Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
21 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

fuck that fucking cocksucker. i  hope he gots fucked with aids. 

after reading his bio on x, definitely, this x1000.

Posted
On 6/28/2025 at 9:21 PM, BurntOrange&White said:

I wonder if in this era Stanford will continue to slip?

Well, there should be a caveat there that it's less about Stanford slipping than it is they changed the rules to only count the top 20 sports. Stanford still gets an advantage because they have more opportunities to earn points because they have more programs that can finish high, but prior to the rule change all their sports counted, while Texas only fielded 20 teams (now 21 with beach volleyball).

If Stanford alumni fully committed to supporting athletics through NIL, they could make the rest of college athletics look like the minor leagues. But it doesn't appear that any of their many whales wants to do that. Their biggest athletic supporter, John Arrillaga, who played on the basketball team class of 1960, made a huge amount of money investing in real estate around the area. It's not just the money he gave, but he had the gravitas to organize other wealthy donors for causes he supported. He died in 2022 before NIL became a big deal, and no one else has really stepped up to fill his shoes in quite the same way. For all I know no one will. They have some obvious institutional issues in terms of their academic requirements - high school athletes can't be offered until they're admitted to Stanford, and as you can imagine that's not exactly a slam dunk. They don't get any waivers like Notre Dame, UCLA, or Cal. They have started accepting a very small amount of transfers, but it's a really big deal because Stanford only accepts 1% of their student body as transfers from one year to the next, so any athletes taking up those spots means someone else isn't being accepted. 

Also, spring enrollment hasn't been possible previously. That's a big advantage for other fall sports Stanford doesn't have.

I'm not throwing a pity party for those cock suckers. But they have difficult decisions to make in the future about how they want to run their athletic department, and the answers aren't exactly obvious. 

What I do know is I don't see how it's remotely possible they'll be competitive in football in a way they were under Harbaugh or David Shaw's first 8 years. But it's not like I care other than as a curiosity. 

I will say it's interesting they were one of the big naysayers on allowing Texas into the Pac 12 because in their eyes Texas wasn't good enough academically. They weren't the only ones, but they were the loudest voice in those discussions. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...