Quote: When I say more transfers, I am not talking about more than six and trying to make sure that a good QB and OT are in the group. It seems to me, from the evidence, that there is no choice but to significantly turn over the roster every year with both high school recruiting and a transfer cohorts closer to 20 or more. Stanford people don't like to think about "running off" players before their degree completion, but this doesn't work without like 35+ new players a year (between high school and transfers) until the roster is healthy and competitive. Right?

(10-05-2026, 02:57 PM)Goose Wrote:  He also knows that almost nobody on campus cares who he is or what he has done. He also knows he is going to have to at least pay lip service to attending some classes. I would argue that no matter how much money Stanford offers, most guys will reject it out of hand. It makes no sense for them.

(10-05-2026, 05:13 PM)KartyFan Wrote:  Ok, so assume we dont want to "run off" players and plan to honor their scholarships regardless of athletic performance, assuming they are putting in the effort on the practice field and in the classroom (of course some will transfer out in search of playing time or NIL money we won't be paying them).

Quote:Assume we are happy to admit transfers and grease the wheels of the admissions process such that a player who would have been admitted to Stanford as a freshman football player (and has done decently well academically so far in college) can come to Stanford. We could also expand this to athletes who would not have been admitted but have shown academic excellence in college.

Quote:Assume we are willing to spend money at least on par with Duke, Wake Forest, and other teams that are doing decently well right now. (Seems we already are)

Can we achieve a level of success comparable to what Stanford has achieved historically?

The above are my personal values on this matter, and I'm curious what msqueri, Goose, and others think about our odds under this structure.

Quote:I'm not personally interested in watching a football team that is completely disconnected with the rest of the Stanford community outside of gameday.

(10-05-2026, 06:16 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(10-05-2026, 05:13 PM)KartyFan Wrote:  Ok, so assume we dont want to "run off" players and plan to honor their scholarships regardless of athletic performance, assuming they are putting in the effort on the practice field and in the classroom (of course some will transfer out in search of playing time or NIL money we won't be paying them).

They would no longer be on the practice field. We are "running them off" to make numbers, so they can't be on the team. We would give them another kind of equivalent scholarship. Presumably they were admitted as students, so they should be able to do the work. Many (most?) of them will leave because they want to play football more than they want a Stanford degree. I am OK with that.

Quote:Assume we are happy to admit transfers and grease the wheels of the admissions process such that a player who would have been admitted to Stanford as a freshman football player (and has done decently well academically so far in college) can come to Stanford. We could also expand this to athletes who would not have been admitted but have shown academic excellence in college.

The potential issue here is that the number of transfer openings is variable from year to year. Some years it is quite small. There may not be enough slots open to meet the team's needs. On top of that, "reserving" a certain number of the very limited number of slots for athletes is very problematic. For the moment, we will ignore this elephant.

Quote:Assume we are willing to spend money at least on par with Duke, Wake Forest, and other teams that are doing decently well right now. (Seems we already are)

Can we achieve a level of success comparable to what Stanford has achieved historically?

The above are my personal values on this matter, and I'm curious what msqueri, Goose, and others think about our odds under this structure.

IMO it will be very difficult. Society has changed, especially on the west coast. Parents are not allowing their children to play football. Football isn't as important in High School as it used to be. Lots of kids who would have wanted to combine football with great academics now don't play football at all. This cuts down on the number of potential Stanford football players. It is especially a factor for linemen. They get less glory normally, so they need more incentive to endure the grind they must accept to play.
 
On top of that, IMO Stanford is socially much further from the mainstream than it was even in 2014. Lots of other schools are too. However Duke Wake Forest etc are closer than Stanford. Lots of football players are somewhat turned off by that fact. Stanford always was "different", but now it is "more different". Going to the Stanford (that hates fun) just isn't as attractive to lots of people as it used to be. Of course, there are some football players that are attracted to an opportunity where football doesn't define them. There are just a lot fewer than there used to be. 
 
