calgldnbear;842646344 said:

---

So you can't drop the class right before the final anymore?? When did that stop? I always thought it was the most ridiculous thing any student had to his or her advantage ....

---

In addition to dropping the class, they could also change to pass/not pass.

calgldnbear;842646344 said:

---

So you can't drop the class right before the final anymore?? When did that stop? I always thought it was the most ridiculous thing any student had to his or her advantage ....

---

Among the weird academic movements of the 1970's was the idea that a transcript should reflect a student's achievement rather than be a precise historical record.

Stanford for its part eliminated the D and the F, created the P/NP, eliminated a lot of required classes, and extended the deadline to drop classes to the day before the final.

The idea was to discourage emphasis on grades and to encourage students to experiment with different classes.

One by one those changes were walked back over the next couple of decades -- first the D being reinstated, then required classes, until finally in 1994 the F was reinstated as a No Pass (NP) and the drop deadline was set to the third week of the quarter.

So it's true Stanford had a liberal drop policy for a couple of decades, but not within the lifetime of current undergrads.

Harbaugh has a remarkable ability to coach up his players...Alex smith, kaepernick, niners from mediocre to super bowl team, look what he did at furd and Michigan.

If you include rookies Andrus Peat, David Parry and Henry Anderson in this analysis, you add three more NFL starters.

And DeCastro is an All-Pro. Not many programs produce those.

Nobody asked you

Lol

Both Chase Thomas and Shane Skov were really slow-footed. Could that be one of the reason they aren't succeeding?

Cardinal96;842649866 said:

---

If you include rookies Andrus Peat, David Parry and Henry Anderson in this analysis, you add three more NFL starters.

And DeCastro is an All-Pro. Not many programs produce those.

---

DeCastro was accounted for and many programs produce All-Pros. Peat and Anderson are backups.

Well, this thread has been fun. It's got it all the old standards: PEDs, coddling culture vs. spartan warrior virtue, the refs... But really, who cares about the pros? It's a poor substitute to look back on Cal's struggles and record in Big Game and seek comfort in deriding individual performance in the NFL. Another way to look at the NFL/versus college record using your logic is that in the last 6-8 years Stanford consistently overachieved with lesser talent and Cal consistently underachieved with superior athletes. OK. I'll take that bargain every time. You win. Stanford players are inferior material that play better as a team. Works for me.

6-8 years ... Everyone has an opinion

Well, OK. Harbaugh showed up in 2007, so that's the lower bound datewise. So, OK...9 years. Guess it takes time for the PEDs to fully remake the team...which gets us to 6 to 8 years.

BeteRouge;842649904 said:

---

Well, this thread has been fun. It's got it all the old standards: PEDs, coddling culture vs. spartan warrior virtue, the refs... But really, who cares about the pros? It's a poor substitute to look back on Cal's struggles and record in Big Game and seek comfort in deriding individual performance in the NFL. Another way to look at the NFL/versus college record using your logic is that in the last 6-8 years Stanford consistently overachieved with lesser talent and Cal consistently underachieved with superior athletes. OK. I'll take that bargain every time. You win. Stanford players are inferior material that play better as a team. Works for me.

---

Obviously this thread is upsetting to you, and I get that. I remember when Stanford was enduring its dark times under Teevens and Harris, there was an article on the Boot Board after Big Game. The author was a former Stanford player who railed about how Cal didn't "win with honor" because they ran a trick play (it wasn't a trick play) and the victory was hollow. His argument seemed absurd. Cal won by multiple touchdowns and was clearly the better team that day. The author was trying to find small consolation in whatever way he could. I can see how this thread probably seems that way to you.

But consider this. If next year, a program like Oregon State, with no real history as a college football power, suddenly began producing dominant line play, year after year, you would wonder. Imagine, out of nowhere, the Beavers begin fielding OL's that were considered on par with maybe two or three other national blue-chip programs, like Alabama and Ohio state, and nobody else. Their lines were even dominating programs like USC, who gets whatever recruits they want. You would speculate if all of this was accomplished legitimately.

It's not that unusual for a non-traditional power to rise up and, for a period of time, start playing on par with the traditional powers. There are other recent examples: TCU and Baylor come to mind. But in every other instance besides Stanford, these non-traditional powers did it with scheme. They used some type of scheme (offense or defense) to make up for other disadvantages against the blue-chip programs (mostly recruiting disadvantages.) But there's no other example of a non-traditional power suddenly deciding to start playing "power football" and then doing it. In theory, that shouldn't be possible. So it's certainly reasonable that people are asking questions.

