06-17-2011, 09:16 AM
but David Shaw isn't one of them.
http://twitter.com/#!/jkarlgaard/status/...5557218304
http://twitter.com/#!/jkarlgaard/status/...5557218304
Some Stanford fans may deride the Director's Cup
06-17-2011, 10:46 AM
I'd be surprised if any Stanford fans thought little of the Director's Cup. It's practically our cup, so deriding it wouldn't be in our favor at all :p
06-17-2011, 11:20 AM
FM,
The fact that you're here is an indication that the board is achieving one of its aims. Many if not all of the founding members grew weary of hearing "Sears" sports derided. I grew up competing in track & field, and I wrote for Track & Field News, so I know that athletes in so-called non-revenue sports have every bit of the dedication that those in football and men's basketball do.
The fact that you're here is an indication that the board is achieving one of its aims. Many if not all of the founding members grew weary of hearing "Sears" sports derided. I grew up competing in track & field, and I wrote for Track & Field News, so I know that athletes in so-called non-revenue sports have every bit of the dedication that those in football and men's basketball do.
FM,
The fact that you're here is an indication that the board is achieving one of its aims. Many if not all of the founding members grew weary of hearing "Sears" sports derided. I grew up competing in track & field, and I wrote for Track & Field News, so I know that athletes in so-called non-revenue sports have every bit of the dedication that those in football and men's basketball do.
The fact that you're here is an indication that the board is achieving one of its aims. Many if not all of the founding members grew weary of hearing "Sears" sports derided. I grew up competing in track & field, and I wrote for Track & Field News, so I know that athletes in so-called non-revenue sports have every bit of the dedication that those in football and men's basketball do.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-17-2011, 11:21 AM
The problem wasn't the Directors' Cup or what it stood for. The problem was it came to symbolize something else at Stanford. While Stanford won DCs year after year after year the football program bounced from high achievement to gawdawful with several stops at mediocre in between. Rightly or wrongly, Ted Leland's pride in the DC rang a bit hollow when he seemed so laid back and unconcerned about the football program's decline. Or, to be fair, maybe he cared, but he didn't mobilize the university to do anything about it.  His Royal Ungratefulness left (for his doom) at Notre Dame partly because of salary issues. His two replacements seemed like Ted chose his coaches by throwing at a dart board marked "Clearance Sale". And still we kept bringing in Directors' Cups and honoring cross country teams and volleyball teams at halftime in a (generously) half-full stadium.
What we will never know for sure is how much credit Bob Bowlsby deserves for the turnaround in football. Certainly for decisive early actions: firing Wlat and having the vision to hire Harbaugh. But the overall program has benefited from a sea change in the university administration and community. Other stars had to align from the university president and the admissions director on down. Bowlsby couldn't make the necessary changes happen all by himself.  Was the university receptive to change all along but Leland never risked his political capital to be an aggressive advocate? Had Leland charged up the hill so many times and been rejected that he just gave up? Did Bowlsby have the power to use Jedi mind tricks on the Faculty Senate?Â
Whatever. The Directors' Cup got a bad rep because (to some unknown % of Stanford supporters) it symbolized a neglect of football and an emphasis on minor sports. Other schools see it that way when they critique the scoring system.Â
All I know is: The Directors' Cup, heck, the whole line of Directors' Cups sure looks much better with an Orange Bowl trophy standing beside it.
What we will never know for sure is how much credit Bob Bowlsby deserves for the turnaround in football. Certainly for decisive early actions: firing Wlat and having the vision to hire Harbaugh. But the overall program has benefited from a sea change in the university administration and community. Other stars had to align from the university president and the admissions director on down. Bowlsby couldn't make the necessary changes happen all by himself.  Was the university receptive to change all along but Leland never risked his political capital to be an aggressive advocate? Had Leland charged up the hill so many times and been rejected that he just gave up? Did Bowlsby have the power to use Jedi mind tricks on the Faculty Senate?Â
Whatever. The Directors' Cup got a bad rep because (to some unknown % of Stanford supporters) it symbolized a neglect of football and an emphasis on minor sports. Other schools see it that way when they critique the scoring system.Â
All I know is: The Directors' Cup, heck, the whole line of Directors' Cups sure looks much better with an Orange Bowl trophy standing beside it.
