[StanUSwagU]

Thanks to both BC and StanUSwagU for the posts! 

BC- I read your post (avoiding quoting bc of length) and largely concur with one major disagreement on "zero sum". Yes, definitionally win-loss records are zero sum but attendance, revenue, viewership is not. Quality gameday experience, marketing, fun talent/players etc result in increase ticket sales and TV viewership even if win-loss records marginally improve. Point taken on these items being relatively inconsequential towards revenue. Yet, these two items have both been explicitly called out as criteria for the next round of realignment (our GM Ron Rivera has noted these two as areas of explicit callout in his donor addresses for our chances at making it into the B1G/superconference/whatever exists after the next shuffle). Not to mention, there's a brobdingnagian benefit to attracting awesome high school students who are weighing the Farm vs MIT, Ivies, etc. Tldr; I agree with most of your premise but simply don't believe either Cal nor Stanford have hit the level of spend efficiency where it doesn't make sense yet. Thanks for the reply though

StanUSwagU, I think you raise an interesting point on widening the scope of the Stanford class. I will bring up an interesting note/question for the folks here which is: do you believe the classes of today are "nerdier" or less nerdy than 10, 20, 30 years ago? I use nerdy as a proxy for caring about sports / school spirit -- I know there's likely much better terms but I assume the meaning is conveyed. I'm just curious if Stanford classes have shown an aptitude for the big-time football in years & decades past. Would be curious to learn. I do think you all would benefit from a wider class range, particularly since such a large portion of your undergrad classes are athlete-admissions (and of course smart too...)

Hi CalFan,

Thanks for the post.

In my opinion, (and I do not mean to denigrate 'nerds') these last 20 years of undergrad students have gotten more 'nerdier' [And for me nerdier is sort of like your definition, you gave above], I would make it more concrete by saying I think we are more nerdier than before (ie care less about Football and Mens Basketball than say NotreDame, Duke, GeorgiaTech, or UCLA ....whose Undergrads & Alums, & Donors would have a conniption if the Football Team went 3 years with Losing Records or if the Mens Basketball Team went 3 years without a NCAA Berth).

I dont have empirical data to prove this, but that is my opinion, from (a) seeing the dwindling passion/demand for Top25 Football & perennial NCAA berths for the Mens Basketball Team & (b) because i think the percentage of applicants admitted to Undergrad has gone down to some extremely very low right-tiered 3% of applicants [just doing the math, if 25 years ago Stanford admitted 6% of applicants, and now they only admit 3% of applicants (assuming its the rightmost tiered 3% of students relative to normal-distributions of their SAT score/GPA/APClasses profile)[ ...then my hunch is we are getting 'more SAT/GPA/APclass nerds' than before as a percentage & fewer of the 'more well rounded sports loving Smart students (ie NotreDame Duke , Cal, UCLA type students)


Increasing the Undergrad class size by 2500, would hopefully diversify or broaden the 'demographic profile'; We would still have the 'non-sports interested nerds', but there would then be a few more sports loving undergrads from States like Texas who turned out to be 'T Boone Pickens' 'Mark Cubans' & 'Jerry Jones' ...ie.. 'Smart, But Passionate Football & Basketball Loving Undergrads & Alums', etc (if you catch my drift.)


It is just my opinion, but having a 'slightly broader demographic' for the Undergrad School, benefits everyone (Leave 'excessively narrow, nerdy demographics for Stanford Grad Schools); And increasing the Undergrad Enrollment by 2500 students would allow for this [Yes, I know its a hurdle for Stanford to do this, due to the fact this would require building more dorms on campus & the wrangling with Santa Clara County over Land Use, but I really think we Stanford need to pursue that/ Sort that out, with more Boldness & Urgency ! ]



Curious questions I have (maybe someone on this board knows the approximate numbers):

Over the Last 15years of undergrads admitted & attending Stanford:

(1) What percentage & nominal number were (a) born in the USA and (b) grew up entirely in 'HighSchool Football Loving States' like Texas, & the SEC states, and Ohio and Pennsylvania ?

(2) What percentage & nominal number (separate from our Varsity Football players) played 'High School Football' ?

(3) What percentage & nominal number (separate from our Varsity Mens Basketball players) played 'High School Mens Basketball' ?

(4) And how do the numbers for (1), (2), & (3) compare to the undergraduate demographics of NotreDame, GeorgiaTech, Duke, and UCLA ?

