[Row80Critic]

Worst football loss in 72 years today -- second worst in school history -- against Wake Forest.   When they hired Luck, I had some hope the administration wanted change.  When they hired Tavita, I knew they didn't.  Not that it's Luck or Pritchard's fault, per se.  The administration looked for people that would honor the "Stanford way," which not-so-subtle code for 'don't rock the boat" or else.  The admin has this fantasy that everything can stay the same -- academic arrogance and all -- yet somehow the results will be different.  It is logic unbecoming of the University.  The administration should be ashamed of itself.

[Row80Critic]

Worst football loss in 72 years today -- second worst in school history -- against Wake Forest.   When they hired Luck, I had some hope the administration wanted change.  When they hired Tavita, I knew they didn't.  Not that it's Luck or Pritchard's fault, per se.  The administration looked for people that would honor the "Stanford way," which not-so-subtle code for 'don't rock the boat" or else.  The admin has this fantasy that everything can stay the same -- academic arrogance and all -- yet somehow the results will be different.  It is logic unbecoming of the University.  The administration should be ashamed of itself.

[KartyFan]

Am I lost? Is this the Bear Insider?

[KartyFan]

Am I lost? Is this the Bear Insider?

[Row80Critic]

Am I lost? Is this the Bear Insider?

Just beyond frustrated.  Ignore me. ;)

[Row80Critic]

Am I lost? Is this the Bear Insider?

Just beyond frustrated.  Ignore me. ;)

[BobK]

4 years with 13 wins and and after 5 games it’s Tavita’s fault. We simply can’t get great football players with that kind of performance.
Imagine how Georgia Tech fans must feel today

[BobK]

4 years with 13 wins and and after 5 games it’s Tavita’s fault. We simply can’t get great football players with that kind of performance.
Imagine how Georgia Tech fans must feel today

[BostonCard]

Row80, this is a very different college football landscape than it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago, and it is very clear that without the restraints of amateurism, it is simply a question of whether enough donors want to front enough money to pay enough football players enough money to win enough games.  Right now the going rate is about $50 million a year in terms of player payments, as reported by the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interac...g-budgets/

You can get to that number any number of ways, maybe you have an SEC or BigTen TV contract that pays out $70 million per school (narrator, we don't because after the Pac-12 imploded we had to go begging yo the ACC to take us and basically foregoed most of our share of ACC TV revenue).  Maybe you have a rabid fan base that packs a 100,000 capacity stadium for 7 home games each season and brings in an estimated $60 million in gate revenue as Michigan does (narrator, we cant give away tickets).  Maybe you have a sugar daddy like Cody Campbell or Lary Elison’s wife, who will sign big checks because they  have more money than they know what do with, and they get their ego stoked by watching their team’s highly paid 20 year old kids post bigger numbers than the other school’s less highly paid 20 year old kids.

Without a fanbase and without TV revenue I think the family-friendly term for Stanford football (and eventually all of Stanford Athletics) is “screwed”.  You can fiddle around the edges, and maybe salvage a season of mediocrity here or there, but this isnt on the administration, Luck, or the University; this is a deep structural problem with the current incarnation of college football.

Thats why I implored everyone to be thankful for what we had a decade ago, because you never know when it will be gone.

BC

[BostonCard]

Row80, this is a very different college football landscape than it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago, and it is very clear that without the restraints of amateurism, it is simply a question of whether enough donors want to front enough money to pay enough football players enough money to win enough games.  Right now the going rate is about $50 million a year in terms of player payments, as reported by the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interac...g-budgets/

You can get to that number any number of ways, maybe you have an SEC or BigTen TV contract that pays out $70 million per school (narrator, we don't because after the Pac-12 imploded we had to go begging yo the ACC to take us and basically foregoed most of our share of ACC TV revenue).  Maybe you have a rabid fan base that packs a 100,000 capacity stadium for 7 home games each season and brings in an estimated $60 million in gate revenue as Michigan does (narrator, we cant give away tickets).  Maybe you have a sugar daddy like Cody Campbell or Lary Elison’s wife, who will sign big checks because they  have more money than they know what do with, and they get their ego stoked by watching their team’s highly paid 20 year old kids post bigger numbers than the other school’s less highly paid 20 year old kids.

Without a fanbase and without TV revenue I think the family-friendly term for Stanford football (and eventually all of Stanford Athletics) is “screwed”.  You can fiddle around the edges, and maybe salvage a season of mediocrity here or there, but this isnt on the administration, Luck, or the University; this is a deep structural problem with the current incarnation of college football.

Thats why I implored everyone to be thankful for what we had a decade ago, because you never know when it will be gone.

BC

[Card10Fan]

Tavita could work out. He also might not. I think it's still too soon to tell. Last two road performances have been pretty bleak @Duke plus todays result. 

I think our results largely come down to our lack of talent on the roster. As mentioned, hard to recruit when we have been bad for so long now. I think a mindset shift and new perspective when looking for our new HC would have been good. Instead, here we are. Tavita will be given at least a a few seasons to prove himself.

[Card10Fan]

Tavita could work out. He also might not. I think it's still too soon to tell. Last two road performances have been pretty bleak @Duke plus todays result. 

I think our results largely come down to our lack of talent on the roster. As mentioned, hard to recruit when we have been bad for so long now. I think a mindset shift and new perspective when looking for our new HC would have been good. Instead, here we are. Tavita will be given at least a a few seasons to prove himself.

[Mick]

Thats why I implored everyone to be thankful for what we had a decade ago, because you never know when it will be gone.

BC

And brother, it is gone. Or it should be gone. It was nice while it lasted.

I candidly thought I was being pessimistic when I projected a 34-17 loss.

[Mick]

Thats why I implored everyone to be thankful for what we had a decade ago, because you never know when it will be gone.

BC

And brother, it is gone. Or it should be gone. It was nice while it lasted.

I candidly thought I was being pessimistic when I projected a 34-17 loss.

[martyup]

This was the worst loss by a Stanford football team in my lifetime.  And, I ain't no spring chicken.

[martyup]

This was the worst loss by a Stanford football team in my lifetime.  And, I ain't no spring chicken.

[norcard10]

Good news is maybe we don't have to wait 3 years to move on from tavita.  More dumpster fires like today will accelerate him and luck gone.

There is zero chance there weren't multiple candidates better than tavita but luck and co chose what they chose.

---

Row80, this is a very different college football landscape than it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago, and it is very clear that without the restraints of amateurism, it is simply a question of whether enough donors want to front enough money to pay enough football players enough money to win enough games.  Right now the going rate is about $50 million a year in terms of player payments, as reported by the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interac...g-budgets/

You can get to that number any number of ways, maybe you have an SEC or BigTen TV contract that pays out $70 million per school (narrator, we don't because after the Pac-12 imploded we had to go begging yo the ACC to take us and basically foregoed most of our share of ACC TV revenue).  Maybe you have a rabid fan base that packs a 100,000 capacity stadium for 7 home games each season and brings in an estimated $60 million in gate revenue as Michigan does (narrator, we cant give away tickets).  Maybe you have a sugar daddy like Cody Campbell or Lary Elison’s wife, who will sign big checks because they  have more money than they know what do with, and they get their ego stoked by watching their team’s highly paid 20 year old kids post bigger numbers than the other school’s less highly paid 20 year old kids.

Without a fanbase and without TV revenue I think the family-friendly term for Stanford football (and eventually all of Stanford Athletics) is “screwed”.  You can fiddle around the edges, and maybe salvage a season of mediocrity here or there, but this isnt on the administration, Luck, or the University; this is a deep structural problem with the current incarnation of college football.

Thats why I implored everyone to be thankful for what we had a decade ago, because you never know when it will be gone.

BC

Except duke is doing better than this dumpster fire with supposedly less funding.  and they had the *gasp* wisdom to pick a proven coach

[norcard10]

Good news is maybe we don't have to wait 3 years to move on from tavita.  More dumpster fires like today will accelerate him and luck gone.

There is zero chance there weren't multiple candidates better than tavita but luck and co chose what they chose.

---

Row80, this is a very different college football landscape than it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago, and it is very clear that without the restraints of amateurism, it is simply a question of whether enough donors want to front enough money to pay enough football players enough money to win enough games.  Right now the going rate is about $50 million a year in terms of player payments, as reported by the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interac...g-budgets/

You can get to that number any number of ways, maybe you have an SEC or BigTen TV contract that pays out $70 million per school (narrator, we don't because after the Pac-12 imploded we had to go begging yo the ACC to take us and basically foregoed most of our share of ACC TV revenue).  Maybe you have a rabid fan base that packs a 100,000 capacity stadium for 7 home games each season and brings in an estimated $60 million in gate revenue as Michigan does (narrator, we cant give away tickets).  Maybe you have a sugar daddy like Cody Campbell or Lary Elison’s wife, who will sign big checks because they  have more money than they know what do with, and they get their ego stoked by watching their team’s highly paid 20 year old kids post bigger numbers than the other school’s less highly paid 20 year old kids.

Without a fanbase and without TV revenue I think the family-friendly term for Stanford football (and eventually all of Stanford Athletics) is “screwed”.  You can fiddle around the edges, and maybe salvage a season of mediocrity here or there, but this isnt on the administration, Luck, or the University; this is a deep structural problem with the current incarnation of college football.

Thats why I implored everyone to be thankful for what we had a decade ago, because you never know when it will be gone.

