[martyup]

You don't even like the tree? Maybe just become a fan of Notre Dame or Duke, seems simplest.

I don't mind having a tree as a mascot, but I think we can come up with a better term than "trees."  Also, the band's tongue-in-cheek goofy tree costume is no longer funny.  I think that spoof has run its course.

1.  I would support the "Redwoods."  However, I'm afraid someone would be offended and call me a racist.  

2.  I would also support the "Sequoias," but I'm afraid that the new transfer athletes would have a hard time remembering how to spell it.   I can just hear the game announcer say "Here come the mighty Sequoias."  Interestingly, the term Sequoia is the tree genus name given in 1847 by Austrian botanist Stephan Endlicher (1804-1849), originally to a different tree, the coast redwood, apparently in honor of Sequoya (a.k.a. George Guess, 1760-1843), the Cherokee man who invented a system of writing for his people's language, whose name is from Cherokee (Iroquoian) Sikwayi, a word of unknown etymology.  So by adopting the Sequoia as our mascot, we would be sort of honoring our original mascot "Indians" without offending native americans (hopefully).

3.  When I was an undergraduate at Stanford there was a campus wide vote on naming a new mascot and I supported the "Griffens"  or "Gryphons."  I mean who doesn't bow down to a mythical animal typically having the head, forepart, and wings of an eagle and the body, hind legs, and tail of a lion?  Add to that, there are two Gryphon statues guarding the entrance to the athletic department (are they still there?).  Harry Potter's Buckbeak was described as a Hippogriff, which is a distance cousin to the Gryphon.  You've go to admit, Buckbeak was very cool.

The key aspect to any mascot should be that it is strong, respected, fearsome, fearless, and majestic.  I have no love for the ridiculous counter-culture mascots like the Banana Slugs, Artichokes, Purple Cows, Geoducks, or Anteaters.  This same anti-establishment counter-culture crowd would have Stanford adopt "Robber Barons" as its mascot.  No, thank you.

[martyup]

You don't even like the tree? Maybe just become a fan of Notre Dame or Duke, seems simplest.

I don't mind having a tree as a mascot, but I think we can come up with a better term than "trees."  Also, the band's tongue-in-cheek goofy tree costume is no longer funny.  I think that spoof has run its course.

1.  I would support the "Redwoods."  However, I'm afraid someone would be offended and call me a racist.  

2.  I would also support the "Sequoias," but I'm afraid that the new transfer athletes would have a hard time remembering how to spell it.   I can just hear the game announcer say "Here come the mighty Sequoias."  Interestingly, the term Sequoia is the tree genus name given in 1847 by Austrian botanist Stephan Endlicher (1804-1849), originally to a different tree, the coast redwood, apparently in honor of Sequoya (a.k.a. George Guess, 1760-1843), the Cherokee man who invented a system of writing for his people's language, whose name is from Cherokee (Iroquoian) Sikwayi, a word of unknown etymology.  So by adopting the Sequoia as our mascot, we would be sort of honoring our original mascot "Indians" without offending native americans (hopefully).

3.  When I was an undergraduate at Stanford there was a campus wide vote on naming a new mascot and I supported the "Griffens"  or "Gryphons."  I mean who doesn't bow down to a mythical animal typically having the head, forepart, and wings of an eagle and the body, hind legs, and tail of a lion?  Add to that, there are two Gryphon statues guarding the entrance to the athletic department (are they still there?).  Harry Potter's Buckbeak was described as a Hippogriff, which is a distance cousin to the Gryphon.  You've go to admit, Buckbeak was very cool.

The key aspect to any mascot should be that it is strong, respected, fearsome, fearless, and majestic.  I have no love for the ridiculous counter-culture mascots like the Banana Slugs, Artichokes, Purple Cows, Geoducks, or Anteaters.  This same anti-establishment counter-culture crowd would have Stanford adopt "Robber Barons" as its mascot.  No, thank you.

[Mick]

I actually like the Redwoods, and could live with Sequoias. Griffins/Gryphons? Meh. Could do worse.

But I think as long as Harvard is the Crimson, we're stuck with the Cardinal.

[Mick]

I actually like the Redwoods, and could live with Sequoias. Griffins/Gryphons? Meh. Could do worse.

But I think as long as Harvard is the Crimson, we're stuck with the Cardinal.

[oldalum]

When I was an undergraduate at Stanford there was a campus wide vote on naming a new mascot  

This same anti-establishment counter-culture crowd would have Stanford adopt "Robber Barons" as its mascot.  No, thank you.

IIRC there were two votes. Robber Barons won the first vote, but the administration rendered that result nugatory. Perhaps today with the rise of the mega-billionaires it would have renewed appeal.
On the second vote, with Robber Barons not available as a choice, Trees and Sequoias split the "tree" vote and no one won (I voted for Sequoias). after that the effort to designate a new mascot died and the color Cardinal came into use.

[oldalum]

When I was an undergraduate at Stanford there was a campus wide vote on naming a new mascot  

This same anti-establishment counter-culture crowd would have Stanford adopt "Robber Barons" as its mascot.  No, thank you.

IIRC there were two votes. Robber Barons won the first vote, but the administration rendered that result nugatory. Perhaps today with the rise of the mega-billionaires it would have renewed appeal.
On the second vote, with Robber Barons not available as a choice, Trees and Sequoias split the "tree" vote and no one won (I voted for Sequoias). after that the effort to designate a new mascot died and the color Cardinal came into use.

[martyup]

IMO, the etymology and meaning of "Sequoia" makes it the perfect mascot for Stanford.  Let's do it.  Maybe Andrew Luck can get the ball rolling.  I'm sick of being a color.  I don't want us to follow Harvard's lead.  We should be the leader.  GO SEQUOIAS!

[martyup]

IMO, the etymology and meaning of "Sequoia" makes it the perfect mascot for Stanford.  Let's do it.  Maybe Andrew Luck can get the ball rolling.  I'm sick of being a color.  I don't want us to follow Harvard's lead.  We should be the leader.  GO SEQUOIAS!

[BillBradley]

I am a pearl-clutcher, I think, but here's one viewpoint I've been considering.  As much as Stanford equips the best and brightest to go out and influence the world for progress, and as much as sports has become a significant cultural touchstone of American life, shouldn't Stanford offer a brand of excellence in athletics to give Stanford alumni pride and distinction in a sports-fanatic world?  From the C-suite to the street, everyone can talk about their team and how their season is going -- I've found it immensely useful to be able to either talk about others' favorite teams or talk about Stanford's successes in sports as small talk with a purpose.  No one cares about the weather, but if you meet someone who loves sports and you can speak their language, there's a bit of trust and familiarity that can be established.

Is this a good thing that culture has evolved this way?  Different topic.  But it is what it is.

It's a great topic, and I too have found it highly valuable for "business talk".

I'll even go a step further... These discussions are about U.S. college football and basketball. Ever been to a professional soccer game in England or Brazil? Cricket match in India? You think the U.S. is sports crazy...holy crap. Our U.S. culture has become fanatical around sports (college and pro), and if we follow the world there's seemingly no end in site. So why aren't athletes (or sports in general) viewed as positive, contributing members of society?  Reading posts on this board, there's absolutely an air of disrespect (jealousy?) that exists when discussing athletes. "Mercenary". The "student" vs. the "athlete". "Bought". It's like my father in the 80's when the Lakers paid Magic a million dollars: "To play basketball? Are you kidding me?". Or today's most popular whine: "The football coach is the highest paid employee of the state? What are we doing?". If you really respect sports as vital in today's society, seems like all those sentiments are off-base.

Yes, I understand it's "college" vs. "the pros", but I still find that people have trouble accepting the level of excellence of the college athlete and the associated reward that comes with it, simply because a ball is involved and there's no academic program behind it. And if there were an academic program behind it (i.e. a major called "The Science of Football"), it still wouldn't matter. Funny, I just realized there is a lot of studying in college sports (film review, playbooks, scouting reports), they are sort of like weekly problem sets. Tests are the games.  Another way to look at the college athlete - double major without the degree?

Question: Would there be so much pushback around NIL if there were NIL payments for undergraduate engineers? What if UCLA found out that a Stanford engineer was close to a major breakthrough in the lab, and paid the engineer $800K to finish the work at UCLA? Would that ruffle feathers in the same way? Would that person be a sellout? My guess would be no. Engineering is an academic discipline that leads to a respected professional career, so there's nothing wrong with being wooed by money earlier in the lifecycle. 

<disclaimer - I realize this post is "out there". Feel free to ignore and please give me a pass for being a little nutty today>

[BillBradley]

I am a pearl-clutcher, I think, but here's one viewpoint I've been considering.  As much as Stanford equips the best and brightest to go out and influence the world for progress, and as much as sports has become a significant cultural touchstone of American life, shouldn't Stanford offer a brand of excellence in athletics to give Stanford alumni pride and distinction in a sports-fanatic world?  From the C-suite to the street, everyone can talk about their team and how their season is going -- I've found it immensely useful to be able to either talk about others' favorite teams or talk about Stanford's successes in sports as small talk with a purpose.  No one cares about the weather, but if you meet someone who loves sports and you can speak their language, there's a bit of trust and familiarity that can be established.

Is this a good thing that culture has evolved this way?  Different topic.  But it is what it is.

It's a great topic, and I too have found it highly valuable for "business talk".

I'll even go a step further... These discussions are about U.S. college football and basketball. Ever been to a professional soccer game in England or Brazil? Cricket match in India? You think the U.S. is sports crazy...holy crap. Our U.S. culture has become fanatical around sports (college and pro), and if we follow the world there's seemingly no end in site. So why aren't athletes (or sports in general) viewed as positive, contributing members of society?  Reading posts on this board, there's absolutely an air of disrespect (jealousy?) that exists when discussing athletes. "Mercenary". The "student" vs. the "athlete". "Bought". It's like my father in the 80's when the Lakers paid Magic a million dollars: "To play basketball? Are you kidding me?". Or today's most popular whine: "The football coach is the highest paid employee of the state? What are we doing?". If you really respect sports as vital in today's society, seems like all those sentiments are off-base.

Yes, I understand it's "college" vs. "the pros", but I still find that people have trouble accepting the level of excellence of the college athlete and the associated reward that comes with it, simply because a ball is involved and there's no academic program behind it. And if there were an academic program behind it (i.e. a major called "The Science of Football"), it still wouldn't matter. Funny, I just realized there is a lot of studying in college sports (film review, playbooks, scouting reports), they are sort of like weekly problem sets. Tests are the games.  Another way to look at the college athlete - double major without the degree?

Question: Would there be so much pushback around NIL if there were NIL payments for undergraduate engineers? What if UCLA found out that a Stanford engineer was close to a major breakthrough in the lab, and paid the engineer $800K to finish the work at UCLA? Would that ruffle feathers in the same way? Would that person be a sellout? My guess would be no. Engineering is an academic discipline that leads to a respected professional career, so there's nothing wrong with being wooed by money earlier in the lifecycle. 

<disclaimer - I realize this post is "out there". Feel free to ignore and please give me a pass for being a little nutty today>

[StanUSwagU]

I am a pearl-clutcher, I think, but here's one viewpoint I've been considering.  As much as Stanford equips the best and brightest to go out and influence the world for progress, and as much as sports has become a significant cultural touchstone of American life, shouldn't Stanford offer a brand of excellence in athletics to give Stanford alumni pride and distinction in a sports-fanatic world?  From the C-suite to the street, everyone can talk about their team and how their season is going -- I've found it immensely useful to be able to either talk about others' favorite teams or talk about Stanford's successes in sports as small talk with a purpose.  No one cares about the weather, but if you meet someone who loves sports and you can speak their language, there's a bit of trust and familiarity that can be established.

Is this a good thing that culture has evolved this way?  Different topic.  But it is what it is.

It's a great topic, and I too have found it highly valuable for "business talk".

I'll even go a step further... These discussions are about U.S. college football and basketball. Ever been to a professional soccer game in England or Brazil? Cricket match in India? You think the U.S. is sports crazy...holy crap. Our U.S. culture has become fanatical around sports (college and pro), and if we follow the world there's seemingly no end in site. So why aren't athletes (or sports in general) viewed as positive, contributing members of society?  Reading posts on this board, there's absolutely an air of disrespect (jealousy?) that exists when discussing athletes. "Mercenary". The "student" vs. the "athlete". "Bought". It's like my father in the 80's when the Lakers paid Magic a million dollars: "To play basketball? Are you kidding me?". Or today's most popular whine: "The football coach is the highest paid employee of the state? What are we doing?". If you really respect sports as vital in today's society, seems like all those sentiments are off-base.

Yes, I understand it's "college" vs. "the pros", but I still find that people have trouble accepting the level of excellence of the college athlete and the associated reward that comes with it, simply because a ball is involved and there's no academic program behind it. And if there were an academic program behind it (i.e. a major called "The Science of Football"), it still wouldn't matter. Funny, I just realized there is a lot of studying in college sports (film review, playbooks, scouting reports), they are sort of like weekly problem sets. Tests are the games.  Another way to look at the college athlete - double major without the degree?

Question: Would there be so much pushback around NIL if there were NIL payments for undergraduate engineers? What if UCLA found out that a Stanford engineer was close to a major breakthrough in the lab, and paid the engineer $800K to finish the work at UCLA? Would that ruffle feathers in the same way? Would that person be a sellout? My guess would be no. Engineering is an academic discipline that leads to a respected professional career, so there's nothing wrong with being wooed by money earlier in the lifecycle. 

<disclaimer - I realize this post is "out there". Feel free to ignore and please give me a pass for being a little nutty today>

************************


BillBradley,

1. Great points !

2. Nothing you said above is 'out there'.

3. Its actually a more accurate/realistic view of things, that explains the Power4 D1 current atmosphere/landscape where our Football & Mens Basketball program compete (the ACC).

4. Failure to 'change a little' to adapt & modernize to this new atmosphere/landscape of college sports, especially for fake reasons like "if we do the things Duke or NotreDame does ....we will be 'lowering ourselves to the low standard of Duke and NotreDame" ....is what is erroneous thinking and 'out there'.

I could imagine a cartoon of 2 Stanford Alums talking to each other, with the following 'thought bubble above the cartoon', as 1 says to the other:

(Imagine being down in the gutter with those low-life, low academic schools like Duke & NotreDame, as we are 'Stanford High & Mighty' ...and the examplars of all that is 'academically high, righteous & exalted'...and 'our academic, moral, & ethical standards are just way higher than Duke & NotreDame')

[StanUSwagU]

I am a pearl-clutcher, I think, but here's one viewpoint I've been considering.  As much as Stanford equips the best and brightest to go out and influence the world for progress, and as much as sports has become a significant cultural touchstone of American life, shouldn't Stanford offer a brand of excellence in athletics to give Stanford alumni pride and distinction in a sports-fanatic world?  From the C-suite to the street, everyone can talk about their team and how their season is going -- I've found it immensely useful to be able to either talk about others' favorite teams or talk about Stanford's successes in sports as small talk with a purpose.  No one cares about the weather, but if you meet someone who loves sports and you can speak their language, there's a bit of trust and familiarity that can be established.

Is this a good thing that culture has evolved this way?  Different topic.  But it is what it is.

It's a great topic, and I too have found it highly valuable for "business talk".

I'll even go a step further... These discussions are about U.S. college football and basketball. Ever been to a professional soccer game in England or Brazil? Cricket match in India? You think the U.S. is sports crazy...holy crap. Our U.S. culture has become fanatical around sports (college and pro), and if we follow the world there's seemingly no end in site. So why aren't athletes (or sports in general) viewed as positive, contributing members of society?  Reading posts on this board, there's absolutely an air of disrespect (jealousy?) that exists when discussing athletes. "Mercenary". The "student" vs. the "athlete". "Bought". It's like my father in the 80's when the Lakers paid Magic a million dollars: "To play basketball? Are you kidding me?". Or today's most popular whine: "The football coach is the highest paid employee of the state? What are we doing?". If you really respect sports as vital in today's society, seems like all those sentiments are off-base.

Yes, I understand it's "college" vs. "the pros", but I still find that people have trouble accepting the level of excellence of the college athlete and the associated reward that comes with it, simply because a ball is involved and there's no academic program behind it. And if there were an academic program behind it (i.e. a major called "The Science of Football"), it still wouldn't matter. Funny, I just realized there is a lot of studying in college sports (film review, playbooks, scouting reports), they are sort of like weekly problem sets. Tests are the games.  Another way to look at the college athlete - double major without the degree?

Question: Would there be so much pushback around NIL if there were NIL payments for undergraduate engineers? What if UCLA found out that a Stanford engineer was close to a major breakthrough in the lab, and paid the engineer $800K to finish the work at UCLA? Would that ruffle feathers in the same way? Would that person be a sellout? My guess would be no. Engineering is an academic discipline that leads to a respected professional career, so there's nothing wrong with being wooed by money earlier in the lifecycle. 

<disclaimer - I realize this post is "out there". Feel free to ignore and please give me a pass for being a little nutty today>

************************


BillBradley,

1. Great points !

2. Nothing you said above is 'out there'.

3. Its actually a more accurate/realistic view of things, that explains the Power4 D1 current atmosphere/landscape where our Football & Mens Basketball program compete (the ACC).

4. Failure to 'change a little' to adapt & modernize to this new atmosphere/landscape of college sports, especially for fake reasons like "if we do the things Duke or NotreDame does ....we will be 'lowering ourselves to the low standard of Duke and NotreDame" ....is what is erroneous thinking and 'out there'.

I could imagine a cartoon of 2 Stanford Alums talking to each other, with the following 'thought bubble above the cartoon', as 1 says to the other:

(Imagine being down in the gutter with those low-life, low academic schools like Duke & NotreDame, as we are 'Stanford High & Mighty' ...and the examplars of all that is 'academically high, righteous & exalted'...and 'our academic, moral, & ethical standards are just way higher than Duke & NotreDame')

[CowboyIndian]

Has anyone brought up "Indians"?

[CowboyIndian]

Has anyone brought up "Indians"?

[StanUSwagU]

Has anyone brought up "Indians"?

***********

I would vote for that, if it were implemented & done the way FloridaState University does it for their university mascot the 'Seminoles' ...where they routinely work with the local Seminole Tribe, to make sure the tribe is always on board with how this is integrated.


or maybe if that is deemed too iffy, how about a mascot like the 'engineers' or 'railbuilders'.

[StanUSwagU]

Has anyone brought up "Indians"?

***********

I would vote for that, if it were implemented & done the way FloridaState University does it for their university mascot the 'Seminoles' ...where they routinely work with the local Seminole Tribe, to make sure the tribe is always on board with how this is integrated.


or maybe if that is deemed too iffy, how about a mascot like the 'engineers' or 'railbuilders'.

[82lsju]

Question: Would there be so much pushback around NIL if there were NIL payments for undergraduate engineers? What if UCLA found out that a Stanford engineer was close to a major breakthrough in the lab, and paid the engineer $800K to finish the work at UCLA? Would that ruffle feathers in the same way? Would that person be a sellout? My guess would be no. Engineering is an academic discipline that leads to a respected professional career, so there's nothing wrong with being wooed by money earlier in the lifecycle. 

<disclaimer - I realize this post is "out there". Feel free to ignore and please give me a pass for being a little nutty today>

the engineer would probably create a start-up to monetize the idea.  Of course if the intellectual property is at least partially Stanford's they would get a piece of the start-up.

[82lsju]

Question: Would there be so much pushback around NIL if there were NIL payments for undergraduate engineers? What if UCLA found out that a Stanford engineer was close to a major breakthrough in the lab, and paid the engineer $800K to finish the work at UCLA? Would that ruffle feathers in the same way? Would that person be a sellout? My guess would be no. Engineering is an academic discipline that leads to a respected professional career, so there's nothing wrong with being wooed by money earlier in the lifecycle. 

<disclaimer - I realize this post is "out there". Feel free to ignore and please give me a pass for being a little nutty today>

the engineer would probably create a start-up to monetize the idea.  Of course if the intellectual property is at least partially Stanford's they would get a piece of the start-up.

[Spiny_Norman]

Has anyone brought up "Indians"?

Stanford has now been the Cardinal (43 years, 1982-2025 and counting) longer than it was the Indians (42 years, 1930-1972).

[Spiny_Norman]

Has anyone brought up "Indians"?

Stanford has now been the Cardinal (43 years, 1982-2025 and counting) longer than it was the Indians (42 years, 1930-1972).

