[Jamesy]

I would not have applied to Stanford if it had not competed well in sports.  I got nerd/grind grades but never missed a football game, tennis match or swim meet, and attended lots of basketball and baseball games.  All school work and no play would have made Hulk a dull boy,

I would have applied, but probably wouldn't have gone if Stanford wasn't the athletic powerhouse it is. IMO, it's what distinguishes it from all the East Coast Ivies, MIT, Caltech, etc. And I was there for the darkest days of Stanford FB (2002-2006).

[Jamesy]

I would not have applied to Stanford if it had not competed well in sports.  I got nerd/grind grades but never missed a football game, tennis match or swim meet, and attended lots of basketball and baseball games.  All school work and no play would have made Hulk a dull boy,

I would have applied, but probably wouldn't have gone if Stanford wasn't the athletic powerhouse it is. IMO, it's what distinguishes it from all the East Coast Ivies, MIT, Caltech, etc. And I was there for the darkest days of Stanford FB (2002-2006).

[martyup]

Thanks Mick.  I now understand your point, which is much more nuanced than mine.  I'll add that the Flutie Effect might result in a more well rounded student body as well.

While we are suffering the reverse Flutie Effect (let's call it the DS-TT Effect) we have the added disadvantage of an administration that seems to hate fun and is doing everything in their power to quell fun on campus.

[martyup]

Thanks Mick.  I now understand your point, which is much more nuanced than mine.  I'll add that the Flutie Effect might result in a more well rounded student body as well.

While we are suffering the reverse Flutie Effect (let's call it the DS-TT Effect) we have the added disadvantage of an administration that seems to hate fun and is doing everything in their power to quell fun on campus.

[SkiBum80]

I would not have applied to Stanford if it had not competed well in sports.  I got nerd/grind grades but never missed a football game, tennis match or swim meet, and attended lots of basketball and baseball games.  All school work and no play would have made Hulk a dull boy,

I would have applied, but probably wouldn't have gone if Stanford wasn't the athletic powerhouse it is. IMO, it's what distinguishes it from all the East Coast Ivies, MIT, Caltech, etc. And I was there for the darkest days of Stanford FB (2002-2006).

No offense to the east coast Ivies, but I am very glad, grateful, and appreciative that Stanford has a totally different history than them, and has maintained a distinct and unique personality and purpose. If we were to follow their path in athletics I would consider it a tragic collapse and a surrender. Better comparables for a school doing both great broad-based athletics along with quality academics are Duke and Notre Dame, which lo and behold, are now in our conference (other than Notre Dame FB being Ind.)

(BTW I learned from my daughters when teenagers, that you could say "No offense" and then follow it with whatever offensive remark you wanted. Apparently...)

[SkiBum80]

I would not have applied to Stanford if it had not competed well in sports.  I got nerd/grind grades but never missed a football game, tennis match or swim meet, and attended lots of basketball and baseball games.  All school work and no play would have made Hulk a dull boy,

I would have applied, but probably wouldn't have gone if Stanford wasn't the athletic powerhouse it is. IMO, it's what distinguishes it from all the East Coast Ivies, MIT, Caltech, etc. And I was there for the darkest days of Stanford FB (2002-2006).

No offense to the east coast Ivies, but I am very glad, grateful, and appreciative that Stanford has a totally different history than them, and has maintained a distinct and unique personality and purpose. If we were to follow their path in athletics I would consider it a tragic collapse and a surrender. Better comparables for a school doing both great broad-based athletics along with quality academics are Duke and Notre Dame, which lo and behold, are now in our conference (other than Notre Dame FB being Ind.)

(BTW I learned from my daughters when teenagers, that you could say "No offense" and then follow it with whatever offensive remark you wanted. Apparently...)

[Goose]

No offense to the east coast Ivies, but I am very glad, grateful, and appreciative that Stanford has a totally different history than them, and has maintained a distinct and unique personality and purpose. If we were to follow their path in athletics I would consider it a tragic collapse and a surrender.