BC

Except duke is doing better than this dumpster fire with supposedly less funding.  and they had the *gasp* wisdom to pick a proven coach

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/congress-col...?st=8HnnCQ

(Should be gifted)

Some interesting nuggets in that editorial…

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report this summer found that 94% of Division I athletic programs spent more money than they generated in the 2023-2024 school year. The median spending gap was $20.6 million. Colleges collectively spent $7.2 billion to backfill their sports budgets with other revenue, including federal student aid.

The GAO estimates that the median college contribution to sports programs per undergraduate student was about $8,500 over the course of a four-year degree. Much of this money, GAO said, was “funded by tuition and fees paid by students,” which “indirectly include federal funds students receive in federal student aid to pay their tuition and fees.”

I wonder if the easiest solution to this is simply to bar cross-subsidies to athletics in schools that accept federal funding (that is, all of them), so that taxpayers arent indirectly paying the salaries of athletes. Also, we should tax anything above and beyond scholarship money, and maybe, if we are treating college football like a professional league, start taxing broadcast revenue and ticket sales, and charge property taxes on stadiums. After all, if it looks like a professional league and quacks like a professional league…

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/congress-col...?st=8HnnCQ

(Should be gifted)

Some interesting nuggets in that editorial…

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report this summer found that 94% of Division I athletic programs spent more money than they generated in the 2023-2024 school year. The median spending gap was $20.6 million. Colleges collectively spent $7.2 billion to backfill their sports budgets with other revenue, including federal student aid.

The GAO estimates that the median college contribution to sports programs per undergraduate student was about $8,500 over the course of a four-year degree. Much of this money, GAO said, was “funded by tuition and fees paid by students,” which “indirectly include federal funds students receive in federal student aid to pay their tuition and fees.”

I wonder if the easiest solution to this is simply to bar cross-subsidies to athletics in schools that accept federal funding (that is, all of them), so that taxpayers arent indirectly paying the salaries of athletes. Also, we should tax anything above and beyond scholarship money, and maybe, if we are treating college football like a professional league, start taxing broadcast revenue and ticket sales, and charge property taxes on stadiums. After all, if it looks like a professional league and quacks like a professional league…

BC

[cardcrimson]

If Northwestern, Duke and Wake Forest can figure it out, why can't Stanford? They are respectable, if not pretty good. Think Tavita would have the self confidence to bring in a OC like Chip? Not a chance. We had Pete Kwiatkowski coming from Texas, but Tavita nixed him for Reeshard. . . .

Fortunately I missed most of today's debacle, instead watching a team put up 56 on a ranked opponent . . . .

[cardcrimson]

If Northwestern, Duke and Wake Forest can figure it out, why can't Stanford? They are respectable, if not pretty good. Think Tavita would have the self confidence to bring in a OC like Chip? Not a chance. We had Pete Kwiatkowski coming from Texas, but Tavita nixed him for Reeshard. . . .

Fortunately I missed most of today's debacle, instead watching a team put up 56 on a ranked opponent . . . .

[needle]

Worst football loss in 72 years today -- second worst in school history -- against Wake Forest.   When they hired Luck, I had some hope the administration wanted change.  When they hired Tavita, I knew they didn't.  Not that it's Luck or Pritchard's fault, per se.  The administration looked for people that would honor the "Stanford way," which not-so-subtle code for 'don't rock the boat" or else.  The admin has this fantasy that everything can stay the same -- academic arrogance and all -- yet somehow the results will be different.  It is logic unbecoming of the University.  The administration should be ashamed of itself.

I would like to know what Emeka Ugorji, a tackle last year at Stanford who showed raw potential as a frosh, is being paid at Florida (where he's a starter on an undefeated team coming into today) compared to the highest and best offer Stanford came up with.

That said, Wake Forest at least is probably pretty good--maybe 10-win good. So, I'd agree with KartyFan that it is smart not to act like Kal fans and give this admin a bit more time before declaring it all a sham.

[needle]

Worst football loss in 72 years today -- second worst in school history -- against Wake Forest.   When they hired Luck, I had some hope the administration wanted change.  When they hired Tavita, I knew they didn't.  Not that it's Luck or Pritchard's fault, per se.  The administration looked for people that would honor the "Stanford way," which not-so-subtle code for 'don't rock the boat" or else.  The admin has this fantasy that everything can stay the same -- academic arrogance and all -- yet somehow the results will be different.  It is logic unbecoming of the University.  The administration should be ashamed of itself.

I would like to know what Emeka Ugorji, a tackle last year at Stanford who showed raw potential as a frosh, is being paid at Florida (where he's a starter on an undefeated team coming into today) compared to the highest and best offer Stanford came up with.

That said, Wake Forest at least is probably pretty good--maybe 10-win good. So, I'd agree with KartyFan that it is smart not to act like Kal fans and give this admin a bit more time before declaring it all a sham.