Underwhelmed... - Printable Version

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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: Underwhelmed... - Spiny_Norman - 01-14-2026

(01-14-2026, 10:45 AM)Giants Wrote: Quite frankly, I wish Stanford and Cal would have gotten in line in front of USC and UCLA. The Big Ten would have been a great upgrade.

The deal for USC and UCLA to join the Big Ten was brokered by Fox Sports which put up the money to make it work. It was a business decision by Fox Sports which was then ratified by the Big Ten presidents. I don't think Stanford and Cal could ever have presented a business case to Fox Sports that would have been worth their while. In other words, Stanford and Cal never would have had a chance to join the Big Ten ahead of USC and UCLA.

Stanford's only chance would have come as Notre Dame's partner school if the Irish had decided to join the conference. That would have left Cal out in the cold however.

RE: Underwhelmed... - Giants - 01-14-2026

(01-14-2026, 11:28 AM)Treebound Wrote:
(01-14-2026, 10:45 AM)Giants Wrote: “Blame USC and UCLA for that”

This is a comment that I find highly questionable.

In an alternate universe, insert Stanford and Cal for the southern California schools. Would we bemoan the destruction of the Pac12 by blaming ourselves?

Of course not, we would relish the idea of being a member of the best conference in the country (Big Ten) and cry crocodile tears for our neighbors to the south.

In other words, I do not think USC or UCLA merit blame. Rather they should be congratulated for their foresight re: the direction college football was taking and got involved early to ensure a soft landing.

Quite frankly, I wish Stanford and Cal would have gotten in line in front of USC and UCLA. The Big Ten would have been a great upgrade.

Giants,
u$c and UCLA were the main reason that Texas and Oklahoma were not allowed to join the Pac12, when they were very interested in coming over. I have heard it was because the LA schools liked being the center/power of the Pac universe and didn't want the added competition. Had those two schools joined the Pac, I think it would be a very different Power 4 today and our student athletes would not be making all of these challenging cross country trips. I think it's fair to put blame on them for that shortsighted view and I also blame the commissioner and Muir for not pushing harder. Would love to know more about those negotiations from those that were "in the room where it happened."

I thought the reason TX and OK said no was due to the distribution of revenue. They wanted an unequal share if they joined the P12. Since the conference was adamant about sharing revenue equally among all partners, adding those schools was a no-go. Also, there were issues re: the revenue generated by the Longhorn network and how that would be shared.

I blame Scott and the Chancellors/Presidents for the breakup. The academic leadership did not have the skills to negotiate against seasoned media professionals and Scott was completely unprepared to provide them thoughtful advice re: how to proceed.

Spiny…

I agree with you. That is why I posted “in an alternate universe”.

RE: Underwhelmed... - Row80Critic - 01-14-2026

(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

Elijiah Brown just opened up another unused slot...

Matt Zenitz on X: "Stanford redshirt freshman QB Elijah Brown has entered the transfer portal, @chris_hummer and I have learned. Former Class of 2024 top-200 overall recruit who threw for 1,104 yards the last two seasons. https://t.co/HeXCYckMYV" / X

RE: Underwhelmed... - Mick - 01-14-2026

(01-14-2026, 10:55 AM)Treebound Wrote: Great insights in this thread.
A few points:

1) Undergrad Population: The university has wanted to increase the undergraduate population for some time. The challenges with the GUP, Joe Simitian, Santa Clara AND San Mateo counties have been the problem. Simitian is retiring and Levin and team are doing things thoughtfully to take another swing at getting a new GUP passed. It's going to take time and I don't see a path to +2500 in the near term. Hennessy stated the dealing with the GUP was the most challenging/painful issue of his tenure.

Is Santa Clara subject to growth restrictions driven by Santa Clara County? When I was there, they had 3,300 undergrads on 80 acres. Today, it's 6,400 undergrads on 106 acres. Stanford has over 8,000 acres. Why such a battle to increase Stanford's student population?

RE: Underwhelmed... - 82lsju - 01-14-2026

(01-14-2026, 05:59 PM)Mick Wrote:
(01-14-2026, 10:55 AM)Treebound Wrote: Great insights in this thread.
A few points:

1) Undergrad Population: The university has wanted to increase the undergraduate population for some time. The challenges with the GUP, Joe Simitian, Santa Clara AND San Mateo counties have been the problem. Simitian is retiring and Levin and team are doing things thoughtfully to take another swing at getting a new GUP passed. It's going to take time and I don't see a path to +2500 in the near term. Hennessy stated the dealing with the GUP was the most challenging/painful issue of his tenure.

