[Mick]

Agree that the departure of Bowlsby and the loss of an administration that cared about the football program is a great and significant loss.  Stanford exists alone and unique among Top 10 universities with a Power 5 football program.

I saw a study that once tracked Georgetown's undergraduate applications with the success of its basketball team.  As the team won, applications skyrocketed.  I wonder what the impact of losing the football program would be on applications and yield? It had basically no effect on my alma mater, but that was a marginal D2 program.  Within the last decade, Stanford had one of the best teams in the country. I realize that students don't attend Stanford strictly or only because of the football program -- apart from the athletes, I think no student does -- but it helps at the margin, I think.

My guess is loss of football program would have little to no impact on applications and yield.  It’s not Alabama…….

At the high end...agreed.  At the lower end...I wonder.

[Mick]

Agree that the departure of Bowlsby and the loss of an administration that cared about the football program is a great and significant loss.  Stanford exists alone and unique among Top 10 universities with a Power 5 football program.

I saw a study that once tracked Georgetown's undergraduate applications with the success of its basketball team.  As the team won, applications skyrocketed.  I wonder what the impact of losing the football program would be on applications and yield? It had basically no effect on my alma mater, but that was a marginal D2 program.  Within the last decade, Stanford had one of the best teams in the country. I realize that students don't attend Stanford strictly or only because of the football program -- apart from the athletes, I think no student does -- but it helps at the margin, I think.

My guess is loss of football program would have little to no impact on applications and yield.  It’s not Alabama…….

At the high end...agreed.  At the lower end...I wonder.

[gailtate]

I don't like palms unless I'm in Twenty Nine Palms, Gum trees shed their leaves to kill anything else on the ground but I do love golf courses except for Country Clubs and the elitism that goes with them.

 Forgot to mention "Shady Oaks", but only fans of Hal Mickelson* would get it.
I like munis and private clubs, too. 

*LSJUMB announcer 1969-86.

[gailtate]

I don't like palms unless I'm in Twenty Nine Palms, Gum trees shed their leaves to kill anything else on the ground but I do love golf courses except for Country Clubs and the elitism that goes with them.

 Forgot to mention "Shady Oaks", but only fans of Hal Mickelson* would get it.
I like munis and private clubs, too. 

*LSJUMB announcer 1969-86.

[winflop]

How much will it cost the university to buy out Shaw & Co. and hire a new (worthy) coaching staff? How much money per year are we expecting the TV deal to be generating in the coming years? It is hard to make a big decision on costs, when you have such an unclear picture of what your future revenue will be.

How much will it cost the University to KEEP HIM?

[winflop]

How much will it cost the university to buy out Shaw & Co. and hire a new (worthy) coaching staff? How much money per year are we expecting the TV deal to be generating in the coming years? It is hard to make a big decision on costs, when you have such an unclear picture of what your future revenue will be.

How much will it cost the University to KEEP HIM?

[Mick]

I don't like palms unless I'm in Twenty Nine Palms, Gum trees shed their leaves to kill anything else on the ground but I do love golf courses except for Country Clubs and the elitism that goes with them.

 Forgot to mention "Shady Oaks", but only fans of Hal Mickelson* would get it.
I like munis and private clubs, too. 

*LSJUMB announcer 1969-86.

I like Bushwood.  Gophers can be tough, but the greenskeeper takes an assertive approach at keeping them in check...

[Mick]

I don't like palms unless I'm in Twenty Nine Palms, Gum trees shed their leaves to kill anything else on the ground but I do love golf courses except for Country Clubs and the elitism that goes with them.

 Forgot to mention "Shady Oaks", but only fans of Hal Mickelson* would get it.
I like munis and private clubs, too. 

*LSJUMB announcer 1969-86.

I like Bushwood.  Gophers can be tough, but the greenskeeper takes an assertive approach at keeping them in check...

[BostonCard]

Players are owed top-notch coaching, starting with the HC. They do not have this today and haven't for too long. This must change immediately. If Shaw cannot or will not change, he must step down.

No, they don’t have to do this. They know what they signed up for, and those that are unhappy can, and have, transferred. But the only thing they are owed in exchange for practicing and playing football is an education.

