Outside Topic A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it)

Outside Topic A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - 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: Outside Topic A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) (/thread-26197.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - ironiamarisa - 06-02-2026

The Stanford Tree is being changed from the top down, and I think anyone invested in Stanford Athletics, the band, or the university in general should know it.

I'm a member of the Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band (sorry if I messed anything up when this is my first thread on here). Here's something posted on Fizz (an undergrad-initiated anonymous social media platform) last night by Ruby, the 46th Tree over the 2024-25 school year.

Quote:not an official statement. i speak on my own behalf as tree 46, ruby.

for 50 years, stanford has had an unofficial mascot. for 50 years the tree has been student selected, created, organized. a true beacon of freedom, fun, and fuckassery. representing every unique and diverse student on this campus in one way—work hard, play way ***** harder.

on june 1st, the band secretly decided to change this. in a closed staph meeting, they voted to have people who have never held this role choose our next of kin. to have multiple people who share a single identity, erasing a value we hold core to our tree practices.

Die Luft der Freiheit weht my ass.

Here's the situation as I understand it. For about fifty years the Tree has been a student-driven character: each Tree designs its own persona and costume as well as, by tradition, selects its successor. As of a closed LSJUMB staff meeting on June 1, that will end. Going forward the incumbent Tree will no longer choose the next Tree; instead, candidates will be vetted by University administration and other stakeholders. There's also a proposal to make the Tree a team of several students, in line with how other schools like Kal (*gasp*) run mascots.

This decision was driven by potential concerns of harm during the tree selection process colloquially known as "Tree Week." I genuinely believe it's an abundance of caution. But it becomes real icky when the cost of that caution may be what makes Tree the Tree in its irreverence and individuality. I guess students are quick to point fingers towards the Office of Community Standards and the Vice Provost for Student Affairs, Michele Rasmussen.

The most concerning part from my point of view is that this decision was made well above the LSJUMB members and the student leadership. And this is only the latest instance of the University managing the Band and the rest of student life with a heavy hand, something that some have called a "War on Fun." If you want a lot more reading material this afternoon you can refer to all of the following sources:

Daily Op-Ed on the current state of LSJUMB: https://stanforddaily.com/2023/03/09/from-the-community-band-is-not-student-run-why-should-students-fund-it
A letter by the late Robby Beyers, band photographer and alum, regarding the Band's "death by a thousand cuts" from way back in 2017: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/b2sdbenlh1jwav1ybvwla/ALt9PT3KLpMSDH4sQ64TTsI/Robby%20Beyers%20Band%20Letter.20170102%20final.pdf?rlkey=1urte0we13mow3kkhb83z8zq1&e=5&dl=0
On the Tree's suspension in 2022 holding up a banner saying "Stanford Hates Fun" during a football game vs. ASU: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34918726/stanford-student-suspended-serving-tree-mascot
Another article on the "War on Fun" that offers a bit more perspective even when it's a bit tilted towards fraternities: https://www.palladiummag.com/2022/06/13/stanfords-war-on-social-life
The most recent crackdowns on student life document in the Daily, from co-op houses to sex-ed programs: https://stanforddaily.com/2026/06/01/stanford-cut-beyond-sex-ed/, https://stanforddaily.com/2026/05/20/synergyterra-house-loses-co-op-status/

I don't know which lever that students can pull actually moves this admin any more. The Band's student leadership has had its hands tied by the administration for years. So I'm bringing it to you. Perhaps you all can help if you can write to the Athletics department and the administration and tell them the Tree and all its student-run is appreciable and worth protecting, that having an independent Tree and Band will be essential to the success of our varsity athletics programs and to the university as a whole (that part idk any more).

Thanks for coming to my Ted talk. I really hope that you all share my sentiment that the Tree, the Band, and student life as a whole at Stanford is worth saving.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - martyup - 06-02-2026

Keeping traditions is not always a good thing. I don't think that having the Tree choose its successor is a good method. I think the entire band should choose. I also don't have a problem with the Tree being "performed" by several different humans. This would allow the Tree to attend more events. If more than one identical Tree costume was available, the Tree could even make appearances at simultaneous events.

I do agree that the administration should let the Stanford band be the Stanford Band.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - crackpot - 06-02-2026

(06-02-2026, 02:18 PM)martyup Wrote: Keeping traditions is not always a good thing. I don't think that having the Tree choose its successor is a good method. I think the entire band should choose. I also don't have a problem with the Tree being "performed" by several different humans. This would allow the Tree to attend more events. If more than one identical Tree costume was available, the Tree could even make appearances at simultaneous events.

