[cardcrimson]

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

[martyup]

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

He couldn't do any worse.  Why not?  But, if we are going to stay in D1 football we need a proven winning D1 coach.  Make Luck the OC or QB coach.

[martyup]

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

He couldn't do any worse.  Why not?  But, if we are going to stay in D1 football we need a proven winning D1 coach.  Make Luck the OC or QB coach.

[chrisk]

Doubt Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure. Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues. Something for year 2.

---

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

He couldn't do any worse.  Why not?  But, if we are going to stay in D1 football we need a proven winning D1 coach.  Make Luck the OC or QB coach.

Luck wouldn’t be coaching.

[chrisk]

Doubt Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure. Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues. Something for year 2.

---

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

He couldn't do any worse.  Why not?  But, if we are going to stay in D1 football we need a proven winning D1 coach.  Make Luck the OC or QB coach.

Luck wouldn’t be coaching.

[Row80Critic]

Doubt  Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure.  Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues.  Something for year 2.

---

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

He couldn't do any worse.  Why not?  But, if we are going to stay in D1 football we need a proven winning D1 coach.  Make Luck the OC or QB coach.

Luck wouldn’t be coaching.

Every time I see Nick Saban on TV this year, he looks bored.  Just say'n.

[Row80Critic]

Doubt  Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure.  Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues.  Something for year 2.

---

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

He couldn't do any worse.  Why not?  But, if we are going to stay in D1 football we need a proven winning D1 coach.  Make Luck the OC or QB coach.

Luck wouldn’t be coaching.

Every time I see Nick Saban on TV this year, he looks bored.  Just say'n.

[Mick]

Doubt  Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure.  Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues.  Something for year 2.

---

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

He couldn't do any worse.  Why not?  But, if we are going to stay in D1 football we need a proven winning D1 coach.  Make Luck the OC or QB coach.

Luck wouldn’t be coaching.

Every time I see Nick Saban on TV this year, he looks bored.  Just say'n.

That would be an interesting cultural match...

I don't think there's much discussion to be had. Stanford needs to get serious about the NIL program, about the transfer portal and about attracting and compensating top level coaches across the board, starting with football and men's basketball. Either they are cash cows or they aren't. Either they're important to the University's mission or they aren't. And there will always be challenges in the University, but wouldn't it be nice to make some hard choices and either eliminate varsity sports or play to win like Stanford does in literally every other area?

[Mick]

Doubt  Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure.  Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues.  Something for year 2.

---

Muir has got to go. Now.

Luck would bring some excitement and commitment, and could rely on Condi and Oliver as advisors. . . .

He couldn't do any worse.  Why not?  But, if we are going to stay in D1 football we need a proven winning D1 coach.  Make Luck the OC or QB coach.

Luck wouldn’t be coaching.

Every time I see Nick Saban on TV this year, he looks bored.  Just say'n.

That would be an interesting cultural match...

I don't think there's much discussion to be had. Stanford needs to get serious about the NIL program, about the transfer portal and about attracting and compensating top level coaches across the board, starting with football and men's basketball. Either they are cash cows or they aren't. Either they're important to the University's mission or they aren't. And there will always be challenges in the University, but wouldn't it be nice to make some hard choices and either eliminate varsity sports or play to win like Stanford does in literally every other area?

[Goose]

I don't think there's much discussion to be had. Stanford needs to get serious about the NIL program, about the transfer portal and about attracting and compensating top level coaches across the board, starting with football and men's basketball. Either they are cash cows or they aren't. Either they're important to the University's mission or they aren't. And there will always be challenges in the University, but wouldn't it be nice to make some hard choices and either eliminate varsity sports or play to win like Stanford does in literally every other area?

