[cctop]

In the 1st quarter when Stanford went for it on 4th and 1 instead of kicking the field goal, the TV announcers quoted Reich as saying, "I'm not here for a long time. I'm here for a good time."

I liked the loose, gambler's mentality attitude.

We can and will pick apart the coaching on other threads. I just wanted to highlight how this year will be different than Taylor and the utterly joyless last couple of years of Shaw.

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. My judgment on this year will be:
- does the team keep fighting?
- can the coaches minimize the losses to the transfer portal at the end of the year?

Without this year's losses to the portal we easily would have won yesterday's game.

[cctop]

In the 1st quarter when Stanford went for it on 4th and 1 instead of kicking the field goal, the TV announcers quoted Reich as saying, "I'm not here for a long time. I'm here for a good time."

I liked the loose, gambler's mentality attitude.

We can and will pick apart the coaching on other threads. I just wanted to highlight how this year will be different than Taylor and the utterly joyless last couple of years of Shaw.

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. My judgment on this year will be:
- does the team keep fighting?
- can the coaches minimize the losses to the transfer portal at the end of the year?

Without this year's losses to the portal we easily would have won yesterday's game.

[Maple Leaf]

In the 1st quarter when Stanford went for it on 4th and 1 instead of kicking the field goal, the TV announcers quoted Reich as saying, "I'm not here for a long time. I'm here for a good time."

I liked the loose, gambler's mentality attitude.

We can and will pick apart the coaching on other threads. I just wanted to highlight how this year will be different than Taylor and the utterly joyless last couple of years of Shaw.

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. My judgment on this year will be:
- does the team keep fighting?
- can the coaches minimize the losses to the transfer portal at the end of the year?

Without this year's losses to the portal we easily would have won yesterday's game.

Very well said sir!!!

[Maple Leaf]

In the 1st quarter when Stanford went for it on 4th and 1 instead of kicking the field goal, the TV announcers quoted Reich as saying, "I'm not here for a long time. I'm here for a good time."

I liked the loose, gambler's mentality attitude.

We can and will pick apart the coaching on other threads. I just wanted to highlight how this year will be different than Taylor and the utterly joyless last couple of years of Shaw.

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. My judgment on this year will be:
- does the team keep fighting?
- can the coaches minimize the losses to the transfer portal at the end of the year?

Without this year's losses to the portal we easily would have won yesterday's game.

Very well said sir!!!

[fullmetal]

A gambler's mentality would have seen Elijah Brown take a couple of drives.  Or gamble on a very successful run game not being stopped in the second half when seemingly superior Stanford conditioning was having its way with a depleted Hawai'i run defense.  There are smart gamblers and there are losing gamblers.  Smart gamblers make winning decisions with very incomplete information.  Gambling doesn't mean "make fundamentally unsound decisions."  A smart gambler wouldn't have stuck with the QB with the 13.2 QBR still throwing the ball to win the game, unfortunately.

Two seasons ago, Ashton Daniels had a QBR of 68.3 in a winning effort over Hawai'i. Feels like a lifetime ago.

[fullmetal]

A gambler's mentality would have seen Elijah Brown take a couple of drives.  Or gamble on a very successful run game not being stopped in the second half when seemingly superior Stanford conditioning was having its way with a depleted Hawai'i run defense.  There are smart gamblers and there are losing gamblers.  Smart gamblers make winning decisions with very incomplete information.  Gambling doesn't mean "make fundamentally unsound decisions."  A smart gambler wouldn't have stuck with the QB with the 13.2 QBR still throwing the ball to win the game, unfortunately.

Two seasons ago, Ashton Daniels had a QBR of 68.3 in a winning effort over Hawai'i. Feels like a lifetime ago.

[JohnR34231]

Well I think one thing we can say with certainty is that we won't go 0-11 this year since we play 12 games. Now we could go 0-11 in our next 11 games which was perhaps what was meant.

At least it would be nice to know that we aren't any worse (at least from a W-L standpoint) than we have been in the past 4 years despite all the bailouts from last year's team. So I would definitely prefer 3-9. I was hoping for better, but the loss to one of the weaker teams on the schedule doesn't encourage me.

The running attack looked good but let's not forget it got us exactly one touchdown in 60 minutes of play. As everyone has noted the passing attack was horrendous.

