[msqueri]

We shouldn't give up on any player until there's reason to despair provided by their college career. 3-stars at any position can turn out spectacularly. It happens. Hope will spring eternal.

Nonetheless, Patu-Daniels-gap year or Patu-Daniels-Plan C would be a horrible QB depth chart by Stanford's historical standards. It would take us eerily back to the Pritchard-Loukas-Crow days. Good play is possible - and Pritchard was a solid, competitive Pac-12 QB - but it's nothing to be happy about.

I put essentially no stock in Daniels winning at the high school level. Buford has won 13 of the last 21 state championships. It does not tell you anything that their QB1 won the state championship. They typically win, and their past QB1s were nothing to write home about. They've never had an NFL QB and I am having trouble thinking of a significant college QB. Some powerhouse programs are powerhouse programs without it telling you that a particular player is all that.

What I like about Daniels is he looked better to me on film than I expected given poor stats (though the poor stats definitely indicated Buford did not lean on him to win those state championships). In particular, I think he clearly has some arm strength. I'm not discounting him. I think Patu has a better shot at Stanford but never say never. Daniels has grown on me a bit.

[msqueri]

We shouldn't give up on any player until there's reason to despair provided by their college career. 3-stars at any position can turn out spectacularly. It happens. Hope will spring eternal.

Nonetheless, Patu-Daniels-gap year or Patu-Daniels-Plan C would be a horrible QB depth chart by Stanford's historical standards. It would take us eerily back to the Pritchard-Loukas-Crow days. Good play is possible - and Pritchard was a solid, competitive Pac-12 QB - but it's nothing to be happy about.

I put essentially no stock in Daniels winning at the high school level. Buford has won 13 of the last 21 state championships. It does not tell you anything that their QB1 won the state championship. They typically win, and their past QB1s were nothing to write home about. They've never had an NFL QB and I am having trouble thinking of a significant college QB. Some powerhouse programs are powerhouse programs without it telling you that a particular player is all that.

What I like about Daniels is he looked better to me on film than I expected given poor stats (though the poor stats definitely indicated Buford did not lean on him to win those state championships). In particular, I think he clearly has some arm strength. I'm not discounting him. I think Patu has a better shot at Stanford but never say never. Daniels has grown on me a bit.

[TrumpCard]

I was one of the people saying that the team would be in trouble without a QB like Lonergan this season.  I'm not writing off Patu and Daniels, but I'm noting the odds are not in Stanford's favor with that depth chart.  One interesting question I have is whether Stanford will be able to land a transfer in 2023 assuming McKee leaves (which I think is obviously going to occur absent a major injury).  With Tiger Bachmeier committed in the class of 2023, I wonder whether it's plausible that Stanford would be able to lure his brother Hank for a grad transfer year.  I note that Hank's page on the BSU football site says he was All-Acacemic and a Conference Scholar Athlete in his first two years.  (I didn't see anything about this last year, but maybe that award hasn't come out or made it onto his page yet.)  I don't hold out a ton of hope that Stanford would be able to pluck a starting QB from Boise, but the academics are a major draw, so you never know...

[TrumpCard]

I was one of the people saying that the team would be in trouble without a QB like Lonergan this season.  I'm not writing off Patu and Daniels, but I'm noting the odds are not in Stanford's favor with that depth chart.  One interesting question I have is whether Stanford will be able to land a transfer in 2023 assuming McKee leaves (which I think is obviously going to occur absent a major injury).  With Tiger Bachmeier committed in the class of 2023, I wonder whether it's plausible that Stanford would be able to lure his brother Hank for a grad transfer year.  I note that Hank's page on the BSU football site says he was All-Acacemic and a Conference Scholar Athlete in his first two years.  (I didn't see anything about this last year, but maybe that award hasn't come out or made it onto his page yet.)  I don't hold out a ton of hope that Stanford would be able to pluck a starting QB from Boise, but the academics are a major draw, so you never know...

[TrumpCard]

It's official, Lonergan to Bama.  Let the hand wringing commence.

[TrumpCard]

It's official, Lonergan to Bama.  Let the hand wringing commence.

[Phogge]

You need to offer a slew of QB’s. Or take jucos. Or take transfers. You need to get over the defensive philosophy of, “what if X gets pissed that we offered somebody else.”

