[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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