How it happened - Printable Version

How it happened - 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: How it happened (/thread-24491.html)

How it happened - threepointer - 10-15-2023

Time to Write after the 29-0 beatdown of Colorado.

First about me. I was on the Stanford Athletic Board and Chairman of the Finance Committee back in the day. I had the extreme pleasure of working with Bill Walsh and Bob Bowlsby. This is is one story. Sorry for the references to the other Stanford football site, but it is what happened.

We assembled a committee to study the endemic money losses of the Stanford Athletic Department. Walsh was the interim AD. This was in preparation for the incoming new Athletic Director, Bob Bowlsby. In his first meeting as AD we met with Etchemendy the Provost to present our findings. I had done most of the analysis so I did most of the presentation.

After the presentation I pulled the Provost (Etchemendy) aside and said, "No one understands what you do. Especially Stanford sport fans." He said, "I know, I get more letters and emails about the football program than any other topic." I said, "you should grant an interview to the Bootleg." He said, "What's that?"

I explained that the Bootleg was a Stanford oriented internet site that covered Division 1 programs from all points of view. The reporter for the Stanford Bootleg was Mike Eubanks, a Stanford Chemical Engineering graduate who decided that he would rather be a sports reporter than a Chemical Engineer. I said if you want to reach the rabid Stanford fan base and reduce the number of letters and emails you get, give an interview to Mike. He said, "that's a great idea, can you arrange it?"

So at the Spring scrimmage, I sidled up to Mike Eubanks and said, "Mike, you should do an interview with John Etchemendy, the Provost." He said, "Right, like that's ever going to happen. I can't get past the door to his secretary's office." I said, "Mike, I will make it happen."

So I connected the two of them and Mike wrote a 4 part article on Stanford Sports from the view of the Provost. One of the major topics was that our Director of Admissions, Robin Mamlet, who had come from Swarthmore, had really clamped down on Athletic admissions in all sports, Men's and Women's. She just didn't get it.

Etchemendy said, "I don't think that's true, our admission standards for Athletes have not changed. They are held to the same standard as other applicants, with modest flexibility to acknowledge the investment of time that they make in their sport."

Mike said, I can prove it to you." And he did by giving Etchemendy the statistics on Athletic admissions before and after Mamlet." One year later Stanford fired Robin Mamlet as the Director of Admissions and replaced her with Richard Shaw from Yale. Previously, he was Director of Admissions at Michigan. He knew that in order to fill a 110,000 seat stadium you had to deliver a good product. And Stanford Stadium has only 50,000 seats.

I convinced Nancy Mohr, the Chairman of the Athletic Board, to invite Mike to an Athletic Board meeting. Her reaction was, "We can't do that, we have never have had reporters at our meetings." I explained that Mike would cover the meeting on background and not divulge anything that she did not approve.

So Mike attended an Athletic Board meeting and I introduced him to Bob Bowlsby. Bob asked Mike what his job entailed. He said, "well I write articles about the program, but the principal role of the Scout network is to identify talent and assign stars to athletes (5 stars, 4 stars, 3 stars, etc....). In order to do that we start tracking athletes when they are freshman in high school and then track their progress. Bob quickly realized that Mike was not just talking about Stanford targets, but through the Scout network he had an encyclopedic knowledge of talent in every state of the country (and Canada).

So Bob Bowlsby introduced Mike to Jim Harbaugh. Harbaugh hired Mike to coordinate recruiting.

I did that. Or better put....I helped do that.

Eventually, I will wither and return to the earth. But I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I helped Stanford sports and specifically Stanford Football improve from a bunch of underperforming Nerds into a bunch of really smart winners. That was then. I think that we are on the verge of another transformation and I have some thoughts on that topic. In a later post.....

RE: How it happened - BobK - 10-15-2023

Thank you for posting this and really really appreciate your contribution
Plus miss your posts

RE: How it happened - dabigv13 - 10-15-2023

Thank you for this really interesting post, and for helping enable the Golden Age of Stanford football.

RE: How it happened - Nan3cy - 10-15-2023

(10-15-2023, 12:43 PM)BobK Wrote: Thank you for posting this and really really appreciate your contribution
Plus miss your posts

What Bob said.

RE: How it happened - McKenwood - 10-15-2023

(10-15-2023, 12:43 PM)BobK Wrote: Thank you for posting this and really really appreciate your contribution
Plus miss your posts

Great post three pointer.

