02-02-2023, 02:48 PM
Does anyone have an answer as to why Stanford has this love/hate relationship with its football program?
Football revenues are not that important to the university writ large, like they might be for other schools, but football revenues are suppose to fund the rest of the athletic department too, right?
How can anyone in Stanford leadership circles justify this cycle of allowing football to languish, then decide it has to be fixed, come back up as nationally relevant, then languish again? I mean it's prohibitively expensive to forgo maintenance on a property and then be forced to do a tear down and replace because it deteriorated so much while being ignored. This seems to be Stanford's MO. Why? To what end? How does this make any sense? An argument can be made it is more sensible to drop football than continue this boom and bust cycle. Not sure what the argument is for letting football languish, then deciding it must be restored. Wy let it languish in the first place?
Football revenues are not that important to the university writ large, like they might be for other schools, but football revenues are suppose to fund the rest of the athletic department too, right?
How can anyone in Stanford leadership circles justify this cycle of allowing football to languish, then decide it has to be fixed, come back up as nationally relevant, then languish again? I mean it's prohibitively expensive to forgo maintenance on a property and then be forced to do a tear down and replace because it deteriorated so much while being ignored. This seems to be Stanford's MO. Why? To what end? How does this make any sense? An argument can be made it is more sensible to drop football than continue this boom and bust cycle. Not sure what the argument is for letting football languish, then deciding it must be restored. Wy let it languish in the first place?