[81alum]

As my handle suggests, I graduated in 1981.  I married a Stanford student (celebrated our 30th last summer) and we moved around the country in grad school, returning to Palo Alto in 1988.  I was temporary faculty at Stanford for a couple of years before earning a permanent job at a nearby university.  Now I bicycle to womens' basketball games and the occasional football game, but spent most of the last several decades following these sports on t.v. and from a distance.

When I arrived on campus in 1977 I did not know Stanford had a football team, and was vaguely disappointed to find out they did.  I was as anti-athletics as an 18 year old could be.  But I had a football player and a couple team managers on my hall and it was Bill Walsh's first year.  I got sucked in by the intellectual side of the game.  I kept hearing stories about the genius coach who had thought up schemes that allowed us to to beat superior athletes.  By the end of the season I was attending football games and attempting to predict the play calls.  It was football as chess that interested me, and I never let go of it.

I did not attend a single basketball game when I was a student (pre Montgomery era--I think Kimberly Belton was our star at the time) and have still not attended a men's game--though I watched a lot of tv from the Todd Lichti era forward.  Both Montgomery and Tara came after I graduated, so my interest in basketball happened indirectly.  I have become one of those who loves women's college basketball and doesn't much care for men's or pro basketball.  You've heard all those arguments before so I won't repeat them here.

I'm in love with the amateur ideal, and can only cheer for Stanford because I sense they do athletics the "right" way.  I am employed at a university which has poor graduation rates for its athletes and which siphons desperately needed resources away from academics to support a mostly unsuccessful athletics program.  Stanford is one of the few beacons of light in the college sports world.

[81alum]

As my handle suggests, I graduated in 1981.  I married a Stanford student (celebrated our 30th last summer) and we moved around the country in grad school, returning to Palo Alto in 1988.  I was temporary faculty at Stanford for a couple of years before earning a permanent job at a nearby university.  Now I bicycle to womens' basketball games and the occasional football game, but spent most of the last several decades following these sports on t.v. and from a distance.

When I arrived on campus in 1977 I did not know Stanford had a football team, and was vaguely disappointed to find out they did.  I was as anti-athletics as an 18 year old could be.  But I had a football player and a couple team managers on my hall and it was Bill Walsh's first year.  I got sucked in by the intellectual side of the game.  I kept hearing stories about the genius coach who had thought up schemes that allowed us to to beat superior athletes.  By the end of the season I was attending football games and attempting to predict the play calls.  It was football as chess that interested me, and I never let go of it.

I did not attend a single basketball game when I was a student (pre Montgomery era--I think Kimberly Belton was our star at the time) and have still not attended a men's game--though I watched a lot of tv from the Todd Lichti era forward.  Both Montgomery and Tara came after I graduated, so my interest in basketball happened indirectly.  I have become one of those who loves women's college basketball and doesn't much care for men's or pro basketball.  You've heard all those arguments before so I won't repeat them here.

I'm in love with the amateur ideal, and can only cheer for Stanford because I sense they do athletics the "right" way.  I am employed at a university which has poor graduation rates for its athletes and which siphons desperately needed resources away from academics to support a mostly unsuccessful athletics program.  Stanford is one of the few beacons of light in the college sports world.