What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? (/thread-25380.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? (/thread-25380.html)
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - paloalto - 01-09-2025
If there was any hope Notre Dame would join the Big 10 in a few years and insist on taking Stanford with them; not going to happen. They are doing just fine as an independent.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - StanUSwagU - 01-11-2025
(01-09-2025, 09:38 PM)paloalto Wrote: If there was any hope Notre Dame would join the Big 10 in a few years and insist on taking Stanford with them; not going to happen. They are doing just fine as an independent.
*****************************
Good point paloalto,
1. Its not out of the realm of possibility that NotreDame may or may not elect to join the Big10 in the future.
2. However what is certain is that if Stanford continues to be lame in Football & Mens Basketball, the Big10 & its MediaPartners would never 'accept NotreDame bringing along Stanford'; Stanford at present brings 'little to no value' as far as the 'Marquee & Revenue sports' of Football & Mens Basketball.
3. We better improve drastically in Football & Mens Basketball, if we want to limit our vulnerability of being 'left without a chair' the next time the 'Conference Realignment Musical Chairs begin'.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - gailtate - 01-11-2025
The chances that Stanford football will ever return to that brief moment of relevance that tantalized us a decade ago are nothing more or less than castles in the sky. Fantasies. Those big time bowls? Flukes when you think about it today. They almost seem like they never happened at all. Sure, we can pipe-dream our never-say-never scenarios, but it ain't gonna happen. No way, no how.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - BillBradley - 01-11-2025
When evaluating the worth of successful football and basketball programs to a university in the "new world", I find that practically all of the discussions center around these topics:
1) The cost of becoming competitive
2) The acceptance of change
3) The hypocrisy of academic institutions increasing the priority/investment in athletics
4) Negative impact on the college athlete (time, pressure, travel, etc.)
As with any complex decision on change, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Each of the topics in the above list are cons. Spending more money. Change. Hypocrisy. Negative impact. The discussions are mostly downers, and center around debating the extent of the cons. Those who have spent time in their careers as strategy/management consultants know that this is a rather typical experience that large organizations go through when faced with a major decision. That's why they are hired.
The Stanford community needs to spend more time on creating a new vision of a Stanford in the new world of college athletics and articulating the associated benefits. How does a successful football and basketball program benefit the university? What is the version of a Stanford in the new world of athletics that's better than today's Stanford? What does that look like and why is it better? Without something to compare against the current version of Stanford, no one will ever need, want or accept the change. They will stay stuck on their favorite con or two and continue to steer discussions in that direction.
Work like this is difficult and I don't want to spend my time trying to lay something out on a sports board that's nowhere close to complete. I will say though that high on my list of benefits of the new version of Stanford would be some sort of improved picture of student life/culture. I believe the students that get to enjoy Duke or Gonzaga mens basketball or Iowa womens basketball or Alabama/Ohio St <insert pretty much any SEC/B10 school here> simply have a more enjoyable experience at their university because of their teams vs. if they had gone to Stanford. I believe the students that got to experience the Luck/CMac years have a leg up on today's students as far as their enjoyment of their years in college goes. To me, that's really important.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - old spanish trail - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 11:56 AM)BillBradley Wrote: When evaluating the worth of successful football and basketball programs to a university in the "new world", I find that practically all of the discussions center around these topics:
1) The cost of becoming competitive
2) The acceptance of change
3) The hypocrisy of academic institutions increasing the priority/investment in athletics
4) Negative impact on the college athlete (time, pressure, travel, etc.)
As with any complex decision on change, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Each of the topics in the above list are cons. Spending more money. Change. Hypocrisy. Negative impact. The discussions are mostly downers, and center around debating the extent of the cons. Those who have spent time in their careers as strategy/management consultants know that this is a rather typical experience that large organizations go through when faced with a major decision. That's why they are hired.
