[Mick]

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.

Oh for sure, there's some recency bias. I was referring, roughly, to the years which covered the new portal and NIL environment. I think those market dynamics are emblematic of the last four years. As to whether it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team over the long run, well...in terms of winning versus losing seasons since 1979, Stanford is 19-24-1. Seems to be that below average is our average season. And I think if we want to turn around that long term trend, I think we need less challenging competition, particularly given our reluctance to enter the arms race.

As for the "doormat" comment...I was referencing all of the Pac-12 in toto, particularly apart from USC, UCLA, OU and UW. Last year, the Pac 12 ranked 4th among conferences, but was 6th in 2021 (and behind the MWC). If a conference is composed solely of Top 25 (or top 50) teams, then my point was that there will be more losses, given the nature of the competition. And given the PERCEIVED quality of those eight Pac-12 teams, it surprises me that the other conferences would not want to include teams that conference leadership/other coaches think are more likely to wind up with losing records.

College football conferences ranked, from Big Ten to MAC - Sports Illustrated

Ranking Every College Football Conference After the 2022 Season | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report

[Mick]

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.

Oh for sure, there's some recency bias. I was referring, roughly, to the years which covered the new portal and NIL environment. I think those market dynamics are emblematic of the last four years. As to whether it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team over the long run, well...in terms of winning versus losing seasons since 1979, Stanford is 19-24-1. Seems to be that below average is our average season. And I think if we want to turn around that long term trend, I think we need less challenging competition, particularly given our reluctance to enter the arms race.

As for the "doormat" comment...I was referencing all of the Pac-12 in toto, particularly apart from USC, UCLA, OU and UW. Last year, the Pac 12 ranked 4th among conferences, but was 6th in 2021 (and behind the MWC). If a conference is composed solely of Top 25 (or top 50) teams, then my point was that there will be more losses, given the nature of the competition. And given the PERCEIVED quality of those eight Pac-12 teams, it surprises me that the other conferences would not want to include teams that conference leadership/other coaches think are more likely to wind up with losing records.

College football conferences ranked, from Big Ten to MAC - Sports Illustrated

Ranking Every College Football Conference After the 2022 Season | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report