[threepointer]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave for live sports– college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.  There  is no Stanford tribe (ironic).
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

[threepointer]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave for live sports– college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.  There  is no Stanford tribe (ironic).
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

[gailtate]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  No Stanford tribe.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave – college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?.  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

+1
And, BTW, Bingo.

[gailtate]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  No Stanford tribe.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave – college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?.  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

+1
And, BTW, Bingo.

[GK3]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  No Stanford tribe.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave – college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?.  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

  

Great article.  I suggest also that Sports fans in general want to watch winners and interesting games.  Start winning football games and running up 40 points plus a game and tickets will start selling, same with Basketball.  So cut the ticket prices for the rest of the year and next year.  Dream up whatever will attract new attendees.

[GK3]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  No Stanford tribe.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave – college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?.  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

  

Great article.  I suggest also that Sports fans in general want to watch winners and interesting games.  Start winning football games and running up 40 points plus a game and tickets will start selling, same with Basketball.  So cut the ticket prices for the rest of the year and next year.  Dream up whatever will attract new attendees.

[fullmetal]

The attitude of "this is not Stanford" is so specious.  

The powers that be will say that and then sell out ResEd/Dining services to contracted firms who are friends of certain well-placed administrators.  And then Muir will try to cut eleven varsity sports during the pandemic despite a very large athletic department staff.  And Persis Drell's department will threaten expulsion without detail to a star student-athlete for standing up to a teammate's assaulter.  So many of the university's decisions are being made by people who don't actually understand Stanford.  

None of that is Stanford either, but I doubt the powers that be are willing to make a call there.

[fullmetal]

The attitude of "this is not Stanford" is so specious.  

The powers that be will say that and then sell out ResEd/Dining services to contracted firms who are friends of certain well-placed administrators.  And then Muir will try to cut eleven varsity sports during the pandemic despite a very large athletic department staff.  And Persis Drell's department will threaten expulsion without detail to a star student-athlete for standing up to a teammate's assaulter.  So many of the university's decisions are being made by people who don't actually understand Stanford.  

None of that is Stanford either, but I doubt the powers that be are willing to make a call there.

[cardcrimson]

The attitude of "this is not Stanford" is so specious.  

The powers that be will say that and then sell out ResEd/Dining services to contracted firms who are friends of certain well-placed administrators.  And then Muir will try to cut eleven varsity sports during the pandemic despite a very large athletic department staff.  And Persis Drell's department will threaten expulsion without detail to a star student-athlete for standing up to a teammate's assaulter.  So many of the university's decisions are being made by people who don't actually understand Stanford.  

None of that is Stanford either, but I doubt the powers that be are willing to make a call there.

Fabulous post and take. Thanks!

[cardcrimson]

The attitude of "this is not Stanford" is so specious.  

The powers that be will say that and then sell out ResEd/Dining services to contracted firms who are friends of certain well-placed administrators.  And then Muir will try to cut eleven varsity sports during the pandemic despite a very large athletic department staff.  And Persis Drell's department will threaten expulsion without detail to a star student-athlete for standing up to a teammate's assaulter.  So many of the university's decisions are being made by people who don't actually understand Stanford.  

None of that is Stanford either, but I doubt the powers that be are willing to make a call there.

Fabulous post and take. Thanks!

[TriangleTree]

1697401584[/url]']
How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  No Stanford tribe.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave – college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?.  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

I like 
Arrow up

[TriangleTree]

1697401584[/url]']
How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  No Stanford tribe.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave – college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?.  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

I like 
Arrow up

[gailtate]

1697401584[/url]']
How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  No Stanford tribe.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave – college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?.  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

I like 
Arrow up

Unlikely to pass the sniff test of the dweebs who 86'd "Council of Chiefs".

[gailtate]

1697401584[/url]']
How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  No Stanford tribe.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave – college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?.  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

I like 
Arrow up

Unlikely to pass the sniff test of the dweebs who 86'd "Council of Chiefs".

