[Kathy]

Wouldn't "Robber Barons" have been GREAT?  We could have worked out a deal with Parker Brothers and have the little Monopoly tycoon guy be our mascot.  Man, we could have had fun with that stuff!

Also, I had not realised that "The Tree" went back that far, but upon reflection, that makes sense.  When we changed our mascot name, we obviously needed a new figure on the sideline.

The Robber Baron campaign included a T-shirt that featured a Monopoly-like character riding a train. I still have that shirt, but can't figure out how to post a photo of it.
[img][/img]

The student referendum in December 1975 included two mascot questions. One asked for a vote on returning the Indian mascot (defeated 69-31 percent). The other mascot question offered seven new mascot names. Robber Barons won with 1,664 votes, followed by Sequoias (1,598), Trees (1,530), Cardinals (1,309), Railroaders (317), Spikes (250) and Huns (207).

[Garvin, these election results come courtesy of the book, The Stanford Daily: 100 Years Of Headlines, published in 2003. You probably don't remember that election because you had already graduated, perhaps wandering in the wilds of the Mississippi Delta at that point.]

The Band had already introduced the Tree as a mascot for the 1975 Big Game the month before the vote. Supporters of Sequoias had pushed their choice on three points: 1) the connection to El Palo Alto; 2) the pro-Indian mascot contingent liked the similarity in name to revered Cherokee chief Sequoya; and 3) the possibility of calling the team Seqs for short with the anticipated aural mischief that could result for game announcers ("Seqs recover the ball").

Of course, the administration ignored the referendum results and continued to refer to teams as the cardinal color. The athletic department decided to shun all mascot names for the time being and referred to the teams simply as Stanford.

[Kathy]

Wouldn't "Robber Barons" have been GREAT?  We could have worked out a deal with Parker Brothers and have the little Monopoly tycoon guy be our mascot.  Man, we could have had fun with that stuff!

Also, I had not realised that "The Tree" went back that far, but upon reflection, that makes sense.  When we changed our mascot name, we obviously needed a new figure on the sideline.

The Robber Baron campaign included a T-shirt that featured a Monopoly-like character riding a train. I still have that shirt, but can't figure out how to post a photo of it.
[img][/img]

The student referendum in December 1975 included two mascot questions. One asked for a vote on returning the Indian mascot (defeated 69-31 percent). The other mascot question offered seven new mascot names. Robber Barons won with 1,664 votes, followed by Sequoias (1,598), Trees (1,530), Cardinals (1,309), Railroaders (317), Spikes (250) and Huns (207).

[Garvin, these election results come courtesy of the book, The Stanford Daily: 100 Years Of Headlines, published in 2003. You probably don't remember that election because you had already graduated, perhaps wandering in the wilds of the Mississippi Delta at that point.]

The Band had already introduced the Tree as a mascot for the 1975 Big Game the month before the vote. Supporters of Sequoias had pushed their choice on three points: 1) the connection to El Palo Alto; 2) the pro-Indian mascot contingent liked the similarity in name to revered Cherokee chief Sequoya; and 3) the possibility of calling the team Seqs for short with the anticipated aural mischief that could result for game announcers ("Seqs recover the ball").

Of course, the administration ignored the referendum results and continued to refer to teams as the cardinal color. The athletic department decided to shun all mascot names for the time being and referred to the teams simply as Stanford.

[Nan3cy]

I've said this before in this forum, but I voted for Robber Barons in 1975. I was annoyed that the administration/BOT/whoever refused to go along with the student vote. My take was, if you're not going to listen to our opinion, why ask for it?

That said, fifteen years later when I was working for the University controller, in the office that had to deal with government auditors regarding the legality/illegality of our indirect cost and fringe benefits rates, I was very very very glad that the headlines in the SJ Mercury News did not have permission to refer to Stanford as Robber Barons. I have been retired from that office for six years now, and the thought of those headlines can still give me cold sweats.

[Nan3cy]

I've said this before in this forum, but I voted for Robber Barons in 1975. I was annoyed that the administration/BOT/whoever refused to go along with the student vote. My take was, if you're not going to listen to our opinion, why ask for it?

That said, fifteen years later when I was working for the University controller, in the office that had to deal with government auditors regarding the legality/illegality of our indirect cost and fringe benefits rates, I was very very very glad that the headlines in the SJ Mercury News did not have permission to refer to Stanford as Robber Barons. I have been retired from that office for six years now, and the thought of those headlines can still give me cold sweats.

[Leftcoast]

I was a frosh in the fall of 1981 and remember a student vote that year (not sure if it was winter or spring) that was framed as an "advisory" vote.  Among the choices was Griffon, Cardinals and something about a tree (perhaps sequoia?).  There was popular sentiment for the Robber Barons as a write-in but it was widely speculated that the university would reject that choice.

I believe Cardinals won but then President Kennedy sent a letter published in the daily and elsewhere saying our color would be the singular, Cardinal, and citing the Crimson and others as precedents.

Anyone else remember this letter and ballot?  At 30 plus years ago some of the details on the ballot, etc are a bit fuzzy.

Which ballot prompted the infamous "Steaming Manhole Covers" write in campaign?  Was that from the '75 ballot choice?  I think there were a few residual votes for this in the 81-82 ballot.

[Leftcoast]

I was a frosh in the fall of 1981 and remember a student vote that year (not sure if it was winter or spring) that was framed as an "advisory" vote.  Among the choices was Griffon, Cardinals and something about a tree (perhaps sequoia?).  There was popular sentiment for the Robber Barons as a write-in but it was widely speculated that the university would reject that choice.

