Is Stanford any better than a mid level SEC team?

[BogeyGolfer]

I know I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think Stanford could beat SC on a neutral field... They may not beat Auburn or Ole Miss on a neutral field. I would love to see what Vegas would have on these games.... Stanford looks like a Music City Bowl maybe Peach Bowl team to me....Solid but not great.

[smootness]

Yes. Music City Bowl? Good grief, man.

Stanford is legit, and they also play the kind of style that excels in the SEC. I'll put it this way, do you think Oregon would be any better than a mid-level SEC team? Because Stanford is clearly better than Oregon.

Stanford would destroy the current version of UGA, and they would handle Ole Miss without a problem.

[ShotgunDawg]

I know I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think Stanford could beat SC on a neutral field... They may not beat Auburn or Ole Miss on a neutral field. I would love to see what Vegas would have on these games.... Stanford looks like a Music City Bowl maybe Peach Bowl team to me....Solid but not great.

I agree, Stanford's o-line is better than than SC's, but SC is better at pretty much every position.

QB - Shaw or Hogan - Shaw has a better arm and is faster.

RB - Davis or Gaffney - Davis in a landslide as an NFL prospect

WR - Ellington or Montgomery - Push from a talent perspective

DL - SC and I don't think there is a debate

LB - Push

DB - Push

Now, which team has smarter players and can probably execute a game plan better? Stanford, but I have no idea how to quantify or grade that impact.

South Carolina and Stanford are very very simlar teams and talent levels.

[hacker]

What? Are you guys serious? Stanford would be in the LSU and Alabama tier of the SEC.

[ShotgunDawg]

What? Are you guys serious? Stanford would be in the LSU and Alabama tier of the SEC.

I don't believe that for one minute. Their talent level isn't in the same ballpark as LSU and Bama. Their talent level is very close to South Carolina's, and if they are better than SC, it depends mostly on intelligence and coaching.

[CadaverDawg]

What? Are you guys serious? Stanford would be in the LSU and Alabama tier of the SEC.

This.

What the hell is going on around here lately?

[camsu]

It would be interesting to see Stanford week in week out playing better teams and how they would hold up. They have great talent especially on the Lines but depth would be a problem which is our continuing problem as everyone except Bama and LSU. That's the huge difference in teams. Stanford would give Bama a great game but one an done.

[civildawg]

Must be something in the water

[ShotgunDawg]

This.

What the hell is going on around here lately?

I high disagree with you. Look at my position breakdowns and tell me how you can justify saying that they would be at the level Bama or LSU?

[Goat Holder]

Dumb. PAC-12 is a very strong conference, and I suspect you'll see them over-take the SEC soon in overall power. Their cycle is coming, pretty much when USC hires their coach.

[ShotgunDawg]

Dumb. PAC-12 is a very strong conference, and I suspect you'll see them over-take the SEC soon in overall power. Their cycle is coming, pretty much when USC hires their coach.

Not debating this, but someone tell me why Stanford is better than South Carolina?

I don't want to hear, "This is crazy" without an explanation.

There is a reason that teams win and lose. Please explain what match ups make Stanford better than South Carolina.

[Fader21]

I never understood this SEC is greater than everyone mentality. Oregon would tire out our defense and since we quit in the 2nd half we would lose. Stanford definitely could hang with LSU, point proven last night. If you even watched the game their coaches can gameplan. Defense was outstanding offense was able to move the ball. Special teams were good except for a few mistakes. The PAC 12 isn't the CUSA guys come on Cali has as much talent as Florida and GA combined

[It_Could_Happen]

Just delete this thread now. Your argument is absurd.

[Eric Nies Grind Time]

I know I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think Stanford could beat SC on a neutral field... They may not beat Auburn or Ole Miss on a neutral field. I would love to see what Vegas would have on these games.... Stanford looks like a Music City Bowl maybe Peach Bowl team to me....Solid but not great.

Stanford would be the second best team behind Alabama. They are like an Alabama light.

[ShotgunDawg]

According to 247, since 2009 South Carolina's average recruiting ranking has been 19.4 and Stanford's is 19.6.

So there you go, their talent levels are very similar. Stanford is a very good team that executes and could beat Bama and LSU in the same way that South Carolina can and has beaten Bama and LSU (Carolina has played some tough games agains LSU but not sure they have beaten them), but IMO over the course of a 5 year period in the SEC, their record and competitiveness would be closer to South Carolina than Bama or LSU.

On another note, South Carolina's recruiting ranking kinda of surprised me. Is there any reason MSU shouldn't be able to to average a 19.4 average recruiting ranking over the course of a 5 year period.

[SignalToNoise]

Has stupid suddenly become a communicable disease that is transmitted through the internet? What the blue hell is going on here lately?

[C222]

Just when I thought this board couldn't get any more ridiculous. Holy shit.

[ShotgunDawg]

Am I missing something? What is ridiculous?

[C222]

Am I missing something? What is ridiculous?

Someone suggesting Stanford would be a mid level SEC team.

[camsu]

So graded talent level is the same, then you go with Coaching and Smarts. Coaching is equal but smarts is not. Standford would beat SC and rival LSU and Bama yr in and yr out. They recruit nation-wide, not just CA.

