I want a run first pro style offense

[augustabuzz]

Regardless of how they performed head-to-head (Harbaugh 2, Caroll 1), USC won the PAC10 every year they faced each other, and Stanford never won the PAC10 while Carroll was at USC.

I'm not knocking Stanford. They've done a good job the past 5 or so years. Harbaugh is a good coach and turned that program around. I wasn't insinuating that the only reason he was successful was because USC tanked, but he did take advantage of the opportunity their probation gave him recruiting in Southern California. Shaw has continued that success.

I like Stanford. If I could have afforded it, I would have gone to Stanford (yes, I was accepted). I couldn't, so I went to GT. I'm happy with my choices and have no regrets. That being said, in the past 20 years Stanford has had 11 losing seasons, GT has had 2. They've also had 4 11+win seasons in the past 5 years, while GT has had 1.

What have they done head to head this century?

 

[Eric]

No way... another Stanford thread.

I'm close to banning myself for the rest of the off-season.

 

[AE 87]

Might have to double check me, but Harbaugh and Pete Carrol overlapped 3 years and Stanford finally beat USC during Carrol's last years...right before USC got slapped with sanctions. Harbaugh had Stanford playing USC (as well as the rest of the PAC 10) pretty tough before the sanctions. Remember the "What's your problem?" handshake game that started the Harbaugh/Carrol rift?

Stanford has also been one of the few teams that have been able to derail the Oregon offense as well...so it's not like Stanford all of a sudden became a good team because of the demise of the USC and the rest of the PAC 10. If anything, the PAC 10 has become a better league now that Jim Mora (UCLA), Mike Leach (WSU), Rich Rodruquez (Arizona), and Todd Graham (ASU) have joined the coaching ranks in that league.

We can debate the reasons for Stanford's rise, but let's not try to diminish their accomplishments. Regardless of what some on here like to think, it's not easy getting SAs into that school. Is it easier to keep them eligible? Possibly, but you still gotta get the SAs past admissions...part of which is requiring their SAs to take a certain amount of math and science as well as a certain amount of AP courses. GT was the beneficiary of Louis Young not making it past admissions at Stanford.

Please link support for your claims on Stanford admission REQUIREMENTS. I've posted links to the contrary.

 

[Techster]

Please link support for your claims on Stanford admission REQUIREMENTS. I've posted links to the contrary.

eh...if it was some other font I'd be happy to. For you...no thanks.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Please link support for your claims on Stanford admission REQUIREMENTS. I've posted links to the contrary.

I'd like to see that, too. They're private and don't have to submit entrance requirements. My guess is they view football players like they do dancers and sculptors, they get special consideration do to a high degree of non-traditional "intelligence."

Not only that, but they are the Mecca for the Nerd Athlete. GT is not, though it wants desperately to be. Stanford is even rated higher in our claim to fame, Engineering. More importantly are the degree field they offer not STEM related. Not every Nerd Athlete wants to be a scientist. And the ones that do, still get a great education at Stanford and all prestige that comes with it.

My third point is one very often overlooked in the comparison. The key deterrent in who we can offer is our academic rigor. "Getting out" is way harder than "getting in." The coaches know this and it limits who they offer. A kid may have the scores and prereq's in place, but they don't have what it takes or don't want to do what it takes to stay on track to graduate. We have two very recent examples to back this up.

 

[Boomergump]

Following the 1994 season, despite lacking experience as a head coach or coordinator, Willingham was appointed head coach of the football program at Stanford, succeeding Bill Walsh. In his seven seasons (1995–2001) as coach, he led the Cardinal to a 44–36–1 record and four bowl game appearances. In 2000, he was presented with the Eddie Robinson Coach of Distinction Award that is given annually to honor "an outstanding college football coach and role model for career achievement".[1]

His best team was the 1999 team, which won the school's first outright Pacific-10 Conference title in 29 years and appeared in the 2000 Rose Bowl. Willingham's 44 wins were the most by a Stanford coach since John Ralston, who left the school for the Denver Broncos of theNFL after the 1971 season.

Sounds like we are praising Willingham for achieving a similar record to what we condemn CPJ for. I am a little confused. I don't blame you for liking the guy at all. He always gave me a good impression. It just sounds like your goal posts are a little wider for him than the guy we have at the helm at the moment.

 

[ATL1]

Sounds like we are praising Willingham for achieving a similar record to what we condemn CPJ for. I am a little confused. I don't blame you for liking the guy at all. He always gave me a good impression. It just sounds like your goal posts are a little wider for him than the guy we have at the helm at the moment.

Except he won the Rose Bowl with his players and didn't have to retract it. But yeah his record is similar to that of CPJ but that wasn't the argument. He stated that Stanford has been terrible before Harbough for 50 years, which is not true. It's also in response to Willingham being called a terrible coach which is something he is not.

BTW I've never called CPJ a terrible coach or even a bad one.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

^^ maybe so Atl but you have been freely throwing out consistent criticism of CPJ and just referenced Willingham as a successful coach at the tree.......so what is your point here unless you are willing to say the two coaches are pretty equivalent in respect to records, titles, and BCS bowls.