The problem wasn't the Directors' Cup or what it stood for. The problem was it came to symbolize something else at Stanford. While Stanford won DCs year after year after year the football program bounced from high achievement to gawdawful with several stops at mediocre in between. Rightly or wrongly, Ted Leland's pride in the DC rang a bit hollow when he seemed so laid back and unconcerned about the football program's decline. Or, to be fair, maybe he cared, but he didn't mobilize the university to do anything about it.  His Royal Ungratefulness left (for his doom) at Notre Dame partly because of salary issues. His two replacements seemed like Ted chose his coaches by throwing at a dart board marked "Clearance Sale". And still we kept bringing in Directors' Cups and honoring cross country teams and volleyball teams at halftime in a (generously) half-full stadium.
What we will never know for sure is how much credit Bob Bowlsby deserves for the turnaround in football. Certainly for decisive early actions: firing Wlat and having the vision to hire Harbaugh. But the overall program has benefited from a sea change in the university administration and community. Other stars had to align from the university president and the admissions director on down. Bowlsby couldn't make the necessary changes happen all by himself.  Was the university receptive to change all along but Leland never risked his political capital to be an aggressive advocate? Had Leland charged up the hill so many times and been rejected that he just gave up? Did Bowlsby have the power to use Jedi mind tricks on the Faculty Senate?Â
Whatever. The Directors' Cup got a bad rep because (to some unknown % of Stanford supporters) it symbolized a neglect of football and an emphasis on minor sports. Other schools see it that way when they critique the scoring system.Â
All I know is: The Directors' Cup, heck, the whole line of Directors' Cups sure looks much better with an Orange Bowl trophy standing beside it.
What we will never know for sure is how much credit Bob Bowlsby deserves for the turnaround in football. Certainly for decisive early actions: firing Wlat and having the vision to hire Harbaugh. But the overall program has benefited from a sea change in the university administration and community. Other stars had to align from the university president and the admissions director on down. Bowlsby couldn't make the necessary changes happen all by himself.  Was the university receptive to change all along but Leland never risked his political capital to be an aggressive advocate? Had Leland charged up the hill so many times and been rejected that he just gave up? Did Bowlsby have the power to use Jedi mind tricks on the Faculty Senate?Â
Whatever. The Directors' Cup got a bad rep because (to some unknown % of Stanford supporters) it symbolized a neglect of football and an emphasis on minor sports. Other schools see it that way when they critique the scoring system.Â
All I know is: The Directors' Cup, heck, the whole line of Directors' Cups sure looks much better with an Orange Bowl trophy standing beside it.
06-17-2011, 11:31 AM
Sneering at the Director's Cup came looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong before Wlat or even Ted's buddy. There was ambivalence from the beginning, statements like "Yeah, I got a cup from Sears." It was a stupid belief that somehow, excellence in women's basketball (at the time, we were on our way to our 2nd national championship) and tennis somehow prevented excellence in football.
Sneering at the Director's Cup came looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong before Wlat or even Ted's buddy. There was ambivalence from the beginning, statements like "Yeah, I got a cup from Sears." It was a stupid belief that somehow, excellence in women's basketball (at the time, we were on our way to our 2nd national championship) and tennis somehow prevented excellence in football.
06-17-2011, 11:35 AM
Somebody else cares about the Director's Cup.
http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44080
http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44080
06-17-2011, 12:13 PM
Ah yeah, I'd forgotten about the split between football and non-rev sports. How quickly the achievements of Toby and Luck erase such memories...
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-17-2011, 03:51 PM
TW was never a popular winner with the critics. Had his fans, but even back then the promotion of a Vikings running backs coach rather than established head coaches was controversial. Leland was criticized for setting the bar too low, for trying to hire on the cheap. After his hiring TW's record was dissected and reinterpreted numerous ways, seemingly to emphasize his losses (Liberty fiasco) and deconstruct his bowl win (Sun). That great guy and marvelous companion Long Winded was an enthusiastic participant in this process. Two 5-6 and one 3-8 seasons made sure TW never got clear of the critics...and neither did Ted Leland.
"It was a stupid belief that somehow, excellence in women's basketball (at the time, we were on our way to our 2nd national championship) and tennis somehow prevented excellence in football."
