Tomorrow night, Chuckie is going to get creamed. Did anyone remember when VJ knocked him down last year, and he was rattled the rest of the game? I bet Whitt goes after Keaton hard to start the game, and Erickson tries to overpower their DL. I think it will be a boring first quarter, but when the first Q ends, we are up 14-0.
It amazes me to see people put Stanford in the top tier of P12 as a program when discussing long-term issues. Of the current 12 P12 teams, Stanford ranks 7th in terms of all-time winning percentage. And it's not like they have a BYU type history where they absolutely sucked for a century before managing two decades of competence. To the contrary, most of their success from a W-L standpoint is 80 years old. Harbaugh's second-best year there was 8-5, and they were 25-55 the 7 years before that 8-5 season.
Furthermore, their fanbase is pretty crappy. They draw from all over the country, with very few students caring at all about Stanford football before the day they show up on campus. Furthermore, while a decent number stick around the Bay area, a much higher percentage leaves the area than for any other team in the P12. This makes it tough to build the program.
Sure Stanford has some huge advantages, but it also has some extremely significant disadvantages. Given their limitations, it will be tough for them to keep up if they suddenly become less attractive to the intellectually sound elite athletes.
In any event, when setting up tiers of P12 programs based on history and future prospects extending beyond 4 or 5 years, USC is head and shoulders above everyone else, and the next group really has to include Washington, UCLA, and Oregon (their recent surge has been longer and better than Stanford's, and their rise seems to be less coach-based than Stanford, but still Oregon may have a tough time keeping up with the entrenched advantages Washington and UCLA have if the Nike money dries up or they somehow squander the "cool" factor.
Dead spot on, Scratch. Every word of it.
Top 10 teams ranked by number of Rose Bowl appearances per Wikipedia:Originally Posted by Scratch
USC Michigan Washington Ohio State Stanford UCLA Wisconsin California Oregon Illinois
Last edited by U-Ute; 08-29-2013 at 01:36 PM. Reason: Ugh. It didn't keep my table data.
That just makes my point when you look at when those appearances occurred. 8 of the 13 were before 1941, the 9th was in '52, then they made it in '71 and '72. In other words, before last year they had gone once in 40 years and thrice in 60 years. That supports them as falling in line somewhere behind USC, UW, UCLA, and Oregon in terms of likelihood of future program success.
But you could also argue that Oregon is a "Johnny come lately" without the history. I would rate Stanford higher than Oregon *because* they have those appearances 70 years ago.
I guess it depends on where you want to place your importance.
The more interesting statistic is how far out front USC really is in this measurement. O.o
True that Oregon is not a traditional football power. I see their success as more sustainable because they bought their success with a boatload of money, and that money source is not drying up. Also, though Oregon has never been a superpower, they have also never been the Pac-10 doormat, a title that has applied to Stanford as recently as 5 years ago.
I agree. It all depends on what you're trying to measure. I'm talking about likelihood of future success. To me, Stanford has the same strengths and weaknesses it has had for the last 50 years. The difference recently has been due to coaching. While I think Oregon has had very good coaching, I think the much bigger issue has been their relationship with Nike and the corresponding $$$$$ and cool factor. To me, the relationship with Nike and associated benefits seems much more likely to continue than Stanford's hiring of elite coaches (especially if rumored low compensation to Stanford coaches is true). I could certainly be wrong, but that's what my beliefs are based on.
Do you believe that the funding will stay for the next 100 years? What happens after Uncle Phil passes in and Nike hits a tough financial stretch?
Apples and oranges. The Big 10 had a no-repeat Rose Bowl policy up until the the early/mid 1970s. (Sidenote: Its teams could also participate in ONLY the Rose Bowl.). For the longest time, there was one exception: Minnesota played in back-to-back games in 1960-61 because the faculty at Ohio State forbade the Buckeyes (8-0-1 and ranked No. 2) from participating in the Rose Bowl.
Faculty are so lame.
I hear that Utah did not cancel classes tonight? Thanks, faculty, for thinking your classes are so important. Seriously, what other profession is so self-important that they would turn down a day off from work?
Also, today's Pac-12 has supplied the "West" team in all but five years (twice during WWI, when military teams played, 2001 Miami, 2004 Texas and 2010 TCU are the others.). The "East" team in the Rose Bowl has only been supplied by the Big 10 since 1947. So USC should be ahead of everyone else by a wide margin.
For my purposes, I was really only focusing on the P12 teams, but that is an interesting factoid I was not aware of! Thanks!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote