[lex24]

There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or  get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.

I fully agree that Stanford isn't going to sell enough "40 year decisions" to field a competitive football team in 2025. It seems probable that that will be true in the near future as well. In the past, it was only intermittently true that Stanford could field a "good" team. Going forward it will be even more challenging.

I am however not of the opinion that Stanford has only the three choices listed above. Clearly Stanford could continue to play football but at a "lower level" conference, at least today. I am not advocating it, but it is a possibility. It is unclear to me that Stanford has to "join in full the New World order" for several reasons. The most important reason is that it is unclear exactly what that "New Order" is. It certainly seems probable NIL is going to be part of the new order going forward. The House settlement may or may not, whatever it turns out to be. There are going to be many lawsuits and legal challenges to whatever is true at any given moment. So what exactly are we joining?  Even if we could agree on what that was it seems that it will change continuously for at least the next few years. Do we embrace all the changes? It is going to be difficult to track.

While I don't at all like the professionalization of college sports, I can not categorically say exactly where my "red line" is. I can say that athletes not being students is something I don't think Stanford or college football can accept.  At that point the football program no longer belongs as part of an academic institution.  Short of that, I think there is room for maneuver. There may be parts of the "new order" that are fine, other parts that I think are inappropriate. It is IMO possible to pick and chose, at least in some cases. That may make it more difficult to have a good football team at Stanford than at e.g. Notre Dame. However, that was true 10 years ago and we were fine with it. The question is where is that balance today. It may be possible to not be "all in".

You make  my point:  Major College football and basketball has nothing to do with “student-athletes “.  That shipped sailed and is not coming back to the port.  These are multi billion dollar industries. They don’t care if the players can spell cat if you spot them the c and the a.  He’s  likely to be gone in a year or 2 anyway.  They just want to squeeze what they can out of them on the field/court.  And the athletes will find their best deal.  And then their next best deal. 

When Calipari left Kentucky for Arkansas, the Wildcat players were offered twice what they were being paid at UK to transfer to Arkansas.  UK ended up with had zero returning players.  They then went out and bought a fine team. 

I fully get that Stanford may not want to engage. But that’s the current state of things.

[lex24]

There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or  get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.

I fully agree that Stanford isn't going to sell enough "40 year decisions" to field a competitive football team in 2025. It seems probable that that will be true in the near future as well. In the past, it was only intermittently true that Stanford could field a "good" team. Going forward it will be even more challenging.

I am however not of the opinion that Stanford has only the three choices listed above. Clearly Stanford could continue to play football but at a "lower level" conference, at least today. I am not advocating it, but it is a possibility. It is unclear to me that Stanford has to "join in full the New World order" for several reasons. The most important reason is that it is unclear exactly what that "New Order" is. It certainly seems probable NIL is going to be part of the new order going forward. The House settlement may or may not, whatever it turns out to be. There are going to be many lawsuits and legal challenges to whatever is true at any given moment. So what exactly are we joining?  Even if we could agree on what that was it seems that it will change continuously for at least the next few years. Do we embrace all the changes? It is going to be difficult to track.

While I don't at all like the professionalization of college sports, I can not categorically say exactly where my "red line" is. I can say that athletes not being students is something I don't think Stanford or college football can accept.  At that point the football program no longer belongs as part of an academic institution.  Short of that, I think there is room for maneuver. There may be parts of the "new order" that are fine, other parts that I think are inappropriate. It is IMO possible to pick and chose, at least in some cases. That may make it more difficult to have a good football team at Stanford than at e.g. Notre Dame. However, that was true 10 years ago and we were fine with it. The question is where is that balance today. It may be possible to not be "all in".

You make  my point:  Major College football and basketball has nothing to do with “student-athletes “.  That shipped sailed and is not coming back to the port.  These are multi billion dollar industries. They don’t care if the players can spell cat if you spot them the c and the a.  He’s  likely to be gone in a year or 2 anyway.  They just want to squeeze what they can out of them on the field/court.  And the athletes will find their best deal.  And then their next best deal. 

When Calipari left Kentucky for Arkansas, the Wildcat players were offered twice what they were being paid at UK to transfer to Arkansas.  UK ended up with had zero returning players.  They then went out and bought a fine team. 

I fully get that Stanford may not want to engage. But that’s the current state of things.

[gailtate]

Accept "lower level" football? Why not go full-hog and Six-Man? Break out the permanent tarps. Or just move over to Cobb Track and Angell Field. I'd be interested to know how many Stanfordites would actually prefer this.

[gailtate]

Accept "lower level" football? Why not go full-hog and Six-Man? Break out the permanent tarps. Or just move over to Cobb Track and Angell Field. I'd be interested to know how many Stanfordites would actually prefer this.

[82lsju]

Accept "lower level" football? Why not go full-hog and Six-Man? Break out the permanent tarps. Or just move over to Cobb Track and Angell Field. I'd be interested to know how many Stanfordites would actually prefer this.

if it happened, how many Stanfordites would even notice....

[82lsju]

Accept "lower level" football? Why not go full-hog and Six-Man? Break out the permanent tarps. Or just move over to Cobb Track and Angell Field. I'd be interested to know how many Stanfordites would actually prefer this.

if it happened, how many Stanfordites would even notice....

[JohnR34231]

Accept "lower level" football? Why not go full-hog and Six-Man? Break out the permanent tarps. Or just move over to Cobb Track and Angell Field. I'd be interested to know how many Stanfordites would actually prefer this.

if it happened, how many Stanfordites would even notice....

A few more 3-9 years and I wouldn't.

[JohnR34231]

Accept "lower level" football? Why not go full-hog and Six-Man? Break out the permanent tarps. Or just move over to Cobb Track and Angell Field. I'd be interested to know how many Stanfordites would actually prefer this.

if it happened, how many Stanfordites would even notice....

A few more 3-9 years and I wouldn't.

[Mick]

There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or  get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.

I fully agree that Stanford isn't going to sell enough "40 year decisions" to field a competitive football team in 2025. It seems probable that that will be true in the near future as well. In the past, it was only intermittently true that Stanford could field a "good" team. Going forward it will be even more challenging.

I am however not of the opinion that Stanford has only the three choices listed above. Clearly Stanford could continue to play football but at a "lower level" conference, at least today. I am not advocating it, but it is a possibility. It is unclear to me that Stanford has to "join in full the New World order" for several reasons. The most important reason is that it is unclear exactly what that "New Order" is. It certainly seems probable NIL is going to be part of the new order going forward. The House settlement may or may not, whatever it turns out to be. There are going to be many lawsuits and legal challenges to whatever is true at any given moment. So what exactly are we joining?  Even if we could agree on what that was it seems that it will change continuously for at least the next few years. Do we embrace all the changes? It is going to be difficult to track.

While I don't at all like the professionalization of college sports, I can not categorically say exactly where my "red line" is. I can say that athletes not being students is something I don't think Stanford or college football can accept.  At that point the football program no longer belongs as part of an academic institution.  Short of that, I think there is room for maneuver. There may be parts of the "new order" that are fine, other parts that I think are inappropriate. It is IMO possible to pick and chose, at least in some cases. That may make it more difficult to have a good football team at Stanford than at e.g. Notre Dame. However, that was true 10 years ago and we were fine with it. The question is where is that balance today. It may be possible to not be "all in".

Jalen Wiggins out of Florida, 4.3 GPA, 12 Power 5 scholarship offers, 6'5" 250 DE/TE. Also plays baseball and basketball. He was flagged nearly two years ago by SamuelMcF (see below). He appears to be the kind of player who would respond well to the 40 year decision strategy. I realize that we have to capture an absurdly high number of those individuals, but Harbaugh/Shaw were able to do so. I would hope the next coach could do so as well.

https://youtube.com/shorts/-sReq6gWTD8?s...pyY23aOSJ2

2025

5/4/23 CB Blake Woodby (MD)
5/8/23 OL Michael Fasusi (TX)
5/8/23 ILB Kelvion Riggins (TX)
5/8/23 ILB Jayden Shelton (TX)
5/15/23 OL Rowan Byrne (NY)
5/15/23 OL Will Black (CT)
5/15/23 WR Quincy Porter (NJ)
5/15/23 CB Jahmir Joseph (NJ)
5/15/23 DB Marquet Dorsey (NJ)
5/17/23 OLB Bryce Davis (NC)
5/17/23 RB Santae McWilliams (AL)
5/20/23 DL Jalen Wiggins (FL)
5/20/23 OL Austin Pay (UT)
5/22/23 OL Douglas Utu (NV)
5/22/23 OL SJ Alofaituli (NV)
5/22/23 OL Alai Kalaniuvalu (NV)
5/23/23 RB Harlem Berry (LA)
5/24/23 OLB Marco Jones (CA)


2026

5/5/23 S Blaine Bradford (LA)
5/12/23 WR Madden Williams (CA)
5/16/23 ILB Samu Moala (CA)
5/24/23 OL Mitchell Smith (MS)
5/25/23 OL George Haseotes (FL)
5/26/23 OL Samuelu Utu (CA)
5/27/23 RB DeZephen Walker (MO)

[Mick]

There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or  get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.

I fully agree that Stanford isn't going to sell enough "40 year decisions" to field a competitive football team in 2025. It seems probable that that will be true in the near future as well. In the past, it was only intermittently true that Stanford could field a "good" team. Going forward it will be even more challenging.

I am however not of the opinion that Stanford has only the three choices listed above. Clearly Stanford could continue to play football but at a "lower level" conference, at least today. I am not advocating it, but it is a possibility. It is unclear to me that Stanford has to "join in full the New World order" for several reasons. The most important reason is that it is unclear exactly what that "New Order" is. It certainly seems probable NIL is going to be part of the new order going forward. The House settlement may or may not, whatever it turns out to be. There are going to be many lawsuits and legal challenges to whatever is true at any given moment. So what exactly are we joining?  Even if we could agree on what that was it seems that it will change continuously for at least the next few years. Do we embrace all the changes? It is going to be difficult to track.

While I don't at all like the professionalization of college sports, I can not categorically say exactly where my "red line" is. I can say that athletes not being students is something I don't think Stanford or college football can accept.  At that point the football program no longer belongs as part of an academic institution.  Short of that, I think there is room for maneuver. There may be parts of the "new order" that are fine, other parts that I think are inappropriate. It is IMO possible to pick and chose, at least in some cases. That may make it more difficult to have a good football team at Stanford than at e.g. Notre Dame. However, that was true 10 years ago and we were fine with it. The question is where is that balance today. It may be possible to not be "all in".

Jalen Wiggins out of Florida, 4.3 GPA, 12 Power 5 scholarship offers, 6'5" 250 DE/TE. Also plays baseball and basketball. He was flagged nearly two years ago by SamuelMcF (see below). He appears to be the kind of player who would respond well to the 40 year decision strategy. I realize that we have to capture an absurdly high number of those individuals, but Harbaugh/Shaw were able to do so. I would hope the next coach could do so as well.

https://youtube.com/shorts/-sReq6gWTD8?s...pyY23aOSJ2

2025

5/4/23 CB Blake Woodby (MD)
5/8/23 OL Michael Fasusi (TX)
5/8/23 ILB Kelvion Riggins (TX)
5/8/23 ILB Jayden Shelton (TX)
5/15/23 OL Rowan Byrne (NY)
5/15/23 OL Will Black (CT)
5/15/23 WR Quincy Porter (NJ)
5/15/23 CB Jahmir Joseph (NJ)
5/15/23 DB Marquet Dorsey (NJ)
5/17/23 OLB Bryce Davis (NC)
5/17/23 RB Santae McWilliams (AL)
5/20/23 DL Jalen Wiggins (FL)
5/20/23 OL Austin Pay (UT)
5/22/23 OL Douglas Utu (NV)
5/22/23 OL SJ Alofaituli (NV)
5/22/23 OL Alai Kalaniuvalu (NV)
5/23/23 RB Harlem Berry (LA)
5/24/23 OLB Marco Jones (CA)


2026

5/5/23 S Blaine Bradford (LA)
5/12/23 WR Madden Williams (CA)
5/16/23 ILB Samu Moala (CA)
5/24/23 OL Mitchell Smith (MS)
5/25/23 OL George Haseotes (FL)
5/26/23 OL Samuelu Utu (CA)
5/27/23 RB DeZephen Walker (MO)

[StanUSwagU]

That was my starting point example, and not my end argument. Oklahoma State can point to Jerry Jones. My point was that Stanford is likely to produce more successful people in the long run at a higher average rate of success for a longer period of time. I could point to Blaine Nye, played for the Cowboys, got a master's in Finance, created the very successful Stanford Consulting Group.

The broader point is, I don't even know former Stanford football players and their success levels. I know a few; e.g., HM All Pac-10 LB Kurt Colehower, very successful post-Stanford with Arrow Electronics, now Greenwood Advisors. But I don't know the vast majority, and I'm sure it's a compelling story. And yes, I know they're not all David Packard.

And they don't need to intend to achieve success outside of football, but it would sure help if we put the possibility in front of them and show them the downside of the football factories. The downside is pretty far down, in a way that Stanford grads don't experience.

1743271837[/url]']
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find.  There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and  simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.

There are degrees of success. I know successful people who went to my alma mater (SCU) and successful people who went to Stanford. The odds are much, much higher that you'll succeed from Stanford. Period. That doesn't take a vast mental leap, but it may take some additional explanation for a high school student. If I'm a student, I want to go to the place that guarantees me the best possible odds of the best possible future success. If a player is smart enough to consider Stanford, then Stanford should close on the vast majority of those student-athletes.

1743271837[/url]']
IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore, spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.

Stanford doesn't have that many recruits in their recruiting pool, and it's worse in these NIL/portal days. I think if someone is on the fence, they're worth the full-court press. I think we need to ask early and often, I think that contributed to Harbaugh's recruiting success. I just don't think recruits are sufficiently aware of the downside if they go to TinkertoyTech.

I don’t mean to be a jerk. But I find this to be somewhat of a “quaint” discussion. We are (this is somewhat of an assumption a bunch of older folks who are generally at the back end of their careers or retired and have for the most part had pretty good success. We grew up in a very different world.  

These are 18 to 22 year-old kids. They’re being offered a lot of money to go play.   Go listen to Tom Izzo on the issue.  Among the great lines he has is “and by the way, there’s not a whole lot of recruiting within the portal. There’s offers.” 

The world of revenue college sports has not just changed a bit.  It’s a completely new world. Look at the NCAA tournament.  Who’s in the elite eight –Four 1 seeds. Three 2 seeds and a 3 seed.  Mid Majors? Forget it. Why would a kid want to  play for Creighton for $150,000 when he can transfer to Kentucky and make $1 million.

And if I’m a stud athlete 18 years old and can put a couple million bucks in my bank account while playing a college sport – that’s going to  go a long ways.  Especially if I’m from an economically disadvantaged household.  There are a lot of good schools out there. And I’m going to go play professional football anyway and really make a ton of money. I’ll go get my degree later. If I get hurt, I have a couple million bucks to fall back on and can get my degree now. Plus, they’ll be plenty of alumni around to help me get a good job.
 
There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or  get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.

*************************
Hi,

Great discussion: Sorry to repeat myself.

(1) It seems like this discussion has (and always) revolved around 'an EITHER OR" paradigm, like:

(A) Either Stanford becomes a 'Full Football/Mans Basketball Factory like Georgia or Alabama or Auburn' or 'We act like Dartmouth or Cornell & be terrible at Power4 Football & Mens Basketball.

(B) Stanford will 'Sell Stanford to Smart 4 star HighSchoolers or Transfers' either for the '40year decision' or 'Turn into an NIL Factory like Georgia or Alabama.


