[norcard10]

Stanford is a small private school that has relatively few US citizens passionate about its athletics, particularly football.
Let's ignore football, for just a moment.   One can see Stanford's attendance and eyeball challenges in other sports, even the most successful sports.

Women's basketball has been amazing for decades, and yet several schools put more fans in the stands.
Women's volleyball is the best program in the country that sometimes gets 2,000 people to games.  A number of programs like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State routinely pack bigger venues some capable of holding 12K-15K+ fans.
Men's baseball has been one of the best in the West, but Sunken Diamond is pretty small compared to venues in the SEC.

We can pull back to look at the Bay Area as a region.   SJSU rarely draws as well as several HS football teams in Texas or Florida.   Bay Area HS football teams are not exactly must see action even for citizens of their towns.

Much like a recruit should not pick a program based solely on a particular assistant coach, a conference is not going to make a 10+ year deal to add a partner based on a 2 or 3 year W/L record in one sport.

Stanford has a lot of financial resources and an exceptional climate for athletic training.
But this expansion game is about butts in the seats creating an electric stadium environment to draw eyeballs to the screen.   

I love Stanford football but just 10 minutes into my first game back in 1989 I understood that Stanford football fans are not really in the running for most dynamic or exciting crowd.   If it is raining, colder than 60 degrees, warmer than 85 degrees, or too early or too late the environment only gets less compelling even if the team is a top 25 team.

This current game of conference musical chairs is about securing programs, really football teams, that look compelling on TV whether 3-5 or 7-1.  Stanford football is not a top belle of this ball.   It isn't the belle in 2023, it wouldn't have been in 2018 or 2008 or 2003.  

The real bummer IMHO is that the ACC is not an ideal conference for Stanford to improve its stadium environment reputation.   The BigTen programs would have easily filled our stadium and travelled with bands that would have filled the house with noise.   However, my impression is that the ACC teams, even Clemson and FSU, don't really travel well enough to fill our stands and are unlikely to pay for their bands to travel.

The BigTen was a luxury yacht cruising by our sinking ship.   The ACC is more like a small row boat.    It is better than the sinking ship (a.k.a. Pac-??) in these stormy days, but not a lot better.

If we could wave a magical wand that had great conference realignment powers, but just short of being able to reconstitute the mortally wounded PAC-12, then yes, wave it to put us and CAL into a 6 team west coast division of the B1G. Throw the 2 northwest little sisters in there too to bump up to 8 teams, that's fine. But unless Harry Potter loan us such wand, then it seems joining ACC by far our best remaining option. There does exist the option of trying to do something semi-temporary now and trying for the B1G later. But every time I think of that, it seems like, to use your analogy, we'd be in the small row boat trying to reach port but on the wrong side of the open-ocean-going bay of Fundy tide.

The irony is ACC alignment will be further detrimental to attendance.  Can't wait for the Wake Forest alums to show up in mass in the bay area.

[norcard10]

Stanford is a small private school that has relatively few US citizens passionate about its athletics, particularly football.
Let's ignore football, for just a moment.   One can see Stanford's attendance and eyeball challenges in other sports, even the most successful sports.

Women's basketball has been amazing for decades, and yet several schools put more fans in the stands.
Women's volleyball is the best program in the country that sometimes gets 2,000 people to games.  A number of programs like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State routinely pack bigger venues some capable of holding 12K-15K+ fans.
Men's baseball has been one of the best in the West, but Sunken Diamond is pretty small compared to venues in the SEC.

We can pull back to look at the Bay Area as a region.   SJSU rarely draws as well as several HS football teams in Texas or Florida.   Bay Area HS football teams are not exactly must see action even for citizens of their towns.

Much like a recruit should not pick a program based solely on a particular assistant coach, a conference is not going to make a 10+ year deal to add a partner based on a 2 or 3 year W/L record in one sport.

Stanford has a lot of financial resources and an exceptional climate for athletic training.
But this expansion game is about butts in the seats creating an electric stadium environment to draw eyeballs to the screen.   

I love Stanford football but just 10 minutes into my first game back in 1989 I understood that Stanford football fans are not really in the running for most dynamic or exciting crowd.   If it is raining, colder than 60 degrees, warmer than 85 degrees, or too early or too late the environment only gets less compelling even if the team is a top 25 team.

This current game of conference musical chairs is about securing programs, really football teams, that look compelling on TV whether 3-5 or 7-1.  Stanford football is not a top belle of this ball.   It isn't the belle in 2023, it wouldn't have been in 2018 or 2008 or 2003.  

The real bummer IMHO is that the ACC is not an ideal conference for Stanford to improve its stadium environment reputation.   The BigTen programs would have easily filled our stadium and travelled with bands that would have filled the house with noise.   However, my impression is that the ACC teams, even Clemson and FSU, don't really travel well enough to fill our stands and are unlikely to pay for their bands to travel.

The BigTen was a luxury yacht cruising by our sinking ship.   The ACC is more like a small row boat.    It is better than the sinking ship (a.k.a. Pac-??) in these stormy days, but not a lot better.

If we could wave a magical wand that had great conference realignment powers, but just short of being able to reconstitute the mortally wounded PAC-12, then yes, wave it to put us and CAL into a 6 team west coast division of the B1G. Throw the 2 northwest little sisters in there too to bump up to 8 teams, that's fine. But unless Harry Potter loan us such wand, then it seems joining ACC by far our best remaining option. There does exist the option of trying to do something semi-temporary now and trying for the B1G later. But every time I think of that, it seems like, to use your analogy, we'd be in the small row boat trying to reach port but on the wrong side of the open-ocean-going bay of Fundy tide.

The irony is ACC alignment will be further detrimental to attendance.  Can't wait for the Wake Forest alums to show up in mass in the bay area.

[Goose]

But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

I think it is an error to assume that the "budget" really controls the ability of a program to attract TV eyes, which is all that really matters. While success on the field does generally increase interest in any program, there are inherent cultural and historical factors that dictate the level of interest. Many schools have made the "commitment" to become "big time". They have all discovered you can't buy a reputation. Stanford is indeed a "very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker" football wise. However, we don't deliver TV viewers anywhere near as well as some other programs that are equally not "rainmakers". Indeed, we are not Nebraska :-). The budget won't change that. Having a better record than Shaw did would not change that either.

It is tempting to explain Stanford's current situation in terms of factors that Stanford can control. One of those factors is the number of games won. However, even in the "salad" years Stanford didn't draw. Another factor would be Stanford's willingness and desire to do and spend what it takes to become a "rainmaker". I believe it is clear that the University as a whole is at best ambivalent to this course of action. However, it doesn't matter, because right now the TV folks aren't interested in anything but the "here and now". They are not looking at the long game, because their own future is cloudy. Despite the desire we all have to control the future based on things we can control, in the TV world, we can't and don't.

