Stanford and David Shaw

[Madison Grant]

no. I just want you to own what you said because you are wrong. You said harbaugh made them a perennial top 25 team. You are wrong. You made this crap up without checking and got called out by someone who knows more about it than you. Just admit it and move on.

In my opinion, Harbaugh did make them the perennial Top 25 team. They finished 4th in the final poll his last year, and the players Shaw later won with were recruited largely when Harbaugh was there, especially Luck. As time goes on, Shaw is having less success. It wasn't a mistake when I said that, and I knew more about the situation than you assumed. I knew Harbaugh left for the 49ers early, but the program started it's upward trend under him, as much as people may dislike him. I've also heard Stanford fans try to minimize Harbaugh's responsibility, and chalk it up to athletic department support and plan to recruit nationally. Perhaps that is true. I don't know, but as many will tell you, we've had this discussion before on here, and I've already looked it all up. But kudos to you for being the Stanford Superfan.

 

[Madison Grant]

From 95-01 Stanford won 40+ games. There was zero talk of dropping d1 football. Not sure what Gilmore said/heard (would love a quote) but as someone who was there and now very in touch with Stanford grads have never heard this.

From 95-01 (7-4-1, 7-5, 5-6, 3-8, 8-4, 5-6, 9-3). "40 wins" sounds great until you realize how Gailey-esque those records looked.

 

[Boaty1]

I just looked back on this remarkable 7 year stretch Stanford had from 95-01. LOL!!! They had 3 losing seasons in that span. And the sad part is that was the best 7 year stretch I could find for Stanford going back a good while. Jim Harbaugh deserves a medal for what he did with that program.

 

[ezbee]

Good deal. Say you are right. Stanford wasn't considering dropping D1 football.

It still doesn't change the fact they were a GOD awful program! I mean depths our Jackets have never seen. Yet they turned it around. Stanford is doing well now but they are a bad hire away from returning to the cellar of the PAC 12. Their program has been maxed out over the past decade.

First, thx for this response but I disagree. Stanford is Georgia Tech. Their depths and lows have equaled ours. Our highs have equaled theirs. Everything is cyclical. I could argue Johnson was better than Harbaugh. O’Leary better than Shaw. Or vice versa.

Stanford has more diverse majors than GT thus can attract more talent at times. But it’s a hard school, just like Tech. Stanford, Tech, Notre Dame all can catch fire (ala Tech 2014) but history shows us we simply can’t do what Bama, LSU, Ohio State etc does consistently. Unless we throw out academics.

This is what frustrates me about our fan base. We all scratch and reach for that brass ring that may be there occasionally but due to our own limitations, it will never be there consistently.

 

[Boaty1]

From 95-01 (7-4-1, 7-5, 5-6, 3-8, 8-4, 5-6, 9-3). "40 wins" sounds great until you realize how Gailey-esque those records looked.

That is not as good as Gailey! Gailey never had 1 losing season. Much less 3. It was the greatest stretch in Stanford history until Harbaugh so you can understand the sensitivity a Stanford grad would have about it.

 

[Madison Grant]

That is not as good as Gailey! Gailey never had 1 losing season. Much less 3. It was the greatest stretch in Stanford history until Harbaugh so you can understand the sensitivity a Stanford grad would have about it.

Exactly. I looked it up because I was pretty sure I was right. They weren't quite 2-3 win bad before Harbaugh, but it was close. 5 straight losing seasons with a 2 and 1 win one sprinkled in there. I know part of it is due to the change in length of college schedules, but prior to Harbaugh's 12 win 2010, Stanford had a grand total of 3 10 win seasons in their whole history going back to 1918! Since then they've had 5 under Shaw, but have steadily fallen in wins the last 5 years (12, 10, 9, 9, 4).

 

[ezbee]

I just looked back on this remarkable 7 year stretch Stanford had from 95-01. LOL!!! They had 3 losing seasons in that span. And the sad part is that was the best 7 year stretch I could find for Stanford going back a good while. Jim Harbaugh deserves a medal for what he did with that program.

