[KartyFan]

It’s all about the o-line. Defense is fine, offensive skill positions are serviceable to good. If we can retain key players and get some o-line transfers next year, we are bowling and feeling like a program on the upswing.

And if we can win Big Game, we will have some tangible progress to go with the positive shift in attitude we are seeing with the final program.

[KartyFan]

It’s all about the o-line. Defense is fine, offensive skill positions are serviceable to good. If we can retain key players and get some o-line transfers next year, we are bowling and feeling like a program on the upswing.

And if we can win Big Game, we will have some tangible progress to go with the positive shift in attitude we are seeing with the final program.

[StanUSwagU]

Yeah, that was a terrible game. So bad I found other games to watch while occasionally looking in to understand Stanford looks like its record says it looks. Worst P4 team over several years. Barring something I don't foresee, this will the the fifth straight 3-9 record, and barring something really weird, Stanford will finish with 4 or fewer wins in a season for the seventh straight year. Uncharted territory. Stanford has never been this bad for this long. The second longest streak of such ineptitude was with Cactus Jack and four years from 1958-1961. We can argue what the 4-2 Covid season means, but probably best to toss that and leave it as six historically wretched years.

Look at Indiana though. They were almost never at Stanford's level. Nothing for more than a century, the rules change, they hire some dude from James Madison, and they get to lose to Ohio State with all the marbles on the line.

But losing by 5 to a poor ACC school doesn't call for disbanding the program. Normally we chalk that up to fanaticism and heat of the moment during a frustrating game, but I think BC is serious. I'm not sure I'm down for his brave new world of watching Stanford get their skulls crushed in on the court by the likes of St. Mary's twice a year. Not worried though. Stanford is brand conscious and prostrating to the ACC for the express purpose of not having to play Fresno State, then dropping out altogether within five years is not good for the brand. Couldn't figure it out, so took their ball and went home.

I fear Levin played tag you're it with Luck, but I think Luck cares so much about this that he will figure out a way not to fail. I little scared they are just going to get the old band back together and assume it will work.

I'll read Matt's post-mortem but I can save him a few thousand words. Stanford is not good.

YEah, one bad game doesn't call for disbanding the program, but ineptitude over 7 years (or six historically wretched years) does call for evaluating it.  And truth be told, it's not so much that we have sucked, but the cost of not sucking that concerns me.  I've railed against the academic compromises needed (most recently with the post-bac program, though that one doesn't bother me as much).  But also, literally, the cost, at a time when universities face unprecedented headwinds (not just the political situation, which is out of scope here, but also changing demographics and a broader changing attitude about the value of college).  I think it will be really tough for Levin to justify to the academic senate why we need to be subsidizing the football team by tens of millions of dollars a year while academic programs face a hiring freeze and funding cuts.  This is a broader reckoning than just Stanford, but I think it will come to a head at Stanford because of the combination of the recent turmoil in college athletics (Northwestern and Vanderbilt, for example, didn't have to join a conference on the other side of the country, get full TV rights from the conferences that are coming out ahead).  It's going to be a lot to swallow for the faculty to subsidize a loser program, operating in a non-sensical conference, getting a reduced share of revenue, and did I mention that it isn't good?  Remind me why the English department should shed jobs to support this?

BC

Hi BC,

Hope all is well;
A question about this statement below:

"But also, literally, the cost, at a time when universities face unprecedented headwinds (not just the political situation, which is out of scope here, but also changing demographics and a broader changing attitude about the value of college).  I think it will be really tough for Levin to justify to the academic senate why we need to be subsidizing the football team by tens of millions of dollars a year while academic programs face a hiring freeze and funding cuts.

This is a broader reckoning than just Stanford, but I think it will come to a head at Stanford because of the combination of the recent turmoil in college athletics (Northwestern and Vanderbilt, for example, didn't have to join a conference on the other side of the country, get full TV rights from the conferences that are coming out ahead).  It's going to be a lot to swallow for the faculty to subsidize a loser program, operating in a non-sensical conference, getting a reduced share of revenue, and did I mention that it isn't good?  Remind me why the English department should shed jobs to support this? "


Question:

I just saw Cal yesterday, fly across the country to get an impressive win over #15 Louisville, to get their 6th win & Become 'Bowl Eligible' again ... for the 3rd year in a row !