Or just give up.

[Phogge]

You need to offer a slew of QB’s. Or take jucos. Or take transfers. You need to get over the defensive philosophy of, “what if X gets pissed that we offered somebody else.”

Or just give up.

[JohnR34231]

It's official, Lonergan to Bama.  Let the hand wringing commence.

Hardly a shock.

[JohnR34231]

It's official, Lonergan to Bama.  Let the hand wringing commence.

Hardly a shock.

[SamuelMcF]

You need to offer a slew of QB’s. Or take jucos. Or take transfers. You need to get over the defensive philosophy of, “what if X gets pissed that we offered somebody else.”

Or just give up.

We offered 6. Many were in play at the same time.

[SamuelMcF]

You need to offer a slew of QB’s. Or take jucos. Or take transfers. You need to get over the defensive philosophy of, “what if X gets pissed that we offered somebody else.”

Or just give up.

We offered 6. Many were in play at the same time.

[TrumpCard]

You need to offer a slew of QB’s. Or take jucos. Or take transfers. You need to get over the defensive philosophy of, “what if X gets pissed that we offered somebody else.”

Or just give up.

We offered 6. Many were in play at the same time.

Probably more than one of these options, given the way QB recruiting now works.  At one point, I thought that having a QB in the c/o 2019 would have solved most of Shaw's problems, but that's really not the case.  These days, an elite QB will be gone in 3 and a backup QB without great prospects of starting will leave ASAP.  That means you only get 4 years from QBs who are good but not great and QBs who are so middling that they won't realistically be able to start elsewhere.  And does anyone play five years these days?  Seems rare at Stanford though admittedly Stanford QBs are a small sample size.  Even if Stanford had taken a 2019 QB, what are the chances that guy would still be in Stanford's QB room in 2023?  Low, IMHO.  These days, teams need to take more than 1 QB per year and/or have an ability to take a QB through JUCO/transfer at will (not just once in a while when the opportunity arises) in order to always ensure 3 QBs on the roster.  Given that Stanford will never be able to count on incoming transfers/JUCOs at QB in a year when unfortunate circumstances align, Stanford can't just offer a few QBs at the same time with the idea of taking one.  Stanford needs to plan for something more like 3 QBs every 2 years.  Bama took two this year and Lonergan still decided to commit there.  Maybe Shaw can shoot for the moon one year and aim for two well-regarded but not spectacular recruits the next so he at least still has a chance of occasionally getting an elite QB.  Though admittedly that prospect seems questionable if the conference realignment doesn't work out Stanford's way.

[TrumpCard]

You need to offer a slew of QB’s. Or take jucos. Or take transfers. You need to get over the defensive philosophy of, “what if X gets pissed that we offered somebody else.”

Or just give up.

We offered 6. Many were in play at the same time.

Probably more than one of these options, given the way QB recruiting now works.  At one point, I thought that having a QB in the c/o 2019 would have solved most of Shaw's problems, but that's really not the case.  These days, an elite QB will be gone in 3 and a backup QB without great prospects of starting will leave ASAP.  That means you only get 4 years from QBs who are good but not great and QBs who are so middling that they won't realistically be able to start elsewhere.  And does anyone play five years these days?  Seems rare at Stanford though admittedly Stanford QBs are a small sample size.  Even if Stanford had taken a 2019 QB, what are the chances that guy would still be in Stanford's QB room in 2023?  Low, IMHO.  These days, teams need to take more than 1 QB per year and/or have an ability to take a QB through JUCO/transfer at will (not just once in a while when the opportunity arises) in order to always ensure 3 QBs on the roster.  Given that Stanford will never be able to count on incoming transfers/JUCOs at QB in a year when unfortunate circumstances align, Stanford can't just offer a few QBs at the same time with the idea of taking one.  Stanford needs to plan for something more like 3 QBs every 2 years.  Bama took two this year and Lonergan still decided to commit there.  Maybe Shaw can shoot for the moon one year and aim for two well-regarded but not spectacular recruits the next so he at least still has a chance of occasionally getting an elite QB.  Though admittedly that prospect seems questionable if the conference realignment doesn't work out Stanford's way.

