[Goose]

Goose, Stanford did draw tv eyeballs in the salad years. 

I have observed you are pretty good at arguing your point of view, so I will ask you to give us a rundown on that subject, or point me to one you have already posted.

That’s the point: what draws is being good. This is a budget issue insofar as it relegates us to hiring minor coaches, not having the best recruiting operation money can buy, upgrading facilities at the whim of one now gone generous donor and not as a systematic institutional commitment, etc. If Luke Fickell or Matt Rhule were our coach, the recruiting budget was twice its size, we had the latest in facilities each year, etc. we’d have a better shot at winning and of being seen as rainmakers. Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain.

Indeed structural and demographic impediments would remain, and they would swamp all of the above. The requirement that Stanford athletes have to get admitted will always make success at Stanford much more difficult. Why would a Matt Rhule want to come to Stanford and deal with that problem when he doesn't have to? Pay him as much as you wish and he still doesn't have a level playing field. Your argument is, IMO equivalent to saying that any organization can become arbitrarily more successful than the competition notwithstanding obstacles that place it at a substantial competitive disadvantage if has a big enough budget. That clearly just isn't so.

The money doesn't make the disadvantages go away. It may bring other advantages, but once the point of diminishing returns is reached, more money doesn't help. The obstacles remain and may still be controlling. Many schools have poured lots of money into their programs and not become "rainmakers", and have if anything regressed. Look at A&M as one example of many.

But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

Even if I thought you were correct that a bigger budget would significantly increase Stanford's winning percentage, I would argue 1) it is too late for that to affect the present, and 2) it takes many years of football success to establish a reputation as a "rainmaker". Maybe, 30 years from now, after continuously being "all in", it might result in Stanford being viewed as a "rainmaker". Doubt it though. Too many obstacles.

One thing being a "rainmaker" (often self anointed) delivers is the ability to draw moderately well even in "down" years. That ability is greatly modulated by your fan base. USC is viewed as a reliable TV market generator because even in bad years people watch because it is "USC". Rutgers is in the B1G not because they are a "rainmaker" but because they are perceived as bringing the NJ are market. That hasn't stopped them from amassing record deficits.

[Goose]

Goose, Stanford did draw tv eyeballs in the salad years. 

I have observed you are pretty good at arguing your point of view, so I will ask you to give us a rundown on that subject, or point me to one you have already posted.

That’s the point: what draws is being good. This is a budget issue insofar as it relegates us to hiring minor coaches, not having the best recruiting operation money can buy, upgrading facilities at the whim of one now gone generous donor and not as a systematic institutional commitment, etc. If Luke Fickell or Matt Rhule were our coach, the recruiting budget was twice its size, we had the latest in facilities each year, etc. we’d have a better shot at winning and of being seen as rainmakers. Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain.

Indeed structural and demographic impediments would remain, and they would swamp all of the above. The requirement that Stanford athletes have to get admitted will always make success at Stanford much more difficult. Why would a Matt Rhule want to come to Stanford and deal with that problem when he doesn't have to? Pay him as much as you wish and he still doesn't have a level playing field. Your argument is, IMO equivalent to saying that any organization can become arbitrarily more successful than the competition notwithstanding obstacles that place it at a substantial competitive disadvantage if has a big enough budget. That clearly just isn't so.

The money doesn't make the disadvantages go away. It may bring other advantages, but once the point of diminishing returns is reached, more money doesn't help. The obstacles remain and may still be controlling. Many schools have poured lots of money into their programs and not become "rainmakers", and have if anything regressed. Look at A&M as one example of many.

But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

Even if I thought you were correct that a bigger budget would significantly increase Stanford's winning percentage, I would argue 1) it is too late for that to affect the present, and 2) it takes many years of football success to establish a reputation as a "rainmaker". Maybe, 30 years from now, after continuously being "all in", it might result in Stanford being viewed as a "rainmaker". Doubt it though. Too many obstacles.

One thing being a "rainmaker" (often self anointed) delivers is the ability to draw moderately well even in "down" years. That ability is greatly modulated by your fan base. USC is viewed as a reliable TV market generator because even in bad years people watch because it is "USC". Rutgers is in the B1G not because they are a "rainmaker" but because they are perceived as bringing the NJ are market. That hasn't stopped them from amassing record deficits.