LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - 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: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football (/thread-23451.html)
+- 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: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football (/thread-23451.html)
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - Farm93 - 09-15-2022
(09-14-2022, 08:42 PM)Giants Wrote:For the record,(09-14-2022, 07:12 PM)MarinCard Wrote: Makes some valid points regarding institutional and alumni willingness to fund championship-caliber football (NIL and Alston money, not to mention facilities improvements, all of which are going to need to increase in the future in order to stay in the big leagues) and admissions standards impeding success in the transfer game, but I find much of it unpersuasive especially in the latter case.
The existence of programs succeeding through the transfer portal doesn't negate programs succeeding in other ways, at least at this time. Add to it that Stanford also loses very few students (relatively) to the portal - it's not getting drained the way some large programs did (*ahem* Oklahoma) did last year.
The piece also completely ignores the broader arc of Stanford football history - the last 10-12 years of success have been the exception, not the norm. The program not being a dominant force in college football, let alone the Pac-12, is far more in line with our history. Our on-field struggles are more likely incidental to the changes in college football, not an effect caused by them. A classic reversion to the mean. Fan attendance has been a mostly-perennial struggle. There's a reason we're the only P5 program to shrink their stadium in a renovation earlier this century.
One last nit: he calls the playoff the "BCS" championship, which doesn't instill much faith he's paying close attention to the sport.
Just for the record, the capacity of Memorial Stadium in Berkeley was reduced from roughly 72K to 62K when they renovated their stadium in 2012.
I think that says a lot about the interest in college football in the Bay Area……..
ASU took away seats in their recent renovation. Capacity was above 70K until 2013, but after a major renovation it was reduced to 53,599.
USC (really the City of LA) did too. It was 92,000 when Tavita did his thing. But after their major renovation it now sits at 77,500
Husky stadium's major 2013 renovation took away more than 2,000 from the prior capacity. 72,500 down to 70,138.
The Rose Bowl was above 100K back when Willingham took the 1999 team to Pasadena. It has been getting smaller with each renovation. For a Rose Bowl game capacity is now just above 90K, but official capacity for UCLA games is now just under 70,000 thanks to semi-permanent tarps.
Stanford fans have been there and done that with the tarp strategy. :(
Though in 2024 maybe they will be able to replace the tarps with 20,000+ screaming midwestern fans cheering on the road team.
Arizona's stadium had a range between 56,000 and 58,000 until 2019. Now after a renovation capacity is at 50,800
So the majority of the other Pac-10 programs also reduced capacity.
FWIW - Like at Stanford most of the renovations included adding more luxury suites.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - gailtate - 09-15-2022
So Stanford steadily morphs into M.I.T., the Univ. of Chicago and CalTech. How gallant.
Step one is to gear-down for Div 2 or 3. Playing for those coveted "Natties" in the realm of the lesser lights. But the last time I looked you had a stadium created for, what, 50,000 butts? Have the bids gone out for fabricating the tarps you'll be needing? Fordham, Harvard/Yale/Princeton, Santa Clara and Saint Mary's were big Kahunas once-upon-a-time, too. And yes, they're still around. Just make no mistake: blowing up football will diminish The Farm to say the least, and all the John Doerrs and his one-percent brethren won't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Maybe this was inevitable. Nature taking its course. Big Football and Stanford go together like bicycles and goldfish. Beat the weenies.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - JohnR34231 - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 08:01 AM)Mick Wrote: [quote="Alvin" pid='362917' dateline='1663205598']
If Stanford doesn't want to be the best in football (and basketball) like they do in every other endeavor, academic or otherwise, then I agree with the author that Stanford should leave the Pac-12 and big-time football and, instead, compete with the likes of Cal Tech and Redlands...or drop football completely.
The idea of us playing Cal Tech cracks me up. I had a buddy in high school who played for them. He didn't start for our HS team, but was their star running back. He said the games were frustrating because half the team didn't show up for practice due to afternoon labs. So in games no one knew the plays.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - 82lsju - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 08:51 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Some of my best memories on the Farm revolved around Stanford football. Pre-game tailgaters with beer and bloody marys. Sitting on the sunny side with girls in bikini tops. Dragging a pony keg into the stadium, with an okay from security. Listening to Arthur P Barnes' National Anthem. Watching Elway and Margerum; Nelson, too. Trying to understand the halftime show. The cannon. Enjoying the occasional victory post game band performance. Driving to LA to watch us play in So Cal. Following the band through the streets of San Francisco before Big Game and so many more. . . .