Is Santa Clara subject to growth restrictions driven by Santa Clara County? When I was there, they had 3,300 undergrads on 80 acres. Today, it's 6,400 undergrads on 106 acres. Stanford has over 8,000 acres. Why such a battle to increase Stanford's student population?

- Stanford has ~7.400 undergrad and ~10,000 grad students, I don't know how many grad students are at SCU.
- the ~8,000 acres includes a lot of land that is not developable (e.g., the land west of Junipero Serra Blvd) at least not under current agreements (and I can imagine the resistance to developing the Dish as student housing) or has other uses (e.g., Stanford Industrial Park, Stanford Shopping Center, Jasper Ridge biological preserve)
- walking around campus at both LSJU and SCU the Stanford campus seems to have a lot more development and a lot of taller building
- way back when (1979-82) undergrads had three years of guaranteed on-campus housing, now it appears to be all four years, this change has increased the number of undergrad housing units by ~40% (mostly due to going from 3 to 4 years but the undergrad population is also larger now than it was in 1982). Are all SCU undergrads housed on campus?
- I would guess SCU would be under the jurisdiction of only the City of Santa Clara, for Stanford it is "more complicated"

Quote:
4,017 acres in unincorporated Santa Clara County

2,700 acres in unincorporated San Mateo County

1,161 acres in Palo Alto

114 acres in Woodside

111 acres in Menlo Park

76 acres in Portola Valley

1 acre in Los Altos Hills

8,180 total acres

https://facts.stanford.edu/about/stanford-campus

ADD: Stanford says ~60 of the ~8,180 acres are open space

https://oga.stanford.edu/stanford-lands

see map here

[Image: su-jurisdictions10x16-1024x640.jpeg?h=13...k=3244sutY]

[Image: su-jurisdictions10x16-1024x640.jpeg?h=13...k=3244sutY]

RE: Underwhelmed... - jacket3ree - 01-14-2026

(01-14-2026, 05:59 PM)Mick Wrote:
(01-14-2026, 10:55 AM)Treebound Wrote: Great insights in this thread.
A few points:

1) Undergrad Population: The university has wanted to increase the undergraduate population for some time. The challenges with the GUP, Joe Simitian, Santa Clara AND San Mateo counties have been the problem. Simitian is retiring and Levin and team are doing things thoughtfully to take another swing at getting a new GUP passed. It's going to take time and I don't see a path to +2500 in the near term. Hennessy stated the dealing with the GUP was the most challenging/painful issue of his tenure.

Is Santa Clara subject to growth restrictions driven by Santa Clara County? When I was there, they had 3,300 undergrads on 80 acres. Today, it's 6,400 undergrads on 106 acres. Stanford has over 8,000 acres. Why such a battle to increase Stanford's student population?

ooh, ooh, ooh [Horshack]

I actually know the answer to this having part of many land use and specific plans thoughout Santa Clara County. SCU is entirely within the municipal limits of the City of Santa Clara. The County of Santa Clara defers land use authority to the City for areas within their Urban Service Area, which includes SCU. We deal with the County when out in say, San Martin, or.....Stanford. While Stanford owns land within the City of Palo Alto and subject to their land use jurisdiction, the main campus is within unincorporated Santa Clara County. The City of Palo Alto is within Stanford's main campus Sphere of Influence, so they can still chirp about all sorts of things.

Great thread and I hope Calfan sticks around. Might put some thoughts down when less under a bunch of deadlines.

[Image: 6Q4YEROBAEHCQ3J2A7EPKFEQNI.jpg?auth=4615...smart=true]

[Image: 6Q4YEROBAEHCQ3J2A7EPKFEQNI.jpg?auth=4615...smart=true]

I mean you're calling us nerds. Wait, are you calling us nerds? Will read again.