I believe Cardinals won but then President Kennedy sent a letter published in the daily and elsewhere saying our color would be the singular, Cardinal, and citing the Crimson and others as precedents.

Anyone else remember this letter and ballot?  At 30 plus years ago some of the details on the ballot, etc are a bit fuzzy.

Which ballot prompted the infamous "Steaming Manhole Covers" write in campaign?  Was that from the '75 ballot choice?  I think there were a few residual votes for this in the 81-82 ballot.

[CompSci87]

Sequoias was a close second, with the similar Trees right behind. I can see why Robber Barons was nixed, but I think the administration should have gone with Sequoias. Stanford Sequoias would have been pleasantly alliterative.

[CompSci87]

Sequoias was a close second, with the similar Trees right behind. I can see why Robber Barons was nixed, but I think the administration should have gone with Sequoias. Stanford Sequoias would have been pleasantly alliterative.

[Stymie]

Nelson is the greatest football player I've ever seen play at Stanford (followed by Luck and Elway).  Don't remember Plunkett much beyond "what a stud!"

Glad he made the college football HoF - ridiculous that it took this long.

Fully agree, and I remember Plunkett but will still stick the "greatest" tag on Darren.  He was de'Athony Thomas with a brain, and played in a kinder, gentler era where creativity and instinct were valued over brute strength, repetitions and learned technique.  He and Walsh were a match made in heaven.  I wonder where Nelson would be on our depth chart in this day and age....

[Stymie]

Nelson is the greatest football player I've ever seen play at Stanford (followed by Luck and Elway).  Don't remember Plunkett much beyond "what a stud!"

Glad he made the college football HoF - ridiculous that it took this long.

Fully agree, and I remember Plunkett but will still stick the "greatest" tag on Darren.  He was de'Athony Thomas with a brain, and played in a kinder, gentler era where creativity and instinct were valued over brute strength, repetitions and learned technique.  He and Walsh were a match made in heaven.  I wonder where Nelson would be on our depth chart in this day and age....

[FarmBoy]

Robber Barons won with 1,664 votes, followed by Sequoias (1,598), Trees (1,530), Cardinals (1,309), Railroaders (317), Spikes (250) and Huns (207).

The inclusion of both Sequoias and Trees split the arbor-lover vote. I bet if either of those had been left off the ballot, the other would have gotten the highest vote total. Given none of the choices got a majority, they should have done a run-off between Robber Barons and Sequoias and my guess is the Sequoias would have won, which I actually think is a pretty cool mascot (I'd prefer it to explaining Cardinal for the 1,450,234th time).

While Robber Baron may have been amusing to Stanford insiders, it would have come across very badly to outsiders.

[FarmBoy]

Robber Barons won with 1,664 votes, followed by Sequoias (1,598), Trees (1,530), Cardinals (1,309), Railroaders (317), Spikes (250) and Huns (207).

The inclusion of both Sequoias and Trees split the arbor-lover vote. I bet if either of those had been left off the ballot, the other would have gotten the highest vote total. Given none of the choices got a majority, they should have done a run-off between Robber Barons and Sequoias and my guess is the Sequoias would have won, which I actually think is a pretty cool mascot (I'd prefer it to explaining Cardinal for the 1,450,234th time).

While Robber Baron may have been amusing to Stanford insiders, it would have come across very badly to outsiders.

[Papa John]

Now that I think about it, there might have been two separate votes in 1981-82. The first with the multiple entries and, when that didn't give the desired results, the second with the "do you object" question. Or maybe both items ("which do you prefer" and "do you object") were on the same ballot.

Argh, why do they call it dopamine if you need it for long-term memory?

[Papa John]

Now that I think about it, there might have been two separate votes in 1981-82. The first with the multiple entries and, when that didn't give the desired results, the second with the "do you object" question. Or maybe both items ("which do you prefer" and "do you object") were on the same ballot.

Argh, why do they call it dopamine if you need it for long-term memory?

[teejers1]

81Alum, thanks for the video from the Bluebonnet Bowl.

A few reactions:

1.  Georgia must have been kicking themselves for losing that game, having dominated the game statistically.  Stanford's D got some push into the backfield in Q3, but overall, it looked like Georgia was dominating the LOS, which was reflected in final game stats;

2.  The astro turf in the Astrodome was horrific - how do you play on that?  There's only one worse rug I can recall ever seeing, and it was on that sideline reporter's head (what was that?!?).

3.  The players were very "civil" to each other - no chest pounding, very little trash talking (if any), and the players often helped opponents up.  It was kinda refreshing to see that.

P.S.  Dils, Nelson, Margerum: that's a pretty good trio at the skill position (and Banks, Francis and others were no slouches, either).

[teejers1]

81Alum, thanks for the video from the Bluebonnet Bowl.

A few reactions:

1.  Georgia must have been kicking themselves for losing that game, having dominated the game statistically.  Stanford's D got some push into the backfield in Q3, but overall, it looked like Georgia was dominating the LOS, which was reflected in final game stats;

2.  The astro turf in the Astrodome was horrific - how do you play on that?  There's only one worse rug I can recall ever seeing, and it was on that sideline reporter's head (what was that?!?).

3.  The players were very "civil" to each other - no chest pounding, very little trash talking (if any), and the players often helped opponents up.  It was kinda refreshing to see that.

P.S.  Dils, Nelson, Margerum: that's a pretty good trio at the skill position (and Banks, Francis and others were no slouches, either).