[d4cohn]

There is an element of post hoc ergo propter hoc to all of this.  I mean, USC also invested a crap ton in NIL, recruited well, and picked a top, proven coach, for which it was rewarded with a losing Big Ten record and an overall pretty mediocre outcome (though one we'd be thrilled with, I'm sure).

Every year, you can pick a handful of programs and say "look, we should imitate them", without recognizing that pretty much every D1 program is trying to do what the successful ones are doing, just not as effectively.

At the end of the day, I don't think we should do "whatever it takes", and even if this group, collectively decides that we do in fact want to do whatever it takes, I don't think it is in our institutional DNA to do so.  Stanford's identity is not wrapped up in being a successful Tier 1 football program the way Notre Dame's is.  Even making the case that Stanford's identity is elite academics and athletics is probably a stretch.

One other quick comment I have is that there is a tendency towards what I call "Green Lantern thinking" (a reference to the "Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency", a theory described here (https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/th...-explained, which is that “the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics.")  I think we see a similar idea amongst sports fans, especially college sports fans, which is that success at school x can be achieved if the administration "tries hard enough or uses the right tactics".  The problem is that there are 134 FBS football schools, and the fan bases of all of them think the exact same thing.  Yet only 12 (<10% make the CFB playoff), and only 1 (0.7%) can win a championship every year.  When Calfan says "Cal could be a perennial football powerhouse if only the administration tried hard enough or usedt he right tactics, we scoff, but Stanford has a lifetime .570 winning percentage, not that much better than Cal's .546.

BC

If Stanford had spent like SC (in recruiting, coaching, stadium upgrades etc.) to get a 7-6 season, needing a miraculous comeback just to win their seventh game (the bowl game), and a losing conference record, Stanford fans would, I think, rightfully not be pleased with the state of affairs.

Also, responding to a point from your other post, I don't think we can necessarily take much solace in this given how the loss to San Jose State etc. went down, but technically we exceeded pre-season ACC media expectations for us to finish in last place in the conference. We technically finished second to last (ahead of aforementioned Florida State in your other post).

The other factor beyond money (NIL, AD budgets etc.) that I don't think has been mentioned yet in this thread is student body size. Stanford, by (undergraduate) student body, is undoubtedly one of the smallest schools in the ACC (though I imagine we are ahead of Wake Forest; I haven't compiled/looked at the ACC schools or our current student body size). As such, money is not the only issue for Stanford but also student body size (particularly with so many sports and other non-athletic commitments to support etc.). I know Stanford had purchased Oak Creek and are working to increase housing (to I presume at least in part increase the student body size), but that is another non-trivial challenge that Stanford programs have to contend with.

[d4cohn]

There is an element of post hoc ergo propter hoc to all of this.  I mean, USC also invested a crap ton in NIL, recruited well, and picked a top, proven coach, for which it was rewarded with a losing Big Ten record and an overall pretty mediocre outcome (though one we'd be thrilled with, I'm sure).

Every year, you can pick a handful of programs and say "look, we should imitate them", without recognizing that pretty much every D1 program is trying to do what the successful ones are doing, just not as effectively.

At the end of the day, I don't think we should do "whatever it takes", and even if this group, collectively decides that we do in fact want to do whatever it takes, I don't think it is in our institutional DNA to do so.  Stanford's identity is not wrapped up in being a successful Tier 1 football program the way Notre Dame's is.  Even making the case that Stanford's identity is elite academics and athletics is probably a stretch.

One other quick comment I have is that there is a tendency towards what I call "Green Lantern thinking" (a reference to the "Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency", a theory described here (https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/th...-explained, which is that “the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics.")  I think we see a similar idea amongst sports fans, especially college sports fans, which is that success at school x can be achieved if the administration "tries hard enough or uses the right tactics".  The problem is that there are 134 FBS football schools, and the fan bases of all of them think the exact same thing.  Yet only 12 (<10% make the CFB playoff), and only 1 (0.7%) can win a championship every year.  When Calfan says "Cal could be a perennial football powerhouse if only the administration tried hard enough or usedt he right tactics, we scoff, but Stanford has a lifetime .570 winning percentage, not that much better than Cal's .546.

BC

If Stanford had spent like SC (in recruiting, coaching, stadium upgrades etc.) to get a 7-6 season, needing a miraculous comeback just to win their seventh game (the bowl game), and a losing conference record, Stanford fans would, I think, rightfully not be pleased with the state of affairs.

Also, responding to a point from your other post, I don't think we can necessarily take much solace in this given how the loss to San Jose State etc. went down, but technically we exceeded pre-season ACC media expectations for us to finish in last place in the conference. We technically finished second to last (ahead of aforementioned Florida State in your other post).

The other factor beyond money (NIL, AD budgets etc.) that I don't think has been mentioned yet in this thread is student body size. Stanford, by (undergraduate) student body, is undoubtedly one of the smallest schools in the ACC (though I imagine we are ahead of Wake Forest; I haven't compiled/looked at the ACC schools or our current student body size). As such, money is not the only issue for Stanford but also student body size (particularly with so many sports and other non-athletic commitments to support etc.). I know Stanford had purchased Oak Creek and are working to increase housing (to I presume at least in part increase the student body size), but that is another non-trivial challenge that Stanford programs have to contend with.