[Phogge]

Next year offer 12. Right now you’re looking at Patu and Daniels in ‘23 plus whatever recruits or transfers you can get through your arcane admissions processes. We’ve seen Luck miss the Sun Bowl, Loukas miss a season, Costello get banged up and Davis unable to play two seasons in his first years. Shit happens.

[Phogge]

Next year offer 12. Right now you’re looking at Patu and Daniels in ‘23 plus whatever recruits or transfers you can get through your arcane admissions processes. We’ve seen Luck miss the Sun Bowl, Loukas miss a season, Costello get banged up and Davis unable to play two seasons in his first years. Shit happens.

[McKenwood]

You need to offer a slew of QB’s. Or take jucos. Or take transfers. You need to get over the defensive philosophy of, “what if X gets pissed that we offered somebody else.”

Or just give up.

We offered 6. Many were in play at the same time.

Better approach this year with more offers but only one came from the Western US and all were reaches given Stanford's relative lack of success recently. Need to find the guy that will take the offer relatively early so you aren't out in the cold in mid-July.

[McKenwood]

You need to offer a slew of QB’s. Or take jucos. Or take transfers. You need to get over the defensive philosophy of, “what if X gets pissed that we offered somebody else.”

Or just give up.

We offered 6. Many were in play at the same time.

Better approach this year with more offers but only one came from the Western US and all were reaches given Stanford's relative lack of success recently. Need to find the guy that will take the offer relatively early so you aren't out in the cold in mid-July.

[msqueri]

In other words, the Patu model. Not ambitious enough for me.

[msqueri]

In other words, the Patu model. Not ambitious enough for me.

[McKenwood]

In other words, the Patu model. Not ambitious enough for me.

Take two in some years. A certain one and then shoot for a longer shot(s) as well.

Used to happen all the time. Borchard was QB3 and an after thought in his recruiting class.

[McKenwood]

In other words, the Patu model. Not ambitious enough for me.

Take two in some years. A certain one and then shoot for a longer shot(s) as well.

Used to happen all the time. Borchard was QB3 and an after thought in his recruiting class.

[PVTree]

I don't think Hogan was the #1 QB recruit in his class, and that turned out well.

[PVTree]

I don't think Hogan was the #1 QB recruit in his class, and that turned out well.

[Alvin]

Anyone else concerned that our vaccination policy might be affecting recruiting?  Healthy teenagers, not at any real risk of hospitalization or death from Covid - football being more dangerous, for example - have no reason to take the injections...all risk, no benefit. I'm new to the board, having just discovered this site recently, but am interested in hearing what others think on the subject.

[Alvin]

Anyone else concerned that our vaccination policy might be affecting recruiting?  Healthy teenagers, not at any real risk of hospitalization or death from Covid - football being more dangerous, for example - have no reason to take the injections...all risk, no benefit. I'm new to the board, having just discovered this site recently, but am interested in hearing what others think on the subject.

[TrumpCard]

Anyone else concerned that our vaccination policy might be affecting recruiting?  Healthy teenagers, not at any real risk of hospitalization or death from Covid - football being more dangerous, for example - have no reason to take the injections...all risk, no benefit. I'm new to the board, having just discovered this site recently, but am interested in hearing what others think on the subject.

Hi Alvin.  I see you are new to the site.  Welcome.  Maybe you are a parent of a recruit.  If so, I hope your son chooses Stanford; it's a great place to spend 4 years.  If your son is unvaccinated and cannot attend Stanford as a result, that would be his loss twice over.  He'd miss out on protection from a potentially serious illness and he'd miss out on a great school.  Although I don't agree at all with your assessment of the risks and benefits associated with the vaccine, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that playing football is a significant risk.  As the risk of concussions has become clear, I have felt a lot of cognitive dissonance over my interest in football and I have become more and more concerned for the safety of kids who play college football.  

Although I had not previously reflected on this, your hypothesis that football families may be vaccine resistant makes sense to me.  A significant portion of the overall population fits that description.  Also, given the fact that football families have pre-selected for accepting the risk of concussions their kids face, I agree that football families may lean more in that direction than the average folks.  There might well be a disproportionate number of football families who weigh health risks associated with lots of other choices (such as getting the COVID vaccine) based on instincts that don't accurately reflect true risk.  