I agree. Stanford has a distinct and unique personality and approach to integrating athletics into the University experience. We want to preserve that. Stanford has competed in many sports (with varying levels of success) while at least an attempting to ensure that academics was not "materially" compromised to benefit athletics. Stanford doesn't have a great won-loss record in football year over year but has delivered some significant innovations to the game. Stanford football didn't always win. We have a .578 overall winning percentage. But we did compete. Anybody that USC wanted to beat by 2000 points must be doing something right.

Better comparables for a school doing both great broad-based athletics along with quality academics are Duke and Notre Dame, which lo and behold, are now in our conference (other than Notre Dame FB being Ind.)

Why are they "better comparables"? As you say, we are unique. If we copy somebody else's values we are compromising our own. IMO it is clear that both Notre Dame and Duke have totally different rules for admission of athletes and non-athletes. They also have different expectations of these two groups of "students". Stanford has different rules too, but they are much less different. We are not at all the same. Which would require bigger changes, becoming like the Ivies or becoming like Duke? I would say clearly the latter, but that isn't the point. We are unique and we want to chart our own course. We want "Intellectual Brutality", not one or the other :-).

Right now lots of things are in flux in college athletics. Everybody is "changing" in some ways. The interaction of these changes will undoubtedly have unanticipated consequences. Stanford needs to chart a course for "the way ahead". It will be  difficult because of the number of unknowns. IMO nobody is really doing that. Certainly Muir isn't. The way ahead has to preserve Stanford's values and uniqueness. It will require participation by all the stakeholders. Many of them really don't care about athletics so getting them involved could be difficult. They can effectively veto the plan, so they have to be involved. This won't happen by accident. We should neither say "The new world is too hard. We should simplify and join the Ivy League" nor should we say "In order to compete we must allow as many transfers in as desired for athletes, admit whoever the coaches want, and treat athletes as a class apart". Neither of those approaches embrace the values Stanford supposedly has. We should plot a way ahead that preserves our unique values and still maximizes our ability to succeed on the field. Changes will be required but ones that fundamentally change "who we are" are excluded. We shouldn't say this is impossible without attempting it. If that result isn't "good enough" athletically then IMO BC is right and we drop down to FCS or something similar. That would suck, but its better than becoming what we previously actively looked down upon.

[Goose]

No offense to the east coast Ivies, but I am very glad, grateful, and appreciative that Stanford has a totally different history than them, and has maintained a distinct and unique personality and purpose. If we were to follow their path in athletics I would consider it a tragic collapse and a surrender.

I agree. Stanford has a distinct and unique personality and approach to integrating athletics into the University experience. We want to preserve that. Stanford has competed in many sports (with varying levels of success) while at least an attempting to ensure that academics was not "materially" compromised to benefit athletics. Stanford doesn't have a great won-loss record in football year over year but has delivered some significant innovations to the game. Stanford football didn't always win. We have a .578 overall winning percentage. But we did compete. Anybody that USC wanted to beat by 2000 points must be doing something right.

Better comparables for a school doing both great broad-based athletics along with quality academics are Duke and Notre Dame, which lo and behold, are now in our conference (other than Notre Dame FB being Ind.)

Why are they "better comparables"? As you say, we are unique. If we copy somebody else's values we are compromising our own. IMO it is clear that both Notre Dame and Duke have totally different rules for admission of athletes and non-athletes. They also have different expectations of these two groups of "students". Stanford has different rules too, but they are much less different. We are not at all the same. Which would require bigger changes, becoming like the Ivies or becoming like Duke? I would say clearly the latter, but that isn't the point. We are unique and we want to chart our own course. We want "Intellectual Brutality", not one or the other :-).

