Droppping 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: Droppping Football (/thread-22538.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: Droppping Football (/thread-22538.html)
Droppping Football - OutsiderFan - 11-07-2021
First of all, I want to make it abundantly clear that if Stanford is willing to do what it takes to compete in FBS Football, the notion of dropping the sport or to a lower level is brain-dead. Stanford has proven it can compete at the highest levels of the sport and there is too much money on the table to walk away from it if the program is healthy.
The issue is what it always is for any school that plays the sport. Is it willing to make the commitments and hold people accountable for performance in the interest of pursuing championships? Yes, all sports require these dynamics to be in place, but football requires the most commitments of any NCAA sanctioned sport because it requires so many resources to compete at the highest level.
Cal and Stanford are in very similar boats. And interestingly enough, both played a game this week without their starting QB, and for similar reasons, but in different fashions, were both humiliated in ways that expose their institutions as failed football stewards. Stanford was overwhelmed against a good Utah team. Cal lost a pillow fight to a team that had lost 20 conference games in a row and was 0-8. In both cases, the schools have made financial commitments to head coaches, but the institutions as a whole, from the AD on up, have tied their own hands in ways no other schools have. In both games they played this weekend, the backup QB each program had left itself with threw for less than 4 YPA. If the schools don't care at the very top, that trickles down to the coaching staffs and ultimately the players, to the point the programs are so terrible they can't even be slightly competitive with a backup QB. This isn't some random happenstance that both programs have inept backup QBs. It is proof both programs have done nothing to develop the most important position in all of sports as a program priority.
Stanford is in far better shape than Cal in terms of building blocks to win being in place apart from who the coaches are, but what does it mean when Stanford is in last place in the Pac-12 North, and its credibility is destroyed by what happened against Utah? I'm not going to point out the problems with David Shaw because at this point, he isn't the problem. The problems are with Muir and higher. Just like at Cal, the problem isn't Wilcox as much as Knowlton and higher. Cal has had this institutional problem with lack of football support for decades and decades. It now seems to be creeping into Stanford.
To this end, if Muir and his bosses find what happened on Friday night acceptable, Stanford really should consider dropping football or moving to a lower division. And I believe Cal should too. Neither school has shown winning football games or even playing entertaining football is a priority. If they aren't going to prioritize it, why the hell should fans? It's far too much of a commitment to go to games, follow the teams, and make emotional investments in them when those at the top don't care as much as the customers do.
I'll take 6-6 seasons of entertaining football with a new coach every five years, trying to win - or at least giving the illusion of trying to win - over the indifference at the top of Cal and Stanford that lead to the humiliating showing both programs gave their fans this weekend. If the schools don't take measures that demonstrate what happened this weekend is unacceptable, they both should quit the charade, stop fleecing the fans, and just drop to another level or football altogether.
RE: Droppping Football - 81alum - 11-07-2021
In my mind, the CTE issues will eventually end football as we know it. The science will improve and the lawsuits will roll in, given time. So football won't be sustainable forever. But whether it takes a decade or a couple of generations I can't tell. Already the participation levels in football in high school is declining amongst the classic Stanford demographic recruiting population. So there does need to be a long-term plan for life after football
To me, the big question is whether in the intermediate future our other sports could survive without football. Will the rules permit us to compete at the highest DIV I level in basketball, baseball, soccer, etc. if we do not have a football program? For example, could we remain in the Pac 12 for WBB, for example, if we opted out of football? I doubt the league would permit that. So it has to be viewed as part of a package.
And I suppose it isn't necessary to remind everyone that we all had this conversation just before Harbaugh arrived. Harbaugh/Shaw shocked a lot of folks by showing that it was still possible for Stanford to compete at the highest level of football while maintaining its academic standards. Before that many had reached the conclusion that such success was a naive, overly optimistic pipe dream. Much has changed, and perhaps the football environment is even harder now than it was then. But I have been surprised before.
Futhermore, Shaw will not be fired this year. It just won't happen. He will get another year after this to turn things around. And perhaps he will surprise us one more time. If next year looks like Buddy/Walt, then the seriousness of this conversation will skyrocket.
RE: Droppping Football - Softball Fan - 11-07-2021
There's a difference between now and the revitalization of Stanford football under Harbaugh. The turn-around will have to happen under Shaw's leadership because he won't be fired. Maybe he can do it; maybe not. But regardless he will leave on his own terms and that might be a long time into the future.