(2) Why not modify/modernize a 'small bit from where we are' to follow the model of 2 HighAcademic smaller Private schools that are similar to Ourselves

•NotreDame University in Football (who is perennially a Top20 Team & went the National Championship in Football) &
•DukeUniversity in Mens Basketball (who is perennially in the Elite8 in Mens Basketball all)
?

(3) Guys, NotreDame University & Duke University, ...have shown it CAN BE BOTH; it doesn't have to be 'EITHER OR' !

NotreDame in Football & Duke in Mens Basketball, sell Recruits & Transfers, ON BOTH & ALL

[A] You will get to be in a Top20 Program
[B] You will get Top 20 NIL Money
[C] You will get the 40year decision


If we were to just modify/modernize 'a little bit' from where we are on the following:

-Widen/Modify our Admissions criteria, to attract a more academcally & sports diverse 'NotreDame/Duke' type student body
-Leverage all of Stanfords great Corporate/Tech Contacts to get our NIL collective for Football & Mens Basketball to be Top20 in Value
-Transfer Portal (always be ready with Fast Admissions Review & Top offers to student-athletes from the other 20 great Power4 Academic-Athletic Universities)
-Paying Top Dollar for CoachingStaffs
-Marketing of Football & Mens Basketball to the larger BayArea Football & Mens Basketball Fans

....then we would be attractive to 'Smart 4star HighSchool prospects & Transfers'


(4) So, The Important Questions Are :

(1) Would it kill the Universe, if Stanford University Aligned itself with the model of NotreDame University & Duke University? ...maybe trial this out for 10years ? and if we dont like it, we can revert back

(2) Why the intractable, irrational, constant, resistance to doing this ?

(3) Most of the real-world thinks of Duke University & NotreDame as 'Top Elite Academic Institutions' (only at Stanford do some people seem to tbink Duke & NotreDame are too low for us to emulate) ..and kids going their are 'VERY SUCCESSFUL' after college.

(4) Someone above stated that the Factories dont care about Academics or whether someone can spell 'cat'; Do Duke & NotreDame 'not care about academics or if someone can spell 'cat' ?

Just wondering...

[StanUSwagU]

That was my starting point example, and not my end argument. Oklahoma State can point to Jerry Jones. My point was that Stanford is likely to produce more successful people in the long run at a higher average rate of success for a longer period of time. I could point to Blaine Nye, played for the Cowboys, got a master's in Finance, created the very successful Stanford Consulting Group.

The broader point is, I don't even know former Stanford football players and their success levels. I know a few; e.g., HM All Pac-10 LB Kurt Colehower, very successful post-Stanford with Arrow Electronics, now Greenwood Advisors. But I don't know the vast majority, and I'm sure it's a compelling story. And yes, I know they're not all David Packard.

And they don't need to intend to achieve success outside of football, but it would sure help if we put the possibility in front of them and show them the downside of the football factories. The downside is pretty far down, in a way that Stanford grads don't experience.

1743271837[/url]']
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find.  There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and  simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.

There are degrees of success. I know successful people who went to my alma mater (SCU) and successful people who went to Stanford. The odds are much, much higher that you'll succeed from Stanford. Period. That doesn't take a vast mental leap, but it may take some additional explanation for a high school student. If I'm a student, I want to go to the place that guarantees me the best possible odds of the best possible future success. If a player is smart enough to consider Stanford, then Stanford should close on the vast majority of those student-athletes.

1743271837[/url]']
IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore, spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.

Stanford doesn't have that many recruits in their recruiting pool, and it's worse in these NIL/portal days. I think if someone is on the fence, they're worth the full-court press. I think we need to ask early and often, I think that contributed to Harbaugh's recruiting success. I just don't think recruits are sufficiently aware of the downside if they go to TinkertoyTech.

I don’t mean to be a jerk. But I find this to be somewhat of a “quaint” discussion. We are (this is somewhat of an assumption a bunch of older folks who are generally at the back end of their careers or retired and have for the most part had pretty good success. We grew up in a very different world.  

These are 18 to 22 year-old kids. They’re being offered a lot of money to go play.   Go listen to Tom Izzo on the issue.  Among the great lines he has is “and by the way, there’s not a whole lot of recruiting within the portal. There’s offers.” 

The world of revenue college sports has not just changed a bit.  It’s a completely new world. Look at the NCAA tournament.  Who’s in the elite eight –Four 1 seeds. Three 2 seeds and a 3 seed.  Mid Majors? Forget it. Why would a kid want to  play for Creighton for $150,000 when he can transfer to Kentucky and make $1 million.

And if I’m a stud athlete 18 years old and can put a couple million bucks in my bank account while playing a college sport – that’s going to  go a long ways.  Especially if I’m from an economically disadvantaged household.  There are a lot of good schools out there. And I’m going to go play professional football anyway and really make a ton of money. I’ll go get my degree later. If I get hurt, I have a couple million bucks to fall back on and can get my degree now. Plus, they’ll be plenty of alumni around to help me get a good job.
 
There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or  get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.

*************************
Hi,

Great discussion: Sorry to repeat myself.

(1) It seems like this discussion has (and always) revolved around 'an EITHER OR" paradigm, like:

(A) Either Stanford becomes a 'Full Football/Mans Basketball Factory like Georgia or Alabama or Auburn' or 'We act like Dartmouth or Cornell & be terrible at Power4 Football & Mens Basketball.

(B) Stanford will 'Sell Stanford to Smart 4 star HighSchoolers or Transfers' either for the '40year decision' or 'Turn into an NIL Factory like Georgia or Alabama.


(2) Why not modify/modernize a 'small bit from where we are' to follow the model of 2 HighAcademic smaller Private schools that are similar to Ourselves

•NotreDame University in Football (who is perennially a Top20 Team & went the National Championship in Football) &
•DukeUniversity in Mens Basketball (who is perennially in the Elite8 in Mens Basketball all)
?

(3) Guys, NotreDame University & Duke University, ...have shown it CAN BE BOTH; it doesn't have to be 'EITHER OR' !

NotreDame in Football & Duke in Mens Basketball, sell Recruits & Transfers, ON BOTH & ALL

[A] You will get to be in a Top20 Program
[B] You will get Top 20 NIL Money
[C] You will get the 40year decision


If we were to just modify/modernize 'a little bit' from where we are on the following:

-Widen/Modify our Admissions criteria, to attract a more academcally & sports diverse 'NotreDame/Duke' type student body
-Leverage all of Stanfords great Corporate/Tech Contacts to get our NIL collective for Football & Mens Basketball to be Top20 in Value
-Transfer Portal (always be ready with Fast Admissions Review & Top offers to student-athletes from the other 20 great Power4 Academic-Athletic Universities)
-Paying Top Dollar for CoachingStaffs
-Marketing of Football & Mens Basketball to the larger BayArea Football & Mens Basketball Fans

....then we would be attractive to 'Smart 4star HighSchool prospects & Transfers'


(4) So, The Important Questions Are :

(1) Would it kill the Universe, if Stanford University Aligned itself with the model of NotreDame University & Duke University? ...maybe trial this out for 10years ? and if we dont like it, we can revert back

(2) Why the intractable, irrational, constant, resistance to doing this ?

(3) Most of the real-world thinks of Duke University & NotreDame as 'Top Elite Academic Institutions' (only at Stanford do some people seem to tbink Duke & NotreDame are too low for us to emulate) ..and kids going their are 'VERY SUCCESSFUL' after college.

(4) Someone above stated that the Factories dont care about Academics or whether someone can spell 'cat'; Do Duke & NotreDame 'not care about academics or if someone can spell 'cat' ?

Just wondering...

[Mick]

I'm not saying it needs to be either/or. Literally all I'm suggesting is that perhaps we could improve the impact of the 40 year argument by refining it. That's all.

[Mick]

I'm not saying it needs to be either/or. Literally all I'm suggesting is that perhaps we could improve the impact of the 40 year argument by refining it. That's all.