From the perspective of a Stanford fan, however, I would not think twice about any reduction in Stanford's yield rate (whether for football players, other scholarship athletes, or the rest of the population) as a result of the vaccination policy.  Whatever the loss would be is worth protecting the lives of faculty, staff, and other students.

[TrumpCard]

Anyone else concerned that our vaccination policy might be affecting recruiting?  Healthy teenagers, not at any real risk of hospitalization or death from Covid - football being more dangerous, for example - have no reason to take the injections...all risk, no benefit. I'm new to the board, having just discovered this site recently, but am interested in hearing what others think on the subject.

Hi Alvin.  I see you are new to the site.  Welcome.  Maybe you are a parent of a recruit.  If so, I hope your son chooses Stanford; it's a great place to spend 4 years.  If your son is unvaccinated and cannot attend Stanford as a result, that would be his loss twice over.  He'd miss out on protection from a potentially serious illness and he'd miss out on a great school.  Although I don't agree at all with your assessment of the risks and benefits associated with the vaccine, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that playing football is a significant risk.  As the risk of concussions has become clear, I have felt a lot of cognitive dissonance over my interest in football and I have become more and more concerned for the safety of kids who play college football.  

Although I had not previously reflected on this, your hypothesis that football families may be vaccine resistant makes sense to me.  A significant portion of the overall population fits that description.  Also, given the fact that football families have pre-selected for accepting the risk of concussions their kids face, I agree that football families may lean more in that direction than the average folks.  There might well be a disproportionate number of football families who weigh health risks associated with lots of other choices (such as getting the COVID vaccine) based on instincts that don't accurately reflect true risk.  

From the perspective of a Stanford fan, however, I would not think twice about any reduction in Stanford's yield rate (whether for football players, other scholarship athletes, or the rest of the population) as a result of the vaccination policy.  Whatever the loss would be is worth protecting the lives of faculty, staff, and other students.

[Phogge]

Everybody has the right to choose. I have rights about access to my home. So does the Stanford community.

[Phogge]

Everybody has the right to choose. I have rights about access to my home. So does the Stanford community.

[SamuelMcF]

Anyone else concerned that our vaccination policy might be affecting recruiting?

"Anyone else?" Maybe.

Me? Not at all.

I am concerned that going 3-9 and looking like a JV team last year is affecting recruiting.

[SamuelMcF]

Anyone else concerned that our vaccination policy might be affecting recruiting?

"Anyone else?" Maybe.

Me? Not at all.

I am concerned that going 3-9 and looking like a JV team last year is affecting recruiting.

[McKenwood]

Anyone else concerned that our vaccination policy might be affecting recruiting?

"Anyone else?" Maybe.

Me? Not at all.

I am concerned that going 3-9 and looking like a JV team last year is affecting recruiting.

Right on Samuel. For now I'll take the poster at face value but I must say there may be ulterior motives.

[McKenwood]

Anyone else concerned that our vaccination policy might be affecting recruiting?

"Anyone else?" Maybe.

Me? Not at all.

I am concerned that going 3-9 and looking like a JV team last year is affecting recruiting.

Right on Samuel. For now I'll take the poster at face value but I must say there may be ulterior motives.

[BostonCard]

Everybody has the right to choose. I have rights about access to my home. So does the Stanford community.

I think Alvin’s question is a bit more subtle than that. He wasn’t necessarily challenging Stanford’s right to impose a vaccine requirement but asking how the conflict between Stanford’s right to impose a vaccine requirement and student/athletes autonomy over their body conflict, whether the student athletes will resolve it by committing to a school without a vaccine requirement.

I think it is plausible, but I have no way of knowing.  Unfortunately, this has become highly politicized, and the decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate has gotten undue discussion.  To give another example, chicken pox has a similarly low risk of hospitalization and death as COVID, and in many settings, a vaccine is required without significant controversy, except among a small subsection of the population.  It’s a shame that this is the proverbial hill people are willing to die on.

BC

---

ADD: Agree with Sam that the bigger concern is the lack of results on the field, (as well as questions around the conference) I suppose that this is one of the silver linings of Shaw’s recruiting philosophy. While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.

