A lack of foresight - Printable Version

A lack of foresight - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: A lack of foresight (/thread-24336.html)

Pages: 1 2

A lack of foresight - lex24 - 08-13-2023

We are witnessing the disintegration of college sports. Not just at Stanford, although it’s more acute given what happened to the Scattering 12.

The problem I have is this was foreseeable. The portal and NIL guaranteed the results.

The litigation over the “unfair” treatment of college athletes, beginning with the O’Bannion suit, the NW drive to “unionize its football team” based on the argument that they are employees, were clear signs that the landscape was changing and that the model in place was outdated and in danger of collapse.

Then comes the portal and NIL and here we are.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is there was no real discussion about ways to efficiently change the system so that both “sides” were at least quasi-satisfied.

So, we end up with what we have. The “rich” grabbing those “franchises” (to me a better word here than Universities) it wants and spitting out the rest. With no real thought to how this plays down the road; or what it means for college athletes - especially in non revenue generating sports. now or in the future.

Unless something changes and there is some consensus building to a model that works not just for the 50 top football programs but for college athletics in general, the future is bleak. Especially for those in non revenue sports.

NOTE: Mods - this may belong in a previous thread. I tried to move it and couldn’t.

RE: A lack of foresight - oman - 08-13-2023

Most people had lack of foresight. I was bummed but I'm over it.

Your putting the term "unfair" in quotes is somewhat telling. When there is money involved there will always be unfairness. I can't really say that the current system is less fair.

Stanford is full of smart people, which makes it a bit easier to simply sign and reflect on "there is no good or bad, there just is". Stanford will work the problem and come out okay.

I do hope the band comes down over for the Rice and SMU games.

RE: A lack of foresight - GK3 - 08-13-2023

(08-13-2023, 12:06 PM)oman Wrote: Most people had lack of foresight. I was bummed but I'm over it.

Your putting the term "unfair" in quotes is somewhat telling. When there is money involved there will always be unfairness. I can't really say that the current system is less fair.

Stanford is full of smart people, which makes it a bit easier to simply sign and reflect on "there is no good or bad, there just is". Stanford will work the problem and come out okay.

I do hope the band comes down over for the Rice and SMU games.

I am inclined to think that in the not too distant past when Stanford was run by a Provost and President who were NOT into sports, particularly big time sports. So when all this started, the portal and NIL they just pinched their nose and looked the other way. Finally, by the time it was too late things started to change, a little, the potential breakup of conferences and what Stanford could or should do was a bridge too far to even be considered. Seems pretty clear the old administration just wanted the whole thing to go away.

RE: A lack of foresight - PersonalLegend - 08-13-2023

The moment recruiting started was the moment sports no longer served the university mission. NIL and the portal are simply an extension of that reality.

The NCAA tried to keep a lid on it for decades.

The only return of sports to the university ideal is a return to amateurism. That would be uninteresting in an age where there is more to be made from supporting sports betting than from supporting graduation rates.

RE: A lack of foresight - msqueri - 08-13-2023

Let's be real. College sports are stupid and nonsensical. I love them because I love sports and I love my college, but other countries don't operate like this. The logical model and what happens everywhere else is the best athletes ply a trade and monetize it when they can. America's concept of amateurism is a self-satisfying, hypocritical, cynical lie. Just absolutely ridiculous if you think about it with any sort of emotional distance from what we're used to as weird, self-centered, hedonistic Americans.

None of that is to say that I think the noble way forward is to do away with college sports entirely. Those who think the American version of "amateurism" is more connected to the mission of universities are living in a warped reality of their own. Why, pray tell, is that better than something affiliated with a university but not related to an academic mission that nonetheless manages to provide entertainment and revenue and builds community?

RE: A lack of foresight - yvonne - 08-13-2023

(08-13-2023, 12:28 PM)branner Wrote: If we're going to return to close bonds between sports and academics, someone will need to come up with a new model. I would like to think that Stanford is particularly well-positioned to do this, but I have seen no evidence that anyone in leadership is even thinking along these lines, much less in a position to bring about the change. Whatever is done has to please the marketplace while also challenging the status quo. This is by no means impossible, but someone has to have a vision and make it happen.

That's what's disappointing. As far as I can see, Stanford's been trying to push through on a system that focussed on factors in which Stanford is weak and unlikely to become strong. Perhaps expediency requires using the old model, but ultimately a new model will be necessary.