[Goose]

I am a pearl-clutcher, I think, but here's one viewpoint I've been considering.  As much as Stanford equips the best and brightest to go out and influence the world for progress, and as much as sports has become a significant cultural touchstone of American life, shouldn't Stanford offer a brand of excellence in athletics to give Stanford alumni pride and distinction in a sports-fanatic world?  From the C-suite to the street, everyone can talk about their team and how their season is going -- I've found it immensely useful to be able to either talk about others' favorite teams or talk about Stanford's successes in sports as small talk with a purpose.  No one cares about the weather, but if you meet someone who loves sports and you can speak their language, there's a bit of trust and familiarity that can be established.

Is this a good thing that culture has evolved this way?  Different topic.  But it is what it is.

It's a great topic, and I too have found it highly valuable for "business talk".

I'll even go a step further... These discussions are about U.S. college football and basketball. Ever been to a professional soccer game in England or Brazil? Cricket match in India? You think the U.S. is sports crazy...holy crap. Our U.S. culture has become fanatical around sports (college and pro), and if we follow the world there's seemingly no end in site. So why aren't athletes (or sports in general) viewed as positive, contributing members of society?  Reading posts on this board, there's absolutely an air of disrespect (jealousy?) that exists when discussing athletes. "Mercenary". The "student" vs. the "athlete". "Bought". It's like my father in the 80's when the Lakers paid Magic a million dollars: "To play basketball? Are you kidding me?". Or today's most popular whine: "The football coach is the highest paid employee of the state? What are we doing?". If you really respect sports as vital in today's society, seems like all those sentiments are off-base.

IMO sports are absolutely not "vital" to today's society. If they went away tomorrow we would all survive. I like watching sports and will pay to do so, as my season tickets attest. However, I do believe that on my personal value scale, professional athletes and coaches are vastly overpaid. So are entertainers in general. Coaches are almost universally overpaid even more than the other examples. OTOH elementary school and high school teachers are vastly underpaid, as are police and firemen in general. As events in SOCAL recently demonstrate, the latter can definitely be "vital".

That said, any of us who have ever been paid for what we do know for a fact that what we receive is governed by many factors other than how vital our job may be. One of them is certainly the perceptions of others about how vital it is to them, what they can afford to pay, and what the "others" think/fear you can get elsewhere. It is not an intrinsic reality, it is strictly perception.

Yes, I understand it's "college" vs. "the pros", but I still find that people have trouble accepting the level of excellence of the college athlete and the associated reward that comes with it, simply because a ball is involved and there's no academic program behind it. And if there were an academic program behind it (i.e. a major called "The Science of Football"), it still wouldn't matter. Funny, I just realized there is a lot of studying in college sports (film review, playbooks, scouting reports), they are sort of like weekly problem sets. Tests are the games.  Another way to look at the college athlete - double major without the degree?

It could be looked at that way. However Stanford doesn't offer a degree in Football and I for one do not want them to do so. There are many other degrees Stanford doesn't offer. That's fine. IMO a degree in football isn't appropriate to an academic institution. That is not "what they are for". Others may disagree.

The difference between pro sports and college sports in the past (at least in theory) is that the college players were doing it for "fun", not as an academic pursuit. The coaches were not "faculty members". We watched our friends compete mostly because they were at a minimum fellow students. It wasn't a major any more than intramural sports were. The guys playing in the stadium were just better at it, more dedicated to doing it, and had coaches. I admit we had some "ringers" where NCAA athletes played intramural sports other than their "main" ones. Guys played football at the NCAA level and rugby as a club sport.

Question: Would there be so much pushback around NIL if there were NIL payments for undergraduate engineers? What if UCLA found out that a Stanford engineer was close to a major breakthrough in the lab, and paid the engineer $800K to finish the work at UCLA? Would that ruffle feathers in the same way? Would that person be a sellout? My guess would be no.

No that wouldn't ruffle feathers in the same way. It would immediately generate a lawsuit from Stanford over the IP rights and UCLA would lose big time. If past experience is a guide, poaching like that (SDSU and UCLA) leads to several people getting fired and big payouts.

Engineering is an academic discipline that leads to a respected professional career, so there's nothing wrong with being wooed by money earlier in the lifecycle. 

Indeed for many years many honors co-op students pursue Stanford engineering degrees with their tuition paid by their employer. They also receive a salary while doing this (and often doing nothing else). ROTC students (many of who are not engineering majors) receive tuition and a (small) salary while attending Stanford. These students are being wooed not to attend Stanford, but rather to become valuable assets to whoever is paying them.  Other student's function as "consultants" and receive payments for the work they do. It has nothing to do with being at Stanford. IMO nobody has any problems with this. On the other hand I find no joy in watching them do that and won't pay to see them take finals :-).

Equally, I don't think anybody has any problems with student-athletes getting paid for the use of their Name, Image, and Likeness. That is fine. The problem comes when that NIL is not for name, image and likeness but rather for playing a particular sport at a particular school. The individuals receiving those payments are no longer playing the game for fun, they are doing it for money. They no longer "represent" Stanford. They represent their employer. They are playing under somewhat false pretenses. That is not what I watch Stanford sports to see. Others may disagree.

The analog to the examples above would be an agent or a NFL team paying an athlete to play football at Stanford. This would only make sense if the athlete was going to be of some present or future value to the employer. Again, at a minimum, they are playing at Stanford because their employer told them to. I think the problems in this case are obvious. The players loyalty is not to Stanford, but to the employer.

If the players were paid directly by Stanford, would I like that "better". Yes, if I thought Stanford mission should include fielding a professional football team. I don't think it does.

[Goose]

I am a pearl-clutcher, I think, but here's one viewpoint I've been considering.  As much as Stanford equips the best and brightest to go out and influence the world for progress, and as much as sports has become a significant cultural touchstone of American life, shouldn't Stanford offer a brand of excellence in athletics to give Stanford alumni pride and distinction in a sports-fanatic world?  From the C-suite to the street, everyone can talk about their team and how their season is going -- I've found it immensely useful to be able to either talk about others' favorite teams or talk about Stanford's successes in sports as small talk with a purpose.  No one cares about the weather, but if you meet someone who loves sports and you can speak their language, there's a bit of trust and familiarity that can be established.

Is this a good thing that culture has evolved this way?  Different topic.  But it is what it is.

It's a great topic, and I too have found it highly valuable for "business talk".

I'll even go a step further... These discussions are about U.S. college football and basketball. Ever been to a professional soccer game in England or Brazil? Cricket match in India? You think the U.S. is sports crazy...holy crap. Our U.S. culture has become fanatical around sports (college and pro), and if we follow the world there's seemingly no end in site. So why aren't athletes (or sports in general) viewed as positive, contributing members of society?  Reading posts on this board, there's absolutely an air of disrespect (jealousy?) that exists when discussing athletes. "Mercenary". The "student" vs. the "athlete". "Bought". It's like my father in the 80's when the Lakers paid Magic a million dollars: "To play basketball? Are you kidding me?". Or today's most popular whine: "The football coach is the highest paid employee of the state? What are we doing?". If you really respect sports as vital in today's society, seems like all those sentiments are off-base.

