[Row80Critic]

Luck at the helm, $50 million in the bank, lot's of talk -- but where's the beef?  No marquee coaches, no marquee players, meager portal adds.  I don't get it.  How can this be the best that Stanford University can do?  Luck said he wanted to return Stanford to elite status in college football.  No matter how hard I squint, I can't see any progress in that direction.  Am I missing it?

[Row80Critic]

Luck at the helm, $50 million in the bank, lot's of talk -- but where's the beef?  No marquee coaches, no marquee players, meager portal adds.  I don't get it.  How can this be the best that Stanford University can do?  Luck said he wanted to return Stanford to elite status in college football.  No matter how hard I squint, I can't see any progress in that direction.  Am I missing it?

[SkiBum80]

Luck at the helm, $50 million in the bank, lot's of talk -- but where's the beef?  No marquee coaches, no marquee players, meager portal adds.  I don't get it.  How can this be the best that Stanford University can do?  Luck said he wanted to return Stanford to elite status in college football.  No matter how hard I squint, I can't see any progress in that direction.  Am I missing it?

I think is a bit premature to embrace full throated pessimism.
If by "no marquee coach" you mean not going out and paying a wildly inflated, astronomical salary for a h.uge name, only to find that they may not work out, and then you're paying mega millions a year for nothing after letting them go, then I'm OK with getting Coach Pritchard instead.
And I'm optimistically hoping that youth, enthusiasm, and synergy with likeminded boss and fellow coaches, will make up for a lack of more experience and more "name".
For the other coaches we've announced so far, is there not something or someone encouraging to see there?  
And yes it's not the end of the story, while we await further news on the DC side of things.
Surely it is a bit early in the transfer portal to declare it a failure.
I'm not saying that I'm sure this next step in Stanford football will be a raging success.
But I'm seeing it much more half full then half empty at this point.

[SkiBum80]

Luck at the helm, $50 million in the bank, lot's of talk -- but where's the beef?  No marquee coaches, no marquee players, meager portal adds.  I don't get it.  How can this be the best that Stanford University can do?  Luck said he wanted to return Stanford to elite status in college football.  No matter how hard I squint, I can't see any progress in that direction.  Am I missing it?

I think is a bit premature to embrace full throated pessimism.
If by "no marquee coach" you mean not going out and paying a wildly inflated, astronomical salary for a h.uge name, only to find that they may not work out, and then you're paying mega millions a year for nothing after letting them go, then I'm OK with getting Coach Pritchard instead.
And I'm optimistically hoping that youth, enthusiasm, and synergy with likeminded boss and fellow coaches, will make up for a lack of more experience and more "name".
For the other coaches we've announced so far, is there not something or someone encouraging to see there?  
And yes it's not the end of the story, while we await further news on the DC side of things.
Surely it is a bit early in the transfer portal to declare it a failure.
I'm not saying that I'm sure this next step in Stanford football will be a raging success.
But I'm seeing it much more half full then half empty at this point.

[KartyFan]

Fully agree with SkiBum80.

At this point I assume we have more complete info on what we are losing than what we are gaining, since presumably there is some lag between entering the portal and finding a home. To me the most encouraging thing is to see that do far we have not lost any top players. If Micah Ford wants to stay, that is a big vote of confidence from a player who needs a good O-Line to succeed.

[KartyFan]

Fully agree with SkiBum80.

At this point I assume we have more complete info on what we are losing than what we are gaining, since presumably there is some lag between entering the portal and finding a home. To me the most encouraging thing is to see that do far we have not lost any top players. If Micah Ford wants to stay, that is a big vote of confidence from a player who needs a good O-Line to succeed.

[chrisk]

Cignetti and the Hoosiers were not big names until they landed in Indiana. Mendoza had some buzz, but nobody predicted they would go from 3 wins to 11 wins to a likely 16 and a CFP championship in 2 years. They did it by being smart, not based on credentials. Teams can move up and down more quickly in the current environment. I would br happy with a winning season in 2026.

[chrisk]

Cignetti and the Hoosiers were not big names until they landed in Indiana. Mendoza had some buzz, but nobody predicted they would go from 3 wins to 11 wins to a likely 16 and a CFP championship in 2 years. They did it by being smart, not based on credentials. Teams can move up and down more quickly in the current environment. I would br happy with a winning season in 2026.