I agree that unless/until there's any real proof of cheating, it would be weak for Cal fans to speculate about it in real life arguments with Stanford fans. But on our own message board, among ourselves, I see no problem in speculating. You have to admit, from an outsider's perspective, it doesn't add up. If it could somehow be known with certainty that Stanford did it legitimately, I would say: congrats, that's remarkable. But since that's not possible, you shouldn't be surprised or offended to come onto a Cal message board and read a little harmless speculation among Cal fans. That's what message boards are for.

Let me ask you this. Would you really be surprised if, in a year or two or ten from now, a disgruntled ex-lineman or ex-employee breaks ranks and admits that Stanford had a culture of doping? This kind of doping scandal pops up every year in sports, in one form or another. I don't really expect you to answer honestly, but I suspect that deep down you wouldn't be too surprised.

:rollinglaugh:

"one of the few hundred dedicated Stanford fans"

:rollinglaugh:

... Why did Sanders transfer ?

Why did Barry Sanders transfer?
1. He never was able to beat out the RBs in front of him. He had some of his dad's ability to shift direction on a dime, but tended to dance in the hole or make bad/slow decisions rather than run decisively and break up field. It was surprising and painful to watch his first two Spring games when everyone was expecting him to be a replay of his dad. Maybe it was a mismatch of his particular abilities and Stanford's offense.
2. He really was a good student and got his degree with a remaining year of eligibility.
3. His family is in Oklahoma and there was an opportunity for him to play with them in the stands. [Don't know what OK St.'s RB situation is. Maybe they really needed Barry J so he'd get more playing time.]

I enjoyed Calcoholic's comment. A bit more fact and reason -based. But he used a red herring to bring up something somebody else wrote 9 years ago and figure my motivations are the same. The answer to his question about why Stanford went to a power game is... "Jim Harbaugh". I know your next answer is Harbaugh=roids, but the other possible explanation is that the type of football Harbaugh knew best from his Big 10 playing days, his era. I can't comment on his time with the 49ers because I don't follow the pros that closely. It is also the type of football one chooses when there isn't enough talent at skill positions to play, say, Oregon style football or even Cal-style offensive football. And Stanford didn't have much talent relative to its opponents when Harbaugh arrived in 2007. Y'all see a rapid snap-back from 2006' 1-11 record as proof of PEDS. The simpler explanation is getting rid of a demonstrably incompetent coach and replacing him with a guy who demonstrably is able to motivate and play better football with a system he knows.

Ok@ Sanders leaving

How much is akina's salary? Yes I am being Hella nosey

dajo9;842645827 said:

---

When Coach Jim Harbaugh arrived at Stanford last decade he set out to establish a culture of toughness and strength along Stanford's offensive line and defensive front 7. To say he succeeded would be a massive understatement. Stanford football has become the toughest, strongest team in the Pac 12 since around the beginning of this decade. The resurgence began in earnest in 2008 when offensive linemen Ben Muth appeared on the Pac 12 all conference team and Alex Fletcher appeared on the 2nd team. From 2008 - 2013 Stanford landed 10 offensive linemen and defensive front 7 players (big men) on the Pac 12 all conference team. An additional 6 players made the 2nd team. I am not doublecounting players who appeared more than once (and there are many), but only counting individuals that made it at least once. This is a record of dominance to be admired, even moreso considering the average Rivals recruiting ranking of these 16 players is exactly 3.0 stars (two 2-stars and two 4-stars). These players were considered average D1 players coming out of high school but at Stanford were transformed into all conference elite players.

You would expect a record of Pac 12 big men dominance like what Stanford achieved to leave a large and lasting impact on the NFL. The Pac 12 is a power 5 conference and every years sends its best players into the NFL via the draft. At the start of 2015 the NFL had 220 players that came from the Pac 12. But of those 16 1st and 2nd team all conference big men from Stanford only 1 has made a lasting impact in The League (David Decastro). In fact, 11 of the 16 all Pac 12 conference players did not stick in the NFL for any material amount of time at all. The 16 players can be grouped into 3 categories:

Impactful Starter - 1 - David DeCastro
Rosterable - 4 - I included Jonathan Martin in this category which is debatable. I don't plan on getting into his situation here. Also included are Trent Murphy, Sione Fua, and Cameron Fleming.
Non Rosterable - 11 players

And the NFL has been nearly perfect in their evaluations of these Stanford players likelihood of being able to continue to perform at a high level in the NFL. Only 1 player was drafted in the 1st round (David DeCastro). The 4 rosterable players were drafted in the 2nd - 4th rounds. 2 non-rosterable players were drafted in the 5th - 7th rounds while 9 all Pac 12 performers (56%) were not drafted and did not gain any traction in the NFL. An amazing display of analysis by NFL draft scouts.

