Underwhelmed... - 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: Underwhelmed... (/thread-26006.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: Underwhelmed... (/thread-26006.html)
RE: Underwhelmed... - PVTree - 01-11-2026
The link to the U$C report on our DC hire states that Stanford was going to let PK bring in his defensive coaches. I have also read that we are already retaining some of our defensive coaches. Perhaps this clash is the reason TP allegedly nixed the hire.
RE: Underwhelmed... - cctop - 01-11-2026
(01-09-2026, 07:16 PM)chrisk Wrote: Cignetti and the Hoosiers were not big names until they landed in Indiana. Mendoza had some buzz, but nobody predicted they would go from 3 wins to 11 wins to a likely 16 and a CFP championship in 2 years. They did it by being smart, not based on credentials.
I saw this video today stating that the average age of Indiana players is 23 (!), and no offensive player is under 21.
It reminded me of several threads during our decline about how we need to recruit "old men" to play OL.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DTRBG8SjWKf/
RE: Underwhelmed... - Treebound - 01-11-2026
The PK "negotiation" is not great, but I will give our new leadership (Levin, Donahoe and Luck) the benefit of the doubt here. After watching MTL, Drell, Muir and Shaw unravel things, I'm glad that we have a great group focused on turning the program around. I'm laughing at a cal fanatic over here spinning people up and telling us we don't have time - that's rich coming from a program that hasn't tasted a Rose Bowl since 1959. Please don't take the bait and see him for what he is - someone that knows nothing about our program, leadership or the current state of the university's finances. It's a Classic old blue schtick - "you're so rich, so just pay for it." Given the funding shortfalls, new tax increases on endowments and the widespread university layoffs, we were not going to pay for a Cignetti-like hire/contract that was originally $27M over 6 years with additional incentives.
We all want this to turn around quickly, but I don't think that is realistic. Jim Harbaugh was very much a Stanford hire. Bob Bowlsby was conflicted as to whether or not to push "No-Fault Walt" out so quickly, but we are all (maybe not calfan) grateful that he did. That said, even Harbaugh was paid on the lower end and took 3-4 years to turn things around. His record those first three years was 4-8 (2007), 5-7 (2008) and 8-5 (2009). My broader point about this taking time is also about fundraising. It's going to take time for Shayne and co to raise $500M+. If you want things to move faster then put your money where your mouth is and GIVE. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time ponying up real dollars to pay 18-22 year olds to play ball in the ACC, but that's the new reality.
I think we will find a unique path to being very competitive without compromising our academics. We are still the only university in the P4 that requires an actual application from all athletes (along with the military academies and some of the Ivies) and while we have significantly increased undergraduate athletic transfers in this transfer portal world and created a Stanford Post-Bacc program, we aren't going to throw out academic standards like so many others. I'm great with that as I don't want Stanford to have a roster made up of mercenaries that can't make it in the classroom. Levin has already stated that none of the faculty or students want that.
RE: Underwhelmed... - old spanish trail - 01-11-2026
(01-10-2026, 07:38 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: There are a few stories online that say Stanford is hiring Kris Richard as DC.
USC Saturday Buzz: At Least One School Is Hiring A Defensive Coordinator – InsideUSC with Scott Wolf
Given his NFL success, I'd be adequately whelmed by that hire, if true...
Didn't we recruit Richard back in the day?
RE: Underwhelmed... - newguy - 01-11-2026
(01-10-2026, 11:22 AM)calfan Wrote:(01-10-2026, 10:19 AM)Treebound Wrote: What BC said. $50m is a drop in the bucket. Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight. I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term). Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2. It takes fewer great players to turn that program around. We clearly have one in Okorie. Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.I must say, I really think this post is totally misaligned and maybe explains why your athletic department / football leadership has screwed up the last half-decade. The whole "true Stanford men" is like what we at Cal joke about "OKGs" (our kinda guys). It's a pejorative term to snarkily suggest that our lower-ranked recruits who aren't great at football will somehow thrive because they "fit" our ethos better. Nonsense.
I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered. I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.
And to put it plainly, you don't HAVE time. There is no room for a half-decade long rebuild (and it doesn't work nowadays with the portal anyways). Realignment is a few years away and you (& Cal) are either in or out.