I think it is possible for Stanford to do two of the three. Stanford (or its surrogates) can get the money for NIL. Stanford can get the money to pay the coaches. Whether Stanford should is indeed the discussion that needs to be had. It really doesn't matter to what extent these sports are "cash cows". Stanford is allegedly a non-profit. To the degree football and basketball are important to the University's mission they should be supported. Note, it is unquestionably a matter of degree. It isn't "either/or". I recognize that makes it more difficult, but it reflects the underlying reality that there are lots of different opinions in the community. If it costs 100 million dollars, no chance. If it costs 1 million dollars, obviously do it. In between is where the truth lies.

The problem with the transfer portal can't be fixed. It can be ameliorated but in no universe is Stanford going to have an "open door" policy to athletes that is similar to what most other universities have, just as Stanford does not have an admissions policy that is similar to what other universities have. Our coaches and their support staff will always have a considerably more difficult task. That is always the way it has been and Stanford has continued to have a modicum of success. If we can't find a way to continue to do so subject to these constraints then we may have to eliminate some varsity sports. That is IMO an immutable fact. The "amelioration" is subject to negotiation and judgement, but elimination of these constraints is a non-starter.

[Goose]

I don't think there's much discussion to be had. Stanford needs to get serious about the NIL program, about the transfer portal and about attracting and compensating top level coaches across the board, starting with football and men's basketball. Either they are cash cows or they aren't. Either they're important to the University's mission or they aren't. And there will always be challenges in the University, but wouldn't it be nice to make some hard choices and either eliminate varsity sports or play to win like Stanford does in literally every other area?

I think it is possible for Stanford to do two of the three. Stanford (or its surrogates) can get the money for NIL. Stanford can get the money to pay the coaches. Whether Stanford should is indeed the discussion that needs to be had. It really doesn't matter to what extent these sports are "cash cows". Stanford is allegedly a non-profit. To the degree football and basketball are important to the University's mission they should be supported. Note, it is unquestionably a matter of degree. It isn't "either/or". I recognize that makes it more difficult, but it reflects the underlying reality that there are lots of different opinions in the community. If it costs 100 million dollars, no chance. If it costs 1 million dollars, obviously do it. In between is where the truth lies.

The problem with the transfer portal can't be fixed. It can be ameliorated but in no universe is Stanford going to have an "open door" policy to athletes that is similar to what most other universities have, just as Stanford does not have an admissions policy that is similar to what other universities have. Our coaches and their support staff will always have a considerably more difficult task. That is always the way it has been and Stanford has continued to have a modicum of success. If we can't find a way to continue to do so subject to these constraints then we may have to eliminate some varsity sports. That is IMO an immutable fact. The "amelioration" is subject to negotiation and judgement, but elimination of these constraints is a non-starter.

[Spiny_Norman]

The review of the AD would be done by Muir's immediate superior, Provost Jenny Martinez. She is responsible for a budget of something like $7B or $8B. Athletics is one of 30 departments and other entities reporting to her and represents less than 2% of her total mission. This is probably not at the top of her list. As far as I know, Stanford has never fired an AD. In fact, has Stanford in recent memory fired any campus leaders?

[Spiny_Norman]

The review of the AD would be done by Muir's immediate superior, Provost Jenny Martinez. She is responsible for a budget of something like $7B or $8B. Athletics is one of 30 departments and other entities reporting to her and represents less than 2% of her total mission. This is probably not at the top of her list. As far as I know, Stanford has never fired an AD. In fact, has Stanford in recent memory fired any campus leaders?

[martyup]

The review of the AD would be done by Muir's immediate superior, Provost Jenny Martinez. She is responsible for a budget of something like $7B or $8B. Athletics is one of 30 departments and other entities reporting to her and represents less than 2% of her total mission. This is probably not at the top of her list. As far as I know, Stanford has never fired an AD. In fact, has Stanford in recent memory fired any campus leaders?

I'm sure she has a staff and I'm sure she's aware of the cringe worthy status of our football program.  She can assign someone to prepare a report on Muir's performance.  She can also assign a staff member to assemble a volunteer committee to perform a search for a new AD.