[Jack Lambert]

What? Are you guys serious? Stanford would be in the LSU and Alabama tier of the SEC.

One full SEC season and Stanford would be in the GA catagory. That's always the question for teams that win a lot out side the SEC. Can they with stand the SEC pounding week in and week out. Their running back is their offense and I just don't know if he would last eight SEC games. I think Debth would be a issue.

[ShotgunDawg]

Someone suggesting Stanford would be a mid level SEC team.

They are a good team that can beat good teams, but what evidence to we have that they would be better than South Carolina, Auburn, and Texas A&M? Their talent level is nowhere near that of LSU or Bama, so don't even try to argue that.

Look at my above post about comparing their talent level to South Carolina's. Is it really that ridiculous to believe that they aren't much if any better than South Carolina?

What evidence do you have that says they are better?

You guys listen to media way to much. I'm not being an SEC homer here. Just presenting the facts, and if you can't present counter facts then I'll reconsider my stance.

[C222]

They are a good team that can beat good teams, but what evidence to we have that they would be better than South Carolina, Auburn, and Texas A&M? Their talent level is nowhere near that of LSU or Bama, so don't even try to argue that.

Look at my above post about comparing their talent level to South Carolina's. Is it really that ridiculous to believe that they aren't much if any better than South Carolina?

What evidence do you have that says they are better?

You guys listen to media way to much. I'm not being an SEC homer here. Just presenting the facts, and if you can't present counter facts then I'll reconsider my stance.


They just dominated the #3 team in the country. You don't think they could stop Auburn or SC's offense? A&M might, MIGHT give them trouble but Stanford would just run it up their ass all day. I don't need you to break down their talent level. I have seen them play. They would beat anyone in the SEC and they would give Bama a good game.

[BogeyGolfer]

They want so bad for Ohio St., StAnford, Oregon etc... To be elite teams, but they aren't. Just look at last 5 NC games and how our elite teams in bowls match up with everyone else. I didn't say Stanford was bad but they are SC/ Healthy UGA quality and that's it, please don't let ESPN brain wash you...

[SignalToNoise]

Am I missing something? What is ridiculous?

Although I disagree with your post comparing them to SC, it's really not a bad comparison. The comment that Stanford would be a music city bowl team is what prompted my response.

That's like saying Stanford is only as good as 2011 MSU or Wake Forest.

Those two teams just happened to come to mind. I'm sure there have been slightly better teams play in the Music City Bowl, but overall Stanford is way better than a Music City Bowl team.

[smootness]

I don't need you to break down their talent level. I have seen them play.

This. Football doesn't just come down to, 'Their DBs seem to be as talented as theirs, so there is no advantage on either side; it's a wash'.

Stanford knows what they want to do, they recruit to what they want to do, and they do it very, very well. They also seem to be great at developing players and having them play smart, disciplined football.

Boise State's recruiting rankings aren't close to UGA's, yet what happened when they played each other? And I get that was a one game deal and it would be more difficult to sustain if they played the SEC every week, but it's not all about how talented players seemed to be coming out of HS.

Some programs are better at developing players and putting them in position to succeed. Stanford is one of those programs. I don't care what recruiting rankings said their talent was like. I know they will destroy you on the LOS and punch you in the mouth, and most of the time they will beat you. Mike Davis may be a more talented RB than Tyler Gaffney, but I promise you Stanford would have more success running the ball than SC if they played each other.

Toby Gerhart wasn't incredibly talented, but when he was at Stanford, you couldn't stop him from running it down your throat.

[SignalToNoise]

They want so bad for Ohio St., StAnford, Oregon etc... To be elite teams, but they aren't. Just look at last 5 NC games and how our elite teams in bowls match up with everyone else. I didn't say Stanford was bad but they are SC/ Healthy UGA quality and that's it, please don't let ESPN brain wash you...

Saying that we've been EPSN'd while shilling spewing all this love for the SEC is pretty hypocritical IMO.

I guess some fans are only capable of shallow analysis, such as conference affiliations.

[BogeyGolfer]

Saying that we've been EPSN'd while shilling spewing all this love for the SEC is pretty hypocritical IMO.

I guess some fans are only capable of shallow analysis, such as conference affiliations.

I think Shotgun has done a great job of breaking down SC and Stanford at each position.. What more do you want?

[ShotgunDawg]

They just dominated the #3 team in the country. You don't think they could stop Auburn or SC's offense? A&M might, MIGHT give them trouble but Stanford would just run it up their ass all day. I don't need you to break down their talent level. I have seen them play. They would beat anyone in the SEC and they would give Bama a good game.

And South Carolina beat #1 Alabama a few years ago. Stanford is a very good team, that can beat very good and elite and could absolutely give Bama a good game. But if your asking me what type of team Stanford would be year in and year out and what type of record they would have this year in the SEC, I think they would be much closer to South Carolina than Bama.

[ShotgunDawg]

Saying that we've been EPSN'd while shilling spewing all this love for the SEC is pretty hypocritical IMO.

I guess some fans are only capable of shallow analysis, such as conference affiliations.