Doesnt Cal have to face/wrestle with many of the same problems/challenges you describe above (e.g. rising costs of supporting Football now in the ACC, Travelling across country to play games, having to wrestle with trying to financially support academics, academic departments, & also D1 Football in the New Landscape) ?

But somehow, they seem to be managing it ....and have their Football Team Bowl Eligible for the 3rd straight year !

I wonder if they just have more 'Will, Determination & Adaptability than us from their Alums & Administration, (& less rigidity to old anachronistic ways') .... to persevere & overcome the new challenges, cause they face most/many of the same challenges you describe above ?

[StanUSwagU]

Yeah, that was a terrible game. So bad I found other games to watch while occasionally looking in to understand Stanford looks like its record says it looks. Worst P4 team over several years. Barring something I don't foresee, this will the the fifth straight 3-9 record, and barring something really weird, Stanford will finish with 4 or fewer wins in a season for the seventh straight year. Uncharted territory. Stanford has never been this bad for this long. The second longest streak of such ineptitude was with Cactus Jack and four years from 1958-1961. We can argue what the 4-2 Covid season means, but probably best to toss that and leave it as six historically wretched years.

Look at Indiana though. They were almost never at Stanford's level. Nothing for more than a century, the rules change, they hire some dude from James Madison, and they get to lose to Ohio State with all the marbles on the line.

But losing by 5 to a poor ACC school doesn't call for disbanding the program. Normally we chalk that up to fanaticism and heat of the moment during a frustrating game, but I think BC is serious. I'm not sure I'm down for his brave new world of watching Stanford get their skulls crushed in on the court by the likes of St. Mary's twice a year. Not worried though. Stanford is brand conscious and prostrating to the ACC for the express purpose of not having to play Fresno State, then dropping out altogether within five years is not good for the brand. Couldn't figure it out, so took their ball and went home.

I fear Levin played tag you're it with Luck, but I think Luck cares so much about this that he will figure out a way not to fail. I little scared they are just going to get the old band back together and assume it will work.

I'll read Matt's post-mortem but I can save him a few thousand words. Stanford is not good.

YEah, one bad game doesn't call for disbanding the program, but ineptitude over 7 years (or six historically wretched years) does call for evaluating it.  And truth be told, it's not so much that we have sucked, but the cost of not sucking that concerns me.  I've railed against the academic compromises needed (most recently with the post-bac program, though that one doesn't bother me as much).  But also, literally, the cost, at a time when universities face unprecedented headwinds (not just the political situation, which is out of scope here, but also changing demographics and a broader changing attitude about the value of college).  I think it will be really tough for Levin to justify to the academic senate why we need to be subsidizing the football team by tens of millions of dollars a year while academic programs face a hiring freeze and funding cuts.  This is a broader reckoning than just Stanford, but I think it will come to a head at Stanford because of the combination of the recent turmoil in college athletics (Northwestern and Vanderbilt, for example, didn't have to join a conference on the other side of the country, get full TV rights from the conferences that are coming out ahead).  It's going to be a lot to swallow for the faculty to subsidize a loser program, operating in a non-sensical conference, getting a reduced share of revenue, and did I mention that it isn't good?  Remind me why the English department should shed jobs to support this?

BC

Hi BC,

Hope all is well;
A question about this statement below:

"But also, literally, the cost, at a time when universities face unprecedented headwinds (not just the political situation, which is out of scope here, but also changing demographics and a broader changing attitude about the value of college).  I think it will be really tough for Levin to justify to the academic senate why we need to be subsidizing the football team by tens of millions of dollars a year while academic programs face a hiring freeze and funding cuts.

This is a broader reckoning than just Stanford, but I think it will come to a head at Stanford because of the combination of the recent turmoil in college athletics (Northwestern and Vanderbilt, for example, didn't have to join a conference on the other side of the country, get full TV rights from the conferences that are coming out ahead).  It's going to be a lot to swallow for the faculty to subsidize a loser program, operating in a non-sensical conference, getting a reduced share of revenue, and did I mention that it isn't good?  Remind me why the English department should shed jobs to support this? "


Question:

I just saw Cal yesterday, fly across the country to get an impressive win over #15 Louisville, to get their 6th win & Become 'Bowl Eligible' again ... for the 3rd year in a row !

