We Can Be Like Stanford

[Nostical]

"There is no single reason for Stanford's rise from a pushover—one that supposedly couldn't compete because of its tough academic standards—to a powerhouse that wins because of them. The transformational 2007-to-2010 tenure of coach Jim Harbaugh, who has since gone on to the San Francisco 49ers, was clearly pivotal. So is the program's growing ability to convince elite high-school recruits of a Stanford degree's value. But its also about money. The way Stanford keeps up in the college-football arms race is to lean on private donations. As a result, almost everything the football program touches is endowed, from each of the school's 85 football scholarships to David Shaw's head-coaching position."

The transformative coach is Warde and Susan's obligation. Donations start with you.

 

[tduconn]

Stanford did very well with John Elway in the 80's. They didn't suddenly get good......they've had a tradition of up and down phases.......according to a Stanford season ticket holder I know. In fact, I believe they built a new stadium not too long ago which was downsized from their original stadium.

Playing in a good league even gets good recruits to the "academic" schools in the conferences. My brother told me that at a Vanderbilt game this year they stopped the game to present a ball to the SEC's all time leading receiver......who chose to play at Vanderbilt.

Its amazing what Franklin did for that school after he left Maryland upon Edsalls arrival. In fact, some Nashville papers are speculating Franklin is on the short list of possible candidates for the USC job.

When you're in a good league good players flock to the schools......even the academic schools which have tougher admission standards.

I think the league reputation, as well as individual institution perception, gets the better student athletes........who's higher skill set can even make an average coach look good.

I don't think the best coach money can by will get the more skilled players to commit to a conference or team will ill perception.

 

[noeynox]

Hogwash on the second post. Baylor has been in the big 12 forever. They sucked before Briles. TTCU, and Boise, made their reputations while in the MWC, as did Utah.

Get the right coach with the right system and not some archaic philosophy of staying ahead of the chains and you can win.

To the original post, how many of those donations at Stanford are tied to silicon valley types?

 

[Excalibur]

Coaching matters . . .

 

[UConn Dan]

Elite donors also matter... we are not in the same in league as Stanford academically nor with the size of our endowment and annual donations... last I checked $17billion > $300million. There's no way we compete with the support Stanford gets...

 

[UConnJim]

I think UConn can be like Stanford. They play power run football and dominated an Oregon team with more speed. Stanford is never going to get more speed players than most PAC 12 schools, so they are not trying to compete by using a spread offense.

The hardest players to project in high school are offensive linemen. Many develop in college as we have seen happen at UConn.

For UConn to win consistently, we need to play power run football, develop players, pass efficiently, and have a solid defense.

 

[Dooley]

I think UConn can be like Stanford. They play power run football and dominated an Oregon team with more speed. Stanford is never going to get more speed players than most PAC 12 schools, so they are not trying to compete by using a spread offense.

The hardest players to project in high school are offensive linemen. Many develop in college as we have seen happen at UConn.

For UConn to win consistently, we need to play power run football, develop players, pass efficiently, and have a solid defense.

I agree with most of this. With the majority of college football running speed spread offenses these days, it's almost "innovative" not to run a speed spread offense and, instead, play power football like Stanford, Wisconsin, or Michigan State. Those teams play stellar defense and have a good, balanced offensive attack. I also don't think UCONN, at least in the short-term, can recruit the talent and depth of players needed to run a speed, spread attack. This is why I like the idea of hiring Pat Narduzzi so much. You can fix a defense much quicker than you can fix an offense. If we focus more on holding our opponents under 20 than scoring over 50, I think we can turn this thing around quicker. Fix the defense and slowly bring the offense up to snuff and we can get back to winning.

 

[noeynox]

Offensive skill players want to play in the spread or high scoring offenses. Mac schools run spread offenses very effectively. The idea that you need elite highly recruited players for it to excel is just not true. The spread is what gives lesser teams compete against teams comprised of four and five star players. Now does it have to be the spread at uconn.? No. Narduzzi would be fine with me. Could we go back to running power and have a good enough pass blocking line to resemble a modern and a effective passing game? That's the question. I don't know if we can attract the o line men to try and line up and play like Alabama or Wisconsin but with the right coach it can be done here I'm sure.

 

[FrostyNuggets]

Stanford did very well with John Elway in the 80's. .

Elway was a tremendous college player, but he never brought Stanford to a bowl game and was under .500 for his career. Jim Plunkett....now Stanford did very well with him, he won a Rose Bowl.

 

[CAHUSKY]

Stanford did very well with John Elway in the 80's. They didn't suddenly get good......they've had a tradition of up and down phases.......according to a Stanford season ticket holder I know. In fact, I believe they built a new stadium not too long ago which was downsized from their original stadium.
.

Besides the Plunkett era Stanford has sucked for many, many years. They never finished above 6th in the conference from 1977 - 1991 and weren't really good until they won the conference in 1999. Even though Elway put up great numbers his teams never had a winning record and never went to a bowl game.
(signed long time CAL season ticket holder. Go Bears!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Cardinal_football

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

It starts with us getting out of the AAC.

 

[ASweet3781]

I think it's interesting how all of a sudden...schools like Baylor, Louisville, and Stanford...have become so good so fast across a wide range of sports, especially football. Not sure what the great selling point was for the first 2. Louisville was in a northeast conference. Baylor was not even a top 5 athletic program in Texas. And all these football players on Stanford meet their academic requirements after years when they stunk at football?

Yes they hired good coaches but it still doesn't smell right in my mind because especially in the case of Baylor and Louisville they got good in every sport. They have literally gone from mediocre to great in almost every sport in no time. That seems to be kinda hard to do unless your cutting corners somehow.

 

[huskymedic]

I think it's interesting how all of a sudden...schools like Baylor, Louisville, and Stanford...have become so good so fast across a wide range of sports, especially football. Not sure what the great selling point was for the first 2. Louisville was in a northeast conference. Baylor was not even a top 5 athletic program in Texas. And all these football players on Stanford meet their academic requirements after years when they stunk at football?

Yes they hired good coaches but it still doesn't smell right in my mind because especially in the case of Baylor and Louisville they got good in every sport. They have literally gone from mediocre to great in almost every sport in no time. That seems to be kinda hard to do unless your cutting corners somehow.

Success breeds success... people (including coaching staffs) gravitate towards winning programs/schools.