I don’t get what you are accomplishing by demanding change. I mean, it seems about as productive as saying that the drought must change immediately and demanding that a cloud produce rain.  I hope it happens and If it happens, I hope something good will come of it but if it doesn’t, then what, are we supposed to hold our breath until he’s fired? Should we go on a hunger strike? Picket in front of the AD office?

BC

[BostonCard]

Players are owed top-notch coaching, starting with the HC. They do not have this today and haven't for too long. This must change immediately. If Shaw cannot or will not change, he must step down.

No, they don’t have to do this. They know what they signed up for, and those that are unhappy can, and have, transferred. But the only thing they are owed in exchange for practicing and playing football is an education.

I don’t get what you are accomplishing by demanding change. I mean, it seems about as productive as saying that the drought must change immediately and demanding that a cloud produce rain.  I hope it happens and If it happens, I hope something good will come of it but if it doesn’t, then what, are we supposed to hold our breath until he’s fired? Should we go on a hunger strike? Picket in front of the AD office?

BC

[Phogge]

64-11 as of 7pm Wednesday.

That's probably close to what the Utah score will be.

[Phogge]

64-11 as of 7pm Wednesday.

That's probably close to what the Utah score will be.

[chrisk]

Agree that the departure of Bowlsby and the loss of an administration that cared about the football program is a great and significant loss.  Stanford exists alone and unique among Top 10 universities with a Power 5 football program.

I saw a study that once tracked Georgetown's undergraduate applications with the success of its basketball team.  As the team won, applications skyrocketed.  I wonder what the impact of losing the football program would be on applications and yield? It had basically no effect on my alma mater, but that was a marginal D2 program.  Within the last decade, Stanford had one of the best teams in the country. I realize that students don't attend Stanford strictly or only because of the football program -- apart from the athletes, I think no student does -- but it helps at the margin, I think.

My guess is loss of football program would have little to no impact on applications and yield.  It’s not Alabama…….

What about fundraising? What about the loss of numerous women's programs to comply with Title IX (and maybe cratering of the athletic department as a whole)? Would we be the same university without football?

Maybe football haters have gamed this out in a way I don't understand, but it seems pivotal to Stanford as we know it for football to survive.

Given the way we compete in college athletics, we've been sui generis for decades. But without football how would Stanford be differentiated from Cal Tech? With a lower level football team how would Stanford be differentiated from NYU? Maybe the calculus has been made that the legacy and endowment Stanford has built up would allow us to continue in/create a new and desirable niche in the college landscape. But my field of vision has trouble imagining it. I don't think we'd be Stanford without competing at the top levels in the things people care about.

I've been singin' that psalm for a long time. Stanford sans big-time FB is not "Stanford". It's MIT/Caltech with palms, eucalyptus and a golf course.

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example. At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions. That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools. As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

[chrisk]

Agree that the departure of Bowlsby and the loss of an administration that cared about the football program is a great and significant loss.  Stanford exists alone and unique among Top 10 universities with a Power 5 football program.

I saw a study that once tracked Georgetown's undergraduate applications with the success of its basketball team.  As the team won, applications skyrocketed.  I wonder what the impact of losing the football program would be on applications and yield? It had basically no effect on my alma mater, but that was a marginal D2 program.  Within the last decade, Stanford had one of the best teams in the country. I realize that students don't attend Stanford strictly or only because of the football program -- apart from the athletes, I think no student does -- but it helps at the margin, I think.

My guess is loss of football program would have little to no impact on applications and yield.  It’s not Alabama…….

What about fundraising? What about the loss of numerous women's programs to comply with Title IX (and maybe cratering of the athletic department as a whole)? Would we be the same university without football?

Maybe football haters have gamed this out in a way I don't understand, but it seems pivotal to Stanford as we know it for football to survive.

Given the way we compete in college athletics, we've been sui generis for decades. But without football how would Stanford be differentiated from Cal Tech? With a lower level football team how would Stanford be differentiated from NYU? Maybe the calculus has been made that the legacy and endowment Stanford has built up would allow us to continue in/create a new and desirable niche in the college landscape. But my field of vision has trouble imagining it. I don't think we'd be Stanford without competing at the top levels in the things people care about.

I've been singin' that psalm for a long time. Stanford sans big-time FB is not "Stanford". It's MIT/Caltech with palms, eucalyptus and a golf course.