For some reason Stanford big men have failed miserably at the next level. For comparison, Cal has had much, much less success than Stanford since 2008 and only landed 11 big men on all conference teams in the equivalent period. However, of those 11, there are 5 impactful starters in the NFL (Tyson Alualu, Alex Mack, Mychal Kendricks, Mitchell Schwartz, and Cameron Jordan). That is, 45% of Cal big men all conference performers have made their mark in the NFL while only 6% of Stanford players have. Stanford has managed to take average D1 recruits and make them perform at elite levels while in college, but then as soon as they leave Stanford they are unable to continue their level of performance in professional football. How does Stanford do it?

The 16 Stanford players:
David Decastro
Jonathan Martin
Trent Murphy
Sione Fua
Cameron Fleming
Chris Marinelli
Chase Beeler
Chase Thomas
David Yankey
Ben Gardner - noted for gaining 40 pounds of muscle in one offseason
Cheap shot artist, Shayne Skov
Alex Fletcher - kidney illness
Kevin Danser
Sam Schwartzstein
Khalil Wilkes

---

Here my two cents. Henry Anderson is going to be on a football roster. He is tough and likes to bang. Alex Mack type. Their centers are undersized and I am not surprised at the lack of success at the next level. The current center that is gradating gets this and is headed to grad school to be a full time student.

They also tend to have guys that know they have future beyond football, and I think that does something to their interest in abusing their body at the next level, especially since they probably are more up to speed on the related risks than than most student-athletes, and the coaching staff does not push the NFL as much as other staffs. They often don't think about the NFL with the same motivation as say blue collar kids from Cal, or even their few blue collar skill position kids like Richard Sherman. There are exceptions, like DeCastro who has that Henry Anderson mentality. But a lot of the oline kids going to Furd don't see the NFL as the end all or even important to their ultimate life ambitions. Classic example in Danser who is much more interested in talking about driverless cars and engineering grad school.

wifeisafurd;842650607 said:

---

Here my two cents. Henry Anderson is going to be on a football roster. He is tough and likes to bang. Alex Mack type. Their centers are undersized and I am not surprised at the lack of success at the next level. The current center that is gradating gets this and is headed to grad school to be a full time student.

They also tend to have guys that know they have future beyond football, and I think that does something to their interest in abusing their body at the next level, especially since they probably are more up to speed on the related risks than than most student-athletes, and the coaching staff does not push the NFL as much as other staffs. They often don't think about the NFL with the same motivation as say blue collar kids from Cal, or even their few blue collar skill position kids like Richard Sherman. There are exceptions, like DeCastro who has that Henry Anderson mentality. But a lot of the oline kids going to Furd don't see the NFL as the end all or even important to their ultimate life ambitions. Classic example in Danser who is much more interested in talking about driverless cars and engineering grad school.

---

That's a very pro-Furd way of looking at things. Seems like conjecture supported by anecdotal evidence. It begs the question, though, if they do not care about NFL success and don't wish to damage their bodies, why try so hard when they are playing for free in college?

The performance enchancement that we see from the Furdies specifically during college is suspicious. My eyeballs tell me that if there is one school in the conference that has pervasive PED use, it's Furd.

I figured I was done but this just tickled me no end:

"That's a very pro-Furd way of looking at things. [U]Seems like conjecture supported by anecdotal evidence[/U]. It begs the question, though, if they do not care about NFL success and don't wish to damage their bodies, why try so hard when they are playing for free in college?

The performance enchancement that we see from the Furdies specifically during college is suspicious. [U]My eyeballs tell me[/U] that if there is one school in the conference that has pervasive PED use, it's Furd. "

My eyeballs tell me [U]that[/U] is funny. OK, now I've broken my 6-posts per season average. But sometimes funny things are worth it.

I don't know what Akina's salary is, but he's worth double, maybe triple. Ted Cruz aside, Akina's firing was the biggest mistake Texas ever made. The guy has captured lightning in a bottle when it comes to both recruiting and teaching DBs. I hope he never leaves and never forgets how Texas treated him. He can retire anytime he wants to but the Stanford gig extended his career. He might even take another post somewhere else.

wifeisafurd;842650607 said:

---

Here my two cents. Henry Anderson is going to be on a football roster. He is tough and likes to bang. Alex Mack type. Their centers are undersized and I am not surprised at the lack of success at the next level. The current center that is gradating gets this and is headed to grad school to be a full time student.