[fullmetal]

Also, curtailing the LSJUMB participation and promoting the Cardinal Cheer Squad in their stead -- very much not Stanford.  I have nothing against the Cheer Squad, but the AD is clearly using them as a substitute to make the Band disposable, and that is Not Stanford At All.

[fullmetal]

Also, curtailing the LSJUMB participation and promoting the Cardinal Cheer Squad in their stead -- very much not Stanford.  I have nothing against the Cheer Squad, but the AD is clearly using them as a substitute to make the Band disposable, and that is Not Stanford At All.

[Mick]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave for live sports– college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.  There  is no Stanford tribe (ironic).
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

Acordado. Creo que es hora de que la Universidad de Stanford reconozca a la importante comunidad latina. ¡Dale!

[Mick]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave for live sports– college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.  There  is no Stanford tribe (ironic).
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

Acordado. Creo que es hora de que la Universidad de Stanford reconozca a la importante comunidad latina. ¡Dale!

[threepointer]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave for live sports– college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.  There  is no Stanford tribe (ironic).
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

Acordado. Creo que es hora de que la Universidad de Stanford reconozca a la importante comunidad latina. ¡Dale!

Funny story about how this fits in.  I know a Private Equity investor who owns 8 manufacturing companies.  He is Indian, educated high school in Louisiana and then Pepperdine.  His father is a physician, immigrated from India.

When this brilliant investor graduated from Pepperdine he got a job selling Encyclopedia Britannicas.  In South LA.  He was shot at a couple of times.  But as I pointed out earlier, its's all about marketing.  He set up his stand outside of Hispanic churches in LA on Sundays.  What did those church going parents want for their children?  Education.

He sold books like hotcakes and became the top Encylopedia Britannica sales person in the US.  In South LA.  This was some years ago - now we have the internet.    But the concept applies.

To my original point - sell to the market that you have available.  Sell to the consumer that has good reasons to like your product.  Sell.

Eventually his father said, "I'd did not send you to Pooperdine to sell books."  So he became a private equity investor.  True Story as he told it to me.

[threepointer]

How it could happen.
 
For me it all comes down to Stadium Attendance.  It drives TV images, and with that visibility, fan loyalty, and recruiting.  Our home stadium TV image sucks.  Big Time.   That is the sad reality of the TV view of our program today.  The 29-0 beatdown of Colorado was good, but ephemeral.  It wasn’t even our stadium.
 
College football is the ultimate example of American tribalism.  It doesn’t matter if you are a rich, middle income, or a poor Georgia fan or for that matter what your race is.  You are a “Dawg.”  Same with all of the other SEC and Big 10 schools.  You are a proud member of that sports tribe.  It helps if you are in a market that does not have an NFL team.
 
Some schools have tribes that transcend the local college town tribal boundaries.  Notre Dame, USC (yes USC).   And in some cases, those loyalties involve communities (such as the Hispanic communities’ appreciation for USC in the LA area).
 
So, what do we have in the Bay Area.  An unaffordable selection of pro football games.  No regular family can afford a 49er game.  What does that leave for live sports– college football.  Cal gets the East Bay fans.  Stanford gets nothing from the South Bay.  There  is no Stanford tribe (ironic).
 
What group can defined as sports crazy, family oriented, and hungry for live sports?  Hispanics.  Stick with me here.  I made this point in an Athletic Board meeting and suggested we should market to the Hispanic family market.  The response was “This is not Stanford.”
 
You know what is not Stanford?  Stanford.  Stanford of my generation does not exist.  The admissions rate was 29% and mostly white.  Today, the admitted class is less than 50% white.
 
Full story – I am 88% Hispanic and 12.5% Jicarilla Apache.  This has nothing to do with that – this is marketing 101.  Sell to the available and willing audience.  Convert the unconverted.  Be different.  Use Shane Skov to create a campaign.  He is arguably the most football savvy Spanish Speaker in the World.

