[BostonCard]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

On the other hand there are probably 7,900 (assuming 154 made it to the stadium, if we include the football players) Stanford students who came to the University for the academic program, not its football team.  We like to tell ourselves that Stanford should commit to excellence in everything, but this is generally a bad strategy, and trying to be all things to all people almost inevitably leads institutions to lose focus and be mediocre in all things.

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

BC

[BostonCard]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

On the other hand there are probably 7,900 (assuming 154 made it to the stadium, if we include the football players) Stanford students who came to the University for the academic program, not its football team.  We like to tell ourselves that Stanford should commit to excellence in everything, but this is generally a bad strategy, and trying to be all things to all people almost inevitably leads institutions to lose focus and be mediocre in all things.

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

BC

[chrisk]

Any guesses on actual (not announced, as we know that's goosed) attendance at our last home game vs Louisville? 5k? 7k? Maybe it shocks the administration into some kind of action to alter our current trajectory, but I'm not betting on it.

I would guess the AD will make a lot more from the 2 Cold Play concerts in May than would from another 5,000 tickets sold for the Louisville game. Those concerts may provide enough of a cash infusion to hold them over for another year.

[chrisk]

Any guesses on actual (not announced, as we know that's goosed) attendance at our last home game vs Louisville? 5k? 7k? Maybe it shocks the administration into some kind of action to alter our current trajectory, but I'm not betting on it.

I would guess the AD will make a lot more from the 2 Cold Play concerts in May than would from another 5,000 tickets sold for the Louisville game. Those concerts may provide enough of a cash infusion to hold them over for another year.

[fullmetal]

It is refreshing to see the AD use the football stadium as an events venue where people in the surrounding community can familiarize themselves with the location, the logistics, and the brand.  (Are concerts still held at Frost Amphitheater?)

[fullmetal]

It is refreshing to see the AD use the football stadium as an events venue where people in the surrounding community can familiarize themselves with the location, the logistics, and the brand.  (Are concerts still held at Frost Amphitheater?)

[TonyLima]

For decades, Stanford has been the only home for true scholar-athletes. That may not be possible for football any more. In the past, Stanford has been able to recruit athletes who also value a Stanford degree. With football, players may have figured out they have a low probability of making into the NFL. Hence, better cash in while you can. The tradeoff is obvious.

[TonyLima]

For decades, Stanford has been the only home for true scholar-athletes. That may not be possible for football any more. In the past, Stanford has been able to recruit athletes who also value a Stanford degree. With football, players may have figured out they have a low probability of making into the NFL. Hence, better cash in while you can. The tradeoff is obvious.

[BostonCard]

For decades we've been able to excel at academics and athletics, and without trying to be "all things to all people." The rules (NIL and transfer portal) have changed in a way that represents a challenge for continuing to be excellent in both, but this is a challenge the university can meet.

I don’t think that’s true any more, and probably never was.  For one, our all-time record in football is 665–478–49 (.578), which translates to a 7-5 season.  That’s “better than average” but hardly excelling, and pretty comparable to Minnesota (.572), Pittsburgh (.576), and Georgia Tech (.581), not exactly considered the football elite.  We have occasional sparks of being very good (2009 - 2015), but also periods of being dreadful (2001 - 2006; 2019 - present).  Since I started following the team in 1993, we’ve had 15 winning seasons in 31 years (including the weird COVID year).  We had to beg to get taken by the ACC, despite being willing to take 30% of the TV revenue for seven(!) years.  A long term compelling team with a brief down period wouldn’t have had to make such a deal.  More likely, the ACC saw as for what we were, a long-term mediocre program that had a brief period of being really good in the Harbaugh/early Shaw years.

Secondly, the current system dramatically disadvantages us so I think average to below average is what we should expect going forward.  One, of course is that the transfer portal is asymmetric, since it is easier for players to leave than it is for us to bring in players.  That, in particular, shows up in deficiencies in the offensive line, which as Matt has shown, benefits tremendously from age and growth.  Not surprisingly, that is where we have struggled the most since our downward spiral.  But, even if we were to dramatically loosen admissions requirements for transfers (which I don’t support), there is a second problem: the value of a Stanford degree when you can make money playing college athletics is not what it once was.  It’s one thing to hold up the “forty year decision” and show recruits the stats about being able to play professionally.  It’s another to try to lure players with a degree when they will be able to make money playing football now.  Again, even if we could match NIL money, the degree, which used to be a differentiator, now looses its value; it becomes another chit in the game to recruit players.

Then there is the fact that the more the paths between football players and the rest of the student body deviate, the less interested and more resentful the rest of the students become.  The reason I got into Stanford athletics is that I was seeing my (bigger, faster, stronger) classmates compete.  But they lived in the same dorms, went to the same parties, ate the same crappy cafeteria food, went to the same classes, and drove the same crappy cars as I did.  Some, like Kate Starbird, were much smarter than I was.  Others, like Kristin Folkl, were so humble and personable, that you wouldn’t know she was the best two-sport athlete in collegiate sports at the time.

But collegiate sports have evolved.  Athletes got training tables, because of ACC travel they will have to miss a boatload of classes.  And, they are no longer just getting their tuition covered; they are actually getting paid to compete.  The façade that they are just bigger, faster, stronger versions of us is gone.  The proposed solutions (make it easier to transfer in, pay athletes more NIL money) will make that difference even starker, and we will go from Stanford students who also compete in athletics to Stanford athletes who may or may not care about being students.

Stanford is a University.  In the past, being able to also excel in athletics was a great bonus, but fielding a Rose Bowl team was never the mission of the school, and should never be.  The compromises needed to do so now are simply too great.  It really pains me to say it, but I really think it is time to get out.

BC

[BostonCard]

For decades we've been able to excel at academics and athletics, and without trying to be "all things to all people." The rules (NIL and transfer portal) have changed in a way that represents a challenge for continuing to be excellent in both, but this is a challenge the university can meet.