The Stanford community needs to spend more time on creating a new vision of a Stanford in the new world of college athletics and articulating the associated benefits. How does a successful football and basketball program benefit the university? What is the version of a Stanford in the new world of athletics that's better than today's Stanford? What does that look like and why is it better? Without something to compare against the current version of Stanford, no one will ever need, want or accept the change. They will stay stuck on their favorite con or two and continue to steer discussions in that direction.
Work like this is difficult and I don't want to spend my time trying to lay something out on a sports board that's nowhere close to complete. I will say though that high on my list of benefits of the new version of Stanford would be some sort of improved picture of student life/culture. I believe the students that get to enjoy Duke or Gonzaga mens basketball or Iowa womens basketball or Alabama/Ohio St <insert pretty much any SEC/B10 school here> simply have a more enjoyable experience at their university because of their teams vs. if they had gone to Stanford. I believe the students that got to experience the Luck/CMac years have a leg up on today's students as far as their enjoyment of their years in college goes. To me, that's really important.
Yep, and I think Andrew Luck agrees. Whether he can do anything about it remains to be seen.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - BostonCard - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 11:56 AM)BillBradley Wrote: When evaluating the worth of successful football and basketball programs to a university in the "new world", I find that practically all of the discussions center around these topics:
1) The cost of becoming competitive
2) The acceptance of change
3) The hypocrisy of academic institutions increasing the priority/investment in athletics
4) Negative impact on the college athlete (time, pressure, travel, etc.)
As with any complex decision on change, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Each of the topics in the above list are cons. Spending more money. Change. Hypocrisy. Negative impact. The discussions are mostly downers, and center around debating the extent of the cons. Those who have spent time in their careers as strategy/management consultants know that this is a rather typical experience that large organizations go through when faced with a major decision. That's why they are hired.
The Stanford community needs to spend more time on creating a new vision of a Stanford in the new world of college athletics and articulating the associated benefits. How does a successful football and basketball program benefit the university? What is the version of a Stanford in the new world of athletics that's better than today's Stanford? What does that look like and why is it better? Without something to compare against the current version of Stanford, no one will ever need, want or accept the change. They will stay stuck on their favorite con or two and continue to steer discussions in that direction.
Work like this is difficult and I don't want to spend my time trying to lay something out on a sports board that's nowhere close to complete. I will say though that high on my list of benefits of the new version of Stanford would be some sort of improved picture of student life/culture. I believe the students that get to enjoy Duke or Gonzaga mens basketball or Iowa womens basketball or Alabama/Ohio St <insert pretty much any SEC/B10 school here> simply have a more enjoyable experience at their university because of their teams vs. if they had gone to Stanford. I believe the students that got to experience the Luck/CMac years have a leg up on today's students as far as their enjoyment of their years in college goes. To me, that's really important.
I like your framing. But we also have to remember that while the Luck/CMac years were great for many of the students at Stanford, not everyone is into athletics or cares about how the sports teams do. It's not like the only thing that differentiates between a pleasant experience at Stanford is a winning versus a losing team.
I also believe that one of the things (at least to me, a student in the mid-90's) that made athletics at Stanford particularly enjoyable (despite the fact that we had a losing record in football two of the four years) was that the students were "like the rest of us" in many important ways. Athletes lived in our dorms, they went to our classes, they ate the same crappy food we did, they had to apply and be admitted along with the rest of us. Unfortunately, a lot of the proposed solutions to the competitiveness issues involve separating athletes from the rest of the student body, whether it is allowing athletes to come to start early, accommodations due to the now more onerous travel schedules, training tables for the athletes, etc. Let's face it, much of what it would take to be competitive is to attract athletes to Stanford by privilege athletes compared to the student population. Not sure that's great.
BC
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - BillBradley - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 02:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Yes, good point. I think that was true in my case as well. Getting to know the athletes helps make sports part of the experience. So maybe that's a principal that needs to get adopted in the next version of Stanford: the level of separation of the athlete from the rest of the student body should be minimized. That's totally doable.(01-11-2025, 11:56 AM)BillBradley Wrote: When evaluating the worth of successful football and basketball programs to a university in the "new world", I find that practically all of the discussions center around these topics:
1) The cost of becoming competitive
2) The acceptance of change
3) The hypocrisy of academic institutions increasing the priority/investment in athletics
4) Negative impact on the college athlete (time, pressure, travel, etc.)