I do agree that the administration should let the Stanford band be the Stanford Band.

Yeah, we've been told for years that the Tree is the Band's mascot, not the university's. It makes sense for the Band to choose the tree. You definitely want to keep the Tree the Tree, rather than some admin-ordained idea of what the Tree should be <shudder>.

But I could be talked out of it if, say, they decide to give KP a full-time job as Tree (write your own jokes).

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - Jamesy - 06-02-2026

(06-02-2026, 02:25 PM)crackpot Wrote:
(06-02-2026, 02:18 PM)martyup Wrote: Keeping traditions is not always a good thing. I don't think that having the Tree choose its successor is a good method. I think the entire band should choose. I also don't have a problem with the Tree being "performed" by several different humans. This would allow the Tree to attend more events. If more than one identical Tree costume was available, the Tree could even make appearances at simultaneous events.

I do agree that the administration should let the Stanford band be the Stanford Band.

Yeah, we've been told for years that the Tree is the Band's mascot, not the university's. It makes sense for the Band to choose the tree. You definitely want to keep the Tree the Tree, rather than some admin-ordained idea of what the Tree should be <shudder>.

But I could be talked out of it if, say, they decide to give KP a full-time job as Tree (write your own jokes).

Which KP are you referring to here? Kate Paye? Katheryn Plummer? Kyle Peterson? Someone else?

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - jacket3ree - 06-02-2026

Yeah, I'm not sure how having a few students pick the next tree instead of the traditional propagation (aka suckering - hey, I know some arborists) is killing the tree. Doesn't sound like the University is involved at all. If anything, a committee is harder to bribe with [fill in your own blank here] favors than just the current tree.

Anyway, careful with that axe, Eugene.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - Hieronymus - 06-03-2026

For me this is easy - if the Tree is still part of the band, the band determines the process. If the university is now claiming the Tree as an official mascot, then this gets a lot more complicated.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - Goose - 06-03-2026

IMO the question needs to be framed as follow: What was sub-optimal about the way the Tree had been traditionally chosen? This question must be explicitly and publicly asked and answered. When that has been done it may make sense to change the policy. The new protocol has to fix the problems with the previous protocol without adding obvious new ones. As of now, it is unclear to me why change was needed. There may be good reasons, but I want to hear them.

The Stanford student "administration" unfortunately has a long history of asserting more and more control over student's lives without articulating any reasons at all, let alone good ones. In the cases where they cited "reasons" the new system often had obvious problems of its own, or at the very least didn't clearly solve a "problem". This has indeed led to the "Stanford hates fun" situation.

It is readily apparent that the Stanford Band has a numbers problem. They are unable to attract enough members to put on the same kind of performances they used to. IMO that is problem 1, and if Stanford is going to have a band going forward it will need to be "fixed". The band is clearly a social organization. People joined it because it was "fun". It had to be, because practices and planning was/is a lot of work that takes up student's time. If that time doesn't seem to be "well spent", that will be the end of the Band as it currently exists. How the Tree is chosen matters if it is "part of the problem". If it isn't, IMO the process should be left alone. In any case, the Band should make that decision, not the Administration.

It may be that the Band as a social organization just can't "work" any more. It may be that it has to become an "organized" activity designed and run by the Administration in order to even exist. Many University bands are set up that way. I suspect that most of us on this board hope that isn't going to be necessary, and that the Band as a student-run organization can actually work in the current Stanford environment. It is ATM unclear this is the case.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - jacket3ree - 06-03-2026

Speaking of aTm, which has a fabulous band in my opinion knowing many around here would disagree with that assessment, their university owns and funds the organization but daily execution is entirely student run. Their band is not an independent club like LSJUMB's social club, but belongs to a department of musical activities that is formally tied to A&M's Division of Student Affairs. The university employs professional, fulltime faculty to handle musical direction, charts, and administration and the A&M Corps of Cadets is overseen by a commandant, who is typically a retired military officer who has military advisors to oversee safety, discipline, and military parameters of the cadets. Oversee is the key word, student leaders run rehearsals, enforce discipline, maintain the good of the order etc. I'm sure that type of more organized structure has its issues too and I'm not remotely suggesting that Band ROTC is some sort of solution at Stanford. A&M is one of six senior military colleges in the U.S. and federal law dictates some of what they do. That's not the case at Stanford. Still, A&M is good. Really good.

