[Goose]

That's all fine, college football is tragically broken, but if Stanford wants to stand on principle, they should do it at the FCS level.  It's just hard to swallow all the big turn-around talk when the administration's actions seems to suggest (scream) an unwavering commitment not to change anything that is producing year after year of sub-Stanford results.  [/rant_font]

In the perennial battle between failure to be realistic and lack of ambition, the suspension of disbelief will win nearly every time.  The grown ups are gone, and so we have the equivalent of “hold my beer, we’re going to compete in the ACC with Miami!” (narrator: “you cant even score a touchdown against Wake Forest”). On the other hand, whats the harm other than to our collective egos, and nobody loves the underdog story of the nerds with the deminimus payrolls somehow, somehow, pulling off the upset. 

Of course we should be in FCS and be done with this charade. But that would require a lot of people, including many on this board, to wake up to the fact that there is probably not a magic fix that somehow returns this team to respectibility, if only the administration pulled the right magical levers (they dont exist)

BC

There may not be a magic lever to become national champs, but to resume their historic place in the middle to upper-middle of the pack, they just need to (a) admit intelligent, great football players even if they aren't coming from Harker or Yale, or the offspring of a big donor, and (b) offer them competitive pay using some of the money that makes Stanford the 3rd wealthiest University in the nation.

Stanford has decided (correctly IMO) that using the endowment in a major way to pay athletes does not have an adequate ROI and will therefore not do so. If there are others who wish to invest, I am sure they will take your money.
 
Regarding your first point, the "intelligent, great football players" in general don't want to attend Stanford. They can make good money at other institutions that won't ask even minimal academic effort from them. They also will be relatively more "important" socially at these institutions. They will be able to use their athletic "fame" to open doors in the future. The "40 year decision" matters only if you can't get the same (or better) result with less effort (and lower risk) elsewhere. In almost all cases, given today's college sports landscape, you can. A Stanford degree is important only if one intends to use it. These athletes in general do not, so why go to Stanford?

[Goose]

That's all fine, college football is tragically broken, but if Stanford wants to stand on principle, they should do it at the FCS level.  It's just hard to swallow all the big turn-around talk when the administration's actions seems to suggest (scream) an unwavering commitment not to change anything that is producing year after year of sub-Stanford results.  [/rant_font]

In the perennial battle between failure to be realistic and lack of ambition, the suspension of disbelief will win nearly every time.  The grown ups are gone, and so we have the equivalent of “hold my beer, we’re going to compete in the ACC with Miami!” (narrator: “you cant even score a touchdown against Wake Forest”). On the other hand, whats the harm other than to our collective egos, and nobody loves the underdog story of the nerds with the deminimus payrolls somehow, somehow, pulling off the upset. 

Of course we should be in FCS and be done with this charade. But that would require a lot of people, including many on this board, to wake up to the fact that there is probably not a magic fix that somehow returns this team to respectibility, if only the administration pulled the right magical levers (they dont exist)

BC

There may not be a magic lever to become national champs, but to resume their historic place in the middle to upper-middle of the pack, they just need to (a) admit intelligent, great football players even if they aren't coming from Harker or Yale, or the offspring of a big donor, and (b) offer them competitive pay using some of the money that makes Stanford the 3rd wealthiest University in the nation.

Stanford has decided (correctly IMO) that using the endowment in a major way to pay athletes does not have an adequate ROI and will therefore not do so. If there are others who wish to invest, I am sure they will take your money.
 
Regarding your first point, the "intelligent, great football players" in general don't want to attend Stanford. They can make good money at other institutions that won't ask even minimal academic effort from them. They also will be relatively more "important" socially at these institutions. They will be able to use their athletic "fame" to open doors in the future. The "40 year decision" matters only if you can't get the same (or better) result with less effort (and lower risk) elsewhere. In almost all cases, given today's college sports landscape, you can. A Stanford degree is important only if one intends to use it. These athletes in general do not, so why go to Stanford?