[Goose]

But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

I think it is an error to assume that the "budget" really controls the ability of a program to attract TV eyes, which is all that really matters. While success on the field does generally increase interest in any program, there are inherent cultural and historical factors that dictate the level of interest. Many schools have made the "commitment" to become "big time". They have all discovered you can't buy a reputation. Stanford is indeed a "very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker" football wise. However, we don't deliver TV viewers anywhere near as well as some other programs that are equally not "rainmakers". Indeed, we are not Nebraska :-). The budget won't change that. Having a better record than Shaw did would not change that either.

It is tempting to explain Stanford's current situation in terms of factors that Stanford can control. One of those factors is the number of games won. However, even in the "salad" years Stanford didn't draw. Another factor would be Stanford's willingness and desire to do and spend what it takes to become a "rainmaker". I believe it is clear that the University as a whole is at best ambivalent to this course of action. However, it doesn't matter, because right now the TV folks aren't interested in anything but the "here and now". They are not looking at the long game, because their own future is cloudy. Despite the desire we all have to control the future based on things we can control, in the TV world, we can't and don't.

Where Stanford did indeed need to be much more proactive was in the management of the conference and of Stanford's position in it. U of A did a masterful job of "selling" their program despite the fact they are not even close to a rainmaker and arguably have a much worse football reputation than Stanford does. The difference is they have a slightly better TV story to tell. Their market is smaller but they do draw pretty well in it. They sold the heck out of that, despite the fact their TV viewership is dropping (slightly). Stanford was totally inactive in that space of selling what we do have. THAT is why we are "homeless" (ATM) and U of A isn't.

[Goose]

But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

I think it is an error to assume that the "budget" really controls the ability of a program to attract TV eyes, which is all that really matters. While success on the field does generally increase interest in any program, there are inherent cultural and historical factors that dictate the level of interest. Many schools have made the "commitment" to become "big time". They have all discovered you can't buy a reputation. Stanford is indeed a "very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker" football wise. However, we don't deliver TV viewers anywhere near as well as some other programs that are equally not "rainmakers". Indeed, we are not Nebraska :-). The budget won't change that. Having a better record than Shaw did would not change that either.

It is tempting to explain Stanford's current situation in terms of factors that Stanford can control. One of those factors is the number of games won. However, even in the "salad" years Stanford didn't draw. Another factor would be Stanford's willingness and desire to do and spend what it takes to become a "rainmaker". I believe it is clear that the University as a whole is at best ambivalent to this course of action. However, it doesn't matter, because right now the TV folks aren't interested in anything but the "here and now". They are not looking at the long game, because their own future is cloudy. Despite the desire we all have to control the future based on things we can control, in the TV world, we can't and don't.

Where Stanford did indeed need to be much more proactive was in the management of the conference and of Stanford's position in it. U of A did a masterful job of "selling" their program despite the fact they are not even close to a rainmaker and arguably have a much worse football reputation than Stanford does. The difference is they have a slightly better TV story to tell. Their market is smaller but they do draw pretty well in it. They sold the heck out of that, despite the fact their TV viewership is dropping (slightly). Stanford was totally inactive in that space of selling what we do have. THAT is why we are "homeless" (ATM) and U of A isn't.