[StanUSwagU]

No, I don’t think that there is a bias for Olympic sports; I think the makeup of “country club” sports is different than the revenue sports, for a few reasons.  First and foremost, most of the non-revenue sports have a much weaker path to a professional career, especially for collegiate athletes.  For football the NFL draft selects almost exclusively from collegiate athletes; the NBA draft selects mostly from collegiate athletes plus some foreign players.  Thus, for many players, football and basketball is a means to an end (playing professionally).  The value of a Stanford education is not clear under those circumstances.  Most other sports don’t require college, so those who most value playing professionally will skip college athletics entirely.  Moreover, for many country club athletes, the athletics is a means to get into a prestigious education.  Many of those athletes go into sports in order to improve their chances at getting into Stanford, not vice versa.  Finally, for better or worse, the demographics of who plays certain sports is different, and sports like tennis, golf, soccer, etc. tend to attract the very upper middle class demographic who most values an elite education, and who has the resources to improve their chances of getting it (stuff like tutoring, college counselors, etc.). Now that latter one might be a good reason to “bend” admissions further for sports like football, but it does explain why it is easier to admit elite volleyball and tennis players than it is to admit elite football players.

BC

Can't disagree with any of that, all true.  However, I'd argue it's also a convenient truth -- a neatly packaged set of arguments for maintaining a status quo that accepts well-healed kids with curated resumes and the right image, and rejects extraordinarily talented kids because they lack the same.

*************

Agree with Both of you Row80 & BostonCard,

I did not mean to imply that the admissions applications were being reviewed in an intentionally biased way, but rather that the criteria chosen for how to evaluate an applicant for admission included some marginally unimportant things, & left out other very important things, ...thus yielding or netting 'a small somewhat artificially homogeneous slice of humanity & unnecessarily missing very important relevant swaths of society, who were A+ in non-traditional ways while still being very good (B+/A-) SAT & GPA students.

(A) If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working on a farm/ranch in their free time, and they were an A+ Football Player & an A+ ranch-hand or A+ farm-hand, ....but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ? Do we have majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in farming, ag, ranching, veterinary science, etc ? [I know in the SEC & BIG10 they have some very unique majors centered around vocational training, but it doesn't seem like our Stanford University has those offerings]

(B) If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working in their father's machine-shop, and they were an A+ Football Player & an A+ lathe-operator, drill-press operator, or welder .... but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University,...would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ? Do we have majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in vocational trades like machining, welding, plumbing, etc ? [I know in the SEC & BIG10 they have some very unique majors centered around vocational training, but it doesn't seem like our Stanford University has those offerings]

-C- If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working on pop-music production or popular video/film production (eg singing, DJ-ing, rapping, music production, video/film production) ....and they were an A+ Football Player & A+ performing artist, ...but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University,...would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ? Do we have a wide selection of majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in pop-music. performance art, or contemporary music/video/film production ?


(D) Also to ponder: Is the current student body at Stanford University being deprived, by not having classmates from the above 'swaths of society' to interact with, & to be exposed to, & not having majors/instructors in these specific vocational areas ? [I have heard of Football players who are great Football Players who have B+ academic records (SAT. GPA) & want to pursue careers in music/music-production, acting/ film-production ..would they look to apply to Stanford? ...would Stanford admit them? ...or would they potentially go to USC (a great film school) or Vanderbilt (great country music production school)?]

(E) Now that we are in the ACC, and the ACC has a 'large Southern footprint' .(and because there is a large Migration from the North & West into the South)..I think we have to broaden our offerings for Majors, and 'what criteria we emphasize for admission, for the worlds next generation of Great Impactful Well Rounded Stanford Student-Servant-Leaders....lest we 'miss out in recruting student-athletes from that Southern ACC footprint' & 'lest we produce a generation of very narrow-focused professional nerds, making Better Mouse-traps, creating new Speculative Financial Derivatives, but with very little grass-roots "Doris Kearns Goodwin/ Habitat for Humanity JimmyCarter / JackieRobinson ...real world impact".

[StanUSwagU]

No, I don’t think that there is a bias for Olympic sports; I think the makeup of “country club” sports is different than the revenue sports, for a few reasons.  First and foremost, most of the non-revenue sports have a much weaker path to a professional career, especially for collegiate athletes.  For football the NFL draft selects almost exclusively from collegiate athletes; the NBA draft selects mostly from collegiate athletes plus some foreign players.  Thus, for many players, football and basketball is a means to an end (playing professionally).  The value of a Stanford education is not clear under those circumstances.  Most other sports don’t require college, so those who most value playing professionally will skip college athletics entirely.  Moreover, for many country club athletes, the athletics is a means to get into a prestigious education.  Many of those athletes go into sports in order to improve their chances at getting into Stanford, not vice versa.  Finally, for better or worse, the demographics of who plays certain sports is different, and sports like tennis, golf, soccer, etc. tend to attract the very upper middle class demographic who most values an elite education, and who has the resources to improve their chances of getting it (stuff like tutoring, college counselors, etc.). Now that latter one might be a good reason to “bend” admissions further for sports like football, but it does explain why it is easier to admit elite volleyball and tennis players than it is to admit elite football players.

BC

Can't disagree with any of that, all true.  However, I'd argue it's also a convenient truth -- a neatly packaged set of arguments for maintaining a status quo that accepts well-healed kids with curated resumes and the right image, and rejects extraordinarily talented kids because they lack the same.

*************

Agree with Both of you Row80 & BostonCard,

I did not mean to imply that the admissions applications were being reviewed in an intentionally biased way, but rather that the criteria chosen for how to evaluate an applicant for admission included some marginally unimportant things, & left out other very important things, ...thus yielding or netting 'a small somewhat artificially homogeneous slice of humanity & unnecessarily missing very important relevant swaths of society, who were A+ in non-traditional ways while still being very good (B+/A-) SAT & GPA students.

(A) If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working on a farm/ranch in their free time, and they were an A+ Football Player & an A+ ranch-hand or A+ farm-hand, ....but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ? Do we have majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in farming, ag, ranching, veterinary science, etc ? [I know in the SEC & BIG10 they have some very unique majors centered around vocational training, but it doesn't seem like our Stanford University has those offerings]

(B) If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working in their father's machine-shop, and they were an A+ Football Player & an A+ lathe-operator, drill-press operator, or welder .... but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University,...would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ? Do we have majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in vocational trades like machining, welding, plumbing, etc ? [I know in the SEC & BIG10 they have some very unique majors centered around vocational training, but it doesn't seem like our Stanford University has those offerings]

-C- If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working on pop-music production or popular video/film production (eg singing, DJ-ing, rapping, music production, video/film production) ....and they were an A+ Football Player & A+ performing artist, ...but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University,...would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ? Do we have a wide selection of majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in pop-music. performance art, or contemporary music/video/film production ?


(D) Also to ponder: Is the current student body at Stanford University being deprived, by not having classmates from the above 'swaths of society' to interact with, & to be exposed to, & not having majors/instructors in these specific vocational areas ? [I have heard of Football players who are great Football Players who have B+ academic records (SAT. GPA) & want to pursue careers in music/music-production, acting/ film-production ..would they look to apply to Stanford? ...would Stanford admit them? ...or would they potentially go to USC (a great film school) or Vanderbilt (great country music production school)?]

