When a leader leaves a highly successful organization, all observers begin to wonder how on earth the organization will continue that success. Case in point: Steve Jobs leaving Apple. Hell, Steve isn’t even leaving Apple entirely, he’s simply stepping down as CEO. He’ll still be around, probably, enough to get that inevitable Apple iTelevision, or whatever they’ll call it, just awesome enough for everyone to be willing to shell out absurd bucks. And yet the entire business and technology world is fretting over what his departure means for Apple, an organization that’s been kicking ass for more than a decade now, and really shaped the world of technology for the last 30+ years. And yet this general rule of thumb doesn’t seem to apply to Stanford. Jim Harbaugh somehow cultivated a tenacious (cough – and dirty – cough) program from the ashes left behind by a string of coaches including Ty Willingham, Walt Harris, and… some other guy. A program that reached its pinnacle of success with a 2010 campaign going 12-1 and finishing #4 in the BCS polls. And then Jim Harbaugh left. Yet few people seem to have noticed, as Harbaugh’s former team appeared in the USA Today Coaches Pre-Season Poll at #4. I don’t get it.
Certainly there are some significant and obvious elements of the 2010 Trees that remain with the program. For one, probably the best QB in college football, Andrew Luck, shocked a cynical college football world by returning for his senior season rather than get stuck playing football for the Carolina Panthers. And the 2010 program was a surprisingly well-rounded operation, not just relying on Luck’s arm to win games. In fact, the 2010 Trees were ranked higher for their rushing prowess than their passing game (17th versus 29th). And they even score more often on the ground than in the air (and they scored a lot).
But the 2010/11 final ranking of 4th represents the Trees’ highest final ranking in the history of the Stanford football program in any of the modern major polls or rankings (they claim a NC in 1926). And that ranking also represents their first appearance in the final top 10 since Bill Walsh lead them in 1992. And it’s just the Trees’ 7th season to finish in the top 10 in program history.
Jim Harbaugh did some amazing things, taking a team that had finished 4-8, 5-7, and 8-5 his first 3 seasons, and molding a 12 game winner, but Jim Harbaugh’s gone. And while the remaining elements count for a great deal (in my opinion, enough to comfortably place them in the top 20 somewhere), they don’t count for enough to override a program whose history indicates a particular apathy for consistent football success.
14. Stanford (DMQ)
15. Florida (Biscuit)
16. Notre Dame (PootND)
17. TCU (DMQ)
18. Georgia (Biscuit)
19. Michigan State (PootND)
20. Texas (DMQ)
21. Ole Miss (Biscuit)
22. Mississippi State (PootND)
23. South Carolina (DMQ)
24. Ohio State (Biscuit)
25. Arizona State (PootND)
- Friday Roundup: That Was Fast Edition - December 14, 2018
- Ian Book Is Smokey and the Bandit - December 12, 2018
- Don’t Call It A Comeback - December 10, 2018
Harbaugh recruited well. The systemic problem for Stanford, which has stricter academic standards than just about everyone (including Notre Dame), has a volume of potential recruits that varied widely from year to year. One year, they might be able to go after 15 of the top 100, the next year, seven or eight. They therefore need a high success rate.
Harbaugh also created very tough, physical teams. That training won’t disappear overnight.
I think the most important thing is getting Luck back. Had he gone pro, Stanford would be looking at seven wins at the most.
That’s about right–14. This Stanford team will be about like ND circa 2005-06. Good QB play and leadership from Luck, but not enough play makers on O and suspect D will make it tough for them to beat ND and USC, Oregon will beat them like a drum, @ Arizona won’t be easy, and Cal will always play them tough.
I think they drop at least 3 games, maybe 4.