Doesnt Cal have to face/wrestle with many of the same problems/challenges you describe above (e.g. rising costs of supporting Football now in the ACC, Travelling across country to play games, having to wrestle with trying to financially support academics, academic departments, & also D1 Football in the New Landscape) ?

But somehow, they seem to be managing it ....and have their Football Team Bowl Eligible for the 3rd straight year !

I wonder if they just have more 'Will, Determination & Adaptability than us from their Alums & Administration, (& less rigidity to old anachronistic ways') .... to persevere & overcome the new challenges, cause they face most/many of the same challenges you describe above ?

[fullmetal]

Low admissions standards mitigates a lot of those issues for kal; high admissions standards amplifies all those issues for Stanford.

[fullmetal]

Low admissions standards mitigates a lot of those issues for kal; high admissions standards amplifies all those issues for Stanford.

[BostonCard]

Are you suggesting that Stanford should aspire to be like Cal?  I think you might be making my point for me.

Seriously though, since I don’t root for them, I had never bothered looking at Cal’s AD financial situation, though I was vaguely aware that it was troubled.  In a word, yikes.  Because of the stadium renovation, it was in trouble before the move to the ACC, the only thing that is saving it from utter collapse now is the agreement they have with UCLA to transfer some of the Big Ten revenue to Cal.  In the mid-term, I think most people expect that they will need a bailout of the stadium financing, which is weighing them down like an albatross.  Cal is the single most indebted collegiate athletics department, and nobody else is within $100 million.  Total Cal AD debt is $436 million dollars.

In 2024, the Cal AD reported a $29.7 million operating shortfall, with revenues of approximately $119.6 million and expenses of nearly $149.3 million, and that is after $37.2 million in direct support from the central campus.  Without it, the Cal AD basically funds just 55% of its expenses.

I don’t know about the state of campus politics at Cal, or of the University’s financial picture as a whole, though I suspect it is just as dire as Stanford’s, though about 40% of UC’s budget (across all 10 campuses) comes from the state government, so it might be a bit more insulated, or a bit more exposed to the state’s financial condition.  Right now, the state is wrestling with a fairly large budget deficit, so I think this will cascade to the UC system, and thus to Berkeley and UCLA.  Consequently, I do wonder how tenable the current situation is for the Cal athletic department.

Maybe others with more knowledge of the UC system can chime in; I think at least one person here is or was on faculty (I was, almost 10 years ago, but at a UC with no athletics or undergraduates for that matter).

BC

[BostonCard]

Are you suggesting that Stanford should aspire to be like Cal?  I think you might be making my point for me.

Seriously though, since I don’t root for them, I had never bothered looking at Cal’s AD financial situation, though I was vaguely aware that it was troubled.  In a word, yikes.  Because of the stadium renovation, it was in trouble before the move to the ACC, the only thing that is saving it from utter collapse now is the agreement they have with UCLA to transfer some of the Big Ten revenue to Cal.  In the mid-term, I think most people expect that they will need a bailout of the stadium financing, which is weighing them down like an albatross.  Cal is the single most indebted collegiate athletics department, and nobody else is within $100 million.  Total Cal AD debt is $436 million dollars.

In 2024, the Cal AD reported a $29.7 million operating shortfall, with revenues of approximately $119.6 million and expenses of nearly $149.3 million, and that is after $37.2 million in direct support from the central campus.  Without it, the Cal AD basically funds just 55% of its expenses.

I don’t know about the state of campus politics at Cal, or of the University’s financial picture as a whole, though I suspect it is just as dire as Stanford’s, though about 40% of UC’s budget (across all 10 campuses) comes from the state government, so it might be a bit more insulated, or a bit more exposed to the state’s financial condition.  Right now, the state is wrestling with a fairly large budget deficit, so I think this will cascade to the UC system, and thus to Berkeley and UCLA.  Consequently, I do wonder how tenable the current situation is for the Cal athletic department.

Maybe others with more knowledge of the UC system can chime in; I think at least one person here is or was on faculty (I was, almost 10 years ago, but at a UC with no athletics or undergraduates for that matter).

