Notre Dame Game Thread - 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: Notre Dame Game Thread (/thread-26349.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: Notre Dame Game Thread (/thread-26349.html)
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - d4cohn - 10-10-2026
(10-10-2026, 03:55 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(10-10-2026, 01:44 PM)Card10Fan Wrote: The difference in talent between the two team is so wide. Seriously going to need to spend much more money than we have previously to attract better players out of the portal. Not sure we are willing to do that. If we don't, I'm not sure we can ever be competitive against these top teams.
Is there really a consensus on this board that Stanford SHOULD spend "much more money" to attract better players out of the portal? There comes a point when doing so would be something we should be bloody ashamed of. Stanford is a world-class university in Silicon Valley, not the south or midwest, and, demographically and in terms of interests, its student body is far from what it used to be. Increasingly, students come to Stanford to learn CS, MS&E, EE, and a few other fields of engineering and how to create their own startups. Relatively few come to study the humanities, the social sciences (except for econ), and pre-med. Is such a student body really going to come out to Stanford football games the quite different student body used to? I doubt it. Trying to save Stanford football is like the Dutch boy putting his finger into a hole in the dyke to plug up a leak. The leaks are now proliferating and significant progress in recovering real competitiveness seems unlikely. At least we've got an excellent basketball coach and a pretty good team since Kyle arrived.
A university like Stanford has been elite at developing students in academic pursuits, for their chosen professions, and for their growth as human beings. On the second point, while Stanford has produced incredible CS grads who have founded some of the biggest companies in the world, Stanford has also produced great actors/actresses, influencers, commentators etc. In a world where technology can increasingly do the jobs that were Stanford's proverbial "bread-and-butter" (e.g. software development, finance, and even research that is the underpinning of the "billable hour" model in law), Stanford will need to adapt not just in athletics (if it still wants be an elite Division I AD) if it wants to stay on the forefront of overall career development (which is a big reason people pay whatever high tuition rate they individually pay). I can envision a future if we don't adapt where Stanford becomes a medical center, a VC/hedge fund (our endowment arm), and whatever form the future AD takes (e.g. elite Division I, Ivy, disband and everything in between).
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - BostonCard - 10-10-2026
(10-10-2026, 03:37 PM)thunder_chik Wrote: In other news, #21 UCLA beating #13 Oregon, 17-6 in the 4th quarter at Autzen.
Also, Oklahoma and #1 Texas are tied at 24 late in the 4th quarter.
BC
Here’s the breakdown of Stanford majors (at least as of 2022-23, AI may have dramatically changed things):
https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/s/pPO19fWUba
Sure, more students major in CS than any other single major, but it is still less than 1 in 5 students. The next biggest major is hum bio (presumably mostly pre-meds) with 8% then economics with 7%. For the humanities lovers, there were 25 students who majored in History, 52 who majored in English, and of course 16% of students majored in a major that conferred fewer than 25 degrees (54 different majors).
BC
Down go the ducks!
BC
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - 82lsju - 10-10-2026
(10-10-2026, 03:55 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(10-10-2026, 01:44 PM)Card10Fan Wrote: The difference in talent between the two team is so wide. Seriously going to need to spend much more money than we have previously to attract better players out of the portal. Not sure we are willing to do that. If we don't, I'm not sure we can ever be competitive against these top teams.
Is there really a consensus on this board that Stanford SHOULD spend "much more money" to attract better players out of the portal? There comes a point when doing so would be something we should be bloody ashamed of. Stanford is a world-class university in Silicon Valley, not the south or midwest, and, demographically and in terms of interests, its student body is far from what it used to be. Increasingly, students come to Stanford to learn CS, MS&E, EE, and a few other fields of engineering and how to create their own startups. Relatively few come to study the humanities, the social sciences (except for econ), and pre-med. Is such a student body really going to come out to Stanford football games the quite different student body used to? I doubt it. Trying to save Stanford football is like the Dutch boy putting his finger into a hole in the dyke to plug up a leak. The leaks are now proliferating and significant progress in recovering real competitiveness seems unlikely. At least we've got an excellent basketball coach and a pretty good team since Kyle arrived.
regarding the makeup of the current undergrads
[quote]Humanities departments across American colleges graduated their lowest number of majors in 2025 since 1991, according to a report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
At Stanford, the popularity crisis is nothing new.
