[81alum]

Clearly, this decision inspires sharp disagreements among us fans.  Why?

The obvious reason is that we as fans have different reasons for being fans, and bring different values to our enjoyment of Stanford sports.

Defining those different values is tricky.  I probably shouldn't try.  But I would guess that the most committed football enthusiasts--those who love the game first and foremost, will be most understanding and forgiving of CMac's decision.  To them, CMac represents a gift for however long he has played, and to them, Stanford is only benefited by becoming known more as a place that is friendly to future pros and supportive of their professional decisions.  The goal is for Stanford to win a national championship and to attract the kinds of players that are necessary to do so.  You are the realists.

I would also guess that those of us who love Stanford's unique student-athlete culture first and the actual game second, come to a different view.  Many of us don't bother to watch professional football, for example.  And most of us would not enjoy college football at nearly any other university, since those "other places" so often diminish their ideals in one way or another to attempt to create high powered football programs.  Our goal is to prove to the country that there can be at least one place which produces great football without compromising on this student-athlete model, and so events and decisions that seem to tarnish that ideal sit uneasy with us.  So the increasing influence of money and professionalization is not always welcome.  We are the idealists.

Naturally, someone like Shaw and a University like Stanford, conducts its program in the interstices of realism and idealism.  Neither side is "wrong;" in fact, the tension between these two outlooks is probably necessary to keep Stanford's program both competitive and unique.

[81alum]

Clearly, this decision inspires sharp disagreements among us fans.  Why?

The obvious reason is that we as fans have different reasons for being fans, and bring different values to our enjoyment of Stanford sports.

Defining those different values is tricky.  I probably shouldn't try.  But I would guess that the most committed football enthusiasts--those who love the game first and foremost, will be most understanding and forgiving of CMac's decision.  To them, CMac represents a gift for however long he has played, and to them, Stanford is only benefited by becoming known more as a place that is friendly to future pros and supportive of their professional decisions.  The goal is for Stanford to win a national championship and to attract the kinds of players that are necessary to do so.  You are the realists.

I would also guess that those of us who love Stanford's unique student-athlete culture first and the actual game second, come to a different view.  Many of us don't bother to watch professional football, for example.  And most of us would not enjoy college football at nearly any other university, since those "other places" so often diminish their ideals in one way or another to attempt to create high powered football programs.  Our goal is to prove to the country that there can be at least one place which produces great football without compromising on this student-athlete model, and so events and decisions that seem to tarnish that ideal sit uneasy with us.  So the increasing influence of money and professionalization is not always welcome.  We are the idealists.

Naturally, someone like Shaw and a University like Stanford, conducts its program in the interstices of realism and idealism.  Neither side is "wrong;" in fact, the tension between these two outlooks is probably necessary to keep Stanford's program both competitive and unique.