BC

[jacket3ree]

The solution is money, lots of money, and the brains to spend it wisely, but out of ignorance and a desire to think more robustly on this, let me ask:

1. If we get a transformational QB for $4 million, how many English professors lose their jobs? Are these even connected?
2. I understand the University is subsidizing the AD due to the crappy ACC payouts. What percent of the AD's operating budget does that represent? What percent of the University's operating budget?
3. If Bradford Freeman wasn't giving $50 million to the football program, would he give it instead to the English Department? Or maybe the Econ Department?
4. How many Bradford Freeman are out there? My impression is that the donor class floats the boat, not the University.
5. Aside from me caring about football more than any other sport, is there a model for Stanford to be good at sports without football? I really don't want football just there doing whatever only so that Stanford avoids the WCC.

These are not intended to be snarky or defensive questions. I honestly don't know and this might get to the question of whether not semi-pro but pro-pro sports are sustainable at Stanford. Stanford seems to have access to enough money to make it work and protestations of poverty won't fly with the rest of college football fanbases, not that it matters. A common refrain on other boards is that if Stanford's billionaire class ever decided to do it, Stanford could bury everyone else.

But our academic standards!  I've never thought that 25 guys a year with maybe less than perfect SAT scores or high school GPAs was somehow ruining Stanford's academic reputation. I don't know why, but I recently came across the 2010 Stanford Notre Dame game when Stanford ran Brian Kelley's first team out of the stadium. I don't think that made people think Notre Dame was a better school because they couldn't compete against Stanford. 

You can always find 'regular' students with lower scores just given the relative numbers and Stanford isn't that hard to survive. Stanford doesn't publish the all-undergraduate GPA. I don't think that is because it is embarrassingly low.  Granted, my experience as a TA is 40 years old but Stanford had the same genius rep back then, and I wasn't teaching geniuses. Also, I wasn't a genius and they let me in.

If Stanford chucks football, it won't be that difficult for me to live without it, especially now. I have other teams to follow that are at least trying to be competitive, and while unfathomable only ten years ago, it's gotten so terrible that I honestly might not miss it at all. Fall Saturdays in the Bay Area are insanely gorgeous (like most of the country) and there is plenty else to do (like most of the country). It would be a real shame though and might open cans of down sliding worms the university doesn't want to open.

[jacket3ree]

The solution is money, lots of money, and the brains to spend it wisely, but out of ignorance and a desire to think more robustly on this, let me ask:

1. If we get a transformational QB for $4 million, how many English professors lose their jobs? Are these even connected?
2. I understand the University is subsidizing the AD due to the crappy ACC payouts. What percent of the AD's operating budget does that represent? What percent of the University's operating budget?
3. If Bradford Freeman wasn't giving $50 million to the football program, would he give it instead to the English Department? Or maybe the Econ Department?
4. How many Bradford Freeman are out there? My impression is that the donor class floats the boat, not the University.
5. Aside from me caring about football more than any other sport, is there a model for Stanford to be good at sports without football? I really don't want football just there doing whatever only so that Stanford avoids the WCC.

These are not intended to be snarky or defensive questions. I honestly don't know and this might get to the question of whether not semi-pro but pro-pro sports are sustainable at Stanford. Stanford seems to have access to enough money to make it work and protestations of poverty won't fly with the rest of college football fanbases, not that it matters. A common refrain on other boards is that if Stanford's billionaire class ever decided to do it, Stanford could bury everyone else.

But our academic standards!  I've never thought that 25 guys a year with maybe less than perfect SAT scores or high school GPAs was somehow ruining Stanford's academic reputation. I don't know why, but I recently came across the 2010 Stanford Notre Dame game when Stanford ran Brian Kelley's first team out of the stadium. I don't think that made people think Notre Dame was a better school because they couldn't compete against Stanford. 

You can always find 'regular' students with lower scores just given the relative numbers and Stanford isn't that hard to survive. Stanford doesn't publish the all-undergraduate GPA. I don't think that is because it is embarrassingly low.  Granted, my experience as a TA is 40 years old but Stanford had the same genius rep back then, and I wasn't teaching geniuses. Also, I wasn't a genius and they let me in.