Overall, I'm just mystified at the level of justification the subpar results merit on this board. I kinda understand it for Cal where we haven't had a winning conference record in ages and haven't been relevant since Tedford. But for you guys? Has post-covid really been so bad that everyone stopped caring?
i think you raise some valid points. here's my two cents.
post-covid has been bad for us, but we haven't stopped caring. i don't think any of us have justified our subpar results the last few years, but some of us have tried to explain them. which is quite natural, when you think about it. after all, when something's wrong, it's human nature to try to speculate on why that is.
when it comes to realignment, hopefully we'll be in. but there's only so much we can do about that. certainly we're not going to hire coaches who could jeopardize our football program's reputation. which is integrity. requirement number one for Stanford football, above all else. and that applies to our football players as well. integrity. that should never change, and it never will, long after i am gone.
we have boosters. but some of our boosters have given to the general fund as well as to the athletic department. and why shouldn't they? after all, we're primarily an academic institution. and we're proud of that. also, kiss our axe.
RE: Underwhelmed... - norcard10 - 01-11-2026
(01-11-2026, 10:12 PM)newguy Wrote:(01-10-2026, 11:22 AM)calfan Wrote:(01-10-2026, 10:19 AM)Treebound Wrote: What BC said. $50m is a drop in the bucket. Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight. I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term). Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2. It takes fewer great players to turn that program around. We clearly have one in Okorie. Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.I must say, I really think this post is totally misaligned and maybe explains why your athletic department / football leadership has screwed up the last half-decade. The whole "true Stanford men" is like what we at Cal joke about "OKGs" (our kinda guys). It's a pejorative term to snarkily suggest that our lower-ranked recruits who aren't great at football will somehow thrive because they "fit" our ethos better. Nonsense.
I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered. I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.
And to put it plainly, you don't HAVE time. There is no room for a half-decade long rebuild (and it doesn't work nowadays with the portal anyways). Realignment is a few years away and you (& Cal) are either in or out.
Overall, I'm just mystified at the level of justification the subpar results merit on this board. I kinda understand it for Cal where we haven't had a winning conference record in ages and haven't been relevant since Tedford. But for you guys? Has post-covid really been so bad that everyone stopped caring?
i think you raise some valid points. here's my two cents.
post-covid has been bad for us, but we haven't stopped caring. i don't think any of us have justified our subpar results the last few years, but some of us have tried to explain them. which is quite natural, when you think about it. after all, when something's wrong, it's human nature to try to speculate on why that is.
when it comes to realignment, hopefully we'll be in. but there's only so much we can do about that. certainly we're not going to hire coaches who could jeopardize our football program's reputation. which is integrity. requirement number one for Stanford football, above all else. and that applies to our football players as well. integrity. that should never change, and it never will, long after i am gone.
we have boosters. but some of our boosters have given to the general fund as well as to the athletic department. and why shouldn't they? after all, we're primarily an academic institution. and we're proud of that. also, kiss our axe.
In this era, boosters and NIL will be key. 40 year decision does not make sense anymore. No 5 star QB is turning down $2-3M a year at a power 5 school for a stanford diploma, nor should they IMO (imagine loss of opportunity cost with compounded growth). Stanford has to be more competitive here. Vandy was able to do it, no reason why Stanford can't.
RE: Underwhelmed... - Row80Critic - 01-12-2026
In the meantime, Stanford has now dropped to #92 in portal transfer rankings (per 247sports), dead last in the ACC --by a country mile-- and well below teams like Temple, North Texas and Liberty. Very hard to put lipstick on this pig, but here's hoping for a big finish this week.
RE: Underwhelmed... - SamuelMcF - 01-12-2026
(01-12-2026, 03:04 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: In the meantime, Stanford has now dropped to #92 in portal transfer rankings (per 247sports), dead last in the ACC --by a country mile-- and well below teams like Temple, North Texas and Liberty. Very hard to put lipstick on this pig, but here's hoping for a big finish this week.
Third-fewest transfers out in the nation, only 6 scholarship spots available
RE: Underwhelmed... - TriangleTree - 01-12-2026
(01-12-2026, 03:16 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(01-12-2026, 03:04 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: In the meantime, Stanford has now dropped to #92 in portal transfer rankings (per 247sports), dead last in the ACC --by a country mile-- and well below teams like Temple, North Texas and Liberty. Very hard to put lipstick on this pig, but here's hoping for a big finish this week.
Third-fewest transfers out in the nation, only 6 scholarship spots available
Thanks for the glass half full perspective SMF.