[StanUSwagU]

I'm not saying it needs to be either/or. Literally all I'm suggesting is that perhaps we could improve the impact of the 40 year argument by refining it. That's all.

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

Hi Mick,

1. Hope all is well.

2. I have read your posts before, well enough to know you weren't 'suggesting an either or paradigm'; :o)

3. I too agree, our Stanford Administration & Athletics Department , needs to drastically 'polish up' its 'sales pitches' to 'Smart 4star athletes':

--Sales pitches & concrete data on the '40year decision front' !
--As well as Sales pitches & concrete competitive offers on the NIL front
--Backed-up by Examples & Actions (not talk) Selling & 'letting these 'Smart 4star athletes' know we will not be outdone by NotreDame or Duke on ANY FRONT (eg Coaching, Facilities, Marketing, NIL) and we may just exceed what NotreDame & Duke & Cal, & UCLA will offer you' in terms of our Commitment to Football & Mens Basketball !

[StanUSwagU]

I'm not saying it needs to be either/or. Literally all I'm suggesting is that perhaps we could improve the impact of the 40 year argument by refining it. That's all.

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

Hi Mick,

1. Hope all is well.

2. I have read your posts before, well enough to know you weren't 'suggesting an either or paradigm'; :o)

3. I too agree, our Stanford Administration & Athletics Department , needs to drastically 'polish up' its 'sales pitches' to 'Smart 4star athletes':

--Sales pitches & concrete data on the '40year decision front' !
--As well as Sales pitches & concrete competitive offers on the NIL front
--Backed-up by Examples & Actions (not talk) Selling & 'letting these 'Smart 4star athletes' know we will not be outdone by NotreDame or Duke on ANY FRONT (eg Coaching, Facilities, Marketing, NIL) and we may just exceed what NotreDame & Duke & Cal, & UCLA will offer you' in terms of our Commitment to Football & Mens Basketball !

[gailtate]

There are a lot of really great schools out there today. I have to wonder how compelling the 40-year narrative really is.

[gailtate]

There are a lot of really great schools out there today. I have to wonder how compelling the 40-year narrative really is.

[JohnR34231]

There are a lot of really great schools out there today. I have to wonder how compelling the 40-year narrative really is.

Not very, apparently.

[JohnR34231]

There are a lot of really great schools out there today. I have to wonder how compelling the 40-year narrative really is.

Not very, apparently.

[Hieronymus]

1743274347[/url]']

1743271837[/url]']

1743265769[/url]']
Right, that was my entire point. It is a difficult sell, but not an impossible one. If I sit down with a teenaged football player and tell him he'd have a better life if he went to Stanford irrespective of the football outcome, and spend five minutes on the discussion with a few statistics and some bland points, it won't move the needle. But if I spend 1/2 hour on all the great outcomes that a Stanford education has over his adult lifetime compared with the likely results at football factories, it would at least give him pause. If you go to a football factory, you can play in the NFL. Same with Stanford, 22nd most NFL players among D1 schools.

But the odds of achieving anything outside of the NFL are much slimmer at a football factory, if you're the kind of player who can manage the academic workload at Stanford. My guess is that if you listed 50 Stanford football alumni, starting with Mr. Packard, you would have some extraordinary achievers that other schools can't match. Any school can list five, even ten. But fifty? Or a hundred? The other part of it is the downside, most schools don't talk about that...here's the unsuccessful alumni. I doubt Stanford has many really unsuccessful football alumni. That should be part of the discussion.

The problem is that the "average" Stanford football player isn't Mr. Packard, ENG 1939, knows it, and most importantly doesn't want to be. Those "heroes" (https://engineering.stanford.edu/about/h...id-packard) are irrelevant to him because he isn't that academically oriented. The extraordinary achievers just don't matter at all because the player isn't intending to be one of them. Talking about them may be interesting but is quite unlikely to be persuasive.
 
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find.  There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and  simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.

IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.

The average “payroll” for the NCAA top bball tourney teams is between $10 and $15 million a year.  I don’t know what it is for football.  Obviously higher given the numbers.  If you are 18 and a top recruit all the “40 year decision “ stuff goes out the window when you can make upwards of $1 million a year to play college football.  

NIL and the Portal have changed everything.  Ask anyone that coaches a revenue sport at a D-1 school.  It’s a new world.  Run by 18-22 year olds.

Top NIL numbers for football.

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/co...0/#2564353

Take this as mostly correct. I have also seen for example OSU as #1 with a bit over $21 million.

[Hieronymus]

1743274347[/url]']

1743271837[/url]']

1743265769[/url]']
Right, that was my entire point. It is a difficult sell, but not an impossible one. If I sit down with a teenaged football player and tell him he'd have a better life if he went to Stanford irrespective of the football outcome, and spend five minutes on the discussion with a few statistics and some bland points, it won't move the needle. But if I spend 1/2 hour on all the great outcomes that a Stanford education has over his adult lifetime compared with the likely results at football factories, it would at least give him pause. If you go to a football factory, you can play in the NFL. Same with Stanford, 22nd most NFL players among D1 schools.

But the odds of achieving anything outside of the NFL are much slimmer at a football factory, if you're the kind of player who can manage the academic workload at Stanford. My guess is that if you listed 50 Stanford football alumni, starting with Mr. Packard, you would have some extraordinary achievers that other schools can't match. Any school can list five, even ten. But fifty? Or a hundred? The other part of it is the downside, most schools don't talk about that...here's the unsuccessful alumni. I doubt Stanford has many really unsuccessful football alumni. That should be part of the discussion.

The problem is that the "average" Stanford football player isn't Mr. Packard, ENG 1939, knows it, and most importantly doesn't want to be. Those "heroes" (https://engineering.stanford.edu/about/h...id-packard) are irrelevant to him because he isn't that academically oriented. The extraordinary achievers just don't matter at all because the player isn't intending to be one of them. Talking about them may be interesting but is quite unlikely to be persuasive.
 
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find.  There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and  simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.

IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.

The average “payroll” for the NCAA top bball tourney teams is between $10 and $15 million a year.  I don’t know what it is for football.  Obviously higher given the numbers.  If you are 18 and a top recruit all the “40 year decision “ stuff goes out the window when you can make upwards of $1 million a year to play college football.  

NIL and the Portal have changed everything.  Ask anyone that coaches a revenue sport at a D-1 school.  It’s a new world.  Run by 18-22 year olds.

Top NIL numbers for football.

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/co...0/#2564353

Take this as mostly correct. I have also seen for example OSU as #1 with a bit over $21 million.

[lex24]

1743368772[/url]']

1743274347[/url]']

1743271837[/url]']

1743265769[/url]']
Right, that was my entire point. It is a difficult sell, but not an impossible one. If I sit down with a teenaged football player and tell him he'd have a better life if he went to Stanford irrespective of the football outcome, and spend five minutes on the discussion with a few statistics and some bland points, it won't move the needle. But if I spend 1/2 hour on all the great outcomes that a Stanford education has over his adult lifetime compared with the likely results at football factories, it would at least give him pause. If you go to a football factory, you can play in the NFL. Same with Stanford, 22nd most NFL players among D1 schools.

But the odds of achieving anything outside of the NFL are much slimmer at a football factory, if you're the kind of player who can manage the academic workload at Stanford. My guess is that if you listed 50 Stanford football alumni, starting with Mr. Packard, you would have some extraordinary achievers that other schools can't match. Any school can list five, even ten. But fifty? Or a hundred? The other part of it is the downside, most schools don't talk about that...here's the unsuccessful alumni. I doubt Stanford has many really unsuccessful football alumni. That should be part of the discussion.

The problem is that the "average" Stanford football player isn't Mr. Packard, ENG 1939, knows it, and most importantly doesn't want to be. Those "heroes" (https://engineering.stanford.edu/about/h...id-packard) are irrelevant to him because he isn't that academically oriented. The extraordinary achievers just don't matter at all because the player isn't intending to be one of them. Talking about them may be interesting but is quite unlikely to be persuasive.
 
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find.  There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and  simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.

IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.

The average “payroll” for the NCAA top bball tourney teams is between $10 and $15 million a year.  I don’t know what it is for football.  Obviously higher given the numbers.  If you are 18 and a top recruit all the “40 year decision “ stuff goes out the window when you can make upwards of $1 million a year to play college football.  

NIL and the Portal have changed everything.  Ask anyone that coaches a revenue sport at a D-1 school.  It’s a new world.  Run by 18-22 year olds.

Tip Nil numbers for football.

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/co...0/#2564353

Take this as mostly correct. I have also seen for example OSU as #1 with a bit over $21 million.

These numbers will increase.

[lex24]

1743368772[/url]']

1743274347[/url]']

1743271837[/url]']

1743265769[/url]']
Right, that was my entire point. It is a difficult sell, but not an impossible one. If I sit down with a teenaged football player and tell him he'd have a better life if he went to Stanford irrespective of the football outcome, and spend five minutes on the discussion with a few statistics and some bland points, it won't move the needle. But if I spend 1/2 hour on all the great outcomes that a Stanford education has over his adult lifetime compared with the likely results at football factories, it would at least give him pause. If you go to a football factory, you can play in the NFL. Same with Stanford, 22nd most NFL players among D1 schools.

But the odds of achieving anything outside of the NFL are much slimmer at a football factory, if you're the kind of player who can manage the academic workload at Stanford. My guess is that if you listed 50 Stanford football alumni, starting with Mr. Packard, you would have some extraordinary achievers that other schools can't match. Any school can list five, even ten. But fifty? Or a hundred? The other part of it is the downside, most schools don't talk about that...here's the unsuccessful alumni. I doubt Stanford has many really unsuccessful football alumni. That should be part of the discussion.

The problem is that the "average" Stanford football player isn't Mr. Packard, ENG 1939, knows it, and most importantly doesn't want to be. Those "heroes" (https://engineering.stanford.edu/about/h...id-packard) are irrelevant to him because he isn't that academically oriented. The extraordinary achievers just don't matter at all because the player isn't intending to be one of them. Talking about them may be interesting but is quite unlikely to be persuasive.
 
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find.  There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and  simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.

IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.

The average “payroll” for the NCAA top bball tourney teams is between $10 and $15 million a year.  I don’t know what it is for football.  Obviously higher given the numbers.  If you are 18 and a top recruit all the “40 year decision “ stuff goes out the window when you can make upwards of $1 million a year to play college football.  

NIL and the Portal have changed everything.  Ask anyone that coaches a revenue sport at a D-1 school.  It’s a new world.  Run by 18-22 year olds.

Tip Nil numbers for football.

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/co...0/#2564353

Take this as mostly correct. I have also seen for example OSU as #1 with a bit over $21 million.

These numbers will increase.

[lex24]

1743360627[/url]']

That was my starting point example, and not my end argument. Oklahoma State can point to Jerry Jones. My point was that Stanford is likely to produce more successful people in the long run at a higher average rate of success for a longer period of time. I could point to Blaine Nye, played for the Cowboys, got a master's in Finance, created the very successful Stanford Consulting Group.

The broader point is, I don't even know former Stanford football players and their success levels. I know a few; e.g., HM All Pac-10 LB Kurt Colehower, very successful post-Stanford with Arrow Electronics, now Greenwood Advisors. But I don't know the vast majority, and I'm sure it's a compelling story. And yes, I know they're not all David Packard.

And they don't need to intend to achieve success outside of football, but it would sure help if we put the possibility in front of them and show them the downside of the football factories. The downside is pretty far down, in a way that Stanford grads don't experience.

1743271837[/url]']
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find.  There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and  simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.

There are degrees of success. I know successful people who went to my alma mater (SCU) and successful people who went to Stanford. The odds are much, much higher that you'll succeed from Stanford. Period. That doesn't take a vast mental leap, but it may take some additional explanation for a high school student. If I'm a student, I want to go to the place that guarantees me the best possible odds of the best possible future success. If a player is smart enough to consider Stanford, then Stanford should close on the vast majority of those student-athletes.

1743271837[/url]']
IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore, spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.

Stanford doesn't have that many recruits in their recruiting pool, and it's worse in these NIL/portal days. I think if someone is on the fence, they're worth the full-court press. I think we need to ask early and often, I think that contributed to Harbaugh's recruiting success. I just don't think recruits are sufficiently aware of the downside if they go to TinkertoyTech.

I don’t mean to be a jerk. But I find this to be somewhat of a “quaint” discussion. We are (this is somewhat of an assumption a bunch of older folks who are generally at the back end of their careers or retired and have for the most part had pretty good success. We grew up in a very different world.  

These are 18 to 22 year-old kids. They’re being offered a lot of money to go play.   Go listen to Tom Izzo on the issue.  Among the great lines he has is “and by the way, there’s not a whole lot of recruiting within the portal. There’s offers.” 

The world of revenue college sports has not just changed a bit.  It’s a completely new world. Look at the NCAA tournament.  Who’s in the elite eight –Four 1 seeds. Three 2 seeds and a 3 seed.  Mid Majors? Forget it. Why would a kid want to  play for Creighton for $150,000 when he can transfer to Kentucky and make $1 million.

And if I’m a stud athlete 18 years old and can put a couple million bucks in my bank account while playing a college sport – that’s going to  go a long ways.  Especially if I’m from an economically disadvantaged household.  There are a lot of good schools out there. And I’m going to go play professional football anyway and really make a ton of money. I’ll go get my degree later. If I get hurt, I have a couple million bucks to fall back on and can get my degree now. Plus, they’ll be plenty of alumni around to help me get a good job.
 
There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or  get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.

*************************
Hi,

Great discussion: Sorry to repeat myself.

(1) It seems like this discussion has (and always) revolved around 'an EITHER OR" paradigm, like:

(A) Either Stanford becomes a 'Full Football/Mans Basketball Factory like Georgia or Alabama or Auburn' or 'We act like Dartmouth or Cornell & be terrible at Power4 Football & Mens Basketball.

(B) Stanford will  'Sell Stanford to Smart 4 star HighSchoolers or Transfers'  either for the '40year decision'  or 'Turn into an NIL Factory like Georgia or Alabama.


(2) Why not modify/modernize a 'small bit from where we are' to follow the model of 2 HighAcademic smaller Private schools that are similar to Ourselves

•NotreDame University in Football (who is perennially a Top20 Team & went the National Championship in Football) &
•DukeUniversity in Mens Basketball (who is perennially in the Elite8 in Mens Basketball all)
?

(3) Guys, NotreDame University & Duke University, ...have shown it  CAN BE BOTH; it doesn't have to be 'EITHER OR' !

NotreDame in Football & Duke in Mens Basketball, sell Recruits & Transfers, ON BOTH & ALL

[A] You will get to be in a Top20 Program
[B] You will get Top 20 NIL Money
[C] You will get the 40year decision


If we were to just modify/modernize 'a little bit'  from where we are on the following:

-Widen/Modify our Admissions criteria, to attract a more academcally & sports diverse 'NotreDame/Duke' type student body
-Leverage all of Stanfords great Corporate/Tech Contacts to get our NIL collective for Football & Mens Basketball to be Top20 in Value
-Transfer Portal (always be ready with Fast Admissions Review & Top offers to student-athletes from the other 20 great Power4 Academic-Athletic Universities)
-Paying Top Dollar for CoachingStaffs
-Marketing of Football & Mens Basketball to the larger BayArea Football & Mens Basketball Fans

....then we would be attractive to 'Smart 4star HighSchool prospects & Transfers'


(4) So, The Important Questions Are :

(1) Would it kill the Universe, if Stanford University Aligned itself  with the model of NotreDame University & Duke University? ...maybe trial this out for 10years ? and if we dont like it, we can revert back

(2) Why the intractable, irrational, constant, resistance to doing this ?