If Stanford chucks football, it won't be that difficult for me to live without it, especially now. I have other teams to follow that are at least trying to be competitive, and while unfathomable only ten years ago, it's gotten so terrible that I honestly might not miss it at all. Fall Saturdays in the Bay Area are insanely gorgeous (like most of the country) and there is plenty else to do (like most of the country). It would be a real shame though and might open cans of down sliding worms the university doesn't want to open.

[Section QQ]

I recently came across the 2010 Stanford Notre Dame game when Stanford ran Brian Kelley's first team out of the stadium. 

I was there, and it was glorious.  Go Card.

[Section QQ]

I recently came across the 2010 Stanford Notre Dame game when Stanford ran Brian Kelley's first team out of the stadium. 

I was there, and it was glorious.  Go Card.

[82lsju]

The solution is money, lots of money, and the brains to spend it wisely, but out of ignorance and a desire to think more robustly on this, let me ask:

1. If we get a transformational QB for $4 million, how many English professors lose their jobs? Are these even connected?
2. I understand the University is subsidizing the AD due to the crappy ACC payouts. What percent of the AD's operating budget does that represent? What percent of the University's operating budget?
3. If Bradford Freeman wasn't giving $50 million to the football program, would he give it instead to the English Department? Or maybe the Econ Department?
4. How many Bradford Freeman are out there? My impression is that the donor class floats the boat, not the University.
5. Aside from me caring about football more than any other sport, is there a model for Stanford to be good at sports without football? I really don't want football just there doing whatever only so that Stanford avoids the WCC.

1.  Maybe indirectly, the AD can pay out ~$20m to athletes so they can presumably spend it how they want to (is this an incremental $20m of spend?   I think so which may impact University funding to the AD (see item 2).  If it is outside money not from the AD (e.g., NIL) then likely not
2.  in 2023-24 (still pac-12 TV money) the AD annual report shows "university support" as ~33% of ~$144m so ~$47m, which is likely higher  in 2024-25 and following years with the lower ACC TV money
3.  who knows, he and his business partner did also fund the Freeman-Spogli Institute so maybe he has diverse interests.  He appears to be ~83 years old so maybe is looking to leave a legacy....
4.  It depends on if you are looking for rich ex-football players, rich people with an interest in football, rich alums in general
5.  I'd would not be surprised with the lower ACC TV payout if the football team could be losing money given they have a very high burn rate (and yes some of their costs are covered by endowment payouts (e.g., scholarships for many players, at least part of several coaches salaries)), several of the "Olympic" sports have been raising endowed funding since their "moment of truth" when the University was going to cut them, I would guess those parts of the endowment are pretty restrictive in their use..... 

I still think Stanford football's last, best hope is that one of the eventual "Power 2" conferences wants some teams in the Pacific and Mountain time zone and we could be one....and one of the "Power 2" already has four of them....

[82lsju]

The solution is money, lots of money, and the brains to spend it wisely, but out of ignorance and a desire to think more robustly on this, let me ask:

1. If we get a transformational QB for $4 million, how many English professors lose their jobs? Are these even connected?
2. I understand the University is subsidizing the AD due to the crappy ACC payouts. What percent of the AD's operating budget does that represent? What percent of the University's operating budget?
3. If Bradford Freeman wasn't giving $50 million to the football program, would he give it instead to the English Department? Or maybe the Econ Department?
4. How many Bradford Freeman are out there? My impression is that the donor class floats the boat, not the University.
5. Aside from me caring about football more than any other sport, is there a model for Stanford to be good at sports without football? I really don't want football just there doing whatever only so that Stanford avoids the WCC.