There seem to be myriad problems with LSJUMB, the foremost to me as a former musician who spent two quarters in a P4 marching band before giving it up to get blackout drunk with my friends at games, is the music. It isn't good right now and I think the low numbers Goose references are a major contributing factor. Figure out how to get the numbers (of good musicians along with the tennis racket players) up and that goes a long way to solving issues.

Fine by me if they invite local rock bands and jazz combos to gig at halftime otherwise. Whatever you think about the shackles of overlords, LSJUMB represents LSJU so to think there can be limited retroactive oversight is a mistake. The Band first lost me at the '85 Big Game with a show titled '101 Things to Do with a Dead Cal Bandsman.' I mean WTF is this? Someone finds this entertaining? Whatever. But at least the charts were good and they played good music. The Band lost me for good by playing "She's Not There" in front of the LA courthouse where jury selection was taking place as OJ Simpson was on trial for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. I get it, only a couple dozen rogue students skipped practice and were "disciplined" by the University, whatever that means. That's not "fuckassery;" that is being shitty humans. You still represent the band, which represents the University, you morons. I hope they at least lost the right to represent.

LSJUMB revels in being 'notorious' (mistaking that for entertaining) having dropped trou and peed on fields a number of times, made fun of Patty Hearst's kidnapping, made fun of a famine that killed more than a million people, routinely mock religions, generally shit on fans from other teams, form human genitalia (yeah a lot of you are sophomores but I thought Stanford students/alumns/randos off the street allowed to play are supposed to be smart), completely effed up the ending to Big Game in '82, and has been banned from the Happiest Place on Earth. Good job guys...Hijinx!! Frankly I'm amazed they haven't met the fate of Virginia's scatter band,* which was scattered to the wind after making fun of West Virginia one too many times. A lot of restraint by the University over the decades if you ask me.

I know no one asked me, and this is rehashed grievance. Still, LSJUMB could be good. If they really wanted to be good even under the umbrella of "wacky". I think their whole reason for being is to be not good and thus make fun of marching bands that are good. You don't have to take yourselves seriously, but please take entertaining people seriously. Otherwise, why are you there? Hmmm....could be a master plan by the AD to drive concession sales to the 585 people who are at football games. I knew it. The falsest of false flag operations.

*Long before their demise, I was in attendance at Grant Field when UVA played Tech for the first time as ACC members in 1982. I was visiting the ticket booth to get a pair of really good ones for me and my dad, who was in town, furnished by a frat bro who was one of the team managers. A couple of Virginia band members came in to ask where the students sit. I told them and asked if weapons were involved and we needed to be scared or think about defensive maneuvers. "Nah, we just want to give you guys a good show." Anyway they spent halftime playing to the students and mocking the University of Georgia. I think we can all agree that is a good show. Massive standing ovation from the student section and the alumni dug it too. Can't say what subsequent material was like particularly as Tech and UVA were breaking each others' hearts in the '90s and early '00s.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - 82lsju - 06-03-2026

the LSJUMB has had the following problems for a number of years

1. declining membership, I'd guess the band is <50% of its peak and the smaller numbers are very noticeable, at least at football games, in terms of volume
2. declining musicianship, the quality of the musicians seems to my ear to have declined, the most striking example is the quality of the trumpet solos at football games
3. arrangements, do they have anyone doing new arrangements? while the arrangements from the 70s and 80s are fine with me there seems to be not a lot of new material added over the last 30+ years

I'm not sure changing the band to a more traditional band would solve items 1 and 2

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - Goose - 06-03-2026

(06-03-2026, 12:50 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: There seem to be myriad problems with LSJUMB, the foremost to me as a former musician who spent two quarters in a P4 marching band before giving it up to get blackout drunk with my friends at games, is the music. It isn't good right now and I think the low numbers Goose references are a major contributing factor. Figure out how to get the numbers (of good musicians along with the tennis racket players) up and that goes a long way to solving issues.