IMO sports are absolutely not "vital" to today's society. If they went away tomorrow we would all survive. I like watching sports and will pay to do so, as my season tickets attest. However, I do believe that on my personal value scale, professional athletes and coaches are vastly overpaid. So are entertainers in general. Coaches are almost universally overpaid even more than the other examples. OTOH elementary school and high school teachers are vastly underpaid, as are police and firemen in general. As events in SOCAL recently demonstrate, the latter can definitely be "vital".

That said, any of us who have ever been paid for what we do know for a fact that what we receive is governed by many factors other than how vital our job may be. One of them is certainly the perceptions of others about how vital it is to them, what they can afford to pay, and what the "others" think/fear you can get elsewhere. It is not an intrinsic reality, it is strictly perception.

Yes, I understand it's "college" vs. "the pros", but I still find that people have trouble accepting the level of excellence of the college athlete and the associated reward that comes with it, simply because a ball is involved and there's no academic program behind it. And if there were an academic program behind it (i.e. a major called "The Science of Football"), it still wouldn't matter. Funny, I just realized there is a lot of studying in college sports (film review, playbooks, scouting reports), they are sort of like weekly problem sets. Tests are the games.  Another way to look at the college athlete - double major without the degree?

It could be looked at that way. However Stanford doesn't offer a degree in Football and I for one do not want them to do so. There are many other degrees Stanford doesn't offer. That's fine. IMO a degree in football isn't appropriate to an academic institution. That is not "what they are for". Others may disagree.

The difference between pro sports and college sports in the past (at least in theory) is that the college players were doing it for "fun", not as an academic pursuit. The coaches were not "faculty members". We watched our friends compete mostly because they were at a minimum fellow students. It wasn't a major any more than intramural sports were. The guys playing in the stadium were just better at it, more dedicated to doing it, and had coaches. I admit we had some "ringers" where NCAA athletes played intramural sports other than their "main" ones. Guys played football at the NCAA level and rugby as a club sport.

Question: Would there be so much pushback around NIL if there were NIL payments for undergraduate engineers? What if UCLA found out that a Stanford engineer was close to a major breakthrough in the lab, and paid the engineer $800K to finish the work at UCLA? Would that ruffle feathers in the same way? Would that person be a sellout? My guess would be no.

No that wouldn't ruffle feathers in the same way. It would immediately generate a lawsuit from Stanford over the IP rights and UCLA would lose big time. If past experience is a guide, poaching like that (SDSU and UCLA) leads to several people getting fired and big payouts.

Engineering is an academic discipline that leads to a respected professional career, so there's nothing wrong with being wooed by money earlier in the lifecycle. 

Indeed for many years many honors co-op students pursue Stanford engineering degrees with their tuition paid by their employer. They also receive a salary while doing this (and often doing nothing else). ROTC students (many of who are not engineering majors) receive tuition and a (small) salary while attending Stanford. These students are being wooed not to attend Stanford, but rather to become valuable assets to whoever is paying them.  Other student's function as "consultants" and receive payments for the work they do. It has nothing to do with being at Stanford. IMO nobody has any problems with this. On the other hand I find no joy in watching them do that and won't pay to see them take finals :-).

Equally, I don't think anybody has any problems with student-athletes getting paid for the use of their Name, Image, and Likeness. That is fine. The problem comes when that NIL is not for name, image and likeness but rather for playing a particular sport at a particular school. The individuals receiving those payments are no longer playing the game for fun, they are doing it for money. They no longer "represent" Stanford. They represent their employer. They are playing under somewhat false pretenses. That is not what I watch Stanford sports to see. Others may disagree.

The analog to the examples above would be an agent or a NFL team paying an athlete to play football at Stanford. This would only make sense if the athlete was going to be of some present or future value to the employer. Again, at a minimum, they are playing at Stanford because their employer told them to. I think the problems in this case are obvious. The players loyalty is not to Stanford, but to the employer.

If the players were paid directly by Stanford, would I like that "better". Yes, if I thought Stanford mission should include fielding a professional football team. I don't think it does.

[jacket3ree]

Stanford's president at the time was a Harvard guy, so we're stuck with a Harvard name.

Indiana gets away with it, but that name in Cowboy's avatar isn't coming back ever. For good reason. As Mr. Swag says, you could go the Seminole route and use Costanoan, Tamien, Ohlone, or Muwekma Ohlone. Frankly, with permission, Costanoan sounds pretty badass. Or FAAFO, the Stanford Cosa Nostra. Put this on the helmet:



Black, red, white. It all works.

Too bad Kennedy had zero sense of sense. That Robber Baron would have been a freak enough mascot (assume the couldn't get permission from Parker Bros. for Monopoly Man) to give the Demon Deacon a run for his money. And hate to say it with some of our nefarious alumni, the name still fits.

Don't let this guy near children.

Or be like 'Bama:

Cardinal Tide (no, way too much like 'Bama copywrite infringement)
Cardinal Wave (oooh - too much Tulane and they like never win except that one time)
Cardinal Direction (no, too boy band)
Cardinal Cardinal (aka the Red Bird, Joseph Heller approves)
Kardinal ('cause we're the only school outside of Deutschland that uses Deutsch on its seal)
Lords of Palo Alto
Werewolfs of West East Palo Alto (really into Los Lobos at the moment) 
Hinges (from the Latin; check it out)
Pearl Clutchers (also from the Latin, or maybe ethey Atinlay)

[jacket3ree]

Stanford's president at the time was a Harvard guy, so we're stuck with a Harvard name.

Indiana gets away with it, but that name in Cowboy's avatar isn't coming back ever. For good reason. As Mr. Swag says, you could go the Seminole route and use Costanoan, Tamien, Ohlone, or Muwekma Ohlone. Frankly, with permission, Costanoan sounds pretty badass. Or FAAFO, the Stanford Cosa Nostra. Put this on the helmet:



Black, red, white. It all works.

Too bad Kennedy had zero sense of sense. That Robber Baron would have been a freak enough mascot (assume the couldn't get permission from Parker Bros. for Monopoly Man) to give the Demon Deacon a run for his money. And hate to say it with some of our nefarious alumni, the name still fits.

Don't let this guy near children.