(E) Now that we are in the ACC, and the ACC has a 'large Southern footprint' .(and because there is a large Migration from the North & West into the South)..I think we have to broaden our offerings for Majors, and 'what criteria we emphasize for admission, for the worlds next generation of Great Impactful Well Rounded Stanford Student-Servant-Leaders....lest we 'miss out in recruting student-athletes from that Southern ACC footprint' & 'lest we produce a generation of very narrow-focused professional nerds, making Better Mouse-traps, creating new Speculative Financial Derivatives, but with very little grass-roots "Doris Kearns Goodwin/ Habitat for Humanity JimmyCarter / JackieRobinson ...real world impact".

[StanfordMatt]

A couple quick thoughts…

1) Anyone who witnessed Muir’s handling of Haase cannot reasonably expect him to pull the trigger on Taylor after two years.
 
2) Army and Navy are a combined 13-0 and both ranked in the top 25. I’d argue that the current landscape of NIL and the portal makes life much more difficult for them than it does Stanford.

[StanfordMatt]

A couple quick thoughts…

1) Anyone who witnessed Muir’s handling of Haase cannot reasonably expect him to pull the trigger on Taylor after two years.
 
2) Army and Navy are a combined 13-0 and both ranked in the top 25. I’d argue that the current landscape of NIL and the portal makes life much more difficult for them than it does Stanford.

[qwerty49]

No, I don’t think that there is a bias for Olympic sports; I think the makeup of “country club” sports is different than the revenue sports, for a few reasons.  First and foremost, most of the non-revenue sports have a much weaker path to a professional career, especially for collegiate athletes.  For football the NFL draft selects almost exclusively from collegiate athletes; the NBA draft selects mostly from collegiate athletes plus some foreign players.  Thus, for many players, football and basketball is a means to an end (playing professionally).  The value of a Stanford education is not clear under those circumstances.  Most other sports don’t require college, so those who most value playing professionally will skip college athletics entirely.  Moreover, for many country club athletes, the athletics is a means to get into a prestigious education.  Many of those athletes go into sports in order to improve their chances at getting into Stanford, not vice versa.  Finally, for better or worse, the demographics of who plays certain sports is different, and sports like tennis, golf, soccer, etc. tend to attract the very upper middle class demographic who most values an elite education, and who has the resources to improve their chances of getting it (stuff like tutoring, college counselors, etc.). Now that latter one might be a good reason to “bend” admissions further for sports like football, but it does explain why it is easier to admit elite volleyball and tennis players than it is to admit elite football players.

BC

Can't disagree with any of that, all true.  However, I'd argue it's also a convenient truth -- a neatly packaged set of arguments for maintaining a status quo that accepts well-healed kids with curated resumes and the right image, and rejects extraordinarily talented kids because they lack the same.

*************

Agree with Both of you Row80 & BostonCard,

I did not mean to imply that the admissions applications were being reviewed in an intentionally biased way, but rather that the criteria chosen for how to evaluate an applicant for admission included some marginally unimportant things, & left out other very important things, ...thus yielding or netting 'a small somewhat artificially homogeneous slice of humanity & unnecessarily missing very important relevant swaths of society, who were A+ in non-traditional ways while still being very good (B+/A-) SAT & GPA students.

(A) If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working on a farm/ranch in their free time, and they were an A+ Football Player & an A+ ranch-hand or A+ farm-hand, ....but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ?  Do we have majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in farming, ag, ranching, veterinary science, etc ?  [I know in the SEC & BIG10 they have some very unique majors centered around vocational training, but it doesn't seem like our Stanford University has those offerings]

(B) If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working in their father's machine-shop, and they were an A+ Football Player & an A+ lathe-operator, drill-press operator, or welder .... but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University,...would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ?  Do we have majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in vocational trades like machining, welding, plumbing, etc ?  [I know in the SEC & BIG10 they have some very unique majors centered around vocational training, but it doesn't seem like our Stanford University has those offerings]

-C- If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working on pop-music production or popular video/film production (eg singing, DJ-ing, rapping, music production, video/film production) ....and they were an A+ Football Player & A+ performing artist, ...but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University,...would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ?  Do we have a wide selection of majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in pop-music. performance art,  or contemporary music/video/film production ?


(D) Also to ponder: Is the current student body at Stanford University being deprived, by not having classmates from the above 'swaths of society' to interact with, & to be exposed to, & not having majors/instructors in these  specific vocational areas ?  [I have heard of Football players who are great Football Players who have B+ academic records (SAT. GPA) & want to pursue careers in music/music-production, acting/ film-production ..would they look to apply to Stanford? ...would Stanford admit them? ...or would they potentially go to USC (a great film school) or Vanderbilt (great country music production school)?]

(E) Now that we are in the ACC, and the ACC has a 'large  Southern footprint' .(and because there is a large Migration from the North & West into the South)..I think we have to broaden our offerings for Majors, and 'what criteria we emphasize for admission, for the worlds next generation of Great Impactful Well Rounded Stanford Student-Servant-Leaders....lest we 'miss out in recruting student-athletes from that Southern ACC footprint' & 'lest we produce a generation of very narrow-focused professional nerds, making Better Mouse-traps, creating new Speculative Financial Derivatives, but with very little grass-roots  "Doris Kearns Goodwin/ Habitat for Humanity JimmyCarter / JackieRobinson ...real world impact".

A very thought-provoking post.  I think it kind of speaks for itself.  Just a few thoughts to add:

Leaving football aside, and speaking only of students in general, why would someone who wants to learn state-of-the-art in film production go to Stanford when he/she could probably get a better head start at USC film school?  And why would someone who wants to enter a vocational trade even bother with considering college and all the debts that mount up with it?  Are we so academically neurotic that we have to offer the best training for every possible career?  That sounds like a game of whack-a-mole and that's not good for an institution with as much egg-headed inertia as Stanford.  If we are too slow/unaware to see things like NIL and ACC on the horizon, then how can we expect our curricula to adjust to modern times adeptly?

Re your point C) and the creative and performing arts, I'm only aware of a very small sample size -- both Ted Danson and Reese Witherspoon came as frosh, and both left very quickly for greener professional pastures.  IIRC Sigourney Weaver stayed for 4 years and I think Jennifer Connelly transferred in from Yale.  None of them were athletes, but of a sample size of 4, we had a 50% retention rate. (Hmmm -- I seem to recall that both Richard Boone and Jack Palance were briefly at Stanford for a quarter or two, but that was way before my time).

One of my best friends was a starter for the football team, but he chose not to use his last year of eligibility.  He had way more fun singing and playing in a local rock band than being told by his coaches to "play through the pain."  He got his AB in English and later his Masters at our Ed School.

There's always a case for more diversity, but I don't necessarily need Stanford admissions to provide that for me.  I'm still in touch with my best grade school and high school friends, and when we get together it's fun to see how many different paths we've all taken in the real world.  With 2 Stanford degrees, having lived for a decade abroad, and having tailgated off and on in Lot 2 for (gasp) 50 years, I still don't expect Stanford to be a representative slice of reality.  Whether it's a respite or an opportunity, or both -- it is what it is.