I don’t think that’s true any more, and probably never was.  For one, our all-time record in football is 665–478–49 (.578), which translates to a 7-5 season.  That’s “better than average” but hardly excelling, and pretty comparable to Minnesota (.572), Pittsburgh (.576), and Georgia Tech (.581), not exactly considered the football elite.  We have occasional sparks of being very good (2009 - 2015), but also periods of being dreadful (2001 - 2006; 2019 - present).  Since I started following the team in 1993, we’ve had 15 winning seasons in 31 years (including the weird COVID year).  We had to beg to get taken by the ACC, despite being willing to take 30% of the TV revenue for seven(!) years.  A long term compelling team with a brief down period wouldn’t have had to make such a deal.  More likely, the ACC saw as for what we were, a long-term mediocre program that had a brief period of being really good in the Harbaugh/early Shaw years.

Secondly, the current system dramatically disadvantages us so I think average to below average is what we should expect going forward.  One, of course is that the transfer portal is asymmetric, since it is easier for players to leave than it is for us to bring in players.  That, in particular, shows up in deficiencies in the offensive line, which as Matt has shown, benefits tremendously from age and growth.  Not surprisingly, that is where we have struggled the most since our downward spiral.  But, even if we were to dramatically loosen admissions requirements for transfers (which I don’t support), there is a second problem: the value of a Stanford degree when you can make money playing college athletics is not what it once was.  It’s one thing to hold up the “forty year decision” and show recruits the stats about being able to play professionally.  It’s another to try to lure players with a degree when they will be able to make money playing football now.  Again, even if we could match NIL money, the degree, which used to be a differentiator, now looses its value; it becomes another chit in the game to recruit players.

Then there is the fact that the more the paths between football players and the rest of the student body deviate, the less interested and more resentful the rest of the students become.  The reason I got into Stanford athletics is that I was seeing my (bigger, faster, stronger) classmates compete.  But they lived in the same dorms, went to the same parties, ate the same crappy cafeteria food, went to the same classes, and drove the same crappy cars as I did.  Some, like Kate Starbird, were much smarter than I was.  Others, like Kristin Folkl, were so humble and personable, that you wouldn’t know she was the best two-sport athlete in collegiate sports at the time.

But collegiate sports have evolved.  Athletes got training tables, because of ACC travel they will have to miss a boatload of classes.  And, they are no longer just getting their tuition covered; they are actually getting paid to compete.  The façade that they are just bigger, faster, stronger versions of us is gone.  The proposed solutions (make it easier to transfer in, pay athletes more NIL money) will make that difference even starker, and we will go from Stanford students who also compete in athletics to Stanford athletes who may or may not care about being students.

Stanford is a University.  In the past, being able to also excel in athletics was a great bonus, but fielding a Rose Bowl team was never the mission of the school, and should never be.  The compromises needed to do so now are simply too great.  It really pains me to say it, but I really think it is time to get out.

BC

[PAsportsfan]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

BC

I was thinking of starting a thread before you posted this but I’ll put it here.

Anyone notice the ticket prices on gostanford.com for football? I had four extra tickets I listed for sale on stubhub. I checked what Stanford was trying???  to sell in my section and the prices. Lower sunny between 30-40 yardline for $99, 50 yard sunny $150. Shady 30-40 $150, shady 50 yardline $180. They didn’t offer GA seats. The cheapest to enter $35.

How the team is playing and prices like that, oh no thanks.

[PAsportsfan]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

BC

I was thinking of starting a thread before you posted this but I’ll put it here.

Anyone notice the ticket prices on gostanford.com for football? I had four extra tickets I listed for sale on stubhub. I checked what Stanford was trying???  to sell in my section and the prices. Lower sunny between 30-40 yardline for $99, 50 yard sunny $150. Shady 30-40 $150, shady 50 yardline $180. They didn’t offer GA seats. The cheapest to enter $35.

How the team is playing and prices like that, oh no thanks.

[qwerty49]

For decades, Stanford has been the only home for true scholar-athletes. That may not be possible for football any more. In the past, Stanford has been able to recruit athletes who also value a Stanford degree. With football, players may have figured out they have a low probability of making into the NFL. Hence, better cash in while you can. The tradeoff is obvious.

Very true about the economics, and I think the concurrent nail in the coffin is the totally unregulated NIL/transfer infrastructure. It’s not a level playing field for us, for any number of institutional reasons, and we can’t compete for the elite athletes any more — certainly not with any consistency.

In this present context I’d actually be ok with us getting relegated to FCS or even Div2.  And I never thought I’d say that. But geez, times have changed so quickly.

[qwerty49]

For decades, Stanford has been the only home for true scholar-athletes. That may not be possible for football any more. In the past, Stanford has been able to recruit athletes who also value a Stanford degree. With football, players may have figured out they have a low probability of making into the NFL. Hence, better cash in while you can. The tradeoff is obvious.

Very true about the economics, and I think the concurrent nail in the coffin is the totally unregulated NIL/transfer infrastructure. It’s not a level playing field for us, for any number of institutional reasons, and we can’t compete for the elite athletes any more — certainly not with any consistency.

In this present context I’d actually be ok with us getting relegated to FCS or even Div2.  And I never thought I’d say that. But geez, times have changed so quickly.

[Goose]

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? 

I hope you aren't an engineer, because if you are I am probably going to make you angry.  Speaking as one I don't see how you can even ask the question. I say this allowing for the fact that Stanford engineering isn't what it was. I agree one can get a perfectly good engineering education at A&M. It is also possible to do so by individual study, but the odds are against it. In a few areas (Petroleum Engineering) A&M is arguably as good or better than Stanford. If you were talking general engineering and MIT you might have a point, but not A&M.

[Goose]

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? 

I hope you aren't an engineer, because if you are I am probably going to make you angry.  Speaking as one I don't see how you can even ask the question. I say this allowing for the fact that Stanford engineering isn't what it was. I agree one can get a perfectly good engineering education at A&M. It is also possible to do so by individual study, but the odds are against it. In a few areas (Petroleum Engineering) A&M is arguably as good or better than Stanford. If you were talking general engineering and MIT you might have a point, but not A&M.

[StanUSwagU]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

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

Hi Branner,

1. I 100% agree with You !

2. Unfortunately, I think we are in the minority at our University, in having this perspective of seeing the value to the University of having a consistently Top20 Football Program, and the benefits & positive interest having a Top20 Football program, brings to the University as a whole, and to its Academic Operations.

