David Bailey to Portal - 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: David Bailey to Portal (/thread-25538.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: David Bailey to Portal (/thread-25538.html)
David Bailey to Portal - PalmTree - 03-28-2025
Mods -didn't see this elsewhere, please feel free to move to a new thread.
https://www.on3.com/news/stanford-edge-david-bailey-enters-transfer-portal/
I see this was also reported on 247
RE: David Bailey to Portal - paloalto - 03-28-2025
You have to expect it with the uncertainty level of Stanford football at 100%.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - PVTree - 03-28-2025
Don't fault him for making the move. He deserves a shot at having a final season that involves a bowl game.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - BobK - 03-28-2025
Also WR Reuben in the portal as a grad student
RE: David Bailey to Portal - PVTree - 03-28-2025
That's a shame. I thought Reuben was going to be a star when I saw him play a couple of years ago.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - fullmetal - 03-28-2025
Still could be a star elsewhere. But maybe the right coaching hire will bring everyone back? Dum spiro, spero.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - old spanish trail - 03-28-2025
(03-28-2025, 04:46 PM)PVTree Wrote: Don't fault him for making the move. He deserves a shot at having a final season that involves a bowl game.
Damn, but wishing the best for him.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - Goose - 03-28-2025
Unfortunately this may only be the beginning. The dismissal of the coach opens the portal immediately. When uncertainty is 100% at Stanford, any kind of "guarantee" may look attractive, even at a "lesser" program.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - 82lsju - 03-28-2025
(03-28-2025, 07:43 PM)Goose Wrote: Unfortunately this may only be the beginning. The dismissal of the coach opens the portal immediately. When uncertainty is 100% at Stanford, any kind of "guarantee" may look attractive, even at a "lesser" program.
and even without a coach leaving it opens from April 16-25 this year, so with Taylor's departure for Stanford players it opens for 30 days from Taylor's firing so from Mar 25 to Apr 24 (or I assume Apr 25 since that's the end date for everyone else) so some players may be getting a head start on the Apr 16 entry date with the coaching change
RE: David Bailey to Portal - newguy - 03-29-2025
(03-28-2025, 07:43 PM)Goose Wrote: Unfortunately this may only be the beginning.......When uncertainty is 100% at Stanford, any kind of "guarantee" may look attractive, even at a "lesser" program.
4-star edge rusher Nusi Taumoepeau (2025) has just decommited.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - SamuelMcF - 03-29-2025
(03-29-2025, 12:06 AM)newguy Wrote:(03-28-2025, 07:43 PM)Goose Wrote: Unfortunately this may only be the beginning.......When uncertainty is 100% at Stanford, any kind of "guarantee" may look attractive, even at a "lesser" program.
4-star edge rusher Nusi Taumoepeau (2025) has just decommited.
ILB and he already had a foot out the door when D'Onofrio was fired.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - Mick - 03-29-2025
(03-29-2025, 12:06 AM)newguy Wrote:(03-28-2025, 07:43 PM)Goose Wrote: Unfortunately this may only be the beginning.......When uncertainty is 100% at Stanford, any kind of "guarantee" may look attractive, even at a "lesser" program.
4-star edge rusher Nusi Taumoepeau (2025) has just decommited.
Four years ago, a friend of mine, Jerry, has a twenty-year-old son who was in a serious relationship with someone completely inappropriate. He was stumped as to how to handle it, the son already knew his parents disapproved of the relationship. Jerry had a brother (Steve) who had a disastrous marriage that started because of an unwise decision as a very young man. Steve volunteered to talk to Jerry's son, and spent a day with him, giving a no-holds-barred look into a probable future with a very unpleasant outcome. Steve spent six hours with Jerry's son, making nearly 400 separate points that young men don't consider. Might have worked too well, the son's relationship broke up, and he hasn't had a new one since.
I know the recruiters have and communicate a forty-year story, it's Stanford's single greatest unique factor. I wonder if the 40-year-story the recruiters are telling players is strong enough. There's a reason that high school seniors all over the world desperately want to get into Stanford. A football player wants to play football, win, educate himself, enjoy himself and go as far as his talent will take him. That last part is particularly important and the impact of a Stanford degree, and the education, and the relationships developed versus that of most other institutions is incalculable.