The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by the University in the humanities and arts has fallen 56% since 2003. This decline, from 324 in 2003-2004 to 143 in 2025-2026, has continued even as the overall number of undergraduate degrees granted has increased.[/quote]
https://stanforddaily.com/2026/10/09/stanford-decline-in-humanities-majors/?fbclid=IwY2xjawU3phdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBwZG9mAXNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR41PBBZGBSEKNHm552wxnYNCHDgvarmQiN_7i09RqaMB2jCD8BC4wH_JbGV0A_aem_s1LsLx3dVQVmeyxnQii_PA
I looked at some non-tech degrees for my class ('82) and here's what I found for non-tech undergrad degrees for departments that had over 20 grads, there were a lot more that had <20. My class had more undergrad english degrees (148) than the entire university had humanities and arts undergrad degrees in 2025-26 (143).
American Studies 23, Communications 65, Economics 270, English 148, History 95, International Relations 86, Music 20, Philosophy 23, Political Science 132, Psychology 91, Sociology 22
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - marchballer - 10-10-2026
I don’t think talent is truly the issue. It’s coaching. This is the 3rd head coach in 3 years.
On top of that too many different systems. It’s becoming more and more clear that Troy Taylor was a horrific hire and we just don’t have the right personnel out there.
In addition moving from Bobby April to Kris Richards has been a disaster. I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to get the players to run the system Richards wants to run. We should have kept April imo
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - Card10Fan - 10-10-2026
The consensus on the paid board is Stanford needs to pay more money and some claim a lot of funds have been raised for this coming offseason for that reason. My sentiment is commit to getting back to being respectable. We should at least be able to compete with Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, and schools of somewhat equal academic value.
For those who think Stanford should just drop football or go back to the Pac 12 or FCS, there's zero indication that Donahoe or Levin feel similarly. Leadership seems vested in getting football turned around. Will see if it actually ever happens.
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - KartyFan - 10-10-2026
I learned nothing about our team from watching this game. It was basically last week's get against better competition. Which doesn't mean we were better because both results were almost as bad as they could have been.
Have to agree that the defensive coaching is a disaster. Some of the same players who looked good last year look completely lost.
At least we had a few chunky plays, most of which were called back with penalties...
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - Mick - 10-10-2026
(10-10-2026, 04:19 PM)82lsju Wrote: Humanities departments across American colleges graduated their lowest number of majors in 2025 since 1991, according to a report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
At Stanford, the popularity crisis is nothing new.
The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by the University in the humanities and arts has fallen 56% since 2003. This decline, from 324 in 2003-2004 to 143 in 2025-2026, has continued even as the overall number of undergraduate degrees granted has increased.[/quote]
https://stanforddaily.com/2026/10/09/stanford-decline-in-humanities-majors/?fbclid=IwY2xjawU3phdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBwZG9mAXNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR41PBBZGBSEKNHm552wxnYNCHDgvarmQiN_7i09RqaMB2jCD8BC4wH_JbGV0A_aem_s1LsLx3dVQVmeyxnQii_PA
I looked at some non-tech degrees for my class ('82) and here's what I found for non-tech undergrad degrees for departments that had over 20 grads, there were a lot more that had <20. My class had more undergrad english degrees (148) than the entire university had humanities and arts undergrad degrees in 2025-26 (143).
American Studies 23, Communications 65, Economics 270, English 148, History 95, International Relations 86, Music 20, Philosophy 23, Political Science 132, Psychology 91, Sociology 22
I suspect that college students have heard from their elders how difficult it is to make a living with a major that doesn't lead to immediate gainful employment.
I begged my eldest to major in Econ, which he did, and he's now an MP at a small venture capital fund. Begged the youngest to do the same, he decided to major in history. Ended up in a great job with a brobdingnagian tech company, but it was solely because of his tech-based internships during college.
These days, I'd advise my sons to go into the trades as strongly as my dad advised me to stay out of them.