I actually suggested to my contacts in the administration that the provost and president have a subscription to the Athletic for college sports. And they should invite Stewart Mandel (CFB for the Athletic) to lunch to discuss college athletics. Stewart lives right near the Stanford campus and is one of the best in covering all the changes occurring in college sports. The senior administration eeds to get out of their bubble - btw this applies to many subjects.

RE: How it happened - fullmetal - 10-15-2023

This is an awesome series of events. Never think that any one person can't change the course of events with proper motivation and a good understanding of who can do what and with what incentives.

We need a Cardboard gathering/storytelling session...maybe at a bowl game in one or two seasons.

RE: How it happened - threepointer - 10-15-2023

(10-15-2023, 01:00 PM)fullmetal Wrote: This is an awesome series of events. Never think that any one person can't change the course of events with proper motivation and a good understanding of who can do what and with what incentives.

We need a Cardboard gathering/storytelling session...maybe at a bowl game in one or two seasons.

In the spirit of the late TV pitchmen...."Wait.....there's more."

During the meeting when the topic of the $4 - $5 million annual shortfall came up, I spoke up. I have plenty of board experience and knew exactly what I wanted to accomplish. I said, "I can solve the $5 million problem pretty easily." Etch said, "How?"

I said, "Eliminate these sports and held up one hand."

Etch said, "No. I will not eliminate sports and will continue to subsidize the department." End of discussion.

That's the Leadership we had. That's the leadership we have recently lacked. We need to fix this.

RE: How it happened - old spanish trail - 10-15-2023

This is really great, Threepointer, and reminds us that one person can make a gigantic difference. Btw,what is Eubanks doing now?

RE: How it happened - cardcrimson - 10-15-2023

(10-15-2023, 01:00 PM)fullmetal Wrote: We need a Cardboard gathering/storytelling session...maybe at a bowl game in one or two seasons.

You'd need Phogge for that. But alas. . . .

RE: How it happened - thatboy - 10-15-2023

(10-15-2023, 12:35 PM)threepointer Wrote: I think that we are on the verge of another transformation and I have some thoughts on that topic. In a later post.....

Looking forward to reading it. And I am optimistic that the transformation you're alluding to is in the positive direction. Considering where we are with major sports, it seems the only direction we can reasonably go (in a transformative sense) is up. I suppose things could get worse, but not worse to a transformative degree.

RE: How it happened - gailtate - 10-15-2023

(10-15-2023, 12:35 PM)threepointer Wrote: Time to Write after the 29-0 beatdown of Colorado.

First about me. I was on the Stanford Athletic Board and Chairman of the Finance Committee back in the day. I had the extreme pleasure of working with Bill Walsh and Bob Bowlsby. This is is one story. Sorry for the references to the other Stanford football site, but it is what happened.

We assembled a committee to study the endemic money losses of the Stanford Athletic Department. Walsh was the interim AD. This was in preparation for the incoming new Athletic Director, Bob Bowlsby. In his first meeting as AD we met with Etchemendy the Provost to present our findings. I had done most of the analysis so I did most of the presentation.

After the presentation I pulled the Provost (Etchemendy) aside and said, "No one understands what you do. Especially Stanford sport fans." He said, "I know, I get more letters and emails about the football program than any other topic." I said, "you should grant an interview to the Bootleg." He said, "What's that?"

I explained that the Bootleg was a Stanford oriented internet site that covered Division 1 programs from all points of view. The reporter for the Stanford Bootleg was Mike Eubanks, a Stanford Chemical Engineering graduate who decided that he would rather be a sports reporter than a Chemical Engineer. I said if you want to reach the rabid Stanford fan base and reduce the number of letters and emails you get, give an interview to Mike. He said, "that's a great idea, can you arrange it?"

So at the Spring scrimmage, I sidled up to Mike Eubanks and said, "Mike, you should do an interview with John Etchemendy, the Provost." He said, "Right, like that's ever going to happen. I can't get past the door to his secretary's office." I said, "Mike, I will make it happen."

So I connected the two of them and Mike wrote a 4 part article on Stanford Sports from the view of the Provost. One of the major topics was that our Director of Admissions, Robin Mamlet, who had come from Swarthmore, had really clamped down on Athletic admissions in all sports, Men's and Women's. She just didn't get it.

Etchemendy said, "I don't think that's true, our admission standards for Athletes have not changed. They are held to the same standard as other applicants, with modest flexibility to acknowledge the investment of time that they make in their sport."