RE: Underwhelmed... - StanUSwagU - 01-14-2026

(01-14-2026, 07:51 PM)jacket3ree Wrote:
(01-14-2026, 05:59 PM)Mick Wrote:
(01-14-2026, 10:55 AM)Treebound Wrote: Great insights in this thread.
A few points:

1) Undergrad Population: The university has wanted to increase the undergraduate population for some time. The challenges with the GUP, Joe Simitian, Santa Clara AND San Mateo counties have been the problem. Simitian is retiring and Levin and team are doing things thoughtfully to take another swing at getting a new GUP passed. It's going to take time and I don't see a path to +2500 in the near term. Hennessy stated the dealing with the GUP was the most challenging/painful issue of his tenure.

Is Santa Clara subject to growth restrictions driven by Santa Clara County? When I was there, they had 3,300 undergrads on 80 acres. Today, it's 6,400 undergrads on 106 acres. Stanford has over 8,000 acres. Why such a battle to increase Stanford's student population?

ooh, ooh, ooh [Horshack]

I actually know the answer to this having part of many land use and specific plans thoughout Santa Clara County. SCU is entirely within the municipal limits of the City of Santa Clara. The County of Santa Clara defers land use authority to the City for areas within their Urban Service Area, which includes SCU. We deal with the County when out in say, San Martin, or.....Stanford. While Stanford owns land within the City of Palo Alto and subject to their land use jurisdiction, the main campus is within unincorporated Santa Clara County. The City of Palo Alto is within Stanford's main campus Sphere of Influence, so they can still chirp about all sorts of things.

Great thread and I hope Calfan sticks around. Might put some thoughts down when less under a bunch of deadlines.

I mean you're calling us nerds. Wait, are you calling us nerds? Will read again.

Love the photo
"Go Ramblin Wreck !"

Used to love watching GaTech Football back in the day when they had ReggieBall at QB (a true 'dual-threat QB' before they were given that name) & Calvin Johnson' That was a hard duo to stop !

Also loved watching GaTech basketball all those years under Coach Bobby Cremins, who was lively & upbeat & a ;Gym Rat Lifer type of BBall Coach ..who ate.slept & drank CollegeHoops, sort of like Mike Krzyzewski & Dean Smith,

Those were the days when if you were on the West Coast, you could catch on Television BigEast BBall at 4pm, then ACC basketball at 5:30pm, then Big12 or Pac10 Basketball at 7pm & then end your Night with a WCC or WAC contest startintgat 8:30 pm ! and you didnt have any annoying Streaming Platforms !

RE: Underwhelmed... - calfan - 01-14-2026

(01-14-2026, 07:51 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: [quote="Mick" pid='444146' dateline='1768438758']
[quote="Treebound" pid='444117' dateline='1768413308']
Great thread and I hope Calfan sticks around. Might put some thoughts down when less under a bunch of deadlines.

I mean you're calling us nerds. Wait, are you calling us nerds? Will read again.

Ha- appreciate you all (and sorry for calling you a [partial] idiot BC, that's on me-- you're all great). Will definitely stick around! Great insights in this thread.

RE: Underwhelmed... - jacket3ree - 01-14-2026

I was a freshman the year Bobby Cremins and Coach K took over at Tech and Duke, respectively. He came to our fraternity house that first fall to drum up student support and actually ate dinner with us, which deserved hazard pay honestly. I mean he spent a full hour eating dinner and chatting us up. One of my fellow pledges was from Brooklyn so they were going to town. Anyway this was off a 4-23 campaign and something like two years of winless ACC play. I told him I would go to games and I did. By my senior year (his fourth) we weren't exactly camping out in front of AMC, but you needed to be in line 6 hours early for the primo games, like Duke. Tech finished a few points away from the Final Four and was #1 going into my graduate year at Stanford.

My favorite (non-prodigy) game of all time came in a loss to #1 UVA and Ralph Sampson that freshman year. Tech was up double digits at the half in front of a packed house and as the team went to the locker room, I thought the coliseum might collapse, it was so loud and people were jumping up and down. They lost by a couple of points at the end (ON A BOGUS CHARGE!!! - the ACC has always protected the top team, get used to it) and a bunch of the players were over at Grumpy's afterward with us. We bought them pitchers and thankfully Tech wasn't put on triple secret probation and stripped of our ten wins. Now I am regularly updated via text and call by my son in his second year at Darden, who has latched onto JPJ. Did you know that the Hoos comfortable beat Stanford the other day? I got the blow by blow without even watching the game.