Stanford could be the USC of the South Bay and beyond.   I almost threw up in my mouth when I wrote this.   We are on Cal Train!!!  Can it get any easier?
 
The other marketing initiaiive that Stanford could uniquely use is We Are College Sports.  Nothing to increase fan loyalty like the mercenaries that we watched last night during the USC vs Notre Dame game.  Our athletes are college athletes.  OK we will do NIL, but for the most part we are unique in our admissions and transfer restrictions.
 
Just my thoughts…..

Acordado. Creo que es hora de que la Universidad de Stanford reconozca a la importante comunidad latina. ¡Dale!

Funny story about how this fits in.  I know a Private Equity investor who owns 8 manufacturing companies.  He is Indian, educated high school in Louisiana and then Pepperdine.  His father is a physician, immigrated from India.

When this brilliant investor graduated from Pepperdine he got a job selling Encyclopedia Britannicas.  In South LA.  He was shot at a couple of times.  But as I pointed out earlier, its's all about marketing.  He set up his stand outside of Hispanic churches in LA on Sundays.  What did those church going parents want for their children?  Education.

He sold books like hotcakes and became the top Encylopedia Britannica sales person in the US.  In South LA.  This was some years ago - now we have the internet.    But the concept applies.

To my original point - sell to the market that you have available.  Sell to the consumer that has good reasons to like your product.  Sell.

Eventually his father said, "I'd did not send you to Pooperdine to sell books."  So he became a private equity investor.  True Story as he told it to me.

[BobK]

Back to Robin the Evil. She also caused Montgomery to look around for a new job
which he found with the Warriors. Look what has happened since, never recovered

[BobK]

Back to Robin the Evil. She also caused Montgomery to look around for a new job
which he found with the Warriors. Look what has happened since, never recovered

[GoodGrief]

1. I recall Montgomery saying about Mamlet’s admissions office that they wouldn’t even have a conversation with him about their policies. She should have stayed at that athletic powerhouse Swarthmore.
   

[GoodGrief]

1. I recall Montgomery saying about Mamlet’s admissions office that they wouldn’t even have a conversation with him about their policies. She should have stayed at that athletic powerhouse Swarthmore.
   

[Mick]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I just don't understand that line of thinking.

I knew a number of, shall we say, lesser academic lights at SCU, happened to be on the football team. They did very well in sales, subsequent to graduation. Reminds me of the billionaire speaking at Rice's graduation. He asks, one by one, the pre-law, the pre-med and the engineering students to stand up, each to general cheering. Then he asks the students who were going into sales to stand. Amid some good-natured jeering, two students stood up. The billionaire said "laugh all you want, but these two are going to make more than the rest of you..."

[Mick]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I just don't understand that line of thinking.

I knew a number of, shall we say, lesser academic lights at SCU, happened to be on the football team. They did very well in sales, subsequent to graduation. Reminds me of the billionaire speaking at Rice's graduation. He asks, one by one, the pre-law, the pre-med and the engineering students to stand up, each to general cheering. Then he asks the students who were going into sales to stand. Amid some good-natured jeering, two students stood up. The billionaire said "laugh all you want, but these two are going to make more than the rest of you..."

[GoodGrief]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I found threepointer's post in "How it happened" very enlightening where Etchemundy didn't actually know that Mamlet had screwed up the admissions process until Mike Eubanks proved it to him, after which she was fired.

Mike wrote a 4 part article on Stanford Sports from the view of the Provost.  One of the major topics was that our Director of Admissions, Robin Mamlet, who had come from Swarthmore, had really clamped down on Athletic admissions in all sports, Men's and Women's.  She just didn't get it.  

Etchemendy said, "I don't think that's true, our admission standards for Athletes have not changed.  They are held to the same standard as other applicants, with modest flexibility to acknowledge the investment of time that they make in their sport."