3. I think only when we get kicked out of the ACC for being 'a dead weight Football program', and that leads to the elimination of all other Sports (Olympic & otherwise) having a Top Flight conference to compete in, ....then & only then ...will Urgency about Football be a Top Priority, but at that point ...it will be too late.

4. We were a 'dead weight Football program, that no Major Power Conference saw our Football & Mens Basketball programs as 'bringing Eyes & Interest to their conference or MediaTV partner, for Football & Mens Basketball, and that is a large reason why we were almost left out in the cold of the 'musical chairs invitation of Pac12 schools to a Power Conference, ...after the Pac12 dissolved. And we could easily have been Oregon State or WSU. The fact that our Football & Mens Basketball has been so bad over the last 7yrs is also, why we literally had to beg to be invited into the ACC (and accept being a non-paid member of the ACC for many years); One would think that EMBARRASING episode of having to beg the ACC for admittance, (with the ACC spending many weeks thinking we Stanford were not worthy of an Invite into the ACC) would have taught us the Lesson to never let Football & Mens Basketball languish. One would also think & hope the UniversityAdministration, its Non Football & Mens Basketball athletes, & its Academically inclined students, even those who have No Interest in Football, would see the correlation between having a Top20 Football Program & a Top20 Mens Basketball program, and the ability of StanfordUniversity to Attract Billions of Dollars in the Future, ..or to eventually suffer the opposite fate of succumbing to becoming Cornell, BowdoinCollege, or Dartmouth ... who dont attract Billions of Dollars of Interest ! [If that trend were to persist long enough, say goodbye to New Science & Engineering laboratories, (which in the future will cost Billions), and all the other Nice Things that having a consistently Top20 Football & Mens Basketball program brings to a University, ...Weird how NotreDame, USC, & Michigan & the Majority of their students & faculty see the benefit of a Top20 Football program to the University in generating Millions of Dollars that can get used by the University for the Academic Side, but here at Stanford many of our Admin, Students, and Faculty ...dont see that correlation.]

Just my $.02

[StanUSwagU]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

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

Hi Branner,

1. I 100% agree with You !

2. Unfortunately, I think we are in the minority at our University, in having this perspective of seeing the value to the University of having a consistently Top20 Football Program, and the benefits & positive interest having a Top20 Football program, brings to the University as a whole, and to its Academic Operations.

3. I think only when we get kicked out of the ACC for being 'a dead weight Football program', and that leads to the elimination of all other Sports (Olympic & otherwise) having a Top Flight conference to compete in, ....then & only then ...will Urgency about Football be a Top Priority, but at that point ...it will be too late.

4. We were a 'dead weight Football program, that no Major Power Conference saw our Football & Mens Basketball programs as 'bringing Eyes & Interest to their conference or MediaTV partner, for Football & Mens Basketball, and that is a large reason why we were almost left out in the cold of the 'musical chairs invitation of Pac12 schools to a Power Conference, ...after the Pac12 dissolved. And we could easily have been Oregon State or WSU. The fact that our Football & Mens Basketball has been so bad over the last 7yrs is also, why we literally had to beg to be invited into the ACC (and accept being a non-paid member of the ACC for many years); One would think that EMBARRASING episode of having to beg the ACC for admittance, (with the ACC spending many weeks thinking we Stanford were not worthy of an Invite into the ACC) would have taught us the Lesson to never let Football & Mens Basketball languish. One would also think & hope the UniversityAdministration, its Non Football & Mens Basketball athletes, & its Academically inclined students, even those who have No Interest in Football, would see the correlation between having a Top20 Football Program & a Top20 Mens Basketball program, and the ability of StanfordUniversity to Attract Billions of Dollars in the Future, ..or to eventually suffer the opposite fate of succumbing to becoming Cornell, BowdoinCollege, or Dartmouth ... who dont attract Billions of Dollars of Interest ! [If that trend were to persist long enough, say goodbye to New Science & Engineering laboratories, (which in the future will cost Billions), and all the other Nice Things that having a consistently Top20 Football & Mens Basketball program brings to a University, ...Weird how NotreDame, USC, & Michigan & the Majority of their students & faculty see the benefit of a Top20 Football program to the University in generating Millions of Dollars that can get used by the University for the Academic Side, but here at Stanford many of our Admin, Students, and Faculty ...dont see that correlation.]

Just my $.02

[StanUSwagU]

For decades we've been able to excel at academics and athletics, and without trying to be "all things to all people." The rules (NIL and transfer portal) have changed in a way that represents a challenge for continuing to be excellent in both, but this is a challenge the university can meet.

I don’t think that’s true any more, and probably never was.  For one, our all-time record in football is 665–478–49 (.578), which translates to a 7-5 season.  That’s “better than average” but hardly excelling, and pretty comparable to Minnesota (.572), Pittsburgh (.576), and Georgia Tech (.581), not exactly considered the football elite.  We have occasional sparks of being very good (2009 - 2015), but also periods of being dreadful (2001 - 2006; 2019 - present).  Since I started following the team in 1993, we’ve had 15 winning seasons in 31 years (including the weird COVID year).  We had to beg to get taken by the ACC, despite being willing to take 30% of the TV revenue for seven(!) years.  A long term compelling team with a brief down period wouldn’t have had to make such a deal.  More likely, the ACC saw as for what we were, a long-term mediocre program that had a brief period of being really good in the Harbaugh/early Shaw years.

Secondly, the current system dramatically disadvantages us so I think average to below average is what we should expect going forward.  One, of course is that the transfer portal is asymmetric, since it is easier for players to leave than it is for us to bring in players.  That, in particular, shows up in deficiencies in the offensive line, which as Matt has shown, benefits tremendously from age and growth.  Not surprisingly, that is where we have struggled the most since our downward spiral.  But, even if we were to dramatically loosen admissions requirements for transfers (which I don’t support), there is a second problem: the value of a Stanford degree when you can make money playing college athletics is not what it once was.  It’s one thing to hold up the “forty year decision” and show recruits the stats about being able to play professionally.  It’s another to try to lure players with a degree when they will be able to make money playing football now.  Again, even if we could match NIL money, the degree, which used to be a differentiator, now looses its value; it becomes another chit in the game to recruit players.

