[2006alum]

he could still be at Stanford, where many of the so-called fans are so jaded and unsupportive that they (1) wouldn't have gone to the game in the first place and (2) if Stanford had won, would still almost certainly make fun of the outcome as just another Not Important win.

Too bad Stanford doesn't have many fans like UCF's.

I guess you can glean from that a reason to insult Stanford fans if you want to, but to me, the better explanation is that Stanford vs. UCF is simply an apples to oranges comparison, for the following reasons:

1. Our basketball history is far more storied than UCF's. UCF has been to the tournament four times, and lost all four games, the most recent in 2005. That's right, they've never won a tournament game. When I was an undergrad we were the number one team in the country. Our women's team has been to the Final Four on average every other year for the past decade. So naturally making the finals of the NIT is a bigger deal for them than it was for us. I was at MSG when we beat Minnesota in the finals of the NIT in 2012, and believe me, it was palpably less exciting than some of our regular season wins against Arizona and UCLA. 

2. Across the board, and not just in basketball, Stanford is, frankly, much better at sports, and so we are less excited about by being the nation's 69th best basketball team, let alone nation's 69th best at any sport. This school year alone, we've already celebrated three national championships, and we regularly expect all of our teams to be competitive at the highest levels. By comparison, UCF has never won an NCAA championship in any sport. Say whatever you will about Dawkins, in his 8 years at Stanford, we had one sweet sixteen run and that was it. Two NIT championships are fun and all (and again, I attended our 2012 NIT victory), but it's an empty bragging right, because trust me, no one else cares about the NIT either. To put it in numerical perspective, winning the NIT scores the same 0 Directors Cup points that we scored in men's basketball this year.

3. UCF has far, far larger student and alumni bases than does Stanford. Wikipedia informs me that UCF has the largest undergraduate enrollment and largest total enrollment of any university in the United States, with 64,000 students. That means it takes less than 1/6 of the current student body to sell out their basketball stadium. By comparison, we would need every single undergraduate and then some to fill ours. And because UCF is much more of a regional school, many more alums stick around the area and can easily attend games. I'd estimate that approximately 75% of my friends from undergrad no longer live in the bay area, myself included. I try to catch every Stanford hoops game I can on the Pac-12 Network, but it's not feasible for me to attend home games. If you only measure fan enthusiasm based on butts on bleachers, I guess that makes me one of your "so-called fans."

4. As a corollary to 1, 2, and 3, we're stretched much more thinly to come out and support teams. We have far fewer alums, they are dispersed far and wide, and with so many strong athletic teams, our cup runneth over in terms of the choices of games to attend and teams to support. It's the insanely awesome luxury of being a Stanford fan - far, far more to root for than there is time to fully engage. Are we spoiled? Yes! But I think most Stanford fans appreciate how lucky we are, and are anything but "so-called." At least here on the Cardboard. :)

None of this takes away from Dawkins' accomplishment at UCF, but after watching him coach our team for eight seasons, I have zero regrets about going in a different direction. By all accounts, he's a great guy, but he was never going to be the next Monte.

[2006alum]

he could still be at Stanford, where many of the so-called fans are so jaded and unsupportive that they (1) wouldn't have gone to the game in the first place and (2) if Stanford had won, would still almost certainly make fun of the outcome as just another Not Important win.

Too bad Stanford doesn't have many fans like UCF's.

I guess you can glean from that a reason to insult Stanford fans if you want to, but to me, the better explanation is that Stanford vs. UCF is simply an apples to oranges comparison, for the following reasons:

1. Our basketball history is far more storied than UCF's. UCF has been to the tournament four times, and lost all four games, the most recent in 2005. That's right, they've never won a tournament game. When I was an undergrad we were the number one team in the country. Our women's team has been to the Final Four on average every other year for the past decade. So naturally making the finals of the NIT is a bigger deal for them than it was for us. I was at MSG when we beat Minnesota in the finals of the NIT in 2012, and believe me, it was palpably less exciting than some of our regular season wins against Arizona and UCLA. 

2. Across the board, and not just in basketball, Stanford is, frankly, much better at sports, and so we are less excited about by being the nation's 69th best basketball team, let alone nation's 69th best at any sport. This school year alone, we've already celebrated three national championships, and we regularly expect all of our teams to be competitive at the highest levels. By comparison, UCF has never won an NCAA championship in any sport. Say whatever you will about Dawkins, in his 8 years at Stanford, we had one sweet sixteen run and that was it. Two NIT championships are fun and all (and again, I attended our 2012 NIT victory), but it's an empty bragging right, because trust me, no one else cares about the NIT either. To put it in numerical perspective, winning the NIT scores the same 0 Directors Cup points that we scored in men's basketball this year.

3. UCF has far, far larger student and alumni bases than does Stanford. Wikipedia informs me that UCF has the largest undergraduate enrollment and largest total enrollment of any university in the United States, with 64,000 students. That means it takes less than 1/6 of the current student body to sell out their basketball stadium. By comparison, we would need every single undergraduate and then some to fill ours. And because UCF is much more of a regional school, many more alums stick around the area and can easily attend games. I'd estimate that approximately 75% of my friends from undergrad no longer live in the bay area, myself included. I try to catch every Stanford hoops game I can on the Pac-12 Network, but it's not feasible for me to attend home games. If you only measure fan enthusiasm based on butts on bleachers, I guess that makes me one of your "so-called fans."

4. As a corollary to 1, 2, and 3, we're stretched much more thinly to come out and support teams. We have far fewer alums, they are dispersed far and wide, and with so many strong athletic teams, our cup runneth over in terms of the choices of games to attend and teams to support. It's the insanely awesome luxury of being a Stanford fan - far, far more to root for than there is time to fully engage. Are we spoiled? Yes! But I think most Stanford fans appreciate how lucky we are, and are anything but "so-called." At least here on the Cardboard. :)

None of this takes away from Dawkins' accomplishment at UCF, but after watching him coach our team for eight seasons, I have zero regrets about going in a different direction. By all accounts, he's a great guy, but he was never going to be the next Monte.