1.  Maybe indirectly, the AD can pay out ~$20m to athletes so they can presumably spend it how they want to (is this an incremental $20m of spend?   I think so which may impact University funding to the AD (see item 2).  If it is outside money not from the AD (e.g., NIL) then likely not
2.  in 2023-24 (still pac-12 TV money) the AD annual report shows "university support" as ~33% of ~$144m so ~$47m, which is likely higher  in 2024-25 and following years with the lower ACC TV money
3.  who knows, he and his business partner did also fund the Freeman-Spogli Institute so maybe he has diverse interests.  He appears to be ~83 years old so maybe is looking to leave a legacy....
4.  It depends on if you are looking for rich ex-football players, rich people with an interest in football, rich alums in general
5.  I'd would not be surprised with the lower ACC TV payout if the football team could be losing money given they have a very high burn rate (and yes some of their costs are covered by endowment payouts (e.g., scholarships for many players, at least part of several coaches salaries)), several of the "Olympic" sports have been raising endowed funding since their "moment of truth" when the University was going to cut them, I would guess those parts of the endowment are pretty restrictive in their use..... 

I still think Stanford football's last, best hope is that one of the eventual "Power 2" conferences wants some teams in the Pacific and Mountain time zone and we could be one....and one of the "Power 2" already has four of them....

[jacket3ree]

I still think Stanford football's last, best hope is that one of the eventual "Power 2" conferences wants some teams in the Pacific and Mountain time zone and we could be one....and one of the "Power 2" already has four of them....

This I've given a lot of thought. To the point of spending several lunch breaks with another college football fanatic at the white board. We even found an address to send photos of said white board and maybe we should just be glad we didn't get a cease and desist letter and leave at that.

A Power 2 doesn't work. Let's say, for reasons which become obvious soon, that 80 schools are all in on pro college ball. So the Big Whatever is going to have 40 and the SEC is going to have 40? No, of course not. The ACC is at 16 right now and with only two weeks left in the conference schedule there are five one-loss teams and two two-loss teams, all with some theoretical way to run the gauntlet of tie-breakers, and a handful have some less theoretical than others as in just win. The team currently on top will have played exactly two of the six opponents they are vying with for that title game spot. How is that going to work in two mega conferences?  

The more likely outcome is that the SEC stays below the Mason Dixon and maybe adds a couple of teams to keep the Big 10 north of the Mason Dixon. But the Big 10 will invade the south and there are plenty of AAU universities down there that mesh. So unless USC and UCLA beg for the inclusion of Stanford and Cal because somehow they learned some travel lesson they could of thought of before bringing UW and Oregon on board,..... yeah right. The So Cal schools don't give two craps about us and I don't see Ohio State and Michigan pining to get out to the Bay Area every few years. I don't see Stanford in any P2 world.

What needs to happen if college football is going to be professional is to be professional and use a franchise model like the NFL. No asinine committees (pipe down ESPN) and everything is settled on the field. This can be done with round-robin conference play, so no need for conference championship games and all with a maximum of 15 games in a season absolute tops, leaving three non-conference games to schedule cupcakes or interesting intersectional matchups. Eight ten-team conferences that are geographically based for the benefit of, I don't know, the athletes, fans and students. We took road trips to Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, and New Orleans. Always within a bleary overnight stuffed in DC's bug or someone's Datsun or Tut had that magnificent oil-belching Oldsmobile we sailed down to the Big Easy to watch us beat Tulane and hit the Quarter after. I think we spent about $5,000 on gas and zero on lodging. Good times. We weren't getting on a freaking plane.

Stanford should get behind that when all is said and done. I beat even the Ohio States and Texases would be down with it. It won't save money, but it would be glorious.

[jacket3ree]

I still think Stanford football's last, best hope is that one of the eventual "Power 2" conferences wants some teams in the Pacific and Mountain time zone and we could be one....and one of the "Power 2" already has four of them....

This I've given a lot of thought. To the point of spending several lunch breaks with another college football fanatic at the white board. We even found an address to send photos of said white board and maybe we should just be glad we didn't get a cease and desist letter and leave at that.

A Power 2 doesn't work. Let's say, for reasons which become obvious soon, that 80 schools are all in on pro college ball. So the Big Whatever is going to have 40 and the SEC is going to have 40? No, of course not. The ACC is at 16 right now and with only two weeks left in the conference schedule there are five one-loss teams and two two-loss teams, all with some theoretical way to run the gauntlet of tie-breakers, and a handful have some less theoretical than others as in just win. The team currently on top will have played exactly two of the six opponents they are vying with for that title game spot. How is that going to work in two mega conferences?  