If OTOH you are going to college to be handsomely paid to play football, you may not care much (or at all) about the social and academic situation on campus, because you are not really part of it. In this case, advancing your career is you main concern. Playing on a "bad" team isn't a good way to do this. Until Stanford isn't a "bad" team, very few good players will come to Stanford unless they have no viable alternatives. That will tend to keep us in the "bad" category. It is unclear to me how we get out of that situation. Some schools have gotten out of it (at least temporarily) by hiring a coach that can bring most of a team with him. This creates a credible argument that the team is no longer "bad" and attracting players becomes easier. Unfortunately, finding such situations isn't easy. It also is often ephemeral. See Jedd Fisch at Arizona. 
 

Quote:I'm not personally interested in watching a football team that is completely disconnected with the rest of the Stanford community outside of gameday.

Me neither.

(10-05-2026, 06:16 PM)Goose Wrote:  On top of that, IMO Stanford is socially much further from the mainstream than it was even in 2014. Lots of other schools are too. However Duke Wake Forest etc are closer than Stanford. Lots of football players are somewhat turned off by that fact. Stanford always was "different", but now it is "more different". Going to the Stanford (that hates fun) just isn't as attractive to lots of people as it used to be. Of course, there are some football players that are attracted to an opportunity where football doesn't define them. There are just a lot fewer than there used to be. 

(10-05-2026, 08:18 PM)Row80Critic Wrote:  Good discussion folks. My concern is that we're the only ones having it.  Luck keeps cheerleading and the admin seems content. They haven't said anything as far as I know.  Well, that's not entirely true, with regard to finding money to pay players, they said "never tuition, general funds, or academic resources.”  With regard to transfer admissions, those remain subject to 'tight limits.'  Luck needs to wipe that grin off his face and take a stand:  new bathroom, move the team to the sunny side, stop the hypocrisy re football transfers, and find the money to fund a real team.  Otherwise, I'm sure he'd be happier coaching quarterbacks over at Paly. 

(10-05-2026, 08:25 PM)StanfordMatt Wrote:  

(10-05-2026, 06:16 PM)Goose Wrote:  On top of that, IMO Stanford is socially much further from the mainstream than it was even in 2014. Lots of other schools are too. However Duke Wake Forest etc are closer than Stanford. Lots of football players are somewhat turned off by that fact. Stanford always was "different", but now it is "more different". Going to the Stanford (that hates fun) just isn't as attractive to lots of people as it used to be. Of course, there are some football players that are attracted to an opportunity where football doesn't define them. There are just a lot fewer than there used to be. 

At the risk of getting too far off topic, is campus life really that different from a decade ago? If so, what's changed?

(10-05-2026, 11:04 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  

(10-05-2026, 08:25 PM)StanfordMatt Wrote:  At the risk of getting too far off topic, is campus life really that different from a decade ago? If so, what's changed?

Check out Theo Baker’s book. It’s available on Amazon /Kindle. What constitutes “social activity” on the Farm these days is pretty damn depressing.

(10-06-2026, 05:51 AM)Jskass Wrote:  Thank you all for making me feel better about my weekend football experience. I was at Harvard cheering for my alma mater Colgate and very excited when we took the lead with about a minute to go. Then my heart sank when with 4 seconds Harvard won on a Hail Mary to a lateral RIGHT after I mentioned to my friends my fear since I was at THE GAME Stanford at Berkeley...my night ended with sobbing as I felt responsible.

(10-05-2026, 09:34 PM)Jamesy Wrote:  

(10-05-2026, 08:18 PM)Row80Critic Wrote:  Good discussion folks. My concern is that we're the only ones having it.  Luck keeps cheerleading and the admin seems content. They haven't said anything as far as I know.  Well, that's not entirely true, with regard to finding money to pay players, they said "never tuition, general funds, or academic resources.”  With regard to transfer admissions, those remain subject to 'tight limits.'  Luck needs to wipe that grin off his face and take a stand:  new bathroom, move the team to the sunny side, stop the hypocrisy re football transfers, and find the money to fund a real team.  Otherwise, I'm sure he'd be happier coaching quarterbacks over at Paly. 

Why would you want to move the team to the sunny side?