The cool thing about Cremins: I went to the Cable Car Classic at the Shark Tank when Steve Nash was at SCU and they had a pre-game meet and greet near the Santa Clara Convention Center where the team was staying. (I now see that hotel looking out my office window.) I had my then young daughter in tow wearing a GT cheerleading outfit including bee antennae. Coach Cremins greeted me warmly with 'Hey, you're the guy from Colorado! Wow is this your daughter? I guess time is moving along, huh? You know that dinner at your house almost killed me.' I mean that was at least 15 years prior. How on earth do you remember some skinny kid from Colorado from an hour at a cheap table with awful food? Great human being and he knew how to win. Started to run out of steam with the one and done era, but he is a Tech fan for life and I'm glad the court is named for him.

RE: Underwhelmed... - Mick - 01-15-2026

(01-14-2026, 07:27 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(01-14-2026, 05:59 PM)Mick Wrote: Is Santa Clara subject to growth restrictions driven by Santa Clara County? When I was there, they had 3,300 undergrads on 80 acres. Today, it's 6,400 undergrads on 106 acres. Stanford has over 8,000 acres. Why such a battle to increase Stanford's student population?

- Stanford has ~7.400 undergrad and ~10,000 grad students, I don't know how many grad students are at SCU.
- the ~8,000 acres includes a lot of land that is not developable (e.g., the land west of Junipero Serra Blvd) at least not under current agreements (and I can imagine the resistance to developing the Dish as student housing) or has other uses (e.g., Stanford Industrial Park, Stanford Shopping Center, Jasper Ridge biological preserve)
- walking around campus at both LSJU and SCU the Stanford campus seems to have a lot more development and a lot of taller building
- way back when (1979-82) undergrads had three years of guaranteed on-campus housing, now it appears to be all four years, this change has increased the number of undergrad housing units by ~40% (mostly due to going from 3 to 4 years but the undergrad population is also larger now than it was in 1982). Are all SCU undergrads housed on campus?
- I would guess SCU would be under the jurisdiction of only the City of Santa Clara, for Stanford it is "more complicated"

Quote:
4,017 acres in unincorporated Santa Clara County

2,700 acres in unincorporated San Mateo County

1,161 acres in Palo Alto

114 acres in Woodside

111 acres in Menlo Park

76 acres in Portola Valley

1 acre in Los Altos Hills

8,180 total acres

https://facts.stanford.edu/about/stanford-campus

ADD: Stanford says ~60 of the ~8,180 acres are open space

https://oga.stanford.edu/stanford-lands

see map here

To your questions:
- SCU had 6,249 undergraduate students and 3,091 graduate students in the 2023/24 year, total = 9,350. The undergrad population grew to 6,577 the next year. The grad student total is about the same as 45 years ago, the undergrad population is nearly double.
- 53% of undergrads lived on campus...92% of frosh, 86% of sophs live on campus. I suspect the remainder live at home.
- As for high-density buildings, there is one 11-story dorm, one five-story dorm, all the rest are three story dorms. SCU owns a few apartment buildings, all two-story.

I realize Stanford has to satisfy multiple jurisdictions and I'm certain it's a nightmare, although given Stanford's plethora of engineers, lawyers and real estate experts, I still think it's odd that Stanford can't double the size of its student population when it literally has 4,187% more space per student than the little school down the El Camino Real...

That said, one can't discount the effect of NIMBYism. I grew up in Santa Cruz County at a time when the County issued 23 residential building permits -- total -- per year, and that's not new construction, that's TOTAL. The city leaders made it clear they didn't want any more people -- interesting for a fundamentally Socialist community. In the 1990s, I bought a 1,200 square foot house and blew it up into a brobdingnagian mansion of 1,889 square feet, all at the back of the property on a 10k square foot lot. My next door neighbor told me that if San Jose had a decent housing planning commission, she would have prevented my construction increase because "no one needs more than 1,200 square feet." She lived alone, I had a family of four, but...okay.