Right now lots of things are in flux in college athletics. Everybody is "changing" in some ways. The interaction of these changes will undoubtedly have unanticipated consequences. Stanford needs to chart a course for "the way ahead". It will be  difficult because of the number of unknowns. IMO nobody is really doing that. Certainly Muir isn't. The way ahead has to preserve Stanford's values and uniqueness. It will require participation by all the stakeholders. Many of them really don't care about athletics so getting them involved could be difficult. They can effectively veto the plan, so they have to be involved. This won't happen by accident. We should neither say "The new world is too hard. We should simplify and join the Ivy League" nor should we say "In order to compete we must allow as many transfers in as desired for athletes, admit whoever the coaches want, and treat athletes as a class apart". Neither of those approaches embrace the values Stanford supposedly has. We should plot a way ahead that preserves our unique values and still maximizes our ability to succeed on the field. Changes will be required but ones that fundamentally change "who we are" are excluded. We shouldn't say this is impossible without attempting it. If that result isn't "good enough" athletically then IMO BC is right and we drop down to FCS or something similar. That would suck, but its better than becoming what we previously actively looked down upon.

[CowboyIndian]

(BTW I learned from my daughters when teenagers, that you could say "No offense" and then follow it with whatever offensive remark you wanted. Apparently...)

Hah! I prefer "With all due respect..."

[CowboyIndian]

(BTW I learned from my daughters when teenagers, that you could say "No offense" and then follow it with whatever offensive remark you wanted. Apparently...)

Hah! I prefer "With all due respect..."

[chrisk]

No offense to the east coast Ivies, but I am very glad, grateful, and appreciative that Stanford has a totally different history than them, and has maintained a distinct and unique personality and purpose. If we were to follow their path in athletics I would consider it a tragic collapse and a surrender.

I agree. Stanford has a distinct and unique personality and approach to integrating athletics into the University experience. We want to preserve that. Stanford has competed in many sports (with varying levels of success) while at least an attempting to ensure that academics was not "materially" compromised to benefit athletics. Stanford doesn't have a great won-loss record in football year over year but has delivered some significant innovations to the game. Stanford football didn't always win. We have a .578 overall winning percentage. But we did compete. Anybody that USC wanted to beat by 2000 points must be doing something right.

Better comparables for a school doing both great broad-based athletics along with quality academics are Duke and Notre Dame, which lo and behold, are now in our conference (other than Notre Dame FB being Ind.)

Why are they "better comparables"? As you say, we are unique. If we copy somebody else's values we are compromising our own. IMO it is clear that both Notre Dame and Duke have totally different rules for admission of athletes and non-athletes. They also have different expectations of these two groups of "students". Stanford has different rules too, but they are much less different. We are not at all the same. Which would require bigger changes, becoming like the Ivies or becoming like Duke? I would say clearly the latter, but that isn't the point. We are unique and we want to chart our own course. We want "Intellectual Brutality", not one or the other :-).

Right now lots of things are in flux in college athletics. Everybody is "changing" in some ways. The interaction of these changes will undoubtedly have unanticipated consequences. Stanford needs to chart a course for "the way ahead". It will be  difficult because of the number of unknowns. IMO nobody is really doing that. Certainly Muir isn't. The way ahead has to preserve Stanford's values and uniqueness. It will require participation by all the stakeholders. Many of them really don't care about athletics so getting them involved could be difficult. They can effectively veto the plan, so they have to be involved. This won't happen by accident. We should neither say "The new world is too hard. We should simplify and join the Ivy League" nor should we say "In order to compete we must allow as many transfers in as desired for athletes, admit whoever the coaches want, and treat athletes as a class apart". Neither of those approaches embrace the values Stanford supposedly has. We should plot a way ahead that preserves our unique values and still maximizes our ability to succeed on the field. Changes will be required but ones that fundamentally change "who we are" are excluded. We shouldn't say this is impossible without attempting it. If that result isn't "good enough" athletically then IMO BC is right and we drop down to FCS or something similar. That would suck, but its better than becoming what we previously actively looked down upon.

There are 100 schools in FBS that are not in the SEC or Big 10. Still plenty of competition without dropping down to FCS.

[chrisk]

No offense to the east coast Ivies, but I am very glad, grateful, and appreciative that Stanford has a totally different history than them, and has maintained a distinct and unique personality and purpose. If we were to follow their path in athletics I would consider it a tragic collapse and a surrender.