[qwerty49]

No, I don’t think that there is a bias for Olympic sports; I think the makeup of “country club” sports is different than the revenue sports, for a few reasons.  First and foremost, most of the non-revenue sports have a much weaker path to a professional career, especially for collegiate athletes.  For football the NFL draft selects almost exclusively from collegiate athletes; the NBA draft selects mostly from collegiate athletes plus some foreign players.  Thus, for many players, football and basketball is a means to an end (playing professionally).  The value of a Stanford education is not clear under those circumstances.  Most other sports don’t require college, so those who most value playing professionally will skip college athletics entirely.  Moreover, for many country club athletes, the athletics is a means to get into a prestigious education.  Many of those athletes go into sports in order to improve their chances at getting into Stanford, not vice versa.  Finally, for better or worse, the demographics of who plays certain sports is different, and sports like tennis, golf, soccer, etc. tend to attract the very upper middle class demographic who most values an elite education, and who has the resources to improve their chances of getting it (stuff like tutoring, college counselors, etc.). Now that latter one might be a good reason to “bend” admissions further for sports like football, but it does explain why it is easier to admit elite volleyball and tennis players than it is to admit elite football players.

BC

Can't disagree with any of that, all true.  However, I'd argue it's also a convenient truth -- a neatly packaged set of arguments for maintaining a status quo that accepts well-healed kids with curated resumes and the right image, and rejects extraordinarily talented kids because they lack the same.

*************

Agree with Both of you Row80 & BostonCard,

I did not mean to imply that the admissions applications were being reviewed in an intentionally biased way, but rather that the criteria chosen for how to evaluate an applicant for admission included some marginally unimportant things, & left out other very important things, ...thus yielding or netting 'a small somewhat artificially homogeneous slice of humanity & unnecessarily missing very important relevant swaths of society, who were A+ in non-traditional ways while still being very good (B+/A-) SAT & GPA students.

(A) If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working on a farm/ranch in their free time, and they were an A+ Football Player & an A+ ranch-hand or A+ farm-hand, ....but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ?  Do we have majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in farming, ag, ranching, veterinary science, etc ?  [I know in the SEC & BIG10 they have some very unique majors centered around vocational training, but it doesn't seem like our Stanford University has those offerings]

(B) If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working in their father's machine-shop, and they were an A+ Football Player & an A+ lathe-operator, drill-press operator, or welder .... but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University,...would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ?  Do we have majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in vocational trades like machining, welding, plumbing, etc ?  [I know in the SEC & BIG10 they have some very unique majors centered around vocational training, but it doesn't seem like our Stanford University has those offerings]

-C- If for example, a young high-school person spent a large part of their high-school career playing football & working on pop-music production or popular video/film production (eg singing, DJ-ing, rapping, music production, video/film production) ....and they were an A+ Football Player & A+ performing artist, ...but a B+ Student relative to SAT & GPA, ...and they wanted to Attend & Play Football for Stanford University,...would they get admitted to Stanford under our present Admissions/Transfer criteria ?  Do we have a wide selection of majors for people who are specifically skilled and interested in pop-music. performance art,  or contemporary music/video/film production ?


(D) Also to ponder: Is the current student body at Stanford University being deprived, by not having classmates from the above 'swaths of society' to interact with, & to be exposed to, & not having majors/instructors in these  specific vocational areas ?  [I have heard of Football players who are great Football Players who have B+ academic records (SAT. GPA) & want to pursue careers in music/music-production, acting/ film-production ..would they look to apply to Stanford? ...would Stanford admit them? ...or would they potentially go to USC (a great film school) or Vanderbilt (great country music production school)?]

(E) Now that we are in the ACC, and the ACC has a 'large  Southern footprint' .(and because there is a large Migration from the North & West into the South)..I think we have to broaden our offerings for Majors, and 'what criteria we emphasize for admission, for the worlds next generation of Great Impactful Well Rounded Stanford Student-Servant-Leaders....lest we 'miss out in recruting student-athletes from that Southern ACC footprint' & 'lest we produce a generation of very narrow-focused professional nerds, making Better Mouse-traps, creating new Speculative Financial Derivatives, but with very little grass-roots  "Doris Kearns Goodwin/ Habitat for Humanity JimmyCarter / JackieRobinson ...real world impact".

A very thought-provoking post.  I think it kind of speaks for itself.  Just a few thoughts to add:

Leaving football aside, and speaking only of students in general, why would someone who wants to learn state-of-the-art in film production go to Stanford when he/she could probably get a better head start at USC film school?  And why would someone who wants to enter a vocational trade even bother with considering college and all the debts that mount up with it?  Are we so academically neurotic that we have to offer the best training for every possible career?  That sounds like a game of whack-a-mole and that's not good for an institution with as much egg-headed inertia as Stanford.  If we are too slow/unaware to see things like NIL and ACC on the horizon, then how can we expect our curricula to adjust to modern times adeptly?

Re your point C) and the creative and performing arts, I'm only aware of a very small sample size -- both Ted Danson and Reese Witherspoon came as frosh, and both left very quickly for greener professional pastures.  IIRC Sigourney Weaver stayed for 4 years and I think Jennifer Connelly transferred in from Yale.  None of them were athletes, but of a sample size of 4, we had a 50% retention rate. (Hmmm -- I seem to recall that both Richard Boone and Jack Palance were briefly at Stanford for a quarter or two, but that was way before my time).

One of my best friends was a starter for the football team, but he chose not to use his last year of eligibility.  He had way more fun singing and playing in a local rock band than being told by his coaches to "play through the pain."  He got his AB in English and later his Masters at our Ed School.

There's always a case for more diversity, but I don't necessarily need Stanford admissions to provide that for me.  I'm still in touch with my best grade school and high school friends, and when we get together it's fun to see how many different paths we've all taken in the real world.  With 2 Stanford degrees, having lived for a decade abroad, and having tailgated off and on in Lot 2 for (gasp) 50 years, I still don't expect Stanford to be a representative slice of reality.  Whether it's a respite or an opportunity, or both -- it is what it is.

[GK3]

This is rather difficult.

I think Stanford is in a real tough spot.   There honestly is no way top flight coaches will take a Stanford opening with or without a salary in the top 10-20 range because of the portal and NIL constraints.   At most places a new coach will lose a bunch of players to the portal but will immediately be able to shop in the portal for players that will work for them and their system.   At Stanford it will be a multi-year process where attrition goes unaddressed for at least a year, if not two.  

The transfer portal is simply not going to work for Stanford.   Even if Stanford becomes more lenient and pledges to take 10-20 players every year, the players would still need to apply and wait for admissions decisions.   But most players in the portal are expecting to get viable offers for new squad in days, if not hours.   And the best are likely looking for firm NIL terms in those initial 24 hours too.  Given that Stanford can't properly participate in those important areas it will be so hard to get a good coach and almost impossible to keep a successful coach.

Since Stanford is not going to be a top choice for top coaches I can't imagine firing a coach after only 2 seasons will do anything to improve the chances of landing strong coaches.    So I believe Muir willl stay with TT course for at least 4 full seasons no matter how poorly the team is playing.

Doubts?   See Haase's tenure.