Or be like 'Bama:

Cardinal Tide (no, way too much like 'Bama copywrite infringement)
Cardinal Wave (oooh - too much Tulane and they like never win except that one time)
Cardinal Direction (no, too boy band)
Cardinal Cardinal (aka the Red Bird, Joseph Heller approves)
Kardinal ('cause we're the only school outside of Deutschland that uses Deutsch on its seal)
Lords of Palo Alto
Werewolfs of West East Palo Alto (really into Los Lobos at the moment) 
Hinges (from the Latin; check it out)
Pearl Clutchers (also from the Latin, or maybe ethey Atinlay)

[needle]

Lean all the way into (smartly delicious) '90s nostalgia: Stanford FroYos

[needle]

Lean all the way into (smartly delicious) '90s nostalgia: Stanford FroYos

[82lsju]

Or be like 'Bama:

Cardinal Tide (no, way too much like 'Bama copywrite infringement)
Cardinal Wave (oooh - too much Tulane and they like never win except that one time)
Cardinal Direction (no, too boy band)
Cardinal Cardinal (aka the Red Bird, Joseph Heller approves)
Kardinal ('cause we're the only school outside of Deutschland that uses Deutsch on its seal)
Lords of Palo Alto
Werewolfs of West East Palo Alto (really into Los Lobos at the moment) 
Hinges (from the Latin; check it out)
Pearl Clutchers (also from the Latin, or maybe ethey Atinlay)

Cardinal Sin(ners)
Cardinal Rule(s)

[82lsju]

Or be like 'Bama:

Cardinal Tide (no, way too much like 'Bama copywrite infringement)
Cardinal Wave (oooh - too much Tulane and they like never win except that one time)
Cardinal Direction (no, too boy band)
Cardinal Cardinal (aka the Red Bird, Joseph Heller approves)
Kardinal ('cause we're the only school outside of Deutschland that uses Deutsch on its seal)
Lords of Palo Alto
Werewolfs of West East Palo Alto (really into Los Lobos at the moment) 
Hinges (from the Latin; check it out)
Pearl Clutchers (also from the Latin, or maybe ethey Atinlay)

Cardinal Sin(ners)
Cardinal Rule(s)

[BostonCard]

Good post, Goose.

I have less of a concern about the seemingly disproportionate salaries paid to top coaches or athletes.  I agree that it doesn't seem "fair" in terms of the relative importance of the functions, but in current political economy, value is based on people's willingness to pay, and people are very much willing to pay to be entertained, whether it is to watch sports at the highest level or to listen to a pop artist (I believe that Taylor Swift's Eras tour brought in $2 billion (with a "b") dollars).  It's a very fine line between a franchise quarterback at the top of his game and a journeyman back-up and one who never makes it into the league, but earnings are very skewed to the very best.  It's like the scene from Glengarry Glenn Ross, "...first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired".  So, big salaries for coaches (and, soon, players) is a fact or life, just as big salaries for CEO's.

As for poaching in academia, it happens all the time.  Stanford's entire Econ department is pretty much poached from elsewhere: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/upsho...omics.html

(that is different than intellectual property theft, which also happens, and can lead to litigation).  See, for example, this article about a dispute between my current and former employer: Genentech pays $200m over growth hormone ‘theft’ | Nature

I wish collegiate sports were less of a business, but I know I'm tilting at windmills on this one.  It hasn't been good for athletes, who were being asked to do more and more athletically for less (they got paid with a free education, but as athletic demands increased, it's hard to argue that their education didn't suffer).  Since this genie can't be put in the bottle, I'm resigned to hoping that the House v. NCAA settlement will restore some sanity and allow athletes to profit from their genuine NIL (ie, by being sponsored by Nike or mentioning a product to their social media followers) while getting rid of third party pay-to-play.

What I don't want to see is for Stanford to further compromise its academic mission just to have a few more dozen fans attend its football games.  Someone needs to assess the compromises that the University is being asked to make on its values and figure out whether they are worth making.  I think we've gone too far in making athletes at Stanford a separate "class" than regular students, and to me, more than anything else (including whether athletes are paid) that defeats the spirit of collegiate athletics (especially at Stanford).  I don't want to be more like Notre Dame or Duke, and I'm ok with having a losing football team as a consequence.  I respect that I'm on a sports message board, and that may not be a popular view, but based on the responses, I do seem to have some company.

BC

[BostonCard]

Good post, Goose.

I have less of a concern about the seemingly disproportionate salaries paid to top coaches or athletes.  I agree that it doesn't seem "fair" in terms of the relative importance of the functions, but in current political economy, value is based on people's willingness to pay, and people are very much willing to pay to be entertained, whether it is to watch sports at the highest level or to listen to a pop artist (I believe that Taylor Swift's Eras tour brought in $2 billion (with a "b") dollars).  It's a very fine line between a franchise quarterback at the top of his game and a journeyman back-up and one who never makes it into the league, but earnings are very skewed to the very best.  It's like the scene from Glengarry Glenn Ross, "...first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired".  So, big salaries for coaches (and, soon, players) is a fact or life, just as big salaries for CEO's.

As for poaching in academia, it happens all the time.  Stanford's entire Econ department is pretty much poached from elsewhere: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/upsho...omics.html

(that is different than intellectual property theft, which also happens, and can lead to litigation).  See, for example, this article about a dispute between my current and former employer: Genentech pays $200m over growth hormone ‘theft’ | Nature

I wish collegiate sports were less of a business, but I know I'm tilting at windmills on this one.  It hasn't been good for athletes, who were being asked to do more and more athletically for less (they got paid with a free education, but as athletic demands increased, it's hard to argue that their education didn't suffer).  Since this genie can't be put in the bottle, I'm resigned to hoping that the House v. NCAA settlement will restore some sanity and allow athletes to profit from their genuine NIL (ie, by being sponsored by Nike or mentioning a product to their social media followers) while getting rid of third party pay-to-play.

What I don't want to see is for Stanford to further compromise its academic mission just to have a few more dozen fans attend its football games.  Someone needs to assess the compromises that the University is being asked to make on its values and figure out whether they are worth making.  I think we've gone too far in making athletes at Stanford a separate "class" than regular students, and to me, more than anything else (including whether athletes are paid) that defeats the spirit of collegiate athletics (especially at Stanford).  I don't want to be more like Notre Dame or Duke, and I'm ok with having a losing football team as a consequence.  I respect that I'm on a sports message board, and that may not be a popular view, but based on the responses, I do seem to have some company.

BC

[Goose]

Good post, Goose.

I have less of a concern about the seemingly disproportionate salaries paid to top coaches or athletes.  I agree that it doesn't seem "fair" in terms of the relative importance of the functions, but in current political economy, value is based on people's willingness to pay, and people are very much willing to pay to be entertained, whether it is to watch sports at the highest level or to listen to a pop artist (I believe that Taylor Swift's Eras tour brought in $2 billion (with a "b") dollars).  It's a very fine line between a franchise quarterback at the top of his game and a journeyman back-up and one who never makes it into the league, but earnings are very skewed to the very best.  It's like the scene from Glengarry Glenn Ross, "...first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired".  So, big salaries for coaches (and, soon, players) is a fact or life, just as big salaries for CEO's.

Thanks BC,
You are of course correct that it is a fact of life. That of course doesn't mean it is a good idea, or even 'appropriate' :-).

As for poaching in academia, it happens all the time.  Stanford's entire Econ department is pretty much poached from elsewhere: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/upsho...omics.html

Poaching is just another word for making somebody a better offer. Of course it happens all the time in industry as well. I suspect that the vast majority of people on this board have been poached at one time or another. However, exactly how you do it can be an issue. There are lines you can't cross. Quid pro quo isn't allowable. https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/...b13ed49d22 In my previous post I said UCLA. Silly me, if there is skullduggery involved U$C should be first choice.