[BrevinsBest]

OP

Luck at the helm, $50 million in the bank, lot's of talk -- but where's the beef?  No marquee coaches, no marquee players, meager portal adds.  I don't get it.  How can this be the best that Stanford University can do?  Luck said he wanted to return Stanford to elite status in college football.  No matter how hard I squint, I can't see any progress in that direction.  Am I missing it?

Definitely not $50 million in the bank. From my understanding, that gift is given over a number of years. That being said, I’d like to see more progress…period.

[BrevinsBest]

OP

Luck at the helm, $50 million in the bank, lot's of talk -- but where's the beef?  No marquee coaches, no marquee players, meager portal adds.  I don't get it.  How can this be the best that Stanford University can do?  Luck said he wanted to return Stanford to elite status in college football.  No matter how hard I squint, I can't see any progress in that direction.  Am I missing it?

Definitely not $50 million in the bank. From my understanding, that gift is given over a number of years. That being said, I’d like to see more progress…period.

[BostonCard]

You realize that the University laid of 360 employees and announced a $140 million budget cut less than 6 months ago.  Even before the PAC-12 fell apart, the athletics department was already running a deficit, and that was before the University agreed to bail it out so that it could move to a conference literally named after the other coast, and take a paltry fraction of the revenue for that pleasure.

It would have been the height of tone deafness, then, for the University to make a splashy coaching hire and pay out the equivalent of 20 of the laid off employees salaries just to satisfy the ego of the handful of sportsball fans whose self-image is tied to whether a bunch of 20 year olds can move an oblong ball 100 yards down the field.  While the $50 million donation is nice, it basically will put out about $2.5 million a year, which is about 1/8th of what the University could be paying athletes as part of the House settlement.

The solution, then, is simple, and is what the successful teams in the portal have been doing.  Donate enough money that the football team can pay out $5+ million for a name coach and have $20+ million to play around with for House settlement funds (plus probably an equal amount in NIL money), which basically means either having a $50 million donation every year or finding about $1B that can be used to generate enough capital to essentially endow a successful football team.  If you have that money lying around, I would be willing to bet the Athletics Dept. will take your check and might even name something in your honor.

Otherwise, while it is really easy to ask the University to spend other people’s money, as much as I too enjoy sportsball, I would rather be underwhelmed with the investment in the athletics program than have to see another 50 or so university employees laid off and curtail a bunch of groundbreaking research and important teaching activities that are actually core to the University’s mission.

BC

[BostonCard]

You realize that the University laid of 360 employees and announced a $140 million budget cut less than 6 months ago.  Even before the PAC-12 fell apart, the athletics department was already running a deficit, and that was before the University agreed to bail it out so that it could move to a conference literally named after the other coast, and take a paltry fraction of the revenue for that pleasure.

It would have been the height of tone deafness, then, for the University to make a splashy coaching hire and pay out the equivalent of 20 of the laid off employees salaries just to satisfy the ego of the handful of sportsball fans whose self-image is tied to whether a bunch of 20 year olds can move an oblong ball 100 yards down the field.  While the $50 million donation is nice, it basically will put out about $2.5 million a year, which is about 1/8th of what the University could be paying athletes as part of the House settlement.

The solution, then, is simple, and is what the successful teams in the portal have been doing.  Donate enough money that the football team can pay out $5+ million for a name coach and have $20+ million to play around with for House settlement funds (plus probably an equal amount in NIL money), which basically means either having a $50 million donation every year or finding about $1B that can be used to generate enough capital to essentially endow a successful football team.  If you have that money lying around, I would be willing to bet the Athletics Dept. will take your check and might even name something in your honor.

Otherwise, while it is really easy to ask the University to spend other people’s money, as much as I too enjoy sportsball, I would rather be underwhelmed with the investment in the athletics program than have to see another 50 or so university employees laid off and curtail a bunch of groundbreaking research and important teaching activities that are actually core to the University’s mission.