I agree. Stanford has a distinct and unique personality and approach to integrating athletics into the University experience. We want to preserve that. Stanford has competed in many sports (with varying levels of success) while at least an attempting to ensure that academics was not "materially" compromised to benefit athletics. Stanford doesn't have a great won-loss record in football year over year but has delivered some significant innovations to the game. Stanford football didn't always win. We have a .578 overall winning percentage. But we did compete. Anybody that USC wanted to beat by 2000 points must be doing something right.

Better comparables for a school doing both great broad-based athletics along with quality academics are Duke and Notre Dame, which lo and behold, are now in our conference (other than Notre Dame FB being Ind.)

Why are they "better comparables"? As you say, we are unique. If we copy somebody else's values we are compromising our own. IMO it is clear that both Notre Dame and Duke have totally different rules for admission of athletes and non-athletes. They also have different expectations of these two groups of "students". Stanford has different rules too, but they are much less different. We are not at all the same. Which would require bigger changes, becoming like the Ivies or becoming like Duke? I would say clearly the latter, but that isn't the point. We are unique and we want to chart our own course. We want "Intellectual Brutality", not one or the other :-).

Right now lots of things are in flux in college athletics. Everybody is "changing" in some ways. The interaction of these changes will undoubtedly have unanticipated consequences. Stanford needs to chart a course for "the way ahead". It will be  difficult because of the number of unknowns. IMO nobody is really doing that. Certainly Muir isn't. The way ahead has to preserve Stanford's values and uniqueness. It will require participation by all the stakeholders. Many of them really don't care about athletics so getting them involved could be difficult. They can effectively veto the plan, so they have to be involved. This won't happen by accident. We should neither say "The new world is too hard. We should simplify and join the Ivy League" nor should we say "In order to compete we must allow as many transfers in as desired for athletes, admit whoever the coaches want, and treat athletes as a class apart". Neither of those approaches embrace the values Stanford supposedly has. We should plot a way ahead that preserves our unique values and still maximizes our ability to succeed on the field. Changes will be required but ones that fundamentally change "who we are" are excluded. We shouldn't say this is impossible without attempting it. If that result isn't "good enough" athletically then IMO BC is right and we drop down to FCS or something similar. That would suck, but its better than becoming what we previously actively looked down upon.

There are 100 schools in FBS that are not in the SEC or Big 10. Still plenty of competition without dropping down to FCS.

[Mick]

No offense to the east coast Ivies, but I am very glad, grateful, and appreciative that Stanford has a totally different history than them, and has maintained a distinct and unique personality and purpose. If we were to follow their path in athletics I would consider it a tragic collapse and a surrender.

I agree. Stanford has a distinct and unique personality and approach to integrating athletics into the University experience. We want to preserve that. Stanford has competed in many sports (with varying levels of success) while at least an attempting to ensure that academics was not "materially" compromised to benefit athletics. Stanford doesn't have a great won-loss record in football year over year but has delivered some significant innovations to the game. Stanford football didn't always win. We have a .578 overall winning percentage. But we did compete. Anybody that USC wanted to beat by 2000 points must be doing something right.

Better comparables for a school doing both great broad-based athletics along with quality academics are Duke and Notre Dame, which lo and behold, are now in our conference (other than Notre Dame FB being Ind.)

Why are they "better comparables"? As you say, we are unique. If we copy somebody else's values we are compromising our own. IMO it is clear that both Notre Dame and Duke have totally different rules for admission of athletes and non-athletes. They also have different expectations of these two groups of "students". Stanford has different rules too, but they are much less different. We are not at all the same. Which would require bigger changes, becoming like the Ivies or becoming like Duke? I would say clearly the latter, but that isn't the point. We are unique and we want to chart our own course. We want "Intellectual Brutality", not one or the other :-).