 

Mike said, I can prove it to you."  And he did by giving Etchemendy the statistics on Athletic admissions before and after Mamlet."  One year later Stanford fired Robin Mamlet as the Director of Admissions and replaced her with Richard Shaw from Yale.  Previously, he was Director of Admissions at Michigan.  He knew that in order to fill a 110,000 seat stadium you had to deliver a good product.  And Stanford Stadium has only 50,000 seats.

I just asked threepointer in the other thread, but also opening it up to anybody: Was Mamlet actually fired? (I hope so). Or was she gently nudged out the door with the privilege of spinning her departure however she wanted to?

[GoodGrief]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I found threepointer's post in "How it happened" very enlightening where Etchemundy didn't actually know that Mamlet had screwed up the admissions process until Mike Eubanks proved it to him, after which she was fired.

Mike wrote a 4 part article on Stanford Sports from the view of the Provost.  One of the major topics was that our Director of Admissions, Robin Mamlet, who had come from Swarthmore, had really clamped down on Athletic admissions in all sports, Men's and Women's.  She just didn't get it.  

Etchemendy said, "I don't think that's true, our admission standards for Athletes have not changed.  They are held to the same standard as other applicants, with modest flexibility to acknowledge the investment of time that they make in their sport."

 

Mike said, I can prove it to you."  And he did by giving Etchemendy the statistics on Athletic admissions before and after Mamlet."  One year later Stanford fired Robin Mamlet as the Director of Admissions and replaced her with Richard Shaw from Yale.  Previously, he was Director of Admissions at Michigan.  He knew that in order to fill a 110,000 seat stadium you had to deliver a good product.  And Stanford Stadium has only 50,000 seats.

I just asked threepointer in the other thread, but also opening it up to anybody: Was Mamlet actually fired? (I hope so). Or was she gently nudged out the door with the privilege of spinning her departure however she wanted to?

[gailtate]

1. I recall Montgomery saying about Mamlet’s admissions office that they wouldn’t even have a conversation with him about their policies. She should have stayed at that athletic powerhouse Swarthmore.
   

Swarthmore's Mamlet was hired by people who knew what they were getting. If they did not they were not making an informed decision. The fact that this was even a possibility is troubling. I have no doubt that something like could happen again. As much as it touts its athletic glories when you look at the record there is very little football instinct in Stanford's DNA. Blueblood? Nope.

[gailtate]

1. I recall Montgomery saying about Mamlet’s admissions office that they wouldn’t even have a conversation with him about their policies. She should have stayed at that athletic powerhouse Swarthmore.
   

Swarthmore's Mamlet was hired by people who knew what they were getting. If they did not they were not making an informed decision. The fact that this was even a possibility is troubling. I have no doubt that something like could happen again. As much as it touts its athletic glories when you look at the record there is very little football instinct in Stanford's DNA. Blueblood? Nope.

[Mick]

Balanced article on the Mamlet years. Lack of communications is concerning to me. Her lack of experience with D1 sports should have disqualified her from the role. Some coaches had issues

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/HI...589894.php

I do recall standing next to Coach Kosty at the Junior Olympics, and he had a list of the Top 50 recruits in the country. Four were highlighted. I asked if those were his key targets, and he replied "those are the only four of the Top 50 who can get into Stanford." An NCAA MVB team needs five recruits a year. Kosty would have to score all four, and an additional recruit to maintain a program, much less be successful. And let's not forget that there are men's volleyball teams at Harvard, Princeton, NYU, USC, UCLA, UCI, UCSB; to say nothing of Olympic feeder schools like Hawaii, BYU, Long Beach State, Ohio State, Penn State and Pepperdine. And there are lesser, but still competitive programs at MIT, UC Berkeley and UC San Diego.

BTW, at the last Olympics, Kawika Shoji, four year setter at Stanford, was the team captain, and his brother Erik was the libero. Basically, they were the Lopez twins of Men's Volleyball.