I clearly agree that the numbers being so low does affect the quality of the music. However, as Jacket3ree undoubtedly knows from his two quarters as a bandsman, doing even an adequate job with the music is a lot of work. You have to practice both individually and as a group. "Back in the day" the major redeeming feature of the LSJUMB was that it played a broad repertoire of "modern" music very well. This repertoire was constantly updated while retaining some "old standbys". The LSJUMB could be justly proud that its repertoire was larger, more varied and better executed than that of the more "traditional" marching bands in the conference. It has been a long time since that was true.

If you are going to assert that your model of a band is "better", you have to walk the walk. One particular aspect of the trumpet solo of the National Anthem was that it was played without electronic amplification. The soloist had to therefore play it LOUD, and every mistake would be embarrassingly obvious. Being chosen to play the solo was a "big deal". David Ruiz was a bit of a legend. His predecessors were good too. I remember one in particular practicing perhaps more than his fellow Stern Hall residents appreciated :-). I did know quite a few band members, which was easier when the band was larger :-).

The "scatter band" eliminates the need to march, but it doesn't fully eliminate the need to practice getting from one formation to another. That too takes time. For the Stanford Band model to "work", their halftime show "theme" has to actually be entertaining. I admit that I know Hal Mickelson and he was in my graduating class. His presentation of the halftime show was always understandable and almost always in sync with what was going on on the field. I certainly understand the necessity to eventually move on, but IMO the replacement announcers were/are often unintelligible and way behind what the band was actually doing. The performances degenerated to the point the announcers were trying to explain the jokes to the crowd and why they were funny. When it reaches the point you need to explain a joke, something is indeed wrong. While the LSJUMB themes were arguably sometimes in "bad taste" back in the day, they were usually entertaining. The approach became stale and IMO hasn't been "clever" for many years.

I think jacket3ree could have been a very productive member of the band. Many of them often got blind drunk AFTER the game.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - jacket3ree - 06-03-2026

I'm in violent agreement with Goose other than how productive a member I would have been of LSJUMB. They take grad students as far as I recall but by then my chops were long gone because it does take work to be a musician. It takes practice with the band to learn the music and formations, and practice alone to master the music beyond the memorization and keep those chops up.

In high school, we had an hour of class time and daily sessions after school. Those were serious sessions because we took a lot of pride in our craft and the after school part including games and other performances were a brobdingnagian social part of life with spinoffs to garage bands and gigging. I was part of a brass quintet that did baroque music (took second at "state") and some of us were trying to be the next Blood Sweat and Tears or Chicago with Kath. We weren't but that was a lot of fun. Just never found the right vocalist. So engineering it is.

In college, we got an hour of credit for probably 16 hours of work per week in season. All home games plus a road game in Knoxville freshman year, which was fun and I did book some sessions in those soundproof booths over at the student center (can't play in your dorm room and the band room was locked at night) but it was clearly going to fade, social life was going to revolve around the fraternity, and honestly the students running the show were kind of weird and power hungry. And flasks were frowned upon, so regular old student in Upper East it is. We started flinging frisbees at the band starting on the frisbee give away day. (Brilliant idea someone!) I didn't do it because I know how much work band entails but I'll admit I hive fived my roommate when he placed a 60-yeard forehand right into a sousaphone. In ultimate he was a "QB" while I was a go long and snag it guy.

I do hope they get it together. I can take stupid jokes if the music is good.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - crackpot - 06-03-2026

(06-02-2026, 03:24 PM)Jamesy Wrote:
(06-02-2026, 02:25 PM)crackpot Wrote:
(06-02-2026, 02:18 PM)martyup Wrote: Keeping traditions is not always a good thing. I don't think that having the Tree choose its successor is a good method. I think the entire band should choose. I also don't have a problem with the Tree being "performed" by several different humans. This would allow the Tree to attend more events. If more than one identical Tree costume was available, the Tree could even make appearances at simultaneous events.

I do agree that the administration should let the Stanford band be the Stanford Band.

Yeah, we've been told for years that the Tree is the Band's mascot, not the university's. It makes sense for the Band to choose the tree. You definitely want to keep the Tree the Tree, rather than some admin-ordained idea of what the Tree should be <shudder>.

But I could be talked out of it if, say, they decide to give KP a full-time job as Tree (write your own jokes).

Which KP are you referring to here? Kate Paye? Katheryn Plummer? Kyle Peterson? Someone else?