Very Well said. If TT had been able to win six games with this squad, he should have gone directly to the hall of fame. He may or may not be a great coach but you can’t tell until he has a lot of at least good players .  He really can’t use the portal and Stanford was asleep at the switch on NIL because “ our degree is so valuable we don’t need to do that “ 

We need to either get serious and find a way to compete (NIL , transfer portal, graduate programs, or get out. If anyone thinks this is just about football, you are still living in a lalaland  world. Just look at womens BB, Volleyball, Soccer and Softball. look at baseball and mens basketball as well.  WE ARE NOT ATTRACTING TALENT to win.

And no Virginia, finding a comfortable local league where everyone will play nice and let us win some games won’t work either. Stanford needs to either figure out what it takes to be excellent and do it or drop out of the competitive sports that everyone cares about. We wouldn’t have a half assed physics department or a no name Humanities school.. we would either be ecxcellent or not be. 

I am obviously biased; a Stanford without quality,  Big time athletics is like Harvard/Yale without the tradition. Who cares ?   But it’s a legitimate option whether it’s my choice or not .   Let’s make it and get on with it. Remaining where we are and tsk tsking other schools with successful programs is a losing strategy.

Agree completely! I am positive that there are at least 100 high school athletes across all sports who have decent GPA, can do the work at Stanford and graduate and maybe someday make our school proud.  And then be willing to approve undergrad transfers who have proved they can do the work at the school they want to transfer from.  I do not think doing this will any way hurt our brand or reputation, but might actually help it.
We had no chance of this happening under the last administration, I have hopes our new President can take a roll in making this happen.

[GK3]

This is rather difficult.

I think Stanford is in a real tough spot.   There honestly is no way top flight coaches will take a Stanford opening with or without a salary in the top 10-20 range because of the portal and NIL constraints.   At most places a new coach will lose a bunch of players to the portal but will immediately be able to shop in the portal for players that will work for them and their system.   At Stanford it will be a multi-year process where attrition goes unaddressed for at least a year, if not two.  

The transfer portal is simply not going to work for Stanford.   Even if Stanford becomes more lenient and pledges to take 10-20 players every year, the players would still need to apply and wait for admissions decisions.   But most players in the portal are expecting to get viable offers for new squad in days, if not hours.   And the best are likely looking for firm NIL terms in those initial 24 hours too.  Given that Stanford can't properly participate in those important areas it will be so hard to get a good coach and almost impossible to keep a successful coach.

Since Stanford is not going to be a top choice for top coaches I can't imagine firing a coach after only 2 seasons will do anything to improve the chances of landing strong coaches.    So I believe Muir willl stay with TT course for at least 4 full seasons no matter how poorly the team is playing.

Doubts?   See Haase's tenure.

Very Well said. If TT had been able to win six games with this squad, he should have gone directly to the hall of fame. He may or may not be a great coach but you can’t tell until he has a lot of at least good players .  He really can’t use the portal and Stanford was asleep at the switch on NIL because “ our degree is so valuable we don’t need to do that “ 

We need to either get serious and find a way to compete (NIL , transfer portal, graduate programs, or get out. If anyone thinks this is just about football, you are still living in a lalaland  world. Just look at womens BB, Volleyball, Soccer and Softball. look at baseball and mens basketball as well.  WE ARE NOT ATTRACTING TALENT to win.

And no Virginia, finding a comfortable local league where everyone will play nice and let us win some games won’t work either. Stanford needs to either figure out what it takes to be excellent and do it or drop out of the competitive sports that everyone cares about. We wouldn’t have a half assed physics department or a no name Humanities school.. we would either be ecxcellent or not be. 

I am obviously biased; a Stanford without quality,  Big time athletics is like Harvard/Yale without the tradition. Who cares ?   But it’s a legitimate option whether it’s my choice or not .   Let’s make it and get on with it. Remaining where we are and tsk tsking other schools with successful programs is a losing strategy.

Agree completely! I am positive that there are at least 100 high school athletes across all sports who have decent GPA, can do the work at Stanford and graduate and maybe someday make our school proud.  And then be willing to approve undergrad transfers who have proved they can do the work at the school they want to transfer from.  I do not think doing this will any way hurt our brand or reputation, but might actually help it.
We had no chance of this happening under the last administration, I have hopes our new President can take a roll in making this happen.

[BillBradley]

I have very fond memories of Stanford football games in the early 80's   Our football record in my 4 years on the farm was 15-29. Elway never went to a bowl game. After he left, the team went 1-10 in 1983. It was rough to watch. But the students went to the games because they were most definitely a part of campus culture. College fun abounded with kegs in the stands, girls in bikini tops, and of course the band was absolutely hilarious (IMO). I would say that of the ~100 students in my freshman dorm, well over half went to every home game. Sure it would have been great to have a top-20 program, but the football team was still a big part of the college experience for many.

Today's Stanford is a much different place. Campus parties need to be approved, the band's acts need to be approved,...much has been written about this.  I was at a game a few years back on a glorious Saturday afternoon and the level of student body participation in tailgating and pregame activities was abysmal. The band and dollies were parading around campus with maybe 20 students following them. It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"? Maybe it would be better to go all in on NIL for basketball and some of the other team sports and just let football die a miserable death.

[BillBradley]

I have very fond memories of Stanford football games in the early 80's   Our football record in my 4 years on the farm was 15-29. Elway never went to a bowl game. After he left, the team went 1-10 in 1983. It was rough to watch. But the students went to the games because they were most definitely a part of campus culture. College fun abounded with kegs in the stands, girls in bikini tops, and of course the band was absolutely hilarious (IMO). I would say that of the ~100 students in my freshman dorm, well over half went to every home game. Sure it would have been great to have a top-20 program, but the football team was still a big part of the college experience for many.

Today's Stanford is a much different place. Campus parties need to be approved, the band's acts need to be approved,...much has been written about this.  I was at a game a few years back on a glorious Saturday afternoon and the level of student body participation in tailgating and pregame activities was abysmal. The band and dollies were parading around campus with maybe 20 students following them. It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"? Maybe it would be better to go all in on NIL for basketball and some of the other team sports and just let football die a miserable death.

[cctop]

It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"?

I understand your POV.  I would say that without football simply being part of the culture like it used to be at Stanford (and still is in the SEC), attendance follows consistent winning.

A long time ago Terry2 posted data showing that teams needed to have two consecutive years of success before attendance started to rise.

We saw that in mid to late 1990s with men's basketball.  Maples was a morgue when I was an undergrad in the late 1980's. A decade later we had students camping outside of Maples before the major games. Then the crowds dissipated after we started losing.

We saw it again with Harbaugh and Shaw. We reached the point that we could sell out the stadium once or twice a year.  Probably we'd never be able to sell out the minor games, but with consistent success we'd see much better student attendance and better tailgating scene.

[cctop]

It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"?

I understand your POV.  I would say that without football simply being part of the culture like it used to be at Stanford (and still is in the SEC), attendance follows consistent winning.

A long time ago Terry2 posted data showing that teams needed to have two consecutive years of success before attendance started to rise.

We saw that in mid to late 1990s with men's basketball.  Maples was a morgue when I was an undergrad in the late 1980's. A decade later we had students camping outside of Maples before the major games. Then the crowds dissipated after we started losing.

We saw it again with Harbaugh and Shaw. We reached the point that we could sell out the stadium once or twice a year.  Probably we'd never be able to sell out the minor games, but with consistent success we'd see much better student attendance and better tailgating scene.