Do the Stanford recruits sufficiently understand the down side of not selecting Stanford? I wonder if they do. Teenaged males are uniquely optimistic, they like to take risks, they're fully capable (until they aren't); but they downplay negative risk, and overestimate their abilities to handle challenges. There's a reason car rental companies don't lease vehicles to young men. It's an extraordinary risk to play at a football factory if a player has the intellectual capacity to succeed at Stanford.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - Goose - 03-29-2025
(03-29-2025, 06:46 AM)Mick Wrote: It's an extraordinary risk to play at a football factory if a player has the intellectual capacity to succeed at Stanford.I am not convinced this is true anymore, if it ever was. For a player that is actually interested in getting an education and possibly pursuing a career that values "credentials" it may still be true. However since today's society values style over substance you can get lots of followers on twitter and thereby be arguably in a position to "network" as well as any Stanford graduate can. You need not actually know anything to do that, as is demonstrated every day.
IMO there are lots of people intending to enter the "business" world that can easily do so with a degree from e.g. Colorado, Alabama, or UCF. The "networking" available to a football player at those schools may actually be more valuable, at least in the near term, than the Stanford network ever would be. Why attend Stanford, a school that hates fun where you may have to work very diligently, in order to major in Science, Technology, and Society? Why is a similar degree from <insert name here> demonstrably of less value? I am not convinced it is, but more importantly it will not be at all obvious to most prospective Stanford football players that it is. That makes it a very hard sell, especially when all the other schools recruiting the player will challenge the notion.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - Mick - 03-29-2025
(03-29-2025, 09:10 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-29-2025, 06:46 AM)Mick Wrote: It's an extraordinary risk to play at a football factory if a player has the intellectual capacity to succeed at Stanford.I am not convinced this is true anymore, if it ever was. For a player that is actually interested in getting an education and possibly pursuing a career that values "credentials" it may still be true. However since today's society values style over substance you can get lots of followers on twitter and thereby be arguably in a position to "network" as well as any Stanford graduate can. You need not actually know anything to do that, as is demonstrated every day.
IMO there are lots of people intending to enter the "business" world that can easily do so with a degree from e.g. Colorado, Alabama, or UCF. The "networking" available to a football player at those schools may actually be more valuable, at least in the near term, than the Stanford network ever would be. Why attend Stanford, a school that hates fun where you may have to work very diligently, in order to major in Science, Technology, and Society? Why is a similar degree from <insert name here> demonstrably of less value? I am not convinced it is, but more importantly it will not be at all obvious to most prospective Stanford football players that it is. That makes it a very hard sell, especially when all the other schools recruiting the player will challenge the notion.
Right, that was my entire point. It is a difficult sell, but not an impossible one. If I sit down with a teenaged football player and tell him he'd have a better life if he went to Stanford irrespective of the football outcome, and spend five minutes on the discussion with a few statistics and some bland points, it won't move the needle. But if I spend 1/2 hour on all the great outcomes that a Stanford education has over his adult lifetime compared with the likely results at football factories, it would at least give him pause. If you go to a football factory, you can play in the NFL. Same with Stanford, 22nd most NFL players among D1 schools.