As with any complex decision on change, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Each of the topics in the above list are cons. Spending more money. Change. Hypocrisy. Negative impact. The discussions are mostly downers, and center around debating the extent of the cons. Those who have spent time in their careers as strategy/management consultants know that this is a rather typical experience that large organizations go through when faced with a major decision. That's why they are hired.
The Stanford community needs to spend more time on creating a new vision of a Stanford in the new world of college athletics and articulating the associated benefits. How does a successful football and basketball program benefit the university? What is the version of a Stanford in the new world of athletics that's better than today's Stanford? What does that look like and why is it better? Without something to compare against the current version of Stanford, no one will ever need, want or accept the change. They will stay stuck on their favorite con or two and continue to steer discussions in that direction.
Work like this is difficult and I don't want to spend my time trying to lay something out on a sports board that's nowhere close to complete. I will say though that high on my list of benefits of the new version of Stanford would be some sort of improved picture of student life/culture. I believe the students that get to enjoy Duke or Gonzaga mens basketball or Iowa womens basketball or Alabama/Ohio St <insert pretty much any SEC/B10 school here> simply have a more enjoyable experience at their university because of their teams vs. if they had gone to Stanford. I believe the students that got to experience the Luck/CMac years have a leg up on today's students as far as their enjoyment of their years in college goes. To me, that's really important.
I like your framing. But we also have to remember that while the Luck/CMac years were great for many of the students at Stanford, not everyone is into athletics or cares about how the sports teams do. It's not like the only thing that differentiates between a pleasant experience at Stanford is a winning versus a losing team.
I also believe that one of the things (at least to me, a student in the mid-90's) that made athletics at Stanford particularly enjoyable (despite the fact that we had a losing record in football two of the four years) was that the students were "like the rest of us" in many important ways. Athletes lived in our dorms, they went to our classes, they ate the same crappy food we did, they had to apply and be admitted along with the rest of us. Unfortunately, a lot of the proposed solutions to the competitiveness issues involve separating athletes from the rest of the student body, whether it is allowing athletes to come to start early, accommodations due to the now more onerous travel schedules, training tables for the athletes, etc. Let's face it, much of what it would take to be competitive is to attract athletes to Stanford by privilege athletes compared to the student population. Not sure that's great.
BC
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - gailtate - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 02:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-11-2025, 11:56 AM)BillBradley Wrote: When evaluating the worth of successful football and basketball programs to a university in the "new world", I find that practically all of the discussions center around these topics:
1) The cost of becoming competitive
2) The acceptance of change
3) The hypocrisy of academic institutions increasing the priority/investment in athletics
4) Negative impact on the college athlete (time, pressure, travel, etc.)
As with any complex decision on change, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Each of the topics in the above list are cons. Spending more money. Change. Hypocrisy. Negative impact. The discussions are mostly downers, and center around debating the extent of the cons. Those who have spent time in their careers as strategy/management consultants know that this is a rather typical experience that large organizations go through when faced with a major decision. That's why they are hired.
The Stanford community needs to spend more time on creating a new vision of a Stanford in the new world of college athletics and articulating the associated benefits. How does a successful football and basketball program benefit the university? What is the version of a Stanford in the new world of athletics that's better than today's Stanford? What does that look like and why is it better? Without something to compare against the current version of Stanford, no one will ever need, want or accept the change. They will stay stuck on their favorite con or two and continue to steer discussions in that direction.
Work like this is difficult and I don't want to spend my time trying to lay something out on a sports board that's nowhere close to complete. I will say though that high on my list of benefits of the new version of Stanford would be some sort of improved picture of student life/culture. I believe the students that get to enjoy Duke or Gonzaga mens basketball or Iowa womens basketball or Alabama/Ohio St <insert pretty much any SEC/B10 school here> simply have a more enjoyable experience at their university because of their teams vs. if they had gone to Stanford. I believe the students that got to experience the Luck/CMac years have a leg up on today's students as far as their enjoyment of their years in college goes. To me, that's really important.
