From: rhan@viterbi.berkeley.edu (Richard Han)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Stanford vs. A&M (was Re: ATM Graduation Rates)
Date: 25 Aug 1992 23:01:02 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: viterbi.berkeley.edu


In response to "Re: ATM Graduation Rates":

> [stuff deleted]
> I kinda flew off the handle yesterday on this one...  but it just irks me
> to see this kind of stuff.  What really irks me is the Texas Legislature
> forcing me as an engineering student to take an additional 9 hours of
> liberal arts to "round out my education"; thus totalling my degree plan
> to 170+ hours (double aerospace/computing science), so I just went to
> ET.  I would like to see some of these liberal arts panty wastes round
> out their education with...

As a PhD EE here at Berkeley, and having gone to undergrad at Stanford,
I'd say that, in retrospect, I was glad that I was forced to "round out
my education".  I think as an engineering student, one tends to get a 
little myopic in emphasizing breadth over depth, without ever appreciating
the clarity of thought which, say, a study of Nietzsche or Shakespeare
can bring.  I know for sure that, as a freshman and eager engineer,
I would have ignored "fuzzy liberal arts" courses if I'd been given the
option and instead pursued technical depth to an extreme.  There's nothing
wrong with that if that's what you want to do.  But I think one misses
out on the "big picture" -- whatever that is -- and misses the opportunity
to learn.

> [stuff deleted ] 
> ...  But lets face it, your
> education is what *YOU* make out of it.  Going to one school or another
> is not going to make you successful, *YOU* are going to make you
> successful; and if you think otherwise, then you should probably take a
> long look in the mirror at yourself and see what you have become.
> 
> cmuck

Absolutely.  A Stanford/Berkeley degree is no measure of competence.  You 
have to prove your competence by the quality of your thought and work.  
I've seen the whole range of students at Stanford, from lazy and sloppy to 
brilliant and diligent.  The same goes for any school.  The school's "name" 
might get you in the door somewhere, but you still have to prove your 
ability.

> ps-  if we get outscored by the trees, I will never hear the end of it...

Back to football.  I'm surprised that the line on the A&M vs. Stanford game
is only 2-3 points in A&M's favor.  I'd favor A&M by two touchdowns or more.

On the matchups:
1) A&M offense has depth and speed in its favor, except at the QB position.
Stanford's defense is sorely lacking in depth and speed and will try to
make up for it by "smart" play, but may be worn down by A&M's sustained 
running attack.  I don't see A&M passing due to their brand-new QB.  This
could be a major handicap if A&M gets behind late.

2) Stanford's offense is multi-faceted PAC-10 and vintage 49er thanks to 
Walsh. The A&M defense probably will not see anything like its complexity
in its Southwest Conference schedule.  Alot of short high-percentage pass 
patterns to backs, tight ends, and wide-outs.  But the problem with
complex offenses is that it takes time to get everything going smoothly.
Walsh has already scripted the first 25 plays, as he usually does.  A
slow start will doom Stanford, while a good first quarter will boost
Stanford's confidence and mean a long day for the Aggie defense.

-----

Rick