Where Stanford did indeed need to be much more proactive was in the management of the conference and of Stanford's position in it. U of A did a masterful job of "selling" their program despite the fact they are not even close to a rainmaker and arguably have a much worse football reputation than Stanford does. The difference is they have a slightly better TV story to tell. Their market is smaller but they do draw pretty well in it. They sold the heck out of that, despite the fact their TV viewership is dropping (slightly). Stanford was totally inactive in that space of selling what we do have. THAT is why we are "homeless" (ATM) and U of A isn't.

[Goose]

But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

I think it is an error to assume that the "budget" really controls the ability of a program to attract TV eyes, which is all that really matters. While success on the field does generally increase interest in any program, there are inherent cultural and historical factors that dictate the level of interest. Many schools have made the "commitment" to become "big time". They have all discovered you can't buy a reputation. Stanford is indeed a "very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker" football wise. However, we don't deliver TV viewers anywhere near as well as some other programs that are equally not "rainmakers". Indeed, we are not Nebraska :-). The budget won't change that. Having a better record than Shaw did would not change that either.

It is tempting to explain Stanford's current situation in terms of factors that Stanford can control. One of those factors is the number of games won. However, even in the "salad" years Stanford didn't draw. Another factor would be Stanford's willingness and desire to do and spend what it takes to become a "rainmaker". I believe it is clear that the University as a whole is at best ambivalent to this course of action. However, it doesn't matter, because right now the TV folks aren't interested in anything but the "here and now". They are not looking at the long game, because their own future is cloudy. Despite the desire we all have to control the future based on things we can control, in the TV world, we can't and don't.

Where Stanford did indeed need to be much more proactive was in the management of the conference and of Stanford's position in it. U of A did a masterful job of "selling" their program despite the fact they are not even close to a rainmaker and arguably have a much worse football reputation than Stanford does. The difference is they have a slightly better TV story to tell. Their market is smaller but they do draw pretty well in it. They sold the heck out of that, despite the fact their TV viewership is dropping (slightly). Stanford was totally inactive in that space of selling what we do have. THAT is why we are "homeless" (ATM) and U of A isn't.

[msqueri]

Goose, Stanford did draw tv eyeballs in the salad years. That’s the point: what draws is being good. This is a budget issue insofar as it relegates us to hiring minor coaches, not having the best recruiting operation money can buy, upgrading facilities at the whim of one now gone generous donor and not as a systematic institutional commitment, etc. If Luke Fickell or Matt Rhule were our coach, the recruiting budget was twice its size, we had the latest in facilities each year, etc. we’d have a better shot at winning and of being seen as rainmakers. Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain. But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

[msqueri]

Goose, Stanford did draw tv eyeballs in the salad years. That’s the point: what draws is being good. This is a budget issue insofar as it relegates us to hiring minor coaches, not having the best recruiting operation money can buy, upgrading facilities at the whim of one now gone generous donor and not as a systematic institutional commitment, etc. If Luke Fickell or Matt Rhule were our coach, the recruiting budget was twice its size, we had the latest in facilities each year, etc. we’d have a better shot at winning and of being seen as rainmakers. Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain. But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

[Softball Fan]

Women's volleyball is the best program in the country that sometimes gets 2,000 people to games.  A number of programs like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State routinely pack bigger venues some capable of holding 12K-15K+ fans.

Yes, and that won't change.   Stanford's student section will never be like the student sections in many of the B1G teams.  Stanford students have interests other than sports and that's one of the things that makes Stanford unique from the football factories.  I can step back from sports and celebrate the difference.

[Softball Fan]

Women's volleyball is the best program in the country that sometimes gets 2,000 people to games.  A number of programs like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State routinely pack bigger venues some capable of holding 12K-15K+ fans.

Yes, and that won't change.   Stanford's student section will never be like the student sections in many of the B1G teams.  Stanford students have interests other than sports and that's one of the things that makes Stanford unique from the football factories.  I can step back from sports and celebrate the difference.

[Spiny_Norman]

Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain. But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

And yet (with the exception of the Bowlsby-Harbaugh years), that is where Stanford (administration, faculty and alumni) seem to be comfortable. Despite all of the words communicated to students about "staying hungry" and "continually challenging yourself", Stanford as a school generally sticks to its comfort zone. Like any large, bureaucratic organization, it's hard to challenge the status quo.

[Spiny_Norman]

Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain. But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

And yet (with the exception of the Bowlsby-Harbaugh years), that is where Stanford (administration, faculty and alumni) seem to be comfortable. Despite all of the words communicated to students about "staying hungry" and "continually challenging yourself", Stanford as a school generally sticks to its comfort zone. Like any large, bureaucratic organization, it's hard to challenge the status quo.

[fullmetal]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

Muir was perfectly fine with shedding varsity sports a few years ago before realignment; it's his go-to tactic to shore up budgetary issues despite handing out nice pay bumps to a very large athletic department payroll.  Many of the varsity sports targeted are now nearly self-sufficient (or at least on a good path toward self-sufficiency) and shouldn't be a factor in the budget going forward.

It might be a win for football/basketball, but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  And I don't even know if I'd call it a win.  ACC membership would salvage the athletic department from certain oblivion at the cost of substantial impacts to student-athlete life/academics as well as athletic competitive opportunity.  It's a decent step back from the ledge.  But I can't pretend that football/basketball are all that matter.

What's your alternative for the Olympic sports (many of which I assume will be in the MPSF regardless, by the way)? Do the minor conferences remaining on the West Coast provide "athletic competitive opportunity?"

I probably should have said "non-revenue" sports instead of Olympic.  For the MPSF, et al. sports, there is likely no need for an alternative unless the ACC sponsors those sports (oof).  The MPSF, et al. are not going away.  Examples: artistic swimming, men's gymnastics, squash, sailing, men's volleyball, men's/women's water polo.

The ACC, as it turns out, is pretty darn good at the non-revenue sports too: they'll sponsor a conference championship as long as there are four member schools who field teams.  With the upcoming addition of women's lacrosse and women's gymnastics to the ACC sponsorship slate, that's a majority of sports for which Stanford will probably have to fly cross-country just to compete "in conference."  I don't expect exceptions to be made; the addition of Stanford to the ACC in non-rev sports will boost ACC reputation and competitive standing.  The equipment trailers for certain sports are about to get a ton of wear and tear: softball, soccer, rowing, fencing, golf, lacrosse, field hockey.
https://theacc.com/news/2021/6/17/genera...stics.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_C...nce#Sports

The Stanford teams currently affiliated with non-Pac 12 conferences that will likely have to switch to the ACC due to conference sponsorship on the east coast are men's/women's fencing, and field hockey (okay they were traveling east anyway).

