarlett would have about 700 yards and would be on his way to a 1000+ yard season. We'd rely a bit more heavily on our QB's.  We'd have a less explosive offense but we would probably rely more on ball control.  We obviously wouldn't score as much, but I still think we would mount a decent offense (maybe 50ish yards per game lower, 1 - 2 ypp lower, ~ 1 TD to 10 fewer points a game would be my best guess).  Obviously it is hard to run counterfactuals, but given that four out of our five wins were relatively comfortable, I would guess we would be 4-3 (losing instead of winning against Utah).

That being said, I don't have to imagine an offense without Love because we have Love.  I mean you could also ask the hypothetical of what this offense would be like if we had Love plus Andrew Luck at QB.  Or what would this defense have been like had Solomon Thomas decided to stay a year.  It's pretty simple: you put in better players, and you will have a better team; you take away the best players and you have a worse team.  But, we have the team we have, and as far as the offense is concerned, we have a pretty darned good one.

But I think it is easy to overestimate the impact of one player to the team.  When Gerhart left for the NFL, we wondered what we would do without him.  Turns out the next man up, Stepfan Taylor, wasn't too shabby (it was a bit of a drop-off, but not as much as had been feared).  When Andrew Luck left for the NFL, we wondered what we would do without him.  And, although there were some transition pains, it turns out that Kevin Hogan wasn't too shabby, and again, the drop-off was not as profound as we had feared.  In the latest incarnation, we wondered what would become of our offense when McCaffrey left for the NFL; turns out there really is no drop-off.  Now, you say, what are the chances that a once-in-a-generation talent follows another once-in-a-generation talent, but by my count, Love is the fourth once-in-a-generation talent we've had on offense this generation (Gerhart, Luck, McCaffrey and now Love).  At some point, you have to wonder if it is more than just the unique talent of the players.  Of course, if Love leaves for the NFL, we will wonder how we will replace Love, but I have no doubt that although it is likely there will be a drop-off, it will probably not be as big as we fear.  And who knows, maybe Cameron Scarlett or Trevor Speights (or Connor Weddington) will be the next in a long and distinguished line of H-award runner ups.

BC

[BostonCard]

And to BC, I already asked the rhetorical question:  could you imagine this offense without Love?  He is a generational talent.  And one point that doesn't get much run here because we're all too polite in these parts:  there were rumblings that a big factor in our RB's decision NOT to play in the Sun Bowl had to do with the family's displeasure with how the RB was used (or overused, between the tackles).  If true, does that deserve any consideration when it comes to selecting an offensive scheme/approach?

Yes, I can imagine the offense without Love.  It obviously wouldn't be as good, but we would still have one of the best offensive lines in the country.  I would guess that instead of Love's 10+ yards per carry, we would be relying more heavily on Scarlett and his 5.3 ypc, which is comparable to what Toby Gerhart was putting up in 2008 and 2009, or Stepfan Taylor was putting up in 2010 - 2012.  My guess is that if he picked up 15 out of 19 of Love's carries per game (plus the 6 he already is getting), and the rest were given to Speights and Maddox, that Scarlett would have about 700 yards and would be on his way to a 1000+ yard season. We'd rely a bit more heavily on our QB's.  We'd have a less explosive offense but we would probably rely more on ball control.  We obviously wouldn't score as much, but I still think we would mount a decent offense (maybe 50ish yards per game lower, 1 - 2 ypp lower, ~ 1 TD to 10 fewer points a game would be my best guess).  Obviously it is hard to run counterfactuals, but given that four out of our five wins were relatively comfortable, I would guess we would be 4-3 (losing instead of winning against Utah).

That being said, I don't have to imagine an offense without Love because we have Love.  I mean you could also ask the hypothetical of what this offense would be like if we had Love plus Andrew Luck at QB.  Or what would this defense have been like had Solomon Thomas decided to stay a year.  It's pretty simple: you put in better players, and you will have a better team; you take away the best players and you have a worse team.  But, we have the team we have, and as far as the offense is concerned, we have a pretty darned good one.

But I think it is easy to overestimate the impact of one player to the team.  When Gerhart left for the NFL, we wondered what we would do without him.  Turns out the next man up, Stepfan Taylor, wasn't too shabby (it was a bit of a drop-off, but not as much as had been feared).  When Andrew Luck left for the NFL, we wondered what we would do without him.  And, although there were some transition pains, it turns out that Kevin Hogan wasn't too shabby, and again, the drop-off was not as profound as we had feared.  In the latest incarnation, we wondered what would become of our offense when McCaffrey left for the NFL; turns out there really is no drop-off.  Now, you say, what are the chances that a once-in-a-generation talent follows another once-in-a-generation talent, but by my count, Love is the fourth once-in-a-generation talent we've had on offense this generation (Gerhart, Luck, McCaffrey and now Love).  At some point, you have to wonder if it is more than just the unique talent of the players.  Of course, if Love leaves for the NFL, we will wonder how we will replace Love, but I have no doubt that although it is likely there will be a drop-off, it will probably not be as big as we fear.  And who knows, maybe Cameron Scarlett or Trevor Speights (or Connor Weddington) will be the next in a long and distinguished line of H-award runner ups.