But during that time I never, ever heard anyone ragging on the women's basketball program. Period. The Leland critics never seemed anti- women's or "minor" sports, it seemed it just bugged the hell out of them to see football "neglected" and seemingly run on the cheap. I thought most people could compartmentalize the different issues pretty well. The emphasis given to the Directors' Cups just seemed like political cover and a distraction from something they thought was really wrong with a bigger piece of the athletic program.
Edit add reply to garvin: the issue isn't what Stanford has "always" done in hiring football coaches on the cheap. The point was that at the time after TWs hiring, that was the substance of people's criticism. (Along with not being a football advocate against an indifferent or even hostile administration.).  Regardless of the analysis you laid out, Leland was the target for the dissatisfaction in the direction of the football team.  And it bugged people and even made them suspect motives when the Sears Cups got emphasis (which they deserved) while the football priorities seemed to be neglected. i think I have accurately summarized that mindset prominent at the time.
"It was a stupid belief that somehow, excellence in women's basketball (at the time, we were on our way to our 2nd national championship) and tennis somehow prevented excellence in football."
But during that time I never, ever heard anyone ragging on the women's basketball program. Period. The Leland critics never seemed anti- women's or "minor" sports, it seemed it just bugged the hell out of them to see football "neglected" and seemingly run on the cheap. I thought most people could compartmentalize the different issues pretty well. The emphasis given to the Directors' Cups just seemed like political cover and a distraction from something they thought was really wrong with a bigger piece of the athletic program.
Edit add reply to garvin: the issue isn't what Stanford has "always" done in hiring football coaches on the cheap. The point was that at the time after TWs hiring, that was the substance of people's criticism. (Along with not being a football advocate against an indifferent or even hostile administration.).  Regardless of the analysis you laid out, Leland was the target for the dissatisfaction in the direction of the football team.  And it bugged people and even made them suspect motives when the Sears Cups got emphasis (which they deserved) while the football priorities seemed to be neglected. i think I have accurately summarized that mindset prominent at the time.
TW was never a popular winner with the critics. Had his fans, but even back then the promotion of a Vikings running backs coach rather than established head coaches was controversial. Leland was criticized for setting the bar too low, for trying to hire on the cheap. After his hiring TW's record was dissected and reinterpreted numerous ways, seemingly to emphasize his losses (Liberty fiasco) and deconstruct his bowl win (Sun). That great guy and marvelous companion Long Winded was an enthusiastic participant in this process. Two 5-6 and one 3-8 seasons made sure TW never got clear of the critics...and neither did Ted Leland.
"It was a stupid belief that somehow, excellence in women's basketball (at the time, we were on our way to our 2nd national championship) and tennis somehow prevented excellence in football."
But during that time I never, ever heard anyone ragging on the women's basketball program. Period. The Leland critics never seemed anti- women's or "minor" sports, it seemed it just bugged the hell out of them to see football "neglected" and seemingly run on the cheap. I thought most people could compartmentalize the different issues pretty well. The emphasis given to the Directors' Cups just seemed like political cover and a distraction from something they thought was really wrong with a bigger piece of the athletic program.
Edit add reply to garvin: the issue isn't what Stanford has "always" done in hiring football coaches on the cheap. The point was that at the time after TWs hiring, that was the substance of people's criticism. (Along with not being a football advocate against an indifferent or even hostile administration.).  Regardless of the analysis you laid out, Leland was the target for the dissatisfaction in the direction of the football team.  And it bugged people and even made them suspect motives when the Sears Cups got emphasis (which they deserved) while the football priorities seemed to be neglected. i think I have accurately summarized that mindset prominent at the time.
"It was a stupid belief that somehow, excellence in women's basketball (at the time, we were on our way to our 2nd national championship) and tennis somehow prevented excellence in football."
But during that time I never, ever heard anyone ragging on the women's basketball program. Period. The Leland critics never seemed anti- women's or "minor" sports, it seemed it just bugged the hell out of them to see football "neglected" and seemingly run on the cheap. I thought most people could compartmentalize the different issues pretty well. The emphasis given to the Directors' Cups just seemed like political cover and a distraction from something they thought was really wrong with a bigger piece of the athletic program.