There are a couple of Pac-12 sports that are not sponsored by the ACC.  Those programs will have to find a new conference affiliation, e.g. beach volleyball, men's rowing. The Pac-12 programs should try to find a home in an existing conference if neither the Big 12, Big 10, nor ACC sponsor those sports.  Ask the MPSF to begin sponsoring beach volleyball and men's rowing.  I think the NCAA beach volleyball bids to nationals are handed out by region, not conference championship, but I don't remember.  Don't even get me started on the rowing.  Asking a smaller conference to be let in is an unlikely event if conference championships determine automatic bids to nationals.

[fullmetal]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

Muir was perfectly fine with shedding varsity sports a few years ago before realignment; it's his go-to tactic to shore up budgetary issues despite handing out nice pay bumps to a very large athletic department payroll.  Many of the varsity sports targeted are now nearly self-sufficient (or at least on a good path toward self-sufficiency) and shouldn't be a factor in the budget going forward.

It might be a win for football/basketball, but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  And I don't even know if I'd call it a win.  ACC membership would salvage the athletic department from certain oblivion at the cost of substantial impacts to student-athlete life/academics as well as athletic competitive opportunity.  It's a decent step back from the ledge.  But I can't pretend that football/basketball are all that matter.

What's your alternative for the Olympic sports (many of which I assume will be in the MPSF regardless, by the way)? Do the minor conferences remaining on the West Coast provide "athletic competitive opportunity?"

I probably should have said "non-revenue" sports instead of Olympic.  For the MPSF, et al. sports, there is likely no need for an alternative unless the ACC sponsors those sports (oof).  The MPSF, et al. are not going away.  Examples: artistic swimming, men's gymnastics, squash, sailing, men's volleyball, men's/women's water polo.

The ACC, as it turns out, is pretty darn good at the non-revenue sports too: they'll sponsor a conference championship as long as there are four member schools who field teams.  With the upcoming addition of women's lacrosse and women's gymnastics to the ACC sponsorship slate, that's a majority of sports for which Stanford will probably have to fly cross-country just to compete "in conference."  I don't expect exceptions to be made; the addition of Stanford to the ACC in non-rev sports will boost ACC reputation and competitive standing.  The equipment trailers for certain sports are about to get a ton of wear and tear: softball, soccer, rowing, fencing, golf, lacrosse, field hockey.
https://theacc.com/news/2021/6/17/genera...stics.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_C...nce#Sports

The Stanford teams currently affiliated with non-Pac 12 conferences that will likely have to switch to the ACC due to conference sponsorship on the east coast are men's/women's fencing, and field hockey (okay they were traveling east anyway).

There are a couple of Pac-12 sports that are not sponsored by the ACC.  Those programs will have to find a new conference affiliation, e.g. beach volleyball, men's rowing. The Pac-12 programs should try to find a home in an existing conference if neither the Big 12, Big 10, nor ACC sponsor those sports.  Ask the MPSF to begin sponsoring beach volleyball and men's rowing.  I think the NCAA beach volleyball bids to nationals are handed out by region, not conference championship, but I don't remember.  Don't even get me started on the rowing.  Asking a smaller conference to be let in is an unlikely event if conference championships determine automatic bids to nationals.

[Goose]

Goose, Stanford did draw tv eyeballs in the salad years. 

I have observed you are pretty good at arguing your point of view, so I will ask you to give us a rundown on that subject, or point me to one you have already posted.

That’s the point: what draws is being good. This is a budget issue insofar as it relegates us to hiring minor coaches, not having the best recruiting operation money can buy, upgrading facilities at the whim of one now gone generous donor and not as a systematic institutional commitment, etc. If Luke Fickell or Matt Rhule were our coach, the recruiting budget was twice its size, we had the latest in facilities each year, etc. we’d have a better shot at winning and of being seen as rainmakers. Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain.

Indeed structural and demographic impediments would remain, and they would swamp all of the above. The requirement that Stanford athletes have to get admitted will always make success at Stanford much more difficult. Why would a Matt Rhule want to come to Stanford and deal with that problem when he doesn't have to? Pay him as much as you wish and he still doesn't have a level playing field. Your argument is, IMO equivalent to saying that any organization can become arbitrarily more successful than the competition notwithstanding obstacles that place it at a substantial competitive disadvantage if has a big enough budget. That clearly just isn't so.

The money doesn't make the disadvantages go away. It may bring other advantages, but once the point of diminishing returns is reached, more money doesn't help. The obstacles remain and may still be controlling. Many schools have poured lots of money into their programs and not become "rainmakers", and have if anything regressed. Look at A&M as one example of many.

But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

Even if I thought you were correct that a bigger budget would significantly increase Stanford's winning percentage, I would argue 1) it is too late for that to affect the present, and 2) it takes many years of football success to establish a reputation as a "rainmaker". Maybe, 30 years from now, after continuously being "all in", it might result in Stanford being viewed as a "rainmaker". Doubt it though. Too many obstacles.

One thing being a "rainmaker" (often self anointed) delivers is the ability to draw moderately well even in "down" years. That ability is greatly modulated by your fan base. USC is viewed as a reliable TV market generator because even in bad years people watch because it is "USC". Rutgers is in the B1G not because they are a "rainmaker" but because they are perceived as bringing the NJ are market. That hasn't stopped them from amassing record deficits.

[Goose]

Goose, Stanford did draw tv eyeballs in the salad years. 

I have observed you are pretty good at arguing your point of view, so I will ask you to give us a rundown on that subject, or point me to one you have already posted.

That’s the point: what draws is being good. This is a budget issue insofar as it relegates us to hiring minor coaches, not having the best recruiting operation money can buy, upgrading facilities at the whim of one now gone generous donor and not as a systematic institutional commitment, etc. If Luke Fickell or Matt Rhule were our coach, the recruiting budget was twice its size, we had the latest in facilities each year, etc. we’d have a better shot at winning and of being seen as rainmakers. Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain.

Indeed structural and demographic impediments would remain, and they would swamp all of the above. The requirement that Stanford athletes have to get admitted will always make success at Stanford much more difficult. Why would a Matt Rhule want to come to Stanford and deal with that problem when he doesn't have to? Pay him as much as you wish and he still doesn't have a level playing field. Your argument is, IMO equivalent to saying that any organization can become arbitrarily more successful than the competition notwithstanding obstacles that place it at a substantial competitive disadvantage if has a big enough budget. That clearly just isn't so.

