[CTcard]

And thus the professionalization of college sports continues ...

... you can demonstrate some Stanford-quality leadership by stopping the financial arms race in football. There's too much money in college football, and you're just fueling the arms race by this price move.

I put these two quotations together because I think they are expressing the same thought. If I am mangling things, please correct me.

I agree with the distaste at the professionalization of college sports and the excess money in college football. But, at the very least, it seems worth noting that the Stanford AD is in a very tough place in this regard.

Some years ago, Stanford did take a fairly voluble role attacking the college football arms race, notably when Ted Leland was the AD. He made various statements to the effect that Stanford wasn't going to take part in the arms race, wasn't going to pay market price for coaches, etc. Outside of losing and Shaw calling for a punt at the opponent's 40 yard line, I don't think there is anything I've seen rile the fan base more. I believe the term surrender-monkey emerged for dear Mr. Leland over this approach and he has become one of the more reviled figures among Stanford fandom. And of course this stand against the arms race didn't inspire anyone else to follow suit and didn't last.


While theoretically there are other options, my sense of reality is that Stanford's choices are to keep spending money at the level of everyone else or start losing a lot more, particularly in the sports that are most competitive. To keep the spending levels up, there has to be revenue. I suspect that this may not be the best line for finding that revenue considering the associated drawbacks (foremost among those the prospect of diminished attendance), and somehow the request for a "donation" in order to be allowed to then spend the money to buy a ticket seems particularly galling. Still, I have to admit I don't know what would be the best route to spur revenue.

[CTcard]

And thus the professionalization of college sports continues ...

... you can demonstrate some Stanford-quality leadership by stopping the financial arms race in football. There's too much money in college football, and you're just fueling the arms race by this price move.

I put these two quotations together because I think they are expressing the same thought. If I am mangling things, please correct me.

I agree with the distaste at the professionalization of college sports and the excess money in college football. But, at the very least, it seems worth noting that the Stanford AD is in a very tough place in this regard.

Some years ago, Stanford did take a fairly voluble role attacking the college football arms race, notably when Ted Leland was the AD. He made various statements to the effect that Stanford wasn't going to take part in the arms race, wasn't going to pay market price for coaches, etc. Outside of losing and Shaw calling for a punt at the opponent's 40 yard line, I don't think there is anything I've seen rile the fan base more. I believe the term surrender-monkey emerged for dear Mr. Leland over this approach and he has become one of the more reviled figures among Stanford fandom. And of course this stand against the arms race didn't inspire anyone else to follow suit and didn't last.


While theoretically there are other options, my sense of reality is that Stanford's choices are to keep spending money at the level of everyone else or start losing a lot more, particularly in the sports that are most competitive. To keep the spending levels up, there has to be revenue. I suspect that this may not be the best line for finding that revenue considering the associated drawbacks (foremost among those the prospect of diminished attendance), and somehow the request for a "donation" in order to be allowed to then spend the money to buy a ticket seems particularly galling. Still, I have to admit I don't know what would be the best route to spur revenue.