RE: A lack of foresight - Giants - 08-13-2023

(08-13-2023, 01:19 PM)PersonalLegend Wrote: The moment recruiting started was the moment sports no longer served the university mission. NIL and the portal are simply an extension of that reality.

The NCAA tried to keep a lid on it for decades.

The only return of sports to the university ideal is a return to amateurism. That would be uninteresting in an age where there is more to be made from supporting sports betting than from supporting graduation rates.

“The NCAA tried to keep a lid on it for decades”.

Therein lies the tale.

Beginning with the NCAA v. Regents decision in 1984, the NCAA has been on a legal losing string that would embarrass the Washington Generals. Had the NCAA simply discontinued its strategy of Dilly, Dally and Staal (my favorite law firm) and negotiated with aggrieved parties, they could have prevented much of what is transpiring today.

Instead, they chose to let the states and courts (up to, and including, the Supreme Court) set the rules of engagement. And that is never a good idea.

Add to this, the change in television viewing habits that has led to a premium on live entertainment. Today, televised sports events are the coin of the realm. At the college level, the demand for games between highly talented squads has never been greater. This demand has led to a conference landscape that would make Elbridge Gerry proud.

The momentum is definitely on the side of football being separated from the other college sports (under an umbrella that would feature an NFL-like structure with a CBA providing oversight).

Quite frankly, the sooner the better………

RE: A lack of foresight - chrisk - 08-13-2023

Remember that there are more than 4000 colleges in the US. The current maelstrom affects about 100 of that total.

The other 4000 plus don't have much at stake in the issues revolving around football and money. It is the FBS and FCS schools that have to find their way in this new world.

RE: A lack of foresight - jacket3ree - 08-13-2023

I found something earlier today that addresses many of the points brought up in this thread.

This professor emphasizes that only a tiny fraction of colleges and universities in the U.S. are remotely affected by this. The university where he has been for 30 years, Colorado, is one of them, and he specifically mentions Stanford:

What Football Conference Realignment Tells Us About U.S. Universities

"Writing at Persuasion recently, William Deresiewicz explained that most college students have experiences that are very different from those who attend schools like Harvard or Stanford. In fact, his argument holds more broadly for students that attend the Power 5 schools that host big-time football programs: Of the nation's 16 million undergraduates, 78% go to public institutions, 30% go to community colleges, 38% go part-time, and 38% are 22 or older. The vast majority of four-year schools take most of the people who apply to them; a quarter are open enrollment, which means they take everyone. If most of your friends went to selective colleges, congratulations, you're in the elite. You need to get out more."

The reason Stanford should play big-time football is to be Stanford, not Harvard of the West. The world doesn't need a Harvard of the West.

Reading further, for the Power 5 and maybe high end G5 schools, they have three somewhat related purposes:

1. In exchange for tuition and fees, providing an 'amenity-rich' experience that includes an opportunity for education that culminates in a credential.

2. Conducting world-class research.

3. Hosting a professional football program, which offers another amenity to the students, but stands on its own as a core university function. Universities sponsor other sports, but "nothing remotely compares to the importance of football."

Interesting read.

To me, Stanford's old model - that these three things are intertwined somehow - is kaput. They either need to get off the high horse and into the dirty game, NIL, Portal, and all; or get out. There is no shame in staying in. There is no shame in getting out. It is a choice to make. The fact that they are exploring the B1G and ACC suggests they aren't ready just yet to get out. We can argue whether a Pac-4/MWC/AAC merger is getting out, but that leaves a way to get back in, as does trying independence, which I maintain is merely stalling until there is something better. But, that too is staying in.

Of the three things listed above, Stanford's priority is far and away the second. being a world-class research institution. Their bread and butter, federally funded research has turned Stanford into a graduate-centric university. Can the first and third items coexist with this? Of course. The first item - let's call it No Fun Stanford - is a topic for another thread. The third item - Power 5 football - feels existential now. But is it? Of course not.

I looked for university rankings based on research and there are plenty. Stanford is generally rated highly. I looked for a list to which Stanford probably pays attention, for things like performance reviews. The NSF keeps a list of universities ranked by federally funded research and development.

An Important Table to Stanford

These are Stanford's "academic peers", not some list of prestige schools with high SAT scores that your mom and dad can brag about to their coworkers.