The money doesn't make the disadvantages go away. It may bring other advantages, but once the point of diminishing returns is reached, more money doesn't help. The obstacles remain and may still be controlling. Many schools have poured lots of money into their programs and not become "rainmakers", and have if anything regressed. Look at A&M as one example of many.

But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

Even if I thought you were correct that a bigger budget would significantly increase Stanford's winning percentage, I would argue 1) it is too late for that to affect the present, and 2) it takes many years of football success to establish a reputation as a "rainmaker". Maybe, 30 years from now, after continuously being "all in", it might result in Stanford being viewed as a "rainmaker". Doubt it though. Too many obstacles.

One thing being a "rainmaker" (often self anointed) delivers is the ability to draw moderately well even in "down" years. That ability is greatly modulated by your fan base. USC is viewed as a reliable TV market generator because even in bad years people watch because it is "USC". Rutgers is in the B1G not because they are a "rainmaker" but because they are perceived as bringing the NJ are market. That hasn't stopped them from amassing record deficits.

[gailtate]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

From where I sit, beyond the arrogant PAC-12's leaders having royally messed up the media rights situation, the fact that we are waiting to know "Stanford's fate," is due in no small measure to the fact that over the past five years Muir and top SU administrators have been pathetically passive and permissive in allowing Stanford football under Shaw to deteriorate into low-level mediocrity that we find ourselves sitting in the waiting room hoping for a digestable crumb to fall off the ACC table.

I of course agree with all of this. But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

I refuse to let "Stanford Recruits Itself" Shaw off the hook. He is/was street-savvy enough to have read the graffiti on wall, to have understood how an embarrassment of a media strategy, early admissions, and then the portal, would impact Stanford and, finally, what the departure of the L.A. schools would mean. Broad brush-strokes here, yes, but the picture is still butt-ugly. I don't know what he may have been doing, or saying to the Brahmins behind closed doors, but everything that could have gone awry did. He fiddled while it all burned down. I can easily envision MTL and Bernie with their heads buried in sand to their belt buckles, but Condie Rice and Dick Gould and Tara? NFW.

[gailtate]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

From where I sit, beyond the arrogant PAC-12's leaders having royally messed up the media rights situation, the fact that we are waiting to know "Stanford's fate," is due in no small measure to the fact that over the past five years Muir and top SU administrators have been pathetically passive and permissive in allowing Stanford football under Shaw to deteriorate into low-level mediocrity that we find ourselves sitting in the waiting room hoping for a digestable crumb to fall off the ACC table.

I of course agree with all of this. But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

I refuse to let "Stanford Recruits Itself" Shaw off the hook. He is/was street-savvy enough to have read the graffiti on wall, to have understood how an embarrassment of a media strategy, early admissions, and then the portal, would impact Stanford and, finally, what the departure of the L.A. schools would mean. Broad brush-strokes here, yes, but the picture is still butt-ugly. I don't know what he may have been doing, or saying to the Brahmins behind closed doors, but everything that could have gone awry did. He fiddled while it all burned down. I can easily envision MTL and Bernie with their heads buried in sand to their belt buckles, but Condie Rice and Dick Gould and Tara? NFW.

[norcard10]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

From where I sit, beyond the arrogant PAC-12's leaders having royally messed up the media rights situation, the fact that we are waiting to know "Stanford's fate," is due in no small measure to the fact that over the past five years Muir and top SU administrators have been pathetically passive and permissive in allowing Stanford football under Shaw to deteriorate into low-level mediocrity that we find ourselves sitting in the waiting room hoping for a digestable crumb to fall off the ACC table.

I of course agree with all of this. But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

I refuse to let "Stanford Recruits Itself" Shaw off the hook. He is/was street-savvy enough to have read the graffiti on wall, to have understood how an embarrassment of a media strategy, early admissions, and then the portal, would impact Stanford and, finally, what the departure of the L.A. schools would mean. Broad brush-strokes here, yes, but the picture is still butt-ugly. I don't know what he may have been doing, or saying to the Brahmins behind closed doors, but everything that could have gone awry did. He fiddled while it all burned down. I can easily envision MTL and Bernie with their heads buried in sand to their belt buckles, but Condie Rice and Dick Gould and Tara? NFW.

Shaw certainly has a complex legacy.  I never liked his coaching style in the end and it was far too late and feeble to adapt.  Still, he overachieved what many on here would have fathomed.

[norcard10]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

From where I sit, beyond the arrogant PAC-12's leaders having royally messed up the media rights situation, the fact that we are waiting to know "Stanford's fate," is due in no small measure to the fact that over the past five years Muir and top SU administrators have been pathetically passive and permissive in allowing Stanford football under Shaw to deteriorate into low-level mediocrity that we find ourselves sitting in the waiting room hoping for a digestable crumb to fall off the ACC table.

I of course agree with all of this. But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

I refuse to let "Stanford Recruits Itself" Shaw off the hook. He is/was street-savvy enough to have read the graffiti on wall, to have understood how an embarrassment of a media strategy, early admissions, and then the portal, would impact Stanford and, finally, what the departure of the L.A. schools would mean. Broad brush-strokes here, yes, but the picture is still butt-ugly. I don't know what he may have been doing, or saying to the Brahmins behind closed doors, but everything that could have gone awry did. He fiddled while it all burned down. I can easily envision MTL and Bernie with their heads buried in sand to their belt buckles, but Condie Rice and Dick Gould and Tara? NFW.

Shaw certainly has a complex legacy.  I never liked his coaching style in the end and it was far too late and feeble to adapt.  Still, he overachieved what many on here would have fathomed.

[Softball Fan]

Tonight's vote was postponed due to shooting on North Carolina campus.

[Softball Fan]

Tonight's vote was postponed due to shooting on North Carolina campus.

[OCcardinal]

Shaw certainly has a complex legacy.  I never liked his coaching style in the end and it was far too late and feeble to adapt.  Still, he overachieved what many on here would have fathomed.

During Shaw's tenure as HC, which coincided with the Pac 12 era (after Utah/Colorado were added), Stanford was tied with USC for 2nd most conference wins (including P12 championship games):
1 Oregon 77
2T Stanford 68
2T USC 68
4 Washington 64
5 Utah 60
6 UCLA 55
7 Arizona St 54
8 Washington St. 48
9 Arizona 37
10 Oregon St. 36
11 CAL 34
12 Colorado 27
Shaw was also 6-5 vs Notre Dame (ACC teams are 2-32 in their last 34 contests vs Notre Dame, with both wins earned by top-5 ranked Clemson teams).