I like your framing. But we also have to remember that while the Luck/CMac years were great for many of the students at Stanford, not everyone is into athletics or cares about how the sports teams do. It's not like the only thing that differentiates between a pleasant experience at Stanford is a winning versus a losing team.
I also believe that one of the things (at least to me, a student in the mid-90's) that made athletics at Stanford particularly enjoyable (despite the fact that we had a losing record in football two of the four years) was that the students were "like the rest of us" in many important ways. Athletes lived in our dorms, they went to our classes, they ate the same crappy food we did, they had to apply and be admitted along with the rest of us. Unfortunately, a lot of the proposed solutions to the competitiveness issues involve separating athletes from the rest of the student body, whether it is allowing athletes to come to start early, accommodations due to the now more onerous travel schedules, training tables for the athletes, etc. Let's face it, much of what it would take to be competitive is to attract athletes to Stanford by privilege athletes compared to the student population. Not sure that's great.
BC
What would be great, hands down, would be seeing Stanford tee it up against Ohio State for all the confetti. Not so long ago, this was imaginable. It really was. Really.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - Mick - 01-12-2025
(01-11-2025, 02:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-11-2025, 11:56 AM)BillBradley Wrote: When evaluating the worth of successful football and basketball programs to a university in the "new world", I find that practically all of the discussions center around these topics:
1) The cost of becoming competitive
2) The acceptance of change
3) The hypocrisy of academic institutions increasing the priority/investment in athletics
4) Negative impact on the college athlete (time, pressure, travel, etc.)
As with any complex decision on change, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Each of the topics in the above list are cons. Spending more money. Change. Hypocrisy. Negative impact. The discussions are mostly downers, and center around debating the extent of the cons. Those who have spent time in their careers as strategy/management consultants know that this is a rather typical experience that large organizations go through when faced with a major decision. That's why they are hired.
The Stanford community needs to spend more time on creating a new vision of a Stanford in the new world of college athletics and articulating the associated benefits. How does a successful football and basketball program benefit the university? What is the version of a Stanford in the new world of athletics that's better than today's Stanford? What does that look like and why is it better? Without something to compare against the current version of Stanford, no one will ever need, want or accept the change. They will stay stuck on their favorite con or two and continue to steer discussions in that direction.
Work like this is difficult and I don't want to spend my time trying to lay something out on a sports board that's nowhere close to complete. I will say though that high on my list of benefits of the new version of Stanford would be some sort of improved picture of student life/culture. I believe the students that get to enjoy Duke or Gonzaga mens basketball or Iowa womens basketball or Alabama/Ohio St <insert pretty much any SEC/B10 school here> simply have a more enjoyable experience at their university because of their teams vs. if they had gone to Stanford. I believe the students that got to experience the Luck/CMac years have a leg up on today's students as far as their enjoyment of their years in college goes. To me, that's really important.
I like your framing. But we also have to remember that while the Luck/CMac years were great for many of the students at Stanford, not everyone is into athletics or cares about how the sports teams do. It's not like the only thing that differentiates between a pleasant experience at Stanford is a winning versus a losing team.
I also believe that one of the things (at least to me, a student in the mid-90's) that made athletics at Stanford particularly enjoyable (despite the fact that we had a losing record in football two of the four years) was that the students were "like the rest of us" in many important ways. Athletes lived in our dorms, they went to our classes, they ate the same crappy food we did, they had to apply and be admitted along with the rest of us. Unfortunately, a lot of the proposed solutions to the competitiveness issues involve separating athletes from the rest of the student body, whether it is allowing athletes to come to start early, accommodations due to the now more onerous travel schedules, training tables for the athletes, etc. Let's face it, much of what it would take to be competitive is to attract athletes to Stanford by privilege athletes compared to the student population. Not sure that's great.
