CC: Bayless: "Stanford is to CFB as Duke is to MBB"

Submitted by JamesBondHerpesMeds on

On 1st and Ten, Toomer and Bayless are debating Harbaugh's next move.  Amani's firmly in the hire JH camp, apparently -- then Skippy comes up with this gem (paraphrased):

"I think Harbaugh should stay at Stanford.  It's to college football as Duke is to basketball.  You can get the cream of the academic crop at Stanford and a better education than you could at Michigan."

Toomer stared at him at a second and went ballistic, plainly stating that he (Toomer) chose Michigan over Stanford.

This whole thing is absolutely bonkers.

Note: I'm not here to debate the academic merits between Stanford and Michigan -- they're a wash, in my opinion.  But for Bayless to compare Duke basketball to Stanford football on that singular dimension is atrocious.

jrt336

January 3rd, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^

Skip Bayless is the biggest moron on ESPN and has been for years. If Stanford had been historically great for the last 100 years, then I guess it would be a good comparison, but Stanford sucked for a long time.

KinesiologyNerd

January 3rd, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^

Yeah, except people at Duke actually like Duke basketball. Harbaugh is a great recruiter, but at some point the top prospects are going to look elsewhere because who wants to play in front of a 30% capacity crowd?

Don

January 3rd, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^

Duke has been at or near the top of the basketball world for 20 years. Stanford has never once during that time even come close, before this year, of even having a chance of playing for a NC.

If Toomer said that Harbaugh chose Michigan over Stanford, he's misinformed, according to Harbaugh himself. JH said at the time he was hired by Stanford that he wanted to play college ball there but they didn't offer a scholarship. UM was his backup choice, according to the words coming out of his own mouth.

mstier

January 3rd, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^

Academics:  Stanford > Michigan

Football:  Stanford <<<< Michigan

 

Someone from the mainstream media talking out their ass?  Who would've guessed?

LB

January 3rd, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^

Harbaugh. I'm surprised Toomer was able to overcome his bitterness at his lack of success due to his time at Michigan long enough to respond.

pdgoblue25

January 3rd, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^

I disregard everything he says, he's just white noise, and he's also on the worst sports show on television (aside from the fact that Dana Jacobson is a UM grad).

However, I will give credit where credit is due.  Skip correctly called out Lebron from the start as being a player that couldn't win a championship on his own.  He also was correct about what an immature a-hole he is from day one.

tk47

January 3rd, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^

You can't honestly expect to get intelligent insight from any of the talking head shows on ESPN.  With the exception of maybe PTI, their first and only goal is to piss people off and stir up controversy.

I miss the days when ESPN would just show old NBA & NFL highlights shows during the morning & daytime instead of mindless dreck like 1st and Ten.

Tater

January 3rd, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^

During tenure as a sportswriter, potty trained more puppies than anyone in the history of the newspaper business.

Made reputation by allowing Woody Paige to carry him through First and Ten; conveniently ignores the fact that it is no longer compelling since Paige left.

Puts the "anal" back into "analysis."

Is to sports journalism what Lindsay Lohan is to sobriety.

ixcuincle

January 3rd, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^

ROFL NO

Duke - perennial winner

Stanford - irrelevant until 5 years ago

Bayless is funny though, his trollish comments for comedic value are not actual sports opinion and are comedy pieces. I remember when he repeatedly baited callers on the Jim Rome show when guest hosting by referencing how the championship was stolen from Miami...that guy is hilarious

PurpleStuff

January 3rd, 2011 at 11:58 AM ^

During Bo's coaching tenure, Stanford won as many Rose Bowls as Michigan.  They are clearly in the top half of their conference from a historic and recent high-level success perspective. 

Could we please stop pretending Stanford is some garbage program like Indiana that has never had any success.

MI Expat NY

January 3rd, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^

Seriously, look at some of the coaches they've had over the years: Walter Camp, Pop Warner, Bill Walsh, Denny Green, and some guy named Fielding Yost (only one season).  

They've only really had one prolonged stretch of futility, and that came after hiring Buddy Teevens, a few years removed from going 11-45(!!!) at Tulane.  

Stanford isn't a great football school, but they're not awful either.

PurpleStuff

January 3rd, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^

Elway and Plunkett probably have a nice time comparing the change in Super Bowl ring design over the years whenever they see each other.

They've really just been plagued by coaches leaving for the pros or an elite college job and have never been able to sustain momentum like Michigan did with Bo.  Ralston won back to back Rose Bowls but then left for the Denver Broncos.  Walsh went 17-7 but left for the Niners (worked out okay).  Green went 8-4 in year three and left for the Vikings.  Willingham went to a Rose Bowl and had two top-25 finishes before leaving for ND. 

I just don't think irrelevant programs keep getting NFL teams to hire their head coach.

WolverineHistorian

January 3rd, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^

True about the Rose Bowl wins.  And that's pretty sad.

But Michigan was 194-48-5 during Bo's tenure while Stanford was 121-107-7.  Barely above .500 with 2 conference titles in 21 years and and 10 losing seasons. 

Stanford's recent "high-level" success this past decade has been 2-9, 4-7, 4-7, 5-6, 1-11, 4-8, 5-7 and 8-5.  That's a combined record of 33 wins and 60 losses from 2001 to 2009.

In the last 10 years, Stanford ranks 91st in wins and that's dead last in the PAC 10. 

In the last 20 years, Stanford ranks 72nd in wins and once again, that's dead last in the PAC 10.

In the last 30 years, Stanford ranks 73rd in wins and only Oregon State has a worse record than them in the PAC 10.

All time, Stanford ranks 50th in wins which is around the same area as the majority of PAC 10 teams outside USC and Washington. 

I wouldn't call them Indiana but all time, you could rank them barely above garbage program.  The numbers speak for themself.  Putting Stanford football in the same time zone as Duke basketball is a joke.

MI Expat NY

January 3rd, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^

Your numbers are skewed by the fact that their one truly prolonged horrid stretch took place in the last 10 years (8 straight losing seasons).  They aren't Duke basketball, obviously, but they're more like Purdue and Iowa (actually better if you go by all time record) than they are Northwestern and Indiana, historically speaking.  

PurpleStuff

January 3rd, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^

First off, Bayless is retarded.  Second, he does have something of a point, though obviously he used an imperfect analogy.

For kids choosing their college based on academics, and there are certainly a few top notch athletes every year who do so, Stanford is far and away the best choice among 1-A football programs.  Schools like Vandy, Duke, Northwestern, and ND (lol) are not at the same level with a school battling with Harvard and Princeton regularly for the top spot in the USNEWS rankings (though obviously those rankings aren't perfect).  It is one of the big reasons that they are good at pretty much every non-revenue sport they compete in (if you ain't going pro, you want the best education). 

If you can spread a wide net and attract the top students among the D-1 football prospects across the country, something Harbaugh has done a very good job of doing, you can recruit big time athletes (see 5-star Andrew Luck) who are also pretty damn smart.  That isn't a bad recipe for sustained success. 

BiSB

January 3rd, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^

Northwestern should be one of the top jobs in college football.

Although that might explain why Tommy Amaker left Michigan for Harvard.

enlightenedbum

January 3rd, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^

Skip Bayless is to journalism what ET is to video games.

Skip Bayless is to journalism what Richard Nixon is to Presidents.

Skip Bayless is to journalism what Charlie Weis is to dieters.

Etc.