Right now lots of things are in flux in college athletics. Everybody is "changing" in some ways. The interaction of these changes will undoubtedly have unanticipated consequences. Stanford needs to chart a course for "the way ahead". It will be  difficult because of the number of unknowns. IMO nobody is really doing that. Certainly Muir isn't. The way ahead has to preserve Stanford's values and uniqueness. It will require participation by all the stakeholders. Many of them really don't care about athletics so getting them involved could be difficult. They can effectively veto the plan, so they have to be involved. This won't happen by accident. We should neither say "The new world is too hard. We should simplify and join the Ivy League" nor should we say "In order to compete we must allow as many transfers in as desired for athletes, admit whoever the coaches want, and treat athletes as a class apart". Neither of those approaches embrace the values Stanford supposedly has. We should plot a way ahead that preserves our unique values and still maximizes our ability to succeed on the field. Changes will be required but ones that fundamentally change "who we are" are excluded. We shouldn't say this is impossible without attempting it. If that result isn't "good enough" athletically then IMO BC is right and we drop down to FCS or something similar. That would suck, but its better than becoming what we previously actively looked down upon.

There are 100 schools in FBS that are not in the SEC or Big 10.  Still plenty of competition without dropping down to FCS.

Yup. Like the MWC, heh heh heh...

---

(BTW I learned from my daughters when teenagers, that you could say "No offense" and then follow it with whatever offensive remark you wanted. Apparently...)

Hah! I prefer "With all due respect..."

Bless their heart(s)...

[Mick]

No offense to the east coast Ivies, but I am very glad, grateful, and appreciative that Stanford has a totally different history than them, and has maintained a distinct and unique personality and purpose. If we were to follow their path in athletics I would consider it a tragic collapse and a surrender.

I agree. Stanford has a distinct and unique personality and approach to integrating athletics into the University experience. We want to preserve that. Stanford has competed in many sports (with varying levels of success) while at least an attempting to ensure that academics was not "materially" compromised to benefit athletics. Stanford doesn't have a great won-loss record in football year over year but has delivered some significant innovations to the game. Stanford football didn't always win. We have a .578 overall winning percentage. But we did compete. Anybody that USC wanted to beat by 2000 points must be doing something right.

Better comparables for a school doing both great broad-based athletics along with quality academics are Duke and Notre Dame, which lo and behold, are now in our conference (other than Notre Dame FB being Ind.)

Why are they "better comparables"? As you say, we are unique. If we copy somebody else's values we are compromising our own. IMO it is clear that both Notre Dame and Duke have totally different rules for admission of athletes and non-athletes. They also have different expectations of these two groups of "students". Stanford has different rules too, but they are much less different. We are not at all the same. Which would require bigger changes, becoming like the Ivies or becoming like Duke? I would say clearly the latter, but that isn't the point. We are unique and we want to chart our own course. We want "Intellectual Brutality", not one or the other :-).

Right now lots of things are in flux in college athletics. Everybody is "changing" in some ways. The interaction of these changes will undoubtedly have unanticipated consequences. Stanford needs to chart a course for "the way ahead". It will be  difficult because of the number of unknowns. IMO nobody is really doing that. Certainly Muir isn't. The way ahead has to preserve Stanford's values and uniqueness. It will require participation by all the stakeholders. Many of them really don't care about athletics so getting them involved could be difficult. They can effectively veto the plan, so they have to be involved. This won't happen by accident. We should neither say "The new world is too hard. We should simplify and join the Ivy League" nor should we say "In order to compete we must allow as many transfers in as desired for athletes, admit whoever the coaches want, and treat athletes as a class apart". Neither of those approaches embrace the values Stanford supposedly has. We should plot a way ahead that preserves our unique values and still maximizes our ability to succeed on the field. Changes will be required but ones that fundamentally change "who we are" are excluded. We shouldn't say this is impossible without attempting it. If that result isn't "good enough" athletically then IMO BC is right and we drop down to FCS or something similar. That would suck, but its better than becoming what we previously actively looked down upon.

There are 100 schools in FBS that are not in the SEC or Big 10.  Still plenty of competition without dropping down to FCS.

Yup. Like the MWC, heh heh heh...

---

(BTW I learned from my daughters when teenagers, that you could say "No offense" and then follow it with whatever offensive remark you wanted. Apparently...)

Hah! I prefer "With all due respect..."

Bless their heart(s)...