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example. At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions. That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools. As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

[Mick]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

[Mick]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

[BostonCard]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

[BostonCard]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

[Phogge]

Quit.

[Phogge]

Quit.

[BostonCard]

Given the direction of travel of college football, I think we would want to examine an off ramp that would keep us from getting sucked into a situation that we don’t want to be in, due solely to inertia.

BC

[BostonCard]

Given the direction of travel of college football, I think we would want to examine an off ramp that would keep us from getting sucked into a situation that we don’t want to be in, due solely to inertia.

BC

[qwerty49]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Ha ha, welcome to the world of NIL and transfer portals.  Stanford hasn't learned how to incorporate those realities into its principles.  Hence our view of excellence is dated.  It's that Hamiltonian moment when you miss your shot and feel obligated to stand there and let the other guy take his aim.  I don't have the answers but I'm just thinking we need to be somehow more institutionally adept if we are to survive this new universe.

[qwerty49]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Ha ha, welcome to the world of NIL and transfer portals.  Stanford hasn't learned how to incorporate those realities into its principles.  Hence our view of excellence is dated.  It's that Hamiltonian moment when you miss your shot and feel obligated to stand there and let the other guy take his aim.  I don't have the answers but I'm just thinking we need to be somehow more institutionally adept if we are to survive this new universe.

[gailtate]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Shouldn't "the pursuit of excellence" BE a fundamental principle?? Silly me, I always assumed that it was.

[gailtate]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Shouldn't "the pursuit of excellence" BE a fundamental principle?? Silly me, I always assumed that it was.

[cardcrimson]

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Principles? Seem to remember a few times when we went askew of rules. Out of curiosity, which "principles" would prevent us from participating within the rules of the new college landscape?

[cardcrimson]

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Principles? Seem to remember a few times when we went askew of rules. Out of curiosity, which "principles" would prevent us from participating within the rules of the new college landscape?

[cardcrimson]

I wonder if 16 folks would change their vote if they could. . . .

[cardcrimson]

I wonder if 16 folks would change their vote if they could. . . .

[PAsportsfan]

I wonder if 16 folks would change their vote if they could. . . .

Those 16 robots need a programming update.

[PAsportsfan]

I wonder if 16 folks would change their vote if they could. . . .

Those 16 robots need a programming update.

[Snorlax94]

I wonder if 16 folks would change their vote if they could. . . .

Those 16 robots need a programming update.

Like a robot, I will repeat that if Shaw is fired first, Muir will be hiring his replacement. Don’t forget that a terrible new football coach with a terrible contract with a massive buyout and tons of guaranteed money could ruin not just football, but drain many other sports like women’s basketball for many years. It’s NOT like the Teevens or Harris days — if you steal a hot coach today you may have to pay a massive buyout and guarantee the new coach years of payments no matter how they do.

So  we can’t fire Shaw until we have the right AD to hire his replacement. As this question is written, sticking with Shaw is the calm, logical decision, unil Stanford has the right AD to hire his replacement, unless you think that right AD is Muir.

[Snorlax94]

I wonder if 16 folks would change their vote if they could. . . .

Those 16 robots need a programming update.

Like a robot, I will repeat that if Shaw is fired first, Muir will be hiring his replacement. Don’t forget that a terrible new football coach with a terrible contract with a massive buyout and tons of guaranteed money could ruin not just football, but drain many other sports like women’s basketball for many years. It’s NOT like the Teevens or Harris days — if you steal a hot coach today you may have to pay a massive buyout and guarantee the new coach years of payments no matter how they do.

So  we can’t fire Shaw until we have the right AD to hire his replacement. As this question is written, sticking with Shaw is the calm, logical decision, unil Stanford has the right AD to hire his replacement, unless you think that right AD is Muir.

[BostonCard]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Shouldn't "the pursuit of excellence" BE a fundamental principle?? Silly me, I always assumed that it was.

Strategic focus is a key to the pursuit of excellence, and I would suggest focusing on our strengths instead of trying to be all things to all people. To give but one example, Stanford (through its investment fund) owned the Stanford shopping center, but sold it off in 2003. That was a smart call; I don’t think it is part of the University’s mission to pursue excellence in retail.

