[msqueri]

To all those in the camp saying it's much more the players than coaching: Last week, only one of 68 P4 teams scored fewer than 10 points, UCF (in a heavy rainstorm). 

This week, it looks like only Stanford and Colorado (late kickoffs still pending) scored fewer than 10 points.

I just don't believe that player-for-player, Stanford's offensive talent ranks last out of 68 teams. I don't believe that's true of Stanford's offensive line as a unit, either.



It's coaching, and what we've seen so far is dragging the talent down, at least arguably.

But football is about match-ups and gameplans, which change ever week. So we shall see what happens next.

I should not pretend to be an expert on O lines but I have been around the block at least once… and besides if lack of expertise ruled me out of commenting, I would never venture an opinion.

 I think the offensive line on the field tonight in the white unis may have been the worst in college football. They gave effort, they tried to hit hard but the were totally inept.  

Injuries are a big factor . We are working with a back up center and back ups at least at two other spots and maybe three . If I understood the announcer correctly (and making the big assumption that he had any idea what he was talking about) our starting right tackle had been moved over from center where he was a backup ..which means he was third string. Injuries have forced almost everyone to play out of position . Finally, these guys are pretty young ..we simply have to find a way to keep our Offensive linemen Around until they mature… that means we start Seniors and Fifth year guys with rare exception.

I am pretty sure we could put together a decent O line from former  Stanford  players who have transferred elsewhere and have now grown up. This is my way of not criticizing the guys we put on the field .  Injuries and transfers have reduced us to playing third string quality guys and guys who will be pretty damned good once they grow up but are just too young to compete against grown men.  

 I was one of the truly great third string tackles in the history of .stanford football and I can assure you that if I had  seen the field more than ten minutes game time a year, .stanford would have many more losses than our record actually has. I respect the guys who played and honor their effort and guts. I do not respect the program that managed talent so poorly that they are the best we could field.

End of speech. Thanks for letting me vent.

Sincere! 
Now, what quality of Linemen could we get if we swung some NIL money that way?  
$100,000 a year for linemen gets us -- what?

I don’t have access to accurate numbers but I believe that number would work.  Not to go out into the portal to recruit established linemen  but rather to keep,the ones we recruit. We were way too starry eyed about the “40 year decision” and the magic of the Stanford experience , yes. But the kids we recruit buy into some of that story. They know they are t coming to Texas or  Miami when they sign .  I think most would stay if ;1) we can show we are moving toward relevance if not excellence AND we don’t make them feel economically stupid for staying . I don’t k ow about you but when I was a nineteen year old Soph , $10,000 would have told me I was loved and bowled over any thoughts I had about the value of education and School A vs School B.  I think the $100k number is today’s equivalent..I think it would work .

Now if I had a few million to back up my hunch , we would have a program. I do plead guilty to being quite comfortable spending someone else’s money. In my defense, I would gladly contribute what I could to a program focused on keeping the Offensive linemen we recruit to Stanford right here in good ol’ Palo 
Alto.  It would,be a hell of a lot. Ore satisfying then contributing to man ADs fund to upgrade them
Stadium to “make the game day experience more enjoyable “. Winning would make the game day experience more enjoyable, thank you.

100K is straight-up poverty wages in Power Four football in 2026. I think we pay our worst players like 25-50K or something. ESPN did a study that showed the market rate for a starting interior OL is 400-800K and for a starting offensive tackle is 600K-1.2 million.

[msqueri]

To all those in the camp saying it's much more the players than coaching: Last week, only one of 68 P4 teams scored fewer than 10 points, UCF (in a heavy rainstorm). 

This week, it looks like only Stanford and Colorado (late kickoffs still pending) scored fewer than 10 points.

I just don't believe that player-for-player, Stanford's offensive talent ranks last out of 68 teams. I don't believe that's true of Stanford's offensive line as a unit, either.



It's coaching, and what we've seen so far is dragging the talent down, at least arguably.

But football is about match-ups and gameplans, which change ever week. So we shall see what happens next.

I should not pretend to be an expert on O lines but I have been around the block at least once… and besides if lack of expertise ruled me out of commenting, I would never venture an opinion.

 I think the offensive line on the field tonight in the white unis may have been the worst in college football. They gave effort, they tried to hit hard but the were totally inept.  

Injuries are a big factor . We are working with a back up center and back ups at least at two other spots and maybe three . If I understood the announcer correctly (and making the big assumption that he had any idea what he was talking about) our starting right tackle had been moved over from center where he was a backup ..which means he was third string. Injuries have forced almost everyone to play out of position . Finally, these guys are pretty young ..we simply have to find a way to keep our Offensive linemen Around until they mature… that means we start Seniors and Fifth year guys with rare exception.