I know that Luck wasn’t left with much of a choice regarding T Taylor, but I can’t help but wonder the kind of season we might have had if many of the transfers that left post Taylor announcement would have stayed. Many of them were prominent players in high profile teams (Bachmeier, Bailey, and Mosely to name a few)
They may have bolted anyway but I suspect some would have remained.
I’m hoping the stat of 3rd best remains. It gives me hope for the kind of program that can be built.
RE: Underwhelmed... - SamuelMcF - 01-12-2026
(01-12-2026, 05:26 PM)TriangleTree Wrote:(01-12-2026, 03:16 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(01-12-2026, 03:04 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: In the meantime, Stanford has now dropped to #92 in portal transfer rankings (per 247sports), dead last in the ACC --by a country mile-- and well below teams like Temple, North Texas and Liberty. Very hard to put lipstick on this pig, but here's hoping for a big finish this week.
Third-fewest transfers out in the nation, only 6 scholarship spots available
Thanks for the glass half full perspective SMF.
I know that Luck wasn’t left with much of a choice regarding T Taylor, but I can’t help but wonder the kind of season we might have had if many of the transfers that left post Taylor announcement would have stayed. Many of them were prominent players in high profile teams (Bachmeier, Bailey, and Mosely to name a few)
They may have bolted anyway but I suspect some would have remained.
I’m hoping the stat of 3rd best remains. It gives me hope for the kind of program that can be built.
I forgot to mention the top 2 are playing for the national championship. Let’s see 5 days after that.
RE: Underwhelmed... - BostonCard - 01-12-2026
(01-11-2026, 10:20 PM)norcard10 Wrote: Stanford has to be more competitive here. Vandy was able to do it, no reason why Stanford can't.
I don’t know how to put this, so I will be blunt. If you want Stanford to be more competitive here, then you are free to donate the tens of millions of dollars per year to enable it. The great thing about this new era that we are in is that boosters have a real oppportunity to buy the team that they want. You want a top tier QB from the transfer portal? Easy, that will be $4 to $6.5 million; I’m sure the athletics department will be happy to take your money. BobK can probably hook you up.
Asking Stanford to spend the money to do it, without providing that money in donations is not going to happen when the University is already subsidizing the athletics department. In fact, the AD was already being partially funded by the University even before the PAC-12 fell apart and we agreed to take on a lower share media deal and dramatically increase travel costs. But as I keep reminding people, the University just laid off 2% of its workforce (360 staff members) and is trying to save $150 million due to reduced federal funding a new tax on endowments. In light of this, it doesn’t have an additional $20 - $40 million to give you a winning football team. Honestly folks, put up the money or…
BC
RE: Underwhelmed... - calfan - 01-12-2026
(01-11-2026, 03:57 PM)Treebound Wrote: The PK "negotiation" is not great, but I will give our new leadership (Levin, Donahoe and Luck) the benefit of the doubt here. After watching MTL, Drell, Muir and Shaw unravel things, I'm glad that we have a great group focused on turning the program around. I'm laughing at a cal fanatic over here spinning people up and telling us we don't have time - that's rich coming from a program that hasn't tasted a Rose Bowl since 1959. Please don't take the bait and see him for what he is - someone that knows nothing about our program, leadership or the current state of the university's finances. It's a Classic old blue schtick - "you're so rich, so just pay for it." Given the funding shortfalls, new tax increases on endowments and the widespread university layoffs, we were not going to pay for a Cignetti-like hire/contract that was originally $27M over 6 years with additional incentives.I can see why your program has completely fallen off the wheels, if your perspective & attitude are any indication of the broader department/fanbase's views. Thank you for pointing out Cal's helplessness since 1959- exactly why it is so embarassing that even we have blown your results out of the water over the last half decade with our mediocre .500 finishes every year.
We all want this to turn around quickly, but I don't think that is realistic. Jim Harbaugh was very much a Stanford hire. Bob Bowlsby was conflicted as to whether or not to push "No-Fault Walt" out so quickly, but we are all (maybe not calfan) grateful that he did. That said, even Harbaugh was paid on the lower end and took 3-4 years to turn things around. His record those first three years was 4-8 (2007), 5-7 (2008) and 8-5 (2009). My broader point about this taking time is also about fundraising. It's going to take time for Shayne and co to raise $500M+. If you want things to move faster then put your money where your mouth is and GIVE. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time ponying up real dollars to pay 18-22 year olds to play ball in the ACC, but that's the new reality.