[martyup]

The review of the AD would be done by Muir's immediate superior, Provost Jenny Martinez. She is responsible for a budget of something like $7B or $8B. Athletics is one of 30 departments and other entities reporting to her and represents less than 2% of her total mission. This is probably not at the top of her list. As far as I know, Stanford has never fired an AD. In fact, has Stanford in recent memory fired any campus leaders?

I'm sure she has a staff and I'm sure she's aware of the cringe worthy status of our football program.  She can assign someone to prepare a report on Muir's performance.  She can also assign a staff member to assemble a volunteer committee to perform a search for a new AD.

[Goose]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

[Goose]

I remember a quote from Harbaugh. It was something to this effect: "We can find 22 students each year who are both great students and football players." More to the point, what exactly is our "admissions policy?" We use "holistic admissions." We consider the whole person and how that person may contribute to the university. There are plenty of high school and transfer athletes that can do Stanford-level academic work and compete for national titles in team sports. If we have admissions processes that are out of step with the transfer portal, then let's adjust the processes, as that will be easier than getting the NCAA to change the transfer rules.

Indeed we will adjust the transfer process. In fact we already have. We probably can do more. However, it is never going to be anywhere near as easy to get a transfer into Stanford as it is to e.g. ASU. The number of open transfer slots is quite small. That in itself limits what can be achieved via transfers each year. The academic community at Stanford simply isn't going to permit reserving some significant percentage of the very scarce transfer slots for athletes. That is not happening, period. As in freshman admissions the coaches are going to have to fight for their desired personnel and in many cases they won't get what they want. If we can't compete with these restrictions then Stanford sports will undoubtedly have to "downsize". I am not convinced that is the case (yet).

Harbaugh was able to find enough guys he could get admitted and that wanted to come to Stanford. He was also extremely fortunate to get some personalities that wanted to build a culture of winning with "Intellectual Brutality". The tunnel workers union wasn't created by the coaches but rather by the players. That culture took Stanford a long way. Without that culture JH and Shaw probably wouldn't have got nearly as far. As always, our coaches need to find guys like that, that want to excel at both academics and sports.

Stanford can get the money to match any NIL from other institutions. The problem is that even if Stanford has a great team there will be players that are second-string and not playing. If they do not value a Stanford education over playing time they will enter the portal and forgo the education for the playing time. Those are the guys we won't be able to replace through the transfer portal that other programs can. That won't change.

Right now of course lots of athletes will flee the football program because they don't want to play on a team that can't win. Of course for the same reason few good athletes will want to transfer into Stanford. That is the more proximate problem and much more relevant than our limited number of transfer slots. When we see admissible athletes beating down the doors to transfer into Stanford that will change, but we aren't near there yet.

[needle]

Doubt  Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure.  Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues.  Something for year 2.

This makes sense to me. 

OTOH, while there are disparate opinions about the best course for football, the one thing that seems to unite us fans is antipathy for Muir.

What is the actual likelihood that Muir is gone in 2025? I'd say slim to none, but does anyone disagree with this assessment?

[needle]

Doubt  Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure.  Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues.  Something for year 2.

This makes sense to me. 

OTOH, while there are disparate opinions about the best course for football, the one thing that seems to unite us fans is antipathy for Muir.

What is the actual likelihood that Muir is gone in 2025? I'd say slim to none, but does anyone disagree with this assessment?

[Mick]

The review of the AD would be done by Muir's immediate superior, Provost Jenny Martinez. She is responsible for a budget of something like $7B or $8B. Athletics is one of 30 departments and other entities reporting to her and represents less than 2% of her total mission. This is probably not at the top of her list. As far as I know, Stanford has never fired an AD. In fact, has Stanford in recent memory fired any campus leaders?

