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)
+- 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)
RE: Administration should be ashamed - BostonCard - 10-06-2026
Met the son of a friend last month who was being dropped off to start his freshman year at Stanford. Incredibly earnest kid. If he is remotely representative, then i agree with cctop, what Theo described may be going on at Stanford (it almost certainly does), but its not representative of all or even typical Stanford students today.
BC
RE: Administration should be ashamed - rogpodge - 10-07-2026
https://x.com/DNeckel19/status/2107815705622253966
Viewership numbers by conference. Beat Cal!
RE: Administration should be ashamed - BostonCard - 10-07-2026
Stanford is within spitting distance of… Nebraska.
BC
RE: Administration should be ashamed - SkiBum80 - 10-07-2026
(10-07-2026, 12:34 PM)rogpodge Wrote: https://x.com/DNeckel19/status/2107815705622253966
Viewership numbers by conference. Beat Cal!
Obviously not good.
But actually better than I expected.
RE: Administration should be ashamed - cctop - 10-07-2026
(10-07-2026, 12:34 PM)rogpodge Wrote: https://x.com/DNeckel19/status/2107815705622253966
Viewership numbers by conference. Beat Cal!
Thanks for posting. That chart is really fascinating.
- Iowa is much higher than I'd expect.
- Notre Dame is surprisingly low.
- UCLA is shockingly low. I can't believe we have almost twice as many viewers to date. Granted UCLA has played only 4 games, none of them against a ranked team, while we got a bump from Miami.
RE: Administration should be ashamed - 82lsju - 10-07-2026
(10-07-2026, 03:34 PM)cctop Wrote:(10-07-2026, 12:34 PM)rogpodge Wrote: https://x.com/DNeckel19/status/2107815705622253966
Viewership numbers by conference. Beat Cal!
Thanks for posting. That chart is really fascinating.
- Iowa is much higher than I'd expect.
- Notre Dame is surprisingly low.
- UCLA is shockingly low. I can't believe we have almost twice as many viewers to date. Granted UCLA has played only 4 games, none of them against a ranked team, while we got a bump from Miami.
both Cal and Stanford have had two of their games with late starts (Cal two at 7:30pm PT and us with one each at 6pm and 7:30pm PT) which I would think hurts total viewership. Cal also played Wagner, tv viewers for that likely to be about the same as when we play Elon.....
RE: Administration should be ashamed - Hieronymus - 10-07-2026
(10-07-2026, 03:34 PM)cctop Wrote:It’s still early in the season and a number of key teams have zero marquee games so far.(10-07-2026, 12:34 PM)rogpodge Wrote: https://x.com/DNeckel19/status/2107815705622253966
Viewership numbers by conference. Beat Cal!
Thanks for posting. That chart is really fascinating.
- Iowa is much higher than I'd expect.
- Notre Dame is surprisingly low.
- UCLA is shockingly low. I can't believe we have almost twice as many viewers to date. Granted UCLA has played only 4 games, none of them against a ranked team, while we got a bump from Miami.
Not to push ND, but so far as an example they have played Wisconsin, Rice, Michigan St, Purdue and UNC. That isn’t quite all bums, but it’s 2 mid tier Big 10 games, a who cares outside of Indiana big 10 game, Rice and a meh UNC team. Check in again after USC, Miami, BYU and maybe SMU.
In contrast Iowa has played OSU and Michigan already - its 2 biggest draws by far. It’s all downhill from here.
Edit: also the numbers are a bit jenky these days. Purdue didn’t make sense to me with a ND game completed, but it turns out that game has no official Nielsen or viewer numbers because it was on Peacock. Ugh.
RE: Administration should be ashamed - SkiBum80 - 10-08-2026
(10-04-2026, 03:50 PM)BillBradley Wrote: 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.