BC
Nice post as always, BC. Two quick thoughts: I took my one-and-only art class which involved a visit to the San Jose Museum of Art. The featured exhibit was a collection of soup tureens. My 18-year-old self probably rolled my eyes a little too much and probably questioned the validity of said art to the teacher who reasonably replied "Fine, you don't have to like the exhibit. But please recognize that some people do like it."
A campus experience is an entire environment. Maybe you like Rodin's sculptures, maybe you don't...but they add a lot to the campus experience. At the same time, Stanford is all about excellence, in everything. Except men's basketball and football. What would SU lose if (a) the team continues to stink or (b) gets eliminated? And what would SU gain if the team regains the excitement, wins and prestige of a decade+ ago?
Incidentally, I agree fully with your comments on athletes in classes. Athletes were in all of my classes, and I have worked with a bunch of them. And they've done very well after college. Next week, I'm talking with the former QB of our football team, we're in the same business. I'd hate to segregate athletes from other students.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - StanUSwagU - 01-14-2025
(01-11-2025, 11:56 AM)BillBradley Wrote: When evaluating the worth of successful football and basketball programs to a university in the "new world", I find that practically all of the discussions center around these topics:
1) The cost of becoming competitive
2) The acceptance of change
3) The hypocrisy of academic institutions increasing the priority/investment in athletics
4) Negative impact on the college athlete (time, pressure, travel, etc.)
As with any complex decision on change, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Each of the topics in the above list are cons. Spending more money. Change. Hypocrisy. Negative impact. The discussions are mostly downers, and center around debating the extent of the cons. Those who have spent time in their careers as strategy/management consultants know that this is a rather typical experience that large organizations go through when faced with a major decision. That's why they are hired.
The Stanford community needs to spend more time on creating a new vision of a Stanford in the new world of college athletics and articulating the associated benefits. How does a successful football and basketball program benefit the university? What is the version of a Stanford in the new world of athletics that's better than today's Stanford? What does that look like and why is it better? Without something to compare against the current version of Stanford, no one will ever need, want or accept the change. They will stay stuck on their favorite con or two and continue to steer discussions in that direction.
Work like this is difficult and I don't want to spend my time trying to lay something out on a sports board that's nowhere close to complete. I will say though that high on my list of benefits of the new version of Stanford would be some sort of improved picture of student life/culture. I believe the students that get to enjoy Duke or Gonzaga mens basketball or Iowa womens basketball or Alabama/Ohio St <insert pretty much any SEC/B10 school here> simply have a more enjoyable experience at their university because of their teams vs. if they had gone to Stanford. I believe the students that got to experience the Luck/CMac years have a leg up on today's students as far as their enjoyment of their years in college goes. To me, that's really important.
BillBradley,
Great post;
(1) I think the bullet list of the 4 items you refer to above, are many of the important factors.
(2) I think we at Stanford are making this 'way harder' than it needs to be when it comes to Football & Mens Basketball.
(3) NotreDame in Football & Duke in Mens Basketball have already shown that you dont have to 'entirely 100% forsake your values' to be successful.
(4) Those 2 institutions are 'Top Academic Universities' & as I have stated many times before, anyone from DukeUniversity would laugh at us here at Stanford thinking ourselves (Stanford) to be 'exceptional or above Duke'; I think its almost an affliction that we Stanford Folks have that we think we are somehow 'better academically, ethically, and morally' or that we have 'higher standards' than say a Duke University.
[And this fallacy or myth that our 'standards are somehow higher than a DukeUniversity is what is preventing us from 'modernizing' & adapting the way Duke and NotreDame have];
Remember the mission of a Great University's undergraduate program is to graduate 'well-rounded graduates who will help elevate society & humanity in large impactful ways with their innovations and inventions' & who may actually care about 'solving our social problems like the ever-increasing homelessness & substance-addiction , not to graduate a ratpack of 'narrow focused professional nerds' who invent 'marginally useful 'gadgets/software,social-media apps' or who will master 'a new 5 card monte crypto trading strategy' that just siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another.' This being the 'true mission' of a great University, I would say (a) Stanford needs to adjust/modernize its 'undergraduate/transfer admissions criteria & process' to be more like Duke' & NotreDame's & (b) The reality is that when it comes to 'academic standards' Duke, Stanford, NotreDame, GaTech, are in the same strata; ...Ours (Stanford) is not higher than theirs !