[Mick]

Balanced article on the Mamlet years. Lack of communications is concerning to me. Her lack of experience with D1 sports should have disqualified her from the role. Some coaches had issues

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/HI...589894.php

I do recall standing next to Coach Kosty at the Junior Olympics, and he had a list of the Top 50 recruits in the country. Four were highlighted. I asked if those were his key targets, and he replied "those are the only four of the Top 50 who can get into Stanford." An NCAA MVB team needs five recruits a year. Kosty would have to score all four, and an additional recruit to maintain a program, much less be successful. And let's not forget that there are men's volleyball teams at Harvard, Princeton, NYU, USC, UCLA, UCI, UCSB; to say nothing of Olympic feeder schools like Hawaii, BYU, Long Beach State, Ohio State, Penn State and Pepperdine. And there are lesser, but still competitive programs at MIT, UC Berkeley and UC San Diego.

BTW, at the last Olympics, Kawika Shoji, four year setter at Stanford, was the team captain, and his brother Erik was the libero. Basically, they were the Lopez twins of Men's Volleyball.

[jacket3ree]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I just don't understand that line of thinking.

I knew a number of, shall we say, lesser academic lights at SCU, happened to be on the football team. They did very well in sales, subsequent to graduation. Reminds me of the billionaire speaking at Rice's graduation. He asks, one by one, the pre-law, the pre-med and the engineering students to stand up, each to general cheering. Then he asks the students who were going into sales to stand. Amid some good-natured jeering, two students stood up. The billionaire said "laugh all you want, but these two are going to make more than the rest of you..."

It may be cliche, but no matter what anyone does, they are in sales.

I do remember the general hissing and uncomfortable laughter when the Law School graduates were recognized en mass. I now bow to my overlords. (Honestly, I know numerous lawyers personally and professionally. Smart bunch and the best are very personable.)

I'd caution against a "We Are College Sports" campaign. That can be taken as a typical holier than thou Stanford position. Like that CAPER paper BC shared (who asked for a statement, by the way), it reeks of 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being Stanford'.  I prefer people shut up and play their guitar in times like these.  Bow up and start freaking winning again. Stanford is not that unique.  Most college programs are college sports. It's the top 1% has everything skewed out of whack. Quietly do what you need to do to be yourselves while winning, marketing to everyone. All people are different, so there isn't a one-size-fits-all marketing campaign. I do like the idea of outreach in multiple languages. I thought some time ago had a football 101 sort of deal for graduate students and others for whom oblong football might not be their prime spectator sport, but who wanted to learn about football and have fun.

How about a 'we'd love to be your side piece' campaign? The Bay Area is full of transplants.  We know we aren't your first love, but Sneak Around the Alley with Stanford (cheap tix) and be entered into a raffle for Stanford to fly you and a friend to see your first love in action, airfare and hotel included. If you want to crash on your old frat's couch, all the better. I've told the story of a manic Nebraska fan at our firm who loves college football but wants no part of Stanford because he went once and was made to feel like an inferior human being. A halftime parade for Nobel prize winners, constant bombardment of 'we alone are Stanford-worthy', and the Band snark turned him off forever. Much easier to watch on TV. Plus he said the stadium was 'dead'. Years ago, there was some woman in our section who constantly yelled 'Safety School' anytime whomever it was (Oregon maybe, Cal, UW?) got a first down. Who the hell wants to be around that?

I agree there is a problem, and maybe the problem is Stanford.  Remember when Stanford laid 63 on Cal on its way to the Rose Bowl?  I had a house full of Midshipmen that flew out to watch Keenan Reynolds run wild on SJSU the night before.  I had no trouble securing ten last-minute tickets at face value and wow were the Mids excited to watch 'real big time football in the flesh'. I pulled out every red shirt I could find so they could finally just go nuts at a game out of uniform. Tailgating, coeds, the whole nine yards.  ("Uh guys, Army-Navy is as big time as it gets. Don't confuse this with Knoxville.")  They were so disappointed in the lack of a big time atmosphere. I get it, total blowout of a game and suppressed Cal attendance, but Stanford was as good as they've ever been and everyone was so nonplussed/too cool for school about it all.  That rubs off on the rest of the crowd, whether they went to Stanford or not.