You have been ESPN'ed and I'm not being an SEC homer. ESPN makes more money when more people care about college football. Stanford is a good team, but in the same time period that Stanford averaged a 19.6 recruiting ranking, Alabama's average recruiting ranking is 2, and LSU's is 6.8.

Furthermore, Stanford currently has 24 players in the NFL and South Carolina has 29.

So, I'm supposed to believe that Stanford and South Carolina recruit the same the talent and South Carolina has more NFL players than Stanford, but magically for the 4 years they are in college, Stanford is better than South Carolina?

And South Carolina has Steve Spurrier as their coach. So I don't want to hear that Stanford is drastically coached better in any way.

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

And South Carolina beat #1 Alabama a few years ago. Stanford is a very good team, that can beat very good and elite and could absolutely give Bama a good game. But if your asking me what type of team Stanford would be year in and year out and what type of record they would have this year in the SEC, I think they would be much closer to South Carolina than Bama.

If being USCe puts them finishing between 2nd and 5th year in and year out in the SEC, then that's probably a good comparison. I think that's how they would do in the SEC, which is pretty damn good and not mid-tier at all.

[CadaverDawg]

I know I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think Stanford could beat SC on a neutral field... They may not beat Auburn or Ole Miss on a neutral field. I would love to see what Vegas would have on these games.... Stanford looks like a Music City Bowl maybe Peach Bowl team to me....Solid but not great.

This^ is where I was saying you guys are crazy. I consider the top tier of the SEC to be the top 2-3 in each division. Middle of the pack being the next 5, and then the bottom being the last 4. I feel very confident that Stanford would be in that upper tier this year. Far better than a Music City Bowl.

As for the semantics of over a 5 year period and shit, I don't know and don't care. But the 2013 Stanford team would be a spot below Bama in the West, and would be either #1 or #2 in the East IMO. That's much better than middle of the pack Music City bowl team.

[ShotgunDawg]

This^ is where I was saying you guys are crazy. I consider the top tier of the SEC to be the top 2-3 in each division. Middle of the pack being the next 5, and then the bottom being the last 4. I feel very confident that Stanford would be in that upper tier this year. Far better than a Music City Bowl.

As for the semantics of over a 5 year period and shit, I don't know and don't care. But the 2013 Stanford team would be a spot below Bama in the West, and would be either #1 or #2 in the East IMO. That's much better than middle of the pack Music City bowl team.

Yea, I don't agree with your definition of top tier, middle tier, lower tier. I look at it like this.

Top Tier - Bama, LSU, healthy UGA,

Middle Tier - Auburn, aTm, Forida, South Carolina, Mizzou, OM, (Stanford fits here)

Lower Middle Tier - MSU, Tennessee, Vandy

Lower Tier - Arkansas, Kentucky

I do agree that Stanford would be better than the Music City Bowl. Thats absurd. But they wouldn't be top tier

[bluelightstar]

This year's Stanford team would probably be favored on a neutral field over the entire SEC except Alabama and LSU. Maybe a touchdown dog to healthy Georgia. Double digit favorites over us.

[ShotgunDawg]

This year's Stanford team would probably be favored on a neutral field over the entire SEC except Alabama and LSU. Maybe a touchdown dog to healthy Georgia. Double digit favorites over us.

Agree, South Carolina would probably be the same.

[PMDawg]

Am I missing something? What is ridiculous?

That little 5 thingy next to their name (soon to be 4) means that a lot of people disagree with you. Coaches, media, and even computers.

[PMDawg]

Yea, I don't agree with your definition of top tier, middle tier, lower tier. I look at it like this.

Top Tier - Bama, LSU, healthy UGA,

Middle Tier - Auburn, aTm, Forida, South Carolina, Mizzou, OM, (Stanford fits here)

Lower Middle Tier - MSU, Tennessee, Vandy

Lower Tier - Arkansas, Kentucky

I do agree that Stanford would be better than the Music City Bowl. Thats absurd. But they wouldn't be top tier

This explains a lot. You have half the SEC in your 1st of 2 ?middle? Tier/s?? Using this system, I guess they are middle tier. They would contend for division titles on a regular basis. That's not middle tier to me, but I don't have a fancy 4 (3.5?) tier system.

[Political Hack]

Depends on if they played in the east or the west.

[BogeyGolfer]

I think I was right about Stanford...

[SignalToNoise]

I think I was right about Stanford...

I had to go back and read your original post, which I'll quote here for convenience.


Is Stanford any better than a mid level SEC team?
I know I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think Stanford could beat SC on a neutral field... They may not beat Auburn or Ole Miss on a neutral field. I would love to see what Vegas would have on these games.... Stanford looks like a Music City Bowl maybe Peach Bowl team to me....Solid but not great.

So, since they lost a very tight game to Michigan State, they would lose to the bears on a neutral field? Being that Auburn ended up in in the Natty, I can buy that argument, but I'm not sure how the outcome of yesterday's Rose Bowl proves the rest of your argument- that Stanford would be a Music City Bowl team in the SEC.

I still think you're way off on this one.

[ShotgunDawg]

I think I was right about Stanford...