And no imho, I dont think the measure (or mission) of a GreatUniversity is how many publications in Journals its Noble Laureates, professors, or students have, or whatever the ordinal metrics/rankings US News & World Report uses to rank universities in some artificial 'ordinal ranking'. There are stratas for universities, but within that strata, all the universities that are 'in that same-strata...are not better or worse than one another'. Yes, as far as 'undergraduate studies', 'Duke & Stanford & NotreDame, & GaTech, Cal, Northwestern, & Vanderbilt, UCLA are in a different Strata than say 'Valdosta-State', (Just using ValdostaState as a random comp,...no negative shade intended to anyone from ValdostaState, as ValdostaState does what it does academically, very well) but those aforementioned universities are 'all in the same strata' ...so no, we at Stanford (for the undergraduate context which is what matters for our Athletics Dept and Football and Mens Basketball programs), are not on some 'higher-level' than Duke or NotreDame, period full-stop.
(5) Also I dont think there needs to be a 180 degree change to how we do things (maybe only a 15 degree change/pivot/modernization) ; I think some small adjustments & 'modernized thinking' about our admissions criteria & processing of undergraduates & transfers & the 4 factors you list above, will be able to make us competitive.
(6) Again, I conclude by saying if Duke and NotreDame can do it, so can we; We and our Administration have just chosen to be 'stuck in an old mindset' & have made this way more difficult than it needs to be; Largely our problems are 'self inflicted & unnecessary' ...and I might add 'somewhat silly' in that we are delusional if after the last 10 years of Academic Scandals here at Stanford, if we think we somehow have a 'higher academic standard than Duke or NotreDame'.
(7) As Jacket3ree, said in 1 of his posts, we really need to 'stop clutching our pearls'; [ Erroneously & laughably thinking 'becoming more like Duke or NotreDame, would be transforming to a 'lower-standard']
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - martyup - 01-14-2025
Right on StanU!
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - StanUSwagU - 01-14-2025
(01-14-2025, 11:02 AM)martyup Wrote: Right on StanU!
Hi Martyup,
1. Hope all is well.
2. While we are considering some 'structural changes' to our university's approach to Football & Mens Basketball, any proposal from You on perhaps a change/improvement to our Mascot ? :o)
3. You & I can't be the only Stanford Alums/Fans who think Stanford could come up with a better mascot than what we currently have ?
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - dabigv13 - 01-14-2025
You don't even like the tree? Maybe just become a fan of Notre Dame or Duke, seems simplest.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - gocard14 - 01-14-2025
Color me old fashioned, but I don't see the value in paying a bunch of mercenaries big $ to play football with the name of my school on their jersey.
The whole point of college athletics to me was that it was your peers and friends playing the sport. They were your fellow students who also happened to be competing in a sport at a very high level. I was/am proud to support that.
If the players are yearly employees with little to no connection to the university beyond that being who organizes the NIL payouts (or in the future signs their checks)? Competing against other employees of schools that have no historical or geogrpahical ties to Stanford? Might as well pay a pro-team to put a Stanford patch on their uniform. At least we'll see a higher level product.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - fullmetal - 01-14-2025
I am a pearl-clutcher, I think, but here's one viewpoint I've been considering. As much as Stanford equips the best and brightest to go out and influence the world for progress, and as much as sports has become a significant cultural touchstone of American life, shouldn't Stanford offer a brand of excellence in athletics to give Stanford alumni pride and distinction in a sports-fanatic world? From the C-suite to the street, everyone can talk about their team and how their season is going -- I've found it immensely useful to be able to either talk about others' favorite teams or talk about Stanford's successes in sports as small talk with a purpose. No one cares about the weather, but if you meet someone who loves sports and you can speak their language, there's a bit of trust and familiarity that can be established.