(that is different than intellectual property theft, which also happens, and can lead to litigation).  See, for example, this article about a dispute between my current and former employer: Genentech pays $200m over growth hormone ‘theft’ | Nature

Indeed, and that is what the OP was hypothetically saying wouldn't ruffle any feathers.

I wish collegiate sports were less of a business, but I know I'm tilting at windmills on this one.  It hasn't been good for athletes, who were being asked to do more and more athletically for less (they got paid with a free education, but as athletic demands increased, it's hard to argue that their education didn't suffer).  Since this genie can't be put in the bottle, I'm resigned to hoping that the House v. NCAA settlement will restore some sanity and allow athletes to profit from their genuine NIL (ie, by being sponsored by Nike or mentioning a product to their social media followers) while getting rid of third party pay-to-play.

What I don't want to see is for Stanford to further compromise its academic mission just to have a few more dozen fans attend its football games.  Someone needs to assess the compromises that the University is being asked to make on its values and figure out whether they are worth making.  I think we've gone too far in making athletes at Stanford a separate "class" than regular students, and to me, more than anything else (including whether athletes are paid) that defeats the spirit of collegiate athletics (especially at Stanford).  I don't want to be more like Notre Dame or Duke, and I'm ok with having a losing football team as a consequence.  I respect that I'm on a sports message board, and that may not be a popular view, but based on the responses, I do seem to have some company.

BC

I am in that camp BC. My concern is that paying athletes for playing a sport ipso facto ensures they are in a different class than regular students. If one can make significant money by attending Stanford to play football, their motivations are inherently different than somebody who is not compensated for being there. Covering the cost of attendance by playing sports did, in the past, put a wedge between the average student and those who played sports. It was however a small wedge, mostly because that scholarship was worthless if you didn't want to be at least a semi-serious student. It wasn't any different than being on an academic scholarship in that regard. Actually paying students "serious" money above and beyond that to attend Stanford for the purpose of playing football IMO inexorably separates those people from everybody else.

[Goose]

Good post, Goose.

I have less of a concern about the seemingly disproportionate salaries paid to top coaches or athletes.  I agree that it doesn't seem "fair" in terms of the relative importance of the functions, but in current political economy, value is based on people's willingness to pay, and people are very much willing to pay to be entertained, whether it is to watch sports at the highest level or to listen to a pop artist (I believe that Taylor Swift's Eras tour brought in $2 billion (with a "b") dollars).  It's a very fine line between a franchise quarterback at the top of his game and a journeyman back-up and one who never makes it into the league, but earnings are very skewed to the very best.  It's like the scene from Glengarry Glenn Ross, "...first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired".  So, big salaries for coaches (and, soon, players) is a fact or life, just as big salaries for CEO's.

Thanks BC,
You are of course correct that it is a fact of life. That of course doesn't mean it is a good idea, or even 'appropriate' :-).

As for poaching in academia, it happens all the time.  Stanford's entire Econ department is pretty much poached from elsewhere: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/upsho...omics.html

Poaching is just another word for making somebody a better offer. Of course it happens all the time in industry as well. I suspect that the vast majority of people on this board have been poached at one time or another. However, exactly how you do it can be an issue. There are lines you can't cross. Quid pro quo isn't allowable. https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/...b13ed49d22 In my previous post I said UCLA. Silly me, if there is skullduggery involved U$C should be first choice.

(that is different than intellectual property theft, which also happens, and can lead to litigation).  See, for example, this article about a dispute between my current and former employer: Genentech pays $200m over growth hormone ‘theft’ | Nature

Indeed, and that is what the OP was hypothetically saying wouldn't ruffle any feathers.

I wish collegiate sports were less of a business, but I know I'm tilting at windmills on this one.  It hasn't been good for athletes, who were being asked to do more and more athletically for less (they got paid with a free education, but as athletic demands increased, it's hard to argue that their education didn't suffer).  Since this genie can't be put in the bottle, I'm resigned to hoping that the House v. NCAA settlement will restore some sanity and allow athletes to profit from their genuine NIL (ie, by being sponsored by Nike or mentioning a product to their social media followers) while getting rid of third party pay-to-play.

What I don't want to see is for Stanford to further compromise its academic mission just to have a few more dozen fans attend its football games.  Someone needs to assess the compromises that the University is being asked to make on its values and figure out whether they are worth making.  I think we've gone too far in making athletes at Stanford a separate "class" than regular students, and to me, more than anything else (including whether athletes are paid) that defeats the spirit of collegiate athletics (especially at Stanford).  I don't want to be more like Notre Dame or Duke, and I'm ok with having a losing football team as a consequence.  I respect that I'm on a sports message board, and that may not be a popular view, but based on the responses, I do seem to have some company.

BC

I am in that camp BC. My concern is that paying athletes for playing a sport ipso facto ensures they are in a different class than regular students. If one can make significant money by attending Stanford to play football, their motivations are inherently different than somebody who is not compensated for being there. Covering the cost of attendance by playing sports did, in the past, put a wedge between the average student and those who played sports. It was however a small wedge, mostly because that scholarship was worthless if you didn't want to be at least a semi-serious student. It wasn't any different than being on an academic scholarship in that regard. Actually paying students "serious" money above and beyond that to attend Stanford for the purpose of playing football IMO inexorably separates those people from everybody else.

[paloalto]

About 30 people post on Cardboard football threads.   This is a very small echo chamber.    The prevailing attitude seems to be. “I’m interested in football so all students should be interested in football”.    Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

There is a website College Confidential about college topics.  It has a very big message board.  I’ve frequently posted on this board for twenty years; particularly on threads involving Stanford.   Many threads are discussions by students about what top colleges they will be applying to.   I’ve never seen a post, “I’m thinking of applying to Stanford but I’m concerned about how many games the football team will win”.

[paloalto]

About 30 people post on Cardboard football threads.   This is a very small echo chamber.    The prevailing attitude seems to be. “I’m interested in football so all students should be interested in football”.    Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

There is a website College Confidential about college topics.  It has a very big message board.  I’ve frequently posted on this board for twenty years; particularly on threads involving Stanford.   Many threads are discussions by students about what top colleges they will be applying to.   I’ve never seen a post, “I’m thinking of applying to Stanford but I’m concerned about how many games the football team will win”.

[Goose]

Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

I think the answer you are looking for is "no" :-). However, IMO we can get a pretty good idea of an upper bound on how many students are "interested in football". Look at student attendance at the games. The lack thereof speaks for itself. I say the attendance is an upper bound because some subset of those students who do attend do so for social reasons, not because they are interested in football. Back "in the day" well over half the students attending fell into that category. No idea what it is today, but whatever it is reduces the actual number of attendees that are there for football reasons.