But the odds of achieving anything outside of the NFL are much slimmer at a football factory, if you're the kind of player who can manage the academic workload at Stanford. My guess is that if you listed 50 Stanford football alumni, starting with Mr. Packard, you would have some extraordinary achievers that other schools can't match. Any school can list five, even ten. But fifty? Or a hundred? The other part of it is the downside, most schools don't talk about that...here's the unsuccessful alumni. I doubt Stanford has many really unsuccessful football alumni. That should be part of the discussion.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - Goose - 03-29-2025
(03-29-2025, 09:29 AM)Mick Wrote: Right, that was my entire point. It is a difficult sell, but not an impossible one. If I sit down with a teenaged football player and tell him he'd have a better life if he went to Stanford irrespective of the football outcome, and spend five minutes on the discussion with a few statistics and some bland points, it won't move the needle. But if I spend 1/2 hour on all the great outcomes that a Stanford education has over his adult lifetime compared with the likely results at football factories, it would at least give him pause. If you go to a football factory, you can play in the NFL. Same with Stanford, 22nd most NFL players among D1 schools.The problem is that the "average" Stanford football player isn't Mr. Packard, ENG 1939, knows it, and most importantly doesn't want to be. Those "heroes" (https://engineering.stanford.edu/about/history/heroes/2011-heroes/david-packard) are irrelevant to him because he isn't that academically oriented. The extraordinary achievers just don't matter at all because the player isn't intending to be one of them. Talking about them may be interesting but is quite unlikely to be persuasive.
But the odds of achieving anything outside of the NFL are much slimmer at a football factory, if you're the kind of player who can manage the academic workload at Stanford. My guess is that if you listed 50 Stanford football alumni, starting with Mr. Packard, you would have some extraordinary achievers that other schools can't match. Any school can list five, even ten. But fifty? Or a hundred? The other part of it is the downside, most schools don't talk about that...here's the unsuccessful alumni. I doubt Stanford has many really unsuccessful football alumni. That should be part of the discussion.
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find. There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.
IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.
lex24 - lex24 - 03-29-2025
Goose dateline='[url=tel:1743271837' Wrote: 1743271837[/url]']
Mick dateline='[url=tel:1743265769' Wrote: 1743265769[/url]']The problem is that the "average" Stanford football player isn't Mr. Packard, ENG 1939, knows it, and most importantly doesn't want to be. Those "heroes" (https://engineering.stanford.edu/about/history/heroes/2011-heroes/david-packard) are irrelevant to him because he isn't that academically oriented. The extraordinary achievers just don't matter at all because the player isn't intending to be one of them. Talking about them may be interesting but is quite unlikely to be persuasive.
Right, that was my entire point. It is a difficult sell, but not an impossible one. If I sit down with a teenaged football player and tell him he'd have a better life if he went to Stanford irrespective of the football outcome, and spend five minutes on the discussion with a few statistics and some bland points, it won't move the needle. But if I spend 1/2 hour on all the great outcomes that a Stanford education has over his adult lifetime compared with the likely results at football factories, it would at least give him pause. If you go to a football factory, you can play in the NFL. Same with Stanford, 22nd most NFL players among D1 schools.
But the odds of achieving anything outside of the NFL are much slimmer at a football factory, if you're the kind of player who can manage the academic workload at Stanford. My guess is that if you listed 50 Stanford football alumni, starting with Mr. Packard, you would have some extraordinary achievers that other schools can't match. Any school can list five, even ten. But fifty? Or a hundred? The other part of it is the downside, most schools don't talk about that...here's the unsuccessful alumni. I doubt Stanford has many really unsuccessful football alumni. That should be part of the discussion.
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find. There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.
IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.
The average “payroll” for the NCAA top bball tourney teams is between $10 and $15 million a year. I don’t know what it is for football. Obviously higher given the numbers. If you are 18 and a top recruit all the “40 year decision “ stuff goes out the window when you can make upwards of $1 million a year to play college football.
NIL and the Portal have changed everything. Ask anyone that coaches a revenue sport at a D-1 school. It’s a new world. Run by 18-22 year olds.
RE: David Bailey to Portal - Mick - 03-29-2025
(03-29-2025, 11:10 AM)Goose Wrote:That was my starting point example, and not my end argument. Oklahoma State can point to Jerry Jones. My point was that Stanford is likely to produce more successful people in the long run at a higher average rate of success for a longer period of time. I could point to Blaine Nye, played for the Cowboys, got a master's in Finance, created the very successful Stanford Consulting Group.(03-29-2025, 09:29 AM)Mick Wrote: Right, that was my entire point. It is a difficult sell, but not an impossible one. If I sit down with a teenaged football player and tell him he'd have a better life if he went to Stanford irrespective of the football outcome, and spend five minutes on the discussion with a few statistics and some bland points, it won't move the needle. But if I spend 1/2 hour on all the great outcomes that a Stanford education has over his adult lifetime compared with the likely results at football factories, it would at least give him pause. If you go to a football factory, you can play in the NFL. Same with Stanford, 22nd most NFL players among D1 schools.The problem is that the "average" Stanford football player isn't Mr. Packard, ENG 1939, knows it, and most importantly doesn't want to be. Those "heroes" (https://engineering.stanford.edu/about/history/heroes/2011-heroes/david-packard) are irrelevant to him because he isn't that academically oriented. The extraordinary achievers just don't matter at all because the player isn't intending to be one of them. Talking about them may be interesting but is quite unlikely to be persuasive.