BC

[lex24]

Speights is next up.  As to Teejers question - no. Emphatically. I don’t care who the parents are, they don’t get to game plan. If CMac went to Shaw and complained, well that would be different.

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=17760.msg207558#msg207558 date=1508790014]
And to BC, I already asked the rhetorical question:  could you imagine this offense without Love?  He is a generational talent.  And one point that doesn't get much run here because we're all too polite in these parts:  there were rumblings that a big factor in our RB's decision NOT to play in the Sun Bowl had to do with the family's displeasure with how the RB was used (or overused, between the tackles).  If true, does that deserve any consideration when it comes to selecting an offensive scheme/approach?

Yes, I can imagine the offense without Love.  It obviously wouldn't be as good, but we would still have one of the best offensive lines in the country.  I would guess that instead of Love's 10+ yards per carry, we would be relying more heavily on Scarlett and his 5.3 ypc, which is comparable to what Toby Gerhart was putting up in 2008 and 2009, or Stepfan Taylor was putting up in 2010 - 2012.  My guess is that if he picked up 15 out of 19 of Love's carries per game (plus the 6 he already is getting), and the rest were given to Speights and Maddox, that Scarlett would have about 700 yards and would be on his way to a 1000+ yard season. We'd rely a bit more heavily on our QB's.  We'd have a less explosive offense but we would probably rely more on ball control.  We obviously wouldn't score as much, but I still think we would mount a decent offense (maybe 50ish yards per game lower, 1 - 2 ypp lower, ~ 1 TD to 10 fewer points a game would be my best guess).  Obviously it is hard to run counterfactuals, but given that four out of our five wins were relatively comfortable, I would guess we would be 4-3 (losing instead of winning against Utah).

That being said, I don't have to imagine an offense without Love because we have Love.  I mean you could also ask the hypothetical of what this offense would be like if we had Love plus Andrew Luck at QB.  Or what would this defense have been like had Solomon Thomas decided to stay a year.  It's pretty simple: you put in better players, and you will have a better team; you take away the best players and you have a worse team.  But, we have the team we have, and as far as the offense is concerned, we have a pretty darned good one.

But I think it is easy to overestimate the impact of one player to the team.  When Gerhart left for the NFL, we wondered what we would do without him.  Turns out the next man up, Stepfan Taylor, wasn't too shabby (it was a bit of a drop-off, but not as much as had been feared).  When Andrew Luck left for the NFL, we wondered what we would do without him.  And, although there were some transition pains, it turns out that Kevin Hogan wasn't too shabby, and again, the drop-off was not as profound as we had feared.  In the latest incarnation, we wondered what would become of our offense when McCaffrey left for the NFL; turns out there really is no drop-off.  Now, you say, what are the chances that a once-in-a-generation talent follows another once-in-a-generation talent, but by my count, Love is the fourth once-in-a-generation talent we've had on offense this generation (Gerhart, Luck, McCaffrey and now Love).  At some point, you have to wonder if it is more than just the unique talent of the players.  Of course, if Love leaves for the NFL, we will wonder how we will replace Love, but I have no doubt that although it is likely there will be a drop-off, it will probably not be as big as we fear.  And who knows, maybe Cameron Scarlett or Trevor Speights (or Connor Weddington) will be the next in a long and distinguished line of H-award runner ups.

BC
[/quote]

[lex24]

Speights is next up.  As to Teejers question - no. Emphatically. I don’t care who the parents are, they don’t get to game plan. If CMac went to Shaw and complained, well that would be different.

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=17760.msg207558#msg207558 date=1508790014]
And to BC, I already asked the rhetorical question:  could you imagine this offense without Love?  He is a generational talent.  And one point that doesn't get much run here because we're all too polite in these parts:  there were rumblings that a big factor in our RB's decision NOT to play in the Sun Bowl had to do with the family's displeasure with how the RB was used (or overused, between the tackles).  If true, does that deserve any consideration when it comes to selecting an offensive scheme/approach?

Yes, I can imagine the offense without Love.  It obviously wouldn't be as good, but we would still have one of the best offensive lines in the country.  I would guess that instead of Love's 10+ yards per carry, we would be relying more heavily on Scarlett and his 5.3 ypc, which is comparable to what Toby Gerhart was putting up in 2008 and 2009, or Stepfan Taylor was putting up in 2010 - 2012.  My guess is that if he picked up 15 out of 19 of Love's carries per game (plus the 6 he already is getting), and the rest were given to Speights and Maddox, that Scarlett would have about 700 yards and would be on his way to a 1000+ yard season. We'd rely a bit more heavily on our QB's.  We'd have a less explosive offense but we would probably rely more on ball control.  We obviously wouldn't score as much, but I still think we would mount a decent offense (maybe 50ish yards per game lower, 1 - 2 ypp lower, ~ 1 TD to 10 fewer points a game would be my best guess).  Obviously it is hard to run counterfactuals, but given that four out of our five wins were relatively comfortable, I would guess we would be 4-3 (losing instead of winning against Utah).