BC

[BostonCard]

Everybody has the right to choose. I have rights about access to my home. So does the Stanford community.

I think Alvin’s question is a bit more subtle than that. He wasn’t necessarily challenging Stanford’s right to impose a vaccine requirement but asking how the conflict between Stanford’s right to impose a vaccine requirement and student/athletes autonomy over their body conflict, whether the student athletes will resolve it by committing to a school without a vaccine requirement.

I think it is plausible, but I have no way of knowing.  Unfortunately, this has become highly politicized, and the decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate has gotten undue discussion.  To give another example, chicken pox has a similarly low risk of hospitalization and death as COVID, and in many settings, a vaccine is required without significant controversy, except among a small subsection of the population.  It’s a shame that this is the proverbial hill people are willing to die on.

BC

---

ADD: Agree with Sam that the bigger concern is the lack of results on the field, (as well as questions around the conference) I suppose that this is one of the silver linings of Shaw’s recruiting philosophy. While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.

BC

[Goose]

While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.


BC

One of the premises in this characterization is that being a "Football First" guy precludes being a "Stanford Man". I don't think there was any question Andrew Luck was a Football First guy. He was going to the NFL, that was his intention and he would do what it took to get there. He showed many times he would do what it took and sacrifice his body for the game. Yet I think few would question that Luck was also a "Stanford Man". Being a Football First guy doesn't require you be a football only guy. While there are certainly plenty of players that are "that way", there are an infinite number of gradations in between. I argue it isn't just a false dichotomy, it isn't even a dichotomy. Was Richard Sherman a Football First guy but not a Stanford Man?

Being a "Stanford Man" is a pretty big category IMHO. I knew several people who were Physics First people. That is all they talked about, and all they did. Everything else was a distraction. Monomania definitely exists at Stanford, and at least when I was there it was common. Quite a few people started out that way and evolved over their years at Stanford to the point they at least recognized other options existed. Some became less one-dimensional, some didn't. IMHO it is almost impossible to play P5 level football and actually have much of another focus. To a large degree, anybody who is on the team and following the physical requirements of workouts and practicing has little or no time to spend smelling the roses. Maybe for a week or two in winter quarter you aren't involved in football. Otherwise, you are. That is a kind of "Stanford Man" too.

[Goose]

While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.


BC

One of the premises in this characterization is that being a "Football First" guy precludes being a "Stanford Man". I don't think there was any question Andrew Luck was a Football First guy. He was going to the NFL, that was his intention and he would do what it took to get there. He showed many times he would do what it took and sacrifice his body for the game. Yet I think few would question that Luck was also a "Stanford Man". Being a Football First guy doesn't require you be a football only guy. While there are certainly plenty of players that are "that way", there are an infinite number of gradations in between. I argue it isn't just a false dichotomy, it isn't even a dichotomy. Was Richard Sherman a Football First guy but not a Stanford Man?

Being a "Stanford Man" is a pretty big category IMHO. I knew several people who were Physics First people. That is all they talked about, and all they did. Everything else was a distraction. Monomania definitely exists at Stanford, and at least when I was there it was common. Quite a few people started out that way and evolved over their years at Stanford to the point they at least recognized other options existed. Some became less one-dimensional, some didn't. IMHO it is almost impossible to play P5 level football and actually have much of another focus. To a large degree, anybody who is on the team and following the physical requirements of workouts and practicing has little or no time to spend smelling the roses. Maybe for a week or two in winter quarter you aren't involved in football. Otherwise, you are. That is a kind of "Stanford Man" too.

[Alvin]

Everybody has the right to choose. I have rights about access to my home. So does the Stanford community.

I think Alvin’s question is a bit more subtle than that. He wasn’t necessarily challenging Stanford’s right to impose a vaccine requirement but asking how the conflict between Stanford’s right to impose a vaccine requirement and student/athletes autonomy over their body conflict, whether the student athletes will resolve it by committing to a school without a vaccine requirement.

I think it is plausible, but I have no way of knowing.  Unfortunately, this has become highly politicized, and the decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate has gotten undue discussion.  To give another example, chicken pox has a similarly low risk of hospitalization and death as COVID, and in many settings, a vaccine is required without significant controversy, except among a small subsection of the population.  It’s a shame that this is the proverbial hill people are willing to die on.