The defense was decent in general, but when the game was on the line it couldn't come through.

Therefore I have a hard time taking a Pollyanna attitude toward this game. It's not like we were playing Alabama or Georgia. This is a game we could have and should have won, despite what the odds makers said.

[JohnR34231]

Well I think one thing we can say with certainty is that we won't go 0-11 this year since we play 12 games. Now we could go 0-11 in our next 11 games which was perhaps what was meant.

At least it would be nice to know that we aren't any worse (at least from a W-L standpoint) than we have been in the past 4 years despite all the bailouts from last year's team. So I would definitely prefer 3-9. I was hoping for better, but the loss to one of the weaker teams on the schedule doesn't encourage me.

The running attack looked good but let's not forget it got us exactly one touchdown in 60 minutes of play. As everyone has noted the passing attack was horrendous.

The defense was decent in general, but when the game was on the line it couldn't come through.

Therefore I have a hard time taking a Pollyanna attitude toward this game. It's not like we were playing Alabama or Georgia. This is a game we could have and should have won, despite what the odds makers said.

[JeebsOak]

They were playing one of the worst teams in college football and looked pedestrian and worse in all facets than Hawaii. How anyone can twist this into a positive is an indicator at how far this program is in the shitter and how it will never come out. Laughing stock of an NCAA program

[JeebsOak]

They were playing one of the worst teams in college football and looked pedestrian and worse in all facets than Hawaii. How anyone can twist this into a positive is an indicator at how far this program is in the shitter and how it will never come out. Laughing stock of an NCAA program

[JohnR34231]

They were playing one of the worst teams in college football and looked pedestrian and worse in all facets than Hawaii. How anyone can twist this into a positive is an indicator at how far this program is in the shitter and how it will never come out. Laughing stock of an NCAA program

Good news: That is a bit of an exaggeration. Hawaii is not one of the worst teams in college football, although they are far from one of the best.
Bad news: it isn't THAT much of one. We are just not a good football team.

[JohnR34231]

They were playing one of the worst teams in college football and looked pedestrian and worse in all facets than Hawaii. How anyone can twist this into a positive is an indicator at how far this program is in the shitter and how it will never come out. Laughing stock of an NCAA program

Good news: That is a bit of an exaggeration. Hawaii is not one of the worst teams in college football, although they are far from one of the best.
Bad news: it isn't THAT much of one. We are just not a good football team.

[cctop]

Therefore I have a hard time taking a Pollyanna attitude toward this game. It's not like we were playing Alabama or Georgia. This is a game we could have and should have won, despite what the odds makers said.

I don't feel I'm being Pollyanna.
We are a terrible team.
We have been a terrible team for many years.
We have been talking for years about how terrible we are.
We all hope to be less terrible this year.
Most of us do not expect we will be less terrible until we stop losing our best players to the transfer portal.
But yesterday for the first time in a while I felt like we were a watchable team.

[cctop]

Therefore I have a hard time taking a Pollyanna attitude toward this game. It's not like we were playing Alabama or Georgia. This is a game we could have and should have won, despite what the odds makers said.

I don't feel I'm being Pollyanna.
We are a terrible team.
We have been a terrible team for many years.
We have been talking for years about how terrible we are.
We all hope to be less terrible this year.
Most of us do not expect we will be less terrible until we stop losing our best players to the transfer portal.
But yesterday for the first time in a while I felt like we were a watchable team.

[Mick]

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. 

Maybe just a one-game difference... ;)

I think they'll finish 0-12. Hawaii was the one winnable game on their schedule. Unless they find a massively transformative QB -- and I think between Luck and Reich, they already thought they had him in Gulbranson -- they're toast.

New prediction: Stanford will be out of football within five years.

[Mick]

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. 

Maybe just a one-game difference... ;)

I think they'll finish 0-12. Hawaii was the one winnable game on their schedule. Unless they find a massively transformative QB -- and I think between Luck and Reich, they already thought they had him in Gulbranson -- they're toast.

New prediction: Stanford will be out of football within five years.

[gailtate]

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. 

Maybe just a one-game difference... ;)

I think they'll finish 0-12. Hawaii was the one winnable game on their schedule. Unless they find a massively transformative QB -- and I think between Luck and Reich, they already thought they had him in Gulbranson -- they're toast.  

New prediction: Stanford will be out of football within five years.