[OCcardinal]

Shaw certainly has a complex legacy.  I never liked his coaching style in the end and it was far too late and feeble to adapt.  Still, he overachieved what many on here would have fathomed.

During Shaw's tenure as HC, which coincided with the Pac 12 era (after Utah/Colorado were added), Stanford was tied with USC for 2nd most conference wins (including P12 championship games):
1 Oregon 77
2T Stanford 68
2T USC 68
4 Washington 64
5 Utah 60
6 UCLA 55
7 Arizona St 54
8 Washington St. 48
9 Arizona 37
10 Oregon St. 36
11 CAL 34
12 Colorado 27
Shaw was also 6-5 vs Notre Dame (ACC teams are 2-32 in their last 34 contests vs Notre Dame, with both wins earned by top-5 ranked Clemson teams).

[thatboy]

We're talking about a university consumed with "safe spaces," "microagressions," tribal politics, self-pity, self-aggrandizement, and a stupefying lack of self-awareness and gratitude for the amazing opportunity that a Stanford education represents.

The culture needs to be fixed, which requires the mature adults on campus to look beyond placation of overly-sensitive, infantile students and to again take seriously their roles as teachers and mentors of future adults who need to be resilient and stop taking their blessed lives for granted.

Are you basing that on a few episodes that got blown up in the media, like the law school issue, or actual recent experience of teaching or otherwise spending time on campus beyond brief and occasional visits?

The types of issues you raise exist on many campuses and venues, including schools with great football programs. If you look at the top football universities, most of them have a more liberal student body versus conservative. They are not disproportionately affecting Stanford vs USC, Oregon or even UAB and other good football programs. Colleges and University campuses tend to lean liberal, so if you are implying the liberal culture at Stanford is to blame, there seems to be no correlation. The decline of football at Stanford is almost certainly the result of much bigger issues like coaching, NIL, transfer portal, visibility (poor Pac 12 television coverage / deals), an unsupportive administration, a feckless or arm-tied Bernard Muir. Microaggressions and these sorts of issues are so far down the list that they're meaningless.

[thatboy]

We're talking about a university consumed with "safe spaces," "microagressions," tribal politics, self-pity, self-aggrandizement, and a stupefying lack of self-awareness and gratitude for the amazing opportunity that a Stanford education represents.

The culture needs to be fixed, which requires the mature adults on campus to look beyond placation of overly-sensitive, infantile students and to again take seriously their roles as teachers and mentors of future adults who need to be resilient and stop taking their blessed lives for granted.

Are you basing that on a few episodes that got blown up in the media, like the law school issue, or actual recent experience of teaching or otherwise spending time on campus beyond brief and occasional visits?

The types of issues you raise exist on many campuses and venues, including schools with great football programs. If you look at the top football universities, most of them have a more liberal student body versus conservative. They are not disproportionately affecting Stanford vs USC, Oregon or even UAB and other good football programs. Colleges and University campuses tend to lean liberal, so if you are implying the liberal culture at Stanford is to blame, there seems to be no correlation. The decline of football at Stanford is almost certainly the result of much bigger issues like coaching, NIL, transfer portal, visibility (poor Pac 12 television coverage / deals), an unsupportive administration, a feckless or arm-tied Bernard Muir. Microaggressions and these sorts of issues are so far down the list that they're meaningless.

[cardcrimson]

Shaw certainly has a complex legacy.  I never liked his coaching style in the end and it was far too late and feeble to adapt.  Still, he overachieved what many on here would have fathomed.

During Shaw's tenure as HC, which coincided with the Pac 12 era (after Utah/Colorado were added), Stanford was tied with USC for 2nd most conference wins (including P12 championship games):
1 Oregon 77
2T Stanford 68
2T USC 68
4 Washington 64
5 Utah 60
6 UCLA 55
7 Arizona St 54
8 Washington St. 48
9 Arizona 37
10 Oregon St. 36
11 CAL 34
12 Colorado 27
Shaw was also 6-5 vs Notre Dame (ACC teams are 2-32 in their last 34 contests vs Notre Dame, with both wins earned by top-5 ranked Clemson teams).

Interesting, especially against the Domers. Actually, we're 6-4 in the last ten, as the Stepfan game was vacated (we all knew they cheated, anyway), and 8-4 over the last 12. Since we began the series in the late 80's we're 13-18, pretty good considering we lost seven straight during the dark times.

[cardcrimson]

Shaw certainly has a complex legacy.  I never liked his coaching style in the end and it was far too late and feeble to adapt.  Still, he overachieved what many on here would have fathomed.

During Shaw's tenure as HC, which coincided with the Pac 12 era (after Utah/Colorado were added), Stanford was tied with USC for 2nd most conference wins (including P12 championship games):
1 Oregon 77
2T Stanford 68
2T USC 68
4 Washington 64
5 Utah 60
6 UCLA 55
7 Arizona St 54
8 Washington St. 48
9 Arizona 37
10 Oregon St. 36
11 CAL 34
12 Colorado 27
Shaw was also 6-5 vs Notre Dame (ACC teams are 2-32 in their last 34 contests vs Notre Dame, with both wins earned by top-5 ranked Clemson teams).

Interesting, especially against the Domers. Actually, we're 6-4 in the last ten, as the Stepfan game was vacated (we all knew they cheated, anyway), and 8-4 over the last 12. Since we began the series in the late 80's we're 13-18, pretty good considering we lost seven straight during the dark times.

[BostonCard]

Goose, Stanford did draw tv eyeballs in the salad years. That’s the point: what draws is being good. This is a budget issue insofar as it relegates us to hiring minor coaches, not having the best recruiting operation money can buy, upgrading facilities at the whim of one now gone generous donor and not as a systematic institutional commitment, etc. If Luke Fickell or Matt Rhule were our coach, the recruiting budget was twice its size, we had the latest in facilities each year, etc. we’d have a better shot at winning and of being seen as rainmakers. Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain. But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

There's an element of The Green Lantern Theory as applied to collegiate sports (paraphrasing from Brendan Nyhan): the belief that Stanford can achieve any athletic objective if only it tries hard enough or uses the right tactics.  The problem is that college football is a zero sum game (for every win, there must be a team that loses), and fans of literally every other team subscribe to the same theory, that if only their administration was willing to shell out enough money or hire the right coach that it should be amongst the dominant powers in the sport.