The more likely outcome is that the SEC stays below the Mason Dixon and maybe adds a couple of teams to keep the Big 10 north of the Mason Dixon. But the Big 10 will invade the south and there are plenty of AAU universities down there that mesh. So unless USC and UCLA beg for the inclusion of Stanford and Cal because somehow they learned some travel lesson they could of thought of before bringing UW and Oregon on board,..... yeah right. The So Cal schools don't give two craps about us and I don't see Ohio State and Michigan pining to get out to the Bay Area every few years. I don't see Stanford in any P2 world.

What needs to happen if college football is going to be professional is to be professional and use a franchise model like the NFL. No asinine committees (pipe down ESPN) and everything is settled on the field. This can be done with round-robin conference play, so no need for conference championship games and all with a maximum of 15 games in a season absolute tops, leaving three non-conference games to schedule cupcakes or interesting intersectional matchups. Eight ten-team conferences that are geographically based for the benefit of, I don't know, the athletes, fans and students. We took road trips to Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, and New Orleans. Always within a bleary overnight stuffed in DC's bug or someone's Datsun or Tut had that magnificent oil-belching Oldsmobile we sailed down to the Big Easy to watch us beat Tulane and hit the Quarter after. I think we spent about $5,000 on gas and zero on lodging. Good times. We weren't getting on a freaking plane.

Stanford should get behind that when all is said and done. I beat even the Ohio States and Texases would be down with it. It won't save money, but it would be glorious.

[chrisk]

One of the reasons that Levin wants to expand undergraduate enrollment is to make the university seem more inclusive to the general public and the political class (in other words, improve the chances of NIH funding).

At the same time, a larger student body would dilute the number of football players (getting special consideration) as a % of the student body.

[chrisk]

One of the reasons that Levin wants to expand undergraduate enrollment is to make the university seem more inclusive to the general public and the political class (in other words, improve the chances of NIH funding).

At the same time, a larger student body would dilute the number of football players (getting special consideration) as a % of the student body.

[fullmetal]

Hasn't the admin always been trying to expand undergrad enrollment?  They do have to balance that with expanding graduate student enrollment.  IIRC, the general limit for undergrads has always been dependent on the GUP and amount of housing on campus (since we want to keep undergrads on campus for a more uniform experience).

[fullmetal]

Hasn't the admin always been trying to expand undergrad enrollment?  They do have to balance that with expanding graduate student enrollment.  IIRC, the general limit for undergrads has always been dependent on the GUP and amount of housing on campus (since we want to keep undergrads on campus for a more uniform experience).

[BostonCard]

The university should continue to expand undergraduate enrollment as long as 1) there are more qualified students who want to come to Stanford than there are spots (well described) and 2) the size of the university isn’t so overwhelming as to change the fundamental character of the school (a bit more fuzzy, but I think we can increase enrollment substantially before Stanford ceases to be “the farm” as we know it), subject to agreemets from the school’s neighbors.

BC

[BostonCard]

The university should continue to expand undergraduate enrollment as long as 1) there are more qualified students who want to come to Stanford than there are spots (well described) and 2) the size of the university isn’t so overwhelming as to change the fundamental character of the school (a bit more fuzzy, but I think we can increase enrollment substantially before Stanford ceases to be “the farm” as we know it), subject to agreemets from the school’s neighbors.

BC

[jacket3ree]

Interesting question on the character of the school. I went to high school with 1500 or so other morons and I don't know if the experience would have been different at 15 (of course it would depending on which particular 15 morons), 150 (I would be hanging out with those same 15 so I probably wouldn't notice too much), or 15,000 other than a 15,000-student high school is unheard of.  Stanford has 20,000 people are so on campus, so I don't know that reconfiguring graduate and undergraduate populations would be that noticeable. The experience is about being on campus not in front of Zoom.

Also, I thought of you BC when reading this elsewhere. None of the recent travails are new. Through the looking glass 130 years. At least the chances of being stabbed at a game are pretty low now. It's an article written by GT's play by play guy with guest appearances from Teddy Roosevelt, Cal, Stanford and Walter Camp, Robert Neyland, and Grover Cleveland. The post-bac discussion of today was the woodshop discussion of yester-year. Tech hero Leonard Wood [the namesake of Ft. Leonard Wood in Missouri] portalled on out of there and beat a depleted Tech squad the next year. One thing I hope repeats is the newspaper headline of "The Techs Won. But the People of Athens Are Greatly Dissatisfied."