Now you’re just being obtuse. This run is pretty damn close to O’Leary. By memory I think he won maybe 3 more games? (Full
Disclosure, O’Leary is Much better coach than Ty and would’ve been a better choice for the Irish too!)

but this was also during a time with less bowl games and less games during the regular season. Not saying they were world beaters but they surely weren’t getting close to dropping football.
Still waiting on your quote from your close personal friend Rod Gilmore though little boatie.

 

[ezbee]

That is not as good as Gailey! Gailey never had 1 losing season. Much less 3. It was the greatest stretch in Stanford history until Harbaugh so you can understand the sensitivity a Stanford grad would have about it.

And again little boatie, not even close to dropping d1 football so stop making crap up.

 

[Boaty1]

First, thx for this response but I disagree. Stanford is Georgia Tech. Their depths and lows have equaled ours. Our highs have equaled theirs. Everything is cyclical. I could argue Johnson was better than Harbaugh. O’Leary better than Shaw. Or vice versa.

Stanford has more diverse majors than GT thus can attract more talent at times. But it’s a hard school, just like Tech. Stanford, Tech, Notre Dame all can catch fire (ala Tech 2014) but history shows us we simply can’t do what Bama, LSU, Ohio State etc does consistently. Unless we throw out academics.

This is what frustrates me about our fan base. We all scratch and reach for that brass ring that may be there occasionally but due to our own limitations, it will never be there consistently.

I'll ask you the same question I asked another poster earlier. How does articulating your view on a public forum help the situation? I'm not saying that this debate will alter the course of GT athletics mind you. I am saying however that the overall negative perspective about the capabilities of our program from within do have a negative effect. In many ways you are what you believe you are. For example, I heard an alum almost bragging to a woman behind me at a game this year how GT is very similar to Vandy on the football field. I had my 24 year old nephew with me. How is he supposed to become a devoted Tech fan that contributes his time and money to the program when he thinks we can't compete and worse yet we don't try to compete. The truth really doesn't matter here although the comparison to Vandy is preposterous. We can't constantly talk down our program and in the same breath lament our struggles fundrasing. It seems straight forward to me but I' wasn't smart enough to go to Tech or Stanford so you may be right.

 

[Boaty1]

Now you’re just being obtuse. This run is pretty damn close to O’Leary. By memory I think he won maybe 3 more games? (Full
Disclosure, O’Leary is Much better coach than Ty and would’ve been a better choice for the Irish too!)

but this was also during a time with less bowl games and less games during the regular season. Not saying they were world beaters but they surely weren’t getting close to dropping football.
Still waiting on your quote from your close personal friend Rod Gilmore though little boatie.

What? I mean...just look at how many losing seasons Stanford had before 08.

The Rod Gilmore quote actually came from ESPN's college football 150 series. They were discussing the best coaches to coach in both college and pro. The comment was made when discussing Harbaugh who i believe finished in the top 5. I don't know if anybody else watched that show. If they did maybe somebody can vouch for me.

 

[ezbee]

I'll ask you the same question I asked another poster earlier. How does articulating your view on a public forum help the situation? I'm not saying that this debate will alter the course of GT athletics mind you. I am saying however that the overall negative perspective about the capabilities of our program do have a negative effect. In many ways you are what you believe you are. For example, I heard an alum almost bragging to a woman behind me at a game this year how GT is very similar to Vandy on the football field. I had my 24 year old nephew with me. How is he supposed to become a devoted Tech fan that contributes his time and money to the program when he thinks we can't compete and worse yet we don't try to compete. The truth really doesn't matter here although the comparison to Vandy is preposterous. We can't constantly talk down our program and in the same breath lament our struggles fundrasing. It seems straight forward to me but I' wasn't smart enough to go to Tech or Stanford so you may be right.

