[JohnR34231]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are destined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

I think the point is that we have not given up on the idea that we can be a university who cares about the student in student athlete and have a football team with a decent record. Maybe not 10-2, but, say, 7-5 and a bowl game. Maybe we can't, but IMO we should give it a try.
I assume that is one of the reasons we hired Andrew Luck.

Hi All,

(1).  I sit here as an alum somewhat perplexed, as this topic seems to come up repeatedly, & we seem to go round & round on this topic, as if it is some 'difficult or challenging problem/dilemma'.


(2).  Notre Dame Football players are very good student-athletes;  Notre Dame Football is 11-1, and traditionally are a 8+win team.

(3).  Duke Mens Basketball players are very good student athletes;  Duke is perennially a NCAA Tournament team.


(4).
Follow the Model of NotreDame, for Football. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]
Follow the Model of Duke, for Mens Basketball. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]

(5).
Both of these Universities are Top25 Universities academically.
This isn't rocket-science !
We are needlessly & anachronistically rigid, & getting in our own way ...this is largely self-inflicted !

This also comes up a lot on this board.
The problem is ND and Duke do not have anywhere near the academic standards for admitting recruited athletes that we do.
Do we want to lower our standards to match theirs? I think most on this board would say no.

[JohnR34231]

Why pursue another QB.  We have some.  What we do not have are offensive lineman who can block for the QB and such running backs as we might have.  The young man from Nevada is a keeper, we need at least three more of those. What we really need is CASH and lots of it. We need to buy ourselves an offensive line. There must be at least a half dozen offensive lineman out there who have the academic chops to do the work at Stanford.  Our mission needs to be find them and buy them.  
We need to put together a team that at least gets to some sort of bowl, show some progress.  I do not suggest we take those who can't do the work, but I do say there are a number of players at every position who can do the work, have done the work. Find them, pay them, coach them and start winning a little.  If we can't do that we are destined to forever be the doormat of the ACC in football, Andrew Luck and President Levin included.  If we are unwilling to do what has to be done to get us out of mess, then we should just go quietly into the good night and root for the Basketball team.

“Need”… in the words of Inigo Montaya, You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

While delving into the college free agent market might lead to marginally improved play next year, we do not actually need to do any of the above, and if we are to actually remain a University who gives a damned about the “student” in “student athlete”, we maybe shouldn’t, even if it leads to a 3-9 rather than a 4-8 record.

BC

I think the point is that we have not given up on the idea that we can be a university who cares about the student in student athlete and have a football team with a decent record. Maybe not 10-2, but, say, 7-5 and a bowl game. Maybe we can't, but IMO we should give it a try.
I assume that is one of the reasons we hired Andrew Luck.

Hi All,

(1).  I sit here as an alum somewhat perplexed, as this topic seems to come up repeatedly, & we seem to go round & round on this topic, as if it is some 'difficult or challenging problem/dilemma'.


(2).  Notre Dame Football players are very good student-athletes;  Notre Dame Football is 11-1, and traditionally are a 8+win team.

(3).  Duke Mens Basketball players are very good student athletes;  Duke is perennially a NCAA Tournament team.


(4).
Follow the Model of NotreDame, for Football. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]
Follow the Model of Duke, for Mens Basketball. [Make all adjustments at Stanford to do this]

(5).
Both of these Universities are Top25 Universities academically.
This isn't rocket-science !
We are needlessly & anachronistically rigid, & getting in our own way ...this is largely self-inflicted !

This also comes up a lot on this board.
The problem is ND and Duke do not have anywhere near the academic standards for admitting recruited athletes that we do.
Do we want to lower our standards to match theirs? I think most on this board would say no.