Administration should be ashamed

Administration should be ashamed - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Administration should be ashamed (/thread-26335.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Administration should be ashamed - GoodGrief - 10-04-2026

Can we get Richard Sherman on the recruiting staff? We've traditionally been able to attract guys in the Luck and Tavita mold, but Sherman could help bring in more of the brash, outspoken, urban athletes like him.

I don't know nothin' about anything, but I feel like Luck knows good coaching and had a lot of candidates to choose from. If he chose Tavita, it's because Tavita's the best one for the job (I'm guessing the unimaginative playcalling from his Stanford OC days was due to Shaw). We don't know what Tavita could do with an already-strong team because that's not what we have; he still needs time.

Harbaugh managed to work a miracle his first year with the greatest 4-8 season in history. That's probably unrealistic for any coach other than Harbaugh.

Let Tavita cook.

RE: Administration should be ashamed - ADPinWDC - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 09:05 AM)GoodGrief Wrote: Can we get Richard Sherman on the recruiting staff? We've traditionally been able to attract guys in the Luck and Tavita mold, but Sherman could help bring in more of the brash, outspoken, urban athletes like him.

I don't know nothin' about anything, but I feel like Luck knows good coaching and had a lot of candidates to choose from. If he chose Tavita, it's because Tavita's the best one for the job (I'm guessing the unimaginative playcalling from his Stanford OC days was due to Shaw). We don't know what Tavita could do with an already-strong team because that's not what we have; he still needs time.

Harbaugh managed to work a miracle his first year with the greatest 4-8 season in history. That's probably unrealistic for any coach other than Harbaugh.

Let Tavita cook.

Richard Sherman -- Winner, played with Pritchard. Good call !

RE: Administration should be ashamed - ADPinWDC - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 09:05 AM)GoodGrief Wrote: Can we get Richard Sherman on the recruiting staff? We've traditionally been able to attract guys in the Luck and Tavita mold, but Sherman could help bring in more of the brash, outspoken, urban athletes like him.

I don't know nothin' about anything, but I feel like Luck knows good coaching and had a lot of candidates to choose from. If he chose Tavita, it's because Tavita's the best one for the job (I'm guessing the unimaginative playcalling from his Stanford OC days was due to Shaw). We don't know what Tavita could do with an already-strong team because that's not what we have; he still needs time.

Harbaugh managed to work a miracle his first year with the greatest 4-8 season in history. That's probably unrealistic for any coach other than Harbaugh.

Let Tavita cook.

Richard Sherman -- Winner, played with Pritchard. Good call !

RE: Administration should be ashamed - ADPinWDC - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 09:05 AM)GoodGrief Wrote: Can we get Richard Sherman on the recruiting staff? We've traditionally been able to attract guys in the Luck and Tavita mold, but Sherman could help bring in more of the brash, outspoken, urban athletes like him.

I don't know nothin' about anything, but I feel like Luck knows good coaching and had a lot of candidates to choose from. If he chose Tavita, it's because Tavita's the best one for the job (I'm guessing the unimaginative playcalling from his Stanford OC days was due to Shaw). We don't know what Tavita could do with an already-strong team because that's not what we have; he still needs time.

Harbaugh managed to work a miracle his first year with the greatest 4-8 season in history. That's probably unrealistic for any coach other than Harbaugh.

Let Tavita cook.

Richard Sherman -- Winner, played with Pritchard. Good call !

RE: Administration should be ashamed - ADPinWDC - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 09:05 AM)GoodGrief Wrote: Can we get Richard Sherman on the recruiting staff? We've traditionally been able to attract guys in the Luck and Tavita mold, but Sherman could help bring in more of the brash, outspoken, urban athletes like him.

I don't know nothin' about anything, but I feel like Luck knows good coaching and had a lot of candidates to choose from. If he chose Tavita, it's because Tavita's the best one for the job (I'm guessing the unimaginative playcalling from his Stanford OC days was due to Shaw). We don't know what Tavita could do with an already-strong team because that's not what we have; he still needs time.

Harbaugh managed to work a miracle his first year with the greatest 4-8 season in history. That's probably unrealistic for any coach other than Harbaugh.

Let Tavita cook.

Richard Sherman -- Winner, played with Pritchard. Good call !