Would hate to see it go away.
I have many of the same memories, unfortunately, as I'm sure you know, almost all the items you list are gone.....
- sunny side bikinis - gone (maybe there are some in the student section but probably not at the 7pm (or later) games)
- BYOB in the stands - gone
- APB National Anthem - close to gone as the trumpet players have really been lacking the last few years
- Trying to understand the halftime show - at least for me gone, we now return to our tailgate in lot 2 at halftime as it is vastly more entertaining
- Following the band in streets of SF/Big Game Rally in the city - gone
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - M T - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 07:13 AM)CTcard Wrote:Sources are listed at the bottom of the collegefactual page. I didn’t see that they listed the year of the data. The previous 2 years to last year would have atypical numbers.(09-15-2022, 02:21 AM)M T Wrote: I don't buy that those numbers are the real story.
First of all, avoid the middle man and go to the source of the numbers (2020-2021 school year).
I don't see anything on the collegefactual site that says where they are getting their numbers. Maybe I just missed it.
The Dept of Education site seems a good bet.
————
The reference to Stanford playing football against Caltech is clearly an attempt at hyperbole. After 100 years of football, Caltech ended it nearly 30 years ago. With a student body of about 700 (no athletic scholarships), it simply cannot get enough players. Yet football games were important to the students, even with rare wins, even against teams you never heard of. That is probably why it continued as long as it did. And, yes, classes trumped practice.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - JohnR34231 - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 10:17 AM)M T Wrote:(09-15-2022, 07:13 AM)CTcard Wrote:Sources are listed at the bottom of the collegefactual page. I didn’t see that they listed the year of the data. The previous 2 years to last year would have atypical numbers.(09-15-2022, 02:21 AM)M T Wrote: I don't buy that those numbers are the real story.
First of all, avoid the middle man and go to the source of the numbers (2020-2021 school year).
I don't see anything on the collegefactual site that says where they are getting their numbers. Maybe I just missed it.
The Dept of Education site seems a good bet.
————
The reference to Stanford playing football against Caltech is clearly an attempt at hyperbole. After 100 years of football, Caltech ended it nearly 30 years ago. With a student body of about 700 (no athletic scholarships), it simply cannot get enough players. Yet football games were important to the students, even with rare wins, even against teams you never heard of. That is probably why it continued as long as it did. And, yes, classes trumped practice.
Interesting. Didn't realize Caltech had given it up. BTW MIT still has a team so Stanford could play them.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - CTcard - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 10:17 AM)M T Wrote:(09-15-2022, 07:13 AM)CTcard Wrote:Sources are listed at the bottom of the collegefactual page. I didn’t see that they listed the year of the data. The previous 2 years to last year would have atypical numbers.(09-15-2022, 02:21 AM)M T Wrote: I don't buy that those numbers are the real story.
First of all, avoid the middle man and go to the source of the numbers (2020-2021 school year).
I don't see anything on the collegefactual site that says where they are getting their numbers. Maybe I just missed it.
The Dept of Education site seems a good bet.
I see that now. Not a very useful reference list. It seems the only one with respect to athletics info is the DoE's Equity in Athletics site.
Were you able to find anything resembling the sport by sport revenue/expense numbers that are listed by collegefactual?
I don't see it. What I do see, is a broader category that says each sport (or groups of sports) had identical revenue and expenses.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - Phogge - 09-15-2022
Buildings are made to tear down. The stadium could provide room for "Unhoused." Stanford could do the honorable thing and provide enough tiny rooms for all the Bay Area's homeless.
Then you could find a patch of grass with bleachers for 3,000 and play a home and home schedule with LaVerne, Point Loma, UCSD, Claremont and the SF State intramural champs. 10 games, probably 3 wins. You could still have tailgates and you wouldn't even have to attend games.
And a volunteer staff headed by the Cardboard's leading Bay Area sports critic. Running the "OK, everybody go long" offense. Trial hike!
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - Spiny_Norman - 09-15-2022
(09-14-2022, 10:36 PM)Phogge Wrote: Argument: Stanford won’t change its standards to remain competitive in the new order of college football.