(3) Most of the real-world thinks of Duke University & NotreDame as 'Top Elite Academic Institutions' (only at Stanford do some people seem to tbink Duke & NotreDame are too low for us to emulate) ..and kids going their are 'VERY SUCCESSFUL' after college.

(4) Someone above stated that the Factories dont care about Academics or whether someone can spell 'cat';  Do Duke & NotreDame 'not care about academics or if someone can spell 'cat' ?

Just wondering...

As for ND and  Duke, C is meaningless without A and B.  And frankly, I doubt the “40 year decision “ was addressed at all when they recruited/paid Flagg, Knueppel and Maluach.  All of whom will be playing for big bucks in the NBA next year. 

I’ll grant you, they probably care if they can’t spell “cat”.  Kitten is another matter….  In short, no I don’t think academics matter much.  If at all.  These kids bring in a lot of revenue.

But I think we agree in general. Stanford can and should join the NIL revolution and shell out the bucks. Certainly they can use the 40 year decision argument. As long as it’s coupled with a high 6 or low 7 figure payday…..

[lex24]

1743360627[/url]']

That was my starting point example, and not my end argument. Oklahoma State can point to Jerry Jones. My point was that Stanford is likely to produce more successful people in the long run at a higher average rate of success for a longer period of time. I could point to Blaine Nye, played for the Cowboys, got a master's in Finance, created the very successful Stanford Consulting Group.

The broader point is, I don't even know former Stanford football players and their success levels. I know a few; e.g., HM All Pac-10 LB Kurt Colehower, very successful post-Stanford with Arrow Electronics, now Greenwood Advisors. But I don't know the vast majority, and I'm sure it's a compelling story. And yes, I know they're not all David Packard.

And they don't need to intend to achieve success outside of football, but it would sure help if we put the possibility in front of them and show them the downside of the football factories. The downside is pretty far down, in a way that Stanford grads don't experience.

1743271837[/url]']
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find.  There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and  simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.

There are degrees of success. I know successful people who went to my alma mater (SCU) and successful people who went to Stanford. The odds are much, much higher that you'll succeed from Stanford. Period. That doesn't take a vast mental leap, but it may take some additional explanation for a high school student. If I'm a student, I want to go to the place that guarantees me the best possible odds of the best possible future success. If a player is smart enough to consider Stanford, then Stanford should close on the vast majority of those student-athletes.

1743271837[/url]']
IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore, spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.

Stanford doesn't have that many recruits in their recruiting pool, and it's worse in these NIL/portal days. I think if someone is on the fence, they're worth the full-court press. I think we need to ask early and often, I think that contributed to Harbaugh's recruiting success. I just don't think recruits are sufficiently aware of the downside if they go to TinkertoyTech.

I don’t mean to be a jerk. But I find this to be somewhat of a “quaint” discussion. We are (this is somewhat of an assumption a bunch of older folks who are generally at the back end of their careers or retired and have for the most part had pretty good success. We grew up in a very different world.  

These are 18 to 22 year-old kids. They’re being offered a lot of money to go play.   Go listen to Tom Izzo on the issue.  Among the great lines he has is “and by the way, there’s not a whole lot of recruiting within the portal. There’s offers.” 

The world of revenue college sports has not just changed a bit.  It’s a completely new world. Look at the NCAA tournament.  Who’s in the elite eight –Four 1 seeds. Three 2 seeds and a 3 seed.  Mid Majors? Forget it. Why would a kid want to  play for Creighton for $150,000 when he can transfer to Kentucky and make $1 million.

And if I’m a stud athlete 18 years old and can put a couple million bucks in my bank account while playing a college sport – that’s going to  go a long ways.  Especially if I’m from an economically disadvantaged household.  There are a lot of good schools out there. And I’m going to go play professional football anyway and really make a ton of money. I’ll go get my degree later. If I get hurt, I have a couple million bucks to fall back on and can get my degree now. Plus, they’ll be plenty of alumni around to help me get a good job.
 
There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or  get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.

*************************
Hi,

Great discussion: Sorry to repeat myself.

(1) It seems like this discussion has (and always) revolved around 'an EITHER OR" paradigm, like:

(A) Either Stanford becomes a 'Full Football/Mans Basketball Factory like Georgia or Alabama or Auburn' or 'We act like Dartmouth or Cornell & be terrible at Power4 Football & Mens Basketball.

(B) Stanford will  'Sell Stanford to Smart 4 star HighSchoolers or Transfers'  either for the '40year decision'  or 'Turn into an NIL Factory like Georgia or Alabama.


(2) Why not modify/modernize a 'small bit from where we are' to follow the model of 2 HighAcademic smaller Private schools that are similar to Ourselves

•NotreDame University in Football (who is perennially a Top20 Team & went the National Championship in Football) &
•DukeUniversity in Mens Basketball (who is perennially in the Elite8 in Mens Basketball all)
?

(3) Guys, NotreDame University & Duke University, ...have shown it  CAN BE BOTH; it doesn't have to be 'EITHER OR' !

NotreDame in Football & Duke in Mens Basketball, sell Recruits & Transfers, ON BOTH & ALL

[A] You will get to be in a Top20 Program
[B] You will get Top 20 NIL Money
[C] You will get the 40year decision


If we were to just modify/modernize 'a little bit'  from where we are on the following:

-Widen/Modify our Admissions criteria, to attract a more academcally & sports diverse 'NotreDame/Duke' type student body
-Leverage all of Stanfords great Corporate/Tech Contacts to get our NIL collective for Football & Mens Basketball to be Top20 in Value
-Transfer Portal (always be ready with Fast Admissions Review & Top offers to student-athletes from the other 20 great Power4 Academic-Athletic Universities)
-Paying Top Dollar for CoachingStaffs
-Marketing of Football & Mens Basketball to the larger BayArea Football & Mens Basketball Fans

....then we would be attractive to 'Smart 4star HighSchool prospects & Transfers'


(4) So, The Important Questions Are :

(1) Would it kill the Universe, if Stanford University Aligned itself  with the model of NotreDame University & Duke University? ...maybe trial this out for 10years ? and if we dont like it, we can revert back

(2) Why the intractable, irrational, constant, resistance to doing this ?

(3) Most of the real-world thinks of Duke University & NotreDame as 'Top Elite Academic Institutions' (only at Stanford do some people seem to tbink Duke & NotreDame are too low for us to emulate) ..and kids going their are 'VERY SUCCESSFUL' after college.

(4) Someone above stated that the Factories dont care about Academics or whether someone can spell 'cat';  Do Duke & NotreDame 'not care about academics or if someone can spell 'cat' ?

Just wondering...

As for ND and  Duke, C is meaningless without A and B.  And frankly, I doubt the “40 year decision “ was addressed at all when they recruited/paid Flagg, Knueppel and Maluach.  All of whom will be playing for big bucks in the NBA next year. 

I’ll grant you, they probably care if they can’t spell “cat”.  Kitten is another matter….  In short, no I don’t think academics matter much.  If at all.  These kids bring in a lot of revenue.

But I think we agree in general. Stanford can and should join the NIL revolution and shell out the bucks. Certainly they can use the 40 year decision argument. As long as it’s coupled with a high 6 or low 7 figure payday…..

[Goose]

(2) Why not modify/modernize a 'small bit from where we are' to follow the model of 2 HighAcademic smaller Private schools that are similar to Ourselves

•NotreDame University in Football (who is perennially a Top20 Team & went the National Championship in Football) &
•DukeUniversity in Mens Basketball (who is perennially in the Elite8 in Mens Basketball all)
?

The first major problem is and has continually been the assertion that Stanford, Notre Dame, and Duke are "similar" to each other. They are not. They are culturally very different from each other. That isn't a knock on any of the three. The assertion that because these universities share some characteristics they are therefore "similar" is not supportable. They have vastly different histories. Notre Dame is a Catholic university whose presidents have C.S.C. after their name. Very different from Stanford or Duke. Harvard and Stanford also share some characteristics. That doesn't make us "similar". There is even an argument that Stanford and USC are "similar". We are both private schools in California that are somewhat academically oriented. Yet nobody actually familiar with both schools would make that argument.

