[81alum]

Stanford was the Indians for a little less than 42 years (1930-72). Stanford dropped Indians more than 42 years ago. So it's been longer since we dropped Indians than our entire period as the Indians. It's time to let it go.

Robber Barons was never going to happen, and still isn't going to happen.

In hindsight, maybe we should have adopted Sequoias or Redwoods 40 years ago. But we didn't.

I don't see anything wrong with the Cardinal, and I don't see any particularly good reason to change it. The idea that we would have better "branding" if we named ourselves after an animal or some such thing doesn't seem like a good reason to change the name. I don't think selling a few more stuffed animals or tee shirts is a compelling reason to change. Cardinal has a lot of history to it. You can find many references to Stanford as the Cardinal going back a hundred years or more. It's unique. It seems as good as any other suggestion I've seen, and far better than most.

Good post, Terry.  To add to it, we adopted the color cardinal in 1892, meaning that for the 38 years from 1892-1930 we were identified by the color and had no mascot--the same situation as for the 42 years from 1972-present.  What we are doing right now has more tradition behind it than any other alternative.  And I agree it puts us in good company with Harvard and Alabama (and add the University of Chicago.) 

[81alum]

Stanford was the Indians for a little less than 42 years (1930-72). Stanford dropped Indians more than 42 years ago. So it's been longer since we dropped Indians than our entire period as the Indians. It's time to let it go.

Robber Barons was never going to happen, and still isn't going to happen.

In hindsight, maybe we should have adopted Sequoias or Redwoods 40 years ago. But we didn't.

I don't see anything wrong with the Cardinal, and I don't see any particularly good reason to change it. The idea that we would have better "branding" if we named ourselves after an animal or some such thing doesn't seem like a good reason to change the name. I don't think selling a few more stuffed animals or tee shirts is a compelling reason to change. Cardinal has a lot of history to it. You can find many references to Stanford as the Cardinal going back a hundred years or more. It's unique. It seems as good as any other suggestion I've seen, and far better than most.

Good post, Terry.  To add to it, we adopted the color cardinal in 1892, meaning that for the 38 years from 1892-1930 we were identified by the color and had no mascot--the same situation as for the 42 years from 1972-present.  What we are doing right now has more tradition behind it than any other alternative.  And I agree it puts us in good company with Harvard and Alabama (and add the University of Chicago.)