[Goose]

I see it differently than almost everyone here.  My opinion won't be popular on this board.

"not to graduate a ratpack of 'narrow focused professional nerds' who invent 'marginally useful 'gadgets/software,social-media apps' or who will master 'a new 5 card monte crypto trading strategy' that just siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another."

If this is the way you characterize the goals of Stanford, I disagree 100%.   It's as though you strongly dislike Stanford because they are not a football factory.   I see a myriad of academic rankings with Stanford in the top ten in the WORLD; in some cases top three.  Stanford must be doing a decent job in some aspects as an academic institution.

I found that characterization to be a bit strange as well. In so far as I have a criticism of the "recent" Stanford students it would be more along the lines there weren't enough nerds who wanted to build something and too many students that wanted to make lots of money without actually producing anything. They intend to be investment bankers risking OPM :-). IMO if one is enumerating sectors of the economy that create no real "value" but siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another professional sports (of which college football is now a part) would certainly be at the top of the list. Of course, most of us on this board help them do that.

This is a sports message board.  I get it.  Football is king.  Winning is important.     

If you get away from a sports message board I suspect the priorities would be different.  I bet if you were to ask students on campus what's keeping them from enjoying Stanford, at least 9 out of 10 students would NOT name the football win/loss record.

My son got his BS and MS back in the days of Andrew Luck.  As inconceivable as it will seem to those posting on this thread, he didn't know who Luck was until his senior undergrad year when I talked about Luck.  He and most if not all of his friends had no interest in football.

Despite many protestations to the contrary by others on this board, IMO there is absolutely no doubt that sports in general and football in particular are much less on the radar of Stanford students than even 20 years ago. The student attendance, even when we were winning, hasn't been impressive. The major difference is that today football isn't part of the "social life" of the student body. Many people who weren't all that interested in football would attend games independent of how good a product was on the field. It was just "what you do". That is no longer even remotely true. The argument that attendance would increase if we had a better team is undoubtedly true, but the size of that increase is IMO very questionable. If the students really don't enjoy watching football, it doesn't matter if it is good football.

[Goose]

I see it differently than almost everyone here.  My opinion won't be popular on this board.

"not to graduate a ratpack of 'narrow focused professional nerds' who invent 'marginally useful 'gadgets/software,social-media apps' or who will master 'a new 5 card monte crypto trading strategy' that just siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another."

If this is the way you characterize the goals of Stanford, I disagree 100%.   It's as though you strongly dislike Stanford because they are not a football factory.   I see a myriad of academic rankings with Stanford in the top ten in the WORLD; in some cases top three.  Stanford must be doing a decent job in some aspects as an academic institution.

I found that characterization to be a bit strange as well. In so far as I have a criticism of the "recent" Stanford students it would be more along the lines there weren't enough nerds who wanted to build something and too many students that wanted to make lots of money without actually producing anything. They intend to be investment bankers risking OPM :-). IMO if one is enumerating sectors of the economy that create no real "value" but siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another professional sports (of which college football is now a part) would certainly be at the top of the list. Of course, most of us on this board help them do that.

This is a sports message board.  I get it.  Football is king.  Winning is important.     

If you get away from a sports message board I suspect the priorities would be different.  I bet if you were to ask students on campus what's keeping them from enjoying Stanford, at least 9 out of 10 students would NOT name the football win/loss record.

My son got his BS and MS back in the days of Andrew Luck.  As inconceivable as it will seem to those posting on this thread, he didn't know who Luck was until his senior undergrad year when I talked about Luck.  He and most if not all of his friends had no interest in football.

Despite many protestations to the contrary by others on this board, IMO there is absolutely no doubt that sports in general and football in particular are much less on the radar of Stanford students than even 20 years ago. The student attendance, even when we were winning, hasn't been impressive. The major difference is that today football isn't part of the "social life" of the student body. Many people who weren't all that interested in football would attend games independent of how good a product was on the field. It was just "what you do". That is no longer even remotely true. The argument that attendance would increase if we had a better team is undoubtedly true, but the size of that increase is IMO very questionable. If the students really don't enjoy watching football, it doesn't matter if it is good football.