That being said, I don't have to imagine an offense without Love because we have Love.  I mean you could also ask the hypothetical of what this offense would be like if we had Love plus Andrew Luck at QB.  Or what would this defense have been like had Solomon Thomas decided to stay a year.  It's pretty simple: you put in better players, and you will have a better team; you take away the best players and you have a worse team.  But, we have the team we have, and as far as the offense is concerned, we have a pretty darned good one.

But I think it is easy to overestimate the impact of one player to the team.  When Gerhart left for the NFL, we wondered what we would do without him.  Turns out the next man up, Stepfan Taylor, wasn't too shabby (it was a bit of a drop-off, but not as much as had been feared).  When Andrew Luck left for the NFL, we wondered what we would do without him.  And, although there were some transition pains, it turns out that Kevin Hogan wasn't too shabby, and again, the drop-off was not as profound as we had feared.  In the latest incarnation, we wondered what would become of our offense when McCaffrey left for the NFL; turns out there really is no drop-off.  Now, you say, what are the chances that a once-in-a-generation talent follows another once-in-a-generation talent, but by my count, Love is the fourth once-in-a-generation talent we've had on offense this generation (Gerhart, Luck, McCaffrey and now Love).  At some point, you have to wonder if it is more than just the unique talent of the players.  Of course, if Love leaves for the NFL, we will wonder how we will replace Love, but I have no doubt that although it is likely there will be a drop-off, it will probably not be as big as we fear.  And who knows, maybe Cameron Scarlett or Trevor Speights (or Connor Weddington) will be the next in a long and distinguished line of H-award runner ups.

BC
[/quote]

[teejers1]

Let's just hope we don't have to envision this offense without Bryce Love.

Maybe it will be great, or good, or "good enough" - which is where I suspect BC falls.  Or maybe not.  Still pretty uneasy about QB play right about now (irrespective of who lines up behind/next to the QB). 

[teejers1]

Let's just hope we don't have to envision this offense without Bryce Love.

Maybe it will be great, or good, or "good enough" - which is where I suspect BC falls.  Or maybe not.  Still pretty uneasy about QB play right about now (irrespective of who lines up behind/next to the QB). 

[BostonCard]

Interesting, ruleoftree also imagined a world without Love.

https://www.ruleoftree.com/2017/10/25/16...+285282312

Great minds think alike (though so do feeble ones).  Their conclusion was similar to mine:

How big of a difference does Love make? He probably adds a touchdown or two per game over his counterparts. Against a team like Oregon State, it doesn't matter if Love, Scarlett, or Speights get more touches, but against tougher opponents, it makes all the difference in the world.

They also noted that we probably would have won the UCLA, ASU, Rice, and Oregon games regardless, but likely would have lost the game at Utah without Love.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting, ruleoftree also imagined a world without Love.

https://www.ruleoftree.com/2017/10/25/16...+285282312

Great minds think alike (though so do feeble ones).  Their conclusion was similar to mine:

How big of a difference does Love make? He probably adds a touchdown or two per game over his counterparts. Against a team like Oregon State, it doesn't matter if Love, Scarlett, or Speights get more touches, but against tougher opponents, it makes all the difference in the world.

They also noted that we probably would have won the UCLA, ASU, Rice, and Oregon games regardless, but likely would have lost the game at Utah without Love.

BC

[JJJ]

Interesting, ruleoftree also imagined a world without Love.

https://www.ruleoftree.com/2017/10/25/16...+285282312

Great minds think alike (though so do feeble ones).  Their conclusion was similar to mine:

How big of a difference does Love make? He probably adds a touchdown or two per game over his counterparts. Against a team like Oregon State, it doesn't matter if Love, Scarlett, or Speights get more touches, but against tougher opponents, it makes all the difference in the world.

They also noted that we probably would have won the UCLA, ASU, Rice, and Oregon games regardless, but likely would have lost the game at Utah without Love.

BC

"Without Love, where would you be now?"
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4tJSn0QtME

8)

[JJJ]

Interesting, ruleoftree also imagined a world without Love.

https://www.ruleoftree.com/2017/10/25/16...+285282312

Great minds think alike (though so do feeble ones).  Their conclusion was similar to mine:

How big of a difference does Love make? He probably adds a touchdown or two per game over his counterparts. Against a team like Oregon State, it doesn't matter if Love, Scarlett, or Speights get more touches, but against tougher opponents, it makes all the difference in the world.

They also noted that we probably would have won the UCLA, ASU, Rice, and Oregon games regardless, but likely would have lost the game at Utah without Love.

BC

"Without Love, where would you be now?"
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4tJSn0QtME

8)