Edit add reply to garvin: the issue isn't what Stanford has "always" done in hiring football coaches on the cheap. The point was that at the time after TWs hiring, that was the substance of people's criticism. (Along with not being a football advocate against an indifferent or even hostile administration.).  Regardless of the analysis you laid out, Leland was the target for the dissatisfaction in the direction of the football team.  And it bugged people and even made them suspect motives when the Sears Cups got emphasis (which they deserved) while the football priorities seemed to be neglected. i think I have accurately summarized that mindset prominent at the time.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-17-2011, 04:14 PM
There was genuine bad blood between Leland and His Royal Ungratefulness. And the issue was...MONEY.  HRU thought he deservedmuch more money. Big time money by reports at the time. Leland said no and countered with a raise offer that didn't come near to what HRU thought he was worth and, as it turned out, ND would pay. HRU was a proud man and it seemed like an insult. Some people privy to the process said that perception of insult, of feeling unvalued, was the source for much of HRU's graceless behavior toward Stanford as he departed and afterward. A lot of it was personal.
BTW garvin, I never said money was THE reason HRU left for South Bend. I said money (salary) was partly to blame. See above paragraph, which transpired before and during the negotiations w/ the University of South Bend. But in general, you're right. If a school like the University of South Bend is making an offer and showing you the money, that's almost impossible to turn down. If your current employer is pissing you off, I think we could drop the "almost" from the previous sentence.
BTW garvin, I never said money was THE reason HRU left for South Bend. I said money (salary) was partly to blame. See above paragraph, which transpired before and during the negotiations w/ the University of South Bend. But in general, you're right. If a school like the University of South Bend is making an offer and showing you the money, that's almost impossible to turn down. If your current employer is pissing you off, I think we could drop the "almost" from the previous sentence.
There was genuine bad blood between Leland and His Royal Ungratefulness. And the issue was...MONEY.  HRU thought he deservedmuch more money. Big time money by reports at the time. Leland said no and countered with a raise offer that didn't come near to what HRU thought he was worth and, as it turned out, ND would pay. HRU was a proud man and it seemed like an insult. Some people privy to the process said that perception of insult, of feeling unvalued, was the source for much of HRU's graceless behavior toward Stanford as he departed and afterward. A lot of it was personal.
BTW garvin, I never said money was THE reason HRU left for South Bend. I said money (salary) was partly to blame. See above paragraph, which transpired before and during the negotiations w/ the University of South Bend. But in general, you're right. If a school like the University of South Bend is making an offer and showing you the money, that's almost impossible to turn down. If your current employer is pissing you off, I think we could drop the "almost" from the previous sentence.
BTW garvin, I never said money was THE reason HRU left for South Bend. I said money (salary) was partly to blame. See above paragraph, which transpired before and during the negotiations w/ the University of South Bend. But in general, you're right. If a school like the University of South Bend is making an offer and showing you the money, that's almost impossible to turn down. If your current employer is pissing you off, I think we could drop the "almost" from the previous sentence.
06-17-2011, 07:19 PM
Terry told a story about going to USB for our game with them in '92. He saw some USB students wearing t-shirts that said "we stole your coach," which I thought was a classy touch. If I remember correctly, he stopped one of them and said, "Correction -- you BOUGHT our coach." :P
Terry told a story about going to USB for our game with them in '92. He saw some USB students wearing t-shirts that said "we stole your coach," which I thought was a classy touch. If I remember correctly, he stopped one of them and said, "Correction -- you BOUGHT our coach." :P
06-17-2011, 08:01 PM
Good memory, Nancy. Better than mine -- I had forgotten that until now, but that's exactly what happened.
06-17-2011, 08:15 PM
we traded up on Deans when Shaw replaced Mamlet (same thing with Bowlsby and Ted; Harbaugh over Wlat, etc)
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-18-2011, 07:57 AM
Even in our marvelous last couple seasons, there were times when I would have traded it all for a first down. Depends on context, I suppose.  Funny how you give Long Winded a pass on his relentless internet negativity back then but seem convinced that frustrated people saying they'd trade it all for a first down as a formal declaration of war on women's sports.