Mike said, I can prove it to you." And he did by giving Etchemendy the statistics on Athletic admissions before and after Mamlet." One year later Stanford fired Robin Mamlet as the Director of Admissions and replaced her with Richard Shaw from Yale. Previously, he was Director of Admissions at Michigan. He knew that in order to fill a 110,000 seat stadium you had to deliver a good product. And Stanford Stadium has only 50,000 seats.

I convinced Nancy Mohr, the Chairman of the Athletic Board, to invite Mike to an Athletic Board meeting. Her reaction was, "We can't do that, we have never have had reporters at our meetings." I explained that Mike would cover the meeting on background and not divulge anything that she did not approve.

So Mike attended an Athletic Board meeting and I introduced him to Bob Bowlsby. Bob asked Mike what his job entailed. He said, "well I write articles about the program, but the principal role of the Scout network is to identify talent and assign stars to athletes (5 stars, 4 stars, 3 stars, etc....). In order to do that we start tracking athletes when they are freshman in high school and then track their progress. Bob quickly realized that Mike was not just talking about Stanford targets, but through the Scout network he had an encyclopedic knowledge of talent in every state of the country (and Canada).

So Bob Bowlsby introduced Mike to Jim Harbaugh. Harbaugh hired Mike to coordinate recruiting.

I did that. Or better put....I helped do that.

Eventually, I will wither and return to the earth. But I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I helped Stanford sports and specifically Stanford Football improve from a bunch of underperforming Nerds into a bunch of really smart winners. That was then. I think that we are on the verge of another transformation and I have some thoughts on that topic. In a later post.....

The "transformation", the verge on which you rightly believe Stanford stands at the moment, appears to be binary. The question is whether it will tip towards resurgence of relevance we all witnessed from 2009-18 or the dismal return to mediocrity incapable of even half-filling Stanford Stadium.

Only if enough of those "smart winners" that you rightly cite can hold sway in (and around) the admittance office will we realize the former. (FYI, I was a Bootleg editorial colleague of Mike Eubanks during the period you noted. In a separate article on the need for a new stadium, I interviewed John Hennessy, who ultimately proved to be a smart winner.)

RE: How it happened - threepointer - 10-15-2023

OK – Like many times in life, I have to provide some “context” to my previous comment. That happens often when I spout off about Stanford sports.

“I think that we are on the verge of another transformation and I have some thoughts on that topic.”

Aruguably, the Harbaugh and early Shaw years were the pinnacle of modern Stanford football (since the forward pass). This, after the ignominy of the 1-10 Wlat year and the Buddy Teevans tenure (Such a nice man. The wrong man in the wrong role at the wrong time – may he rest in peace).

Listening to the announcers during the first half of the Colorado game you might have concluded that Stanford should give up Division I football – in the 3rd quarter.

No talent, the talent we had transferred, no talent coming in, bad scheme, bad everything. Who would want to play football at Stanford? It was insulting.

Well...... to paraphase Will Hunting from the movie Good Will Hunting after the second half, “We got their number!!  How do you like them apples?”

You would think that the announcers could have mentioned the performance of Stanford pros like CMac, Ertz, etc…. But no. We heard about all of the Voldemort winners during the Notre Dame / USC game. That’s because those schools try to win the award.

If Stanford had spent a few dollars, spewed some platitudes, and marketed Toby, Andrew, CMac, they might have had a chance. But that is not Stanford.

Seriously, just about anything today is all about marketing. We should have sent those $4.79 Stanford beer can cozies that are marketed on the Bookstore website to Voldemort voters.  If Stanford had done that little bit of marketing we might have won some more hardware.

What I am hoping for is no more 1-11 type seasons but a return to Relevance and Respect.  Flashes of Brilliance and Excellence. Recruits that surprise and surpass. Fun.

And every once in a while, a generational talent that we will remember along with Elway, Evers, Plunkett, Luck, Gerhart, CMac, and all of the other students we attended class with. :)

The Colorado game gives me hope that this just could happen.

RE: How it happened - cardcrimson - 10-15-2023

(10-15-2023, 06:57 PM)threepointer Wrote: OK – Like many times in life, I have to provide some “context” to my previous comment. That happens often when I spout off about Stanford sports.

“I think that we are on the verge of another transformation and I have some thoughts on that topic.”

