Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - 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: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston (/thread-23885.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: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston (/thread-23885.html)
Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - 82lsju - 12-16-2022
two articles in their most recent magazine
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B8bCXVCNDzU1Clx5oiBXCst3CtEzteCH/view
RE: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - 81alum - 12-16-2022
(12-16-2022, 05:52 PM)82lsju Wrote: two articles in their most recent magazineThat is a GREAT read! Deja vu all over again.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B8bCXVCNDzU1Clx5oiBXCst3CtEzteCH/view
Quote:But by the end of 1960, his third year, Cactus Jack’s future was.
already in question. That year, he was elected president of the
Football Coaches Association of America, but his own football
program was on the road to disaster: The team, troubled by serious
injuries, lost 10 consecutive games, including a humiliating defeat.
by San Jose State. Curtice had yet to pull off a
winning season. Fan attendance at Stanford
Stadium dropped precipitously. Ultimately, his
teams went 14–36 over five years, and 5–19 in
conference play.
Some vocal students and alumni, but
especially some sports writers, questioned
Stanford’s willingness to stay among the Big-Time
Football ranks. Perhaps it wasn’t all Curtice’s
fault: Sterling’s reluctance to lower admission
and eligibility standards for prospective top
athletes, the complaint ran, came at a high cost
to football success and “Stanford spirit”—that
highly valuable, intangible asset that tied many
alumni to the campus. Since academics were now
more important than athletics at the university,
they asked, was it time to throw in the towel and
schedule less rigorous competition against teams
more “like us?”
RE: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - BostonCard - 12-17-2022
60 years later, the debate still rages.
BC
RE: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - JohnR34231 - 12-17-2022
(12-16-2022, 08:59 PM)81alum Wrote:(12-16-2022, 05:52 PM)82lsju Wrote: two articles in their most recent magazineThat is a GREAT read! Deja vu all over again.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B8bCXVCNDzU1Clx5oiBXCst3CtEzteCH/view
Quote:But by the end of 1960, his third year, Cactus Jack’s future was.
already in question. That year, he was elected president of the
Football Coaches Association of America, but his own football
program was on the road to disaster: The team, troubled by serious
injuries, lost 10 consecutive games, including a humiliating defeat.
by San Jose State. Curtice had yet to pull off a
winning season. Fan attendance at Stanford
Stadium dropped precipitously. Ultimately, his
teams went 14–36 over five years, and 5–19 in
conference play.
Some vocal students and alumni, but
especially some sports writers, questioned
Stanford’s willingness to stay among the Big-Time
Football ranks. Perhaps it wasn’t all Curtice’s
fault: Sterling’s reluctance to lower admission
and eligibility standards for prospective top
athletes, the complaint ran, came at a high cost
to football success and “Stanford spirit”—that
highly valuable, intangible asset that tied many
alumni to the campus. Since academics were now
more important than athletics at the university,
they asked, was it time to throw in the towel and
schedule less rigorous competition against teams
more “like us?”
Of course, another big issue was Stanford's unwillingness to offer athletic scholarships. Bill Douglas, the QB who led Washington to the Rose Bowl after the 1963 season said he would have gone to Stanford if they had been willing to give him a scholarship.
RE: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - washingtonismoney - 12-17-2022
(12-17-2022, 09:56 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Of course, another big issue was Stanford's unwillingness to offer athletic scholarships. Bill Douglas, the QB who led Washington to the Rose Bowl after the 1963 season said he would have gone to Stanford if they had been willing to give him a scholarship.
Forget exactly what context but ESPN ran I think a SportsCentury piece in which the talking head offhandedly mentioned Ralston thought he could've built a dynasty to eclipse even USC had the academic restrictions at the time been slightly looser.
RE: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - Goose - 12-17-2022
(12-17-2022, 09:58 AM)washingtonismoney Wrote:I would believe it. Of course at the time Ralston was coaching the academic restrictions were already looser than they are today. Ralston had several JC transfers. Good luck with that today.(12-17-2022, 09:56 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Of course, another big issue was Stanford's unwillingness to offer athletic scholarships. Bill Douglas, the QB who led Washington to the Rose Bowl after the 1963 season said he would have gone to Stanford if they had been willing to give him a scholarship.
Forget exactly what context but ESPN ran I think a SportsCentury piece in which the talking head offhandedly mentioned Ralston thought he could've built a dynasty to eclipse even USC had the academic restrictions at the time been slightly looser.
RE: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - BobK - 12-17-2022
MVB has a JC transfer. Came a couple of years ago now in grad school at Stanford
RE: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - Goose - 12-17-2022
(12-17-2022, 10:44 AM)BobK Wrote: MVB has a JC transfer. Came a couple of years ago now in grad school at StanfordIt is possible for a JC transfer to get into Stanford. However, getting several in in a single year is a unicorn. Ralston did that. I remember there was some quiet discussion about that in the student body, but nobody was complaining :-).
RE: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - JohnR34231 - 12-17-2022
(12-17-2022, 10:35 AM)Goose Wrote:(12-17-2022, 09:58 AM)washingtonismoney Wrote:I would believe it. Of course at the time Ralston was coaching the academic restrictions were already looser than they are today. Ralston had several JC transfers. Good luck with that today.(12-17-2022, 09:56 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Of course, another big issue was Stanford's unwillingness to offer athletic scholarships. Bill Douglas, the QB who led Washington to the Rose Bowl after the 1963 season said he would have gone to Stanford if they had been willing to give him a scholarship.
Forget exactly what context but ESPN ran I think a SportsCentury piece in which the talking head offhandedly mentioned Ralston thought he could've built a dynasty to eclipse even USC had the academic restrictions at the time been slightly looser.
Yep, you could get in then with around a 3.0 GPA. Also, there were no AP course requirements.
RE: Stanford Historical Society on John Ralston - Mick - 12-17-2022
(12-17-2022, 09:56 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(12-16-2022, 08:59 PM)81alum Wrote:(12-16-2022, 05:52 PM)82lsju Wrote: two articles in their most recent magazineThat is a GREAT read! Deja vu all over again.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B8bCXVCNDzU1Clx5oiBXCst3CtEzteCH/view
Quote:But by the end of 1960, his third year, Cactus Jack’s future was.
already in question. That year, he was elected president of the
Football Coaches Association of America, but his own football
program was on the road to disaster: The team, troubled by serious
injuries, lost 10 consecutive games, including a humiliating defeat.
by San Jose State. Curtice had yet to pull off a
winning season. Fan attendance at Stanford
Stadium dropped precipitously. Ultimately, his
teams went 14–36 over five years, and 5–19 in
conference play.
Some vocal students and alumni, but
especially some sports writers, questioned
Stanford’s willingness to stay among the Big-Time
Football ranks. Perhaps it wasn’t all Curtice’s
fault: Sterling’s reluctance to lower admission
and eligibility standards for prospective top
athletes, the complaint ran, came at a high cost
to football success and “Stanford spirit”—that
highly valuable, intangible asset that tied many
alumni to the campus. Since academics were now
more important than athletics at the university,
they asked, was it time to throw in the towel and
schedule less rigorous competition against teams
more “like us?”
Of course, another big issue was Stanford's unwillingness to offer athletic scholarships. Bill Douglas, the QB who led Washington to the Rose Bowl after the 1963 season said he would have gone to Stanford if they had been willing to give him a scholarship.
Separate sport, but Fred Couples said during a David Feherty interview that he had really wanted to attend Stanford University. The golf coach at the time said he couldn't afford to fly Boom Boom to Stanford, so for want of an airline ticket, Freddy Couples went to U. of Houston.