[slide]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

Texas pours more money into football than Stanford, and it struggles mightily. Texas A&M paid Jimbo Fisher $100M for 10 years and now has a 5-game losing streak, its worst since 1980 apparently.

This is what I mean by Stanford isn't some outlier in terms of being a difficult place to win. Stanford does have unique challenges others don't have, but even those that don't have them struggle to win consistently. Tennessee has been basically trying to get back to the top of the heap for 15 years with way more resources and priority on winning than Stanford.

It's hard to win everywhere if you do not have the most talented people at the helm and all relevant parties aligned from the top down. Stanford has shown it can be exceptionally relevant in football with the right people leading the operation. So I don't see how that makes Stanford uniquely different from anyone else, Stanford's self-imposed restrictions aside.

My thoughts, exactly, and I have never grasped the defeatist refusal to recognize this.

Stanford baseball model is one that can be replicated for football as well.  some of the most disappointing aspects of Shaw have been his poor track record of player development.  recruits in the top 25, develops in the bottom 25.

[slide]

Sorry OF, but I disagree with you.  In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford.   You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out.   That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete.   With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger.  Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.  

As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect).   I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment.  I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.

Texas pours more money into football than Stanford, and it struggles mightily. Texas A&M paid Jimbo Fisher $100M for 10 years and now has a 5-game losing streak, its worst since 1980 apparently.

This is what I mean by Stanford isn't some outlier in terms of being a difficult place to win. Stanford does have unique challenges others don't have, but even those that don't have them struggle to win consistently. Tennessee has been basically trying to get back to the top of the heap for 15 years with way more resources and priority on winning than Stanford.

It's hard to win everywhere if you do not have the most talented people at the helm and all relevant parties aligned from the top down. Stanford has shown it can be exceptionally relevant in football with the right people leading the operation. So I don't see how that makes Stanford uniquely different from anyone else, Stanford's self-imposed restrictions aside.

My thoughts, exactly, and I have never grasped the defeatist refusal to recognize this.

Stanford baseball model is one that can be replicated for football as well.  some of the most disappointing aspects of Shaw have been his poor track record of player development.  recruits in the top 25, develops in the bottom 25.