Is this a good thing that culture has evolved this way? Different topic. But it is what it is.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - paloalto - 01-14-2025
I see it differently than almost everyone here. My opinion won't be popular on this board.
"not to graduate a ratpack of 'narrow focused professional nerds' who invent 'marginally useful 'gadgets/software,social-media apps' or who will master 'a new 5 card monte crypto trading strategy' that just siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another."
If this is the way you characterize the goals of Stanford, I disagree 100%. It's as though you strongly dislike Stanford because they are not a football factory. I see a myriad of academic rankings with Stanford in the top ten in the WORLD; in some cases top three. Stanford must be doing a decent job in some aspects as an academic institution.
This is a sports message board. I get it. Football is king. Winning is important.
If you get away from a sports message board I suspect the priorities would be different. I bet if you were to ask students on campus what's keeping them from enjoying Stanford, at least 9 out of 10 students would NOT name the football win/loss record.
My son got his BS and MS back in the days of Andrew Luck. As inconceivable as it will seem to those posting on this thread, he didn't know who Luck was until his senior undergrad year when I talked about Luck. He and most if not all of his friends had no interest in football.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - BostonCard - 01-14-2025
(01-14-2025, 01:07 AM)StanUSwagU Wrote: (3) NotreDame in Football & Duke in Mens Basketball have already shown that you dont have to 'entirely 100% forsake your values' to be successful.
Which values are you referring to?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/22/503036252/notre-dame-must-vacate-2012-2013-football-wins-over-academic-violations
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/12/06/the-problem-with-notre-dame-football/
https://www.ktbs.com/news/incaseyoumissedit/as-brian-kelly-comes-to-lsu-heres-a-look-back-at-off-the-field-notre/article_e810d878-52ed-11ec-a9c4-df1f063ae1ba.html
https://fightingirish.com/ncaa-slaps-notre-dame-with-probation/
BTW, I am not claiming that we are holier than thou; after all Stanford was hit with violations a few years ago (https://stanforddaily.com/2016/09/15/stanford-athletics-admits-to-ncaa-violations-by-football-softball/)
But as the article from Chris Smith notes, even if you agree that Notre Dame does things “the right way”, it “tends to mask the fact that college football, regardless of where it's played, is all about business.”
When you point to Notre Dame and Duke, you are pointing to two academically well respected institutions who also have winning athletic programs (in football and basketball, respectively) but the two things are almost no more connected than the fact that the Bay Area has successful academic universities (Stanford, Cal) and successful major athletic programs (the Giants, Warriors, and Niners). That’s a bit of hyperbole, but that is clearly the direction of travel, and if I sound like a negative Nellie all the time, it is because I don’t like the destination. I don’t really care for an NCAA where you have students and athletes but not student-athletes.
BC
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - oldalum - 01-14-2025
in the spirit of piling on, one of those Notre Dame stories links to a story about UNC's decades-long student-athlete academic scandal
(UNC was a perennial top 25 university and top 5 public university in the Useless News and World Distort's ratings)
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - Goose - 01-14-2025
(01-14-2025, 05:03 PM)paloalto Wrote: I see it differently than almost everyone here. My opinion won't be popular on this board.I found that characterization to be a bit strange as well. In so far as I have a criticism of the "recent" Stanford students it would be more along the lines there weren't enough nerds who wanted to build something and too many students that wanted to make lots of money without actually producing anything. They intend to be investment bankers risking OPM :-). IMO if one is enumerating sectors of the economy that create no real "value" but siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another professional sports (of which college football is now a part) would certainly be at the top of the list. Of course, most of us on this board help them do that.
"not to graduate a ratpack of 'narrow focused professional nerds' who invent 'marginally useful 'gadgets/software,social-media apps' or who will master 'a new 5 card monte crypto trading strategy' that just siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another."
If this is the way you characterize the goals of Stanford, I disagree 100%. It's as though you strongly dislike Stanford because they are not a football factory. I see a myriad of academic rankings with Stanford in the top ten in the WORLD; in some cases top three. Stanford must be doing a decent job in some aspects as an academic institution.