BC

[BostonCard]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Shouldn't "the pursuit of excellence" BE a fundamental principle?? Silly me, I always assumed that it was.

Strategic focus is a key to the pursuit of excellence, and I would suggest focusing on our strengths instead of trying to be all things to all people. To give but one example, Stanford (through its investment fund) owned the Stanford shopping center, but sold it off in 2003. That was a smart call; I don’t think it is part of the University’s mission to pursue excellence in retail.

BC

[qwerty49]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Shouldn't "the pursuit of excellence" BE a fundamental principle?? Silly me, I always assumed that it was.

Strategic focus is a key to the pursuit of excellence, and I would suggest focusing on our strengths instead of trying to be all things to all people. To give but one example, Stanford (through its investment fund) owned the Stanford shopping center, but sold it off in 2003. That was a smart call; I don’t think it is part of the University’s mission to pursue excellence in retail.

BC

Cmon, BC, that was too smart-alecky for you.  We know darn well the mission has nothing to do with "retail."  I think the term you're searching for is "net return on investment."

[qwerty49]

The stark contrast of a Top 25 football school with MIT / Cal Tech misses the significant number of highly-rated academic schools which play Division 1 football and are not consistently in the Top 25.

Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Rice for example.  At least so far, they seem to feel that Division 1 scholarship football is a net positive to their institutions.  That may change in the coming years, but Stanford has nore resources to devote to athletics than these other schools.  As such, it is fear-mongering to suggest that Stanford must expect to play football consistently at the Top 25 level in order to maintain a high-performing, diverse athletic program.

At the same time, Stanford stands for excellence in all things.  Should that not include football?

Stanford ostensibly also has principles, or so we would like to believe.  What happens when those principles conflict with the pursuit of excellence?

BC

Shouldn't "the pursuit of excellence" BE a fundamental principle?? Silly me, I always assumed that it was.

Strategic focus is a key to the pursuit of excellence, and I would suggest focusing on our strengths instead of trying to be all things to all people. To give but one example, Stanford (through its investment fund) owned the Stanford shopping center, but sold it off in 2003. That was a smart call; I don’t think it is part of the University’s mission to pursue excellence in retail.

BC

Cmon, BC, that was too smart-alecky for you.  We know darn well the mission has nothing to do with "retail."  I think the term you're searching for is "net return on investment."

[BostonCard]

I mean, it was hyperbole, but the fact is, we did own a mall operation for many years.  Perhaps a better example is that we don’t compete in ice hockey at an NCAA level, we long ago quit trying to have a semi-professional band, and our cheerleaders are not engaged in cheer competition.  For those student activities, we are aiming for it to be fun (well, at least we used to) for the students involved; we weren’t pursuing ”excellence” at all cost.  I think my broader point is that Stanford cannot, and should not, have the same standards of excellence for everything, and if you are going to pick something, not hosting a quasi-professional sport where the competitors are ever more loosely affiliated students, might not be the worst place to “give up”.

I would add, that Stanford’s mission statement

to extend the frontiers of knowledge, stimulate creativity, and solve real-world problems, prepare students to think broadly, deeply and critically, and to contribute to the world, and deploy Stanford’s strengths to benefit our region, country, and world

Is something that collegiate athletics are basically irrelevant to, unless you think having a strong college football team that no one watches is key to benefitting the Bay Area.

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean, it was hyperbole, but the fact is, we did own a mall operation for many years.  Perhaps a better example is that we don’t compete in ice hockey at an NCAA level, we long ago quit trying to have a semi-professional band, and our cheerleaders are not engaged in cheer competition.  For those student activities, we are aiming for it to be fun (well, at least we used to) for the students involved; we weren’t pursuing ”excellence” at all cost.  I think my broader point is that Stanford cannot, and should not, have the same standards of excellence for everything, and if you are going to pick something, not hosting a quasi-professional sport where the competitors are ever more loosely affiliated students, might not be the worst place to “give up”.

I would add, that Stanford’s mission statement

to extend the frontiers of knowledge, stimulate creativity, and solve real-world problems, prepare students to think broadly, deeply and critically, and to contribute to the world, and deploy Stanford’s strengths to benefit our region, country, and world

Is something that collegiate athletics are basically irrelevant to, unless you think having a strong college football team that no one watches is key to benefitting the Bay Area.

BC