To revisit a point you made yesterday about Stanford's having a tradition of low pay for head coaches. Although it wasn't appropos of the point I was making, you were absolutely correct. In fact, we may be living through it again. With Harbaugh's departure and the hiring of David Shaw, we heard some of the same criticism that the driver for Bowlsby hiring Shaw was that as a rookie coach, he wouldn't cost Stanford as much as an established, "name" head coach. Not exactly respectful of Shaw, positing that he got the job because it he was (relatively) cheap.  I think even the Doc, John Olekzulin, weighed in on that same theory. But he wasn't alone. Several people felt sort of deflated getting Shaw after coming off the Harbaugh high. Don't know what Shaw's salary is, but I'd bet it's not above the median for the Pac-10. All he has to do is win and the money will come.
To revisit a point you made yesterday about Stanford's having a tradition of low pay for head coaches. Although it wasn't appropos of the point I was making, you were absolutely correct. In fact, we may be living through it again. With Harbaugh's departure and the hiring of David Shaw, we heard some of the same criticism that the driver for Bowlsby hiring Shaw was that as a rookie coach, he wouldn't cost Stanford as much as an established, "name" head coach. Not exactly respectful of Shaw, positing that he got the job because it he was (relatively) cheap.  I think even the Doc, John Olekzulin, weighed in on that same theory. But he wasn't alone. Several people felt sort of deflated getting Shaw after coming off the Harbaugh high. Don't know what Shaw's salary is, but I'd bet it's not above the median for the Pac-10. All he has to do is win and the money will come.
Even in our marvelous last couple seasons, there were times when I would have traded it all for a first down. Depends on context, I suppose.  Funny how you give Long Winded a pass on his relentless internet negativity back then but seem convinced that frustrated people saying they'd trade it all for a first down as a formal declaration of war on women's sports.
To revisit a point you made yesterday about Stanford's having a tradition of low pay for head coaches. Although it wasn't appropos of the point I was making, you were absolutely correct. In fact, we may be living through it again. With Harbaugh's departure and the hiring of David Shaw, we heard some of the same criticism that the driver for Bowlsby hiring Shaw was that as a rookie coach, he wouldn't cost Stanford as much as an established, "name" head coach. Not exactly respectful of Shaw, positing that he got the job because it he was (relatively) cheap.  I think even the Doc, John Olekzulin, weighed in on that same theory. But he wasn't alone. Several people felt sort of deflated getting Shaw after coming off the Harbaugh high. Don't know what Shaw's salary is, but I'd bet it's not above the median for the Pac-10. All he has to do is win and the money will come.
To revisit a point you made yesterday about Stanford's having a tradition of low pay for head coaches. Although it wasn't appropos of the point I was making, you were absolutely correct. In fact, we may be living through it again. With Harbaugh's departure and the hiring of David Shaw, we heard some of the same criticism that the driver for Bowlsby hiring Shaw was that as a rookie coach, he wouldn't cost Stanford as much as an established, "name" head coach. Not exactly respectful of Shaw, positing that he got the job because it he was (relatively) cheap.  I think even the Doc, John Olekzulin, weighed in on that same theory. But he wasn't alone. Several people felt sort of deflated getting Shaw after coming off the Harbaugh high. Don't know what Shaw's salary is, but I'd bet it's not above the median for the Pac-10. All he has to do is win and the money will come.
06-18-2011, 08:40 AM
Garvin, on the other board, I believe the ultimate derisive quote on Sears' Cups came after an ugly Oregon loss at home under Ted's lil Buddy's reign of errors. it went something like "pass the last Sears' Cup, I've got to puke."
in the end, I think Bowlsby had it right that we need the big three -- football, MBB and WBB, particularly football -- to do well as the sports provide much of the revenue needed to help fund all 35 teams. I am not sure Ted was willing to say this or promote this view internally.
in the end, I think Bowlsby had it right that we need the big three -- football, MBB and WBB, particularly football -- to do well as the sports provide much of the revenue needed to help fund all 35 teams. I am not sure Ted was willing to say this or promote this view internally.
Garvin, on the other board, I believe the ultimate derisive quote on Sears' Cups came after an ugly Oregon loss at home under Ted's lil Buddy's reign of errors. it went something like "pass the last Sears' Cup, I've got to puke."
in the end, I think Bowlsby had it right that we need the big three -- football, MBB and WBB, particularly football -- to do well as the sports provide much of the revenue needed to help fund all 35 teams. I am not sure Ted was willing to say this or promote this view internally.
in the end, I think Bowlsby had it right that we need the big three -- football, MBB and WBB, particularly football -- to do well as the sports provide much of the revenue needed to help fund all 35 teams. I am not sure Ted was willing to say this or promote this view internally.