They also tend to have guys that know they have future beyond football, and I think that does something to their interest in abusing their body at the next level, especially since they probably are more up to speed on the related risks than than most student-athletes, and the coaching staff does not push the NFL as much as other staffs. They often don't think about the NFL with the same motivation as say blue collar kids from Cal, or even their few blue collar skill position kids like Richard Sherman. There are exceptions, like DeCastro who has that Henry Anderson mentality. But a lot of the oline kids going to Furd don't see the NFL as the end all or even important to their ultimate life ambitions. Classic example in Danser who is much more interested in talking about driverless cars and engineering grad school.

---

Seems odd to me that the passion is there to reach such a high level of collegiate achievement but no passion to excel for big money. This theory would be more believable from the team a decade ago.

ryananderin;842645835 said:

---

PEDs?

---

Bingo. I know this has been whispered, but there's just too much proof in the pudding to pretend it's not there. Anyone who subscribes to the belief that 'Furd wins without cheating is just buying into the "honor system" myth that is 'Furd. They're cheating. It's coming out.

Calcoholic;842649942 said:

---

It's not that unusual for a non-traditional power to rise up and, for a period of time, start playing on par with the traditional powers. There are other recent examples: TCU and Baylor come to mind. But in every other instance besides Stanford, these non-traditional powers did it with scheme. They used some type of scheme (offense or defense) to make up for other disadvantages against the blue-chip programs (mostly recruiting disadvantages.) But there's no other example of a non-traditional power suddenly deciding to start playing "power football" and then doing it. In theory, that shouldn't be possible. So it's certainly reasonable that people are asking questions.

---

Spot on. This is not a situation like what happened at Oregon with Chip Kelly who came up with an offensive scheme that just ran all over everyone until teams figured out how to beat it. What Kelly did he did with Xs and Os. Stanford, by contrast, is playing a power run offense that has been around since the (relatively) paleolithic era of football. There is nothing new under the Sun here. It's dominant line play and pure smash mouth football. The idea that Harbaugh just willed this into being (particularly in the relatively short period in which it took place) is ludicrous. Achems Razor tells us there's probably a different answer.

Sebastabear;842650738 said:

---

Spot on. This is not a situation like what happened at Oregon with Chip Kelly who came up with an offensive scheme that just ran all over everyone until teams figured out how to beat it. What Kelly did he did with Xs and Os. Stanford, by contrast, is playing a power run offense that has been around since the (relatively) paleolithic era of football. There is nothing new under the Sun here. It's dominant line play and pure smash mouth football. The idea that Harbaugh just willed this into being (particularly in the relatively short period in which it took place) is ludicrous. Achems Razor tells us there's probably a different answer.

---

Spot on, it is incredible how many Furd players after a short time on campus (see McCaffery this year vs Frosh) look like Charles Atlas even if they arrived on campus looking closer to the 97 lb weakling. No question with their success they have gotten bigger and better recruits (See Garnett and Shittu for example, along with their obnoxious celebrations) but across the board you see specimen after specimen at every spot on the Stanfurd roster. With every school in the country trying to build up their players how is it that Stanfurd somehow captured lightning in a bottle and nobody else can do the same thing?

I am reminded of the kid I went to school with who was a slightly above average HS player but with a large frame. I saw him when he came back from his first Semester at a well known school and he literally looked like someone had stuck a needle in him and pumped him up. He became a third team All American and played in the Pro's but eventually flamed out both personally and professionally and was found to have been a steroid abuser. To grow so many different players so fast doesn't pass the smell test.

And thanks to Bete Rouge for being a brave long term poster at this site. There is no question that Stanfurd's domination of us is driving Cal fans crazy as the memory of Tedford's long winning streak fades from memory..

Careful, Sebastabear. William of Ockham, intellectual property holder to the concept of Occam's Razor, might be having his lawyers contact you for infringement and defamation.
I would be surprised ( and sympathetic)if you actually saw and studied the schemes that Stanford ran under Teevens and Harris. One of many changes Harbaugh brought to Stanford football was emphasizing a fullback, multiple TE's and the "Ogre", where an extra lineman sets in the backfield, as [U]blockers[/U]. Anyplace on the field, not just on goal line offense. He didn't invent any of these methods to help the run game, what he did was utilize them far more than most coaches. To our chagrin, Cal won a Big Game in 2009 when Harbaugh departed from that formula and instead of giving the ball to Gerhart , who had been running very effectively on that drive, and attempted a pass, successfully defended in the end zone.`````