RE: Administration should be ashamed - BostonCard - 10-04-2026

(10-03-2026, 06:26 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: That's all fine, college football is tragically broken, but if Stanford wants to stand on principle, they should do it at the FCS level. It's just hard to swallow all the big turn-around talk when the administration's actions seems to suggest (scream) an unwavering commitment not to change anything that is producing year after year of sub-Stanford results. [/rant_font]

In the perennial battle between failure to be realistic and lack of ambition, the suspension of disbelief will win nearly every time. The grown ups are gone, and so we have the equivalent of “hold my beer, we’re going to compete in the ACC with Miami!” (narrator: “you cant even score a touchdown against Wake Forest”). On the other hand, whats the harm other than to our collective egos, and nobody loves the underdog story of the nerds with the deminimus payrolls somehow, somehow, pulling off the upset.

Of course we should be in FCS and be done with this charade. But that would require a lot of people, including many on this board, to wake up to the fact that there is probably not a magic fix that somehow returns this team to respectibility, if only the administration pulled the right magical levers (they dont exist)

BC

RE: Administration should be ashamed - Row80Critic - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 09:56 AM)BostonCard Wrote:
(10-03-2026, 06:26 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: That's all fine, college football is tragically broken, but if Stanford wants to stand on principle, they should do it at the FCS level. It's just hard to swallow all the big turn-around talk when the administration's actions seems to suggest (scream) an unwavering commitment not to change anything that is producing year after year of sub-Stanford results. [/rant_font]

In the perennial battle between failure to be realistic and lack of ambition, the suspension of disbelief will win nearly every time. The grown ups are gone, and so we have the equivalent of “hold my beer, we’re going to compete in the ACC with Miami!” (narrator: “you cant even score a touchdown against Wake Forest”). On the other hand, whats the harm other than to our collective egos, and nobody loves the underdog story of the nerds with the deminimus payrolls somehow, somehow, pulling off the upset.

Of course we should be in FCS and be done with this charade. But that would require a lot of people, including many on this board, to wake up to the fact that there is probably not a magic fix that somehow returns this team to respectibility, if only the administration pulled the right magical levers (they dont exist)

BC

There may not be a magic lever to become national champs, but to resume their historic place in the middle to upper-middle of the pack, they just need to (a) admit intelligent, great football players even if they aren't coming from Harker or Yale, or the offspring of a big donor, and (b) offer them competitive pay using some of the money that makes Stanford the 3rd wealthiest University in the nation.

RE: Administration should be ashamed - Goose - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 12:01 PM)Row80Critic Wrote:
(10-04-2026, 09:56 AM)BostonCard Wrote:
(10-03-2026, 06:26 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: That's all fine, college football is tragically broken, but if Stanford wants to stand on principle, they should do it at the FCS level. It's just hard to swallow all the big turn-around talk when the administration's actions seems to suggest (scream) an unwavering commitment not to change anything that is producing year after year of sub-Stanford results. [/rant_font]

In the perennial battle between failure to be realistic and lack of ambition, the suspension of disbelief will win nearly every time. The grown ups are gone, and so we have the equivalent of “hold my beer, we’re going to compete in the ACC with Miami!” (narrator: “you cant even score a touchdown against Wake Forest”). On the other hand, whats the harm other than to our collective egos, and nobody loves the underdog story of the nerds with the deminimus payrolls somehow, somehow, pulling off the upset.

Of course we should be in FCS and be done with this charade. But that would require a lot of people, including many on this board, to wake up to the fact that there is probably not a magic fix that somehow returns this team to respectibility, if only the administration pulled the right magical levers (they dont exist)

BC

There may not be a magic lever to become national champs, but to resume their historic place in the middle to upper-middle of the pack, they just need to (a) admit intelligent, great football players even if they aren't coming from Harker or Yale, or the offspring of a big donor, and (b) offer them competitive pay using some of the money that makes Stanford the 3rd wealthiest University in the nation.

Stanford has decided (correctly IMO) that using the endowment in a major way to pay athletes does not have an adequate ROI and will therefore not do so. If there are others who wish to invest, I am sure they will take your money.

Regarding your first point, the "intelligent, great football players" in general don't want to attend Stanford. They can make good money at other institutions that won't ask even minimal academic effort from them. They also will be relatively more "important" socially at these institutions. They will be able to use their athletic "fame" to open doors in the future. The "40 year decision" matters only if you can't get the same (or better) result with less effort (and lower risk) elsewhere. In almost all cases, given today's college sports landscape, you can. A Stanford degree is important only if one intends to use it. These athletes in general do not, so why go to Stanford?