Then there is the fact that the more the paths between football players and the rest of the student body deviate, the less interested and more resentful the rest of the students become.  The reason I got into Stanford athletics is that I was seeing my (bigger, faster, stronger) classmates compete.  But they lived in the same dorms, went to the same parties, ate the same crappy cafeteria food, went to the same classes, and drove the same crappy cars as I did.  Some, like Kate Starbird, were much smarter than I was.  Others, like Kristin Folkl, were so humble and personable, that you wouldn’t know she was the best two-sport athlete in collegiate sports at the time.

But collegiate sports have evolved.  Athletes got training tables, because of ACC travel they will have to miss a boatload of classes.  And, they are no longer just getting their tuition covered; they are actually getting paid to compete.  The façade that they are just bigger, faster, stronger versions of us is gone.  The proposed solutions (make it easier to transfer in, pay athletes more NIL money) will make that difference even starker, and we will go from Stanford students who also compete in athletics to Stanford athletes who may or may not care about being students.

Stanford is a University.  In the past, being able to also excel in athletics was a great bonus, but fielding a Rose Bowl team was never the mission of the school, and should never be.  The compromises needed to do so now are simply too great.  It really pains me to say it, but I really think it is time to get out.

BC

***************************
Hi BostonCard,

1. As you know, I tremendously respect your researching & citing 'actual data' to give context to your inferences & conclusions.

2. The 1st N paragraphs of your post above are accurate, in the way You BostonCard, are usually accurate.

3. However the inferences and sentiments in your last few paragraphs, that...

a. Student-Athletes eating and living in different spaces than 'other students'
b. Modifying Admissions & Transfer requirements for undergraduates

will be a bad thing, (or equate to 'compromising' on the important things) .... I disagree with....

I will have more to say to fill in why I disagree with those sentiments, but largely it centers around the fact that if the trends you mention & disadvantages in the landscape you mention, result in Stanford fielding perennial 4win Football Teams & Once every 25 years Mens NCAA Tournament Teams ...I think Stanford will eventually become Dartmouth, BowdoinCollege, or Cornell ....and I think that fate is worse than 'a small modifying/evolving/updating of some of the old values, ... or adopting the new value & Mission of Stanford University which should be to become like NotreDame & Univ of Michigan, which are 'great institutions of Academic Excellence, but institutions who are committed to Updating & Modifying their Admissions/Transfer/NIL requirements & to do any and everything it takes to Field Top20 Football programs),

To All: Remember if we become Dartmouth, BowdoinColllege, and Cornell, these following things/trends will eventually (over the downward spiral) be gone =

-A- Being high level in OlympicSports
-B- Having as many other Varsity Sports
-C- And therefore being a place where Top Flight Athletes (eg Andrew Luck, Christian McCaffery, KateStarbird, RichardSherman, BrevinKnight, BrookLopez, Katie Ledecky, etc ) ..would even consider wanting to come to

I will end as I always do, by saying BostonCard, ... thanks for writing such thoughtful & insightful posts.

[StanUSwagU]

For decades we've been able to excel at academics and athletics, and without trying to be "all things to all people." The rules (NIL and transfer portal) have changed in a way that represents a challenge for continuing to be excellent in both, but this is a challenge the university can meet.

I don’t think that’s true any more, and probably never was.  For one, our all-time record in football is 665–478–49 (.578), which translates to a 7-5 season.  That’s “better than average” but hardly excelling, and pretty comparable to Minnesota (.572), Pittsburgh (.576), and Georgia Tech (.581), not exactly considered the football elite.  We have occasional sparks of being very good (2009 - 2015), but also periods of being dreadful (2001 - 2006; 2019 - present).  Since I started following the team in 1993, we’ve had 15 winning seasons in 31 years (including the weird COVID year).  We had to beg to get taken by the ACC, despite being willing to take 30% of the TV revenue for seven(!) years.  A long term compelling team with a brief down period wouldn’t have had to make such a deal.  More likely, the ACC saw as for what we were, a long-term mediocre program that had a brief period of being really good in the Harbaugh/early Shaw years.

Secondly, the current system dramatically disadvantages us so I think average to below average is what we should expect going forward.  One, of course is that the transfer portal is asymmetric, since it is easier for players to leave than it is for us to bring in players.  That, in particular, shows up in deficiencies in the offensive line, which as Matt has shown, benefits tremendously from age and growth.  Not surprisingly, that is where we have struggled the most since our downward spiral.  But, even if we were to dramatically loosen admissions requirements for transfers (which I don’t support), there is a second problem: the value of a Stanford degree when you can make money playing college athletics is not what it once was.  It’s one thing to hold up the “forty year decision” and show recruits the stats about being able to play professionally.  It’s another to try to lure players with a degree when they will be able to make money playing football now.  Again, even if we could match NIL money, the degree, which used to be a differentiator, now looses its value; it becomes another chit in the game to recruit players.

Then there is the fact that the more the paths between football players and the rest of the student body deviate, the less interested and more resentful the rest of the students become.  The reason I got into Stanford athletics is that I was seeing my (bigger, faster, stronger) classmates compete.  But they lived in the same dorms, went to the same parties, ate the same crappy cafeteria food, went to the same classes, and drove the same crappy cars as I did.  Some, like Kate Starbird, were much smarter than I was.  Others, like Kristin Folkl, were so humble and personable, that you wouldn’t know she was the best two-sport athlete in collegiate sports at the time.

But collegiate sports have evolved.  Athletes got training tables, because of ACC travel they will have to miss a boatload of classes.  And, they are no longer just getting their tuition covered; they are actually getting paid to compete.  The façade that they are just bigger, faster, stronger versions of us is gone.  The proposed solutions (make it easier to transfer in, pay athletes more NIL money) will make that difference even starker, and we will go from Stanford students who also compete in athletics to Stanford athletes who may or may not care about being students.