[jacket3ree]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I just don't understand that line of thinking.

I knew a number of, shall we say, lesser academic lights at SCU, happened to be on the football team. They did very well in sales, subsequent to graduation. Reminds me of the billionaire speaking at Rice's graduation. He asks, one by one, the pre-law, the pre-med and the engineering students to stand up, each to general cheering. Then he asks the students who were going into sales to stand. Amid some good-natured jeering, two students stood up. The billionaire said "laugh all you want, but these two are going to make more than the rest of you..."

It may be cliche, but no matter what anyone does, they are in sales.

I do remember the general hissing and uncomfortable laughter when the Law School graduates were recognized en mass. I now bow to my overlords. (Honestly, I know numerous lawyers personally and professionally. Smart bunch and the best are very personable.)

I'd caution against a "We Are College Sports" campaign. That can be taken as a typical holier than thou Stanford position. Like that CAPER paper BC shared (who asked for a statement, by the way), it reeks of 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being Stanford'.  I prefer people shut up and play their guitar in times like these.  Bow up and start freaking winning again. Stanford is not that unique.  Most college programs are college sports. It's the top 1% has everything skewed out of whack. Quietly do what you need to do to be yourselves while winning, marketing to everyone. All people are different, so there isn't a one-size-fits-all marketing campaign. I do like the idea of outreach in multiple languages. I thought some time ago had a football 101 sort of deal for graduate students and others for whom oblong football might not be their prime spectator sport, but who wanted to learn about football and have fun.

How about a 'we'd love to be your side piece' campaign? The Bay Area is full of transplants.  We know we aren't your first love, but Sneak Around the Alley with Stanford (cheap tix) and be entered into a raffle for Stanford to fly you and a friend to see your first love in action, airfare and hotel included. If you want to crash on your old frat's couch, all the better. I've told the story of a manic Nebraska fan at our firm who loves college football but wants no part of Stanford because he went once and was made to feel like an inferior human being. A halftime parade for Nobel prize winners, constant bombardment of 'we alone are Stanford-worthy', and the Band snark turned him off forever. Much easier to watch on TV. Plus he said the stadium was 'dead'. Years ago, there was some woman in our section who constantly yelled 'Safety School' anytime whomever it was (Oregon maybe, Cal, UW?) got a first down. Who the hell wants to be around that?

I agree there is a problem, and maybe the problem is Stanford.  Remember when Stanford laid 63 on Cal on its way to the Rose Bowl?  I had a house full of Midshipmen that flew out to watch Keenan Reynolds run wild on SJSU the night before.  I had no trouble securing ten last-minute tickets at face value and wow were the Mids excited to watch 'real big time football in the flesh'. I pulled out every red shirt I could find so they could finally just go nuts at a game out of uniform. Tailgating, coeds, the whole nine yards.  ("Uh guys, Army-Navy is as big time as it gets. Don't confuse this with Knoxville.")  They were so disappointed in the lack of a big time atmosphere. I get it, total blowout of a game and suppressed Cal attendance, but Stanford was as good as they've ever been and everyone was so nonplussed/too cool for school about it all.  That rubs off on the rest of the crowd, whether they went to Stanford or not.

[threepointer]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I found threepointer's post in "How it happened" very enlightening where Etchemundy didn't actually know that Mamlet had screwed up the admissions process until Mike Eubanks proved it to him, after which she was fired.

Mike wrote a 4 part article on Stanford Sports from the view of the Provost.  One of the major topics was that our Director of Admissions, Robin Mamlet, who had come from Swarthmore, had really clamped down on Athletic admissions in all sports, Men's and Women's.  She just didn't get it.  

Etchemendy said, "I don't think that's true, our admission standards for Athletes have not changed.  They are held to the same standard as other applicants, with modest flexibility to acknowledge the investment of time that they make in their sport."