Right, but it's like a teacher with 30 students. You pay a LOT of attention to the 2-3 problem children, in fact Mrs. Mick who taught in PAUSD told me she used to spend 50% of her time on 4 of her 28 students. And right now, the AD in general and football/basketball are problem children. I suspect most of the other 30 are humming along.

---

Doubt  Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure.  Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues.  Something for year 2.

This makes sense to me. 

OTOH, while there are disparate opinions about the best course for football, the one thing that seems to unite us fans is antipathy for Muir.

What is the actual likelihood that Muir is gone in 2025? I'd say slim to none, but does anyone disagree with this assessment?

Slim and none, and Slim is heading out of town...

[Mick]

The review of the AD would be done by Muir's immediate superior, Provost Jenny Martinez. She is responsible for a budget of something like $7B or $8B. Athletics is one of 30 departments and other entities reporting to her and represents less than 2% of her total mission. This is probably not at the top of her list. As far as I know, Stanford has never fired an AD. In fact, has Stanford in recent memory fired any campus leaders?

Right, but it's like a teacher with 30 students. You pay a LOT of attention to the 2-3 problem children, in fact Mrs. Mick who taught in PAUSD told me she used to spend 50% of her time on 4 of her 28 students. And right now, the AD in general and football/basketball are problem children. I suspect most of the other 30 are humming along.

---

Doubt  Levin wants to deal with hiring an AD this early in his tenure.  Too much of a distraction from more urgent issues.  Something for year 2.

This makes sense to me. 

OTOH, while there are disparate opinions about the best course for football, the one thing that seems to unite us fans is antipathy for Muir.

What is the actual likelihood that Muir is gone in 2025? I'd say slim to none, but does anyone disagree with this assessment?

Slim and none, and Slim is heading out of town...

[cctop]

Vanderbilt is 6-3 and just beat Auburn. They’re bowl-eligible for the first time since 2018  

It feels like a Vanderbilt that is even mildly successful in the SEC can out-Stanford Stanford as the place for academically-minded football players.

[cctop]

Vanderbilt is 6-3 and just beat Auburn. They’re bowl-eligible for the first time since 2018  

It feels like a Vanderbilt that is even mildly successful in the SEC can out-Stanford Stanford as the place for academically-minded football players.

[Spiny_Norman]

Vanderbilt is 6-3 and just beat Auburn. They’re bowl-eligible for the first time since 2018  

It feels like a Vanderbilt that is even mildly successful in the SEC can out-Stanford Stanford as the place for academically-minded football players.

Vanderbilt was 9-27 in the previous 3 seasons. This year they brought in 22 transfers, including the QB who beat Alabama. In 2023, they had 3 transfers in. In 2022, it was 6. Transfers have turned Vanderbilt around this season.

[Spiny_Norman]

Vanderbilt is 6-3 and just beat Auburn. They’re bowl-eligible for the first time since 2018  

It feels like a Vanderbilt that is even mildly successful in the SEC can out-Stanford Stanford as the place for academically-minded football players.

Vanderbilt was 9-27 in the previous 3 seasons. This year they brought in 22 transfers, including the QB who beat Alabama. In 2023, they had 3 transfers in. In 2022, it was 6. Transfers have turned Vanderbilt around this season.

[Mick]

Vanderbilt is 6-3 and just beat Auburn. They’re bowl-eligible for the first time since 2018  

It feels like a Vanderbilt that is even mildly successful in the SEC can out-Stanford Stanford as the place for academically-minded football players.

So-called "academic" universities actually do quite well on the football field.