RE: Underwhelmed... - BostonCard - 01-15-2026

StanUSwagU dateline='[url=tel:1768376131' Wrote: 1768376131[/url]']
Let me add a hypothetical that might change the analysis and maybe unify your 2 perspectives::

I have stated on this board, and have felt for almost 2.5 decades, that Stanford MUST enlarge & diversify its undergraduate enrollment; Enlarge it by 2500 undergrads total, 625 per class (frosh, soph, jun, senior), and DIVERSIFY it to be less 'specialized & nerdy' [A little more like Duke & NotreDame's, Cal's GeorgiaTech's, UCLA's, Wisconsin's undegraduate classes as far as being less nerdy & more sports-loving....I can see BC and Goose, gnashing their teeth, but IMO Duke and NotreDame, Cal, GeorgiaTech students are 'high caliber people, we at Stanford do not have 'higher ethics or morals or academic-ethics-standards' than Duke or ND, GeorgiaTach or these others in that list ...just look at all our Academic Scandals of the last decade, that hopefully i dont have to air out here]

Had this been done 25years ago (yes i know this would have required getting the okay from Santa Clara county to build more on Stanford/County land, but lets assume this had been done)

That would mean a substantially larger Alumni base & FanBase out and about ( spouses of Alums, siblings of Alums, kids of Alums, etc ) almost exponential, when you consider the multiplicative & orthogonal 6 degrees of separation between these 'extra Alums; over the last 20 years & who they have as relatives and significant others, etc

Just maybe if we had this Larger undergraduate base for the last 25 years (that was less nerdy and more diverse), maybe 1 or 2 of these Alums or Significant others or Relatives of these Alums, would be 'someone Financially Successful (e.g half billionaire); ... who 'Loved Sports' like a T Boone Pickens (OklahomaState) or a Mark Cuban (Indiana) or the Guy from TexasTech, and then they would be happy to Donate to Stanford Football & Stanford Sports.

Yes, my model is hypothetical (no guarantee), but hopefully one can understand the underlying concept here:

THE LARGER & MORE DIVERSE YOUR UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES ARE over a 25year span, (its all about volume & numbers), your university has a 'slightly better chance; of having 1 or 2 of these Diverse Undergraduates, go on to become Massively Financially Successful & A CollegeFootballFan, who would then Donate like a MarkCuban or TBoonePickens.

Then (to unify BC & Calfans positions), Stanford could:

• BC's point: Have that 1 or 2 'Rich Half Billionaire' Football Fanatic Alums, who would want to 'Donate' to StanfordFootball, without doing the tradeoff of the AcademicSide and the AD
• CalFans point: Have the ability to 'Go All In' on Funding to Produce a 'Competitive Top 25 Football Program (like a NotreDame)
*************
And yes, BC, I am fully aware there is little to no data to support a CORRELATION or GUARANTEE between a 'LARGER More Diverse Undergraduate & Alumni Base' & '1 or 2 of those Alums or Alum's significant others or relatives becoming a 'Half Billionaire College Football Loving Alum' who wants to donate to their alma-maters AD or Football Program, ...but just with the 'Law of Larger Numbers' ..to me this gives us a better chance. And it seems like we have come to this idea of Enlarging the Undergraduate Class now (albeit about 20 years tardy IMO).

We don’t agree on a lot, but I am wholeheartedly behind Stanford increasing undergraduate enrollment (as, I think, the University is). My reasons have nothing to do with minting another decabillionaire who might love sports and can sugar daddy a winning team. But the rationale:
* Stanford every year gets more deserving applicants than it has spots for
* Even if you exclude undevelopable land, Stanford is still a large campus and has room for more people
* Enrollment expansion can allow for a more diverse student body, as you point out. While I would not prioritize sports fans over, say, violinists or chess prodigies, I do think that if you have more slots to play around with there is less pressure to exclude otherwise phenomenal individuals who might have a yellow flag
* Even a fairly substantial expansion of the student body, say to 10,000 undergrads, would not fundamentally change the character of the school. But it would make an immense difference to several thousand people a year.

Yes, our neighbors in SCC and Palo Alto have put major barriers to this (ironic, since Stanford grads contribute a non-insubstantial share of the tax base), but I feel like the mood is changing, and we are seeing a rise of the YIMBY’s (yes in my back yard) and the advocates of an abundance economy. Part of that, I think, should be increasing the abundance of access to elite Universities.

If it has the added effect of increasing the number of fans and the attendance at sports events (and donations to the athletic department), that’s great, but not, in my mind, a compelling reason to expand the student body.