[BillBradley]

It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"?

I understand your POV.  I would say that without football simply being part of the culture like it used to be at Stanford (and still is in the SEC), attendance follows consistent winning.

A long time ago Terry2 posted data showing that teams needed to have two consecutive years of success before attendance started to rise.

We saw that in mid to late 1990s with men's basketball.  Maples was a morgue when I was an undergrad in the late 1980's. A decade later we had students camping outside of Maples before the major games. Then the crowds dissipated after we started losing.

We saw it again with Harbaugh and Shaw. We reached the point that we could sell out the stadium once or twice a year.  Probably we'd never be able to sell out the minor games, but with consistent success we'd see much better student attendance and better tailgating scene.

Maybe. Totally agree that consistent success can't help but increase attendance. But I question how far we would need to rise. In the late 90's our basketball team was in the Final Four and was #1 in the country for a few years. In the Luck/McAffery years we were crazy good. Just not sure we'll ever get to that point again.

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

[BillBradley]

It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"?

I understand your POV.  I would say that without football simply being part of the culture like it used to be at Stanford (and still is in the SEC), attendance follows consistent winning.

A long time ago Terry2 posted data showing that teams needed to have two consecutive years of success before attendance started to rise.

We saw that in mid to late 1990s with men's basketball.  Maples was a morgue when I was an undergrad in the late 1980's. A decade later we had students camping outside of Maples before the major games. Then the crowds dissipated after we started losing.

We saw it again with Harbaugh and Shaw. We reached the point that we could sell out the stadium once or twice a year.  Probably we'd never be able to sell out the minor games, but with consistent success we'd see much better student attendance and better tailgating scene.

Maybe. Totally agree that consistent success can't help but increase attendance. But I question how far we would need to rise. In the late 90's our basketball team was in the Final Four and was #1 in the country for a few years. In the Luck/McAffery years we were crazy good. Just not sure we'll ever get to that point again.

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

[BostonCard]

The problem is that there is a ratcheting effect.  Sure, everything was very exciting when Harbaugh took us to the Sun Bowl after 5 Bowl-less years and even more exciting the next year when we went to the Orange Bowl.  But three years later, when we went to the Rose Bowl for the second consecutive year, the level of excitement was already starting to taper off, and 5 years later when we were back in the Sun Bowl, excitement for the team was way lower than it had been ten years earlier, despite the fact that we had 10 consecutive years of winning.

If we were to significantly improve in the remaining few games and be on the way to a Bowl Game next year, there would be a lot of excitement given that we have been consistently terrible since 2019.  But fans would always want more, and if we were to be consistently good but not great (mid-tier bowl) for a while, attendance would be better than it is now, but hardly phenomenal.

BC

[BostonCard]

The problem is that there is a ratcheting effect.  Sure, everything was very exciting when Harbaugh took us to the Sun Bowl after 5 Bowl-less years and even more exciting the next year when we went to the Orange Bowl.  But three years later, when we went to the Rose Bowl for the second consecutive year, the level of excitement was already starting to taper off, and 5 years later when we were back in the Sun Bowl, excitement for the team was way lower than it had been ten years earlier, despite the fact that we had 10 consecutive years of winning.

If we were to significantly improve in the remaining few games and be on the way to a Bowl Game next year, there would be a lot of excitement given that we have been consistently terrible since 2019.  But fans would always want more, and if we were to be consistently good but not great (mid-tier bowl) for a while, attendance would be better than it is now, but hardly phenomenal.

BC

[82lsju]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

and back then (I'm class of '82 and have had season tickets since then) the games were almost all at 12:30pm/1:00pm which did not conflict with other Saturday evening activities, I'm not sure how well attended 5pm or later games would have been attended back then.  As others have pointed out being able to bring in beer was certainly a selling factor for many (it was for us)

[82lsju]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

and back then (I'm class of '82 and have had season tickets since then) the games were almost all at 12:30pm/1:00pm which did not conflict with other Saturday evening activities, I'm not sure how well attended 5pm or later games would have been attended back then.  As others have pointed out being able to bring in beer was certainly a selling factor for many (it was for us)

[cardcrimson]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

and back then (I'm class of '82 and have had season tickets since then) the games were almost all at 12:30pm/1:00pm which did not conflict with other Saturday evening activities, I'm not sure how well attended 5pm or later games would have been attended back then.  As others have pointed out being able to bring in beer was certainly a selling factor for many (it was for us)

Bikini tops and Dolfin shorts on the sunny side didn't hurt, either. Games were a culture of fun--hit a tailgate or two, take beer into the stadium, sit in the sun, listen to the band, marvel at how far Elway could throw, watch us get outscored and lose, hit a tailgate on the way out, go home, shower, go out. .. .

[cardcrimson]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

and back then (I'm class of '82 and have had season tickets since then) the games were almost all at 12:30pm/1:00pm which did not conflict with other Saturday evening activities, I'm not sure how well attended 5pm or later games would have been attended back then.  As others have pointed out being able to bring in beer was certainly a selling factor for many (it was for us)

Bikini tops and Dolfin shorts on the sunny side didn't hurt, either. Games were a culture of fun--hit a tailgate or two, take beer into the stadium, sit in the sun, listen to the band, marvel at how far Elway could throw, watch us get outscored and lose, hit a tailgate on the way out, go home, shower, go out. .. .

[jacket3ree]

I've posted ad nauseum here about wandering the stadium checking out empty sections when Stanford had Andrew Luck and a top ten ranking, or easy tickets to Big Game for a half dozen of Midshipmen, my wife and I, and empty seats with a Rose Bowl on the line. Maybe it is the Bay Area vibe, but I think all that can be hoped for is at least half full crowds for run of the mill games and mostly full crowds for big event games.  The same thing happened with Brevin Knight. When basketball success was fresh, we'd wait in line hours to be in the GA section. A few years later, the corners have space even playing UCONN right after the final four.  I guess we all bore easily.

Sure, they could jam 90,000 people into an awful stadium, but a lot of the backgrounds to old Plunkett photos are empty benches.  Palo Alto in my opinion is far nicer than both Death Valleys, the Swamp, Knoxville, Ann Arbor, State College, College Station, Tuscaloosa, or Columbus (and I've been to several of those places.) I know it is far nicer than Athens, but can they ever pack 'em in some places, and there are plenty of things to do in college football hotbeds other than sit in a stadium for four or five hours, especially in the fall. Might just be a thing.

But whether the stadium is half-empty or half-full, try to win consistently at least, right?

Yeah, I know they are trying in theory. No try. Do.

[jacket3ree]

I've posted ad nauseum here about wandering the stadium checking out empty sections when Stanford had Andrew Luck and a top ten ranking, or easy tickets to Big Game for a half dozen of Midshipmen, my wife and I, and empty seats with a Rose Bowl on the line. Maybe it is the Bay Area vibe, but I think all that can be hoped for is at least half full crowds for run of the mill games and mostly full crowds for big event games.  The same thing happened with Brevin Knight. When basketball success was fresh, we'd wait in line hours to be in the GA section. A few years later, the corners have space even playing UCONN right after the final four.  I guess we all bore easily.