Possible outcome: Stanford becomes a member of the Big 10 (12,14,16,18,20) solely to share in the wealth and is annihilated regularly on the fields of Champaign Urbana, Ann Arbor, Columbus and East Lansing. Gigantic TV revenue allows the Stanford Olympic and country club sports to prosper. Big Whatever enjoys the prestige of a Top Ten academic institution along with the athletic prestige said institution’s plethora of national championships brings to the table. Also the league’s member schools have a new patsy on their schedule.
Another possible outcome: Stanford becomes a member of the Big 10 (12,14,16,18,20) solely to share in the wealth. It is not really competitive with the top of the conference, but it is regularly part of the mass of teams (UCLA, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, Minnesota, Illinois, etc.) fighting for a .500 record and bowl eligibility. Stanford football provides enjoyable entertainment on a Saturday afternoon or evening. Gigantic TV revenue allows the Stanford Olympic and country club sports to prosper. Big Whatever enjoys the prestige of a Top Ten academic institution along with the athletic prestige said institution’s plethora of national championships brings to the table.
The scenario is pretty much what Stanford football experienced from the mid 1970s through the 1980s. It was frustrating getting pummeled by USC every year. But Stanford was only occasionally terrible and sometimes quite good. I'm quite ok with this scenario.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - GK3 - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 01:36 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(09-14-2022, 10:36 PM)Phogge Wrote: Argument: Stanford won’t change its standards to remain competitive in the new order of college football.Pretty much the logical outcome and the one I experienced after arriving at Stanford in mid 1950's until the few years of exceptional football after JH and then DS took over.
Possible outcome: Stanford becomes a member of the Big 10 (12,14,16,18,20) solely to share in the wealth and is annihilated regularly on the fields of Champaign Urbana, Ann Arbor, Columbus and East Lansing. Gigantic TV revenue allows the Stanford Olympic and country club sports to prosper. Big Whatever enjoys the prestige of a Top Ten academic institution along with the athletic prestige said institution’s plethora of national championships brings to the table. Also the league’s member schools have a new patsy on their schedule.
Another possible outcome: Stanford becomes a member of the Big 10 (12,14,16,18,20) solely to share in the wealth. It is not really competitive with the top of the conference, but it is regularly part of the mass of teams (UCLA, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, Minnesota, Illinois, etc.) fighting for a .500 record and bowl eligibility. Stanford football provides enjoyable entertainment on a Saturday afternoon or evening. Gigantic TV revenue allows the Stanford Olympic and country club sports to prosper. Big Whatever enjoys the prestige of a Top Ten academic institution along with the athletic prestige said institution’s plethora of national championships brings to the table.
The scenario is pretty much what Stanford football experienced from the mid 1970s through the 1980s. It was frustrating getting pummeled by USC every year. But Stanford was only occasionally terrible and sometimes quite good. I'm quite ok with this scenario.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - BigJohn043 - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 05:12 AM)81alum Wrote: I spent about 20 years closely following the athletics budget of a different university. That university claimed that its losing football program was needed to generate revenues to support the other sports. When we dug into the numbers, it turned out that their football program, year in and year out, lost money or barely broke even. However, all the other sports were much bigger money losers, necessitating subsidy from the university's general funds.
We also looked into some comparable (public) universities to compare with the university we were studying. Football was indeed, undeniably, the most important revenue source in ICA at each university, but this did not usually mean it was subsidizing the other sports. The most typical situation was that football barely paid for itself--but at least it was not a drain on the university. All the other sports had to be paid for via other means.
Complicating matters is fundraising. The Advancement people at our subject university always claimed that most of the donors were football fanatics and would not give money to the university if football were dropped. They claimed therefore that providing a football program was essential for raising money not just for football but for many other athletic and academic purposes. We were never able to verify that. I suspect that it is true for a small but dwindling number of donors who came of age in a different era, and will become less and less true over time.
Whether any of this is relevant to Stanford's situation is a guess. I did learn, however, to be skeptical about the perennial argument that football subsidizes other sports. At our subject university there was considerable manipulation of the data to make that appear true. (For example, the salaries of Advancement officers who raised money for football being paid outside the ICA division, the maintenance and upkeep of football facilities being moved into physical plant and not counted under athletics, ICA pooling many expenses between the various sports even when football was the exclusive beneficiary of them, etc.)
The question of college athletic profitability is all around allocations. The easiest example is media rights. We get a big pot of money each year for the Stanford athletics media rights. Much of that isn't for a specific sport. So how do you allocate it? By the hours of TV created? But we all know from recent conference discussions that the vast majority of that money is generated by football. You also have a bunch of administrators and other costs that need to be allocated. Those with various axes to grind can make numbers say what they want.