BC

RE: Underwhelmed... - norcard10 - 01-15-2026

(01-15-2026, 07:45 AM)Mick Wrote:
(01-14-2026, 07:27 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(01-14-2026, 05:59 PM)Mick Wrote: Is Santa Clara subject to growth restrictions driven by Santa Clara County? When I was there, they had 3,300 undergrads on 80 acres. Today, it's 6,400 undergrads on 106 acres. Stanford has over 8,000 acres. Why such a battle to increase Stanford's student population?

- Stanford has ~7.400 undergrad and ~10,000 grad students, I don't know how many grad students are at SCU.
- the ~8,000 acres includes a lot of land that is not developable (e.g., the land west of Junipero Serra Blvd) at least not under current agreements (and I can imagine the resistance to developing the Dish as student housing) or has other uses (e.g., Stanford Industrial Park, Stanford Shopping Center, Jasper Ridge biological preserve)
- walking around campus at both LSJU and SCU the Stanford campus seems to have a lot more development and a lot of taller building
- way back when (1979-82) undergrads had three years of guaranteed on-campus housing, now it appears to be all four years, this change has increased the number of undergrad housing units by ~40% (mostly due to going from 3 to 4 years but the undergrad population is also larger now than it was in 1982). Are all SCU undergrads housed on campus?
- I would guess SCU would be under the jurisdiction of only the City of Santa Clara, for Stanford it is "more complicated"

Quote:
4,017 acres in unincorporated Santa Clara County

2,700 acres in unincorporated San Mateo County

1,161 acres in Palo Alto

114 acres in Woodside

111 acres in Menlo Park

76 acres in Portola Valley

1 acre in Los Altos Hills

8,180 total acres

https://facts.stanford.edu/about/stanford-campus

ADD: Stanford says ~60 of the ~8,180 acres are open space

https://oga.stanford.edu/stanford-lands

see map here

To your questions:
- SCU had 6,249 undergraduate students and 3,091 graduate students in the 2023/24 year, total = 9,350. The undergrad population grew to 6,577 the next year. The grad student total is about the same as 45 years ago, the undergrad population is nearly double.
- 53% of undergrads lived on campus...92% of frosh, 86% of sophs live on campus. I suspect the remainder live at home.
- As for high-density buildings, there is one 11-story dorm, one five-story dorm, all the rest are three story dorms. SCU owns a few apartment buildings, all two-story.

I realize Stanford has to satisfy multiple jurisdictions and I'm certain it's a nightmare, although given Stanford's plethora of engineers, lawyers and real estate experts, I still think it's odd that Stanford can't double the size of its student population when it literally has 4,187% more space per student than the little school down the El Camino Real...

That said, one can't discount the effect of NIMBYism. I grew up in Santa Cruz County at a time when the County issued 23 residential building permits -- total -- per year, and that's not new construction, that's TOTAL. The city leaders made it clear they didn't want any more people -- interesting for a fundamentally Socialist community. In the 1990s, I bought a 1,200 square foot house and blew it up into a brobdingnagian mansion of 1,889 square feet, all at the back of the property on a 10k square foot lot. My next door neighbor told me that if San Jose had a decent housing planning commission, she would have prevented my construction increase because "no one needs more than 1,200 square feet." She lived alone, I had a family of four, but...okay.

I just need them to 5x undergraduate population so my kid gets in...=). Wishful thinking I know.

RE: Underwhelmed... - Mick - 01-15-2026

(01-15-2026, 04:38 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
StanUSwagU dateline='[url=tel:1768376131' Wrote: 1768376131[/url]']
Let me add a hypothetical that might change the analysis and maybe unify your 2 perspectives::

I have stated on this board, and have felt for almost 2.5 decades, that Stanford MUST enlarge & diversify its undergraduate enrollment; Enlarge it by 2500 undergrads total, 625 per class (frosh, soph, jun, senior), and DIVERSIFY it to be less 'specialized & nerdy' [A little more like Duke & NotreDame's, Cal's GeorgiaTech's, UCLA's, Wisconsin's undegraduate classes as far as being less nerdy & more sports-loving....I can see BC and Goose, gnashing their teeth, but IMO Duke and NotreDame, Cal, GeorgiaTech students are 'high caliber people, we at Stanford do not have 'higher ethics or morals or academic-ethics-standards' than Duke or ND, GeorgiaTach or these others in that list ...just look at all our Academic Scandals of the last decade, that hopefully i dont have to air out here]

