[norcard10]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

I must say, I really think this post is totally misaligned and maybe explains why your athletic department / football leadership has screwed up the last half-decade. The whole "true Stanford men" is like what we at Cal joke about "OKGs" (our kinda guys). It's a pejorative term to snarkily suggest that our lower-ranked recruits who aren't great at football will somehow thrive because they "fit" our ethos better. Nonsense. 

And to put it plainly, you don't HAVE time. There is no room for a half-decade long rebuild (and it doesn't work nowadays with the portal anyways). Realignment is a few years away and you (& Cal) are either in or out.

Overall, I'm just mystified at the level of justification the subpar results merit on this board. I kinda understand it for Cal where we haven't had a winning conference record in ages and haven't been relevant since Tedford. But for you guys? Has post-covid really been so bad that everyone stopped caring?

i think you raise some valid points.  here's my two cents.  

post-covid has been bad for us, but we haven't stopped caring.  i don't think any of us have justified our subpar results the last few years, but some of us have tried to explain them.  which is quite natural, when you think about it.  after all, when something's wrong, it's human nature to try to speculate on why that is.  

when it comes to realignment, hopefully we'll be in.  but there's only so much we can do about that.  certainly we're not going to hire coaches who could jeopardize our football program's reputation.  which is integrity.  requirement number one for Stanford football, above all else.  and that applies to our football players as well.  integrity.  that should never change, and it never will, long after i am gone.  

we have boosters.  but some of our boosters have given to the general fund as well as to the athletic department.  and why shouldn't they?  after all, we're primarily an academic institution.  and we're proud of that.  also, kiss our axe.

In this era, boosters and NIL will be key.  40 year decision does not make sense anymore.  No 5 star QB is turning down $2-3M a year at a power 5 school for a stanford diploma, nor should they IMO (imagine loss of opportunity cost with compounded growth).  Stanford has to be more competitive here. Vandy was able to do it, no reason why Stanford can't.

[norcard10]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

I must say, I really think this post is totally misaligned and maybe explains why your athletic department / football leadership has screwed up the last half-decade. The whole "true Stanford men" is like what we at Cal joke about "OKGs" (our kinda guys). It's a pejorative term to snarkily suggest that our lower-ranked recruits who aren't great at football will somehow thrive because they "fit" our ethos better. Nonsense. 

And to put it plainly, you don't HAVE time. There is no room for a half-decade long rebuild (and it doesn't work nowadays with the portal anyways). Realignment is a few years away and you (& Cal) are either in or out.

Overall, I'm just mystified at the level of justification the subpar results merit on this board. I kinda understand it for Cal where we haven't had a winning conference record in ages and haven't been relevant since Tedford. But for you guys? Has post-covid really been so bad that everyone stopped caring?

i think you raise some valid points.  here's my two cents.  

post-covid has been bad for us, but we haven't stopped caring.  i don't think any of us have justified our subpar results the last few years, but some of us have tried to explain them.  which is quite natural, when you think about it.  after all, when something's wrong, it's human nature to try to speculate on why that is.  

when it comes to realignment, hopefully we'll be in.  but there's only so much we can do about that.  certainly we're not going to hire coaches who could jeopardize our football program's reputation.  which is integrity.  requirement number one for Stanford football, above all else.  and that applies to our football players as well.  integrity.  that should never change, and it never will, long after i am gone.  

we have boosters.  but some of our boosters have given to the general fund as well as to the athletic department.  and why shouldn't they?  after all, we're primarily an academic institution.  and we're proud of that.  also, kiss our axe.

In this era, boosters and NIL will be key.  40 year decision does not make sense anymore.  No 5 star QB is turning down $2-3M a year at a power 5 school for a stanford diploma, nor should they IMO (imagine loss of opportunity cost with compounded growth).  Stanford has to be more competitive here. Vandy was able to do it, no reason why Stanford can't.