The CardBoard
Does this matter to fans - 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: Does this matter to fans (/thread-23285.html)

Pages: 1 2

Does this matter to fans - yvonne - 07-06-2022

I know that this doesn't matter to TV, but does it matter to fans here?

To me, the ACC seems like a better fit for Stanford. North Carolina's and Virginia's broad and successful array of sports is much more similar to Stanford's than those of any team in the Big Ten. Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, and Virginia are much more similar to Stanford academically and in terms of mission than any team in the Big Ten other than Northwestern. Yes, I know Michigan has good academics, but it's more Big State U that I compare more to Texas than Stanford or Cal.

Does anyone agree with my assessment? If so, does it matter to anyone?

RE: Does this matter to fans - lex24 - 07-06-2022

(07-06-2022, 05:17 PM)yvonne Wrote:  I know that this doesn't matter to TV, but does it matter to fans here?

To me, the ACC seems like a better fit for Stanford. North Carolina's and Virginia's broad and successful array of sports is much more similar to Stanford's than that of any time in the Big Ten. Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, and Virginia are much more similar to Stanford academically and in terms of mission than any team in the Big Ten other than Northwestern. Yes, I know Michigan has good academics, but it's more Big State U that I compare more to Texas than Stanford or Cal.

Does anyone agree with my assessment? If so, does it matter to anyone?

I agree with your take.  I’m not a Stanford grad. So, the relative academics of the opposition does not matter to me.  I do think Stanford would have a much better chance competing (football wise) with the ACC schools.

RE: Does this matter to fans - OutsiderFan - 07-06-2022

Stanford and Cal definitely are more of a cultural fit for the ACC schools. Add in Boston College as another to the ones Yvonne listed. College football certainly has interest, but most ACC schools aren't filling 70K+ stadiums outside Clemson and Florida State. Speaking of them...

I was not aware of the penalties for schools to leave the ACC until this week. Explains why Clemson and Florida State won't be leaving the ACC any time soon, but they are much more SEC-like than the rest of the ACC schools.

RE: Does this matter to fans - Phogge - 07-06-2022

I've been a fan since Bobby Garrett almost singlehandedly beat #1 UCLA in 1953. I didn't care about academics then and I don't care now. I could care less for the Olympic sports except for track and not Stanford track. Except for the Monty years which were electric, I have been a USF fan which began with watching Russell and Jones at Kezar Pavilion. Of course my heart is always with my Gators but since we don't play any D1 teams I hardly know what's going on.

So I hate to see a good thing end. It was so much better to play Cal in the last game of a season, to always play at 1:30 (changed to 12:30 and then to any time TV wanted it). I just missed 1951, cried when a Cal tie in '53 kept the Indians out of the RB and was in ecstasy standing on the RB field (with a 35mm motion picture camera) on January 1, 1971.

But everything has to end. Ask a T Rex if you can find one.

I do feel sorry for the alums who do care.

RE: Does this matter to fans - Mick - 07-06-2022

(07-06-2022, 06:43 PM)Phogge Wrote:  I've been a fan since Bobby Garrett almost singlehandedly beat #1 UCLA in 1953. I didn't care about academics then and I don't care now. I could care less for the Olympic sports except for track and not Stanford track. Except for the Monty years which were electric, I have been a USF fan which began with watching Russell and Jones at Kezar Pavilion. Of course my heart is always with my Gators but since we don't play any D1 teams I hardly know what's going on.

So I hate to see a good thing end. It was so much better to play Cal in the last game of a season, to always play at 1:30 (changed to 12:30 and then to any time TV wanted it). I just missed 1951, cried when a Cal tie in '53 kept the Indians out of the RB and was in ecstasy standing on the RB field (with a 35mm motion picture camera) on January 1, 1971.

But everything has to end. Ask a T Rex if you can find one.

I do feel sorry for the alums who do care.

