Hope - 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: Hope (/thread-23914.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: Hope (/thread-23914.html)
Hope - Row80Critic - 12-28-2022
How great is it to see the transfer portal open up, excitement and enthusiasm at the microphone, new coaches joining the ranks, plans for an attack-offense, and finally moving on from a moribund program. Whether a great success or not, it's awesome to see all the changes. I'll never give up on the program, but it was just so bleak and hopeless these last few years, I'm just so relieved and happy to have hope again. That is all.
RE: Hope - newguy - 12-28-2022
at this point, i am genuinely excited.
and that's a rare thing for me.
RE: Hope - BostonCard - 12-29-2022
I’m not sure how I feel to be honest. The portal moves have the feel of a “keeping up with the Joneses” move, and at this point, it’s starting to look like the tail is wagging the dog. While I recognize that we have always had to make academic compromises to field a competitive football team, the portal, the impending collectives, the unstated desire to bolt to the Big Ten, all seem a bridge to far to me.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the portal allows us to bring in high academic achievers who will further Stanfords reputation for dual academic/athletic excellence, and that we find a creative way to let athletes get paid for use of their name, image, likeness, without them turning it into a third near full-time activity (after school and football), and without it becoming a conduit to paying athletes under the table. I hope that however the conference upheaved ends up that the sole, or even most important, consideration is not TV money.
Honestly, this whole thing feels like a struggle to stay relevant in football, because Stanford, as an organization doesn’t want to sit down and make some hard decisions. Big time Football, over time, has become less compatible with the institution’s values. Shaw’s success allowed us to paper over that for many years, but it has caught up with us. So, while the changes that have been instituted (and continue to do so) give many people here hope for better football on the field (including, if I am truly honest, me), there are a lot of things that give me pause, and I think the long-term trajectory of the landscape of college football (even over the next ten years), will almost necessarily lead to a reconning at the school. And if I am truly honest, I don’t have a lot of faith that the leadership of Muir, Drell, and Tessier-Lavigne is up to the task.
BC
RE: Hope - Phogge - 12-29-2022
I could care less about academics but I respect that you guys do. As senility keeps getting closer I just want them to be watchable. Six win threshold. Decent tackling, decent coverage, safeties who can actually play. Every now and then a sack. Attacking defense, hate the pussy “read and react.”
Lay it on the line, play for the guy next to you. That’s how you build a team. Forget about the morgue you’re playing in.
And for god’s sake create a marketing department and pay the people in it. Stanford’s marketing in the past few years has been bush league. Get rid of the Redcoats, the band and the cheeky band announcers. Use the Stanford trillions to create an experience rather than a somnambulant tailgate culture INSIDE the stadium.
Probably won’t happen. The school has gotten lazy.
RE: Hope - burger - 12-29-2022
(12-28-2022, 08:14 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: How great is it to see the transfer portal open up, excitement and enthusiasm at the microphone, new coaches joining the ranks, plans for an attack-offense, and finally moving on from a moribund program. Whether a great success or not, it's awesome to see all the changes. I'll never give up on the program, but it was just so bleak and hopeless these last few years, I'm just so relieved and happy to have hope again. That is all.
I know you're talking about football. But everything you said will also be true for MBB once we fire Haase and get a (hopefully) better coach after this season.
Fingers crossed that we're just a few years away from having competitive football and MBB programs again.
RE: Hope - gailtate - 12-29-2022
(12-29-2022, 07:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I’m not sure how I feel to be honest. The portal moves have the feel of a “keeping up with the Joneses” move, and at this point, it’s starting to look like the tail is wagging the dog. While I recognize that we have always had to make academic compromises to field a competitive football team, the portal, the impending collectives, the unstated desire to bolt to the Big Ten, all seem a bridge to far to me.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the portal allows us to bring in high academic achievers who will further Stanfords reputation for dual academic/athletic excellence, and that we find a creative way to let athletes get paid for use of their name, image, likeness, without them turning it into a third near full-time activity (after school and football), and without it becoming a conduit to paying athletes under the table. I hope that however the conference upheaved ends up that the sole, or even most important, consideration is not TV money.
Honestly, this whole thing feels like a struggle to stay relevant in football, because Stanford, as an organization doesn’t want to sit down and make some hard decisions. Big time Football, over time, has become less compatible with the institution’s values. Shaw’s success allowed us to paper over that for many years, but it has caught up with us. So, while the changes that have been instituted (and continue to do so) give many people here hope for better football on the field (including, if I am truly honest, me), there are a lot of things that give me pause, and I think the long-term trajectory of the landscape of college football (even over the next ten years), will almost necessarily lead to a reconning at the school. And if I am truly honest, I don’t have a lot of faith that the leadership of Muir, Drell, and Tessier-Lavigne is up to the task.