Stanford is a University.  In the past, being able to also excel in athletics was a great bonus, but fielding a Rose Bowl team was never the mission of the school, and should never be.  The compromises needed to do so now are simply too great.  It really pains me to say it, but I really think it is time to get out.

BC

***************************
Hi BostonCard,

1. As you know, I tremendously respect your researching & citing 'actual data' to give context to your inferences & conclusions.

2. The 1st N paragraphs of your post above are accurate, in the way You BostonCard, are usually accurate.

3. However the inferences and sentiments in your last few paragraphs, that...

a. Student-Athletes eating and living in different spaces than 'other students'
b. Modifying Admissions & Transfer requirements for undergraduates

will be a bad thing, (or equate to 'compromising' on the important things) .... I disagree with....

I will have more to say to fill in why I disagree with those sentiments, but largely it centers around the fact that if the trends you mention & disadvantages in the landscape you mention, result in Stanford fielding perennial 4win Football Teams & Once every 25 years Mens NCAA Tournament Teams ...I think Stanford will eventually become Dartmouth, BowdoinCollege, or Cornell ....and I think that fate is worse than 'a small modifying/evolving/updating of some of the old values, ... or adopting the new value & Mission of Stanford University which should be to become like NotreDame & Univ of Michigan, which are 'great institutions of Academic Excellence, but institutions who are committed to Updating & Modifying their Admissions/Transfer/NIL requirements & to do any and everything it takes to Field Top20 Football programs),

To All: Remember if we become Dartmouth, BowdoinColllege, and Cornell, these following things/trends will eventually (over the downward spiral) be gone =

-A- Being high level in OlympicSports
-B- Having as many other Varsity Sports
-C- And therefore being a place where Top Flight Athletes (eg Andrew Luck, Christian McCaffery, KateStarbird, RichardSherman, BrevinKnight, BrookLopez, Katie Ledecky, etc ) ..would even consider wanting to come to

I will end as I always do, by saying BostonCard, ... thanks for writing such thoughtful & insightful posts.

[StanUSwagU]

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

Really?? Because at A&M he will be discouraged from studying engineering, especially if and when the labs collide with practice or film study.

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

Hi CowboyIndian,

1. Love your posts. My reply here is not to be contentious , but just to present some additional data.

2. I think this notion a lot of us StanfordPeople have, that other schools like Texas A&M, FloridaState, Univ Of Michigan, etc ...dont support or encourage great athletes that want to also be great & excel in the classroom, is out of date, incorrect, and the exception.

Back in the day, Florida State was a PowerHouse Football Factory. During that era, look up the Bio of a 'great Starting Safety named Myron Rolle, who played under Legendary Coach BobbyBowden', and who was Drafted into the NFL and also was such a great pre-med student that he got into Medical School and earned a Rhodes Scholar which he accepted. Myron Rolle, a Football star at Florida State, is now a Neurosurgeon.

****I would like to think that Stanford University would be the kind of place a great HighSchool Football Star like MyronRolle (who wanted to Pursue a great undergraduate pre-med education while playing for a University that Prioritized packing their Football Stadium for HomeGames, & Fielding A Top20 FootballProgram, and Paying&Hiring Top10LegendaryCoaches) ...would consider. And vice-versa, that Stanford would be interested in doing everything they could to attract StudentAthletes like MyronRolle**** if not we at Stanford might have to slightly rethink/adjust what we value & what we are about.

I use Myron Rolle of FSU as an example to show that a lot of us at Stanford think we are 'exceptional in our commitment to academic achievement'. Yes, we are very very good with our commitment to academic achievement', but as evidenced by the Bio of Florida State's Myron Rolle, other universities like Florida State and Texas A&M & Univ of Michigan, are committed to great 'student-athletes' as well & they dont 'hinder or dissuade their student-athletes from being great in academics'. I think that is a misconception many of us Stanford Folks have of other Universities like Texas A&M, NotreDame, Florida State, Univ of Michigan, etc ...which is not true.

Lastly, and this is just my opinion, the "Mission of a University's Undergraduate Program, is to produce 'Well rounded, fundamentally & practically-trained, servant-leader graduates' "; Leave the production of 'narrow-focused, highly specialized professional nerds' to the Graduate Program.

[StanUSwagU]

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

Really?? Because at A&M he will be discouraged from studying engineering, especially if and when the labs collide with practice or film study.

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

Hi CowboyIndian,

1. Love your posts. My reply here is not to be contentious , but just to present some additional data.

2. I think this notion a lot of us StanfordPeople have, that other schools like Texas A&M, FloridaState, Univ Of Michigan, etc ...dont support or encourage great athletes that want to also be great & excel in the classroom, is out of date, incorrect, and the exception.

Back in the day, Florida State was a PowerHouse Football Factory. During that era, look up the Bio of a 'great Starting Safety named Myron Rolle, who played under Legendary Coach BobbyBowden', and who was Drafted into the NFL and also was such a great pre-med student that he got into Medical School and earned a Rhodes Scholar which he accepted. Myron Rolle, a Football star at Florida State, is now a Neurosurgeon.

****I would like to think that Stanford University would be the kind of place a great HighSchool Football Star like MyronRolle (who wanted to Pursue a great undergraduate pre-med education while playing for a University that Prioritized packing their Football Stadium for HomeGames, & Fielding A Top20 FootballProgram, and Paying&Hiring Top10LegendaryCoaches) ...would consider. And vice-versa, that Stanford would be interested in doing everything they could to attract StudentAthletes like MyronRolle**** if not we at Stanford might have to slightly rethink/adjust what we value & what we are about.

I use Myron Rolle of FSU as an example to show that a lot of us at Stanford think we are 'exceptional in our commitment to academic achievement'. Yes, we are very very good with our commitment to academic achievement', but as evidenced by the Bio of Florida State's Myron Rolle, other universities like Florida State and Texas A&M & Univ of Michigan, are committed to great 'student-athletes' as well & they dont 'hinder or dissuade their student-athletes from being great in academics'. I think that is a misconception many of us Stanford Folks have of other Universities like Texas A&M, NotreDame, Florida State, Univ of Michigan, etc ...which is not true.