Aruguably, the Harbaugh and early Shaw years were the pinnacle of modern Stanford football (since the forward pass). This, after the ignominy of the 1-10 Wlat year and the Buddy Teevans tenure (Such a nice man. The wrong man in the wrong role at the wrong time – may he rest in peace).

Listening to the announcers during the first half of the Colorado game you might have concluded that Stanford should give up Division I football – in the 3rd quarter.

No talent, the talent we had transferred, no talent coming in, bad scheme, bad everything. Who would want to play football at Stanford? It was insulting.

Well...... to paraphase Will Hunting from the movie Good Will Hunting after the second half, “How do you like them apples?”

You would think that the announcers could have mentioned the performance of Stanford pros like CMac, Ertz, etc…. But no. We heard about all of the Voldemort winners during the Notre Dame / USC game. That’s because those schools try to win the award.

If Stanford had spent a few dollars, spewed some platitudes, and marketed Toby, Andrew, CMac, they might have had a chance. But that is not Stanford.

Seriously, just about anything today is all about marketing. We should have sent those $4.79 Stanford beer can cozies that are marketed on the Bookstore website to Voldemort voters. If Stanford had done that little bit of marketing we might have won some more hardware.

What I am advocating is a return to flashes of Brilliance and Excellence. Recruits that surprise and surpass. Fun.

No more 1-11 type seasons but a return to Relevance and Respect.

And every once in a while, a generational talent that we will remember along with Elway, Evers, Plunkett, Luck, Gerhart, CMac, and all of the other students we attended class with. :)

The Colorado game gives me hope that that is a possibility.

Great post. Shame on us for not spending the $4.79 for the coozies.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe even the best of things. And good things never die."

RE: How it happened - GoodGrief - 10-15-2023

Thank you threepointer, I had not realized everything that you have done for Stanford athletics. I’m really glad you posted this.

Also I absolutely loathe Mamlet forever for her near destruction of our athletic teams.

RE: How it happened - M T - 10-15-2023

GoodGrief dateline='[url=tel:1697428120' Wrote: 1697428120[/url]']
Also I absolutely loathe Mamlet forever for her near destruction of our athletic teams.

Yeah, the string of national championships and Directors Cups are irrelevant when it comes to REAL athletic teams.

RE: How it happened - GoodGrief - 10-17-2023

Btw, Threepointer (or anybody who knows): was Robin Mamlet actually fired by Stanford? I sure hope so, but I can't find any articles about her departure. Did they gently nudge her out while giving her the privilege of positioning it, or did they actually just fire her?

RE: How it happened - gailtate - 10-17-2023

(10-17-2023, 11:20 AM)GoodGrief Wrote: Btw, Threepointer (or anybody who knows): was Robin Mamlet actually fired by Stanford? I sure hope so, but I can't find any articles about her departure. Did they gently nudge her out while giving her the privilege of positioning it, or did they actually just fire her?

When departure is associated with "spending more time with family...blah, blah,blah" it's typically the code for "I was let go." This lame figure of speech has, of course, become a cliche. When it's a Stanford higher-up, (an unindicted one), it is typically associated with a dignified nudge.

RE: How it happened - threepointer - 10-17-2023

(10-17-2023, 01:19 PM)gailtate Wrote:
(10-17-2023, 11:20 AM)GoodGrief Wrote: Btw, Threepointer (or anybody who knows): was Robin Mamlet actually fired by Stanford? I sure hope so, but I can't find any articles about her departure. Did they gently nudge her out while giving her the privilege of positioning it, or did they actually just fire her?

When departure is associated with "spending more time with family...blah, blah,blah" it's typically the code for "I was let go." This lame figure of speech has, of course, become a cliche. When it's a Stanford higher-up, (an unindicted one), it is typically associated with a dignified nudge.

As I noted in another thread, I was a member of the Athletic Board - not really a decision maker. But I did get to work with Bill Walsh and Bob Bowlsby, a real honor for me.

I have observed that in these big non-profit boards, most of the board members are donors. Not many doers. I am the latter. I do and I did. I was tasked with the financial review project and used that forum to highlight some "issues." I have no idea if Mamlet was officially "let go." But she was probably smart enough to read the writing on the wall after Eubanks was done with Etchemendy.

RE: How it happened - JJJ - 10-18-2023

Thank you Threepointer! I was just talking to son and girlfriend (both recent vintage Band alumni) and their opinion was that the MTL/Drell combo didn’t “get” Stanford, and that we needed another Etch in the mix somewhere.