RE: Administration should be ashamed - BostonCard - 10-04-2026

I would add that it was only a year ago that Stanford laid off 360 employees amid budget cuts of $140 million, resulting from a fairly large budget shortfall (brought about by changes to the tax code affecting the endowment and reductions to federal grants).

https://stanforddaily.com/2025/08/06/stanford-to-layoff-over-360-staff-following-140-million-budget-cuts/

That is a real tough environment to cross-subsidize an athletic department budget. Thank goodness for the Medical Center, which right now is cross-subsidizing the University (and thus, the Athletics Department). However, that gravy train will not continue forever either. While Stanford probably has one of the healthiest payer mixes in the country, it still relies on Medi-Cal for about 10% of its revenue (it's reported to be 16% for Medi-Cal (ie, Medicaid) and self-pay, combined), and that will be affected by recent changes in policy.

The next financial report, which will cover the period through August 2026, will be published in December. Next year's, which will include the first full year of substantial changes to Medicaid, will be fascinating.

BC

RE: Administration should be ashamed - BillBradley - 10-04-2026

Everyone can have their theories as to what is wrong, but at the end of the day it's a fools errand to take team sports and boil things down to one issue. Is Tavita the problem? Player talent? Lack of funding? Travel? Injury? Other? It's been shown time and time again that sporting competitions can be very hard to predict. When you factor in all the game prep, styles of play, and the variability of performance of both players and coaches, it's nearly impossible to be right most of the time. Otherwise, it would be pretty easy to get rich.

Money is not, on its own, the answer. It certainly is part of the problem - we all know that acquisition of talent is important. The chances of the Dodgers winning the World Series with their payroll is certainly better than that of the Nats. But you could say the same thing about the Mets and the Brewers, yet here we are with the "poor" Brewers a legitimate World Series contender and the "rich" Mets dead last in their division. In college football, last year's champion spent less than half of many other top teams' payrolls. And they did it at a place with a losing history/culture, with a somewhat no-name coach and a bunch of no-name transfers. How on earth could that have happened? Indiana had 2 winning seasons in the 21st century before 2024. But somehow...

At the end of the day, the ball gets rolled out on the field/court and the best team wins. It's about putting it all together. Recruiting, coaches, player performance, culture, scouting, strategies,...the list goes on and on. But it's not only about the money.

I also agree with the other posters who point out that there are plenty of other high academic institutions who are succeeding.

It's entirely possible for Stanford to have a competitive football program. Not necessarily Natty good, but competitive. The opposite of THIS. Stanford doesn't need to spend $50M/year to get there. It does need someone different at the helm though. Just my opionion.

RE: Administration should be ashamed - BostonCard - 10-04-2026

Money is not determinative, which is good, or you can just crown Ohio State, Oregon, or Texas today. Just today an article was published about the football stars who banked millions of dollars in NIL money, and are busts (featuring, everyone's favorite Wolverines). It's also nice because if money were determinative, nobody would actually watch the games.

But having said that, look at the Athletic article:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets/

The 7 teams with a budget of $41 - $46 million have a 47% chance of making the CFB playoffs. Spending money is not determinative, but it is probably the most reliable and reproducible way to win. Everything else, finding the "right" coach, setting the "right" environment, having a "commitment to winning" etc. winds up being a "just so" story, a narrative that you can craft to explain the winning after the fact, but not generally not before. Because if there were a secret sauce, a recipe that any old team could simply follow to get you to football success, then everyone would have followed it. The recipe winds up being "spend money", but the problem is that not everyone has the money to spend (or the willingness to spend it), including Stanford, so not everyone can fund the path to success.

As to "having someone else at the helm": a) we've had three different people from very different backgrounds at the helm, including one who was very successful for a good period of time, until he wasn't, one who was successful at a lower division football program, and one who came from the pros, and b) the first thing any hire we would want would demand is money to shape the roster.

BC

RE: Administration should be ashamed - BillBradley - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 04:27 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Money is not determinative, which is good, or you can just crown Ohio State, Oregon, or Texas today. Just today an article was published about the football stars who banked millions of dollars in NIL money, and are busts (featuring, everyone's favorite Wolverines). It's also nice because if money were determinative, nobody would actually watch the games.