How ironic that Andrew Luck's verbal emphasis on "commitment" to football is splashed all over slick videos on GoStanford.com. The fault-line of Stanford's athletic future is university's historical ambivalence and ambiguity when it comes to genuine commitment to big-time football. Sure, Stanford talks a big-time game. It lives something less. As of this moment, it's hurtling on a path right off a cliff. I've always said that it didn't have to be this way. I no longer believe it. You are what your record says you are.

[gailtate]

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. 

Maybe just a one-game difference... ;)

I think they'll finish 0-12. Hawaii was the one winnable game on their schedule. Unless they find a massively transformative QB -- and I think between Luck and Reich, they already thought they had him in Gulbranson -- they're toast.  

New prediction: Stanford will be out of football within five years.

How ironic that Andrew Luck's verbal emphasis on "commitment" to football is splashed all over slick videos on GoStanford.com. The fault-line of Stanford's athletic future is university's historical ambivalence and ambiguity when it comes to genuine commitment to big-time football. Sure, Stanford talks a big-time game. It lives something less. As of this moment, it's hurtling on a path right off a cliff. I've always said that it didn't have to be this way. I no longer believe it. You are what your record says you are.

[Mick]

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. 

Maybe just a one-game difference... ;)

I think they'll finish 0-12. Hawaii was the one winnable game on their schedule. Unless they find a massively transformative QB -- and I think between Luck and Reich, they already thought they had him in Gulbranson -- they're toast.  

New prediction: Stanford will be out of football within five years.

How ironic that Andrew Luck's verbal emphasis on "commitment" to football is splashed all over slick videos on GoStanford.com. The fault-line of Stanford's athletic future is university's historical ambivalence and ambiguity when it comes to genuine commitment to big-time football. Sure, Stanford talks a big-time game. It lives something less. As of this moment, it's hurtling on a path right off a cliff. I've always said that it didn't have to be this way. I no longer believe it. You are what your record says you are.

Yes. And one wonders how much Reich really wants to be here...

[Mick]

Frankly I don't think there's a difference between us going 3-9 for a 5th straight year or going 0-11. 

Maybe just a one-game difference... ;)

I think they'll finish 0-12. Hawaii was the one winnable game on their schedule. Unless they find a massively transformative QB -- and I think between Luck and Reich, they already thought they had him in Gulbranson -- they're toast.  

New prediction: Stanford will be out of football within five years.

How ironic that Andrew Luck's verbal emphasis on "commitment" to football is splashed all over slick videos on GoStanford.com. The fault-line of Stanford's athletic future is university's historical ambivalence and ambiguity when it comes to genuine commitment to big-time football. Sure, Stanford talks a big-time game. It lives something less. As of this moment, it's hurtling on a path right off a cliff. I've always said that it didn't have to be this way. I no longer believe it. You are what your record says you are.

Yes. And one wonders how much Reich really wants to be here...

[BostonCard]

As the saying goes, “he’s just not that into you”

Let’s be honest here, revealed preferences being what they are, there just simply isn’t that much diehard support for Stanford football.  Not amongst fans who demonstrate it time and again by *not* going to games except in very brief windows when Stanford is competitive, not by students, who, like other fans *sometimes* go to games, not by most faculty, who view football as, at best, a distraction, and not by donors, who, by and large have not stepped up to buy a competitive football team.  The pockets of interest that do exist, concentrated on this board, for example, are simply not enough to move the needle.

Unfortunately, we largely lack the will to make Stanford competitive and to drop football, so we continue aimlessly, guided by inertia, to field a team, which by and large sucks, and which will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  A braver soul would just call it like it is and admit that Stanford does not have what it takes institutionally to be a football powerhouse, and that’s ok.  Focus on our strengths, which, do not lie on the gridiron.

BC

[BostonCard]

As the saying goes, “he’s just not that into you”

Let’s be honest here, revealed preferences being what they are, there just simply isn’t that much diehard support for Stanford football.  Not amongst fans who demonstrate it time and again by *not* going to games except in very brief windows when Stanford is competitive, not by students, who, like other fans *sometimes* go to games, not by most faculty, who view football as, at best, a distraction, and not by donors, who, by and large have not stepped up to buy a competitive football team.  The pockets of interest that do exist, concentrated on this board, for example, are simply not enough to move the needle.