06-18-2011, 10:15 AM
How about using the Director's Cup as an incentive for the football team?
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_...d-sha.html
Quote:...thats why we are here [NACDA] receiving the Directors Cup, to get our football program to be a consistent performer like our womens basketball program, like our womens volleyball, like our mens and womens tennis, those great programs and to have football be up there amongst the best in the nation with those other sports is what Stanford tries to do.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_...d-sha.html
How about using the Director's Cup as an incentive for the football team?
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_...d-sha.html
Quote:...thats why we are here [NACDA] receiving the Directors Cup, to get our football program to be a consistent performer like our womens basketball program, like our womens volleyball, like our mens and womens tennis, those great programs and to have football be up there amongst the best in the nation with those other sports is what Stanford tries to do.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_...d-sha.html
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-18-2011, 10:26 AM
would have a problem with this. If only it had been true.
"Â Â to get our football program to be a consistent performer like our womens basketball program, like our womens volleyball, like our mens and womens tennis, those great programs and to have football be up there amongst the best in the nation with those other sports is what Stanford tries to do."
But, it wasn't.
"Â Â to get our football program to be a consistent performer like our womens basketball program, like our womens volleyball, like our mens and womens tennis, those great programs and to have football be up there amongst the best in the nation with those other sports is what Stanford tries to do."
But, it wasn't.
would have a problem with this. If only it had been true.
"Â Â to get our football program to be a consistent performer like our womens basketball program, like our womens volleyball, like our mens and womens tennis, those great programs and to have football be up there amongst the best in the nation with those other sports is what Stanford tries to do."
But, it wasn't.
"Â Â to get our football program to be a consistent performer like our womens basketball program, like our womens volleyball, like our mens and womens tennis, those great programs and to have football be up there amongst the best in the nation with those other sports is what Stanford tries to do."
But, it wasn't.
06-18-2011, 05:06 PM
Garvin, I am not sure if you were responding to me or not on Ted. if you were, I'd just add two points. Ted liked football but in the end he did not do very much internally (faculty Senate, Admissions, Deans etc) to defend it. second, his Lil Buddy hire was preconceived. he held out for him. does it get much worse?
Garvin, I am not sure if you were responding to me or not on Ted. if you were, I'd just add two points. Ted liked football but in the end he did not do very much internally (faculty Senate, Admissions, Deans etc) to defend it. second, his Lil Buddy hire was preconceived. he held out for him. does it get much worse?
Ted Leland cared about football. He cared a lot. On the plus side, he made two good hires -- Walsh and Wilingham. To his great credit, he got the stadium project approved. In the category of "things that aren't Ted's fault," you have to remember that Ted wasn't responsible for Robin Mamlet's reign of terror in the admissions office. But Ted hired two bad coaches in a row, which really hurt the program. And he didn't do a good job of selling the administration and faculty on the great benefits to the university of having a top-notch football program. As a result of not building enough support in the administration, he didn't make any progress on issues like coaching salaries, assistant coach housing, and summer school -- all of which have been addressed by Bowlsby.
Ted Leland cared about football. He cared a lot. On the plus side, he made two good hires -- Walsh and Wilingham. To his great credit, he got the stadium project approved. In the category of "things that aren't Ted's fault," you have to remember that Ted wasn't responsible for Robin Mamlet's reign of terror in the admissions office. But Ted hired two bad coaches in a row, which really hurt the program. And he didn't do a good job of selling the administration and faculty on the great benefits to the university of having a top-notch football program. As a result of not building enough support in the administration, he didn't make any progress on issues like coaching salaries, assistant coach housing, and summer school -- all of which have been addressed by Bowlsby.
06-19-2011, 04:45 AM
Kind of a perfect storm scenario. The Admissions Director from hell coupled with an AD who thought he could have a successful football program and be the poster boy for detente in the football arms race.
Fortunately those days are behind us. Hopefully they won't arrive again soon. I agree the AD has got to be the type of guy who aggressively sells the university on the need to have a quality football program.