The reality is that Power-5 football teams make a lot of money. Outside the Power-5 they are closer to breakeven as stated above. Quitting football or moving outside the Power-5 would blow a big hole in Stanford Athletics budget....
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - Section QQ - 09-15-2022
Quote:- APB National Anthem - close to gone as the trumpet players have really been lacking the last few years
Not sure how many games you attended in person, but last year's trumpet soloist was outstanding.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - 82lsju - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 05:46 PM)Section QQ Wrote:Quote:- APB National Anthem - close to gone as the trumpet players have really been lacking the last few years
Not sure how many games you attended in person, but last year's trumpet soloist was outstanding.
I've been to most home games over the last 43 years and the trend line for the trumpet solo has been generally down over the last 10-15 years, of course the size of the band has also gone down significantly which probably limits the talent pool
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - Goose - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 05:46 PM)Section QQ Wrote:One thing that is very different is that the trumpet solo now has the benefit of the PA system. That wasn't the case back in the day, which added a significant degree of difficulty.Quote:- APB National Anthem - close to gone as the trumpet players have really been lacking the last few years
Not sure how many games you attended in person, but last year's trumpet soloist was outstanding.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - gailtate - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 06:05 PM)Goose Wrote:(09-15-2022, 05:46 PM)Section QQ Wrote:One thing that is very different is that the trumpet solo now has the benefit of the PA system. That wasn't the case back in the day, which added a significant degree of difficulty.Quote:- APB National Anthem - close to gone as the trumpet players have really been lacking the last few years
Not sure how many games you attended in person, but last year's trumpet soloist was outstanding.
And some of those guys were extraordinarily talented.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - BostonCard - 09-15-2022
(09-15-2022, 01:36 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Another possible outcome: Stanford becomes a member of the Big 10 (12,14,16,18,20) solely to share in the wealth. It is not really competitive with the top of the conference, but it is regularly part of the mass of teams (UCLA, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, Minnesota, Illinois, etc.) fighting for a .500 record and bowl eligibility. Stanford football provides enjoyable entertainment on a Saturday afternoon or evening. Gigantic TV revenue allows the Stanford Olympic and country club sports to prosper. Big Whatever enjoys the prestige of a Top Ten academic institution along with the athletic prestige said institution’s plethora of national championships brings to the table.
Do we really want to have the BigX launder its academic reputation by having us join?
BC
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - Phogge - 09-16-2022
Do you guys really want to join a conference where most of your foes are at least two time zones away?
The last lines in Bridge Over the River Kwai are, “Madness.” “Madness.”
College football 2022 is madness. I’m with Mick. Time to “Get Out.”
Or as the Morgan Freeman character says in a voice over, “Get busy living or get busy dying.”
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - OutsiderFan - 09-16-2022
Sure would be nice to see a Stanford leader make a statement about how Stanford intends to move forward in the new CFB world. It’s shockingly poor leadership behavior to not publicly address something so significant and leave so many people who care about the topic in the dark left to speculate.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - Phogge - 09-16-2022
As many Stanford people on the board have said, no leader at Stanford cares.
RE: LA Times Op-Ed Piece re: Stanford Football - Mick - 09-16-2022
(09-15-2022, 11:49 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-15-2022, 10:17 AM)M T Wrote:(09-15-2022, 07:13 AM)CTcard Wrote:Sources are listed at the bottom of the collegefactual page. I didn’t see that they listed the year of the data. The previous 2 years to last year would have atypical numbers.(09-15-2022, 02:21 AM)M T Wrote: I don't buy that those numbers are the real story.
First of all, avoid the middle man and go to the source of the numbers (2020-2021 school year).
I don't see anything on the collegefactual site that says where they are getting their numbers. Maybe I just missed it.
The Dept of Education site seems a good bet.
————
The reference to Stanford playing football against Caltech is clearly an attempt at hyperbole. After 100 years of football, Caltech ended it nearly 30 years ago. With a student body of about 700 (no athletic scholarships), it simply cannot get enough players. Yet football games were important to the students, even with rare wins, even against teams you never heard of. That is probably why it continued as long as it did. And, yes, classes trumped practice.
Interesting. Didn't realize Caltech had given it up. BTW MIT still has a team so Stanford could play them.
Caltech gave up wrestling, football and golf.