Yes, we were right. Glad you bumped this.

I actually think that with the way we are playing right now, we would beat Stanford.

We stop the run as well as anyone and have more offensive weapons than Michigan State.

People just don't appreciate how good the SEC West is. We are one of the 20 best teams in the country but won't be ranked.

[BogeyGolfer]

Yes, we were right. Glad you bumped this.

I actually think that with the way we are playing right now, we would beat Stanford.

We stop the run as well as anyone and have more offensive weapons than Michigan State.

People just don't appreciate how good the SEC West is. We are one of the 20 best teams in the country but won't be ranked.

Agreed, I could see us beating Stanford... We play well against their strength which is running the ball, I think we could move the ball on them as well it would be an interesting match up. Yes, we were both right, no way in hell is Stanford near Auburn, Bama, SC, healthy LSU level, or even Mizzou this year.

[smootness]

So do I get to bump this thread when they beat somebody really good next year?

Stanford lost a tight game to the #4 team in the country, a team with the best defense in the country. Doesn't really prove anything about Stanford other than the fact that they are a very good team.

The line on that game was due to Michigan State being underrated, not because Stanford was overrated.

[AROB44]

I never understood this SEC is greater than everyone mentality. Oregon would tire out our defense and since we quit in the 2nd half we would lose. Stanford definitely could hang with LSU, point proven last night. If you even watched the game their coaches can gameplan. Defense was outstanding offense was able to move the ball. Special teams were good except for a few mistakes. The PAC 12 isn't the CUSA guys come on Cali has as much talent as Florida and GA combined

That is an absurd statement. Your credibility (if you ever had any) is completely shot.

[SignalToNoise]

Agreed, I could see us beating Stanford... We play well against their strength which is running the ball, I think we could move the ball on them as well it would be an interesting match up. Yes, we were both right, no way in hell is Stanford near Bama, SC, healthy LSU level, or even Mizzou this year.

You are cleverly changing your argument, but it doesn't fool me. That's why I quoted your original post in my reply:


Is Stanford any better than a mid level SEC team?
I know I mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think Stanford could beat SC on a neutral field... They may not beat Auburn or Ole Miss on a neutral field. I would love to see what Vegas would have on these games.... Stanford looks like a Music City Bowl maybe Peach Bowl team to me....Solid but not great.

So now you've changed to "Well Stanford isn't as good as Bama, SC, healthy LSU, etc". That's a lot different from saying they'd lose to the bears and end up in the MCB.

[ShotgunDawg]

So do I get to bump this thread when they beat somebody really good next year?

Stanford lost a tight game to the #4 team in the country, a team with the best defense in the country. Doesn't really prove anything about Stanford other than the fact that they are a very good team.

The line on that game was due to Michigan State being underrated, not because Stanford was overrated.

Stanford is certainly a good team and can beat anyone. But, just like South Carolina, who can beat anyone, Stanford would not be at the level of Bama or LSU in the SEC.

For me, it's not about who you could beat, it's about how well you could handle the grind of playing really good teams every week in the SEC. Stanford would be a 2nd tier SEC team. Michigan State would probably be right there competing with us and OM in most years.

[BogeyGolfer]

You are cleverly changing your argument, but it doesn't fool me. That's why I quoted your original post in my reply:



So now you've changed to "Well Stanford isn't as good as Bama, SC, healthy LSU, etc". That's a lot different from saying they'd lose to the bears and end up in the MCB.

You are conveniently leaving out that in my original statement I stated Stanford could not beat SC and MAY not beat Auburn or Ole Miss... I stand by this statement. Auburn would beat them anywhere and Ole Miss v Stanford matchup could go either way.... Not changing my argument at all.

[ShotgunDawg]

You are conveniently leaving out that in my original statement I stated Stanford could not beat SC and MAY not beat Auburn or Ole Miss... I stand by this statement. Auburn would beat them anywhere and Ole Miss v Stanford matchup could go either way.... Not changing my argument at all.

I disagree. I think Stanford could beat SC, LSU, but, like all 2nd tier SEC schools, would have to play their best to do so.

Stanford doesn't have the ability to play bad, like Bama did to us, and still win.

To be a first tier SEC team, you have to have the ability to not play your best game and still find a way to win.

[SignalToNoise]

I didn't conveniently leave out anything. I quoted your original post. You may go and read it for yourself.

Regardless, here is where I stand...
No one would argue against Stanford losing to Alabama. That's not a bold, forward-thinking statement.
Being that Auburn ended up in the Natty and is playing very well right now I would agree that they would also beat Stanford

What I do not buy is:
-Stanford would lose to Mississippi State
-Stanford would lose to the bears
-Michigan State is on the same level as MSU and the bears
-Stanford should have been in the MCB

And just so we're clear, I'm talking about as things stand right now- Not evaluating the complete and total history of the programs; evaluating each team as it performed in 2013.

Again, I just don't see how in the blue hell can you extrapolate those things from last night's game. Stanford lost narrowly to good Michigan State team with a really good defense. If you're only argument is "Well Michigan State ain't in the SEC!!11!!1" then I'm done discussing this with you. Had they been blown out by an average team then you'd have something, but that is not the case.

