[MarinCard]

Makes some valid points regarding institutional and alumni willingness to fund championship-caliber football (NIL and Alston money, not to mention facilities improvements, all of which are going to need to increase in the future in order to stay in the big leagues) and admissions standards impeding success in the transfer game, but I find much of it unpersuasive especially in the latter case. 

The existence of programs succeeding through the transfer portal doesn't negate programs succeeding in other ways, at least at this time. Add to it that Stanford also loses very few students (relatively) to the portal - it's not getting drained the way some large programs did (*ahem* Oklahoma) did last year.

The piece also completely ignores the broader arc of Stanford football history - the last 10-12 years of success have been the exception, not the norm. The program not being a dominant force in college football, let alone the Pac-12, is far more in line with our history. Our on-field struggles are more likely incidental to the changes in college football, not an effect caused by them. A classic reversion to the mean. Fan attendance has been a mostly-perennial struggle. There's a reason we're the only P5 program to shrink their stadium in a renovation earlier this century.

One last nit: he calls the playoff the "BCS" championship, which doesn't instill much faith he's paying close attention to the sport.

[MarinCard]

Makes some valid points regarding institutional and alumni willingness to fund championship-caliber football (NIL and Alston money, not to mention facilities improvements, all of which are going to need to increase in the future in order to stay in the big leagues) and admissions standards impeding success in the transfer game, but I find much of it unpersuasive especially in the latter case. 

The existence of programs succeeding through the transfer portal doesn't negate programs succeeding in other ways, at least at this time. Add to it that Stanford also loses very few students (relatively) to the portal - it's not getting drained the way some large programs did (*ahem* Oklahoma) did last year.

The piece also completely ignores the broader arc of Stanford football history - the last 10-12 years of success have been the exception, not the norm. The program not being a dominant force in college football, let alone the Pac-12, is far more in line with our history. Our on-field struggles are more likely incidental to the changes in college football, not an effect caused by them. A classic reversion to the mean. Fan attendance has been a mostly-perennial struggle. There's a reason we're the only P5 program to shrink their stadium in a renovation earlier this century.

One last nit: he calls the playoff the "BCS" championship, which doesn't instill much faith he's paying close attention to the sport.