Kate Paye

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - Mick - 06-07-2026

https://youtu.be/nS41-JeZ3EE?si=sUsXhMwJaXlTugqb

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - fullmetal - 06-08-2026

I'm sad that the university is trying to insert itself into internal Band operations. To some extent, the admissions policies of the university may have changed such that we are admitting fewer and fewer students whose personalities fit with the ethos of the Band. But the Band itself does represent the university in a very public way, and the university is probably within its right to have some say in that representation. I'd like to see some sort of mutually acceptable compromise, but the university does hold all the cards here, and along with the marginalization of the Dollies (by university-backed Stanford Cheer), it seems that the free spirit that used to infuse the Band and student population is no longer valued by the university.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - Goose - 06-08-2026

(06-08-2026, 09:06 AM)fullmetal Wrote: I'd like to see some sort of mutually acceptable compromise, but the university does hold all the cards here, and along with the marginalization of the Dollies (by university-backed Stanford Cheer), it seems that the free spirit that used to infuse the Band and student population is no longer valued tolerated by the university.

FIFY

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - jonnyss - 06-08-2026

i can't tell from the post if the band decided or university administration decided. seems like the band decided. if so, does a no-fun administration have a real role in this?

a decision at a LSJUMB closed meeting sounds open to band members but closed to the current tree. sounds to me like the current tree as an interested party was asked to recuse her/himself. if so, not unusual.

so far, doesn't sound like an administration choice; sounds like a conflict between band and tree. does the band sponsor the tree? does the tree even appear apart from the band? if the tree exists apart from the band, then yes, the band is overstepping, but not if the tree is a band special performer - like the back-up singers for a rock band performance.

for the current tree to choose the successor seems plausible but unusual. imo more common for a group to choose its specialists. there is a conductor, for example, and it would be rare for the band's conductor to choose next year's conductor. and certainly rare for the current bass drummer to choose next year's bass drummer, right?

am i missing something?

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - Hurlburt88 - 06-09-2026

thought occurs to me that having multiple trees could create more "fun" by increasing presence & appearances.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - PalmTree - 06-09-2026

(06-09-2026, 04:42 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote: thought occurs to me that having multiple trees could create more "fun" by increasing presence & appearances.

"Fear the Forest!" Sounds kinda ominous - I like it....

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - fullmetal - 06-09-2026

Independent of the selection process changes, I do think multiple Trees would be a good thing. A bigger Band would be nice to provide presence (split up) at simultaneous events, particularly in the spring season.

RE: A Word on the Stanford Tree (and what the university is doing to kill it) - StanUSwagU - 06-09-2026

"82lsju:

the LSJUMB has had the following problems for a number of years

1. declining membership, I'd guess the band is <50% of its peak and the smaller numbers are very noticeable, at least at football games, in terms of volume
2. declining musicianship, the quality of the musicians seems to my ear to have declined, the most striking example is the quality of the trumpet solos at football games
3. arrangements, do they have anyone doing new arrangements? while the arrangements from the 70s and 80s are fine with me there seems to be not a lot of new material added over the last 30+ years

I'm not sure changing the band to a more traditional band would solve items 1 and 2

**************************************************
(1) I agree with what Jacket3ree says below:
Not talking about the actual individuals, but I for one, never found the act of our band 'Running around rag-tag like a bunch of scurrying rats...doing snarky-sophomoric skits that were often disrespectful to another University' something that made me proud, or that reflected 'The Greatness of Stanford University'; C'mon we can do so much better than that !

(2) As far as the problems listed above, I do feel like transitioning to a 'traditional marching band' & 'traditional mascot' would immensely benefit Stanford University, its AD, and band interest & participation.

Remember, right now any High school student in USA or abroad who is a 4.3 GPA student who 'Loves traditional Marching Bands & all the practice that goes into that' (which is a significant number of High School Marching Band students) ... will NEVER consider applying and attending Stanford; They will opt to go to NotreDame, Michigan, USC, GaTech, OhioState, etc; That reduces the numbers/supply of any potential 'really passionate band members' that could be at Stanford; Remember, high school students who loved doing all the practice of high school marching bands & who want to continue that in their College Experience are not just 'musicians' ...they 'Love Band' & sacrificing limited free hours & even sleep, to practice & 'be in a Marching Band! '
[My sense is many of our 'band members' are people who think of band as an extra-curricular they want to minimize the weekly hours they spend time on; maybe many of them even like the 'zany social club' aspect of our band more than 'BigTime Football & Marching']
I had a friend of mine in HS who was just this, a 4.3 gpa student & in our MarchingBand (awesome trombone-player & killer smart in Biology) ..and just liked the 'NotreDame Atmosphere' more than the 'Stanford Atmosphere', after having visited both.