(10-10-2026, 04:03 PM)Orange Mark Wrote: Has Stanford ever lost consecutive games by 50+ points?
No. They didn't have a 50 point loss during their 0-9 1947 season or their 1-11 Walt Harris debacle in 2006. They didn't have a loss close to that bad during Troy Taylor's regime.
In the history of Stanford football, dating back to 1896, there have been just six 50+ point losses. And two of them have come this year. Special...:
#3 UCLA, 72-0, 1954. (Taylor), finished 4-6
#1 Michigan, 51-0, 1976 (Christiansen's last year). BTW, they went 6-5
Texas, 69-17, 1999 (the Sheriff). They went 8-4 and went to the Rose Bowl that year.
Notre Dame, 57-7, 2003 (Teevens), they went 4-7
Wake Forest, 57-3, 2026 (Pritchard)
#3 Notre Dame, 57-7, 2026 (Pritchard)
BTW, Belicheat's UNC team defeated #25 ranked Pitt 21-17, marking Belicheat's first win over a ranked team in college.
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - TonyLima - 10-10-2026
(10-10-2026, 04:19 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-10-2026, 03:55 PM)MV72018 Wrote: [quote="Card10Fan" pid='454074' dateline='1791665068']
The difference in talent between the two team is so wide. Seriously going to need to spend much more money than we have previously to attract better players out of the portal. Not sure we are willing to do that. If we don't, I'm not sure we can ever be competitive against these top teams.
Is there really a consensus on this board that Stanford SHOULD spend "much more money" to attract better players out of the portal? There comes a point when doing so would be something we should be bloody ashamed of. Stanford is a world-class university in Silicon Valley, not the south or midwest, and, demographically and in terms of interests, its student body is far from what it used to be. Increasingly, students come to Stanford to learn CS, MS&E, EE, and a few other fields of engineering and how to create their own startups. Relatively few come to study the humanities, the social sciences (except for econ), and pre-med. Is such a student body really going to come out to Stanford football games the quite different student body used to? I doubt it. Trying to save Stanford football is like the Dutch boy putting his finger into a hole in the dyke to plug up a leak. The leaks are now proliferating and significant progress in recovering real competitiveness seems unlikely. At least we've got an excellent basketball coach and a pretty good team since Kyle arrived.
regarding the makeup of the current undergrads
Quote:Humanities departments across American colleges graduated their lowest number of majors in 2025 since 1991, according to a report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.Do you have the numbers by department for 25-26?? Note that econ is carrying the entire humanities school.
At Stanford, the popularity crisis is nothing new.
The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by the University in the humanities and arts has fallen 56% since 2003. This decline, from 324 in 2003-2004 to 143 in 2025-2026, has continued even as the overall number of undergraduate degrees granted has increased.[/quote]
https://stanforddaily.com/2026/10/09/stanford-decline-in-humanities-majors/?fbclid=IwY2xjawU3phdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBwZG9mAXNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR41PBBZGBSEKNHm552wxnYNCHDgvarmQiN_7i09RqaMB2jCD8BC4wH_JbGV0A_aem_s1LsLx3dVQVmeyxnQii_PA
I looked at some non-tech degrees for my class ('82) and here's what I found for non-tech undergrad degrees for departments that had over 20 grads, there were a lot more that had <20. My class had more undergrad english degrees (148) than the entire university had humanities and arts undergrad degrees in 2025-26 (143).
American Studies 23, Communications 65, Economics 270, English 148, History 95, International Relations 86, Music 20, Philosophy 23, Political Science 132, Psychology 91, Sociology 22
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - 82lsju - 10-10-2026
(10-10-2026, 06:30 PM)TonyLima Wrote:(10-10-2026, 04:19 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-10-2026, 03:55 PM)MV72018 Wrote: [quote="Card10Fan" pid='454074' dateline='1791665068']
The difference in talent between the two team is so wide. Seriously going to need to spend much more money than we have previously to attract better players out of the portal. Not sure we are willing to do that. If we don't, I'm not sure we can ever be competitive against these top teams.