But having said that, look at the Athletic article:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets/

The 7 teams with a budget of $41 - $46 million have a 47% chance of making the CFB playoffs. Spending money is not determinative, but it is probably the most reliable and reproducible way to win. Everything else, finding the "right" coach, setting the "right" environment, having a "commitment to winning" etc. winds up being a "just so" story, a narrative that you can craft to explain the winning after the fact, but not generally not before. Because if there were a secret sauce, a recipe that any old team could simply follow to get you to football success, then everyone would have followed it. The recipe winds up being "spend money", but the problem is that not everyone has the money to spend (or the willingness to spend it), including Stanford, so not everyone can fund the path to success.

As to "having someone else at the helm": a) we've had three different people from very different backgrounds at the helm, including one who was very successful for a good period of time, until he wasn't, one w"ho was successful at a lower division football program, and one who came from the pros, and b) the first thing any hire we would want would demand is money to shape the roster.

BC

Sorry, I'm having trouble connecting the dots. You say of the top money spenders, less than half of them have a chance at even making the playoffs. I feel like that supports the point I was making. But then you go on to say "the recipe winds up being "spend money", and I don't know how you got to that conclusion.

Also, there's a big difference between taking steps to "spend more" vs. a full-send "spend $40M+". We can improve our talent level without having to match the LSU's of the world.

The article is behind a paywall for me.

RE: Administration should be ashamed - 82lsju - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 04:43 PM)BillBradley Wrote:
(10-04-2026, 04:27 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Money is not determinative, which is good, or you can just crown Ohio State, Oregon, or Texas today. Just today an article was published about the football stars who banked millions of dollars in NIL money, and are busts (featuring, everyone's favorite Wolverines). It's also nice because if money were determinative, nobody would actually watch the games.

But having said that, look at the Athletic article:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets/

The 7 teams with a budget of $41 - $46 million have a 47% chance of making the CFB playoffs. Spending money is not determinative, but it is probably the most reliable and reproducible way to win. Everything else, finding the "right" coach, setting the "right" environment, having a "commitment to winning" etc. winds up being a "just so" story, a narrative that you can craft to explain the winning after the fact, but not generally not before. Because if there were a secret sauce, a recipe that any old team could simply follow to get you to football success, then everyone would have followed it. The recipe winds up being "spend money", but the problem is that not everyone has the money to spend (or the willingness to spend it), including Stanford, so not everyone can fund the path to success.

As to "having someone else at the helm": a) we've had three different people from very different backgrounds at the helm, including one who was very successful for a good period of time, until he wasn't, one w"ho was successful at a lower division football program, and one who came from the pros, and b) the first thing any hire we would want would demand is money to shape the roster.

BC
Sorry, I'm having trouble connecting the dots. You say of the top money spenders, less than half of them have a chance at even making the playoffs. I feel like that supports the point I was making. But then you go on to say "the recipe winds up being "spend money", and I don't know how you got to that conclusion.

Also, there's a big difference between taking steps to "spend more" vs. a full-send "spend $40M+". We can improve our talent level without having to match the LSU's of the world.

The article is behind a paywall for me.

try this link

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets/?unlocked_article_code=1.BlE.Gz1D.msE90ogrF1S8&source=athletic_user_shared_gift_interactive_copylink&smid=url-share-ta

RE: Administration should be ashamed - BostonCard - 10-04-2026

The way the table is displayed is a bit confusing, but I will try to reproduce the data as best I can in toto.

Budget range | Number of teams | Probability of making the playoffs
$41 - $46M | 7 | ~ 50%
$37 - $41M | 7 | 25 - 50%
$29 - $33M | 8 | 15 - 25%
$24 - $28M | 12 | 5 - 15%
$19 - $23M | 34 | <5%
[/font]

So, sure, spending $45M doesn't guarantee that you will make the playoffs, but spending $20 million pretty much guarantees that you will not make the playoffs.

BC

RE: Administration should be ashamed - BillBradley - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 05:14 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The way the table is displayed is a bit confusing, but I will try to reproduce the data as best I can in toto.

Budget range | Number of teams | Probability of making the playoffs
$41 - $46M | 7 | ~ 50%
$37 - $41M | 7 | 25 - 50%
$29 - $33M | 8 | 15 - 25%
$24 - $28M | 12 | 5 - 15%
$19 - $23M | 34 | <5%
[/font]

So, sure, spending $45M doesn't guarantee that you will make the playoffs, but spending $20 million pretty much guarantees that you will not make the playoffs.