[smootness]

Stanford is certainly a good team and can beat anyone. But, just like South Carolina, who can beat anyone, Stanford would not be at the level of Bama or LSU in the SEC.

There seems to be two different arguments. Is Stanford at Bama's current level? No, no one is. Are they at LSU's level? I don't know, that's tough - certainly this year, they were at least as good a team; overall, it's very tough to be at LSU's level, so they may be slightly behind.

But a mid-tier SEC team? Come on.

[smootness]

Ole Miss v Stanford matchup could go either way.... Not changing my argument at all.

This is where I think you go off the rails. Fine, you can tell me they wouldn't beat SC or Auburn this year. We may disagree slightly on that, but whatever.

But Ole Miss? Good grief. Ole Miss is an average-to-decent team no matter what conference they're in. They just struggled mightily to beat a GT team that is atrocious in bowl games. But yeah, Stanford losing to Michigan State means they may hang with Ole Miss, may not.

[SignalToNoise]

There seems to be two different arguments. Is Stanford at Bama's current level? No, no one is. Are they at LSU's level? I don't know, that's tough - certainly this year, they were at least as good a team; overall, it's very tough to be at LSU's level, so they may be slightly behind.

But a mid-tier SEC team? Come on.

This. Well said.

[Dawgtini]

I agree. He broke it down well and I agree with his hypothesis. A single game and they could take any sec team, but a full schedule and I think they would be no better than SC, UGA, ATM level overall.

[ShotgunDawg]

What I do not buy is:
-Stanford would lose to Mississippi State
-Stanford would lose to the bears
-Michigan State is on the same level as MSU and the bears
-Stanford should have been in the MCB
.

1. Disagree, you guys think way to black and white about this stuff. Outside of Bama, there is a huge clump of teams between about 2 and 30 that can all beat each other. Would MSU beat Stanford every time? Of course not, but that matchups in the game favor us. With the way MSU is playing now, we could certainly beat Stanford 4 out of 10 times. How would Stanford consistently score on us? Think matchups.

2. Disagree, for the same reasons as number 1. We are better than OM, but OM is certainly respectable.

3. I think Michigan State and us, with the way we are now playing, are at very similar levels. We both are slightly ahead of OM in level of play.

4. Agree, Stanford would have likely been in the Gator, Outback, or Chik Bowl if they were in the SEC.

[Dawgtini]

A spot below Bama in the west is 3rd in the west. SC was 2nd in the East. Sound like what Shotgun said.

*** Just noticed this was a continuation of a 2 month old thread. /leaves quietly now

[BogeyGolfer]

I didn't conveniently leave out anything. I quoted your original post. You may go and read it for yourself.

Regardless, here is where I stand...
No one would argue against Stanford losing to Alabama. That's not a bold, forward-thinking statement.
Being that Auburn ended up in the Natty and is playing very well right now I would agree that they would also beat Stanford

What I do not buy is:
-Stanford would lose to Mississippi State
-Stanford would lose to the bears
-Michigan State is on the same level as MSU and the bears
-Stanford should have been in the MCB

And just so we're clear, I'm talking about as things stand right now- Not evaluating the complete and total history of the programs; evaluating each team as it performed in 2013.

Again, I just don't see how in the blue hell can you extrapolate those things from last night's game. Stanford lost narrowly to good Michigan State team with a really good defense. If you're only argument is "Well Michigan State ain't in the SEC!!11!!1" then I'm done discussing this with you. Had they been blown out by an average team then you'd have something, but that is not the case.
My point is that Stanford was overrated at the time of the original post. At that point I think they were ranked 5th in the country. They are not a top 10 team in my opinion, they are a top 25 team but that's it. Now, I agree that it would be difficult for UM or us to beat Stanford but it could happen on a neutral field... This is why I said MAY in my op. Sure, Stanford could beat SC if they played their best and got several breaks but so could a lot of teams. But my point is overall Stanford's talent level is on par with mid level SEC team... They would probably be 7-5, 8-4 with our schedule ... Maybe worse

[smootness]

I think they would be no better than SC, UGA, ATM level overall.

So, for the record, you're saying they would be a consistent 11-win, top-10 team in the SEC? Because that's what SC now is.

[smootness]

My point is that Stanford was overrated at the time of the original post. At that point I think they were ranked 5th in the country. They are not a top 10 team in my opinion, they are a top 25 team but that's it.

So losing a very good game with Michigan State proves this? How? You're telling me a team like Duke plays Michigan State like Stanford just did?


They would probably be 7-5, 8-4 with our schedule ... Maybe worse

Well, State's schedule was crazy hard, even for the SEC. I think they win all the games we did, beat Oklahoma State, beat Auburn, and beat Texas A&M. I also think they'd have a very good shot at LSU and SC. Bama, I don't think they would beat. So I see probably 9-3 at worst, 11-1 at best.

[C222]

You are conveniently leaving out that in my original statement I stated Stanford could not beat SC and MAY not beat Auburn or Ole Miss... I stand by this statement. Auburn would beat them anywhere and Ole Miss v Stanford matchup could go either way.... Not changing my argument at all.