Unfortunately, we largely lack the will to make Stanford competitive and to drop football, so we continue aimlessly, guided by inertia, to field a team, which by and large sucks, and which will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  A braver soul would just call it like it is and admit that Stanford does not have what it takes institutionally to be a football powerhouse, and that’s ok.  Focus on our strengths, which, do not lie on the gridiron.

BC

[Goose]

A braver soul would just call it like it is and admit that Stanford does not have what it takes institutionally to be a football powerhouse, and that’s ok.  Focus on our strengths, which, do not lie on the gridiron.

BC

I agree with what BC is saying here. Stanford's main "strengths" never did lie on the gridiron. Just to be clear (and perhaps restating the obvious) the definition of "gridiron strength" has changed radically in the last 10 years. Stanford could compete under the much maligned "student-athlete" model. Stanford (written large) does not want to compete in a semi-pro (and not really "semi") league. IMO it isn't just inertia that keeps Stanford from dropping football. It is also a deeply-rooted hope that college football will realize the current model isn't what college football fans want. It is what the vendors of sports entertainment want. The hope is that if we hang in there there will be a comfortable place to "land" eventually that is more in tune with college and less beholden to ESPN et al. I have little hope that will happen anytime soon, if ever.

[Goose]

A braver soul would just call it like it is and admit that Stanford does not have what it takes institutionally to be a football powerhouse, and that’s ok.  Focus on our strengths, which, do not lie on the gridiron.

BC

I agree with what BC is saying here. Stanford's main "strengths" never did lie on the gridiron. Just to be clear (and perhaps restating the obvious) the definition of "gridiron strength" has changed radically in the last 10 years. Stanford could compete under the much maligned "student-athlete" model. Stanford (written large) does not want to compete in a semi-pro (and not really "semi") league. IMO it isn't just inertia that keeps Stanford from dropping football. It is also a deeply-rooted hope that college football will realize the current model isn't what college football fans want. It is what the vendors of sports entertainment want. The hope is that if we hang in there there will be a comfortable place to "land" eventually that is more in tune with college and less beholden to ESPN et al. I have little hope that will happen anytime soon, if ever.

[Spiny_Norman]

Regardless of the success (or lack thereof) on the field, Stanford needs football in order to fund its other sports and to remain nationally competitive in those other sports. I glanced at the athletic profiles of a few other schools that do not play football (St. Marys, Gonzaga, UC Irvine, Pepperdine). They sponsor 16-20 sports, more or less evenly split between men's and women's. And most of those schools are only nationally competitive in 2-3 sports at most. So giving up on football probably would mean giving up on around 1/2 of Stanford's 36 sports. 

This may be the most extreme possible route for Stanford. But I think financial reality is going to force the school's leaders to make some hard decisions soon about how many sports it can support and whether or not one of those is football (because football costs so much). It's going to come down to how much and for how long the University is willing to subsidize Athletics in order to maintain a broad based program.

[Spiny_Norman]

Regardless of the success (or lack thereof) on the field, Stanford needs football in order to fund its other sports and to remain nationally competitive in those other sports. I glanced at the athletic profiles of a few other schools that do not play football (St. Marys, Gonzaga, UC Irvine, Pepperdine). They sponsor 16-20 sports, more or less evenly split between men's and women's. And most of those schools are only nationally competitive in 2-3 sports at most. So giving up on football probably would mean giving up on around 1/2 of Stanford's 36 sports. 

This may be the most extreme possible route for Stanford. But I think financial reality is going to force the school's leaders to make some hard decisions soon about how many sports it can support and whether or not one of those is football (because football costs so much). It's going to come down to how much and for how long the University is willing to subsidize Athletics in order to maintain a broad based program.

[BillBradley]

As the saying goes, “he’s just not that into you”

Let’s be honest here, revealed preferences being what they are, there just simply isn’t that much diehard support for Stanford football.  Not amongst fans who demonstrate it time and again by *not* going to games except in very brief windows when Stanford is competitive, not by students, who, like other fans *sometimes* go to games, not by most faculty, who view football as, at best, a distraction, and not by donors, who, by and large have not stepped up to buy a competitive football team.  The pockets of interest that do exist, concentrated on this board, for example, are simply not enough to move the needle.

Unfortunately, we largely lack the will to make Stanford competitive and to drop football, so we continue aimlessly, guided by inertia, to field a team, which by and large sucks, and which will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  A braver soul would just call it like it is and admit that Stanford does not have what it takes institutionally to be a football powerhouse, and that’s ok.  Focus on our strengths, which, do not lie on the gridiron.

BC

100% agree there's no diehard support for Stanford football, but non-support of a terrible team isn't unique to Stanford. Fair weather fans exist on The Farm just like everywhere else. No one shows up to watch a loser, but everyone shows up to watch a winner, including the students and the faculty (refer to the Luck/CMac years). It's convenient after a bad loss to paint the "no one cares, all the time" picture, but it's not accurate IMO. I totally agree though that football passion at Stanford isn't close to other power conference schools, and that's why it's going to be a slow process. I wouldn't bet against Stanford long term though. The money is building, new people are involved, the landscape is changing...we'll see where we are in 5 years. Until then...what's your prediction for the fight Clubber? Painnnnnnn.

[BillBradley]

As the saying goes, “he’s just not that into you”

Let’s be honest here, revealed preferences being what they are, there just simply isn’t that much diehard support for Stanford football.  Not amongst fans who demonstrate it time and again by *not* going to games except in very brief windows when Stanford is competitive, not by students, who, like other fans *sometimes* go to games, not by most faculty, who view football as, at best, a distraction, and not by donors, who, by and large have not stepped up to buy a competitive football team.  The pockets of interest that do exist, concentrated on this board, for example, are simply not enough to move the needle.

Unfortunately, we largely lack the will to make Stanford competitive and to drop football, so we continue aimlessly, guided by inertia, to field a team, which by and large sucks, and which will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  A braver soul would just call it like it is and admit that Stanford does not have what it takes institutionally to be a football powerhouse, and that’s ok.  Focus on our strengths, which, do not lie on the gridiron.

BC

100% agree there's no diehard support for Stanford football, but non-support of a terrible team isn't unique to Stanford. Fair weather fans exist on The Farm just like everywhere else. No one shows up to watch a loser, but everyone shows up to watch a winner, including the students and the faculty (refer to the Luck/CMac years). It's convenient after a bad loss to paint the "no one cares, all the time" picture, but it's not accurate IMO. I totally agree though that football passion at Stanford isn't close to other power conference schools, and that's why it's going to be a slow process. I wouldn't bet against Stanford long term though. The money is building, new people are involved, the landscape is changing...we'll see where we are in 5 years. Until then...what's your prediction for the fight Clubber? Painnnnnnn.

[82lsju]

Regardless of the success (or lack thereof) on the field, Stanford needs football in order to fund its other sports and to remain nationally competitive in those other sports. I glanced at the athletic profiles of a few other schools that do not play football (St. Marys, Gonzaga, UC Irvine, Pepperdine). They sponsor 16-20 sports, more or less evenly split between men's and women's. And most of those schools are only nationally competitive in 2-3 sports at most. So giving up on football probably would mean giving up on around 1/2 of Stanford's 36 sports. 

This may be the most extreme possible route for Stanford. But I think financial reality is going to force the school's leaders to make some hard decisions soon about how many sports it can support and whether or not one of those is football (because football costs so much). It's going to come down to how much and for how long the University is willing to subsidize Athletics in order to maintain a broad based program.

it is not clear to me that football is currently a large net revenue contributor to the AD to fund other sports

From the 2023/24 AD annual report (and things are likely worse now)

- assume all the broadcast money is due to football - $20m  (14% of $144m), I assume this goes down with the reduced share of ACC broadcast money for the next few years
- football gate - $6m (4% of $144m) - this is also trending down
- corp partnerships - $6m (4% of $144m) - to make it simple I'll assume all of this is for football

so I SWAG football directly brought in ~$32m in 23/24 and probably less now given the lesser share of ACC TV money and declining football attendance

other "revenue flows" that could be disrupted with an end to major college football

- expendable gifts - $20m, how much of this is tied to football/because of football, I'll guess 50% so $10m that would be eliminated if football became FCS
- endowment payout - $34m, lots of this is tied to endowed scholarships and coaching positions so it probably continues even if performance of the team lags, I'll SWAG that football is 50% given the ~85 scholarships and relatively highly paid coaching staff, so football is maybe ~$17m

of course "university support" in 23/24 was ~$48m (33% of the total) so almost as much as the total expendable gifts and endowment payout....and I doubt that level of support continues indefinitely...