Sure, they could jam 90,000 people into an awful stadium, but a lot of the backgrounds to old Plunkett photos are empty benches.  Palo Alto in my opinion is far nicer than both Death Valleys, the Swamp, Knoxville, Ann Arbor, State College, College Station, Tuscaloosa, or Columbus (and I've been to several of those places.) I know it is far nicer than Athens, but can they ever pack 'em in some places, and there are plenty of things to do in college football hotbeds other than sit in a stadium for four or five hours, especially in the fall. Might just be a thing.

But whether the stadium is half-empty or half-full, try to win consistently at least, right?

Yeah, I know they are trying in theory. No try. Do.

[Spiny_Norman]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

I was there at the same time. The student body and campus culture are very different now. Walk around campus on a Friday afternoon. How many students do you see shooting hoops, playing ultimate, throwing or kicking a ball around, hitting a tennis ball with a friend? Stanford used to admit people like me, academically-minded students who also loved sports. Probably like many of you. We created and sustained a goofy and fun Stanford style of rah-rah while we were students. We became alumni with that same Stanford spirit. 

Now the undergraduate class is closer to what you might expect to find at MIT. That has been the case for a generation of Stanford students. I don't think that Admissions values as much being an all-around student that includes sports so the class is substantially made up of people with less interest in sports. They become alumni with less interest in sports. I would be interested to compare undergrad intramural participation now vs. say 30 or 40 years ago.

Stanford can work to turn around the on-field football performance. But it won't change the campus culture (and now creeping into the alumni culture) that doesn't really care how they do.

[Spiny_Norman]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

I was there at the same time. The student body and campus culture are very different now. Walk around campus on a Friday afternoon. How many students do you see shooting hoops, playing ultimate, throwing or kicking a ball around, hitting a tennis ball with a friend? Stanford used to admit people like me, academically-minded students who also loved sports. Probably like many of you. We created and sustained a goofy and fun Stanford style of rah-rah while we were students. We became alumni with that same Stanford spirit. 

Now the undergraduate class is closer to what you might expect to find at MIT. That has been the case for a generation of Stanford students. I don't think that Admissions values as much being an all-around student that includes sports so the class is substantially made up of people with less interest in sports. They become alumni with less interest in sports. I would be interested to compare undergrad intramural participation now vs. say 30 or 40 years ago.

Stanford can work to turn around the on-field football performance. But it won't change the campus culture (and now creeping into the alumni culture) that doesn't really care how they do.

[Mick]

I have very fond memories of Stanford football games in the early 80's   Our football record in my 4 years on the farm was 15-29. Elway never went to a bowl game. After he left, the team went 1-10 in 1983. It was rough to watch. But the students went to the games because they were most definitely a part of campus culture. College fun abounded with kegs in the stands, girls in bikini tops, and of course the band was absolutely hilarious (IMO). I would say that of the ~100 students in my freshman dorm, well over half went to every home game. Sure it would have been great to have a top-20 program, but the football team was still a big part of the college experience for many.

Today's Stanford is a much different place. Campus parties need to be approved, the band's acts need to be approved,...much has been written about this.  I was at a game a few years back on a glorious Saturday afternoon and the level of student body participation in tailgating and pregame activities was abysmal. The band and dollies were parading around campus with maybe 20 students following them. It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"? Maybe it would be better to go all in on NIL for basketball and some of the other team sports and just let football die a miserable death.

I'm of your vintage, with the same experience.

Some time back, I had invited a friend to a Stanford game, we got there early to tailgate. He had been a wide receiver in college, had a great arm and great hands, so we started tossing the football around. One of the older Stanford supporters came running over (this fella was 70 if a day, he was literally running and I was genuinely worried he'd break a hip) to tell me and my buddy to knock it off because throwing the football was verboten in that particular tailgate area, an area in which my family had tailgated since before my arrival on the scene.

Checked it with one of the security guards. Sure enough, no longer allowed. A recent decision, it was in the fine print.

There've been other "fun eradication specialists" over the years, and I'd weathered them all, including the grim security personnel telling me to move along in the lower stands pre-new stadium. Because, you know, someone might buy one of the thousands of empty tickets around me.

But not throwing the football? At a football game? Some of my fondest and earliest memories were throwing the football with my father and yes, my grandfather who was a state high jump champion and all-league high school quarterback, who thought he'd try out for the Stanford team but some guy named Albert was playing QB. So he settled for tossing it to his grandsons decades later. Sorry, Granddad. No more passes, unless we go across the street to Paly. 

For all of those reasons and for the reasons that BillBradley cited, that was the last time I enjoyed tailgating at Stanford (well actually the home game prior to that game). Today, I show up at game time, and I leave early, mildly depressed.

[Mick]

I have very fond memories of Stanford football games in the early 80's   Our football record in my 4 years on the farm was 15-29. Elway never went to a bowl game. After he left, the team went 1-10 in 1983. It was rough to watch. But the students went to the games because they were most definitely a part of campus culture. College fun abounded with kegs in the stands, girls in bikini tops, and of course the band was absolutely hilarious (IMO). I would say that of the ~100 students in my freshman dorm, well over half went to every home game. Sure it would have been great to have a top-20 program, but the football team was still a big part of the college experience for many.

Today's Stanford is a much different place. Campus parties need to be approved, the band's acts need to be approved,...much has been written about this.  I was at a game a few years back on a glorious Saturday afternoon and the level of student body participation in tailgating and pregame activities was abysmal. The band and dollies were parading around campus with maybe 20 students following them. It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"? Maybe it would be better to go all in on NIL for basketball and some of the other team sports and just let football die a miserable death.

I'm of your vintage, with the same experience.

Some time back, I had invited a friend to a Stanford game, we got there early to tailgate. He had been a wide receiver in college, had a great arm and great hands, so we started tossing the football around. One of the older Stanford supporters came running over (this fella was 70 if a day, he was literally running and I was genuinely worried he'd break a hip) to tell me and my buddy to knock it off because throwing the football was verboten in that particular tailgate area, an area in which my family had tailgated since before my arrival on the scene.

Checked it with one of the security guards. Sure enough, no longer allowed. A recent decision, it was in the fine print.

There've been other "fun eradication specialists" over the years, and I'd weathered them all, including the grim security personnel telling me to move along in the lower stands pre-new stadium. Because, you know, someone might buy one of the thousands of empty tickets around me.

But not throwing the football? At a football game? Some of my fondest and earliest memories were throwing the football with my father and yes, my grandfather who was a state high jump champion and all-league high school quarterback, who thought he'd try out for the Stanford team but some guy named Albert was playing QB. So he settled for tossing it to his grandsons decades later. Sorry, Granddad. No more passes, unless we go across the street to Paly. 

For all of those reasons and for the reasons that BillBradley cited, that was the last time I enjoyed tailgating at Stanford (well actually the home game prior to that game). Today, I show up at game time, and I leave early, mildly depressed.

[gailtate]

Student body ethnicity and traditions they brought with them have changed dramatically since the Elway era, along with preferences for social recreation and interest in (and even knowledge of) American football. Still, put an exciting show between the lines out there and the crowds will return. Wasn't that long ago (2011) Stanford hosted Gameday when Oregon came to town. That was a very big deal to say the least.  We haven't fielded that caliber of football in almost a decade and a half. It's barely a living memory for today's team and their fellow students. It's the university's choice. People know what has to happen to build a competitive program. As a former HC would ask, what's your deal, Stanford?