Had this been done 25years ago (yes i know this would have required getting the okay from Santa Clara county to build more on Stanford/County land, but lets assume this had been done)

That would mean a substantially larger Alumni base & FanBase out and about ( spouses of Alums, siblings of Alums, kids of Alums, etc ) almost exponential, when you consider the multiplicative & orthogonal 6 degrees of separation between these 'extra Alums; over the last 20 years & who they have as relatives and significant others, etc

Just maybe if we had this Larger undergraduate base for the last 25 years (that was less nerdy and more diverse), maybe 1 or 2 of these Alums or Significant others or Relatives of these Alums, would be 'someone Financially Successful (e.g half billionaire); ... who 'Loved Sports' like a T Boone Pickens (OklahomaState) or a Mark Cuban (Indiana) or the Guy from TexasTech, and then they would be happy to Donate to Stanford Football & Stanford Sports.

Yes, my model is hypothetical (no guarantee), but hopefully one can understand the underlying concept here:

THE LARGER & MORE DIVERSE YOUR UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES ARE over a 25year span, (its all about volume & numbers), your university has a 'slightly better chance; of having 1 or 2 of these Diverse Undergraduates, go on to become Massively Financially Successful & A CollegeFootballFan, who would then Donate like a MarkCuban or TBoonePickens.

Then (to unify BC & Calfans positions), Stanford could:

• BC's point: Have that 1 or 2 'Rich Half Billionaire' Football Fanatic Alums, who would want to 'Donate' to StanfordFootball, without doing the tradeoff of the AcademicSide and the AD
• CalFans point: Have the ability to 'Go All In' on Funding to Produce a 'Competitive Top 25 Football Program (like a NotreDame)
*************
And yes, BC, I am fully aware there is little to no data to support a CORRELATION or GUARANTEE between a 'LARGER More Diverse Undergraduate & Alumni Base' & '1 or 2 of those Alums or Alum's significant others or relatives becoming a 'Half Billionaire College Football Loving Alum' who wants to donate to their alma-maters AD or Football Program, ...but just with the 'Law of Larger Numbers' ..to me this gives us a better chance. And it seems like we have come to this idea of Enlarging the Undergraduate Class now (albeit about 20 years tardy IMO).

We don’t agree on a lot, but I am wholeheartedly behind Stanford increasing undergraduate enrollment (as, I think, the University is). My reasons have nothing to do with minting another decabillionaire who might love sports and can sugar daddy a winning team. But the rationale:
* Stanford every year gets more deserving applicants than it has spots for
* Even if you exclude undevelopable land, Stanford is still a large campus and has room for more people
* Enrollment expansion can allow for a more diverse student body, as you point out. While I would not prioritize sports fans over, say, violinists or chess prodigies, I do think that if you have more slots to play around with there is less pressure to exclude otherwise phenomenal individuals who might have a yellow flag
* Even a fairly substantial expansion of the student body, say to 10,000 undergrads, would not fundamentally change the character of the school. But it would make an immense difference to several thousand people a year.

Yes, our neighbors in SCC and Palo Alto have put major barriers to this (ironic, since Stanford grads contribute a non-insubstantial share of the tax base), but I feel like the mood is changing, and we are seeing a rise of the YIMBY’s (yes in my back yard) and the advocates of an abundance economy. Part of that, I think, should be increasing the abundance of access to elite Universities.

If it has the added effect of increasing the number of fans and the attendance at sports events (and donations to the athletic department), that’s great, but not, in my mind, a compelling reason to expand the student body.

BC

In 2009, I had a conversation with an employee in Harvard's AD. Her job was to find and secure spots for incoming recruited athletes. She said, at some point in the not-so-distant past that Harvard came to the conclusion that it was overweighted with "well-lopsided" students, and that the campus wasn't very pleasant. They purposefully achieved more of a 50/50 balance between well-lopsided and well-rounded. Not sure if that's still the case, but it was an interesting perspective and glad she shared it with me.

RE: Underwhelmed... - chrisk - 01-16-2026

Stanford is currently running a series of outreach meetings for residents of the area. There is no formal presentation. It consists of numerous posters about all aspects of Stanford with representatives standing by to discuss and solicit comments.