For me, it was Jim Plunkett when I was a little kid, then Mike Boryla, and I really got into Stanford football in a big way with Walsh, Dils and Benjamin, Darrin Nelson and James Lofton; then John Elway and company. it was SOOOO much fun....

RE: Does this matter to fans - yvonne - 07-06-2022

This is a little before my time, but I have been told that kids used to sit in the end zones for a low cost or for free. Is that true?

RE: Does this matter to fans - BobK - 07-06-2022

Well my mom graduated from Stanford days after her 20th Birthday so a fan forever and always respected the academics
I follow as many know many sports with season tix to 5 plus track, cross country and Beach
Like Phogge I was at the Bob Garrett game and made me a die hard
Things often change for the better. Title 9 changed sports completely thankfully
Hey Phogge I saw a dinosaur dig last week.

RE: Does this matter to fans - yvonne - 07-06-2022

and when BobK says "dinosaur dig," he's using dig as a verb.

RE: Does this matter to fans - Goose - 07-06-2022

(07-06-2022, 07:26 PM)yvonne Wrote:  This is a little before my time, but I have been told that kids used to sit in the end zones for a low cost or for free. Is that true?
Basically, yes. Low cost for sure, and I am pretty sure that after a few kids got in nobody was paying much attention to who did or didn't have a ticket. Obviously for some games when they could actually sell those seats it would be fewer kids. The also had kids admitted to the sections on the sunny side nearest the end the team and the band use to enter. These were "organized" groups and probably all had tickets. Again, not every game. You could get LOTS of people into the old stadium.

RE: Does this matter to fans - Phogge - 07-07-2022

Back when I had comp press tickets I would take my kids and even though we were in RR we would venture down the rows and over to the corner seats in the end zone. Only crowded for Sc and Cal. The stadium was built on a dirt mound and the used to sell sodas in bottles. So the boys collected bottle caps in the dirt. I think some of them had to be from the 40’s (Nehi). A little later my youngest once said (about Ed Macauley), “Dad why is Mustard the ball carrier.”

RE: Does this matter to fans - Maple Leaf - 07-07-2022

(07-06-2022, 07:26 PM)yvonne Wrote:  This is a little before my time, but I have been told that kids used to sit in the end zones for a low cost or for free. Is that true?

Yes, kids were let in free, the program was called the Stanford Junior Rooters, when you registered you got a card, like a library card or student body card.  We were in the south end on the sunny side.  During the game the Stanford Cheer Leaders would come down and led a cheer or two, we were louder than the Stanford students since they were drunk as sunks and we were not allowed to bring beer into the stadium since we could be older than 12 or 13 iirc to be a Junior Rooters.

The other great Stanford sports offer at the time was the Family Plan which allowed 2 adults and three kids to attend all sporting events at Stanford except for football and basketball, the cost of the plan was $20 or 25 +/- six packs of Oly Beer.

RE: Does this matter to fans - BobK - 07-07-2022

We attended football and basketball on the family plan in the 50s and 60s

RE: Does this matter to fans - Maple Leaf - 07-07-2022

(07-07-2022, 08:08 AM)BobK Wrote:  We attended football and basketball on the family plan in the 50s and 60s

that is great to hear, my father always tried to present the big financial scarifies he made in getting tickets to both football and basketball for us along with everything else, it was for the most part for show and we knew it, but did not let on to his gig.

RE: Does this matter to fans - AlbanyCardinal - 07-07-2022

To me the Big Ten makes more sense geographically, especially with $¢ and UCLA added. I'd think those two additions also beef up the academic profile you're discussing. But is there an ACC team in a state not touching the Atlantic? Of course, who knows which teams will be in it once the dust settles, but for now that's a deal breaker for me.

(07-06-2022, 05:17 PM)yvonne Wrote:  I know that this doesn't matter to TV, but does it matter to fans here?

To me, the ACC seems like a better fit for Stanford. North Carolina's and Virginia's broad and successful array of sports is much more similar to Stanford's than those of any team in the Big Ten. Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, and Virginia are much more similar to Stanford academically and in terms of mission than any team in the Big Ten other than Northwestern. Yes, I know Michigan has good academics, but it's more Big State U that I compare more to Texas than Stanford or Cal.