Stanford dominates in non-revenue sports because athletes know that they are unlikely to be able to make a career in the sport and thus even the best athletes are open to the idea of leveraging their athletic prowess into a degree that will, in the long run, unlock doors that their athletic success doesn't.  In sports where the very best hope to make a professional team, that line of thinking caries a lot less weight for the very best of athletes, so Stanford's point of differentiation is largely moot.  In addition, we found a successful niche by valuing under-appreciated sports, for example, investing early in women's sports, and keeping sports such as men's gymnastics that few other schools field teams for.  The niche strategy brings athletic success broadly, but we see how much other conferences (channeling their TV sponsor) value it.  If Texas' poaching of the UCLA beach coach, LSU building a national champion women's basketball program through a combination of poaching Kim Mulkey from Baylor and then assembling a team of free agents, or Nebraska selling out its football stadium for a women's volleyball match, it will be harder to sustain the success going forward.

Moreover, even under the apex of our success, the "vibes" in revenue sports will never match those at other schools: there was never, for example, a Montgomery-ville at the peak of our basketball success, and while relative to our recent trough, Stanford stadium appeared to rock in the early 2010's, the excitement pales in comparison to even a mid-level SEC team going through a rough patch.  Yeah, our recent implosion didn't help, but at the end of the day, Fox (who was de facto calling the shots for the Big Ten) is competing with ESPN, and Stanford delivered neither a major media market like LA, nor delivered the excitement to convince casual fans that Stanford was anywhere near synonymous with Big Time football (like Oregon) and that for that reason, you should tune in to watch Fox Sports Big Ten broadcasts over ESPN's SEC broadcasts.  No amount of "institutional commitment" beyond being just a solidly mediocre program fixes that. Moreover, the causal arrow works both ways; while institutional commitment might buy is some more success and more fan excitement, there's a limit to that, and at the end of the day, the institutional commitment reflects the fanbase's demands, and this board is a very unrepresentative selection of Stanford fans.

We may get an invite to the ACC, and that might convince us that we are still relevant, but I think that only keeps things going until the next round of conference realignment.  I think the eventual outcome is going to be a 20-40 team super-conference along the lines of what is suggested in this Athletic article: https://theathletic.com/4776402/2023/08/...er-league/ and whether this round or the next or the one after that, at some point the consolidation will leave Stanford without a seat.  I'm at peace with that.  Things change; the Ivy League was the center of the football universe a century ago; Chicago dropped football in the 30's and left the Big Ten in the 40's.  I think it is probably time to think about life after big time athletics for Stanford as well.

BC

[BostonCard]

Goose, Stanford did draw tv eyeballs in the salad years. That’s the point: what draws is being good. This is a budget issue insofar as it relegates us to hiring minor coaches, not having the best recruiting operation money can buy, upgrading facilities at the whim of one now gone generous donor and not as a systematic institutional commitment, etc. If Luke Fickell or Matt Rhule were our coach, the recruiting budget was twice its size, we had the latest in facilities each year, etc. we’d have a better shot at winning and of being seen as rainmakers. Yes, structural and demographic impediments would remain. But we don’t commit beyond being just a solidly mediocre program and that has consequences.

There's an element of The Green Lantern Theory as applied to collegiate sports (paraphrasing from Brendan Nyhan): the belief that Stanford can achieve any athletic objective if only it tries hard enough or uses the right tactics.  The problem is that college football is a zero sum game (for every win, there must be a team that loses), and fans of literally every other team subscribe to the same theory, that if only their administration was willing to shell out enough money or hire the right coach that it should be amongst the dominant powers in the sport.

Stanford dominates in non-revenue sports because athletes know that they are unlikely to be able to make a career in the sport and thus even the best athletes are open to the idea of leveraging their athletic prowess into a degree that will, in the long run, unlock doors that their athletic success doesn't.  In sports where the very best hope to make a professional team, that line of thinking caries a lot less weight for the very best of athletes, so Stanford's point of differentiation is largely moot.  In addition, we found a successful niche by valuing under-appreciated sports, for example, investing early in women's sports, and keeping sports such as men's gymnastics that few other schools field teams for.  The niche strategy brings athletic success broadly, but we see how much other conferences (channeling their TV sponsor) value it.  If Texas' poaching of the UCLA beach coach, LSU building a national champion women's basketball program through a combination of poaching Kim Mulkey from Baylor and then assembling a team of free agents, or Nebraska selling out its football stadium for a women's volleyball match, it will be harder to sustain the success going forward.

Moreover, even under the apex of our success, the "vibes" in revenue sports will never match those at other schools: there was never, for example, a Montgomery-ville at the peak of our basketball success, and while relative to our recent trough, Stanford stadium appeared to rock in the early 2010's, the excitement pales in comparison to even a mid-level SEC team going through a rough patch.  Yeah, our recent implosion didn't help, but at the end of the day, Fox (who was de facto calling the shots for the Big Ten) is competing with ESPN, and Stanford delivered neither a major media market like LA, nor delivered the excitement to convince casual fans that Stanford was anywhere near synonymous with Big Time football (like Oregon) and that for that reason, you should tune in to watch Fox Sports Big Ten broadcasts over ESPN's SEC broadcasts.  No amount of "institutional commitment" beyond being just a solidly mediocre program fixes that. Moreover, the causal arrow works both ways; while institutional commitment might buy is some more success and more fan excitement, there's a limit to that, and at the end of the day, the institutional commitment reflects the fanbase's demands, and this board is a very unrepresentative selection of Stanford fans.

We may get an invite to the ACC, and that might convince us that we are still relevant, but I think that only keeps things going until the next round of conference realignment.  I think the eventual outcome is going to be a 20-40 team super-conference along the lines of what is suggested in this Athletic article: https://theathletic.com/4776402/2023/08/...er-league/ and whether this round or the next or the one after that, at some point the consolidation will leave Stanford without a seat.  I'm at peace with that.  Things change; the Ivy League was the center of the football universe a century ago; Chicago dropped football in the 30's and left the Big Ten in the 40's.  I think it is probably time to think about life after big time athletics for Stanford as well.

BC

[Solo77]

Moreover, even under the apex of our success, the "vibes" in revenue sports will never match those at other schools: there was never, for example, a Montgomery-ville at the peak of our basketball success, and while relative to our recent trough, Stanford stadium appeared to rock in the early 2010's, the excitement pales in comparison to even a mid-level SEC team going through a rough patch.  

Well, as someone who slept out in front of Maples with dorm mates to get student season tickets for 98-99, and slept out to get a good seat to see visiting UConn that same year, i'd say we had a Montgomery-ville for a few years at our peak.

[Solo77]

Moreover, even under the apex of our success, the "vibes" in revenue sports will never match those at other schools: there was never, for example, a Montgomery-ville at the peak of our basketball success, and while relative to our recent trough, Stanford stadium appeared to rock in the early 2010's, the excitement pales in comparison to even a mid-level SEC team going through a rough patch.  