A tale as old as college football.

[jacket3ree]

Interesting question on the character of the school. I went to high school with 1500 or so other morons and I don't know if the experience would have been different at 15 (of course it would depending on which particular 15 morons), 150 (I would be hanging out with those same 15 so I probably wouldn't notice too much), or 15,000 other than a 15,000-student high school is unheard of.  Stanford has 20,000 people are so on campus, so I don't know that reconfiguring graduate and undergraduate populations would be that noticeable. The experience is about being on campus not in front of Zoom.

Also, I thought of you BC when reading this elsewhere. None of the recent travails are new. Through the looking glass 130 years. At least the chances of being stabbed at a game are pretty low now. It's an article written by GT's play by play guy with guest appearances from Teddy Roosevelt, Cal, Stanford and Walter Camp, Robert Neyland, and Grover Cleveland. The post-bac discussion of today was the woodshop discussion of yester-year. Tech hero Leonard Wood [the namesake of Ft. Leonard Wood in Missouri] portalled on out of there and beat a depleted Tech squad the next year. One thing I hope repeats is the newspaper headline of "The Techs Won. But the People of Athens Are Greatly Dissatisfied."

A tale as old as college football.

[BostonCard]

Debates about ringers, boosters, what constitutes a real “student athlete”, amateurism, etc. are not new but I think the big difference between now and then is the injection of massive amounts of money into the system.

BC

[BostonCard]

Debates about ringers, boosters, what constitutes a real “student athlete”, amateurism, etc. are not new but I think the big difference between now and then is the injection of massive amounts of money into the system.

BC

[SkiBum80]

Interesting question on the character of the school. I went to high school with 1500 or so other morons and I don't know if the experience would have been different at 15 (of course it would depending on which particular 15 morons), 150 (I would be hanging out with those same 15 so I probably wouldn't notice too much), or 15,000 other than a 15,000-student high school is unheard of.  Stanford has 20,000 people are so on campus, so I don't know that reconfiguring graduate and undergraduate populations would be that noticeable. The experience is about being on campus not in front of Zoom.

Also, I thought of you BC when reading this elsewhere. None of the recent travails are new. Through the looking glass 130 years. At least the chances of being stabbed at a game are pretty low now. It's an article written by GT's play by play guy with guest appearances from Teddy Roosevelt, Cal, Stanford and Walter Camp, Robert Neyland, and Grover Cleveland. The post-bac discussion of today was the woodshop discussion of yester-year. Tech hero Leonard Wood [the namesake of Ft. Leonard Wood in Missouri] portalled on out of there and beat a depleted Tech squad the next year. One thing I hope repeats is the newspaper headline of "The Techs Won. But the People of Athens Are Greatly Dissatisfied."

A tale as old as college football.

I see his first ever football game was leading a successful defeat of CAL.
We could use him next game...

[SkiBum80]

Interesting question on the character of the school. I went to high school with 1500 or so other morons and I don't know if the experience would have been different at 15 (of course it would depending on which particular 15 morons), 150 (I would be hanging out with those same 15 so I probably wouldn't notice too much), or 15,000 other than a 15,000-student high school is unheard of.  Stanford has 20,000 people are so on campus, so I don't know that reconfiguring graduate and undergraduate populations would be that noticeable. The experience is about being on campus not in front of Zoom.

Also, I thought of you BC when reading this elsewhere. None of the recent travails are new. Through the looking glass 130 years. At least the chances of being stabbed at a game are pretty low now. It's an article written by GT's play by play guy with guest appearances from Teddy Roosevelt, Cal, Stanford and Walter Camp, Robert Neyland, and Grover Cleveland. The post-bac discussion of today was the woodshop discussion of yester-year. Tech hero Leonard Wood [the namesake of Ft. Leonard Wood in Missouri] portalled on out of there and beat a depleted Tech squad the next year. One thing I hope repeats is the newspaper headline of "The Techs Won. But the People of Athens Are Greatly Dissatisfied."

A tale as old as college football.

I see his first ever football game was leading a successful defeat of CAL.
We could use him next game...