[gailtate]

Student body ethnicity and traditions they brought with them have changed dramatically since the Elway era, along with preferences for social recreation and interest in (and even knowledge of) American football. Still, put an exciting show between the lines out there and the crowds will return. Wasn't that long ago (2011) Stanford hosted Gameday when Oregon came to town. That was a very big deal to say the least.  We haven't fielded that caliber of football in almost a decade and a half. It's barely a living memory for today's team and their fellow students. It's the university's choice. People know what has to happen to build a competitive program. As a former HC would ask, what's your deal, Stanford?

[jacket3ree]

That is a sobering report, Mick, and it explains a lot. Get on it Levin.

My son and I had specific landmarks where we ditched a football in the bushes when riding the train down (can't take it in, which yeah, that makes sense), but usually we got there in a truck with an actual tailgate.

Why do you go to football games other to watch charcoal spray everywhere from an errant pass or three?

Stanford really seems to be going slowly over some sort of cliff.  Even as a worked to the bone teaching assistant, I remember it being fun.  Open containers inside the stadium? Check. So much sun without the heat and humidity? Check.  I do think a lot of the fond memories are because being a student was a glorious time in our lives. Tech won 16 games while I was there over four years, including losses to Memphis State, Furman, and other dreck.  But we loved it.  Road trips, impromptu dates to take your flask in, throwing frisbees at the band, being in the band one year having frisbees thrown at you, all of it. Especially beating Alabama twice, Tennessee once, Clemson once, and UGA once, in Athens right before finals week. Did I come back to campus maybe 30 hours before a 100% (all or nothin') final, get wasted, help tear down our own goal posts at Grant Field, and take them to Piedmont Park to throw in the lake?  Uh, maybe.

My first game in Stanford Stadium was with the Eyes of Texas upon us and CBS in the house. Good crowd, great day, and beach balls!  I can do this. They lead the Horns most of the way until Elway called just one too many swing pass to Muster that they stuffed on fourth and short, but I can do this.

I want to do this still, I really do.  I'll get back out there (Stanford Stadium) once my wife is driving again. The ortho said she can't really damage her new knee.  Worried again with another double Cal/Niner flop.  "Do not stomp your feet!" "Give me something to throw!"  I flipped a pillow to her. At least she laughed.

[jacket3ree]

That is a sobering report, Mick, and it explains a lot. Get on it Levin.

My son and I had specific landmarks where we ditched a football in the bushes when riding the train down (can't take it in, which yeah, that makes sense), but usually we got there in a truck with an actual tailgate.

Why do you go to football games other to watch charcoal spray everywhere from an errant pass or three?

Stanford really seems to be going slowly over some sort of cliff.  Even as a worked to the bone teaching assistant, I remember it being fun.  Open containers inside the stadium? Check. So much sun without the heat and humidity? Check.  I do think a lot of the fond memories are because being a student was a glorious time in our lives. Tech won 16 games while I was there over four years, including losses to Memphis State, Furman, and other dreck.  But we loved it.  Road trips, impromptu dates to take your flask in, throwing frisbees at the band, being in the band one year having frisbees thrown at you, all of it. Especially beating Alabama twice, Tennessee once, Clemson once, and UGA once, in Athens right before finals week. Did I come back to campus maybe 30 hours before a 100% (all or nothin') final, get wasted, help tear down our own goal posts at Grant Field, and take them to Piedmont Park to throw in the lake?  Uh, maybe.

My first game in Stanford Stadium was with the Eyes of Texas upon us and CBS in the house. Good crowd, great day, and beach balls!  I can do this. They lead the Horns most of the way until Elway called just one too many swing pass to Muster that they stuffed on fourth and short, but I can do this.

I want to do this still, I really do.  I'll get back out there (Stanford Stadium) once my wife is driving again. The ortho said she can't really damage her new knee.  Worried again with another double Cal/Niner flop.  "Do not stomp your feet!" "Give me something to throw!"  I flipped a pillow to her. At least she laughed.

[VB Card]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

I was there at the same time. The student body and campus culture are very different now. Walk around campus on a Friday afternoon. How many students do you see shooting hoops, playing ultimate, throwing or kicking a ball around, hitting a tennis ball with a friend? Stanford used to admit people like me, academically-minded students who also loved sports. Probably like many of you. We created and sustained a goofy and fun Stanford style of rah-rah while we were students. We became alumni with that same Stanford spirit. 

Now the undergraduate class is closer to what you might expect to find at MIT. That has been the case for a generation of Stanford students. I don't think that Admissions values as much being an all-around student that includes sports so the class is substantially made up of people with less interest in sports. They become alumni with less interest in sports. I would be interested to compare undergrad intramural participation now vs. say 30 or 40 years ago.

Stanford can work to turn around the on-field football performance. But it won't change the campus culture (and now creeping into the alumni culture) that doesn't really care how they do.

While I do agree that Stanford has started to resemble MIT more in the academic/pre-professional sense, I can't agree with you here regarding the students and sports. I graduated from Stanford in June. As you can tell from me being on this board, I love sports and am passionate about Stanford sports. Not just on Fridays, but everyday, I had friends inviting me to go play pick-up basketball, spike ball, beach volleyball, soccer, etc. You go to Arrillaga (either of them) and the courts are always full. The volleyball courts between Wilbur and Stern are almost always in use. Wilbur Field is always lively. I'm a big tennis player and the courts were usually taken when I would show up to play with friends - same for pickleball. Now, when it comes to following team sports, I was disappointed with my fellow peers. Almost everyone had their own professional teams and loved to talk about them or the college teams from where they were from, but it was like pulling teeth getting people to come to a Stanford basketball game or even football game once the team started (inevitably) losing. My friends from HS for instance, all would camp out for any MBB or FB game they went to at their respective colleges.

[VB Card]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

I was there at the same time. The student body and campus culture are very different now. Walk around campus on a Friday afternoon. How many students do you see shooting hoops, playing ultimate, throwing or kicking a ball around, hitting a tennis ball with a friend? Stanford used to admit people like me, academically-minded students who also loved sports. Probably like many of you. We created and sustained a goofy and fun Stanford style of rah-rah while we were students. We became alumni with that same Stanford spirit. 

Now the undergraduate class is closer to what you might expect to find at MIT. That has been the case for a generation of Stanford students. I don't think that Admissions values as much being an all-around student that includes sports so the class is substantially made up of people with less interest in sports. They become alumni with less interest in sports. I would be interested to compare undergrad intramural participation now vs. say 30 or 40 years ago.

Stanford can work to turn around the on-field football performance. But it won't change the campus culture (and now creeping into the alumni culture) that doesn't really care how they do.

While I do agree that Stanford has started to resemble MIT more in the academic/pre-professional sense, I can't agree with you here regarding the students and sports. I graduated from Stanford in June. As you can tell from me being on this board, I love sports and am passionate about Stanford sports. Not just on Fridays, but everyday, I had friends inviting me to go play pick-up basketball, spike ball, beach volleyball, soccer, etc. You go to Arrillaga (either of them) and the courts are always full. The volleyball courts between Wilbur and Stern are almost always in use. Wilbur Field is always lively. I'm a big tennis player and the courts were usually taken when I would show up to play with friends - same for pickleball. Now, when it comes to following team sports, I was disappointed with my fellow peers. Almost everyone had their own professional teams and loved to talk about them or the college teams from where they were from, but it was like pulling teeth getting people to come to a Stanford basketball game or even football game once the team started (inevitably) losing. My friends from HS for instance, all would camp out for any MBB or FB game they went to at their respective colleges.