BC

[Treebound]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

[Treebound]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

[Goose]

I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

While it would be a comforting thought, IMO it isn't accurate. JH squared showed us that 15 years ago it was possible to build such a program at Stanford. This was accomplished with available funds and without any major changes to University policies.
 
Clearly, college football today requires much greater financial support in both absolute and relative terms than it did in 2010. Equally clearly Stanford has already made much larger policy changes already than were required for Harbaugh to "succeed". Whether these policy changes are "bad" is clearly arguable, but there is no doubt they have occurred. It is also yet to be demonstrated that these changes are sufficient. Bigger ones may be required. They may be too big for many Stanford "stake-holders" and therefore not be possible.
 
I think we all would agree we are not "there yet" in being great athletically as far as football is concerned. Unfortunately it is also not (yet) clear we are on a path that may reach the desired success in football. There may indeed be factors in this "brave new world" that render reaching that goal impossible at Stanford. It also may be true it is possible but would require changes that would affect the academic program in ways unacceptable to the University. We don't know yet. It is good that we are attempting to reach this goal without running into these financial/policy constraints. IMO it is still quite unknown that this task can be accomplished, and if so, how.

[Goose]

I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

While it would be a comforting thought, IMO it isn't accurate. JH squared showed us that 15 years ago it was possible to build such a program at Stanford. This was accomplished with available funds and without any major changes to University policies.
 
Clearly, college football today requires much greater financial support in both absolute and relative terms than it did in 2010. Equally clearly Stanford has already made much larger policy changes already than were required for Harbaugh to "succeed". Whether these policy changes are "bad" is clearly arguable, but there is no doubt they have occurred. It is also yet to be demonstrated that these changes are sufficient. Bigger ones may be required. They may be too big for many Stanford "stake-holders" and therefore not be possible.
 
I think we all would agree we are not "there yet" in being great athletically as far as football is concerned. Unfortunately it is also not (yet) clear we are on a path that may reach the desired success in football. There may indeed be factors in this "brave new world" that render reaching that goal impossible at Stanford. It also may be true it is possible but would require changes that would affect the academic program in ways unacceptable to the University. We don't know yet. It is good that we are attempting to reach this goal without running into these financial/policy constraints. IMO it is still quite unknown that this task can be accomplished, and if so, how.

[calfan]

I think Luck is proving to be a poor GM hire (yes, I know I'm the Cal fan saying this). Outstanding player, incredible Stanford legacy, but no experience in management or leading an org and his results to this point have been very disappointing for you all, to my eye. The Pritchard hire was uninspired at best (read: it is truly lackluster especially since Luck had a whole year to find someone) and not even remotely comparable to Cignetti, who had an extensive track record of winning at every level/stop.

The only benefit Luck has really brought is a brief catalyst for donor money as he was a "splashy" name, but even that seems to have been pretty tepid (the $50M gift is not lump sum and not all for football, btw).

I'm not rooting for this, for what it's worth. I believe we're somewhat tied at the hip for the next round of realignment in a few years and want us to be a great package deal. But, candidly, I have to say that it seems like Luck's grade so far would be a C- at best.

[calfan]

I think Luck is proving to be a poor GM hire (yes, I know I'm the Cal fan saying this). Outstanding player, incredible Stanford legacy, but no experience in management or leading an org and his results to this point have been very disappointing for you all, to my eye. The Pritchard hire was uninspired at best (read: it is truly lackluster especially since Luck had a whole year to find someone) and not even remotely comparable to Cignetti, who had an extensive track record of winning at every level/stop.

The only benefit Luck has really brought is a brief catalyst for donor money as he was a "splashy" name, but even that seems to have been pretty tepid (the $50M gift is not lump sum and not all for football, btw).

I'm not rooting for this, for what it's worth. I believe we're somewhat tied at the hip for the next round of realignment in a few years and want us to be a great package deal. But, candidly, I have to say that it seems like Luck's grade so far would be a C- at best.