BC

---

ADD: Agree with Sam that the bigger concern is the lack of results on the field, (as well as questions around the conference) I suppose that this is one of the silver linings of Shaw’s recruiting philosophy. While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.

BC

You get my question. I have kids approaching college age and personally, from what I've read including the data, I won't allow my kids to attend a college/university that requires THIS vaccine/booster. I see only downside...and I don't think I'm part of a small, fringe minority on this issue except maybe on this board. None of the SEC schools, with the possible exception of Vanderbilt, require the Covid vaccine for enrollment. 

Yes, as posters have said, Stanford has other challenges right now such as a program struggling the past several years, conference realignment, NIL rights, convincing a kid from the deep south to leave for a program and conference in decline, California associated with increased crime and other problems, but those to me are relatively minor compared to the benefit of a Stanford degree. Only personal health I believe is more important than anything else...and many parents around the country do not feel comfortable giving their kids THIS vaccine.  My guess is, of the 50 or 60 recruits that meet Stanford's athletic and academic requirements every year, at least 10-15 will now choose not to attend Stanford anymore because of the vaccine policy. This is not the sentiment around Palo Alto, but it is more varied outside our Silicon Valley bubble ("I don't know anyone who voted for Trump"). The in-class mask policy doesn't help either, but there are ways around that - taking online only classes or classes taught by Hoover fellows who are against the mask or will set-up their classes outdoors.

Finally, I have no ulterior motive.  Just a person who cared deeply about Stanford athletics, especially football, since the late 70s...but completely turned off by the Covid policies of the past 2+ years to the point that I lost interest. More disappointed by my fellow Card fans who seemed fine presenting their papers, donning a mask, and canceling the 2020 season.

[Alvin]

Everybody has the right to choose. I have rights about access to my home. So does the Stanford community.

I think Alvin’s question is a bit more subtle than that. He wasn’t necessarily challenging Stanford’s right to impose a vaccine requirement but asking how the conflict between Stanford’s right to impose a vaccine requirement and student/athletes autonomy over their body conflict, whether the student athletes will resolve it by committing to a school without a vaccine requirement.

I think it is plausible, but I have no way of knowing.  Unfortunately, this has become highly politicized, and the decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate has gotten undue discussion.  To give another example, chicken pox has a similarly low risk of hospitalization and death as COVID, and in many settings, a vaccine is required without significant controversy, except among a small subsection of the population.  It’s a shame that this is the proverbial hill people are willing to die on.

BC

---

ADD: Agree with Sam that the bigger concern is the lack of results on the field, (as well as questions around the conference) I suppose that this is one of the silver linings of Shaw’s recruiting philosophy. While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.

BC

You get my question. I have kids approaching college age and personally, from what I've read including the data, I won't allow my kids to attend a college/university that requires THIS vaccine/booster. I see only downside...and I don't think I'm part of a small, fringe minority on this issue except maybe on this board. None of the SEC schools, with the possible exception of Vanderbilt, require the Covid vaccine for enrollment. 

Yes, as posters have said, Stanford has other challenges right now such as a program struggling the past several years, conference realignment, NIL rights, convincing a kid from the deep south to leave for a program and conference in decline, California associated with increased crime and other problems, but those to me are relatively minor compared to the benefit of a Stanford degree. Only personal health I believe is more important than anything else...and many parents around the country do not feel comfortable giving their kids THIS vaccine.  My guess is, of the 50 or 60 recruits that meet Stanford's athletic and academic requirements every year, at least 10-15 will now choose not to attend Stanford anymore because of the vaccine policy. This is not the sentiment around Palo Alto, but it is more varied outside our Silicon Valley bubble ("I don't know anyone who voted for Trump"). The in-class mask policy doesn't help either, but there are ways around that - taking online only classes or classes taught by Hoover fellows who are against the mask or will set-up their classes outdoors.

Finally, I have no ulterior motive.  Just a person who cared deeply about Stanford athletics, especially football, since the late 70s...but completely turned off by the Covid policies of the past 2+ years to the point that I lost interest. More disappointed by my fellow Card fans who seemed fine presenting their papers, donning a mask, and canceling the 2020 season.