[dabigv13]

Is it arrogance or virtue that Stanford resisted the new pay to play world? Is Stanford supposed to be ashamed that we don't have oil tycoons poaching players for us? Time always moves forward, but that doesn't mean that the changes count as progress.

Unless our goal is to be the farm club for championship teams at other school, it is not a virtue. Stanford does have the “silicon barons” willing and able to compete with “oil barons. “. We never harnessed them, i guess  because it was beneath us.  Texas Tech is competing for a natty, we are rooting for a former Stanford star now at TT.

Recognize my opinion is not universal . I thought you deserved a frank response to your very legitimate question.

My post was in response to the tone of the article, with terms like "previous arrogance". I recognize Stanford is a nice juicy target for reporters, but that labeling seemed misplaced, as it ignores the possibility that there could be non-arrogant reasons for not wanting to engage heavily in pay to play even when other schools are.

I agree Stanford should be trying to win national championships, and they should try to do it without abandoning academic principles, and without having to eliminate other more important university functions. I personally don't think that's an arrogant attitude.

[dabigv13]

Is it arrogance or virtue that Stanford resisted the new pay to play world? Is Stanford supposed to be ashamed that we don't have oil tycoons poaching players for us? Time always moves forward, but that doesn't mean that the changes count as progress.

Unless our goal is to be the farm club for championship teams at other school, it is not a virtue. Stanford does have the “silicon barons” willing and able to compete with “oil barons. “. We never harnessed them, i guess  because it was beneath us.  Texas Tech is competing for a natty, we are rooting for a former Stanford star now at TT.

Recognize my opinion is not universal . I thought you deserved a frank response to your very legitimate question.

My post was in response to the tone of the article, with terms like "previous arrogance". I recognize Stanford is a nice juicy target for reporters, but that labeling seemed misplaced, as it ignores the possibility that there could be non-arrogant reasons for not wanting to engage heavily in pay to play even when other schools are.

I agree Stanford should be trying to win national championships, and they should try to do it without abandoning academic principles, and without having to eliminate other more important university functions. I personally don't think that's an arrogant attitude.