But the odds of achieving anything outside of the NFL are much slimmer at a football factory, if you're the kind of player who can manage the academic workload at Stanford. My guess is that if you listed 50 Stanford football alumni, starting with Mr. Packard, you would have some extraordinary achievers that other schools can't match. Any school can list five, even ten. But fifty? Or a hundred? The other part of it is the downside, most schools don't talk about that...here's the unsuccessful alumni. I doubt Stanford has many really unsuccessful football alumni. That should be part of the discussion.
The broader point is, I don't even know former Stanford football players and their success levels. I know a few; e.g., HM All Pac-10 LB Kurt Colehower, very successful post-Stanford with Arrow Electronics, now Greenwood Advisors. But I don't know the vast majority, and I'm sure it's a compelling story. And yes, I know they're not all David Packard.
And they don't need to intend to achieve success outside of football, but it would sure help if we put the possibility in front of them and show them the downside of the football factories. The downside is pretty far down, in a way that Stanford grads don't experience.
(03-29-2025, 11:10 AM)Goose Wrote: If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find. There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.
There are degrees of success. I know successful people who went to my alma mater (SCU) and successful people who went to Stanford. The odds are much, much higher that you'll succeed from Stanford. Period. That doesn't take a vast mental leap, but it may take some additional explanation for a high school student. If I'm a student, I want to go to the place that guarantees me the best possible odds of the best possible future success. If a player is smart enough to consider Stanford, then Stanford should close on the vast majority of those student-athletes.
(03-29-2025, 11:10 AM)Goose Wrote: IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore, spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.
Stanford doesn't have that many recruits in their recruiting pool, and it's worse in these NIL/portal days. I think if someone is on the fence, they're worth the full-court press. I think we need to ask early and often, I think that contributed to Harbaugh's recruiting success. I just don't think recruits are sufficiently aware of the downside if they go to TinkertoyTech.
lex24 - lex24 - 03-29-2025
Mick dateline='[url=tel:1743276627' Wrote: 1743276627[/url]']
Goose dateline='[url=tel:1743271837' Wrote: 1743271837[/url]']That was my starting point example, and not my end argument. Oklahoma State can point to Jerry Jones. My point was that Stanford is likely to produce more successful people in the long run at a higher average rate of success for a longer period of time. I could point to Blaine Nye, played for the Cowboys, got a master's in Finance, created the very successful Stanford Consulting Group.
Mick dateline='[url=tel:1743265769' Wrote: 1743265769[/url]']The problem is that the "average" Stanford football player isn't Mr. Packard, ENG 1939, knows it, and most importantly doesn't want to be. Those "heroes" (https://engineering.stanford.edu/about/history/heroes/2011-heroes/david-packard) are irrelevant to him because he isn't that academically oriented. The extraordinary achievers just don't matter at all because the player isn't intending to be one of them. Talking about them may be interesting but is quite unlikely to be persuasive.
Right, that was my entire point. It is a difficult sell, but not an impossible one. If I sit down with a teenaged football player and tell him he'd have a better life if he went to Stanford irrespective of the football outcome, and spend five minutes on the discussion with a few statistics and some bland points, it won't move the needle. But if I spend 1/2 hour on all the great outcomes that a Stanford education has over his adult lifetime compared with the likely results at football factories, it would at least give him pause. If you go to a football factory, you can play in the NFL. Same with Stanford, 22nd most NFL players among D1 schools.