Lastly, and this is just my opinion, the "Mission of a University's Undergraduate Program, is to produce 'Well rounded, fundamentally & practically-trained, servant-leader graduates' "; Leave the production of 'narrow-focused, highly specialized professional nerds' to the Graduate Program.

[needle]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

[needle]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

[gailtate]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

On the other hand there are probably 7,900 (assuming 154 made it to the stadium, if we include the football players) Stanford students who came to the University for the academic program, not its football team.  We like to tell ourselves that Stanford should commit to excellence in everything, but this is generally a bad strategy, and trying to be all things to all people almost inevitably leads institutions to lose focus and be mediocre in all things.

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

BC

For decades we've been able to excel at academics and athletics, and without trying to be "all things to all people." The rules (NIL and transfer portal) have changed in a way that represents a challenge for continuing to be excellent in both, but this is a challenge the university can meet.

I agree. This institution has all the resources and wherewithal required to excel at anything, including football in the NIL/Portal era. It has never been an issue of "Can We Do It?" It is always an issue of "Are We Willing?" Thing is, the New World Order requires an all-in, steadfast commitment. Not namby-pamby ambivalence, which is what exists today. I gotta wonder what Condie Rice privately thinks about the status quo. I do not think she's amused right now.

[gailtate]

A&M is hosting LSU tonight and wearing all-black uniforms for the first time at home. The stadium is packed (100,000 plus). Somehow, virtually all of the spectators are also dressed in black, wearing #12 jerseys for the "12th man" tradition. A&M has an institutional commitment to excellence in football, even if it often falls short of that standard.

Consider the young man who wants to study engineering in college and is also an excellent football player. Why choose Stanford over Texas A&M? Both have good engineering programs, but the former provides a near-empty stadium, the latter an incredible game-day atmosphere.

I continue to believe Stanford can compete at the highest levels in the sport, but not without a level of commitment comparable to what we see among other Power 4 members.

On the other hand there are probably 7,900 (assuming 154 made it to the stadium, if we include the football players) Stanford students who came to the University for the academic program, not its football team.  We like to tell ourselves that Stanford should commit to excellence in everything, but this is generally a bad strategy, and trying to be all things to all people almost inevitably leads institutions to lose focus and be mediocre in all things.

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

BC

For decades we've been able to excel at academics and athletics, and without trying to be "all things to all people." The rules (NIL and transfer portal) have changed in a way that represents a challenge for continuing to be excellent in both, but this is a challenge the university can meet.

I agree. This institution has all the resources and wherewithal required to excel at anything, including football in the NIL/Portal era. It has never been an issue of "Can We Do It?" It is always an issue of "Are We Willing?" Thing is, the New World Order requires an all-in, steadfast commitment. Not namby-pamby ambivalence, which is what exists today. I gotta wonder what Condie Rice privately thinks about the status quo. I do not think she's amused right now.

[cardcrimson]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

True. Sad, but not many friends of those at Stanford attending ACC schools, except Cal. Just no connection, and right now, no history.

[cardcrimson]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

True. Sad, but not many friends of those at Stanford attending ACC schools, except Cal. Just no connection, and right now, no history.

[82lsju]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

True. Sad, but not many friends of those at Stanford attending ACC schools, except Cal. Just no connection, and right now, no history.

couple the above with the expectation that we're in a transition zone between the old world order and the new world of super conferences and not many want to invest in getting fired up about our new conference, and is any else excited that we get to play SMU every year.....at least the team's flight is shorter for the games in Dallas than other potential away games.....and no, I do not think plying SMU every year will materially boost our recruiting success in Texas...

[82lsju]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

True. Sad, but not many friends of those at Stanford attending ACC schools, except Cal. Just no connection, and right now, no history.

couple the above with the expectation that we're in a transition zone between the old world order and the new world of super conferences and not many want to invest in getting fired up about our new conference, and is any else excited that we get to play SMU every year.....at least the team's flight is shorter for the games in Dallas than other potential away games.....and no, I do not think plying SMU every year will materially boost our recruiting success in Texas...

[Mick]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

For football, not so much. I think it will be for basketball. Outside of Arizona and UCLA, none of the Pac-12 teams interested me much. ASU was the next highest ranked team after them at #57. Duke, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Pittsburgh were all ranked better than ASU.

---

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

I think you're 100% accurate. Perhaps it's time, once the ACC contract is complete, to approach the Ivy League..., or create a Western/Midwest/Southern version (Vandy, Northwestern, Rice, Stanford, Cal, etc.)

[Mick]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

For football, not so much. I think it will be for basketball. Outside of Arizona and UCLA, none of the Pac-12 teams interested me much. ASU was the next highest ranked team after them at #57. Duke, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Pittsburgh were all ranked better than ASU.

---

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

I think you're 100% accurate. Perhaps it's time, once the ACC contract is complete, to approach the Ivy League..., or create a Western/Midwest/Southern version (Vandy, Northwestern, Rice, Stanford, Cal, etc.)

[StanUSwagU]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

For football, not so much. I think it will be for basketball. Outside of Arizona and UCLA, none of the Pac-12 teams interested me much. ASU was the next highest ranked team after them at #57. Duke, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Pittsburgh were all ranked better than ASU.

---

Mick, good posts

Agree with you here, I much prefer to watch ACC Mens Basketball than the old Pac12 basketball teams [As you said only Arizona seemed to be interesting & passionate about Mens Basketball, as opposed to UNC,Duke, NC-State, Syracuse, Louisville, etc in the ACC]

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

I think you're 100% accurate. Perhaps it's time, once the ACC contract is complete, to approach the Ivy League..., or create a Western/Midwest/Southern version (Vandy, Northwestern, Rice, Stanford, Cal, etc.)

Disagree here,

The solution is for Stanford as a university to:

--Adopt the Admissions/Transfers/NIL commitment levels of NotreDame for Football
--Adopt the Admissions/Transfers/NIL commitment levels of Duke for Mens Basketball

End/ProblemSolved !

[StanUSwagU]

It must be mentioned: the new conference slate just isn't appealing to casual fans or many students.