I am pretty sure we could put together a decent O line from former  Stanford  players who have transferred elsewhere and have now grown up. This is my way of not criticizing the guys we put on the field .  Injuries and transfers have reduced us to playing third string quality guys and guys who will be pretty damned good once they grow up but are just too young to compete against grown men.  

 I was one of the truly great third string tackles in the history of .stanford football and I can assure you that if I had  seen the field more than ten minutes game time a year, .stanford would have many more losses than our record actually has. I respect the guys who played and honor their effort and guts. I do not respect the program that managed talent so poorly that they are the best we could field.

End of speech. Thanks for letting me vent.

Sincere! 
Now, what quality of Linemen could we get if we swung some NIL money that way?  
$100,000 a year for linemen gets us -- what?

I don’t have access to accurate numbers but I believe that number would work.  Not to go out into the portal to recruit established linemen  but rather to keep,the ones we recruit. We were way too starry eyed about the “40 year decision” and the magic of the Stanford experience , yes. But the kids we recruit buy into some of that story. They know they are t coming to Texas or  Miami when they sign .  I think most would stay if ;1) we can show we are moving toward relevance if not excellence AND we don’t make them feel economically stupid for staying . I don’t k ow about you but when I was a nineteen year old Soph , $10,000 would have told me I was loved and bowled over any thoughts I had about the value of education and School A vs School B.  I think the $100k number is today’s equivalent..I think it would work .

Now if I had a few million to back up my hunch , we would have a program. I do plead guilty to being quite comfortable spending someone else’s money. In my defense, I would gladly contribute what I could to a program focused on keeping the Offensive linemen we recruit to Stanford right here in good ol’ Palo 
Alto.  It would,be a hell of a lot. Ore satisfying then contributing to man ADs fund to upgrade them
Stadium to “make the game day experience more enjoyable “. Winning would make the game day experience more enjoyable, thank you.

100K is straight-up poverty wages in Power Four football in 2026. I think we pay our worst players like 25-50K or something. ESPN did a study that showed the market rate for a starting interior OL is 400-800K and for a starting offensive tackle is 600K-1.2 million.

[MV72018]

A disappointing loss
Far more disappointing than Miami loss because I think Miami significantly better than Duke, and we had 2 weeks to prepare for this, and had more guys back than for Miami.
My guess now is that a 3 win season might be the optimistic upside expectation. 
The only slim hope I see for significantly better than a dreary step-back season, is if we can show we play better at home.
Which means next week GT is like a must win.

As I replied before the start of the season to someone who foresaw us getting 4 wins, 'where do see us getting those 4 wins?' or something like that. I'm at 2 or 3 Ws at this point. Elon, maybe.

[MV72018]

A disappointing loss
Far more disappointing than Miami loss because I think Miami significantly better than Duke, and we had 2 weeks to prepare for this, and had more guys back than for Miami.
My guess now is that a 3 win season might be the optimistic upside expectation. 
The only slim hope I see for significantly better than a dreary step-back season, is if we can show we play better at home.
Which means next week GT is like a must win.

As I replied before the start of the season to someone who foresaw us getting 4 wins, 'where do see us getting those 4 wins?' or something like that. I'm at 2 or 3 Ws at this point. Elon, maybe.

[KartyFan]

Bad teams tend to run into an unexpected win or two:


In 2025 we were bad and still beat Florida State (who beat Alabama) and crushed Cal

In 2024 we were awful but still beat #19 Louisville

In 2023 we were horrendous but came back from 29-0 to beat Colorado

In 2022 we were really bad but beat Notre Dame, who finished the year #18, on the road

In 2021 we were again 3-9, with our two wins coming against #14 USC and #3 Oregon


Predicting a season record is hard enough, predicting which games will be won is futile. Beating Elon + 2 upsets is still reasonable. Lose against GT and it becomes quite a bit harder.

Vegas seems to think we are better than we played yesterday. 4.5-point underdogs at home. Let's hope it's a better game!

[KartyFan]

Bad teams tend to run into an unexpected win or two:


In 2025 we were bad and still beat Florida State (who beat Alabama) and crushed Cal

In 2024 we were awful but still beat #19 Louisville

In 2023 we were horrendous but came back from 29-0 to beat Colorado

In 2022 we were really bad but beat Notre Dame, who finished the year #18, on the road

In 2021 we were again 3-9, with our two wins coming against #14 USC and #3 Oregon


Predicting a season record is hard enough, predicting which games will be won is futile. Beating Elon + 2 upsets is still reasonable. Lose against GT and it becomes quite a bit harder.

Vegas seems to think we are better than we played yesterday. 4.5-point underdogs at home. Let's hope it's a better game!

[Mudhead]

To all those in the camp saying it's much more the players than coaching: Last week, only one of 68 P4 teams scored fewer than 10 points, UCF (in a heavy rainstorm). 