You think Ole Miss could beat them?? Good lord....

[dawgs]

Yes. Music City Bowl? Good grief, man.

Stanford is legit, and they also play the kind of style that excels in the SEC. I'll put it this way, do you think Oregon would be any better than a mid-level SEC team? Because Stanford is clearly better than Oregon.

Stanford would destroy the current version of UGA, and they would handle Ole Miss without a problem.

stanford is clearly better than oregon*

*when mariota is playing on 1 leg and completely unable to move

stanford has been a weird team all year. against utah they looked awful. they also looked awful in some uninspired Ws. but then they looked as good as anyone in the country in the 1st 3 quarters against oregon and az st (both regular season and pac 12 CG). they definitely tended to play to their competition, which is kinda weird for a smart team. shaw also should have cut hogan loose more. he's definitely good enough to carry them, it's just a matter of giving him the chance.

[sleepy dawg]

I'm late to the thread, but:
I think so. Just like I think Alabama is the still the best team in the SEC, even after a loss to Auburn, I still think Stanford is one of the best teams in the nation. Stanford has played a tough schedule out of the PAC-12 North division, which is probably just as tough or tougher than the SEC East division. If I were to rank the SEC teams this year + Stanford, I would rank them like this:

Alabama
Auburn
Stanford
Missouri
LSU
South Carolina
Texas A&M
Georgia
MSU
Ole Miss
Vanderbilt
Florida
Tennessee
Arkansas
Kentucky

[dawgs]

also, people need to remember that outside of the BCS CG, you need to look at the mental approach of these teams going into relatively meaningless bowl games. especially when the talent levels are close. this was stanford's 4th straight BCS bowl and 2nd straight rose bowl, but michigan st's 1st rose bowl since 1988 and their 1st BCS bowl. it doesn't take a genius to figure out which team is going to prepare for this game like it's a national title game and which one might be more relaxed in their prep.

*this is not to say that once the game starts, guys aren't wanting to win. any competitor wants to win in the heat of the moment. this is to say that practicing in the cold over the holidays, guys who don't have a sense of urgency won't be there locked in like they probably would be during the regular season.

[ShotgunDawg]

I'm late to the thread, but:
I think so. Just like I think Alabama is the still the best team in the SEC, even after a loss to Auburn, I still think Stanford is one of the best teams in the nation. Stanford has played a tough schedule out of the PAC-12 North division, which is probably just as tough or tougher than the SEC East division. If I were to rank the SEC teams this year + Stanford, I would rank them like this:

Alabama
Auburn
Stanford
Missouri
LSU
South Carolina
Texas A&M
Georgia
MSU
Ole Miss
Vanderbilt
Florida
Tennessee
Arkansas
Kentucky

I'm not going to completely argue with these rankings, but the problem is that all the teams between Auburn and Ole Miss, can beat each other.

[sleepy dawg]

Of course they can... That's why they play the game, but it's still rather obvious that LSU is a better team than MSU.

[Dawgtini]

Sure. Which is still 4th or 5th in the league. I don't know if they could maintain it year in year out with an sec schedule like the ole ball coach has.

[sandwolf]

With the way MSU is playing now, we could certainly beat Stanford 4 out of 10 times.

No, we most definitely would not beat Stanford 40% of the time. We might win 1-2 out of 10, if they played like they did against Utah in those 1-2 games. Every game in which both teams have a normal, solid outing would end with them on top by at least 2 scores.


I think Michigan State and us, with the way we are now playing, are at very similar levels. We both are slightly ahead of OM in level of play.

This is one of the more absurd statements that I have ever seen on a message board. Michigan State just finished their season with a record of 13-1.....they won the Big Ten, won a BCS Bowl, and their last two wins were over consensus top 10 teams. We finished our season 7-6 with zero wins over a ranked team and made a bowl game by the skin of our teeth.

I am very optimistic about our future, but if you actually believe that we are anywhere close to the current level of Stanford or Michigan State, then you are flat out delusional.

[ShotgunDawg]

No, we most definitely would not beat Stanford 40% of the time. We might win 1-2 out of 10, if they played like they did against Utah in those 1-2 games. Every game in which both teams have a normal, solid outing would end with them on top by at least 2 scores.



This is one of the more absurd statements that I have ever seen on a message board. Michigan State just finished their season with a record of 13-1.....they won the Big Ten, won a BCS Bowl, and their last two wins were over consensus top 10 teams. We finished our season 7-6 with zero wins over a ranked team and made a bowl game by the skin of our teeth.

I am very optimistic about our future, but if you actually believe that we are anywhere close to the current level of Stanford or Michigan State, then you are flat out delusional.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I watch games with my eyes, not just look at box scores. We are playing at a very similar level to Michigan State, and could certainly beat Stanford 4 out of 10 times.

The SEC West plays a different sport than these other conferences. Watch with your eyes

If you love Stanford so much, tell me how they would score consistently on us? Give me their game plan. Are they going to run the ball down our throat better than Alabama, Auburn, and Rice?

[dawgs]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I watch games with my eyes, not just look at box scores. We are playing at a very similar level to Michigan State, and could certainly beat Stanford 4 out of 10 times.