But the odds of achieving anything outside of the NFL are much slimmer at a football factory, if you're the kind of player who can manage the academic workload at Stanford. My guess is that if you listed 50 Stanford football alumni, starting with Mr. Packard, you would have some extraordinary achievers that other schools can't match. Any school can list five, even ten. But fifty? Or a hundred? The other part of it is the downside, most schools don't talk about that...here's the unsuccessful alumni. I doubt Stanford has many really unsuccessful football alumni. That should be part of the discussion.
The broader point is, I don't even know former Stanford football players and their success levels. I know a few; e.g., HM All Pac-10 LB Kurt Colehower, very successful post-Stanford with Arrow Electronics, now Greenwood Advisors. But I don't know the vast majority, and I'm sure it's a compelling story. And yes, I know they're not all David Packard.
And they don't need to intend to achieve success outside of football, but it would sure help if we put the possibility in front of them and show them the downside of the football factories. The downside is pretty far down, in a way that Stanford grads don't experience.
Goose dateline='[url=tel:1743271837' Wrote: 1743271837[/url]']
If the player has the qualifications to get admitted to Stanford, he is also pretty confident he is going to be successful in football and in life. Suggesting that he might not be is probably just about the biggest "turn off" one could find. There are plenty of "successful" people who graduate from other universities. Arguing that a given football player won't be one of them, especially when said player is qualified to get into Stanford, is an impossible argument to make. An counter argument is that going to a less academically challenging (but still "respectable") university may increase the odds of graduation and simultaneously the odds of a successful football career. More time for football and less time doing academic work. More fun on top of that.
There are degrees of success. I know successful people who went to my alma mater (SCU) and successful people who went to Stanford. The odds are much, much higher that you'll succeed from Stanford. Period. That doesn't take a vast mental leap, but it may take some additional explanation for a high school student. If I'm a student, I want to go to the place that guarantees me the best possible odds of the best possible future success. If a player is smart enough to consider Stanford, then Stanford should close on the vast majority of those student-athletes.
Goose dateline='[url=tel:1743271837' Wrote: 1743271837[/url]']
IMO the statement "The 40 year decision sells itself" has been made so often because it is basically true. The recruit (or his parents) either is very interested in academics, wants to get a good education, and is willing to accept the challenges required to do that at Stanford or he is not. If he is not, you can't really "sell" the decision. What Stanford offers isn't what this recruit wants. There are undoubtedly some guys that are on the fence. The fact Stanford isn't good at football right now probably deters many of them from choosing Stanford. Others verbally commit but when push comes to shove simply don't complete the high school AP classes required to get into Stanford. Even if they do and are admitted there is another consideration. In the past, once a recruit signed up for Stanford, we had him. He couldn't easily go someplace else. Today, guys who are on the fence are a much bigger risk. Once they experience the workload at Stanford going elsewhere may become lots more attractive :-). This is especially true if someone is willing to pay you to do so. Therefore, spending lots of time trying to convince one of these "fence sitters" probably isn't generally productive.
Stanford doesn't have that many recruits in their recruiting pool, and it's worse in these NIL/portal days. I think if someone is on the fence, they're worth the full-court press. I think we need to ask early and often, I think that contributed to Harbaugh's recruiting success. I just don't think recruits are sufficiently aware of the downside if they go to TinkertoyTech.
I don’t mean to be a jerk. But I find this to be somewhat of a “quaint” discussion. We are (this is somewhat of an assumption a bunch of older folks who are generally at the back end of their careers or retired and have for the most part had pretty good success. We grew up in a very different world.
These are 18 to 22 year-old kids. They’re being offered a lot of money to go play. Go listen to Tom Izzo on the issue. Among the great lines he has is “and by the way, there’s not a whole lot of recruiting within the portal. There’s offers.”
The world of revenue college sports has not just changed a bit. It’s a completely new world. Look at the NCAA tournament. Who’s in the elite eight –Four 1 seeds. Three 2 seeds and a 3 seed. Mid Majors? Forget it. Why would a kid want to play for Creighton for $150,000 when he can transfer to Kentucky and make $1 million.