There's an interesting correlation between academic quality and football success, outside of Stanford, Purdue and UCLA. Check it out, here's the Top 51 National Universities (according to US News & World Report, a flawed but common measuring stick) that have D1 FBS football programs, and I threw in the service academies and BYU, which have uniquely challenging recruiting requirements apart from academics:

Army and BYU are 8-0
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Georgia and Texas are 7-1
Texas A&M is 7-2
Duke, Illinois and Vanderbilt are 6-3
Navy is 6-2
Washington, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech and Michigan are 5-4
Virginia, Cal, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Maryland, Florida and Boston College are 4-4
Northwestern and USC are 4-5

All are in the Top 51/USNWR. Stanford, Purdue and UCLA are the only "academic" teams with poor W/L records. Somehow, we need to be able to recruit better than our history. Harbaugh figured it out, as he said, you can find 22 excellent football players a year who can matriculate at Stanford. I don't think Taylor is going to figure it out, but whoever succeeds Taylor needs to be able to recruit at a high level.

[Mick]

Vanderbilt is 6-3 and just beat Auburn. They’re bowl-eligible for the first time since 2018  

It feels like a Vanderbilt that is even mildly successful in the SEC can out-Stanford Stanford as the place for academically-minded football players.

So-called "academic" universities actually do quite well on the football field.

There's an interesting correlation between academic quality and football success, outside of Stanford, Purdue and UCLA. Check it out, here's the Top 51 National Universities (according to US News & World Report, a flawed but common measuring stick) that have D1 FBS football programs, and I threw in the service academies and BYU, which have uniquely challenging recruiting requirements apart from academics:

Army and BYU are 8-0
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Georgia and Texas are 7-1
Texas A&M is 7-2
Duke, Illinois and Vanderbilt are 6-3
Navy is 6-2
Washington, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech and Michigan are 5-4
Virginia, Cal, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Maryland, Florida and Boston College are 4-4
Northwestern and USC are 4-5

All are in the Top 51/USNWR. Stanford, Purdue and UCLA are the only "academic" teams with poor W/L records. Somehow, we need to be able to recruit better than our history. Harbaugh figured it out, as he said, you can find 22 excellent football players a year who can matriculate at Stanford. I don't think Taylor is going to figure it out, but whoever succeeds Taylor needs to be able to recruit at a high level.

[PAsportsfan]

Vanderbilt, now here’s a thought. In a great conference earning big bucks. I wonder if their head coach and AD  went to their BOT/power makers and used what happened at Stanford (losing out on 30+ million, extended travel) as motivation up their transfer game?

[PAsportsfan]

Vanderbilt, now here’s a thought. In a great conference earning big bucks. I wonder if their head coach and AD  went to their BOT/power makers and used what happened at Stanford (losing out on 30+ million, extended travel) as motivation up their transfer game?

[Goose]

The Vanderbilt situation is no mystery. They have about the same number of undergraduate students as Stanford does. However Vanderbilt has a higher turnover. Their acceptance rate for transfers is much higher than Stanford's.

2022: 16.6% acceptance rate, 471 students accepted out of 2,833 applicants.
2021: 17.6% acceptance rate, 430 students accepted out of 2,450 applicants.
2024: 330 students accepted.

https://vanderbilthustler.com/2024/05/22...2-and-2021 has a nice graph for 2013 through 2023. Note the graph is not accepted students but rather how many matriculated. The matriculation rate is in the 50 to 60% range it seems. Stanford normally accepts 20-40 transfers per year, or about 10% of what Vanderbilt accepts, more or less. Thus 22 transfers that play football at Vanderbilt would translate proportionally to 2.2 transfers that play football at Stanford. I think we ended up with four, so Stanford is more "generous" to athletics than Vanderbilt :-).

This of course doesn't solve Stanford's problem but highlights the difference in the two school's ability to use the transfers as a "normal, reliable" means to plug holes in our football team.

[Goose]

The Vanderbilt situation is no mystery. They have about the same number of undergraduate students as Stanford does. However Vanderbilt has a higher turnover. Their acceptance rate for transfers is much higher than Stanford's.