And the vacated title is complete horse ****. If you want to make that the big distinction between the two I seriously question your bias.

 

[Eric]

Except he won the Rose Bowl with his players and didn't have to retract it. But yeah his record is similar to that of CPJ but that wasn't the argument. He stated that Stanford has been terrible before Harbough for 50 years, which is not true. It's also in response to Willingham being called a terrible coach which is something he is not.

BTW I've never called CPJ a terrible coach or even a bad one.

He is pretty dang bad.

CPJ's record is better overall and really it isn't that close.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/paul-johnson-1.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/tyrone-willingham-1.html

 

[Mack]

I want the Nuclear Flamethrower Dirty Bird Wildcat Spread Offense, with some Air Coryell and West Coast elements sprinkled in.

Yep put the rock in the air........its fun to watch.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Yep put the rock in the air........its fun to watch.

A pitch is in the air, right?

 

[MidtownJacket]

me personally - I think - there is little more exciting then watching a well timed and executed pitch.

 

[cyptomcat]

eh...if it was some other font I'd be happy to. For you...no thanks.

Do I qualify as 'some other font'? I am curious to see what you are referring to for Stanford math, science and AP requirements. Also if or how many exceptions they have for those requirements.

 

[Mack]

Yep put the rock in the air........its fun to watch.

A pitch is in the air, right?

Funny my friend but remember when you need sixty yes and time is running out .....don't think the pitch is a available option.

 

[Squints]

It's also in response to Willingham being called a terrible coach which is something he is not.

Try telling University of Washington or Notre Dame fans that.

 

[daBuzz]

A pitch is in the air, right?

LOL, I know it was TIC but 2 points:
1) It counts as rushing stats, not passing
2) It's a lateral or it's illegal.

So, no, I'd say a pitch doesn't count!

 

[AE 87]

@Mack @dressedcheeseside @daBuzz

I know it's just a little detail, but "fun to watch" and needing 60 yds with time running out are two different standards of measure. One of my biggest frustrations in this forum is the tendency of some to turn every conversation into whack-a-mole. If someone responds on one topic they'll change the topic refusing to discuss WITH the other person.

What @Mack initially raised what the enjoyment of the pass, ostensibly because the ball in the air is fun to watch. @dressedcheeseside asked, reasonably in my opinion, whether @Mack included the pitch in his use of "rock in the air." @Mack changed the topic to effectiveness in the 2min drill and @daBuzz chimed in with definition of pass, as if @dressedcheeseside didn't know that.

Okay, I know that this was a petty example, but I'm on my computer now rather than my phone, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to get this off my chest. (Rant over)

(oh, and I know that @dressedcheeseside was probably just being a smartass, but wth)

 

[daBuzz]

@Mack @dressedcheeseside @daBuzz

I know it's just a little detail, but "fun to watch" and needing 60 yds with time running out are two different standards of measure. One of my biggest frustrations in this forum is the tendency of some to turn every conversation into whack-a-mole. If someone responds on one topic they'll change the topic refusing to discuss WITH the other person.

What @Mack initially raised what the enjoyment of the pass, ostensibly because the ball in the air is fun to watch. @dressedcheeseside asked, reasonably in my opinion, whether @Mack included the pitch in his use of "rock in the air." @Mack changed the topic to effectiveness in the 2min drill and @daBuzz chimed in with definition of pass, as if @dressedcheeseside didn't know that.

Okay, I know that this was a petty example, but I'm on my computer now rather than my phone, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to get this off my chest. (Rant over)

(oh, and I know that @dressedcheeseside was probably just being a smartass, but wth)

Ahh....so dressedcheeseside being a smartass is OK because he agrees with you but anyone else being a smartass (and pointing out that DCS's post was likely TIC, I might add) is worthy of a rant because they're obviously using it as some kind of Illuminati conspiracy against CPJ or something?

Lighten up Francis and stop taking yourself so seriously.

 

[AE 87]

Ahh....so dressedcheeseside being a smartass is OK because he agrees with you but anyone else being a smartass (and pointing out that DCS's post was likely TIC, I might add) is worthy of a rant because they're obviously using it as some kind of Illuminati conspiracy against CPJ or something?

Lighten up Francis and stop taking yourself so seriously.

Serious questions:
1) Where did you get conspiracy from my post?
2) Has your wife/woman ever responded not to what you said but to why they think you said it? What have you just done?

 

[daBuzz]

Serious questions:
1) Where did you get conspiracy from my post?
2) Has your wife/woman ever responded not to what you said but to why they think you said it? What have you just done?

I apologize. I didn't realize that the following comment was a compliment. I obviously misread it.

One of my biggest frustrations in this forum is the tendency of some to turn every conversation into whack-a-mole.

And for the record, I wasn't taking a shot at anyone. In your post, you say that:

@dressedcheeseside asked, reasonably in my opinion, whether @Mack included the pitch in his use of "rock in the air."

I gave him an answer to his question.

Personally, I thought dcs was just being clever and using it as a good natured way to tease Mack. So, I used the same opportunity back.

But you can't have it both ways. If he asked a question, he was asking for a response to the question...which I gave him. Yet you then turn back and say:

as if @dressedcheeseside didn't know that.