Well, as someone who slept out in front of Maples with dorm mates to get student season tickets for 98-99, and slept out to get a good seat to see visiting UConn that same year, i'd say we had a Montgomery-ville for a few years at our peak.

[Canalejas]

Moreover, even under the apex of our success, the "vibes" in revenue sports will never match those at other schools: there was never, for example, a Montgomery-ville at the peak of our basketball success, and while relative to our recent trough, Stanford stadium appeared to rock in the early 2010's, the excitement pales in comparison to even a mid-level SEC team going through a rough patch.  

Well, as someone who slept out in front of Maples with dorm mates to get student season tickets for 98-99, and slept out to get a good seat to see visiting UConn that same year, i'd say we had a Montgomery-ville for a few years at our peak.

Those Sixth Man Club t-shirts were some of the most popular shirts around, even into the early 2000s.

[Canalejas]

Moreover, even under the apex of our success, the "vibes" in revenue sports will never match those at other schools: there was never, for example, a Montgomery-ville at the peak of our basketball success, and while relative to our recent trough, Stanford stadium appeared to rock in the early 2010's, the excitement pales in comparison to even a mid-level SEC team going through a rough patch.  

Well, as someone who slept out in front of Maples with dorm mates to get student season tickets for 98-99, and slept out to get a good seat to see visiting UConn that same year, i'd say we had a Montgomery-ville for a few years at our peak.

Those Sixth Man Club t-shirts were some of the most popular shirts around, even into the early 2000s.

[Mick]

Stanford dominates in non-revenue sports because athletes know that they are unlikely to be able to make a career in the sport and thus even the best athletes are open to the idea of leveraging their athletic prowess into a degree that will, in the long run, unlock doors that their athletic success doesn't.  In sports where the very best hope to make a professional team, that line of thinking caries a lot less weight for the very best of athletes, so Stanford's point of differentiation is largely moot.  In addition, we found a successful niche by valuing under-appreciated sports, for example, investing early in women's sports, and keeping sports such as men's gymnastics that few other schools field teams for.  The niche strategy brings athletic success broadly, but we see how much other conferences (channeling their TV sponsor) value it.  If Texas' poaching of the UCLA beach coach, LSU building a national champion women's basketball program through a combination of poaching Kim Mulkey from Baylor and then assembling a team of free agents, or Nebraska selling out its football stadium for a women's volleyball match, it will be harder to sustain the success going forward.

If that's true, does Stanford need to be part of a Power 5 conference to attract Olympic level athletes? Given that statement, wouldn't they come to Stanford for the coaching, the education, the degree, the overall environment...the 40 year decision? 

We may get an invite to the ACC, and that might convince us that we are still relevant, but I think that only keeps things going until the next round of conference realignment.  I think the eventual outcome is going to be a 20-40 team super-conference along the lines of what is suggested in this Athletic article: https://theathletic.com/4776402/2023/08/...er-league/ and whether this round or the next or the one after that, at some point the consolidation will leave Stanford without a seat.  I'm at peace with that.  Things change; the Ivy League was the center of the football universe a century ago; Chicago dropped football in the 30's and left the Big Ten in the 40's.  I think it is probably time to think about life after big time athletics for Stanford as well.
BC

Agreed...and frankly, I'd rather it be sooner rather than later. I don't want it to turn into a long twilight version of collegiate sports where we fade into irrelevance. If Stanford is going to turn its collective back on well over a century of athletic and Olympic and NFL/MLB/NBA/tennis/golf/track/other and NCAA championship success and succumb to non-sporting interests and crumble into a non-sports technical school, I'd just as soon get it over with.

[Mick]

Stanford dominates in non-revenue sports because athletes know that they are unlikely to be able to make a career in the sport and thus even the best athletes are open to the idea of leveraging their athletic prowess into a degree that will, in the long run, unlock doors that their athletic success doesn't.  In sports where the very best hope to make a professional team, that line of thinking caries a lot less weight for the very best of athletes, so Stanford's point of differentiation is largely moot.  In addition, we found a successful niche by valuing under-appreciated sports, for example, investing early in women's sports, and keeping sports such as men's gymnastics that few other schools field teams for.  The niche strategy brings athletic success broadly, but we see how much other conferences (channeling their TV sponsor) value it.  If Texas' poaching of the UCLA beach coach, LSU building a national champion women's basketball program through a combination of poaching Kim Mulkey from Baylor and then assembling a team of free agents, or Nebraska selling out its football stadium for a women's volleyball match, it will be harder to sustain the success going forward.

If that's true, does Stanford need to be part of a Power 5 conference to attract Olympic level athletes? Given that statement, wouldn't they come to Stanford for the coaching, the education, the degree, the overall environment...the 40 year decision? 

We may get an invite to the ACC, and that might convince us that we are still relevant, but I think that only keeps things going until the next round of conference realignment.  I think the eventual outcome is going to be a 20-40 team super-conference along the lines of what is suggested in this Athletic article: https://theathletic.com/4776402/2023/08/...er-league/ and whether this round or the next or the one after that, at some point the consolidation will leave Stanford without a seat.  I'm at peace with that.  Things change; the Ivy League was the center of the football universe a century ago; Chicago dropped football in the 30's and left the Big Ten in the 40's.  I think it is probably time to think about life after big time athletics for Stanford as well.
BC

Agreed...and frankly, I'd rather it be sooner rather than later. I don't want it to turn into a long twilight version of collegiate sports where we fade into irrelevance. If Stanford is going to turn its collective back on well over a century of athletic and Olympic and NFL/MLB/NBA/tennis/golf/track/other and NCAA championship success and succumb to non-sporting interests and crumble into a non-sports technical school, I'd just as soon get it over with.

[grendalor]

We may get an invite to the ACC, and that might convince us that we are still relevant, but I think that only keeps things going until the next round of conference realignment.  I think the eventual outcome is going to be a 20-40 team super-conference along the lines of what is suggested in this Athletic article: https://theathletic.com/4776402/2023/08/...er-league/ and whether this round or the next or the one after that, at some point the consolidation will leave Stanford without a seat.  I'm at peace with that.  Things change; the Ivy League was the center of the football universe a century ago; Chicago dropped football in the 30's and left the Big Ten in the 40's.  I think it is probably time to think about life after big time athletics for Stanford as well.

BC

It's the ultimate question, and I kind of agree that what we are seeing now is not the final iteration of "realignment", but that we are heading towards a super-league, probably with regional divisions, which will facilitate a playoff from that super-league.  And that it's very unlikely Stanford would make the cut for that kind of league.  However, given that this is not where we are right now, and that the future is ultimately uncertain, and that there is always going to be a bias for not deciding to head off into the sunset a la UofC, it seems likely to me that we will focus on some way to kick the can for the time being as the most "prudent" thing to do under the circumstances.  Which would also happen to match the institution's general modus operandi.