Is there really a consensus on this board that Stanford SHOULD spend "much more money" to attract better players out of the portal? There comes a point when doing so would be something we should be bloody ashamed of. Stanford is a world-class university in Silicon Valley, not the south or midwest, and, demographically and in terms of interests, its student body is far from what it used to be. Increasingly, students come to Stanford to learn CS, MS&E, EE, and a few other fields of engineering and how to create their own startups. Relatively few come to study the humanities, the social sciences (except for econ), and pre-med. Is such a student body really going to come out to Stanford football games the quite different student body used to? I doubt it. Trying to save Stanford football is like the Dutch boy putting his finger into a hole in the dyke to plug up a leak. The leaks are now proliferating and significant progress in recovering real competitiveness seems unlikely. At least we've got an excellent basketball coach and a pretty good team since Kyle arrived.
regarding the makeup of the current undergrads
Quote:Humanities departments across American colleges graduated their lowest number of majors in 2025 since 1991, according to a report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.Do you have the numbers by department for 25-26?? Note that econ is carrying the entire humanities school.
At Stanford, the popularity crisis is nothing new.
The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by the University in the humanities and arts has fallen 56% since 2003. This decline, from 324 in 2003-2004 to 143 in 2025-2026, has continued even as the overall number of undergraduate degrees granted has increased.[/quote]
https://stanforddaily.com/2026/10/09/stanford-decline-in-humanities-majors/?fbclid=IwY2xjawU3phdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBwZG9mAXNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR41PBBZGBSEKNHm552wxnYNCHDgvarmQiN_7i09RqaMB2jCD8BC4wH_JbGV0A_aem_s1LsLx3dVQVmeyxnQii_PA
I looked at some non-tech degrees for my class ('82) and here's what I found for non-tech undergrad degrees for departments that had over 20 grads, there were a lot more that had <20. My class had more undergrad english degrees (148) than the entire university had humanities and arts undergrad degrees in 2025-26 (143).
American Studies 23, Communications 65, Economics 270, English 148, History 95, International Relations 86, Music 20, Philosophy 23, Political Science 132, Psychology 91, Sociology 22
for the class of '26 (from the on-line SAA alumni database) with 20 or more non-techie undergrad degrees
- communications 38
- comparative studies in race and ethnicity 20
- economics 109
- english 24
- history 32
- international relations 49
- political science 76
- psychology 62
- public policy 42
- sociology 32
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - Nan3cy - 10-10-2026
I was pretty well convinced in 2006 that it was time for Stanford to give up D-1 football. Harbaugh proved me premature, but now between NIL and unlimited transfers, I just don’t see any way Stanford can compete. I remember before Denny Green came to us, he won Big 10 coach of the year at Northwestern with three wins. How many wins would it take for Tavita?
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - BostonCard - 10-10-2026
(10-10-2026, 03:54 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Meanwhile, Manning just threw a pick-six for OKLA, and Sooners go up 24-17 in Norman on #1TEX. 10min to play.
So, now if #2 GEOG falls at BAMA tonight -- a possibility, though I think Dawgs will win.
Well, then NDAM would vault to #1 baby
Close, but GA won with a late field goal. Looks like it will be GA #1, ND #2.
BC
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - norcard10 - 10-10-2026
is anyone surprised this game wasn't respectable? You can't be after last week.
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - cardcrimson - 10-10-2026
(10-10-2026, 08:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-10-2026, 03:54 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Meanwhile, Manning just threw a pick-six for OKLA, and Sooners go up 24-17 in Norman on #1TEX. 10min to play.
So, now if #2 GEOG falls at BAMA tonight -- a possibility, though I think Dawgs will win.
Well, then NDAM would vault to #1 baby
Close, but GA won with a late field goal. Looks like it will be GA #1, ND #2.
BC
No, GA won with a non PI call in the end zone late in the fourth. Throw in a few other blatant blown calls, for good measure. The SEC must have hired some of the old Pac-12 refs.
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - old spanish trail - 10-11-2026
(10-10-2026, 04:36 PM)Card10Fan Wrote: The consensus on the paid board is Stanford needs to pay more money and some claim a lot of funds have been raised for this coming offseason for that reason. My sentiment is commit to getting back to being respectable. We should at least be able to compete with Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, and schools of somewhat equal academic value.