Football travel expenses went up some but I would guess on a percentage increase basis a lot of other sports went up more due to increased travel for those sports now playing in the ACC

I think just as big, or a bigger risk, to other sports is if Stanford was not in a major conference a lot of the other sports tied to conference play in that conference become less attractive as I assume a lot of those athletes want to compete at the highest level and some players will choose to go elsewhere.

[82lsju]

Regardless of the success (or lack thereof) on the field, Stanford needs football in order to fund its other sports and to remain nationally competitive in those other sports. I glanced at the athletic profiles of a few other schools that do not play football (St. Marys, Gonzaga, UC Irvine, Pepperdine). They sponsor 16-20 sports, more or less evenly split between men's and women's. And most of those schools are only nationally competitive in 2-3 sports at most. So giving up on football probably would mean giving up on around 1/2 of Stanford's 36 sports. 

This may be the most extreme possible route for Stanford. But I think financial reality is going to force the school's leaders to make some hard decisions soon about how many sports it can support and whether or not one of those is football (because football costs so much). It's going to come down to how much and for how long the University is willing to subsidize Athletics in order to maintain a broad based program.

it is not clear to me that football is currently a large net revenue contributor to the AD to fund other sports

From the 2023/24 AD annual report (and things are likely worse now)

- assume all the broadcast money is due to football - $20m  (14% of $144m), I assume this goes down with the reduced share of ACC broadcast money for the next few years
- football gate - $6m (4% of $144m) - this is also trending down
- corp partnerships - $6m (4% of $144m) - to make it simple I'll assume all of this is for football

so I SWAG football directly brought in ~$32m in 23/24 and probably less now given the lesser share of ACC TV money and declining football attendance

other "revenue flows" that could be disrupted with an end to major college football

- expendable gifts - $20m, how much of this is tied to football/because of football, I'll guess 50% so $10m that would be eliminated if football became FCS
- endowment payout - $34m, lots of this is tied to endowed scholarships and coaching positions so it probably continues even if performance of the team lags, I'll SWAG that football is 50% given the ~85 scholarships and relatively highly paid coaching staff, so football is maybe ~$17m

of course "university support" in 23/24 was ~$48m (33% of the total) so almost as much as the total expendable gifts and endowment payout....and I doubt that level of support continues indefinitely...

Football travel expenses went up some but I would guess on a percentage increase basis a lot of other sports went up more due to increased travel for those sports now playing in the ACC

I think just as big, or a bigger risk, to other sports is if Stanford was not in a major conference a lot of the other sports tied to conference play in that conference become less attractive as I assume a lot of those athletes want to compete at the highest level and some players will choose to go elsewhere.

[M T]

Or they choose to go elsewhere because of the long travel for Stanford athletes in the ACC interrupting their training and pre-event preparation.  We heard the WVB coach say their attempt to accommodate the time zone change last year was a mistake.  I take that as a tacit admission that the time zone change (and presumably the hours on the plane) are issues yet to be accounted for.

[M T]

Or they choose to go elsewhere because of the long travel for Stanford athletes in the ACC interrupting their training and pre-event preparation.  We heard the WVB coach say their attempt to accommodate the time zone change last year was a mistake.  I take that as a tacit admission that the time zone change (and presumably the hours on the plane) are issues yet to be accounted for.

[82lsju]

Or they choose to go elsewhere because of the long travel for Stanford athletes in the ACC interrupting their training and pre-event preparation.  We heard the WVB coach say their attempt to accommodate the time zone change last year was a mistake.  I take that as a tacit admission that the time zone change (and presumably the hours on the plane) are issues yet to be accounted for.

which is why the best hope for us is to be one of the Pacific/Mountain time zone teams that ends up in coming super conferences, the Big 10 already has four, the SEC none....

[82lsju]

Or they choose to go elsewhere because of the long travel for Stanford athletes in the ACC interrupting their training and pre-event preparation.  We heard the WVB coach say their attempt to accommodate the time zone change last year was a mistake.  I take that as a tacit admission that the time zone change (and presumably the hours on the plane) are issues yet to be accounted for.

which is why the best hope for us is to be one of the Pacific/Mountain time zone teams that ends up in coming super conferences, the Big 10 already has four, the SEC none....