[grendalor]

We did that though! We were in Rose Bowls and Orange Bowls and with Heísman candidates on a yearly basis, and still weren't filling the stadium.

More community outreach or advertising or special ticket deals wouldn't have helped. Maybe a little on the margins but not enough to make up for being a small, elite private school in a part of the country that is not very interested in college football.

Right.  I mean during the recent successful run of years from the late 00s through the mid-teens, Stanford had one of the top 10 teams nationally, quite often also in the top 5, fairly consistently ... and hosted prime time games with lots of visibly empty seats in its small (for that level of attention) stadium.  It's just the nature of the institution.  We are too elite to attract much of the local unaffiliated population, and we are too small to have a dedicated crew to fill the stadium (even when we are a 1 loss top 5 program) consistently.  It's just not that kind of institution.  

I remember during the last successful run when my work colleagues, who are alums of places like Michigan, would be shocked that Stanford Stadium would be visibly unfilled for a prime time game against Oregon when both teams were in the top 5 in the second half of the season ... it's just who we are.  We can't really change that, and success wouldn't have much of an impact on it, I think.  It has to do with the size of the alumni base, the nature of that base (most of which is not at all like the dedicated alumni booster base of other schools), the location of that base, and so on, and the fact that Stanford draws an extremely small number of local supporters who are otherwise unaffiliated with the university, precisely because it's an elite academic institution primarily.  

None of that is new, of course, but it is just what Stanford is.  Expecting it to change is not wise, in my opinion.  We will never attract much outside of our alumni and friends/family base -- it's just a function of what Stanford is as an institution, and no level of "outreach" would move the needle very much on that.

---

That's why Stanford needs to jump the curve and find a model not based on football. Stanford fundamentals will not change.

Yes, but it will take a while for the institution to accept that, given the tenure of the existing funding model, and the history of football at the university.  Both of which will need to be decoupled from the conception the alumni base, or at least a part of it, has of the university, and of the relationship between football and the university, I think.  I do think it's inevitable at this point, though.  Whatever is happening ultimately in big-time college football, it's impossible to imagine that Stanford's core mission and identity, including its long-standing philosophy of the relationship between academics and student-athletes, is compatible with continued participation in that over the long term.

[grendalor]

We did that though! We were in Rose Bowls and Orange Bowls and with Heísman candidates on a yearly basis, and still weren't filling the stadium.

More community outreach or advertising or special ticket deals wouldn't have helped. Maybe a little on the margins but not enough to make up for being a small, elite private school in a part of the country that is not very interested in college football.

Right.  I mean during the recent successful run of years from the late 00s through the mid-teens, Stanford had one of the top 10 teams nationally, quite often also in the top 5, fairly consistently ... and hosted prime time games with lots of visibly empty seats in its small (for that level of attention) stadium.  It's just the nature of the institution.  We are too elite to attract much of the local unaffiliated population, and we are too small to have a dedicated crew to fill the stadium (even when we are a 1 loss top 5 program) consistently.  It's just not that kind of institution.  

I remember during the last successful run when my work colleagues, who are alums of places like Michigan, would be shocked that Stanford Stadium would be visibly unfilled for a prime time game against Oregon when both teams were in the top 5 in the second half of the season ... it's just who we are.  We can't really change that, and success wouldn't have much of an impact on it, I think.  It has to do with the size of the alumni base, the nature of that base (most of which is not at all like the dedicated alumni booster base of other schools), the location of that base, and so on, and the fact that Stanford draws an extremely small number of local supporters who are otherwise unaffiliated with the university, precisely because it's an elite academic institution primarily.  

None of that is new, of course, but it is just what Stanford is.  Expecting it to change is not wise, in my opinion.  We will never attract much outside of our alumni and friends/family base -- it's just a function of what Stanford is as an institution, and no level of "outreach" would move the needle very much on that.

---

That's why Stanford needs to jump the curve and find a model not based on football. Stanford fundamentals will not change.

Yes, but it will take a while for the institution to accept that, given the tenure of the existing funding model, and the history of football at the university.  Both of which will need to be decoupled from the conception the alumni base, or at least a part of it, has of the university, and of the relationship between football and the university, I think.  I do think it's inevitable at this point, though.  Whatever is happening ultimately in big-time college football, it's impossible to imagine that Stanford's core mission and identity, including its long-standing philosophy of the relationship between academics and student-athletes, is compatible with continued participation in that over the long term.