(3) I may be in the Minority, but I would be thrilled if the University said lets Fund, FinanciallySupport, & Prioritize Fielding & Recruiting a 'Traditional MarchingBand', making sure this 'Traditional Marching Band' had all the Resources, Time, & Support it needed to succeed;
I would be embarassed as University Leadership, if I knew "Smart 4.3 gpa high school marching band students", as a trend, were picking NotreDame, UC Berkeley, USC, or UCLA, mostly because they felt Stanford didnt have a respectable Marching Band, for them to join & participate in.

(4) As an olive-branch, Here is a Thought/Compromise:
Maybe 1 home-game a year, the band can "Run around rag-tag like a bunch of rats scurrying on a sinking ship when the lights come on...doing snarky-sophomoric skits" ...the other 11 games & other Stanford events, Practice & Be the best Traditional Marching Band in the Nation !

Again, no disrespect to any current or former LSJUMB members, but sometimes the juvenile nature of the act gets old, (its no longer funny or amusing) &'its time for a fundamental-change' .

******************************************************

[quote="jacket3ree" pid='450611' dateline='1780516236']
Speaking of aTm, which has a fabulous band in my opinion knowing many around here would disagree with that assessment, their university owns and funds the organization but daily execution is entirely student run. Their band is not an independent club like LSJUMB's social club, but belongs to a department of musical activities that is formally tied to A&M's Division of Student Affairs. The university employs professional, fulltime faculty to handle musical direction, charts, and administration and the A&M Corps of Cadets is overseen by a commandant, who is typically a retired military officer who has military advisors to oversee safety, discipline, and military parameters of the cadets. Oversee is the key word, student leaders run rehearsals, enforce discipline, maintain the good of the order etc. I'm sure that type of more organized structure has its issues too and I'm not remotely suggesting that Band ROTC is some sort of solution at Stanford. A&M is one of six senior military colleges in the U.S. and federal law dictates some of what they do. That's not the case at Stanford. Still, A&M is good. Really good.

There seem to be myriad problems with LSJUMB, the foremost to me as a former musician who spent two quarters in a P4 marching band before giving it up to get blackout drunk with my friends at games, is the music. It isn't good right now and I think the low numbers Goose references are a major contributing factor. Figure out how to get the numbers (of good musicians along with the tennis racket players) up and that goes a long way to solving issues.

Fine by me if they invite local rock bands and jazz combos to gig at halftime otherwise. Whatever you think about the shackles of overlords, LSJUMB represents LSJU so to think there can be limited retroactive oversight is a mistake. The Band first lost me at the '85 Big Game with a show titled '101 Things to Do with a Dead Cal Bandsman.' I mean WTF is this? Someone finds this entertaining? Whatever. But at least the charts were good and they played good music. The Band lost me for good by playing "She's Not There" in front of the LA courthouse where jury selection was taking place as OJ Simpson was on trial for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. I get it, only a couple dozen rogue students skipped practice and were "disciplined" by the University, whatever that means. That's not "fuckassery;" that is being shitty humans. You still represent the band, which represents the University, you morons. I hope they at least lost the right to represent.

LSJUMB revels in being 'notorious' (mistaking that for entertaining) having dropped trou and peed on fields a number of times, made fun of Patty Hearst's kidnapping, made fun of a famine that killed more than a million people, routinely mock religions, generally shit on fans from other teams, form human genitalia (yeah a lot of you are sophomores but I thought Stanford students/alumns/randos off the street allowed to play are supposed to be smart), completely effed up the ending to Big Game in '82, and has been banned from the Happiest Place on Earth. Good job guys...Hijinx!! Frankly I'm amazed they haven't met the fate of Virginia's scatter band,* which was scattered to the wind after making fun of West Virginia one too many times. A lot of restraint by the University over the decades if you ask me.

I know no one asked me, and this is rehashed grievance. Still, LSJUMB could be good. If they really wanted to be good even under the umbrella of "wacky". I think their whole reason for being is to be not good and thus make fun of marching bands that are good. You don't have to take yourselves seriously, but please take entertaining people seriously. Otherwise, why are you there? Hmmm....could be a master plan by the AD to drive concession sales to the 585 people who are at football games. I knew it. The falsest of false flag operations.