<snip>
If we were to just modify/modernize 'a little bit'  from where we are on the following:

-Widen/Modify our Admissions criteria, to attract a more academcally & sports diverse 'NotreDame/Duke' type student body

Lets be real here. IMO the statement is a bit misleading. Notre Dame and Duke have admissions criteria for "regular" students that are different from each other and also different from Stanford's. I would buy the argument that Notre Dame's general student body is more "academically diverse" than Stanford's. I am not so sure I would buy that argument about Duke. However the nature of the student body in aggregate isn't the issue. All three of these universities admit athletes that are a separate population in a statistical sense from the student population in aggregate. The question is how different is acceptable. Duke and Notre Dame accept a larger distance between the athletes and the student body aggregate than Stanford presently does. It appears this is the area where you want to see "modifications".
 
If you are actually arguing that Stanford should change the aggregate student body character and thereby allow admission of better athletes, I don't agree that is a good idea at all. Changing the character of the university student population is a "big deal" and I can assure you that kind of decision will not be made based on athletics. If OTOH you are arguing that like Duke and Notre Dame Stanford should allow admission of more athletes that are further from the notional student body aggregate, there may be some who would agree. I am not one of them however. 

<snip>
(4) So, The Important Questions Are :

Actually I think there are many other questions that are far more important than the questions below.

(1) Would it kill the Universe, if Stanford University Aligned itself  with the model of NotreDame University & Duke University? ...maybe trial this out for 10years ? and if we dont like it, we can revert back

(2) Why the intractable, irrational, constant, resistance to doing this ?

First of all, Notre Dame's "model" isn't identical to Duke's. It is impossible to "align" with both. Stanford is quite capable of evaluating what other universities are doing, all of them, not just Notre Dame and Duke. The "resistance" isn't irrational. It is very rational. The university has decided to behave in the current way and believes it has good reasons to do so. Perhaps some of its values differ from yours. That doesn't make them "irrational". You just disagree. Their "intractable, constant resistance" is simply doing what has been selected as the "way ahead". You don't agree. However the fact you don't agree is not sufficient to make the status quo "wrong".

(3) Most of the real-world thinks of Duke University & NotreDame as 'Top Elite Academic Institutions' (only at Stanford do some people seem to tbink Duke & NotreDame are too low for us to emulate) ..and kids going their are 'VERY SUCCESSFUL' after college.

I don't recall anybody disagreeing that Duke and Notre Dame are "Elite Universities". However you seem to believe Stanford chooses not to "emulate" them because they are "too low for us to emulate". IMO this is nonsense. Stanford chooses a different "path" because it believes it is more appropriate for Stanford. Duke's path is different from Notre Dame's path. What "works" for one may not be appropriate for the other. It is also their choice. Stanford isn't saying their respective paths are "wrong". They just aren't optimal for Stanford.
 
Yes, lots of Duke and Notre Dame graduates will be very successful. It is undeniable. That makes them both formidable opponents on the recruiting trail. It is also why I believe a recruiting pitch for the "40 year decision at Stanford" shouldn't try to challenge that notion.

(4) Someone above stated that the Factories dont care about Academics or whether someone can spell 'cat';  Do Duke & NotreDame 'not care about academics or if someone can spell 'cat' ?

Just wondering...

I would agree the assertion that Duke and Notre Dame don't care about academics or whether someone can spell 'cat' is absolutely incorrect. They do care greatly about whether their aggregate student bodies are academically excellent and can indeed spell 'cat'. However, these same universities do routinely admit a certain number of athletes that effectively cannot spell 'cat'. As I have previously stated the Duke basketball fans I speak with agree this is indeed the case and it is done knowingly by admissions.
 
I have been told that Stanford has on occasion done the same.  It may be a very persuasive coach pulled one over on admissions, but until proven otherwise I kind of doubt it was done knowingly.

[Goose]

(2) Why not modify/modernize a 'small bit from where we are' to follow the model of 2 HighAcademic smaller Private schools that are similar to Ourselves

•NotreDame University in Football (who is perennially a Top20 Team & went the National Championship in Football) &
•DukeUniversity in Mens Basketball (who is perennially in the Elite8 in Mens Basketball all)
?

The first major problem is and has continually been the assertion that Stanford, Notre Dame, and Duke are "similar" to each other. They are not. They are culturally very different from each other. That isn't a knock on any of the three. The assertion that because these universities share some characteristics they are therefore "similar" is not supportable. They have vastly different histories. Notre Dame is a Catholic university whose presidents have C.S.C. after their name. Very different from Stanford or Duke. Harvard and Stanford also share some characteristics. That doesn't make us "similar". There is even an argument that Stanford and USC are "similar". We are both private schools in California that are somewhat academically oriented. Yet nobody actually familiar with both schools would make that argument.

<snip>
If we were to just modify/modernize 'a little bit'  from where we are on the following:

-Widen/Modify our Admissions criteria, to attract a more academcally & sports diverse 'NotreDame/Duke' type student body

Lets be real here. IMO the statement is a bit misleading. Notre Dame and Duke have admissions criteria for "regular" students that are different from each other and also different from Stanford's. I would buy the argument that Notre Dame's general student body is more "academically diverse" than Stanford's. I am not so sure I would buy that argument about Duke. However the nature of the student body in aggregate isn't the issue. All three of these universities admit athletes that are a separate population in a statistical sense from the student population in aggregate. The question is how different is acceptable. Duke and Notre Dame accept a larger distance between the athletes and the student body aggregate than Stanford presently does. It appears this is the area where you want to see "modifications".
 
If you are actually arguing that Stanford should change the aggregate student body character and thereby allow admission of better athletes, I don't agree that is a good idea at all. Changing the character of the university student population is a "big deal" and I can assure you that kind of decision will not be made based on athletics. If OTOH you are arguing that like Duke and Notre Dame Stanford should allow admission of more athletes that are further from the notional student body aggregate, there may be some who would agree. I am not one of them however. 

<snip>
(4) So, The Important Questions Are :

Actually I think there are many other questions that are far more important than the questions below.

(1) Would it kill the Universe, if Stanford University Aligned itself  with the model of NotreDame University & Duke University? ...maybe trial this out for 10years ? and if we dont like it, we can revert back

(2) Why the intractable, irrational, constant, resistance to doing this ?

First of all, Notre Dame's "model" isn't identical to Duke's. It is impossible to "align" with both. Stanford is quite capable of evaluating what other universities are doing, all of them, not just Notre Dame and Duke. The "resistance" isn't irrational. It is very rational. The university has decided to behave in the current way and believes it has good reasons to do so. Perhaps some of its values differ from yours. That doesn't make them "irrational". You just disagree. Their "intractable, constant resistance" is simply doing what has been selected as the "way ahead". You don't agree. However the fact you don't agree is not sufficient to make the status quo "wrong".

(3) Most of the real-world thinks of Duke University & NotreDame as 'Top Elite Academic Institutions' (only at Stanford do some people seem to tbink Duke & NotreDame are too low for us to emulate) ..and kids going their are 'VERY SUCCESSFUL' after college.

I don't recall anybody disagreeing that Duke and Notre Dame are "Elite Universities". However you seem to believe Stanford chooses not to "emulate" them because they are "too low for us to emulate". IMO this is nonsense. Stanford chooses a different "path" because it believes it is more appropriate for Stanford. Duke's path is different from Notre Dame's path. What "works" for one may not be appropriate for the other. It is also their choice. Stanford isn't saying their respective paths are "wrong". They just aren't optimal for Stanford.
 
Yes, lots of Duke and Notre Dame graduates will be very successful. It is undeniable. That makes them both formidable opponents on the recruiting trail. It is also why I believe a recruiting pitch for the "40 year decision at Stanford" shouldn't try to challenge that notion.

(4) Someone above stated that the Factories dont care about Academics or whether someone can spell 'cat';  Do Duke & NotreDame 'not care about academics or if someone can spell 'cat' ?