BC

Got it, thanks. Makes sense.

I guess for me - I don't really think the goal at this point is to be in the Top 20. We are too far away for that to be realistic. Maybe long term, but not in the short term. For me, I think it's in reach for us to be "competitive". Everyone will have their own definition of what that means. Here's mine...schedule some solid competition and one marquis opponent in our out of conference games (i.e. never Elon!), have a winning record in the ACC, an overall winning record, and a bowl game invitation. For me, that would keep me interested in our games, and as a fan that would represent the floor. Of course I'd still long for the McCaffrey days, but it would be acceptable in the short term.

How much would we need to support that goal? How about we target our player compensation to the median of the ACC? I had AI dig this up (can't vouch for the accuracy, but seems about right):

Rank ACC program Estimated player spending
1 Miami $25–30M
2 Clemson $20–25M
3 Florida State $20–24M
4 Louisville $18–22M
5 SMU $18–22M
6 Virginia Tech $18–22M
7 North Carolina $17–21M
8 NC State $17–21M
9 Virginia $16–20M
10 Duke $15–19M
11 Georgia Tech $15–19M
12 Pittsburgh $14–18M
13 Syracuse $14–18M
14 Wake Forest $13–17M
15 Stanford $13–17M
16 Cal $13–17M
17 Boston College $12–16M

In order to have the same dollars to spend on player compensation as the middle of the pack of the ACC, we need to come up with somewhere around $3M-$5M per year. That seems doable.

RE: Administration should be ashamed - needle - 10-04-2026

Here's rev-share data from the College Sports Commission: "Year one of revenue sharing down: schools reported $1.8 billion to 34,915 student-athletes at 307 schools ... "

By my math, about $5.9 million per school on average. If the 69 schools in P4 (plus ND) did 80% of the spending (very rough guess), they spent on average $20.9 million. If 70% of that goes to football, that's an average of $14.6 million per football team.

https://x.com/theCSCommission/status/2105756880765350255

RE: Administration should be ashamed - cardcrimson - 10-04-2026

Rankings. Academic ones.

5. Stanford
7. Duke
9. Northwestern
16. Vanderbilt
34. Wake Forest

All great schools, all highly selective, even with athletes. Four of the five with respectable football programs. Duke, Northwestern and Wake all ranked in the top 30 right now; Vandy ranked within the last two years. If they can do it, why can't Stanford?

I disagree with BC that we should give up and play FCS. It can be turned around.

Donahoe has been on the job for just over 12 months. COO of Athletics Tyler Jones has been on the job for less than 6 months. There have been big changes in attitude and the mindset of the athletic department staff, from what I've heard. It will take time. The predecessor did nothing and had a bloated staff that did the same. Change is happening and money is starting to come in. The team behind the scenes is working hard on it and is seeing some success.

That said, some of the decisions on the field have not helped the effort. Maybe the culture shift will work, but thus far, it's not showing on the field. I've seen some bad teams over the last 50 years, but this is the worst to my eyes. My concern is that it appears we will have plenty of money to spend in the portal in a few months, but players want a winner, too. Not sure of the draw that Tavita provides at this point. Andrew is a nice guy, Tavita is a nice guy. What is it they say about nice guys?

RE: Administration should be ashamed - martyup - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 09:05 AM)GoodGrief Wrote: . . . Sherman could help bring in more of the brash, outspoken, urban athletes like him.

I don't think "urban" athletes have any advantage over country tough farm raised boys. In fact, I'll bet the country boys are less likely to get flagged for unsportsmanship conduct penalties. Don't forget, this is Stanford not USC.

RE: Administration should be ashamed - cardcrimson - 10-04-2026

(10-04-2026, 07:59 PM)martyup Wrote:
(10-04-2026, 09:05 AM)GoodGrief Wrote: . . . Sherman could help bring in more of the brash, outspoken, urban athletes like him.

I don't think "urban" athletes have any advantage over country tough farm raised boys. In fact, I'll bet the country boys are less likely to get flagged for unsportsmanship conduct penalties. Don't forget, this is Stanford not USC.

Perhaps you might want to rephrase that. . . .

RE: Administration should be ashamed - StanfordMatt - 10-04-2026

I find it interesting that so many people seem to think it's a money problem when a team that spends less on player compensation just handed us the second worst loss in program history.