BeteRouge;842650870 said:

---

Careful, Sebastabear. William of Ockham, intellectual property holder to the concept of Occam's Razor, might be having his lawyers contact you for infringement and defamation.
I would be surprised ( and sympathetic)if you actually saw and studied the schemes that Stanford ran under Teevens and Harris. One of many changes Harbaugh brought to Stanford football was emphasizing a fullback, multiple TE's and the "Ogre", where an extra lineman sets in the backfield, as [U]blockers[/U]. Anyplace on the field, not just on goal line offense. He didn't invent any of these methods to help the run game, what he did was utilize them far more than most coaches. To our chagrin, Cal won a Big Game in 2009 when Harbaugh departed from that formula and instead of giving the ball to Gerhart , who had been running very effectively on that drive, and attempted a pass, successfully defended in the end zone.`````

---

Other than misspelling his name, I don't believe William of Ockham would have any problem with what I wrote. Plus he's been dead for 700 years. And you may want to look up the concept of defamation.

As to the rest of your post, this is a mess. What exactly are you saying? That Jim Harbaugh came up with an innovative scheme that no one else in college football was running?

Child please.

Harbaugh himself admitted he was basically running Bo Schembechler's offensive scheme ("with a tight end that will put his hand down in the dirt..."). When you say he "didn't invent any of these methods to help the run game" you seem to be under the delusion that he "invented" them at all. For God's sake, just listen to a broadcast of any Stanford game and listen to the analysts drone on endlessly about Stanford's "pro-set, smash mouth" brand of football. There is absolutely nothing about this that would explain Stanford's success on the field. What does explain it is players putting on 40 pounds of muscle in a single off season. Yeah, that doesn't seem suspicious at all...

NVBear78;842650863 said:

---

Spot on, it is incredible how many Furd players after a short time on campus (see McCaffery this year vs Frosh) look like Charles Atlas even if they arrived on campus looking closer to the 97 lb weakling. No question with their success they have gotten bigger and better recruits (See Garnett and Shittu for example, along with their obnoxious celebrations) but across the board you see specimen after specimen at every spot on the Stanfurd roster. With every school in the country trying to build up their players how is it that Stanfurd somehow captured lightning in a bottle and nobody else can do the same thing?

---

+1. I've poked around the interwebz trying to figure out exactly what Stanfurd is doing S&C wise, and haven't found much. What info I have found doesn't seem to suggest a revolutionary approach to training that is all that different from what other programs are doing. Their trainers don't seem to have exceptional credentials. I will acknowledge that they recruit well and probably have great facilities. I'm curious to hear what knowledgeable Furd fans know about their S&C program.

dajo9;842650657 said:

---

Seems odd to me that the passion is there to reach such a high level of collegiate achievement but no passion to excel for big money. This theory would be more believable from the team a decade ago.

---

You raise a good point. My guess is a lot of its environmental, and the limitations placed on how much football there is at the collegiate level. Its not the grind of the NFL And the money is not that big in the NFL for these guys, or at least there perception of what they are worth. The average career length of a first day pick in the NFL is 3.3 years and for lineman 3.5 years per the NFL. Per Sportac, the average starting oline salary is $1.2 million (left tackles really bring the average up btw). So assuming these guys were as good as the average oline player, which the average good oline college player is not), were talking dropping $5 million for the better Furd guys and far less than that for the guys that may just make a roster and sit on a bench. Then you have to look at the expectation Furd grads have of their careers and grad school. Just watch the Shark Tank with the Furd engineer blowing off very lucrative offers with arrogance.

Calcoholic;842649942 said:

---

Let me ask you this. Would you really be surprised if, in a year or two or ten from now, a disgruntled ex-lineman or ex-employee breaks ranks and admits that Stanford had a culture of doping? This kind of doping scandal pops up every year in sports, in one form or another. I don't really expect you to answer honestly, but I suspect that deep down you wouldn't be too surprised.

---

I wouldn't be surprised one bit (of course, you all already knew that).

It's worth considering for a minute the alternate explanation that furd loyalists would put forth: Furd has assembled some kind of once-in-a-lifetime, three-standard-deviations-above-the-mean combo of coaches, facilities, and culture. Calcoholic's post upthread puts forth a convincing case as to why this is what it would take for furd to do what it did, to do something no other program has been able to do.

If I were in some sick world where I were forced to bet a lot of money on the true explanation of furd football's results, I'd (1) try to get out of that world, but if not, (2) bet on at least some foul play.