10 hours ago
Everyone can have their theories as to what is wrong, but at the end of the day it's a fools errand to take team sports and boil things down to one issue. Is Tavita the problem? Player talent? Lack of funding? Travel? Injury? Other? It's been shown time and time again that sporting competitions can be very hard to predict. When you factor in all the game prep, styles of play, and the variability of performance of both players and coaches, it's nearly impossible to be right most of the time. Otherwise, it would be pretty easy to get rich.
Money is not, on its own, the answer. It certainly is part of the problem - we all know that acquisition of talent is important. The chances of the Dodgers winning the World Series with their payroll is certainly better than that of the Nats. But you could say the same thing about the Mets and the Brewers, yet here we are with the "poor" Brewers a legitimate World Series contender and the "rich" Mets dead last in their division. In college football, last year's champion spent less than half of many other top teams' payrolls. And they did it at a place with a losing history/culture, with a somewhat no-name coach and a bunch of no-name transfers. How on earth could that have happened? Indiana had 2 winning seasons in the 21st century before 2024. But somehow...
At the end of the day, the ball gets rolled out on the field/court and the best team wins. It's about putting it all together. Recruiting, coaches, player performance, culture, scouting, strategies,...the list goes on and on. But it's not only about the money.
I also agree with the other posters who point out that there are plenty of other high academic institutions who are succeeding.
It's entirely possible for Stanford to have a competitive football program. Not necessarily Natty good, but competitive. The opposite of THIS. Stanford doesn't need to spend $50M/year to get there. It does need someone different at the helm though. Just my opionion.
Money is not, on its own, the answer. It certainly is part of the problem - we all know that acquisition of talent is important. The chances of the Dodgers winning the World Series with their payroll is certainly better than that of the Nats. But you could say the same thing about the Mets and the Brewers, yet here we are with the "poor" Brewers a legitimate World Series contender and the "rich" Mets dead last in their division. In college football, last year's champion spent less than half of many other top teams' payrolls. And they did it at a place with a losing history/culture, with a somewhat no-name coach and a bunch of no-name transfers. How on earth could that have happened? Indiana had 2 winning seasons in the 21st century before 2024. But somehow...
At the end of the day, the ball gets rolled out on the field/court and the best team wins. It's about putting it all together. Recruiting, coaches, player performance, culture, scouting, strategies,...the list goes on and on. But it's not only about the money.
I also agree with the other posters who point out that there are plenty of other high academic institutions who are succeeding.
It's entirely possible for Stanford to have a competitive football program. Not necessarily Natty good, but competitive. The opposite of THIS. Stanford doesn't need to spend $50M/year to get there. It does need someone different at the helm though. Just my opionion.