[jacket3ree]

Someone should defend MIT's honor here. They have 26 varsity sports. They made my final three and offered a full ride with RA, albeit two years. I checked them out. It's a grind, but it's in Boston. I mean frisbees weren't flying around, but it was January when I visited. Stanford offered a full ride with TA, one year.  Cal offered jack squat.  Y'all are still paying the price for all this with my presence.

[jacket3ree]

Someone should defend MIT's honor here. They have 26 varsity sports. They made my final three and offered a full ride with RA, albeit two years. I checked them out. It's a grind, but it's in Boston. I mean frisbees weren't flying around, but it was January when I visited. Stanford offered a full ride with TA, one year.  Cal offered jack squat.  Y'all are still paying the price for all this with my presence.

[martyup]

I was in Elway's class and lived in the fraternity next to his.  I'll bet there was nearly 100% attendance at home football games by fraternity and sorority members at Stanford.  I wonder if the trend towards lower attendance at football games coincides with the campaign at Stanford to eliminate fraternities, sororities, and generally make it difficult to throw parties.

[martyup]

I was in Elway's class and lived in the fraternity next to his.  I'll bet there was nearly 100% attendance at home football games by fraternity and sorority members at Stanford.  I wonder if the trend towards lower attendance at football games coincides with the campaign at Stanford to eliminate fraternities, sororities, and generally make it difficult to throw parties.

[Spiny_Norman]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

I was there at the same time. The student body and campus culture are very different now. Walk around campus on a Friday afternoon. How many students do you see shooting hoops, playing ultimate, throwing or kicking a ball around, hitting a tennis ball with a friend? Stanford used to admit people like me, academically-minded students who also loved sports. Probably like many of you. We created and sustained a goofy and fun Stanford style of rah-rah while we were students. We became alumni with that same Stanford spirit. 

Now the undergraduate class is closer to what you might expect to find at MIT. That has been the case for a generation of Stanford students. I don't think that Admissions values as much being an all-around student that includes sports so the class is substantially made up of people with less interest in sports. They become alumni with less interest in sports. I would be interested to compare undergrad intramural participation now vs. say 30 or 40 years ago.

Stanford can work to turn around the on-field football performance. But it won't change the campus culture (and now creeping into the alumni culture) that doesn't really care how they do.

While I do agree that Stanford has started to resemble MIT more in the academic/pre-professional sense, I can't agree with you here regarding the students and sports. I graduated from Stanford in June. As you can tell from me being on this board, I love sports and am passionate about Stanford sports. Not just on Fridays, but everyday, I had friends inviting me to go play pick-up basketball, spike ball, beach volleyball, soccer, etc. You go to Arrillaga (either of them) and the courts are always full. The volleyball courts between Wilbur and Stern are almost always in use. Wilbur Field is always lively. I'm a big tennis player and the courts were usually taken when I would show up to play with friends - same for pickleball. Now, when it comes to following team sports, I was disappointed with my fellow peers. Almost everyone had their own professional teams and loved to talk about them or the college teams from where they were from, but it was like pulling teeth getting people to come to a Stanford basketball game or even football game once the team started (inevitably) losing. My friends from HS for instance, all would camp out for any MBB or FB game they went to at their respective colleges.

Thank you for that first hand perspective, VB Card. I am glad to hear that my couple-of-times a year observation is not indicative of actual campus life. I'm sorry that you passed through Stanford without experiencing the energy of a full house at Maples for a men's basketball game or a stadium full of people for football. I hope that things get better along the way as an alum.

[Spiny_Norman]

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

I was there at the same time. The student body and campus culture are very different now. Walk around campus on a Friday afternoon. How many students do you see shooting hoops, playing ultimate, throwing or kicking a ball around, hitting a tennis ball with a friend? Stanford used to admit people like me, academically-minded students who also loved sports. Probably like many of you. We created and sustained a goofy and fun Stanford style of rah-rah while we were students. We became alumni with that same Stanford spirit. 

Now the undergraduate class is closer to what you might expect to find at MIT. That has been the case for a generation of Stanford students. I don't think that Admissions values as much being an all-around student that includes sports so the class is substantially made up of people with less interest in sports. They become alumni with less interest in sports. I would be interested to compare undergrad intramural participation now vs. say 30 or 40 years ago.

Stanford can work to turn around the on-field football performance. But it won't change the campus culture (and now creeping into the alumni culture) that doesn't really care how they do.

While I do agree that Stanford has started to resemble MIT more in the academic/pre-professional sense, I can't agree with you here regarding the students and sports. I graduated from Stanford in June. As you can tell from me being on this board, I love sports and am passionate about Stanford sports. Not just on Fridays, but everyday, I had friends inviting me to go play pick-up basketball, spike ball, beach volleyball, soccer, etc. You go to Arrillaga (either of them) and the courts are always full. The volleyball courts between Wilbur and Stern are almost always in use. Wilbur Field is always lively. I'm a big tennis player and the courts were usually taken when I would show up to play with friends - same for pickleball. Now, when it comes to following team sports, I was disappointed with my fellow peers. Almost everyone had their own professional teams and loved to talk about them or the college teams from where they were from, but it was like pulling teeth getting people to come to a Stanford basketball game or even football game once the team started (inevitably) losing. My friends from HS for instance, all would camp out for any MBB or FB game they went to at their respective colleges.

Thank you for that first hand perspective, VB Card. I am glad to hear that my couple-of-times a year observation is not indicative of actual campus life. I'm sorry that you passed through Stanford without experiencing the energy of a full house at Maples for a men's basketball game or a stadium full of people for football. I hope that things get better along the way as an alum.

[BillBradley]

I was in Elway's class and lived in the fraternity next to his.  I'll bet there was nearly 100% attendance at home football games by fraternity and sorority members at Stanford.  I wonder if the trend towards lower attendance at football games coincides with the campaign at Stanford to eliminate fraternities, sororities, and generally make it difficult to throw parties.

Definitely think there's something to that. The fraternities and sororities would attend in large groups. We would send pledges early to save the best seats. I can recall scanning the student section for the various sororities and there was always a lot of mingling at the game. The games were very social. It's not the same living in a dorm or a theme house.  

p.s. Mick, that story makes me sad.

[BillBradley]

I was in Elway's class and lived in the fraternity next to his.  I'll bet there was nearly 100% attendance at home football games by fraternity and sorority members at Stanford.  I wonder if the trend towards lower attendance at football games coincides with the campaign at Stanford to eliminate fraternities, sororities, and generally make it difficult to throw parties.

Definitely think there's something to that. The fraternities and sororities would attend in large groups. We would send pledges early to save the best seats. I can recall scanning the student section for the various sororities and there was always a lot of mingling at the game. The games were very social. It's not the same living in a dorm or a theme house.  

p.s. Mick, that story makes me sad.