[Row80Critic]

I get that everyone wants to remain optimistic and give the brain trust time to turn things around.  I'm right there with you.  I just can't help but feel we are not seeing the kinds of moves/additions that will change the trajectory for Stanford Football.  Time alone doesn't fix anything -- and it's not clear from my seat that they are doing anything to change the direction of the program.  You could make a strong argument to the contrary actually -- i.e., doubling down on a 'comfortable' staff that may or may not be up for the task.  Tavita's a great guy and I'd would absolutely LOVE to see him turn the program around, but his coaching experience is quite limited, so he represents another roll of the dice for the program.  

The comment about Indiana doing it 'smart' and not based on credentials is off base in my opinion.  Cignetti's resume was the epitome of college football coaching credentials -- 30 years of college coaching experience when they hired him, trained under Saban, highest levels of success at 3 programs as HC before Indiana, picking up multiple conference coach of the year honors, conference titles and/or playoff appearance at every school -- he might not have been doing Vrbo commercials at the time, but the man was as well-credentialed as it gets. Give us that!  Tavita has none of that, and for that matter Luck doesn't either.  It's institutional nepotism -- that doesn't mean they'll fail, but it is what it is.  Based on his on-field and on-paper resume, Tavita isn't ready to be a head coach in a power conference.  Very few, if any, unbiased observers would argue otherwise. He might knock it out of the park, sure, but 00 comes up on the roulette wheel every day and that still doesn't make it a good bet.  Subsequent coaching announcements seem similar to me, some obviously better than others, and the portal to date is a large net loss for the program, ranked 79th in the portal currently, with just 3 additions so far that 'might' yield one or two starters.  Re finances, please...  Stanford University has a bigger operating budget than a quarter of the U.S. States (google it, I'll wait).  Money is not the problem.  They seem to lack the will to shake things up and do what's needed to make real changes.  

None of this is to say they won't improve next year; I suspect they will (or at least am optimistic they will).  I'm just lamenting another off-season of lackluster changes after all the talk of big things coming.   This isn't that, so far anyway.

[Row80Critic]

I get that everyone wants to remain optimistic and give the brain trust time to turn things around.  I'm right there with you.  I just can't help but feel we are not seeing the kinds of moves/additions that will change the trajectory for Stanford Football.  Time alone doesn't fix anything -- and it's not clear from my seat that they are doing anything to change the direction of the program.  You could make a strong argument to the contrary actually -- i.e., doubling down on a 'comfortable' staff that may or may not be up for the task.  Tavita's a great guy and I'd would absolutely LOVE to see him turn the program around, but his coaching experience is quite limited, so he represents another roll of the dice for the program.  

The comment about Indiana doing it 'smart' and not based on credentials is off base in my opinion.  Cignetti's resume was the epitome of college football coaching credentials -- 30 years of college coaching experience when they hired him, trained under Saban, highest levels of success at 3 programs as HC before Indiana, picking up multiple conference coach of the year honors, conference titles and/or playoff appearance at every school -- he might not have been doing Vrbo commercials at the time, but the man was as well-credentialed as it gets. Give us that!  Tavita has none of that, and for that matter Luck doesn't either.  It's institutional nepotism -- that doesn't mean they'll fail, but it is what it is.  Based on his on-field and on-paper resume, Tavita isn't ready to be a head coach in a power conference.  Very few, if any, unbiased observers would argue otherwise. He might knock it out of the park, sure, but 00 comes up on the roulette wheel every day and that still doesn't make it a good bet.  Subsequent coaching announcements seem similar to me, some obviously better than others, and the portal to date is a large net loss for the program, ranked 79th in the portal currently, with just 3 additions so far that 'might' yield one or two starters.  Re finances, please...  Stanford University has a bigger operating budget than a quarter of the U.S. States (google it, I'll wait).  Money is not the problem.  They seem to lack the will to shake things up and do what's needed to make real changes.  

None of this is to say they won't improve next year; I suspect they will (or at least am optimistic they will).  I'm just lamenting another off-season of lackluster changes after all the talk of big things coming.   This isn't that, so far anyway.

[cardcrimson]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

[cardcrimson]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

[calfan]

I get that everyone wants to remain optimistic and give the brain trust time to turn things around.  I'm right there with you.  I just can't help but feel we are not seeing the kinds of moves/additions that will change the trajectory for Stanford Football.  Time alone doesn't fix anything -- and it's not clear from my seat that they are doing anything to change the direction of the program.  You could make a strong argument to the contrary actually -- i.e., doubling down on a 'comfortable' staff that may or may not be up for the task.  Tavita's a great guy and I'd would absolutely LOVE to see him turn the program around, but his coaching experience is quite limited, so he represents another roll of the dice for the program.  

The comment about Indiana doing it 'smart' and not based on credentials is off base in my opinion.  Cignetti's resume was the epitome of college football coaching credentials -- 30 years of college coaching experience when they hired him, trained under Saban, highest levels of success at 3 programs as HC before Indiana, picking up multiple conference coach of the year honors, conference titles and/or playoff appearance at every school -- he might not have been doing Vrbo commercials at the time, but the man was as well-credentialed as it gets. Give us that!  Tavita has none of that, and for that matter Luck doesn't either.  It's institutional nepotism -- that doesn't mean they'll fail, but it is what it is.  Based on his on-field and on-paper resume, Tavita isn't ready to be a head coach in a power conference.  Very few, if any, unbiased observers would argue otherwise. He might knock it out of the park, sure, but 00 comes up on the roulette wheel every day and that still doesn't make it a good bet.  Subsequent coaching announcements seem similar to me, some obviously better than others, and the portal to date is a large net loss for the program, ranked 79th in the portal currently, with just 3 additions so far that 'might' yield one or two starters.  Re finances, please...  Stanford University has a bigger operating budget than a quarter of the U.S. States (google it, I'll wait).  Money is not the problem.  They seem to lack the will to shake things up and do what's needed to make real changes.  

None of this is to say they won't improve next year; I suspect they will (or at least am optimistic they will).  I'm just lamenting another off-season of lackluster changes after all the talk of big things coming.   This isn't that, so far anyway.

Great post. I have to say, I was a bit shocked when reading this board to see how complacent many posters are with the obviously uninspired trajectory of the program. Your university is loaded with beautiful facilities & campus amenities, the alum base is wealthier than any other program in FBS, and you have a relatively recent history of national-level prominence from Harbaugh / Shaw. I understand some level of cope (every fan board wants to believe), but it's a bit strange to see defenses of the Pritchard hire or the brutal portal results. You simply can't be serious about bringing a program back to relevance and hire a HC who has no spikes whatsoever. I mean seriously, ESPN graded the hire as the worst of the entire cycle and that isn't unfounded. It just makes no sense. This isn't a time of "let's wait and see", it's clearly a win-now era or be relegated.

[calfan]

I get that everyone wants to remain optimistic and give the brain trust time to turn things around.  I'm right there with you.  I just can't help but feel we are not seeing the kinds of moves/additions that will change the trajectory for Stanford Football.  Time alone doesn't fix anything -- and it's not clear from my seat that they are doing anything to change the direction of the program.  You could make a strong argument to the contrary actually -- i.e., doubling down on a 'comfortable' staff that may or may not be up for the task.  Tavita's a great guy and I'd would absolutely LOVE to see him turn the program around, but his coaching experience is quite limited, so he represents another roll of the dice for the program.  

The comment about Indiana doing it 'smart' and not based on credentials is off base in my opinion.  Cignetti's resume was the epitome of college football coaching credentials -- 30 years of college coaching experience when they hired him, trained under Saban, highest levels of success at 3 programs as HC before Indiana, picking up multiple conference coach of the year honors, conference titles and/or playoff appearance at every school -- he might not have been doing Vrbo commercials at the time, but the man was as well-credentialed as it gets. Give us that!  Tavita has none of that, and for that matter Luck doesn't either.  It's institutional nepotism -- that doesn't mean they'll fail, but it is what it is.  Based on his on-field and on-paper resume, Tavita isn't ready to be a head coach in a power conference.  Very few, if any, unbiased observers would argue otherwise. He might knock it out of the park, sure, but 00 comes up on the roulette wheel every day and that still doesn't make it a good bet.  Subsequent coaching announcements seem similar to me, some obviously better than others, and the portal to date is a large net loss for the program, ranked 79th in the portal currently, with just 3 additions so far that 'might' yield one or two starters.  Re finances, please...  Stanford University has a bigger operating budget than a quarter of the U.S. States (google it, I'll wait).  Money is not the problem.  They seem to lack the will to shake things up and do what's needed to make real changes.  