 

Mike said, I can prove it to you."  And he did by giving Etchemendy the statistics on Athletic admissions before and after Mamlet."  One year later Stanford fired Robin Mamlet as the Director of Admissions and replaced her with Richard Shaw from Yale.  Previously, he was Director of Admissions at Michigan.  He knew that in order to fill a 110,000 seat stadium you had to deliver a good product.  And Stanford Stadium has only 50,000 seats.

I just asked threepointer in the other thread, but also opening it up to anybody: Was Mamlet actually fired? (I hope so). Or was she gently nudged out the door with the privilege of spinning her departure however she wanted to?

First let me say that my role in this process was not entirely spontaneous. I was confident that I could create an opening for Eubanks.  What took place might have taken place anyway.   Bowlsby would have met Eubanks eventually.  Harbaugh would have figured out that Eubanks could be a recruiting maven.  What I did was provide a catalyst.  I knew that the pump was primed because it was one of Bowlsby's first official meeting (as far as I know).  Nothing like creating a shit storm to welcome the new guy.

I was on the Board, that's it.  I had no "official" role.  But I have been involved in enough board meetings to know that sometimes a small catalyst creates a big result.  That's what happened.  

So - to answer the question, I have no idea if Mamlet was officially fired.  But the writing was on the wall in big capital letters after Eubanks was done with Etchemendy.

[threepointer]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I found threepointer's post in "How it happened" very enlightening where Etchemundy didn't actually know that Mamlet had screwed up the admissions process until Mike Eubanks proved it to him, after which she was fired.

Mike wrote a 4 part article on Stanford Sports from the view of the Provost.  One of the major topics was that our Director of Admissions, Robin Mamlet, who had come from Swarthmore, had really clamped down on Athletic admissions in all sports, Men's and Women's.  She just didn't get it.  

Etchemendy said, "I don't think that's true, our admission standards for Athletes have not changed.  They are held to the same standard as other applicants, with modest flexibility to acknowledge the investment of time that they make in their sport."

 

Mike said, I can prove it to you."  And he did by giving Etchemendy the statistics on Athletic admissions before and after Mamlet."  One year later Stanford fired Robin Mamlet as the Director of Admissions and replaced her with Richard Shaw from Yale.  Previously, he was Director of Admissions at Michigan.  He knew that in order to fill a 110,000 seat stadium you had to deliver a good product.  And Stanford Stadium has only 50,000 seats.

I just asked threepointer in the other thread, but also opening it up to anybody: Was Mamlet actually fired? (I hope so). Or was she gently nudged out the door with the privilege of spinning her departure however she wanted to?

First let me say that my role in this process was not entirely spontaneous. I was confident that I could create an opening for Eubanks.  What took place might have taken place anyway.   Bowlsby would have met Eubanks eventually.  Harbaugh would have figured out that Eubanks could be a recruiting maven.  What I did was provide a catalyst.  I knew that the pump was primed because it was one of Bowlsby's first official meeting (as far as I know).  Nothing like creating a shit storm to welcome the new guy.

I was on the Board, that's it.  I had no "official" role.  But I have been involved in enough board meetings to know that sometimes a small catalyst creates a big result.  That's what happened.  

So - to answer the question, I have no idea if Mamlet was officially fired.  But the writing was on the wall in big capital letters after Eubanks was done with Etchemendy.

[threepointer]

1. I recall Montgomery saying about Mamlet’s admissions office that they wouldn’t even have a conversation with him about their policies. She should have stayed at that athletic powerhouse Swarthmore.
   

Swarthmore's Mamlet was hired by people who knew what they were getting. If they did not they were not making an informed decision. The fact that this was even a possibility is troubling. I have no doubt that something like could happen again. As much as it touts its athletic glories  when you look at the record there is very little football instinct in Stanford's DNA. Blueblood? Nope.

This.....Couldn't agree more.