Fortunately those days are behind us. Hopefully they won't arrive again soon. I agree the AD has got to be the type of guy who aggressively sells the university on the need to have a quality football program.
Kind of a perfect storm scenario. The Admissions Director from hell coupled with an AD who thought he could have a successful football program and be the poster boy for detente in the football arms race.
Fortunately those days are behind us. Hopefully they won't arrive again soon. I agree the AD has got to be the type of guy who aggressively sells the university on the need to have a quality football program.
Fortunately those days are behind us. Hopefully they won't arrive again soon. I agree the AD has got to be the type of guy who aggressively sells the university on the need to have a quality football program.
06-19-2011, 10:45 AM
(06-17-2011, 11:21 AM)Redrum link Wrote:The problem wasn't the Directors' Cup or what it stood for. The problem was it came to symbolize something else at Stanford. While Stanford won DCs year after year after year the football program bounced from high achievement to gawdawful with several stops at mediocre in between. Rightly or wrongly, Ted Leland's pride in the DC rang a bit hollow when he seemed so laid back and unconcerned about the football program's decline. Or, to be fair, maybe he cared, but he didn't mobilize the university to do anything about it.  His Royal Ungratefulness left (for his doom) at the University of South Bend partly because of salary issues. His two replacements seemed like Ted chose his coaches by throwing at a dart board marked "Clearance Sale". And still we kept bringing in Directors' Cups and honoring cross country teams and volleyball teams at halftime in a (generously) half-full stadium.What we will never know for sure is how much credit Bob Bowlsby deserves for the turnaround in football. Certainly for decisive early actions: firing Wlat and having the vision to hire Harbaugh. But the overall program has benefited from a sea change in the university administration and community. Other stars had to align from the university president and the admissions director on down. Bowlsby couldn't make the necessary changes happen all by himself.  Was the university receptive to change all along but Leland never risked his political capital to be an aggressive advocate? Had Leland charged up the hill so many times and been rejected that he just gave up? Did Bowlsby have the power to use Jedi mind tricks on the Faculty Senate?Â
Whatever. The Directors' Cup got a bad rep because (to some unknown % of Stanford supporters) it symbolized a neglect of football and an emphasis on minor sports. Other schools see it that way when they critique the scoring system.Â
All I know is: The Directors' Cup, heck, the whole line of Directors' Cups sure looks much better with an Orange Bowl trophy standing beside it.
Can we use another sport besides volleyball when slurring the non-revenue sports, please? ;)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(06-17-2011, 11:21 AM)Redrum link Wrote:The problem wasn't the Directors' Cup or what it stood for. The problem was it came to symbolize something else at Stanford. While Stanford won DCs year after year after year the football program bounced from high achievement to gawdawful with several stops at mediocre in between. Rightly or wrongly, Ted Leland's pride in the DC rang a bit hollow when he seemed so laid back and unconcerned about the football program's decline. Or, to be fair, maybe he cared, but he didn't mobilize the university to do anything about it.  His Royal Ungratefulness left (for his doom) at the University of South Bend partly because of salary issues. His two replacements seemed like Ted chose his coaches by throwing at a dart board marked "Clearance Sale". And still we kept bringing in Directors' Cups and honoring cross country teams and volleyball teams at halftime in a (generously) half-full stadium.What we will never know for sure is how much credit Bob Bowlsby deserves for the turnaround in football. Certainly for decisive early actions: firing Wlat and having the vision to hire Harbaugh. But the overall program has benefited from a sea change in the university administration and community. Other stars had to align from the university president and the admissions director on down. Bowlsby couldn't make the necessary changes happen all by himself.  Was the university receptive to change all along but Leland never risked his political capital to be an aggressive advocate? Had Leland charged up the hill so many times and been rejected that he just gave up? Did Bowlsby have the power to use Jedi mind tricks on the Faculty Senate?Â
Whatever. The Directors' Cup got a bad rep because (to some unknown % of Stanford supporters) it symbolized a neglect of football and an emphasis on minor sports. Other schools see it that way when they critique the scoring system.Â
All I know is: The Directors' Cup, heck, the whole line of Directors' Cups sure looks much better with an Orange Bowl trophy standing beside it.
Can we use another sport besides volleyball when slurring the non-revenue sports, please? ;)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »