[msqueri]

Great post, OutsiderFan. Agree with almost everything you write. One quibble, which I don't think is core to your ultimate argument, is that I think who can compete at the very top levels of college football is more fluid than you suggest. Cal is a bad example because they've only been relevant at the top level of the sport twice in the last 70 years, so there's something more fundamental about why they can't compete. SMU is a bad example because their death penalty makes them pretty sui generis. But otherwise, I don't see any reason why a major conference team (top 2-3 conferences in the emerging landscape) can't compete given the right confluence of factors.

Clemson was at the top of the sport and then had several decades of not being contenders at the top, until they were again. The same thing could happen with Florida State or Washington. While I wouldn't bet on Stanford ever achieving our previous heights, there is no reason to think Stanford is forever excluded from the top 10 no matter what we do. If Ralston and Walsh could do it, a Stanford in one of the super-conferences with the right confluence of circumstances could do it again.

Anyway, I think incidental to your main point, which I very much agree with. A world without major college football sucks for Stanford. Those who think they're willing to see Stanford football fade away should think twice IMHO.

[msqueri]

Great post, OutsiderFan. Agree with almost everything you write. One quibble, which I don't think is core to your ultimate argument, is that I think who can compete at the very top levels of college football is more fluid than you suggest. Cal is a bad example because they've only been relevant at the top level of the sport twice in the last 70 years, so there's something more fundamental about why they can't compete. SMU is a bad example because their death penalty makes them pretty sui generis. But otherwise, I don't see any reason why a major conference team (top 2-3 conferences in the emerging landscape) can't compete given the right confluence of factors.

Clemson was at the top of the sport and then had several decades of not being contenders at the top, until they were again. The same thing could happen with Florida State or Washington. While I wouldn't bet on Stanford ever achieving our previous heights, there is no reason to think Stanford is forever excluded from the top 10 no matter what we do. If Ralston and Walsh could do it, a Stanford in one of the super-conferences with the right confluence of circumstances could do it again.

Anyway, I think incidental to your main point, which I very much agree with. A world without major college football sucks for Stanford. Those who think they're willing to see Stanford football fade away should think twice IMHO.