BC
As the prior regime disappears in the rear-view mirror, it's instructive to consider The Big Bowl Era (2011-15) as a reminder that, not so long ago, Stanford was not only relevant but annually dukin' it out in the thick of the "GameDay" brawl. For multiple years. It wasn't a fluke. It really happened. Right along with that trio of H-trophy finalists. The issue of course is, as we have talked and talked to near-death, sustainability. So, is fielding a nationally prominent football program really truly, cross-their-hearts-and-hope-to-die actually on the to-do list of this university? If we are to believe the words of the man who should know, namely the current director of athletics, you would assume so. If we can't believe this guy and return to dismissing his pronouncements as nothing but boilerplate palaver, Stanford's whole football presence is a sham. He's the Man Behind the Curtain, not to be listened to. If so, then the department he directs is a sham as is the myth of the Home of Champions. Considering the impact on the myriad other sports, that's a pretty big matzoh ball hangin' out there, dudes.
RE: Hope - SkiBum80 - 12-29-2022
(12-29-2022, 07:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I’m not sure how I feel to be honest. The portal moves have the feel of a “keeping up with the Joneses” move, and at this point, it’s starting to look like the tail is wagging the dog. While I recognize that we have always had to make academic compromises to field a competitive football team, the portal, the impending collectives, the unstated desire to bolt to the Big Ten, all seem a bridge to far to me.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the portal allows us to bring in high academic achievers who will further Stanfords reputation for dual academic/athletic excellence, and that we find a creative way to let athletes get paid for use of their name, image, likeness, without them turning it into a third near full-time activity (after school and football), and without it becoming a conduit to paying athletes under the table. I hope that however the conference upheaved ends up that the sole, or even most important, consideration is not TV money.
Honestly, this whole thing feels like a struggle to stay relevant in football, because Stanford, as an organization doesn’t want to sit down and make some hard decisions. Big time Football, over time, has become less compatible with the institution’s values.
Shaw’s success allowed us to paper over that for many years, but it has caught up with us. So, while the changes that have been instituted (and continue to do so) give many people here hope for better football on the field (including, if I am truly honest, me), there are a lot of things that give me pause, and I think the long-term trajectory of the landscape of college football (even over the next ten years), will almost necessarily lead to a reconning at the school. And if I am truly honest, I don’t have a lot of faith that the leadership of Muir, Drell, and Tessier-Lavigne is up to the task.
BC
I would guess that TV/streaming money for our share of Pac-12 football is by far the biggest consideration about anything to do with Stanford football going forward. How could it not be?
The hard decision seems to me that if Stanford doesn't intend to field a football team of some kind, there suddenly becomes a massive funding gap for all other Stanford athletic teams that have leaned on football for decades if not longer. The other hard decision is that if Stanford doesn't field a competitive team, then the conference gyrations and poaching going on could easily leave Stanford ending up in the dust of a barely mid-major level conference with the paltry broadcast revenue commensurate therewith.
RE: Hope - BostonCard - 12-29-2022
(12-29-2022, 01:16 PM)gailtate Wrote:(12-29-2022, 07:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I’m not sure how I feel to be honest. The portal moves have the feel of a “keeping up with the Joneses” move, and at this point, it’s starting to look like the tail is wagging the dog. While I recognize that we have always had to make academic compromises to field a competitive football team, the portal, the impending collectives, the unstated desire to bolt to the Big Ten, all seem a bridge to far to me.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the portal allows us to bring in high academic achievers who will further Stanfords reputation for dual academic/athletic excellence, and that we find a creative way to let athletes get paid for use of their name, image, likeness, without them turning it into a third near full-time activity (after school and football), and without it becoming a conduit to paying athletes under the table. I hope that however the conference upheaved ends up that the sole, or even most important, consideration is not TV money.
Honestly, this whole thing feels like a struggle to stay relevant in football, because Stanford, as an organization doesn’t want to sit down and make some hard decisions. Big time Football, over time, has become less compatible with the institution’s values. Shaw’s success allowed us to paper over that for many years, but it has caught up with us. So, while the changes that have been instituted (and continue to do so) give many people here hope for better football on the field (including, if I am truly honest, me), there are a lot of things that give me pause, and I think the long-term trajectory of the landscape of college football (even over the next ten years), will almost necessarily lead to a reconning at the school. And if I am truly honest, I don’t have a lot of faith that the leadership of Muir, Drell, and Tessier-Lavigne is up to the task.
BC
As the prior regime disappears in the rear-view mirror, it's instructive to consider The Big Bowl Era (2011-15) as a reminder that, not so long ago, Stanford was not only relevant but annually dukin' it out in the thick of the "GameDay" brawl. For multiple years. It wasn't a fluke. It really happened. Right along with that trio of H-trophy finalists. The issue of course is, as we have talked and talked to near-death, sustainability. So, is fielding a nationally prominent football program really truly, cross-their-hearts-and-hope-to-die actually on the to-do list of this university? If we are to believe the words of the man who should know, namely the current director of athletics, you would assume so. If we can't believe this guy and return to dismissing his pronouncements as nothing but boilerplate palaver, Stanford's whole football presence is a sham. He's the Man Behind the Curtain, not to be listened to. If so, then the department he directs is a sham as is the myth of the Home of Champions. Considering the impact on the myriad other sports, that's a pretty big matzoh ball hangin' out there, dudes.