2022: 16.6% acceptance rate, 471 students accepted out of 2,833 applicants.
2021: 17.6% acceptance rate, 430 students accepted out of 2,450 applicants.
2024: 330 students accepted.

https://vanderbilthustler.com/2024/05/22...2-and-2021 has a nice graph for 2013 through 2023. Note the graph is not accepted students but rather how many matriculated. The matriculation rate is in the 50 to 60% range it seems. Stanford normally accepts 20-40 transfers per year, or about 10% of what Vanderbilt accepts, more or less. Thus 22 transfers that play football at Vanderbilt would translate proportionally to 2.2 transfers that play football at Stanford. I think we ended up with four, so Stanford is more "generous" to athletics than Vanderbilt :-).

This of course doesn't solve Stanford's problem but highlights the difference in the two school's ability to use the transfers as a "normal, reliable" means to plug holes in our football team.

[PAsportsfan]

1730659829[/url]']
The Vanderbilt situation is no mystery. They have about the same number of undergraduate students as Stanford does. However Vanderbilt has a higher turnover. Their acceptance rate for transfers is much higher than Stanford's.

2022: 16.6% acceptance rate, 471 students accepted out of 2,833 applicants.
2021: 17.6% acceptance rate, 430 students accepted out of 2,450 applicants.
2024: 330 students accepted.



This of course doesn't solve Stanford's problem but highlights the difference in the two school's ability to use the transfers as a "normal, reliable" means to plug holes in our football team.

So Stanford is shooting themselves in the foot…got it.

[PAsportsfan]

1730659829[/url]']
The Vanderbilt situation is no mystery. They have about the same number of undergraduate students as Stanford does. However Vanderbilt has a higher turnover. Their acceptance rate for transfers is much higher than Stanford's.

2022: 16.6% acceptance rate, 471 students accepted out of 2,833 applicants.
2021: 17.6% acceptance rate, 430 students accepted out of 2,450 applicants.
2024: 330 students accepted.



This of course doesn't solve Stanford's problem but highlights the difference in the two school's ability to use the transfers as a "normal, reliable" means to plug holes in our football team.

So Stanford is shooting themselves in the foot…got it.

[fullmetal]

PASportsFan makes an excellent point -- Vanderbilt has a lot more money for football than Stanford because of comparatively lower travel expenses and much higher conference revenue sharing.

[fullmetal]

PASportsFan makes an excellent point -- Vanderbilt has a lot more money for football than Stanford because of comparatively lower travel expenses and much higher conference revenue sharing.

[chrisk]

Vanderbilt, now here’s a thought. In a great conference earning big bucks. I wonder if their head coach and AD  went to their BOT/power makers and used what happened at Stanford (losing out on 30+ million, extended travel) as motivation up their transfer game?

The SEC was not in imminent peril of demise.

[chrisk]

Vanderbilt, now here’s a thought. In a great conference earning big bucks. I wonder if their head coach and AD  went to their BOT/power makers and used what happened at Stanford (losing out on 30+ million, extended travel) as motivation up their transfer game?

The SEC was not in imminent peril of demise.

[PAsportsfan]

Vanderbilt, now here’s a thought. In a great conference earning big bucks. I wonder if their head coach and AD  went to their BOT/power makers and used what happened at Stanford (losing out on 30+ million, extended travel) as motivation up their transfer game?

The SEC was not in imminent peril of demise.

True.
But if Vanderbilt maintained their level of putrid play and basically continued stealing money (the way Stanford was in the final years of Shaw) they would be on the outs when/if the Super Conference comes.

It’s costing Stanford $300 million? in the ACC deal for stealing.

[PAsportsfan]

Vanderbilt, now here’s a thought. In a great conference earning big bucks. I wonder if their head coach and AD  went to their BOT/power makers and used what happened at Stanford (losing out on 30+ million, extended travel) as motivation up their transfer game?

The SEC was not in imminent peril of demise.

True.
But if Vanderbilt maintained their level of putrid play and basically continued stealing money (the way Stanford was in the final years of Shaw) they would be on the outs when/if the Super Conference comes.

It’s costing Stanford $300 million? in the ACC deal for stealing.