Just wondering...

I would agree the assertion that Duke and Notre Dame don't care about academics or whether someone can spell 'cat' is absolutely incorrect. They do care greatly about whether their aggregate student bodies are academically excellent and can indeed spell 'cat'. However, these same universities do routinely admit a certain number of athletes that effectively cannot spell 'cat'. As I have previously stated the Duke basketball fans I speak with agree this is indeed the case and it is done knowingly by admissions.
 
I have been told that Stanford has on occasion done the same.  It may be a very persuasive coach pulled one over on admissions, but until proven otherwise I kind of doubt it was done knowingly.

[chrisk]

Stanford could hire Nina King, Duke's AD, as its AD. She is young, black, female and has accounting and law degrees.
She has spent 7 years at Notre Dame (4 as student, 3 in the AD). She came with White from ND to Duke 17 years ago, and has been AD there for 4 years.

[chrisk]

Stanford could hire Nina King, Duke's AD, as its AD. She is young, black, female and has accounting and law degrees.
She has spent 7 years at Notre Dame (4 as student, 3 in the AD). She came with White from ND to Duke 17 years ago, and has been AD there for 4 years.

[fullmetal]

But I think we agree in general.  Stanford can and  should join the NIL revolution and shell out the bucks.  Certainly they can use the 40 year decision argument.  As long as it’s coupled with a high 6 or low 7 figure payday…..

That is entirely up to the Stanford donor base.

[fullmetal]

But I think we agree in general.  Stanford can and  should join the NIL revolution and shell out the bucks.  Certainly they can use the 40 year decision argument.  As long as it’s coupled with a high 6 or low 7 figure payday…..

That is entirely up to the Stanford donor base.

[cctop]

Top NIL numbers for football.

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/co...0/#2564353

Take this as mostly correct. I have also seen for example OSU as #1 with a bit over $21 million.

I'm surprised not to see USC on this list.  I have trouble believing that Oregon and Washington spend more on NIL than they do.

When I do a Google search for "USC football NIL spending" it estimates that USC football spends $10-12 million on NIL, which would put them 15th to 20th on this list.

[cctop]

Top NIL numbers for football.

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/co...0/#2564353

Take this as mostly correct. I have also seen for example OSU as #1 with a bit over $21 million.

I'm surprised not to see USC on this list.  I have trouble believing that Oregon and Washington spend more on NIL than they do.

When I do a Google search for "USC football NIL spending" it estimates that USC football spends $10-12 million on NIL, which would put them 15th to 20th on this list.

[Spiny_Norman]

Looks like OL Jake Maikkula has also entered the portal.

[Spiny_Norman]

Looks like OL Jake Maikkula has also entered the portal.

[jacket3ree]

The "40-year decision" needs to be retired as the main recruiting pitch. If you play big time college football, you'll have a network, and now your present value will be large enough that not much else matters in the real world. Any intelligent kid and his or her parents realize this. So, that needs to be the all else equal before going for more esoteric value added propositions. Brave new world for the best players; the ones that make the difference between being competitive and being mediocre or worse.

Ironically, and this is for you StanUSwagU, AI says that "40-year decision" concept is widely attributed to Duke's approach to emphasize the long-term impact of a college choice. Duke uses a "forty, not four" approach. I'm sure that has metamorphized into Final Four and Four Million While You Get There. The first time I heard anything remotely like this was from (again for you StanUSwagU) Lou Holtz, when the kicker that was one of the wide right (or left, who remembers?) guys at FSU chose FSU over Notre Dame. 'You're not just making a four-year mistake, son, you are making a forty-year mistake." I also remember him saying Justin Armour was an idiot for signing with Stanford, instead of Notre Dame, to win only four games every year. So many fours.....

With hindsight, most of us realize that life is not a forty-year decision, but a random set of four-year, four-month, four-day, and yes sometimes even four-second decisions that shape everything. I made that so called forty-year decision about forty-four years ago. It had everything to do with trying something different (Mom won't be in Georgia watching my every move and in fact encouraged me to move 1,400 miles away) rather than follow what's her name to Mines (she ended up in Oxford, UK), or what's her other name to Boulder (don't care where she ended up), or there was no one to follow to Fort Collins. Turns out that was one of the best things I ever did, but how was I to know? I'd like to think I am not a derelict or dead or a deadbeat had I chosen CU (most likely - had a roommate all lined up), but I know I'm not sitting where I'm sitting in full view of pictures of two particular grandchildren. And I've never second guessed that decision once. Same with grad school. Picked California over Cambridge, Massachusetts and picked the money over no money. Done and done.

Anyone good enough to seriously consider Stanford and be seriously considered by Stanford is rather likely to wind up successful wherever they go, because Stanford only looks at people most likely to be successful. Also, there is no control. No one can go back in a time machine, know the alternative, take the road not taken, and compare outcomes.

If you are selling to footballers, sell the football. With a great school where we will support your other interests including academic interests, and there is a diverse cosmopolitan area attached. If that scares you, then sure, maybe Auburn, Alabama is more your cup of (sweet) tea. If the football sucks and going to school there kind of sucks too (or that's the prevailing wisdom), then sales will be limited.

[jacket3ree]

The "40-year decision" needs to be retired as the main recruiting pitch. If you play big time college football, you'll have a network, and now your present value will be large enough that not much else matters in the real world. Any intelligent kid and his or her parents realize this. So, that needs to be the all else equal before going for more esoteric value added propositions. Brave new world for the best players; the ones that make the difference between being competitive and being mediocre or worse.

Ironically, and this is for you StanUSwagU, AI says that "40-year decision" concept is widely attributed to Duke's approach to emphasize the long-term impact of a college choice. Duke uses a "forty, not four" approach. I'm sure that has metamorphized into Final Four and Four Million While You Get There. The first time I heard anything remotely like this was from (again for you StanUSwagU) Lou Holtz, when the kicker that was one of the wide right (or left, who remembers?) guys at FSU chose FSU over Notre Dame. 'You're not just making a four-year mistake, son, you are making a forty-year mistake." I also remember him saying Justin Armour was an idiot for signing with Stanford, instead of Notre Dame, to win only four games every year. So many fours.....

With hindsight, most of us realize that life is not a forty-year decision, but a random set of four-year, four-month, four-day, and yes sometimes even four-second decisions that shape everything. I made that so called forty-year decision about forty-four years ago. It had everything to do with trying something different (Mom won't be in Georgia watching my every move and in fact encouraged me to move 1,400 miles away) rather than follow what's her name to Mines (she ended up in Oxford, UK), or what's her other name to Boulder (don't care where she ended up), or there was no one to follow to Fort Collins. Turns out that was one of the best things I ever did, but how was I to know? I'd like to think I am not a derelict or dead or a deadbeat had I chosen CU (most likely - had a roommate all lined up), but I know I'm not sitting where I'm sitting in full view of pictures of two particular grandchildren. And I've never second guessed that decision once. Same with grad school. Picked California over Cambridge, Massachusetts and picked the money over no money. Done and done.

Anyone good enough to seriously consider Stanford and be seriously considered by Stanford is rather likely to wind up successful wherever they go, because Stanford only looks at people most likely to be successful. Also, there is no control. No one can go back in a time machine, know the alternative, take the road not taken, and compare outcomes.

If you are selling to footballers, sell the football. With a great school where we will support your other interests including academic interests, and there is a diverse cosmopolitan area attached. If that scares you, then sure, maybe Auburn, Alabama is more your cup of (sweet) tea. If the football sucks and going to school there kind of sucks too (or that's the prevailing wisdom), then sales will be limited.

[BobK]

Recruiting should emphasize:
We play winning football
We play before great home crowds
We have great football coaches if temporary
Stanford is a great school. It’s a forty year decision

Choose one

[BobK]

Recruiting should emphasize:
We play winning football
We play before great home crowds
We have great football coaches if temporary
Stanford is a great school. It’s a forty year decision

Choose one