The MLB Baseball analogy resonated with me. As I've often seen teams with a fraction the player payroll of others, beat a higher spending team. This year is shaping up with these teams remaining in the playoffs, and showing their pre-luxury tax 2026 payroll ranking, out of 30 total MLB teams:
No.2 LA Dodgers (always in the playoffs mix)
No.19 Milwaukee Brewers (known for being competitive on a more budget payroll)
No.24 Chicago White Sox (surprising great year on a small budget)
No.28 Tampa Bay Rays (like Brewers, notoriously good on extremely frugal player budget, swept the high paying Yankees in their series 3-0)
No.30 Cleveland Guardians (lowest paying team in MLB, but in the final 5 towards World Series)
The highest payroll team, the Mets, did not even make the playoffs.
Yes I acknowledge MLB is different than NCAA FB.
But I believe this MLB example can be seen elsewhere in sports, and in life in general.
That is: It's not always how much you spend, but how wisely you spend it.
RE: Administration should be ashamed - Spiny_Norman - 10-14-2026
Some data points for discussion about the impact of money on program success.
Since The Athletic published its estimated roster budgets for the Power 4 conference teams and actual games have been played, they now can analyze in-season results.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets-records-tracker/
Results as of October 10
When there is a gap between the opponents' budgets of >$20M, the team with the larger budget has a 13-4 record
$15-20M - 13-4
$10-15M - 10-1
$5-10M - 19-17
Stanford is 0-2 in games against teams with similar budgets (i.e., <$5M difference) - Duke and Wake Forest (notably both played on the road). Remaining games in this category are Cal and SMU.
Stanford is 1-0 vs. teams with a budget difference of $5-10M - Georgia Tech. Remaining games in this category - NC State, Louisville, Virginia Tech.
So Stanford plays 8 games this season against Power 4 teams with a similar or slightly larger budget. It will be favored in none of those games.
I'll echo what others have said in this thread. I don't think the money is Stanford's biggest problem. The program just has to get better in every aspect across the board. Recruiting, coaching, playing, training. Everything.
RE: Administration should be ashamed - Row80Critic - 10-14-2026
(10-14-2026, 03:26 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Some data points for discussion about the impact of money on program success.
Since The Athletic published its estimated roster budgets for the Power 4 conference teams and actual games have been played, they now can analyze in-season results.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interactive/college-football-nil-spending-budgets-records-tracker/
Results as of October 10
When there is a gap between the opponents' budgets of >$20M, the team with the larger budget has a 13-4 record
$15-20M - 13-4
$10-15M - 10-1
$5-10M - 19-17
Stanford is 0-2 in games against teams with similar budgets (i.e., <$5M difference) - Duke and Wake Forest (notably both played on the road). Remaining games in this category are Cal and SMU.
Stanford is 1-0 vs. teams with a budget difference of $5-10M - Georgia Tech. Remaining games in this category - NC State, Louisville, Virginia Tech.
So Stanford plays 8 games this season against Power 4 teams with a similar or slightly larger budget. It will be favored in none of those games.
I'll echo what others have said in this thread. I don't think the money is Stanford's biggest problem. The program just has to get better in every aspect across the board. Recruiting, coaching, playing, training. Everything.
Stanford has several big problems when it comes to football, so putting your finger on the biggest one is tough. That said, studies have found a statistically significant correlation between player payroll and winning. Lots of people win the lottery with one ticket, but that doesn't disprove the statistical reality that the more tickets you buy, the better your odds. Money can't guarantee a top-10 team, but it can certainly improve your chances.
And since you mention recruiting, coaching, playing, and training, I'd argue that money can directly improve the first two, which in turn should improve the last two.
Then, of course, there's the transfer portal, where Stanford insists on treating football ability as unworthy of serious consideration. It's hard enough competing with schools willing to spend more money. It's virtually impossible when you're also unwilling to admit the vast majority of good players, unless they happen to come from Yale or Harvard.
RE: Administration should be ashamed - martyup - 10-14-2026
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2FmkXFg...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2FmkXFgOZN2eoAAAAM%2Fno-love-heartbreak.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=5d9187a82aedf08a6083f6bb9c4b54b027bf6b577530588676ac501c67b141cf&ipo=images)
RE: Administration should be ashamed - BostonCard - 10-14-2026
Another way to put it is that when the differential between the schools is more than $10 million, the school spending more money wins 80% of the time (36/45), when the differential between the schools is less than $10 million, it is basically a toss-up.
BC