[StanUSwagU]

Thanks to both BC and StanUSwagU for the posts! 

BC- I read your post (avoiding quoting bc of length) and largely concur with one major disagreement on "zero sum". Yes, definitionally win-loss records are zero sum but attendance, revenue, viewership is not. Quality gameday experience, marketing, fun talent/players etc result in increase ticket sales and TV viewership even if win-loss records marginally improve. Point taken on these items being relatively inconsequential towards revenue. Yet, these two items have both been explicitly called out as criteria for the next round of realignment (our GM Ron Rivera has noted these two as areas of explicit callout in his donor addresses for our chances at making it into the B1G/superconference/whatever exists after the next shuffle). Not to mention, there's a brobdingnagian benefit to attracting awesome high school students who are weighing the Farm vs MIT, Ivies, etc. Tldr; I agree with most of your premise but simply don't believe either Cal nor Stanford have hit the level of spend efficiency where it doesn't make sense yet. Thanks for the reply though

StanUSwagU, I think you raise an interesting point on widening the scope of the Stanford class. I will bring up an interesting note/question for the folks here which is: do you believe the classes of today are "nerdier" or less nerdy than 10, 20, 30 years ago? I use nerdy as a proxy for caring about sports / school spirit -- I know there's likely much better terms but I assume the meaning is conveyed. I'm just curious if Stanford classes have shown an aptitude for the big-time football in years & decades past. Would be curious to learn. I do think you all would benefit from a wider class range, particularly since such a large portion of your undergrad classes are athlete-admissions (and of course smart too...)

Hi CalFan,

Thanks for the post.

In my opinion, (and I do not mean to denigrate 'nerds') these last 20 years of undergrad students have gotten more 'nerdier' [And for me nerdier is sort of like your definition, you gave above], I would make it more concrete by saying I think we are more nerdier than before (ie care less about Football and Mens Basketball than say NotreDame, Duke, GeorgiaTech, or UCLA ....whose Undergrads & Alums, & Donors would have a conniption if the Football Team went 3 years with Losing Records or if the Mens Basketball Team went 3 years without a NCAA Berth).

I dont have empirical data to prove this, but that is my opinion, from (a) seeing the dwindling passion/demand for Top25 Football & perennial NCAA berths for the Mens Basketball Team & (b) because i think the percentage of applicants admitted to Undergrad has gone down to some extremely very low right-tiered 3% of applicants [just doing the math, if 25 years ago Stanford admitted 6% of applicants, and now they only admit 3% of applicants (assuming its the rightmost tiered 3% of students relative to normal-distributions of their SAT score/GPA/APClasses profile)[ ...then my hunch is we are getting 'more SAT/GPA/APclass nerds' than before as a percentage & fewer of the 'more well rounded sports loving Smart students (ie NotreDame Duke , Cal, UCLA type students)


Increasing the Undergrad class size by 2500, would hopefully diversify or broaden the 'demographic profile'; We would still have the 'non-sports interested nerds', but there would then be a few more sports loving undergrads from States like Texas who turned out to be 'T Boone Pickens' 'Mark Cubans' & 'Jerry Jones' ...ie.. 'Smart, But Passionate Football & Basketball Loving Undergrads & Alums', etc (if you catch my drift.)


It is just my opinion, but having a 'slightly broader demographic' for the Undergrad School, benefits everyone (Leave 'excessively narrow, nerdy demographics for Stanford Grad Schools); And increasing the Undergrad Enrollment by 2500 students would allow for this [Yes, I know its a hurdle for Stanford to do this, due to the fact this would require building more dorms on campus & the wrangling with Santa Clara County over Land Use, but I really think we Stanford need to pursue that/ Sort that out, with more Boldness & Urgency ! ]



Curious questions I have (maybe someone on this board knows the approximate numbers):

Over the Last 15years of undergrads admitted & attending Stanford:

(1) What percentage & nominal number were (a) born in the USA and (b) grew up entirely in 'HighSchool Football Loving States' like Texas, & the SEC states, and Ohio and Pennsylvania ?

(2) What percentage & nominal number (separate from our Varsity Football players) played 'High School Football' ?

(3) What percentage & nominal number (separate from our Varsity Mens Basketball players) played 'High School Mens Basketball' ?

(4) And how do the numbers for (1), (2), & (3) compare to the undergraduate demographics of NotreDame, GeorgiaTech, Duke, and UCLA ?