And if I’m a stud athlete 18 years old and can put a couple million bucks in my bank account while playing a college sport – that’s going to go a long ways. Especially if I’m from an economically disadvantaged household. There are a lot of good schools out there. And I’m going to go play professional football anyway and really make a ton of money. I’ll go get my degree later. If I get hurt, I have a couple million bucks to fall back on and can get my degree now. Plus, they’ll be plenty of alumni around to help me get a good job.
There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 03-29-2025
(03-29-2025, 12:52 PM)lex24 Wrote: There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.I fully agree that Stanford isn't going to sell enough "40 year decisions" to field a competitive football team in 2025. It seems probable that that will be true in the near future as well. In the past, it was only intermittently true that Stanford could field a "good" team. Going forward it will be even more challenging.
I am however not of the opinion that Stanford has only the three choices listed above. Clearly Stanford could continue to play football but at a "lower level" conference, at least today. I am not advocating it, but it is a possibility. It is unclear to me that Stanford has to "join in full the New World order" for several reasons. The most important reason is that it is unclear exactly what that "New Order" is. It certainly seems probable NIL is going to be part of the new order going forward. The House settlement may or may not, whatever it turns out to be. There are going to be many lawsuits and legal challenges to whatever is true at any given moment. So what exactly are we joining? Even if we could agree on what that was it seems that it will change continuously for at least the next few years. Do we embrace all the changes? It is going to be difficult to track.
While I don't at all like the professionalization of college sports, I can not categorically say exactly where my "red line" is. I can say that athletes not being students is something I don't think Stanford or college football can accept. At that point the football program no longer belongs as part of an academic institution. Short of that, I think there is room for maneuver. There may be parts of the "new order" that are fine, other parts that I think are inappropriate. It is IMO possible to pick and chose, at least in some cases. That may make it more difficult to have a good football team at Stanford than at e.g. Notre Dame. However, that was true 10 years ago and we were fine with it. The question is where is that balance today. It may be possible to not be "all in".
RE: lex24 - chrisk - 03-29-2025
(03-29-2025, 01:34 PM)Goose Wrote:(03-29-2025, 12:52 PM)lex24 Wrote: There will be a few out there who still say they want the top academics, etc. But they’re only so many unicorns. Stanford has a choice – join in full the New World order or either drop football totally or get used to three and nine seasons. They aren’t going to sell enough “40 year decisions” to field a competitive football team. Not in 2025.I fully agree that Stanford isn't going to sell enough "40 year decisions" to field a competitive football team in 2025. It seems probable that that will be true in the near future as well. In the past, it was only intermittently true that Stanford could field a "good" team. Going forward it will be even more challenging.
I am however not of the opinion that Stanford has only the three choices listed above. Clearly Stanford could continue to play football but at a "lower level" conference, at least today. I am not advocating it, but it is a possibility. It is unclear to me that Stanford has to "join in full the New World order" for several reasons. The most important reason is that it is unclear exactly what that "New Order" is. It certainly seems probable NIL is going to be part of the new order going forward. The House settlement may or may not, whatever it turns out to be. There are going to be many lawsuits and legal challenges to whatever is true at any given moment. So what exactly are we joining? Even if we could agree on what that was it seems that it will change continuously for at least the next few years. Do we embrace all the changes? It is going to be difficult to track.
While I don't at all like the professionalization of college sports, I can not categorically say exactly where my "red line" is. I can say that athletes not being students is something I don't think Stanford or college football can accept. At that point the football program no longer belongs as part of an academic institution. Short of that, I think there is room for maneuver. There may be parts of the "new order" that are fine, other parts that I think are inappropriate. It is IMO possible to pick and chose, at least in some cases. That may make it more difficult to have a good football team at Stanford than at e.g. Notre Dame. However, that was true 10 years ago and we were fine with it. The question is where is that balance today. It may be possible to not be "all in".
Most of the 18 schools in the ACC are not going to part of the so-called "New World Order." Stanford should be able to be competitive in the ACC, even in football.