For football, not so much. I think it will be for basketball. Outside of Arizona and UCLA, none of the Pac-12 teams interested me much. ASU was the next highest ranked team after them at #57. Duke, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Pittsburgh were all ranked better than ASU.

---

Mick, good posts

Agree with you here, I much prefer to watch ACC Mens Basketball than the old Pac12 basketball teams [As you said only Arizona seemed to be interesting & passionate about Mens Basketball, as opposed to UNC,Duke, NC-State, Syracuse, Louisville, etc in the ACC]

I’ll take a very contrarian position on a sports board, but I think it is sadly time to pack it in.  As collegiate football becomes a de facto professional league, Stanford should actually *not* put the institutional commitment, including the compromises in its principle mission, that would be necessary to “compete at the highest levels in the sport”.  We don’t actually have to be great at football, and, in fact, the majority of the University and neighboring community, have shown that they have better things to do on a beautiful fall afternoon.

I think you're 100% accurate. Perhaps it's time, once the ACC contract is complete, to approach the Ivy League..., or create a Western/Midwest/Southern version (Vandy, Northwestern, Rice, Stanford, Cal, etc.)

Disagree here,

The solution is for Stanford as a university to:

--Adopt the Admissions/Transfers/NIL commitment levels of NotreDame for Football
--Adopt the Admissions/Transfers/NIL commitment levels of Duke for Mens Basketball

End/ProblemSolved !

[Mick]

To All: Remember if we become Dartmouth, BowdoinColllege, and Cornell, these following things/trends will eventually (over the downward spiral) be gone =

-A- Being high level in OlympicSports
-B- Having as many other Varsity Sports
-C- And therefore being a place where Top Flight Athletes (eg Andrew Luck, Christian McCaffery, KateStarbird, RichardSherman, BrevinKnight, BrookLopez, Katie Ledecky, etc ) ..would even consider wanting to come to Stanford.

With respect, I wonder about that. 

To your second point, Dartmouth has 34 varsity sports. Cornell has 36, Bowdoin has 33; and Harvard has 40, Princeton has 36. I don't think that will change if Stanford rejects NIL/portal and rightsizes football.

To your first and third points...Yale and Harvard are historically in the top 10 for most Olympic medals by college, Princeton and Cornell are in the Top 20, Dartmouth & Columbia are in the Top 35. That said, I don't think it's a coincidence that the top four universities by medal count are in California (USC, Stanford, UCLA, UC Berkeley), LBSU and Irvine are in the top 40, and other CA-based universities have won medals (SJSU, SCU, UC-SB, SDSU, CSU-Northridge, UC-Davis, Pomona, even Saddleback). CalTech, of all universities have alumni that have medaled in long jump, javelin, 1500m, 400m and pole vault. I think Olympians like the year-round training, the natural beauty, and the overall appeal of California. Stanford embodies that.

If Stanford rightsizes football...and I think the odds are strong once the ACC contract is complete...Stanford still has a unique overall offering for smart, high-level Olympian high school grads. Whether Stanford football is FCS or FBS shouldn't impact the overall program, and I think very smart, very high-level athletes will still want to matriculate at Stanford.

[Mick]

To All: Remember if we become Dartmouth, BowdoinColllege, and Cornell, these following things/trends will eventually (over the downward spiral) be gone =

-A- Being high level in OlympicSports
-B- Having as many other Varsity Sports
-C- And therefore being a place where Top Flight Athletes (eg Andrew Luck, Christian McCaffery, KateStarbird, RichardSherman, BrevinKnight, BrookLopez, Katie Ledecky, etc ) ..would even consider wanting to come to Stanford.

With respect, I wonder about that. 

To your second point, Dartmouth has 34 varsity sports. Cornell has 36, Bowdoin has 33; and Harvard has 40, Princeton has 36. I don't think that will change if Stanford rejects NIL/portal and rightsizes football.

To your first and third points...Yale and Harvard are historically in the top 10 for most Olympic medals by college, Princeton and Cornell are in the Top 20, Dartmouth & Columbia are in the Top 35. That said, I don't think it's a coincidence that the top four universities by medal count are in California (USC, Stanford, UCLA, UC Berkeley), LBSU and Irvine are in the top 40, and other CA-based universities have won medals (SJSU, SCU, UC-SB, SDSU, CSU-Northridge, UC-Davis, Pomona, even Saddleback). CalTech, of all universities have alumni that have medaled in long jump, javelin, 1500m, 400m and pole vault. I think Olympians like the year-round training, the natural beauty, and the overall appeal of California. Stanford embodies that.

If Stanford rightsizes football...and I think the odds are strong once the ACC contract is complete...Stanford still has a unique overall offering for smart, high-level Olympian high school grads. Whether Stanford football is FCS or FBS shouldn't impact the overall program, and I think very smart, very high-level athletes will still want to matriculate at Stanford.

[StanUSwagU]

To All: Remember if we become Dartmouth, BowdoinColllege, and Cornell, these following things/trends will eventually (over the downward spiral) be gone =

-A- Being high level in OlympicSports
-B- Having as many other Varsity Sports
-C- And therefore being a place where Top Flight Athletes (eg Andrew Luck, Christian McCaffery, KateStarbird, RichardSherman, BrevinKnight, BrookLopez, Katie Ledecky, etc ) ..would even consider wanting to come to Stanford.

With respect, I wonder about that. 

To your second point, Dartmouth has 34 varsity sports. Cornell has 36, Bowdoin has 33; and Harvard has 40, Princeton has 36. I don't think that will change if Stanford rejects NIL/portal and rightsizes football.

[[[ Hi Mick, good points, sorry I should have clarified ...here I meant 'Varsity sports that compete & Win Championships at the Highest Div1 level' ]]

To your first and third points...Yale and Harvard are historically in the top 10 for most Olympic medals by college, Princeton and Cornell are in the Top 20, Dartmouth & Columbia are in the Top 35. That said, I don't think it's a coincidence that the top four universities by medal count are in California (USC, Stanford, UCLA, UC Berkeley), LBSU and Irvine are in the top 40, and other CA-based universities have won medals (SJSU, SCU, UC-SB, SDSU, CSU-Northridge, UC-Davis, Pomona, even Saddleback). CalTech, of all universities have alumni that have medaled in long jump, javelin, 1500m, 400m and pole vault. I think Olympians like the year-round training, the natural beauty, and the overall appeal of California. Stanford embodies that.

