[Goose]

While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.


BC

One of the premises in this characterization is that being a "Football First" guy precludes being a "Stanford Man". I don't think there was any question Andrew Luck was a Football First guy. He was going to the NFL, that was his intention and he would do what it took to get there. He showed many times he would do what it took and sacrifice his body for the game. Yet I think few would question that Luck was also a "Stanford Man". Being a Football First guy doesn't require you be a football only guy. While there are certainly plenty of players that are "that way", there are an infinite number of gradations in between. I argue it isn't just a false dichotomy, it isn't even a dichotomy. Was Richard Sherman a Football First guy but not a Stanford Man?

Being a "Stanford Man" is a pretty big category IMHO. I knew several people who were Physics First people. That is all they talked about, and all they did. Everything else was a distraction. Monomania definitely exists at Stanford, and at least when I was there it was common. Quite a few people started out that way and evolved over their years at Stanford to the point they at least recognized other options existed. Some became less one-dimensional, some didn't. IMHO it is almost impossible to play P5 level football and actually have much of another focus. To a large degree, anybody who is on the team and following the physical requirements of workouts and practicing has little or no time to spend smelling the roses. Maybe for a week or two in winter quarter you aren't involved in football. Otherwise, you are. That is a kind of "Stanford Man" too.

[Goose]

While he doesn’t focus enough on the student athletes who are “football first” guys which has had negative consequences on the field, the “Stanford men”  he does focus on are less likely to be swayed by poor on-field results.


BC

One of the premises in this characterization is that being a "Football First" guy precludes being a "Stanford Man". I don't think there was any question Andrew Luck was a Football First guy. He was going to the NFL, that was his intention and he would do what it took to get there. He showed many times he would do what it took and sacrifice his body for the game. Yet I think few would question that Luck was also a "Stanford Man". Being a Football First guy doesn't require you be a football only guy. While there are certainly plenty of players that are "that way", there are an infinite number of gradations in between. I argue it isn't just a false dichotomy, it isn't even a dichotomy. Was Richard Sherman a Football First guy but not a Stanford Man?

Being a "Stanford Man" is a pretty big category IMHO. I knew several people who were Physics First people. That is all they talked about, and all they did. Everything else was a distraction. Monomania definitely exists at Stanford, and at least when I was there it was common. Quite a few people started out that way and evolved over their years at Stanford to the point they at least recognized other options existed. Some became less one-dimensional, some didn't. IMHO it is almost impossible to play P5 level football and actually have much of another focus. To a large degree, anybody who is on the team and following the physical requirements of workouts and practicing has little or no time to spend smelling the roses. Maybe for a week or two in winter quarter you aren't involved in football. Otherwise, you are. That is a kind of "Stanford Man" too.