I guess it is always possible that most Stanford students are rabid football fans but prefer to watch the game on TV. Doing so may make sense in that the TV cameras arguably give you a better view of all the action as well as instant replay.

[Goose]

Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

I think the answer you are looking for is "no" :-). However, IMO we can get a pretty good idea of an upper bound on how many students are "interested in football". Look at student attendance at the games. The lack thereof speaks for itself. I say the attendance is an upper bound because some subset of those students who do attend do so for social reasons, not because they are interested in football. Back "in the day" well over half the students attending fell into that category. No idea what it is today, but whatever it is reduces the actual number of attendees that are there for football reasons.

I guess it is always possible that most Stanford students are rabid football fans but prefer to watch the game on TV. Doing so may make sense in that the TV cameras arguably give you a better view of all the action as well as instant replay.

[82lsju]

Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

I think the answer you are looking for is "no" :-). However, IMO we can get a pretty good idea of an upper bound on how many students are "interested in football". Look at student attendance at the games. The lack thereof speaks for itself. I say the attendance is an upper bound because some subset of those students who do attend do so for social reasons, not because they are interested in football. Back "in the day" well over half the students attending fell into that category. No idea what it is today, but whatever it is reduces the actual number of attendees that are there for football reasons.

I guess it is always possible that most Stanford students are rabid football fans but prefer to watch the game on TV. Doing so may make sense in that the TV cameras arguably give you a better view of all the action as well as instant replay.

and the option to have a beer or to while watching the game.....

[82lsju]

Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

I think the answer you are looking for is "no" :-). However, IMO we can get a pretty good idea of an upper bound on how many students are "interested in football". Look at student attendance at the games. The lack thereof speaks for itself. I say the attendance is an upper bound because some subset of those students who do attend do so for social reasons, not because they are interested in football. Back "in the day" well over half the students attending fell into that category. No idea what it is today, but whatever it is reduces the actual number of attendees that are there for football reasons.

I guess it is always possible that most Stanford students are rabid football fans but prefer to watch the game on TV. Doing so may make sense in that the TV cameras arguably give you a better view of all the action as well as instant replay.

and the option to have a beer or to while watching the game.....

[BostonCard]

About 30 people post on Cardboard football threads.   This is a very small echo chamber.    The prevailing attitude seems to be. “I’m interested in football so all students should be interested in football”.    Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

There is a website College Confidential about college topics.  It has a very big message board.  I’ve frequently posted on this board for twenty years; particularly on threads involving Stanford.   Many threads are discussions by students about what top colleges they will be applying to.   I’ve never seen a post, “I’m thinking of applying to Stanford but I’m concerned about how many games the football team will win”.

I agree with you, though to take the other side a moment, many people have made the point that if Stanford were a better team, attendance would follow.  You can view this in two ways; either there are lots of closet football fans who are so put off by the quality of the product that they don’t show up; by this measure the number of (potential) fans should be measured by what the school does when it is successful.  Or you can look at things by saying that there are a lot of bandwagon fans who will bother to show up in the instances where Stanford is successful, but that true fans, the ones who show up thick or thin are very rare.

The other argument that has been made is that while no one will say “I am considering applying to Stanford due to its football team”, a successful football team with a rabid fanbase contributes to the overall environment, which contributes to the “gestalt” as to how people feel about the school, which does drive how people apply or decide to go to the school.  I think Mick has provided some data to back up the fact that schools see a bump in applicants after successful sports seasons.

I buy into the idea that athletic success when it happens has positive downstream effects on the campus environment, student satisfaction/happiness, and “campus togetherness” for lack of a better term.  My issue is that we should acknowledge the costs associated with these benefits and that the University should decide whether these costs (financial, but also to the University’s values), which are increasing as collegiate sports evolves.  Where I differ from many on this board is that I seriously question whether the marginal benefit is worth the compromises we need to make.  While collegiate sports is a way to improve the campus environment, produce more well-rounded students, etc., it is not the only way.  For example, my employer has an annual “Gives Back” which culminates in a concert with well-known acts (this last year, it was Imagine Dragons; last year, Dua Lipa was the headliner) and of course generates a lot of excitement and is nice for morale, even as it is expensive to put on.  Now, I’m not saying that the University should get Taylor Swift to perform at the Stadium or Coldplay to put on an extra show that is free to students and faculty and staff.  But there are a lot of different activities that can be used to improve the campus environment and make students excited to be at Stanford.  Privileging sports just because a lot of 70-year-olds (hey, as a still sub-50-year-old, I resent that) want to be associated with a school with a better football team reflects a somewhat skewed view resulting from self-selection of people on this board.

BC

[BostonCard]

About 30 people post on Cardboard football threads.   This is a very small echo chamber.    The prevailing attitude seems to be. “I’m interested in football so all students should be interested in football”.    Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

There is a website College Confidential about college topics.  It has a very big message board.  I’ve frequently posted on this board for twenty years; particularly on threads involving Stanford.   Many threads are discussions by students about what top colleges they will be applying to.   I’ve never seen a post, “I’m thinking of applying to Stanford but I’m concerned about how many games the football team will win”.

I agree with you, though to take the other side a moment, many people have made the point that if Stanford were a better team, attendance would follow.  You can view this in two ways; either there are lots of closet football fans who are so put off by the quality of the product that they don’t show up; by this measure the number of (potential) fans should be measured by what the school does when it is successful.  Or you can look at things by saying that there are a lot of bandwagon fans who will bother to show up in the instances where Stanford is successful, but that true fans, the ones who show up thick or thin are very rare.

The other argument that has been made is that while no one will say “I am considering applying to Stanford due to its football team”, a successful football team with a rabid fanbase contributes to the overall environment, which contributes to the “gestalt” as to how people feel about the school, which does drive how people apply or decide to go to the school.  I think Mick has provided some data to back up the fact that schools see a bump in applicants after successful sports seasons.

I buy into the idea that athletic success when it happens has positive downstream effects on the campus environment, student satisfaction/happiness, and “campus togetherness” for lack of a better term.  My issue is that we should acknowledge the costs associated with these benefits and that the University should decide whether these costs (financial, but also to the University’s values), which are increasing as collegiate sports evolves.  Where I differ from many on this board is that I seriously question whether the marginal benefit is worth the compromises we need to make.  While collegiate sports is a way to improve the campus environment, produce more well-rounded students, etc., it is not the only way.  For example, my employer has an annual “Gives Back” which culminates in a concert with well-known acts (this last year, it was Imagine Dragons; last year, Dua Lipa was the headliner) and of course generates a lot of excitement and is nice for morale, even as it is expensive to put on.  Now, I’m not saying that the University should get Taylor Swift to perform at the Stadium or Coldplay to put on an extra show that is free to students and faculty and staff.  But there are a lot of different activities that can be used to improve the campus environment and make students excited to be at Stanford.  Privileging sports just because a lot of 70-year-olds (hey, as a still sub-50-year-old, I resent that) want to be associated with a school with a better football team reflects a somewhat skewed view resulting from self-selection of people on this board.

BC