The top 30 research performers in all fields for 2019-2021, ranked by dollars, with Power 5 participants bolded:

Johns Hopkins
UCSF
Michigan
Penn
Washington
UCLA
UCSD
Wisconsin
Stanford
Harvard
Duke
Ohio State
North Carolina
Cornell
Yale
Texas A&M
Maryland
Pitt
Texas Anderson Cancer Center
Georgia Tech
Columbia
Minnesota
NYU
Vanderbilt
Washington, St. Louis
Penn State
Florida
USC
MIT
Northwestern

Sixty percent of the nation's research university behemoths play in Power 5 conferences. Only one of these is looking at relegation. Absent the Pac 8/10/12, Stanford clearly wants to associate with the B1G or ACC. However, 40 percent is not insignificant and there is no evidence that with or without Power 5 football, Stanford's gravy train is affected. It sure doesn't hurt to play P5 football though.

At this point Stanford's choice isn't so much what it wants to do with sports, its choice is how best to survive until they are in a better position to choose, even if they ultimately choose to get out of the game.

RE: A lack of foresight - Canalejas - 08-13-2023

jacket3ree, I hope you don't mind if I take your idea and stretch it just a little.

This is the same list of schools, but I filtered out the ones that are health sciences specialty campuses, and then went all the way to the top 50.

[Image: cQ47j4V.png]

RE: A lack of foresight - jacket3ree - 08-14-2023

Canalejas,

I don't mind at all. I think you see where I'm heading. A rethinking of what it means to pay attention to academics while playing power football for fun and profit, to fund other sports and without losing your soul. Taking portal transfers is not losing your soul. Stanford may need to consider independence as some sort of interim OOC scheduling affiliate of the B1G and the misfit toy division of the ACC, which tend to rank highly on the peer list, UNC, UVA/Hokies, and NC State notwithstanding. Unfortunately the B1G doesn't need the Bay Area schools to have their California footprint, so that ship probably sailed, and Va Tech doesn't want to wreck their mouthpiece budget again, so I don't see that happening. The Big12 was never a great fit, but now that former Pac12 schools are there to gentrify everything, I don't think Stanford should keep turning their nose up at that prospect. I didn't dig down far enough to find Notre Dame. Screw those guys. Sheep in Irish clothing.....er, wait.

I wish I knew how to format tables like that. Love it.

RE: A lack of foresight - Canalejas - 08-14-2023

(08-14-2023, 08:43 AM)jacket3ree Wrote: I wish I knew how to format tables like that. Love it.

Thanks! I actually use a very roundabout way of making tables. It's just a reddit comment that uses that site's syntax for making tables. I use a browser extension to capture the area of the comment and upload it to imgur in one step, and then I use that picture here. There's probably a much better way to do it.

Here's another one, for fun. It uses the rankings put out by ARWU, but tells largely the same story as the NSF list. ARWU likes the Ivies and the D3 schools a little bit more and the ACC (notably Virginia) a little bit less. And I like to see that our UC neighbors from the Big West show up once again.

[Image: BqO5iXo.png]

RE: A lack of foresight - Beeg_Dawg - 08-14-2023

"“The trouble with football,” Hutchins, a philosopher, declared to the press in 1938, “is the money that is in it.” Hutchins went on to write in the Saturday Evening Post, “Athleticism is not athletics or physical education, but sports promotion, and it is carried on for the monetary profit of the colleges through the entertainment of the public.”

Hutchins was the University of Chicago president who killed it's football program.

Interesting perspective. Worth the time in my opinion. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/08/13/college-football-league-realignment/

RE: A lack of foresight - BobK - 08-14-2023

He may have killed the U of Chicago story but helped Stanford go undefeated the following year

RE: A lack of foresight - qwerty49 - 08-14-2023

(08-13-2023, 05:07 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: The reason Stanford should play big-time football is to be Stanford, not Harvard of the West. The world doesn't need a Harvard of the West.

Reading further, for the Power 5 and maybe high end G5 schools, they have three somewhat related purposes:

1. In exchange for tuition and fees, providing an 'amenity-rich' experience that includes an opportunity for education that culminates in a credential.

2. Conducting world-class research.

3. Hosting a professional football program, which offers another amenity to the students, but stands on its own as a core university function. Universities sponsor other sports, but "nothing remotely compares to the importance of football."

