[Giants]

First of all, I want to make it abundantly clear that if Stanford is willing to do what it takes to compete in FBS Football, the notion of dropping the sport or to a lower level is brain-dead. Stanford has proven it can compete at the highest levels of the sport and there is too much money on the table to walk away from it if the program is healthy.

The issue is what it always is for any school that plays the sport. Is it willing to make the commitments and hold people accountable for performance in the interest of pursuing championships? Yes, all sports require these dynamics to be in place, but football requires the most commitments of any NCAA sanctioned sport because it requires so many resources to compete at the highest level.

Cal and Stanford are in very similar boats. And interestingly enough, both played a game this week without their starting QB, and for similar reasons, but in different fashions, were both humiliated in ways that expose their institutions as failed football stewards. Stanford was overwhelmed against a good Utah team. Cal lost a pillow fight to a team that had lost 20 conference games in a row and was 0-8.  In both cases, the schools have made financial commitments to head coaches, but the institutions as a whole, from the AD on up, have tied their own hands in ways no other schools have. In both games they played this weekend, the backup QB each program had left itself with threw for less than 4 YPA.  If the schools don't care at the very top, that trickles down to the coaching staffs and ultimately the players, to the point the programs are so terrible they can't even be slightly competitive with a backup QB. This isn't some random happenstance that both programs have inept backup QBs. It is proof both programs have done nothing to develop the most important position in all of sports as a program priority.

Stanford is in far better shape than Cal in terms of building blocks to win being in place apart from who the coaches are, but what does it mean when Stanford is in last place in the Pac-12 North, and its credibility is destroyed by what happened against Utah?  I'm not going to point out the problems with David Shaw because at this point, he isn't the problem. The problems are with Muir and higher. Just like at Cal, the problem isn't Wilcox as much as Knowlton and higher. Cal has had this institutional problem with lack of football support for decades and decades. It now seems to be creeping into Stanford.

To this end, if Muir and his bosses find what happened on Friday night acceptable, Stanford really should consider dropping football or moving to a lower division. And I believe Cal should too. Neither school has shown winning football games or even playing entertaining football is a priority. If they aren't going to prioritize it, why the hell should fans?  It's far too much of a commitment to go to games, follow the teams, and make emotional investments in them when those at the top don't care as much as the customers do.

I'll take 6-6 seasons of entertaining football with a new coach every five years, trying to win - or at least giving the illusion of trying to win - over the indifference at the top of Cal and Stanford that lead to the humiliating showing both programs gave their fans this weekend. If the schools don't take measures that demonstrate what happened this weekend is unacceptable, they both should quit the charade, stop fleecing the fans, and just drop to another level or football altogether.

A couple notes: Cal was compelled to play their #3 QB because both the #1 and #2 were sidelined.  Also, AZ had lost 20 overall not 20 conference games.

Overall, the hole is your assessment is the role football plays in paying the bills.  Neither Cal nor Stanford could afford to drop football without giving up a host of other sports (and we saw what happened when both schools attempted to reduce inventory).   

As you rightly pointed out, the Administrations of Cal and Stanford tolerate football but are not overly enthusiastic about the subject.  They see the creeping professionalism of the sport at the college level as a significant problem.  Therefore, I think we will continue to see mediocre results (good enough to pay the bills) until college athletics reaches a breaking point when schools split into two or more groups based upon the value they place on football and how many eyes they can attract to television and steaming services to watch the games.  At that point, Stanford and Cal are going to have to make a decision.  Until then, “muddle along” are the marching orders from leadership.

[Giants]

First of all, I want to make it abundantly clear that if Stanford is willing to do what it takes to compete in FBS Football, the notion of dropping the sport or to a lower level is brain-dead. Stanford has proven it can compete at the highest levels of the sport and there is too much money on the table to walk away from it if the program is healthy.

The issue is what it always is for any school that plays the sport. Is it willing to make the commitments and hold people accountable for performance in the interest of pursuing championships? Yes, all sports require these dynamics to be in place, but football requires the most commitments of any NCAA sanctioned sport because it requires so many resources to compete at the highest level.

Cal and Stanford are in very similar boats. And interestingly enough, both played a game this week without their starting QB, and for similar reasons, but in different fashions, were both humiliated in ways that expose their institutions as failed football stewards. Stanford was overwhelmed against a good Utah team. Cal lost a pillow fight to a team that had lost 20 conference games in a row and was 0-8.  In both cases, the schools have made financial commitments to head coaches, but the institutions as a whole, from the AD on up, have tied their own hands in ways no other schools have. In both games they played this weekend, the backup QB each program had left itself with threw for less than 4 YPA.  If the schools don't care at the very top, that trickles down to the coaching staffs and ultimately the players, to the point the programs are so terrible they can't even be slightly competitive with a backup QB. This isn't some random happenstance that both programs have inept backup QBs. It is proof both programs have done nothing to develop the most important position in all of sports as a program priority.

Stanford is in far better shape than Cal in terms of building blocks to win being in place apart from who the coaches are, but what does it mean when Stanford is in last place in the Pac-12 North, and its credibility is destroyed by what happened against Utah?  I'm not going to point out the problems with David Shaw because at this point, he isn't the problem. The problems are with Muir and higher. Just like at Cal, the problem isn't Wilcox as much as Knowlton and higher. Cal has had this institutional problem with lack of football support for decades and decades. It now seems to be creeping into Stanford.

To this end, if Muir and his bosses find what happened on Friday night acceptable, Stanford really should consider dropping football or moving to a lower division. And I believe Cal should too. Neither school has shown winning football games or even playing entertaining football is a priority. If they aren't going to prioritize it, why the hell should fans?  It's far too much of a commitment to go to games, follow the teams, and make emotional investments in them when those at the top don't care as much as the customers do.

I'll take 6-6 seasons of entertaining football with a new coach every five years, trying to win - or at least giving the illusion of trying to win - over the indifference at the top of Cal and Stanford that lead to the humiliating showing both programs gave their fans this weekend. If the schools don't take measures that demonstrate what happened this weekend is unacceptable, they both should quit the charade, stop fleecing the fans, and just drop to another level or football altogether.

A couple notes: Cal was compelled to play their #3 QB because both the #1 and #2 were sidelined.  Also, AZ had lost 20 overall not 20 conference games.

Overall, the hole is your assessment is the role football plays in paying the bills.  Neither Cal nor Stanford could afford to drop football without giving up a host of other sports (and we saw what happened when both schools attempted to reduce inventory).   

As you rightly pointed out, the Administrations of Cal and Stanford tolerate football but are not overly enthusiastic about the subject.  They see the creeping professionalism of the sport at the college level as a significant problem.  Therefore, I think we will continue to see mediocre results (good enough to pay the bills) until college athletics reaches a breaking point when schools split into two or more groups based upon the value they place on football and how many eyes they can attract to television and steaming services to watch the games.  At that point, Stanford and Cal are going to have to make a decision.  Until then, “muddle along” are the marching orders from leadership.