[BostonCard]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

On the other hand there are probably 7,900 (assuming 154 made it to the stadium, if we include the football players) Stanford students who came to the University for the academic program, not its football team.  We like to tell ourselves that Stanford should commit to excellence in everything, but this is generally a bad strategy, and trying to be all things to all people almost inevitably leads institutions to lose focus and be mediocre in all things.

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

BC

[BostonCard]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

On the other hand there are probably 7,900 (assuming 154 made it to the stadium, if we include the football players) Stanford students who came to the University for the academic program, not its football team.  We like to tell ourselves that Stanford should commit to excellence in everything, but this is generally a bad strategy, and trying to be all things to all people almost inevitably leads institutions to lose focus and be mediocre in all things.

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

BC