I think we will find a unique path to being very competitive without compromising our academics. We are still the only university in the P4 that requires an actual application from all athletes (along with the military academies and some of the Ivies) and while we have significantly increased undergraduate athletic transfers in this transfer portal world and created a Stanford Post-Bacc program, we aren't going to throw out academic standards like so many others. I'm great with that as I don't want Stanford to have a roster made up of mercenaries that can't make it in the classroom. Levin has already stated that none of the faculty or students want that.
Your reductive take on "you're so rich, pay for it" is nowhere near my point but I'll counter with the obvious assertion that football is revenue generating. You'd expect that for every dollar you put in, you will get more than a dollar out (until a point, obviously). This is not a cost center but rather an area that needs investment. The university must spend money to make money, and your alumni base if catalyzed correctly, is richer than anyone else. That is my point. I am well aware of the financial realities plaguing the AD and the federal cuts. Do you think we are rolling in money over here at Cal? Of course not-- yet we've put substantial amounts in for our renovations, staffing, HC, recruiting, and more to the point where we're top 20 nationally in NIL budget.
You can cling to your notion of Stanford men and filling the roster with A-tier students, but say goodbye to any relevancy in this new world of CFB. Maybe you are okay with that- and that's completely fine. But then fully accept it and don't pretend there is some grand master plan that is being unveiled. Pritchard sucks as a hire. Your donors have not shown up. Your roster blows. Clearly what the program is doing isn't working, and giving your uninspiring hire of a coach 4-5 years to figure it out will just have us here in 2030 debating the same thing again. Simply: your mental model has failed.
RE: Underwhelmed... - KartyFan - 01-13-2026
31-10
RE: Underwhelmed... - BostonCard - 01-13-2026
Let’s ask Gemini whether cal football’s financing.
Quote:Cal football, as part of the broader UC Berkeley athletics department, consistently operates at a significant deficit, relying heavily on campus support and facing major financial challenges due to reduced media revenue from its move to the ACC, resulting in multi-million dollar shortfalls even after factoring in subsidies, despite efforts to generate more income. For instance, in FY2023, the athletic department had roughly $120M in revenue but $149M in expenses, with about $35M coming from central campus, indicating a substantial operating loss.
Key Financial Picture
FY2023 (Reported): $120M Revenue vs. $149M Expenses (with $35M campus support) = ~$29M Loss (before support).
FY2022: $120.5M Revenue vs. $116.8M Expenses (with $29.1M campus support) = ~$25.4M Shortfall without support, notes Sports360AZ.
Major Financial Pressures
Reduced Media Revenue: Moving to the ACC means Cal receives only about 30% of a full share for the first seven years, a significant drop from Pac-12 earnings, creating an annual shortfall.
High Debt: Cal's athletics department carries substantial debt, with one report highlighting nearly $440 million in outstanding athletic debt as of 2022-23.
Campus Subsidies: The athletics department relies heavily on central campus funding (student fees, general funds) to cover its operating deficits, a situation also faced by UCLA, notes swimswam.com.
Rising Costs: Increased expenses, including potential costs for NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) payments to athletes, add to the financial strain, say The Mercury News and Sports Illustrated.
The Role of Football
A successful football program is crucial for generating revenue through ticket sales, donations, and merchandise, but Cal's recent performance hasn't been enough to overcome these systemic issues, note The Mercury News and writeforcalifornia.com.
In essence, Cal football isn't a profit center but a significant cost center within a struggling athletic department that needs substantial ongoing financial support from the university to function, says The Mercury News and writeforcalifornia.com.
Maybe Calfan shouldn’t be here lecturing us on responsible spending.
BC
RE: Underwhelmed... - norcard10 - 01-13-2026
(01-12-2026, 09:44 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-11-2026, 10:20 PM)norcard10 Wrote: Stanford has to be more competitive here. Vandy was able to do it, no reason why Stanford can't.
I don’t know how to put this, so I will be blunt. If you want Stanford to be more competitive here, then you are free to donate the tens of millions of dollars per year to enable it. The great thing about this new era that we are in is that boosters have a real oppportunity to buy the team that they want. You want a top tier QB from the transfer portal? Easy, that will be $4 to $6.5 million; I’m sure the athletics department will be happy to take your money. BobK can probably hook you up.