Let's hire a Division III AD to administer the best damn athletic department in the country. How'd that work out?  For that matter let's hire a Canadian to lead the best university in the United States of America.  How'd that work out?

Don't get me started.

[threepointer]

1. I recall Montgomery saying about Mamlet’s admissions office that they wouldn’t even have a conversation with him about their policies. She should have stayed at that athletic powerhouse Swarthmore.
   

Swarthmore's Mamlet was hired by people who knew what they were getting. If they did not they were not making an informed decision. The fact that this was even a possibility is troubling. I have no doubt that something like could happen again. As much as it touts its athletic glories  when you look at the record there is very little football instinct in Stanford's DNA. Blueblood? Nope.

This.....Couldn't agree more.

Let's hire a Division III AD to administer the best damn athletic department in the country. How'd that work out?  For that matter let's hire a Canadian to lead the best university in the United States of America.  How'd that work out?

Don't get me started.

[Mick]

Balanced article on the Mamlet years. Lack of communications is concerning to me. Her lack of experience with D1 sports should have disqualified her from the role. Some coaches had issues

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/HI...589894.php

I do recall standing next to Coach Kosty at the Junior Olympics, and he had a list of the Top 50 recruits in the country. Four were highlighted. I asked if those were his key targets, and he replied "those are the only four of the Top 50 who can get into Stanford." An NCAA MVB team needs five recruits a year. Kosty would have to score all four, and an additional recruit to maintain a program, much less be successful. And let's not forget that there are men's volleyball teams at Harvard, Princeton, NYU, USC, UCLA, UCI, UCSB; to say nothing of Olympic feeder schools like Hawaii, BYU, Long Beach State, Ohio State, Penn State and Pepperdine. And there are lesser, but still competitive programs at MIT, UC Berkeley and UC San Diego.

BTW, at the last Olympics, Kawika Shoji, four year setter at Stanford, was the team captain, and his brother Erik was the libero. Basically, they were the Lopez twins of Men's Volleyball.

Post, post-script. Stanford still has three players on the men's national volleyball team, including Erik Shoji at Libero, Kyle D'Agostino at Libero and Jordan Ewert, an outside hitter from Antioch

https://usavolleyball.org/athlete/kyle-dagostino/
https://usavolleyball.org/athlete/erik-shoji/
https://usavolleyball.org/athlete/jordan-ewert/
Erik's brother Kawika is no longer on the team, sadly. Nor is Brian Cook, a former Stanford All-American.

[Mick]

Balanced article on the Mamlet years. Lack of communications is concerning to me. Her lack of experience with D1 sports should have disqualified her from the role. Some coaches had issues

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/HI...589894.php

I do recall standing next to Coach Kosty at the Junior Olympics, and he had a list of the Top 50 recruits in the country. Four were highlighted. I asked if those were his key targets, and he replied "those are the only four of the Top 50 who can get into Stanford." An NCAA MVB team needs five recruits a year. Kosty would have to score all four, and an additional recruit to maintain a program, much less be successful. And let's not forget that there are men's volleyball teams at Harvard, Princeton, NYU, USC, UCLA, UCI, UCSB; to say nothing of Olympic feeder schools like Hawaii, BYU, Long Beach State, Ohio State, Penn State and Pepperdine. And there are lesser, but still competitive programs at MIT, UC Berkeley and UC San Diego.

BTW, at the last Olympics, Kawika Shoji, four year setter at Stanford, was the team captain, and his brother Erik was the libero. Basically, they were the Lopez twins of Men's Volleyball.

Post, post-script. Stanford still has three players on the men's national volleyball team, including Erik Shoji at Libero, Kyle D'Agostino at Libero and Jordan Ewert, an outside hitter from Antioch

https://usavolleyball.org/athlete/kyle-dagostino/
https://usavolleyball.org/athlete/erik-shoji/
https://usavolleyball.org/athlete/jordan-ewert/
Erik's brother Kawika is no longer on the team, sadly. Nor is Brian Cook, a former Stanford All-American.