I generally agree, by the way, with the argument from demographics and culture.  It doesn't have that much to do with Stanford students/alumni having other interests than sports -- that's also the case for most alums from Michigan, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, etc.  The difference is (1) a much larger number (so the fanatical percentage is a much larger absolute number of people) and (2) the institutional culture, which tends to sweep up into it people who have modest interest in a more fulsome way.  That is, modestly interested Michigan fans will still show up to games, because it's what you do in the Fall, especially against certain opponents (even before the recent renaissance of success), and most of those people are not die hard sports fanatics, they are just average alums and locals who are swept up into the culture created and sustained by the core who are fanatics, which is a small percentage of a much bigger number, and therefore more able to create that attractive culture that others get swept up into.  

We have none of that, across the board -- our numbers are small (and will always remain so), and our overall culture is the opposite, and tends toward maintaining a blase detachment, ironic or otherwise.  This was good enough when we were kind of an academic jewel in the Pac's crown, and our schtick worked -- we could be substantively successful on the field regardless of our demographic and cultural challenges, because we have belonged to this conference since time immemorial at this point and we were a part of the furniture (and a valued one, for other reasons).  When you shift the lens from that one to a more bottom line, national, TV-driven lens, that approach doesn't work very well, and we are seeing the results of that now.  We ought to have managed our way better than we have done, there is no doubt of that, and we likely would have been significantly less worse off than we are now had we done so, but there are limits nonetheless, and they are limits we will always face.

Vanderbilt and NU are living the Stanford life right now, ensconced in their respective citadel conferences.  And good for them ... for now.  If things move to a super-league, though ... well, we will not be the only ones sitting in the boat we are currently in, methinks.

[grendalor]

We may get an invite to the ACC, and that might convince us that we are still relevant, but I think that only keeps things going until the next round of conference realignment.  I think the eventual outcome is going to be a 20-40 team super-conference along the lines of what is suggested in this Athletic article: https://theathletic.com/4776402/2023/08/...er-league/ and whether this round or the next or the one after that, at some point the consolidation will leave Stanford without a seat.  I'm at peace with that.  Things change; the Ivy League was the center of the football universe a century ago; Chicago dropped football in the 30's and left the Big Ten in the 40's.  I think it is probably time to think about life after big time athletics for Stanford as well.

BC

It's the ultimate question, and I kind of agree that what we are seeing now is not the final iteration of "realignment", but that we are heading towards a super-league, probably with regional divisions, which will facilitate a playoff from that super-league.  And that it's very unlikely Stanford would make the cut for that kind of league.  However, given that this is not where we are right now, and that the future is ultimately uncertain, and that there is always going to be a bias for not deciding to head off into the sunset a la UofC, it seems likely to me that we will focus on some way to kick the can for the time being as the most "prudent" thing to do under the circumstances.  Which would also happen to match the institution's general modus operandi.

I generally agree, by the way, with the argument from demographics and culture.  It doesn't have that much to do with Stanford students/alumni having other interests than sports -- that's also the case for most alums from Michigan, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, etc.  The difference is (1) a much larger number (so the fanatical percentage is a much larger absolute number of people) and (2) the institutional culture, which tends to sweep up into it people who have modest interest in a more fulsome way.  That is, modestly interested Michigan fans will still show up to games, because it's what you do in the Fall, especially against certain opponents (even before the recent renaissance of success), and most of those people are not die hard sports fanatics, they are just average alums and locals who are swept up into the culture created and sustained by the core who are fanatics, which is a small percentage of a much bigger number, and therefore more able to create that attractive culture that others get swept up into.  

We have none of that, across the board -- our numbers are small (and will always remain so), and our overall culture is the opposite, and tends toward maintaining a blase detachment, ironic or otherwise.  This was good enough when we were kind of an academic jewel in the Pac's crown, and our schtick worked -- we could be substantively successful on the field regardless of our demographic and cultural challenges, because we have belonged to this conference since time immemorial at this point and we were a part of the furniture (and a valued one, for other reasons).  When you shift the lens from that one to a more bottom line, national, TV-driven lens, that approach doesn't work very well, and we are seeing the results of that now.  We ought to have managed our way better than we have done, there is no doubt of that, and we likely would have been significantly less worse off than we are now had we done so, but there are limits nonetheless, and they are limits we will always face.

Vanderbilt and NU are living the Stanford life right now, ensconced in their respective citadel conferences.  And good for them ... for now.  If things move to a super-league, though ... well, we will not be the only ones sitting in the boat we are currently in, methinks.

[OCcardinal]

Vanderbilt and NU are living the Stanford life right now, ensconced in their respective citadel conferences.  And good for them ... for now.  If things move to a super-league, though ... well, we will not be the only ones sitting in the boat we are currently in, methinks.

Vanderbilt hasn't had a winning season since 2013.

[OCcardinal]

Vanderbilt and NU are living the Stanford life right now, ensconced in their respective citadel conferences.  And good for them ... for now.  If things move to a super-league, though ... well, we will not be the only ones sitting in the boat we are currently in, methinks.

Vanderbilt hasn't had a winning season since 2013.

[msqueri]

There's some logic to comparing Stanford to Northwestern or Vanderbilt or Duke because of academics, but I don't think history bears out that they're comparable programs. We're in the Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, BYU, Nebraska (oh the irony) ballpark. If conference realignment is going where many here and I suspect in terms of a super league, our prospects are more with that latter set of schools than the Rutgers or Cals or academic schools people talk about (unless we decide to opt out). Ultimately, I think it will depend a lot on what the model of college football looks like, the number of teams in a super league, what happens to Stanford in the interim along multiple dimensions (e.g., if we don't find a home now maybe our exit gets accelerated), etc. If the top echelon of college football gets set at 40 schools, Stanford absolutely can be in that group.

[msqueri]

There's some logic to comparing Stanford to Northwestern or Vanderbilt or Duke because of academics, but I don't think history bears out that they're comparable programs. We're in the Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, BYU, Nebraska (oh the irony) ballpark. If conference realignment is going where many here and I suspect in terms of a super league, our prospects are more with that latter set of schools than the Rutgers or Cals or academic schools people talk about (unless we decide to opt out). Ultimately, I think it will depend a lot on what the model of college football looks like, the number of teams in a super league, what happens to Stanford in the interim along multiple dimensions (e.g., if we don't find a home now maybe our exit gets accelerated), etc. If the top echelon of college football gets set at 40 schools, Stanford absolutely can be in that group.