None of this is to say they won't improve next year; I suspect they will (or at least am optimistic they will).  I'm just lamenting another off-season of lackluster changes after all the talk of big things coming.   This isn't that, so far anyway.

Great post. I have to say, I was a bit shocked when reading this board to see how complacent many posters are with the obviously uninspired trajectory of the program. Your university is loaded with beautiful facilities & campus amenities, the alum base is wealthier than any other program in FBS, and you have a relatively recent history of national-level prominence from Harbaugh / Shaw. I understand some level of cope (every fan board wants to believe), but it's a bit strange to see defenses of the Pritchard hire or the brutal portal results. You simply can't be serious about bringing a program back to relevance and hire a HC who has no spikes whatsoever. I mean seriously, ESPN graded the hire as the worst of the entire cycle and that isn't unfounded. It just makes no sense. This isn't a time of "let's wait and see", it's clearly a win-now era or be relegated.

[BobK]

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

[BobK]

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

[calfan]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

I must say, I really think this post is totally misaligned and maybe explains why your athletic department / football leadership has screwed up the last half-decade. The whole "true Stanford men" is like what we at Cal joke about "OKGs" (our kinda guys). It's a pejorative term to snarkily suggest that our lower-ranked recruits who aren't great at football will somehow thrive because they "fit" our ethos better. Nonsense. 

And to put it plainly, you don't HAVE time. There is no room for a half-decade long rebuild (and it doesn't work nowadays with the portal anyways). Realignment is a few years away and you (& Cal) are either in or out.

Overall, I'm just mystified at the level of justification the subpar results merit on this board. I kinda understand it for Cal where we haven't had a winning conference record in ages and haven't been relevant since Tedford. But for you guys? Has post-covid really been so bad that everyone stopped caring?

[calfan]

What BC said.  $50m is a drop in the bucket.  Shayne has been brought in to focus on raising as much as possible, but it won't happen overnight.  I trust Andrew to lead us out of this mess and to do it in very much a "Stanford Way" with student athletes that are "true Stanford Men" (his term).  Kyle is making solid progress on the basketball front and he's only in year 2.  It takes fewer great players to turn that program around.  We clearly have one in Okorie.  Go watch the Va Tech game for some inspiration.

I think we are seeing a major shift led by Levin and Andrew, but it's going to take time. That budget deficit and it's impact across the university is real, so there are costs and tradeoffs to be considered.  I'm thankful that this matters greatly to them and that JH squared  (John Hennessy and Jim Harbaugh) showed us all, including the faculty naysayers, that Stanford can be great both academically and athletically.

I must say, I really think this post is totally misaligned and maybe explains why your athletic department / football leadership has screwed up the last half-decade. The whole "true Stanford men" is like what we at Cal joke about "OKGs" (our kinda guys). It's a pejorative term to snarkily suggest that our lower-ranked recruits who aren't great at football will somehow thrive because they "fit" our ethos better. Nonsense. 

And to put it plainly, you don't HAVE time. There is no room for a half-decade long rebuild (and it doesn't work nowadays with the portal anyways). Realignment is a few years away and you (& Cal) are either in or out.

Overall, I'm just mystified at the level of justification the subpar results merit on this board. I kinda understand it for Cal where we haven't had a winning conference record in ages and haven't been relevant since Tedford. But for you guys? Has post-covid really been so bad that everyone stopped caring?

[cardcrimson]

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Yeah, on the foundation of Harbaugh's guys and the momentum the program had. Shaw's first 6 years, 64-17. Shaw's next 6 years, 32-37. Stanford men, right?

[cardcrimson]

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Yeah, on the foundation of Harbaugh's guys and the momentum the program had. Shaw's first 6 years, 64-17. Shaw's next 6 years, 32-37. Stanford men, right?

[BostonCard]

the alum base is wealthier than any other program in FBS…

A wealthy alum base is only helpful to the extent that they value success in athletics.  Arillaga did, and Freeman (who donated $50 million) does, and I’m sure other alums do to an extent, but I don’t get the sense that the vast majority of the alum base cares, as revealed by the fact that they have different donation priorities.  And who am I to judge what other people do with their money?

BC

[BostonCard]

the alum base is wealthier than any other program in FBS…

A wealthy alum base is only helpful to the extent that they value success in athletics.  Arillaga did, and Freeman (who donated $50 million) does, and I’m sure other alums do to an extent, but I don’t get the sense that the vast majority of the alum base cares, as revealed by the fact that they have different donation priorities.  And who am I to judge what other people do with their money?

BC

[Giants]

1768071207[/url]']

1768069090[/url]']
the alum base is wealthier than any other program in FBS…

A wealthy alum base is only helpful to the extent that they value success in athletics.  Arillaga did, and Freeman (who donated $50 million) does, and I’m sure other alums do to an extent, but I don’t get the sense that the vast majority of the alum base cares, as revealed by the fact that they have different donation priorities.  And who am I to judge what other people do with their money?

BC

I agree. A wealthy alum base has never been an absolute necessity for athletics success.  What is generally necessary is an alum who cares enough about an institution’s athletic program to make a significant, and in many cases, an ongoing commitment. 

Mark Cuban - Indiana
John Arrillaga - Stanford
Cody Campbell - Texas Tech
Larry Ellison - Michigan
Greg Williams - Michigan State
Phil Knight - Oregon

[Giants]

1768071207[/url]']

1768069090[/url]']
the alum base is wealthier than any other program in FBS…

A wealthy alum base is only helpful to the extent that they value success in athletics.  Arillaga did, and Freeman (who donated $50 million) does, and I’m sure other alums do to an extent, but I don’t get the sense that the vast majority of the alum base cares, as revealed by the fact that they have different donation priorities.  And who am I to judge what other people do with their money?

BC

I agree. A wealthy alum base has never been an absolute necessity for athletics success.  What is generally necessary is an alum who cares enough about an institution’s athletic program to make a significant, and in many cases, an ongoing commitment. 

Mark Cuban - Indiana
John Arrillaga - Stanford
Cody Campbell - Texas Tech
Larry Ellison - Michigan
Greg Williams - Michigan State
Phil Knight - Oregon

[Goose]

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

I think the question of what defines "a true Stanford man" is relevant. For some reason it appears that many people define a "Stanford Man" as someone who is somewhat smart, socially adept, and who "goes along to get along". While I do think that the increasing selectivity of Stanford admissions has led to more of of this phenotype, IMO the "Stanford Man" has always been more diverse than that. Granted, it has been 54 years since I was there, but in general Stanford men were competitive to a fault. Many of them did have a serious edge about them. Others were the "quiet assassin" type. Virtually all of them had serious talent in some area, and many of them were actually pretty good at lots of things. Some were in-your-face about it, most were not. Even back then some of the football players didn't fit the mold of a stay-in-your lane traditional so-called "Stanford Man", but there were equally many "regular" students that also did not. OTOH there were plenty of guys that were football players that didn't "stick out" socially in any obvious way. These people were all "Stanford Men". They were definitely not all alike.
 

Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Guys like Stepfan Taylor might want to discuss that statement with you, as probably would Remound Wright and CMC. There are a host of other "Stanford Men" on both sides of the ball who played for Shaw that also probably would like a word. Later in Shaw's tenure he was no longer able to attract the total package that could play the run-heavy offense that previously had been his bread and butter, not that he didn't try. He had to adapt. CMC was certainly a different kind of back, and Bryce Love even more so. However, they too were "Stanford Men".

[Goose]

What is a true Stanford man? 

We need players and coaches with a serious edge to them. We had them with Harbaugh and his players and coaches, some of whom didn't quite fit the mole of a traditional Stanford man. Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

I think the question of what defines "a true Stanford man" is relevant. For some reason it appears that many people define a "Stanford Man" as someone who is somewhat smart, socially adept, and who "goes along to get along". While I do think that the increasing selectivity of Stanford admissions has led to more of of this phenotype, IMO the "Stanford Man" has always been more diverse than that. Granted, it has been 54 years since I was there, but in general Stanford men were competitive to a fault. Many of them did have a serious edge about them. Others were the "quiet assassin" type. Virtually all of them had serious talent in some area, and many of them were actually pretty good at lots of things. Some were in-your-face about it, most were not. Even back then some of the football players didn't fit the mold of a stay-in-your lane traditional so-called "Stanford Man", but there were equally many "regular" students that also did not. OTOH there were plenty of guys that were football players that didn't "stick out" socially in any obvious way. These people were all "Stanford Men". They were definitely not all alike.
 

Shaw filled our team with Stanford men, and look where that got us.

Rose bowls. That’s where it got us

Guys like Stepfan Taylor might want to discuss that statement with you, as probably would Remound Wright and CMC. There are a host of other "Stanford Men" on both sides of the ball who played for Shaw that also probably would like a word. Later in Shaw's tenure he was no longer able to attract the total package that could play the run-heavy offense that previously had been his bread and butter, not that he didn't try. He had to adapt. CMC was certainly a different kind of back, and Bryce Love even more so. However, they too were "Stanford Men".

[82lsju]

I agree. A wealthy alum base has never been an absolute necessity for athletics success.  What is generally necessary is an alum who cares enough about an institution’s athletic program to make a significant, and in many cases, an ongoing commitment. 

Mark Cuban - Indiana
John Arrillaga - Stanford
Cody Campbell - Texas Tech
Larry Ellison - Michigan
Greg Williams - Michigan State
Phil Knight - Oregon

In UM’s case the spouse of an alum….

[82lsju]

I agree. A wealthy alum base has never been an absolute necessity for athletics success.  What is generally necessary is an alum who cares enough about an institution’s athletic program to make a significant, and in many cases, an ongoing commitment. 

Mark Cuban - Indiana
John Arrillaga - Stanford
Cody Campbell - Texas Tech
Larry Ellison - Michigan
Greg Williams - Michigan State
Phil Knight - Oregon

In UM’s case the spouse of an alum….

[norcard10]

Let's wait and see what happens.  I too am underwhelmed but honestly I didn't expect much given the team was in the proverbial dumpster with greater self-imposed (but lessening) restrictions over other programs. 

John Gruden wasn't going to walk in the door.  Tavita was not a hot coaching commodity anywhere.  I doubt any other program considered him for a head coach.  Nor did he have any sustained proven coaching success.  Had Taylor not had off the field issues, we wouldn't be in this mess.  So I'll give Luck and Co 2 years to see what comes about.  If the program looks like a ghost town with out any material upward momentum, he and Tavita need to go.

---

I agree. A wealthy alum base has never been an absolute necessity for athletics success.  What is generally necessary is an alum who cares enough about an institution’s athletic program to make a significant, and in many cases, an ongoing commitment. 

Mark Cuban - Indiana
John Arrillaga - Stanford
Cody Campbell - Texas Tech
Larry Ellison - Michigan
Greg Williams - Michigan State
Phil Knight - Oregon

In UM’s case the spouse of an alum….

UM has Ross.  More than enough.  Odd that Ohio State is doing this well without multiple billionaires.

[norcard10]

Let's wait and see what happens.  I too am underwhelmed but honestly I didn't expect much given the team was in the proverbial dumpster with greater self-imposed (but lessening) restrictions over other programs. 

John Gruden wasn't going to walk in the door.  Tavita was not a hot coaching commodity anywhere.  I doubt any other program considered him for a head coach.  Nor did he have any sustained proven coaching success.  Had Taylor not had off the field issues, we wouldn't be in this mess.  So I'll give Luck and Co 2 years to see what comes about.  If the program looks like a ghost town with out any material upward momentum, he and Tavita need to go.

---

I agree. A wealthy alum base has never been an absolute necessity for athletics success.  What is generally necessary is an alum who cares enough about an institution’s athletic program to make a significant, and in many cases, an ongoing commitment. 

Mark Cuban - Indiana
John Arrillaga - Stanford
Cody Campbell - Texas Tech
Larry Ellison - Michigan
Greg Williams - Michigan State
Phil Knight - Oregon

In UM’s case the spouse of an alum….

UM has Ross.  More than enough.  Odd that Ohio State is doing this well without multiple billionaires.