So here’s another great response that I appreciate. And it’s a hard question to ask if you aren’t a part of the GT family. I personally don’t think these replies or posts about tech are negative. Our easiest majors can be a grind. It’s the truth. And recruits know it. Just because you and I bemoan certain things and agree that we will never approach football like Bama, doesn’t mean we can’t compete at a high level.

tech is a hard school. Tech will never be a layup. The right kids can win a lot.

 

[ezbee]

What? I mean...just look at how many losing seasons Stanford had before 08.

The Rod Gilmore quote actually came from ESPN's college football 150 series. They were discussing the best coaches to coach in both college and pro. The comment was made when discussing Harbaugh who i believe finished in the top 5. I don't know if anybody else watched that show. If they did maybe somebody can vouch for me.

Thanks

And I’m not a huge Stanford fan despite my time there. I’d argue Shaw is the greatest coach, followed by Walsh and Green. Stanford though is more like Tech than we like to believe. And despite their recruiting efforts they still haven’t reached that consistent brass ring.

 

[Boaty1]

So here’s another great response that I appreciate. And it’s a hard question to ask if you aren’t a part of the GT family. I personally don’t think these replies or posts about tech are negative. Our easiest majors can be a grind. It’s the truth. And recruits know it. Just because you and I bemoan certain things and agree that we will never approach football like Bama, doesn’t mean we can’t compete at a high level.

tech is a hard school. Tech will never be a layup. The right kids can win a lot.

And I guess this will be one of the topics that GT struggles with forever. I understand your pride in your degree. As someone who knows they could have never have made it through GT academically I certainly respect those who did. With that said, I would argue pride in the degree can be taken over the top and detrimental to the athletic program. I know some athletes who graduated from Tech. Not all were brilliant. Some significantly less than that.

I think Collins has proven the myth of players not being able to get passed the Hill to be false. Also the amount of scholarships Johnson extended I would say proves that to be a myth.

There are many narratives I believe GT alums hold onto that strangle the athletic program while boosting their own esteem through their degree. And once again I would say regardless of the truth if you are truly concerned about the athletic program and attracting more fans and the subsequent dollars that we need so desperately at this time, why put limitations on what the program can be? Let sidewalk fans live the dream through the underdog team in the state. I know that's what attracted me to GT athletics at a young age. Honestly if I wasn't already immersed in the program I think it would be hard for me to be as invested with all the talk, which i call negativity and you call pragmatism, around the program. It seems everywhere I turn I'm being told why we can't do this and can't do that. And the worse thing is it comes from many of our own fans even moreso than it does from the outside. Some sidewalk fans like myself enjoy pulling for the underdog. But we at least want to feel we are in the fight.

 

[TheStolenT]

Who the **** cares about Stanford right now. Let it go.

 

[swarmer]

From 95-01 (7-4-1, 7-5, 5-6, 3-8, 8-4, 5-6, 9-3). "40 wins" sounds great until you realize how Gailey-esque those records looked.

Closer to CPJ results than Gailey. Build your own narrative though

 

[Madison Grant]

Closer to CPJ results than Gailey. Build your own narrative though

I thought about it, but CPJ did pull off a couple 11 win seasons. Not sure what the 'narrative building' comment is supposed to mean.

 

[herb]

I thought about it, but CPJ did pull off a couple 11 win seasons. Not sure what the 'narrative building' comment is supposed to mean.

It means he was poking the nest unnecessarily

 

[kg01]

Who the **** cares about Stanford right now. Let it go.

It's an annual tickle-fight on the board. I mostly just sit back and laugh at all of 'em.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Mods?!!!

 

[LibertyTurns]

Perhaps if so-called GT fans supported the program the last couple of decades it would have made a difference? It was ok to bash the program then, now it’s a crime against humanity to disagree with anything that’s not full agreement with complete over the top hype. The complaints against many aspects of the program in previous regimes were warranted, but HS Offense, non-D1 players, etc? That was all ok? Some of you all are amazing. I swear fans of other teams understand & LIKE GT better than our own fans.