This week, it looks like only Stanford and Colorado (late kickoffs still pending) scored fewer than 10 points.

I just don't believe that player-for-player, Stanford's offensive talent ranks last out of 68 teams. I don't believe that's true of Stanford's offensive line as a unit, either.

It's coaching, and what we've seen so far is dragging the talent down, at least arguably.

But football is about match-ups and gameplans, which change ever week. So we shall see what happens next.

I should not pretend to be an expert on O lines but I have been around the block at least once… and besides if lack of expertise ruled me out of commenting, I would never venture an opinion.

 I think the offensive line on the field tonight in the white unis may have been the worst in college football. They gave effort, they tried to hit hard but the were totally inept.  

Injuries are a big factor . We are working with a back up center and back ups at least at two other spots and maybe three . If I understood the announcer correctly (and making the big assumption that he had any idea what he was talking about) our starting right tackle had been moved over from center where he was a backup ..which means he was third string. Injuries have forced almost everyone to play out of position . Finally, these guys are pretty young ..we simply have to find a way to keep our Offensive linemen Around until they mature… that means we start Seniors and Fifth year guys with rare exception.

I am pretty sure we could put together a decent O line from former  Stanford  players who have transferred elsewhere and have now grown up. This is my way of not criticizing the guys we put on the field .  Injuries and transfers have reduced us to playing third string quality guys and guys who will be pretty damned good once they grow up but are just too young to compete against grown men.  

 I was one of the truly great third string tackles in the history of .stanford football and I can assure you that if I had  seen the field more than ten minutes game time a year, .stanford would have many more losses than our record actually has. I respect the guys who played and honor their effort and guts. I do not respect the program that managed talent so poorly that they are the best we could field.

End of speech. Thanks for letting me vent.

[Mudhead]

To all those in the camp saying it's much more the players than coaching: Last week, only one of 68 P4 teams scored fewer than 10 points, UCF (in a heavy rainstorm). 

This week, it looks like only Stanford and Colorado (late kickoffs still pending) scored fewer than 10 points.

I just don't believe that player-for-player, Stanford's offensive talent ranks last out of 68 teams. I don't believe that's true of Stanford's offensive line as a unit, either.

It's coaching, and what we've seen so far is dragging the talent down, at least arguably.

But football is about match-ups and gameplans, which change ever week. So we shall see what happens next.

I should not pretend to be an expert on O lines but I have been around the block at least once… and besides if lack of expertise ruled me out of commenting, I would never venture an opinion.

 I think the offensive line on the field tonight in the white unis may have been the worst in college football. They gave effort, they tried to hit hard but the were totally inept.  

Injuries are a big factor . We are working with a back up center and back ups at least at two other spots and maybe three . If I understood the announcer correctly (and making the big assumption that he had any idea what he was talking about) our starting right tackle had been moved over from center where he was a backup ..which means he was third string. Injuries have forced almost everyone to play out of position . Finally, these guys are pretty young ..we simply have to find a way to keep our Offensive linemen Around until they mature… that means we start Seniors and Fifth year guys with rare exception.

I am pretty sure we could put together a decent O line from former  Stanford  players who have transferred elsewhere and have now grown up. This is my way of not criticizing the guys we put on the field .  Injuries and transfers have reduced us to playing third string quality guys and guys who will be pretty damned good once they grow up but are just too young to compete against grown men.  

 I was one of the truly great third string tackles in the history of .stanford football and I can assure you that if I had  seen the field more than ten minutes game time a year, .stanford would have many more losses than our record actually has. I respect the guys who played and honor their effort and guts. I do not respect the program that managed talent so poorly that they are the best we could field.

End of speech. Thanks for letting me vent.

[msqueri]

Re: the Georgia Tech spread, Sagarin would have us as 5.5 point underdogs using a historically normal home field advantage and 3.5 point underdogs using the home field advantage that has evinced in college football so far this season, as low as a 2.5 point spread using some models from the last few years. SP+ looks like we should be a 4.5 to 6.5 point underdog. In other words, it seems to me that Vegas is currently pegging that Stanford will play Georgia Tech something like an average of how we've played so far in 2026. In terms of probability, this means that we have about a 37 percent chance of winning, with models varying between 32-39 percent.

[msqueri]

Re: the Georgia Tech spread, Sagarin would have us as 5.5 point underdogs using a historically normal home field advantage and 3.5 point underdogs using the home field advantage that has evinced in college football so far this season, as low as a 2.5 point spread using some models from the last few years. SP+ looks like we should be a 4.5 to 6.5 point underdog. In other words, it seems to me that Vegas is currently pegging that Stanford will play Georgia Tech something like an average of how we've played so far in 2026. In terms of probability, this means that we have about a 37 percent chance of winning, with models varying between 32-39 percent.