At this point, there are no proposals presented of what it would like to do. I made several comments about transportation, housing, and community access at the session I attended in December. A preliminary proposal would likely be presented after mid-year.

ADD:

County supervisors begin to weigh in:

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/stanford-university/2026/01/16/county-looks-to-limit-housing-impacts-of-stanfords-planned-growth/

RE: Underwhelmed... - Row80Critic - 01-18-2026

It's behind a paywall, but this headline from the SJ Mercury's (Wilner) story today seems to line up with my general sense, Santa Clara County housing regulations notwithstanding...

Breaking down the transfer portal winners (Arizona, Cal, BYU and UCLA) and losers (Washington, ASU, Colorado and Stanford)

Transfer portal winners (Arizona, BYU, Cal) and losers (Utah, ASU, Stanford)

RE: Underwhelmed... - BostonCard - 01-18-2026

WSJ had a piece about college football team valuations.

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/college-football-team-value-16fd09bb?st=cCKgGp

Stanford is 55th, just behind Washington State. Cal is 48th. We are ahead of our ACC-mates Louisville, Virginia, Syracuse, and Wake Forest, so there’s that. San Jose State is 130th of 131 schools.

BC

RE: Underwhelmed... - 76lsjumb - 01-18-2026

(01-18-2026, 02:14 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: It's behind a paywall, but this headline from the SJ Mercury's (Wilner) story today seems to line up with my general sense, Santa Clara County housing regulations notwithstanding...

Breaking down the transfer portal winners (Arizona, Cal, BYU and UCLA) and losers (Washington, ASU, Colorado and Stanford)

Transfer portal winners (Arizona, BYU, Cal) and losers (Utah, ASU, Stanford)

"...death, taxes, and Jon Wilner dumping on Stanford." -- Benjamin Franklin.

RE: Underwhelmed... - SamuelMcF - 01-19-2026

Did Wilner acknowledge we have the third-highest retention rate in the country behind the 2 teams in the natty, and will likely have the singularly highest retention rate in the country as of next week once their extended portal entry window closes?

Oh, he just said “11 players in the portal and only 4 incoming, that means losers” without acknowledging that 3 of those 11 were walk-ons. Well done!

RE: Underwhelmed... - Giants - 01-19-2026

(01-19-2026, 06:20 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: Did Wilner acknowledge we have the third-highest retention rate in the country behind the 2 teams in the natty, and will likely have the singularly highest retention rate in the country as of next week once their extended portal entry window closes?

Oh, he just said “11 players in the portal and only 4 incoming, that means losers” without acknowledging that 3 of those 11 were walk-ons. Well done!

Retention is not necessarily a good thing when change is desperately needed.

As opposed to some other agencies, On3 has an algorithm that ranks teams based on both outgoing and incoming players.

Stanford is ranked 42nd -

Incoming Transfers: 4 (value 61.25)
Outgoing Transfers: 9 (value 63.78)

ACC Ranking: 9th.

RE: Underwhelmed... - SamuelMcF - 01-19-2026

(01-19-2026, 11:07 AM)Giants Wrote:
(01-19-2026, 06:20 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: Did Wilner acknowledge we have the third-highest retention rate in the country behind the 2 teams in the natty, and will likely have the singularly highest retention rate in the country as of next week once their extended portal entry window closes?

Oh, he just said “11 players in the portal and only 4 incoming, that means losers” without acknowledging that 3 of those 11 were walk-ons. Well done!

Retention is not necessarily a good thing when change is desperately needed.

As opposed to some other agencies, On3 has an algorithm that ranks teams based on both outgoing and incoming players.

Stanford is ranked 42nd -

Incoming Transfers: 4 (value 61.25)
Outgoing Transfers: 9 (value 63.78)

ACC Ranking: 9th.

Somehow they count Benjamin Hudson, who hasn't been on the team in 2 years, as 1 of those 9...and gave him a rating. Meanwhile, our Weber State RB transfer who has produced significantly and looks to be a likely RB2 swap for Tabb has no rating. WTF?

Anyway, in aggregate the ratings can be directionally meaningful. Let's compare 42nd nationally (ACC 9th/17) to the last 3 offseasons by these same On3 rankings that account for both inflow and outflow:

2025 - 67th/70 (ACC 16th/17)
2024 - 62nd/70 (ACC 16th/17)
2023 - 69th/69 (dead last)