Does anyone agree with my assessment? If so, does it matter to anyone?


RE: Does this matter to fans - martyup - 07-07-2022

Yvonne, you make a lot of sense. I agree that we fit better with the ACC schools.  The big problem is that they are Atlantic Coast and we are on the West Coast.  If the Stanford brain trust could get off their rears and finally finish creating the teleporter, this would not be a problem.  But for now,  that travel time seems too much of an obstacle.   

We can still have fun with names.. TCC (Two Coasts Conference or Trans Continent Conference) or keep ACC and call it American Coasts Conference.

RE: Does this matter to fans - McKenwood - 07-07-2022

(07-07-2022, 05:11 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote:  
(07-06-2022, 07:26 PM)yvonne Wrote:  This is a little before my time, but I have been told that kids used to sit in the end zones for a low cost or for free. Is that true?

Yes, kids were let in free, the program was called the Stanford Junior Rooters, when you registered you got a card, like a library card or student body card.  We were in the south end on the sunny side.  During the game the Stanford Cheer Leaders would come down and led a cheer or two, we were louder than the Stanford students since they were drunk as sunks and we were not allowed to bring beer into the stadium since we could be older than 12 or 13 iirc to be a Junior Rooters.

The other great Stanford sports offer at the time was the Family Plan which allowed 2 adults and three kids to attend all sporting events at Stanford except for football and basketball, the cost of the plan was $20 or 25 +/- six packs of Oly Beer.

Junior Rooter here. They put us in Section AA in Big Stadium. Not sure how they kept us from wandering except that they had plenty to drink and I think we got a chocolate malt courtesy of Carnation. So different in that I rode my bike to and from the stadium. No parents involved.

This was my introduction to Stanford football along with my parent's seats in QQ.

RE: Does this matter to fans - Canalejas - 07-07-2022

I'm not sure I see the ACC schools as a much better fit for Stanford over the Big Ten. I think we may be underrating the big state schools of the midwest.  

Separate thought, but I've long wished that we could have had the opportunity to associate with more of the UC schools. But they never made it into big time college sports. So if the wheels completely fall off and we go independent, FCS, or drop football altogether, I think I'd rather be in the Big West (provided that Cal comes along) than in the WCC.

RE: Does this matter to fans - dwc13 - 07-07-2022

(07-06-2022, 05:17 PM)yvonne Wrote:  I know that this doesn't matter to TV, but does it matter to fans here?

To me, the ACC seems like a better fit for Stanford. North Carolina's and Virginia's broad and successful array of sports is much more similar to Stanford's than those of any team in the Big Ten. Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, and Virginia are much more similar to Stanford academically and in terms of mission than any team in the Big Ten other than Northwestern. Yes, I know Michigan has good academics, but it's more Big State U that I compare more to Texas than Stanford or Cal.

Does anyone agree with my assessment? If so, does it matter to anyone?

No members of the group you listed as "much more similar" to Stanford -- Duke, UNC (Chapel Hill), Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and UVA -- are land grant universities. Not surprisingly, Stanford isn't one, either. Interestingly, Cal is a land grant university (as are UofA, Oregon State and Washington State in the Pac 12).

Of the 15 current ACC universities, only 3 are land grant: Clemson, NC State and Virginia Tech. 

Of the 14 current Big Ten universities, only 4 are *not* land grant: Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Northwestern.

RE: Does this matter to fans - chrisk - 07-07-2022

In some states, a large existing state school co-opted the grant. Other states started a new school devoted to A&M with the grant.

RE: Does this matter to fans - CowboyIndian - 07-07-2022

My podiatrist here in Redding (CA) was a Junior Rooter and remains a fan to this day. He can give you the entire roster of the '71 and '72 Rose Bowl teams. It's all we talk about.
I know the world is different now but this seems like a no-brainer.