I've already commented my issue is not W/L record. It's the lack of fan support from alums, nearby community, and students at the games.
RE: Droppping Football - AlbanyCardinal - 11-07-2021
Another difference -- and it's a big one -- is that Stanford has joined the arms race since we last had this discussion. Shaw's salary nearly doubled only a few years back to, what, $8 or 9m/year? He's Stanford's highest-paid employee by a long shot. That honestly makes my stomach turn, and not just b/c he hasn't been earning it of late. No sports coach should make that much money on the Farm.
RE: Droppping Football - BostonCard - 11-07-2021
His salary is about $6 million, which is still way too much, but he was paid deferred compensation so the headline number looks bigger.
BC
RE: Droppping Football - Maple Leaf - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 10:42 AM)BostonCard Wrote: His salary is about $6 million, which is still way too much, but he was paid deferred compensation so the headline number looks bigger.
BC
$6 Million works out to $500,000 per regular season game. How much revenue does Stanford generate for each regular season game played?
RE: Droppping Football - 82lsju - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 11:12 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote:(11-07-2021, 10:42 AM)BostonCard Wrote: His salary is about $6 million, which is still way too much, but he was paid deferred compensation so the headline number looks bigger.
BC
$6 Million works out to $500,000 per regular season game. How much revenue does Stanford generate for each regular season game played?
for home games a SWAG
- average 25,000 tickets sold at an average ticket price of $25 gives $625,000/game
- 3,000 parking passes at an average price of $20 gives $60,000/game
- concessions, maybe $10 on average per attendee so I'll SWAG 12,000 attendees at each game this year so $120,000/game
- TV money for that game so $22m/9 for each Pac-12 game (home and away) so ~$2m/game
so I SWAG almost $3m per game gross
RE: Droppping Football - Giants - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 06:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: First of all, I want to make it abundantly clear that if Stanford is willing to do what it takes to compete in FBS Football, the notion of dropping the sport or to a lower level is brain-dead. Stanford has proven it can compete at the highest levels of the sport and there is too much money on the table to walk away from it if the program is healthy.
The issue is what it always is for any school that plays the sport. Is it willing to make the commitments and hold people accountable for performance in the interest of pursuing championships? Yes, all sports require these dynamics to be in place, but football requires the most commitments of any NCAA sanctioned sport because it requires so many resources to compete at the highest level.
Cal and Stanford are in very similar boats. And interestingly enough, both played a game this week without their starting QB, and for similar reasons, but in different fashions, were both humiliated in ways that expose their institutions as failed football stewards. Stanford was overwhelmed against a good Utah team. Cal lost a pillow fight to a team that had lost 20 conference games in a row and was 0-8. In both cases, the schools have made financial commitments to head coaches, but the institutions as a whole, from the AD on up, have tied their own hands in ways no other schools have. In both games they played this weekend, the backup QB each program had left itself with threw for less than 4 YPA. If the schools don't care at the very top, that trickles down to the coaching staffs and ultimately the players, to the point the programs are so terrible they can't even be slightly competitive with a backup QB. This isn't some random happenstance that both programs have inept backup QBs. It is proof both programs have done nothing to develop the most important position in all of sports as a program priority.
Stanford is in far better shape than Cal in terms of building blocks to win being in place apart from who the coaches are, but what does it mean when Stanford is in last place in the Pac-12 North, and its credibility is destroyed by what happened against Utah? I'm not going to point out the problems with David Shaw because at this point, he isn't the problem. The problems are with Muir and higher. Just like at Cal, the problem isn't Wilcox as much as Knowlton and higher. Cal has had this institutional problem with lack of football support for decades and decades. It now seems to be creeping into Stanford.
To this end, if Muir and his bosses find what happened on Friday night acceptable, Stanford really should consider dropping football or moving to a lower division. And I believe Cal should too. Neither school has shown winning football games or even playing entertaining football is a priority. If they aren't going to prioritize it, why the hell should fans? It's far too much of a commitment to go to games, follow the teams, and make emotional investments in them when those at the top don't care as much as the customers do.
I'll take 6-6 seasons of entertaining football with a new coach every five years, trying to win - or at least giving the illusion of trying to win - over the indifference at the top of Cal and Stanford that lead to the humiliating showing both programs gave their fans this weekend. If the schools don't take measures that demonstrate what happened this weekend is unacceptable, they both should quit the charade, stop fleecing the fans, and just drop to another level or football altogether.
