[GK3]

We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  

Or… what?

Don’t get me wrong; I would rather be cheering for a winning team than a losing team, but I’m not sure what the long term consequences of having a chronically losing football team are.  It doesn’t threaten Stanford’s accreditation, it doesn’t threaten the school’s financial health.  People will still write 8-figure checks to get their name on buildings and Stanford’s applications are not hurting.  I think it would make the place more enjoyable, and as I said I would rather root for a winning team than a losing team.  Winning might have a marginal effect on alumni donations and applications, but I doubt it would be dramatic.  Let’s face it, the long term consequences of having a chronically bad football team are not catastrophic, and although I do think we will eventually turn things around, I don’t think your statement is supported by any evidence.

BC

BC, I agree with you that the long term consequences of playing bad football won't hurt the University as simply a University.  I also do not see us continuing to field chronically bad teams, that is nonsense as far as I am concerned.  So we have to decide are we willing to pay the price we will have to pay to field a decent team and put some people in the seats on Saturdays. If we can't or won't do what we have to do do then we ought to either give up big time football or go say Div 2.
NIL and the portal have completely changed college football.  If you want a good team, you have to be willing to pay for it.  There will probably always be a few high school players who go to Stanford because it is Stanford.  After that it is all about who we will accept and how much money we would be willing to pay for one years service of a 4 or 5 star player.  To really compete at the upper levels it is going to take a lot of money and perhaps willingness to allow transfers we would normally not accept.  Do we want to do that?

[GK3]

We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  

Or… what?

Don’t get me wrong; I would rather be cheering for a winning team than a losing team, but I’m not sure what the long term consequences of having a chronically losing football team are.  It doesn’t threaten Stanford’s accreditation, it doesn’t threaten the school’s financial health.  People will still write 8-figure checks to get their name on buildings and Stanford’s applications are not hurting.  I think it would make the place more enjoyable, and as I said I would rather root for a winning team than a losing team.  Winning might have a marginal effect on alumni donations and applications, but I doubt it would be dramatic.  Let’s face it, the long term consequences of having a chronically bad football team are not catastrophic, and although I do think we will eventually turn things around, I don’t think your statement is supported by any evidence.

BC

BC, I agree with you that the long term consequences of playing bad football won't hurt the University as simply a University.  I also do not see us continuing to field chronically bad teams, that is nonsense as far as I am concerned.  So we have to decide are we willing to pay the price we will have to pay to field a decent team and put some people in the seats on Saturdays. If we can't or won't do what we have to do do then we ought to either give up big time football or go say Div 2.
NIL and the portal have completely changed college football.  If you want a good team, you have to be willing to pay for it.  There will probably always be a few high school players who go to Stanford because it is Stanford.  After that it is all about who we will accept and how much money we would be willing to pay for one years service of a 4 or 5 star player.  To really compete at the upper levels it is going to take a lot of money and perhaps willingness to allow transfers we would normally not accept.  Do we want to do that?