The SEC West plays a different sport than these other conferences. Watch with your eyes

If you love Stanford so much, tell me how they would score consistently on us? Give me their game plan. Are they going to run the ball down our throat better than Alabama, Auburn, and Rice?

we played RICE. we beat a bad arkansas team in OT in the next to last game of the season.

yeah, we played bama tough, but that's hardly enough evidence to place us on stanford's level imo.

[ShotgunDawg]

we played RICE. we beat a bad arkansas team in OT in the next to last game of the season.

yeah, we played bama tough, but that's hardly enough evidence to place us on stanford's level imo.

What is Stanford's level exactly?

We didn't play Auburn tough, hold OK State to 21 points, and keep Ole Miss from scoring an offensive touchdown?

How would Stanford consistently score on us? If you can't answer that question, then you have no grounds for your argument.

Furthermore, I speaking about our current level of play. With a healthy Dak and experienced secondary. We match-up with Stanford very very well. If you don't think so, then tell me where we don't match-up with them.

Also, what does playing RICE, have to do with this. I watch talent, not who we play against.

[dawgs]

What is Stanford's level exactly?

We didn't play Auburn tough, hold OK State to 21 points, and keep Ole Miss from scoring an offensive touchdown?

How would Stanford consistently score on us? If you can't answer that question, then you have no grounds for your argument.

Furthermore, I speaking about our current level of play. With a healthy Dak and experienced secondary. We match-up with Stanford very very well. If you don't think so, then tell me where we don't match-up with them.

Also, what does playing RICE, have to do with this. I watch talent, not who we play against.

if you don't think the quality of your opponent can make your talent level appear to be better than it is, then i don't know what to tell you.

i don't think stanford would blow us out, but i think you'd see something like a 24-14 type game over and over and over. they have a good D, a really explosive playmaker in ty montgomery (god know he'd exploit out special teams on returns), and a good physical running game. they would be able to run the ball on us better than they did against michigan st. michigan st gave up an avg of 2.9 ypc (tied with stanford for 3rd in the country) and we gave up 4.4 ypc (good for tied for 73rd in the country). just for comparison's sake, oregon gave up 3.9 ypc (good for tied at 36th best in the country and stanford completely shoved them around and dominated the LoS). i also think hogan is damn good and would be far more productive if shaw would cut him loose. and while we improved towards the end of the year, we still gave up 3.7 ypc the last 3 games which was tied for about 37th in the country over that span.

now we could win and that's why you play the game, but i just don't see any evidence to suggest that stanford would be unable to run the ball on us and eat clock and score. just because they likely won't put up 35+ points doesn't mean we would win and shut them out.

[ShotgunDawg]

if you don't think the quality of your opponent can make your talent level appear to be better than it is, then i don't know what to tell you.

i don't think stanford would blow us out, but i think you'd see something like a 24-14 type game over and over and over. they have a good D, a really explosive playmaker in ty montgomery (god know he'd exploit out special teams on returns), and a good physical running game. they would be able to run the ball on us better than they did against michigan st. michigan st gave up an avg of 2.9 ypc (tied with stanford for 3rd in the country) and we gave up 4.4 ypc (good for tied for 73rd in the country). just for comparison's sake, oregon gave up 3.9 ypc (good for tied at 36th best in the country and stanford completely shoved them around and dominated the LoS). i also think hogan is damn good and would be far more productive if shaw would cut him loose. and while we improved towards the end of the year, we still gave up 3.7 ypc the last 3 games which was tied for about 37th in the country over that span.

now we could win and that's why you play the game, but i just don't see any evidence to suggest that stanford would be unable to run the ball on us and eat clock and score. just because they likely won't put up 35+ points doesn't mean we would win and shut them out.

To people who don't know how to evaluate talent, the level in which you play against makes a difference, but not if your looking at talent for what it is. Coaches don't offer scholarships off of who the high school player is playing, they offer them off of the player's talent level.

It's fairly obvious that you have no idea how to evaluate by some of things you have said in your posts. Ty Montgomery is a very good player, but is he as good as Landry, Amari Cooper, Jones for Bama? Not really, so I'm not sure why he would kill up when those players couldn't.

Secondly, Stanford's QB Hogan isn't on the same level as Manziel, McCarron, or Mettenberger. He is more on the level of Wallace.

Thirdly, Stanford's RB, Gaffeny will never be an NFL feature back like Yeldon or Mason.

Finally, I agree that the score would be 24-14, but it would switch back and forth as to who won. Our defensive line is one of the best on the country and would compete with Stanford's running game well, just like we did against Bama and Auburn, which both have more talent and better running games than Stanford.

Our secondary, should also handle Stanford, considering that Hogan is a very average talent, and Montgomery is about the 5 or 6th best receiver we will have seen this year. Definitely behind, Moncreif, Treadwell, Cooper, Landry, Beckham, and Evans from a talent perspective.

Feel free to debate any part of this, but that would probably be going into too much detail for you.

Stanford probably has better kickers than us though and a better offensive line.