Of the three things listed above, Stanford's priority is far and away the second. being a world-class research institution. Their bread and butter, federally funded research has turned Stanford into a graduate-centric university. Can the first and third items coexist with this? Of course. The first item - let's call it No Fun Stanford - is a topic for another thread. The third item - Power 5 football - feels existential now. But is it? Of course not.

Sixty percent of the nation's research university behemoths play in Power 5 conferences. Only one of these is looking at relegation. Absent the Pac 8/10/12, Stanford clearly wants to associate with the B1G or ACC. However, 40 percent is not insignificant and there is no evidence that with or without Power 5 football, Stanford's gravy train is affected. It sure doesn't hurt to play P5 football though.

At this point Stanford's choice isn't so much what it wants to do with sports, its choice is how best to survive until they are in a better position to choose, even if they ultimately choose to get out of the game.

You bring up really good points. I have long been dismayed by the differences between the undergrad and graduate programs at Stanford (I've been through both.) Not just the experience, but also the differences in mission. The current (outgoing?) administration clearly seems to favor "research" over "education." That trickles down to an indifference toward sports, and to any non-classroom experience in general.

I am not convinced that researchers and teachers (ie MTL, Drell) make the best university managers in this modern world. People running the show today need to have a sense of branding, marketing, and the realities of business economics. They can keep the ceremonial part, but need to delegate and step aside to someone who knows what they are doing.

Good grief, it's "The Times They Are A-Changin" all over again.

"...Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall..."

RE: A lack of foresight - yvonne - 08-14-2023

All this reminds me of a story Guy Kawasaki used to tell about industry disruption. He used the illustration of ice.

In the early 20th Century, people who wanted ice had to harvest it from frozen ponds. Ice harvesting businesses transported more than 900 million tons of ice in 1900. People made money by harvesting the most ice. Then, in the 1930s, ice making factories began to appear. This meant that it was no longer lucrative to own ships, ports and so on in cold places. After all, it was easier to place a factory in a warm area and charge the customers that most wanted it. It also meant ice could be available any time of year. Using factories was cheaper and eventually rendered the ice harvesting industry obsolete. Then, in the 50s, in-home refrigerators became ubiquitous. Ice factories were obsolete. In each of these phases, the development "jumped the curve." The innovation didn't incrementally improve on the existing way of doing things, but made them irrelevant.

https://youtu.be/-quRcWKhU28

If Stanford athletics is going to thrive, it will need to disrupt the current method of using semiprofessional football as a funding source for other sports. It's got to render that model irrelevant.

Here are some modern day examples. https://stevesammartino.com/2013/06/17/who-is-your-competition/ of industries that became obsolete because something totally different rendered the competition that previously existed obsolete.

RE: A lack of foresight - SDCard - 08-14-2023

From a Trojan post. Ideas for how to leverage a snip off the endowment. Entertaining.

https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/can-stanford-university-play-big-league-poker-to-get-a-power-five-conference/

RE: A lack of foresight - Card10Fan - 08-14-2023

Now reports that Stanford is sending all of the big guns (alum with money/connections) at the Big 10 and Fox to get us an offer. Will see how that goes....
Supposedly, not with Cal included.

RE: A lack of foresight - jacket3ree - 08-14-2023

More than entertaining. There are some great kingmaker moves in there. I hear we have an opening at the top. Matt Zemek is thinking more shrewdly publicly (key word) than Stanford leadership is letting leak out.

When in doubt, buy them out.

RE: A lack of foresight - Canalejas - 08-14-2023

Well, I'm definitely on the obsolete side of things because I can't stop looking at old ways of thinking. Or rather, I enjoy seeing my school near the top of cool lists and like making tables about them. Here are three more of Top 50ish schools, this time using rankings from QS, Times Higher Education, and USNWR Global. It's remarkable how much these lists of the usual suspects coincide with NSF funding.

[Image: K29bbfK.png]

Taken all together, if we still want our athletics image to be tied to being in a club of good to great research schools, it points to what our best fit options are at each level of athletics competition:

Get in the game at the top level, P2 ---> Big Ten
Try to keep pace at that next level down ---> ACC, and to a lesser extent BigXII
Try independence ---> poach the Big West UCs to form a new non-football conference
Give up on scholarship sports and then realize how geography and/or closed clubs leave us without realistic landing spots ---> Ivy League dreaming, faraway D3 options