Quote:This is a sports message board. I get it. Football is king. Winning is important.Despite many protestations to the contrary by others on this board, IMO there is absolutely no doubt that sports in general and football in particular are much less on the radar of Stanford students than even 20 years ago. The student attendance, even when we were winning, hasn't been impressive. The major difference is that today football isn't part of the "social life" of the student body. Many people who weren't all that interested in football would attend games independent of how good a product was on the field. It was just "what you do". That is no longer even remotely true. The argument that attendance would increase if we had a better team is undoubtedly true, but the size of that increase is IMO very questionable. If the students really don't enjoy watching football, it doesn't matter if it is good football.
If you get away from a sports message board I suspect the priorities would be different. I bet if you were to ask students on campus what's keeping them from enjoying Stanford, at least 9 out of 10 students would NOT name the football win/loss record.
My son got his BS and MS back in the days of Andrew Luck. As inconceivable as it will seem to those posting on this thread, he didn't know who Luck was until his senior undergrad year when I talked about Luck. He and most if not all of his friends had no interest in football.
RE: What can Stanford learn from NotreDame regarding creating a Top20 Football Program ? - StanUSwagU - 01-14-2025
(01-14-2025, 05:06 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-14-2025, 01:07 AM)StanUSwagU Wrote: (3) NotreDame in Football & Duke in Mens Basketball have already shown that you dont have to 'entirely 100% forsake your values' to be successful.
Which values are you referring to?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/22/503036252/notre-dame-must-vacate-2012-2013-football-wins-over-academic-violations
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/12/06/the-problem-with-notre-dame-football/
https://www.ktbs.com/news/incaseyoumissedit/as-brian-kelly-comes-to-lsu-heres-a-look-back-at-off-the-field-notre/article_e810d878-52ed-11ec-a9c4-df1f063ae1ba.html
https://fightingirish.com/ncaa-slaps-notre-dame-with-probation/
BTW, I am not claiming that we are holier than thou; after all Stanford was hit with violations a few years ago (https://stanforddaily.com/2016/09/15/stanford-athletics-admits-to-ncaa-violations-by-football-softball/)
But as the article from Chris Smith notes, even if you agree that Notre Dame does things “the right way”, it “tends to mask the fact that college football, regardless of where it's played, is all about business.”
When you point to Notre Dame and Duke, you are pointing to two academically well respected institutions who also have winning athletic programs (in football and basketball, respectively) but the two things are almost no more connected than the fact that the Bay Area has successful academic universities (Stanford, Cal) and successful major athletic programs (the Giants, Warriors, and Niners). That’s a bit of hyperbole, but that is clearly the direction of travel, and if I sound like a negative Nellie all the time, it is because I don’t like the destination. I don’t really care for an NCAA where you have students and athletes but not student-athletes.
BC
Hi BC,
Hope all is well.
I think above you stated 1 of my points more concisely than I did, but in the inverse.
My point was that for any of us here at Stanford who are clutching our pearls claiming or thinking we wouldn't want to adopt the model of Duke for Mens Basketball or NotreDame for football because that would be 'lowering our academic or ethical or moral standard', I think that is fallacy. Stanfords 'academic, ethical, or moral standard' is not on a higher plane than Duke or NotreDame.
You in effect said this with your honest assertion about not 'claiming to be holier than thou due to our (Stanford's) academic scandals & violations.' ..which I interpret to mean that 'We at Stanford are not on some higher ethical/academic/moral standard than Duke or NotreDame.
That was my only point;
I seem to read a lot on this board about 'not wanting to lower our academic/moral/ethical standards' ...but remember I am not suggesting we transition to being Oklahoma & SMU of the 1980s or the U of Miami of the 1990s ...I am just suggesting we look very closely at Duke & Notre Dame & try to adopt as much as we can from their models regarding how they approach Mens Basketball & Football, respectively.
As usual, thanks for your 'real data' links & references.