A couple notes: Cal was compelled to play their #3 QB because both the #1 and #2 were sidelined. Also, AZ had lost 20 overall not 20 conference games.
Overall, the hole is your assessment is the role football plays in paying the bills. Neither Cal nor Stanford could afford to drop football without giving up a host of other sports (and we saw what happened when both schools attempted to reduce inventory).
As you rightly pointed out, the Administrations of Cal and Stanford tolerate football but are not overly enthusiastic about the subject. They see the creeping professionalism of the sport at the college level as a significant problem. Therefore, I think we will continue to see mediocre results (good enough to pay the bills) until college athletics reaches a breaking point when schools split into two or more groups based upon the value they place on football and how many eyes they can attract to television and steaming services to watch the games. At that point, Stanford and Cal are going to have to make a decision. Until then, “muddle along” are the marching orders from leadership.
RE: Droppping Football - winflop - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 07:42 AM)81alum Wrote: In my mind, the CTE issues will eventually end football as we know it. The science will improve and the lawsuits will roll in, given time. So football won't be sustainable forever. But whether it takes a decade or a couple of generations I can't tell. Already the participation levels in football in high school is declining amongst the classic Stanford demographic recruiting population. So there does need to be a long-term plan for life after football
You realize that concussions are an even bigger issue in other sports like volleyball & soccer, among others? If football's gonna get shutdown by CTE, so will several other sports.
RE: Droppping Football - Phogge - 11-07-2021
I fell asleep the other night for about 20 minutes of “action.” I gave up season tickets this year. After 65 Big Games and the lost year last year I probably have seen my last. Entertainment has always been more important than winning and this bunch is sleep inducing. If Stanford had played at the same time as the Breeders Cup I would not have watched them.
If Stanford football was a Broadway show it would have closed after Friday. Shaw is living in a different dimension and is a deer in the headlights in whatever world he’s occupying.
RE: Droppping Football - needle - 11-07-2021
I firmly believe that Stanford leaders, like at every other Power 5 school, are addicted to the TV revenue that football generates.
Only if the TV revenue starts to drop— or *perhaps* a scandal involving widespread corruption in CFB (think gambling/NIL)—will Stanford go in a different with football.
RE: Droppping Football - BostonCard - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 12:22 PM)winflop Wrote:(11-07-2021, 07:42 AM)81alum Wrote: In my mind, the CTE issues will eventually end football as we know it. The science will improve and the lawsuits will roll in, given time. So football won't be sustainable forever. But whether it takes a decade or a couple of generations I can't tell. Already the participation levels in football in high school is declining amongst the classic Stanford demographic recruiting population. So there does need to be a long-term plan for life after football
You realize that concussions are an even bigger issue in other sports like volleyball & soccer, among others? If football's gonna get shutdown by CTE, so will several other sports.
It’s not completely clear that CTE is caused by concussions; it may be repeated sub-concussive hits. I have never heard for a volleyball player, for example, being diagnosed with CTE. Soccer may be another story, though, and former professional soccer players are at increased risk for dementia.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31633894/
BC
RE: Droppping Football - Softball Fan - 11-07-2021
About eight or nine years ago there was a proliferation of back row volleyball players wearing helmets after a concussion. That lasted about two years. Then studies started showing helmets didn't help prevent concussions and may even have increased the chances of subsequent concussions. I haven't seen a volleyball player wear a helmet in many years. You would think with all the technology there would be some device that could be worn to greatly reduce concussions. So far it hasn't happened.
RE: Droppping Football - BostonCard - 11-07-2021
I wonder if the ball could be made so that it is less likely to cause a concussion. Ultimately the ball’s energy is proportional to mass and velocity squared, so a lighter ball that doesn’t move as fast (because less energy is transferred from the swing to the ball) would be less likely to cause a concussion.
BC
RE: Droppping Football - oldalum - 11-07-2021
I'm no expert (as my wife will readily attest), but the only realistic way I can think of to make a hand/ball collision less elastic is to decrease the pressure in the ball (or require the use of impact-absorbing gloves which would be a nonstarter). Making the ball lighter would not affect the elasticity of the collision, so the same amount of energy would be transferred and the ball would just travel faster after impact. Of course, a slower ball would change the game itself