[CardinalSagehen]

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

I think there is some recency bias in this post.

I do not believe Stanford will settle for the Mountain West in football, and I do not agree that it would be a good thing. 

I also would not characterize Stanford's appeal to a major conference as a "doormat".

The new era of college football realistically does not allow Stanford to compete for national championships, as might have been thinkable in 2010-2015. However, I do think it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team (not this year, but in the long run) with occasional breakout seasons.  And I think that's how it will end up.

[CardinalSagehen]

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

I think there is some recency bias in this post.

I do not believe Stanford will settle for the Mountain West in football, and I do not agree that it would be a good thing. 

I also would not characterize Stanford's appeal to a major conference as a "doormat".

The new era of college football realistically does not allow Stanford to compete for national championships, as might have been thinkable in 2010-2015. However, I do think it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team (not this year, but in the long run) with occasional breakout seasons.  And I think that's how it will end up.