[[[ Here, I think you actually have made the point I am trying to make better than me. Caltech does not attract nor produce/attract as many & a High a level of OlympicAthlete as Stanford (which Stanford with its larger D1 profile & competing in a D1 Power Conference) does; If we drop down our AthleticDept Profile to D2 or 'small conf D1' ...our Olympic Sports willl become like CalTechs Olympic sports, ...which is to say ..not as good. ]]]

If Stanford rightsizes football...and I think the odds are strong once the ACC contract is complete...Stanford still has a unique overall offering for smart, high-level Olympian high school grads. Whether Stanford football is FCS or FBS shouldn't impact the overall program, and I think very smart, very high-level athletes will still want to matriculate at Stanford.

[[[Good points, I think its a matter of degree. I think if Stanford were to 'right-size/downsize its aspiration in Football & Mens Basketball, we would indeed become like Cornell, Bowdoin College, and Dartmouth & CalTech ...yes those schools have 'Good Olympic sports and athletes, but not as good as Stanford & Cal...and I think we would have to assume part of those former schools not having the same Amount & Level of Elite Success at Olympic Sports is due to their not having a Football Program that is in a PowerConference, which would allow them to have their 'other sports be in a High P4 D1 conference).

I dont think any P4 conference is going to invite Stanford to participate & get the benefits of participating in its P4D1 Conference in other sports, if Stanford says 'We want all the benefits of being in your P4D1 Conference for all other sports, but we dont want to spend the money or effort to be in your P4 Football side' [If Stanford chooses to downsize in Football, it must accept becoming Dartmouth and CalTech in regards to its Athletic Dept & Sports]

The ACC invited NotreDame for this sweet deal of being Independent in Football, but having the benefits of All its other Sports being in the ACC, precisely because they saw NotreDame as a 'High Value Top15 Football Program' and that is why rather than 'Downsizing or Rightsizing for Football & Mens Basketball, I propose:

-Stanford must Adopt the 'Admissions/Transfers/NIL' criteria & culture of NotreDame, for Football
-Stanford must Adopt the 'Admissions/Transfers/NIL' criteria & culture of Duke, for Mens Basketball. ]]]

[StanUSwagU]

To All: Remember if we become Dartmouth, BowdoinColllege, and Cornell, these following things/trends will eventually (over the downward spiral) be gone =

-A- Being high level in OlympicSports
-B- Having as many other Varsity Sports
-C- And therefore being a place where Top Flight Athletes (eg Andrew Luck, Christian McCaffery, KateStarbird, RichardSherman, BrevinKnight, BrookLopez, Katie Ledecky, etc ) ..would even consider wanting to come to Stanford.

With respect, I wonder about that. 

To your second point, Dartmouth has 34 varsity sports. Cornell has 36, Bowdoin has 33; and Harvard has 40, Princeton has 36. I don't think that will change if Stanford rejects NIL/portal and rightsizes football.

[[[ Hi Mick, good points, sorry I should have clarified ...here I meant 'Varsity sports that compete & Win Championships at the Highest Div1 level' ]]

To your first and third points...Yale and Harvard are historically in the top 10 for most Olympic medals by college, Princeton and Cornell are in the Top 20, Dartmouth & Columbia are in the Top 35. That said, I don't think it's a coincidence that the top four universities by medal count are in California (USC, Stanford, UCLA, UC Berkeley), LBSU and Irvine are in the top 40, and other CA-based universities have won medals (SJSU, SCU, UC-SB, SDSU, CSU-Northridge, UC-Davis, Pomona, even Saddleback). CalTech, of all universities have alumni that have medaled in long jump, javelin, 1500m, 400m and pole vault. I think Olympians like the year-round training, the natural beauty, and the overall appeal of California. Stanford embodies that.

[[[ Here, I think you actually have made the point I am trying to make better than me. Caltech does not attract nor produce/attract as many & a High a level of OlympicAthlete as Stanford (which Stanford with its larger D1 profile & competing in a D1 Power Conference) does; If we drop down our AthleticDept Profile to D2 or 'small conf D1' ...our Olympic Sports willl become like CalTechs Olympic sports, ...which is to say ..not as good. ]]]

If Stanford rightsizes football...and I think the odds are strong once the ACC contract is complete...Stanford still has a unique overall offering for smart, high-level Olympian high school grads. Whether Stanford football is FCS or FBS shouldn't impact the overall program, and I think very smart, very high-level athletes will still want to matriculate at Stanford.

[[[Good points, I think its a matter of degree. I think if Stanford were to 'right-size/downsize its aspiration in Football & Mens Basketball, we would indeed become like Cornell, Bowdoin College, and Dartmouth & CalTech ...yes those schools have 'Good Olympic sports and athletes, but not as good as Stanford & Cal...and I think we would have to assume part of those former schools not having the same Amount & Level of Elite Success at Olympic Sports is due to their not having a Football Program that is in a PowerConference, which would allow them to have their 'other sports be in a High P4 D1 conference).

I dont think any P4 conference is going to invite Stanford to participate & get the benefits of participating in its P4D1 Conference in other sports, if Stanford says 'We want all the benefits of being in your P4D1 Conference for all other sports, but we dont want to spend the money or effort to be in your P4 Football side' [If Stanford chooses to downsize in Football, it must accept becoming Dartmouth and CalTech in regards to its Athletic Dept & Sports]

The ACC invited NotreDame for this sweet deal of being Independent in Football, but having the benefits of All its other Sports being in the ACC, precisely because they saw NotreDame as a 'High Value Top15 Football Program' and that is why rather than 'Downsizing or Rightsizing for Football & Mens Basketball, I propose:

-Stanford must Adopt the 'Admissions/Transfers/NIL' criteria & culture of NotreDame, for Football
-Stanford must Adopt the 'Admissions/Transfers/NIL' criteria & culture of Duke, for Mens Basketball. ]]]