For those who think Stanford should just drop football or go back to the Pac 12 or FCS, there's zero indication that Donahoe or Levin feel similarly. Leadership seems vested in getting football turned around. Will see if it actually ever happens.
Who is in charge of fund raising for FB now? Luck? Skov? Donahue? All of the above? Or?
s
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - chrisk - 10-11-2026
Hiring Chip Kelly at Northwestern seems to have made a big difference in its offense. Of course, the new $875M stadium hasn’t hurt.
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - Hurlburt88 - 10-11-2026
(10-11-2026, 05:42 AM)chrisk Wrote: Hiring Chip Kelly at Northwestern seems to have made a big difference in its offense. Of course, the new $875M stadium hasn’t hurt.
IMO Northwestern's overall coaching staff is better, has been more stable even with the Fitzgerald drama (just promoted assistant), and they bring in more transfers each year. New stadium is nice, but not core to their current success. Again, just my opinion.
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - ADPinWDC - 10-11-2026
(10-10-2026, 10:58 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-10-2026, 08:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-10-2026, 03:54 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Meanwhile, Manning just threw a pick-six for OKLA, and Sooners go up 24-17 in Norman on #1TEX. 10min to play.
So, now if #2 GEOG falls at BAMA tonight -- a possibility, though I think Dawgs will win.
Well, then NDAM would vault to #1 baby
Close, but GA won with a late field goal. Looks like it will be GA #1, ND #2.
BC
No, GA won with a non PI call in the end zone late in the fourth. Throw in a few other blatant blown calls, for good measure. The SEC must have hired some of the old Pac-12 refs.
Totally agree -- it was BLATANT PI in the End Zone -- should have been ball for BAMA on 2 yard line.
The NO-Call occurred with just 3:28 Q4 and GEOG leading 20-17. Bama likely scores and could have won
Reviews later agreed it was PI. And decisive.
And it likely will affect Playoff seeding -- and the two teams in the SEC Champ game.
.... Then, NDAM would be #1 going into this week.
With a schedule they can run, albeit a test at #8 BYU coming up.
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/georgia-pi-espn-rules-expert-041557032.html
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - JohnR34231 - 10-11-2026
(10-11-2026, 01:33 AM)old spanish trail Wrote:(10-10-2026, 04:36 PM)Card10Fan Wrote: The consensus on the paid board is Stanford needs to pay more money and some claim a lot of funds have been raised for this coming offseason for that reason. My sentiment is commit to getting back to being respectable. We should at least be able to compete with Duke, Vandy, Northwestern, and schools of somewhat equal academic value.
For those who think Stanford should just drop football or go back to the Pac 12 or FCS, there's zero indication that Donahoe or Levin feel similarly. Leadership seems vested in getting football turned around. Will see if it actually ever happens.
Who is in charge of fund raising for FB now? Luck? Skov? Donahue? All of the above? Or?
s
Actually, Stanford just hired Brian Campbell who was Miami's main football fund raiser, He is a good friend of my son as they attended the Air Force Academy together, Brian is a good guy and I think will do an excellent job.
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - 82lsju - 10-11-2026
(10-11-2026, 09:26 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Actually, Stanford just hired Brian Campbell who was Miami's main football fund raiser, He is a good friend of my son as they attended the Air Force Academy together, Brian is a good guy and I think will do an excellent job.
more on Brian Campbell here
https://gostanford.com/news/2026/10/8/brian-campbell-named-chief-advancement-officer
Quote:Brian Campbell has been named Stanford’s Chief Athletics Advancement Officer, as announced on Thursday by Jaquish & Kenninger Director and Chair of Athletics John Donahoe.
Campbell will lead the DAPER advancement team while serving on both the department’s Executive Leadership team and the Office of Development’s (OOD) Development Leadership Council.
RE: Notre Dame Game Thread - thunder_chik - 10-11-2026
UCLA lucked out with their new coach: Bob Chesney, 25+ years collegiate coaching experience, 5-0 so far this season.