Trends that started well before the “Big Bowl Era” seem to have accelerated over the last 5-10 years, and while Stanford could keep up for a while thanks to Enthusiasm Unknown to Mankind and momentum stemming from there, I really don’t know how much further we can, or want to, go.
The compromises needed for sustainability is a bit easier for me to clamor for when they merely involved a return to the academic admission status quo ante Mamlet and finding housing for assistant coaches.
For me it seems quite another thing when it comes to a lot of the stuff that has come since then: the early admissions, the early enrollment, the transfer portal, the collectives. Any one of those things might easily be justifiable on its own, but cumulatively, they mark a departure from the idea that we have student-athletes towards the idea that we have semi-pro athletes who are also sometime students. It pains me to see some posters denigrate the idea of the “Stanford man” because it has the side effect of fielding a less competitive team.
I realize that I’m in the minority here (we are, after all, a sports board). Perhaps over time I will get past my squeamishness and get caught up in the excitement of the “New Big Bowl Era”. All I ask is that if that is the decision is to go there that it be a well considered decision, with an understanding of what the institution’s red lines are, rather than what looks like a series of half-measures that we do because we want to keep up with the Joneses.
BC
RE: Hope - chrisk - 12-29-2022
(12-29-2022, 01:31 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote:(12-29-2022, 07:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I’m not sure how I feel to be honest. The portal moves have the feel of a “keeping up with the Joneses” move, and at this point, it’s starting to look like the tail is wagging the dog. While I recognize that we have always had to make academic compromises to field a competitive football team, the portal, the impending collectives, the unstated desire to bolt to the Big Ten, all seem a bridge to far to me.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the portal allows us to bring in high academic achievers who will further Stanfords reputation for dual academic/athletic excellence, and that we find a creative way to let athletes get paid for use of their name, image, likeness, without them turning it into a third near full-time activity (after school and football), and without it becoming a conduit to paying athletes under the table. I hope that however the conference upheaved ends up that the sole, or even most important, consideration is not TV money.
Honestly, this whole thing feels like a struggle to stay relevant in football, because Stanford, as an organization doesn’t want to sit down and make some hard decisions. Big time Football, over time, has become less compatible with the institution’s values.
Shaw’s success allowed us to paper over that for many years, but it has caught up with us. So, while the changes that have been instituted (and continue to do so) give many people here hope for better football on the field (including, if I am truly honest, me), there are a lot of things that give me pause, and I think the long-term trajectory of the landscape of college football (even over the next ten years), will almost necessarily lead to a reconning at the school. And if I am truly honest, I don’t have a lot of faith that the leadership of Muir, Drell, and Tessier-Lavigne is up to the task.
BC
I would guess that TV/streaming money for our share of Pac-12 football is by far the biggest consideration about anything to do with Stanford football going forward. How could it not be?
The hard decision seems to me that if Stanford doesn't intend to field a football team of some kind, there suddenly becomes a massive funding gap for all other Stanford athletic teams that have leaned on football for decades if not longer. The other hard decision is that if Stanford doesn't field a competitive team, then the conference gyrations and poaching going on could easily leave Stanford ending up in the dust of a barely mid-major level conference with the paltry broadcast revenue commensurate therewith.
The fundraising impact may be as important or more important. In the short-term, much of the TV money is necessary to shore up the funding of the football program. If the football program remains non-competitive, would donations drop off dramatically or could fundraising be sustained to support the other sports?
RE: Hope - Mick - 12-29-2022
Seems to me that with all of the elements of both tradition and change, you could turn this into an interesting independent case study for the GSB. You've got challenges in Marketing, Organizational Behavior, Strategic Management, Managing Groups & Teams, Political Economics (of a sort), with lesser pieces of Finance, Accounting, Operations & Technology, Managerial Skills, Data Analysis & Decision Making and (ahem) Values.
It's an old program, with more than a century of tradition, including real on-field and strategic innovation. You have attendance (customer) issues that are intractable and on a downard trend, and yet the football program is meaningful to many (certainly not all) stakeholder groups on campus and in the community. Be interesting to see how the profs and students solve this.
RE: Hope - Phogge - 12-29-2022
Hey if Duke can go 9-4 in the ACC and win a bowl why can't Stanford? Especially with the two powerhouses leaving.
RE: Hope - BostonCard - 12-29-2022
(12-29-2022, 06:08 PM)Phogge Wrote: Hey if Duke can go 9-4 in the ACC and win a bowl why can't Stanford? Especially with the two powerhouses leaving.
Duke’s men’s basketball team has long shown that Duke was willing to make certain compromises that Stanford had been unwilling to make. No value judgment suggested in that statement.
BC