Asking Stanford to spend the money to do it, without providing that money in donations is not going to happen when the University is already subsidizing the athletics department. In fact, the AD was already being partially funded by the University even before the PAC-12 fell apart and we agreed to take on a lower share media deal and dramatically increase travel costs. But as I keep reminding people, the University just laid off 2% of its workforce (360 staff members) and is trying to save $150 million due to reduced federal funding a new tax on endowments. In light of this, it doesn’t have an additional $20 - $40 million to give you a winning football team. Honestly folks, put up the money or…
BC
I donate quite a bit to Stanford sports - it's time other alums do the same. Hence why I said boosters.
And let's stop acting condescending to other fans. It's tiresome and reinforces the unnecessary stereotype of Stanford alums being stuffy elitist aholes. Certainly, not something the LSJU current football "brand" needs at the moment.
RE: Underwhelmed... - calfan - 01-13-2026
(01-13-2026, 12:42 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Let’s ask Gemini whether cal football’s financing.
Quote:Cal football, as part of the broader UC Berkeley athletics department, consistently operates at a significant deficit, relying heavily on campus support and facing major financial challenges due to reduced media revenue from its move to the ACC, resulting in multi-million dollar shortfalls even after factoring in subsidies, despite efforts to generate more income. For instance, in FY2023, the athletic department had roughly $120M in revenue but $149M in expenses, with about $35M coming from central campus, indicating a substantial operating loss.
Key Financial Picture
FY2023 (Reported): $120M Revenue vs. $149M Expenses (with $35M campus support) = ~$29M Loss (before support).
FY2022: $120.5M Revenue vs. $116.8M Expenses (with $29.1M campus support) = ~$25.4M Shortfall without support, notes Sports360AZ.
Major Financial Pressures
Reduced Media Revenue: Moving to the ACC means Cal receives only about 30% of a full share for the first seven years, a significant drop from Pac-12 earnings, creating an annual shortfall.
High Debt: Cal's athletics department carries substantial debt, with one report highlighting nearly $440 million in outstanding athletic debt as of 2022-23.
Campus Subsidies: The athletics department relies heavily on central campus funding (student fees, general funds) to cover its operating deficits, a situation also faced by UCLA, notes swimswam.com.
Rising Costs: Increased expenses, including potential costs for NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) payments to athletes, add to the financial strain, say The Mercury News and Sports Illustrated.
The Role of Football
A successful football program is crucial for generating revenue through ticket sales, donations, and merchandise, but Cal's recent performance hasn't been enough to overcome these systemic issues, note The Mercury News and writeforcalifornia.com.
In essence, Cal football isn't a profit center but a significant cost center within a struggling athletic department that needs substantial ongoing financial support from the university to function, says The Mercury News and writeforcalifornia.com.
Maybe Calfan shouldn’t be here lecturing us on responsible spending.
BC
I'll assume since you went to Stanford you're not a (complete) idiot and you understand the point you make in an attempt to have a snippy comeback is terrible. Cal football does not run a deficit, it is a significant revenue generator. Our WIDER athletic department posts losses, largely owing to our 30+ sports that we are not equipped to support as a cash-strapped public school. Our football program easily sees more than a dollar returned for every dollar put in. It would clearly make sense to run up our revenue generation programs (football, marginally MBB) while cutting costs elsewhere (pains me to say as a baseball fan, but that's a good example).
I know the reply was meant to be flippant but come on. You couldn't at least give the AI generated response a cursory glance to see if it made any intuitive sense? What are they teaching you guys down on the Farm? I know the classes are a joke but... (I'm kidding, all love)
RE: Underwhelmed... - fullmetal - 01-13-2026
(01-13-2026, 02:56 AM)calfan Wrote: Cal football does not run a deficit, it is a significant revenue generator.
Oh that's right, the seismic renovations of the brobdingnagian stadium straddling the Hayward fault line doesn't count against the football team's balance sheet. Football team is now a net positive!
RE: Underwhelmed... - Papa John - 01-13-2026
(01-13-2026, 02:56 AM)calfan Wrote: I'll assume since you went to Stanford you're not a (complete) idiot
<snip>
Does the CardBoard still have a rule against ad hominem attacks?
RE: Underwhelmed... - BobK - 01-13-2026
Rule. Attack ideas not people
RE: Underwhelmed... - PalmTree - 01-13-2026
(01-13-2026, 09:18 AM)fullmetal Wrote:(01-13-2026, 02:56 AM)calfan Wrote: Cal football does not run a deficit, it is a significant revenue generator.
Oh that's right, the seismic renovations of the brobdingnagian stadium straddling the Hayward fault line doesn't count against the football team's balance sheet. Football team is now a net positive!
What's that old saying about not being able to see the forest for the Trees?