I'm actually talking myself into us winning more than 4 out of 10 times. Not sure, from a talent perspective, why Stanford would beat us more than we beat them.

But it would be too outlandish to believe that a 7-6 SEC team could possibly be equal to the PAC 12 champions. Keep listening to ESPN.

I will say that Oregon and UCLA would be much tougher match-ups for us than Stanford.

Furthermore, if your going to disagree with any of this, please indicate which part you disagree with, as that is the only way we can discuss it. For example: Saying "your crazy" just tells me that you were unable to go into enough depth to actually say what you disagree with.

Remember, we found out yesterday that we have a 1st round pick playing linebacker. Don't let hype fool you. We don't get much hype because of our division and our record, but that doesn't mean we aren't very good.

[dawgs]

none of us are professionals hired to evaluate talent. i can do my best, but i'm not going to notice a small nuances in footwork of an OL that would expose him to being dominated against a better DE. that's the type of thing that you do see when YOUR ENTIRE CAREER IS BASED ON LOOKING FOR THESE NUANCES. that's what shows up when you are looking for talent v. results.

montgomery is a very very good WR. stanford didn't throw as much as many schools, but he nearly had 1000 yards receiving anyway. he's also arguably the best kick returner in the country on top of being a very very very good WR. landry and cooper don't return kicks. beckham jr from lsu would be a more apt comparison since he's also a good kick returner. except montgomery has 2-3" and 20 or so lbs on him (montgomery is also bigger than cooper and landry) and only an avg of 0.03 seconds slower than the lsu guys and faster than cooper. he's every bit as talented as those guys. OBJ and landry torched us. if given the targets, montgomery would have just as good of a chance at torching us as the guys you listed. to say montgomery in 2013 is worse than treadwell is laughable. he might not have treadwell's ceiling, but for 2013 as a junior compared to treadwell as a true frosh, i'd take montogmery 100 times out of 100. and moncrief has raw tools, but has regressed as a football player.

i think shaw held hogan back. he could be mccarron or mettenberger level with more mobility if shaw allowed him to toss it around a bit more. he's so much better than ****ing wallace it's not even funny.

RBs that will be featured NFL backs is irrelevant in college. i'd never ever want to face reggie bush or lamicheal james in college, but in the NFL, bush is a solid but not great back that took years to get full time reps, and james is buried way down the depth chart.

[smootness]

Sometimes, it's easy to get caught up in what we see in our own team, and you have to take a step back and evaluate things as though we weren't State fans.

If we were Stanford fans, for example, we would think it was an absolute and utter joke that a 6-6 SEC team who didn't beat anyone of note could put themselves on or near our level. And the rest of the country would essentially agree. We beat Arkansas in OT, squeaked one out against Ole Miss, and killed Rice. I get that there were some extenuating circumstances, but we would get laughed out of the room trying to present an argument, based on that, for why Stanford is only marginally, if at all, better than us.

The people who think the SEC is not really better than other leagues are insane. But the people who think just about any school in the SEC would compete with any other team in the country are equally as insane.

A 6-6 SEC team is generally about the equivalent of, say, an 8-4 Big 10 team or a 8-4/9-3 ACC team. I think that's fair to say. But a 10-2 Pac-12 champion? No, not really.

The Pac-12 is much better than some seem willing to admit.

[dawgs]

The people who think the SEC is not really better than other leagues are insane. But the people who think just about any school in the SEC would compete with any other team in the country are equally as insane.


and when you take the position in the middle, the sec homers call you a traitor and the sec haters call you a homer.

[ShotgunDawg]

Sometimes, it's easy to get caught up in what we see in our own team, and you have to take a step back and evaluate things as though we weren't State fans.

If we were Stanford fans, for example, we would think it was an absolute and utter joke that a 6-6 SEC team who didn't beat anyone of note could put themselves on or near our level. And the rest of the country would essentially agree. We beat Arkansas in OT, squeaked one out against Ole Miss, and killed Rice. I get that there were some extenuating circumstances, but we would get laughed out of the room trying to present an argument, based on that, for why Stanford is only marginally, if at all, better than us.

The people who think the SEC is not really better than other leagues are insane. But the people who think just about any school in the SEC would compete with any other team in the country are equally as insane.

A 6-6 SEC team is generally about the equivalent of, say, an 8-4 Big 10 team or a 8-4/9-3 ACC team. I think that's fair to say. But a 10-2 Pac-12 champion? No, not really.

The Pac-12 is much better than some seem willing to admit.

Smootness, I generally agree with your premise. However, the problem in this situation is that our record isn't indicative of how good we are. I would venture to say, that with the growth of Dak, Dak being healthy, the maturation of our secondary and D-line, and the players understanding Collins as a d-coordinator, you would be hard pressed to find a more improved team in the country than us since the beginning of the season.

Therefore, IMO, what our record is would have very little to do with who would win between us and Stanford if we played tomorrow.

If we played Stanford on a neutral field tomorrow, my guess is Stanford would be favored by 3 or 4 and Michigan State would be favored by 6.

the fact is that we played short handed (QBs hurt) against teams this year that are much better than Stanford and we competed very very well, and we are healthy and much improved from the teams that did that.