Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

College Football 2008

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    how do those numbers compare with ND or Duke ?
    Duke is very 'flexible', just by my experience with kids I know. ND has gotten tougher and their alums are squawking big time. I don't think USC or Texas are having those sorts of problems.

    I'm a great supporter of Stanford's perceived high standards, but we're just shooting ourselves in the foot if we think that NCAA football victories don't translate into $$$ (alum giving) and national reputation. A guy who can hit a crossing receiver at 50 yards is much more valuable that some skinny geeky kid from Connecticut who wields a mean slide-rule. :wink: 8-)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Marlow
      I'm a great supporter of Stanford's perceived high standards, but we're just shooting ourselves in the foot if we think that NCAA football victories don't translate into $$$ (alum giving) and national reputation. A guy who can hit a crossing receiver at 50 yards is much more valuable that some skinny geeky kid from Connecticut who wields a mean slide-rule. :wink: 8-)
      I'm willing to bet the farm on it that alumni giving has little to do with football rankings. In fact, of all of the top university endowments, none of them have successful football programs.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by malmo
        Originally posted by Marlow
        I'm a great supporter of Stanford's perceived high standards, but we're just shooting ourselves in the foot if we think that NCAA football victories don't translate into $$$ (alum giving) and national reputation. A guy who can hit a crossing receiver at 50 yards is much more valuable that some skinny geeky kid from Connecticut who wields a mean slide-rule. :wink: 8-)
        I'm willing to bet the farm on it that alumni giving has little to do with football rankings. In fact, of all of the top university endowments, none of them have successful football programs.

        Texas 4th, Michigan 9th(though perhaps Michigan doesn't count as a successful football program these days).

        http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/pf/coll ... /index.htm
        There are no strings on me

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by guru
          Originally posted by malmo
          Originally posted by Marlow
          I'm a great supporter of Stanford's perceived high standards, but we're just shooting ourselves in the foot if we think that NCAA football victories don't translate into $$$ (alum giving) and national reputation. A guy who can hit a crossing receiver at 50 yards is much more valuable that some skinny geeky kid from Connecticut who wields a mean slide-rule. :wink: 8-)
          I'm willing to bet the farm on it that alumni giving has little to do with football rankings. In fact, of all of the top university endowments, none of them have successful football programs.

          Texas 4th, Michigan 9th(though perhaps Michigan doesn't count as a successful football program these days).

          http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/pf/coll ... /index.htm

          I take it you deliberately overlooked the 48 elephants in the room to find two mice?

          Almuni donation rates of Texas (15%) and Michigan(17%) rate them 109th and 83rd respectively. The top "football program" that translates to alumni giving is USC, ranking 15th with 35% of alumni giving.

          Comment


          • #35
            Yes, but consider the possibility/probability that alumni donations to the football power schools might be considerably less if they were not football powers.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by tandfman
              Originally posted by malmo
              Originally posted by gh
              (speaking of Pac-10 teams with woes, how about Stanford and the collapse of the fan base? Apparently only 15,000 in the stands last weekend... and it was homecoming.)
              I would think that Stanford alums were hit particularly hard last week by the market.
              That wouldn't account for the lack of season's ticket sales.
              I wasn't talking about season tickets sales, I was talking about one single game. The credit crunch and subsequent market crash probably affected the average Stanford Alum more than most, since many of them would have to address those issues on Monday morning. Wrong weekend to go to Palo Alto, even if it's homecoming.

              Unless you believe that Stanford alums are like the mass of idiots who proudly believed that Wall Street's woes wouldn't affect them?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by malmo
                Unless you believe that Stanford alums are like the mass of idiots who proudly believed that Wall Street's woes wouldn't affect them?
                Despite portfolio losses, I'm pretty sure this $$$ crisis is indeed affecting them less. Being intelligent AND well educated gives you a little cushion that (on average) keeps you from becoming chum (present company excepted, of course).

                My point above (re: Admissions) was that Stanford's 'rep' would not suffer if they admitted a few more football blue-chippers. It would actually increase! A university should try to excel in every endeavor it undertakes. Having Suzy Egghead and Fred Virtuoso-Violinist is wonderful, but there's room for Joe Slobberknock also.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Marlow
                  Originally posted by malmo
                  Unless you believe that Stanford alums are like the mass of idiots who proudly believed that Wall Street's woes wouldn't affect them?
                  Despite portfolio losses, I'm pretty sure this $$$ crisis is indeed affecting them less. .
                  Only a government employee would be so disconnected from the current financial events. If you have a business, or work for one, the credit crunch would have severe implications on how business would be conducted in the future. Those who are decision-makers, and presumably Stanford alums would have many, would be under immense pressure in an environment like that. The last thing on their minds last weekend was football.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by malmo
                    Only a government employee would be so disconnected from the current financial events.

                    When did the government take over episcopal high schools?
                    There are no strings on me

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by guru
                      Originally posted by malmo
                      Only a government employee would be so disconnected from the current financial events.

                      When did the government take over episcopal high schools?
                      How about "only a teacher....," then, will that work for you?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by malmo
                        Originally posted by guru
                        Originally posted by malmo
                        Only a government employee would be so disconnected from the current financial events.
                        When did the government take over episcopal high schools?
                        How about "only a teacher....," then, will that work for you?
                        Paul Krugman is a teacher, too.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by malmo
                          I would think that Stanford alums were hit particularly hard last week by the market.
                          Apparently, it's not just Stanford, malmo. As you've probably seen, there's an article at nytimes.com today with the headline "Financial Straits of Boosters Hit Athletic Programs." Boone Pickens and Oklahoma State prominently mentioned. Sorry, lonewolf.

                          http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/sport ... sters.html

                          Edited to fix typo.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by tandfman
                            "Financial Straits of Boosters Hit Athletic Programs."
                            I am a HOOOOJ sports fan, but the financial concerns of collegiate sports are the least of our worries now. This would be an excellent time to take a step back and see just how out of hand it's all become. Having to channel our now limited resources into purely academic pursuits would be a wonderful consequence to our current crisis. Not that it could possibly happen. :roll:

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by tandfman
                              Originally posted by malmo
                              I would think that Stanford alums were hit particularly hard last week by the market.
                              Apparently, it's not just Stanford, malamo. As you've probably seen, there's an article at nytimes.com today with the headline "Financial Straits of Boosters Hit Athletic Programs." Boone Pickens and Oklahoma State prominently mentioned. Sorry, lonewolf.

                              http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/sport ... sters.html
                              Surely you don't think a little billion dollar hiccup is going to slow down T. Boone?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                NBC columnist doesn't want Penn State to be latest Big 10 "punching bag" to play in the BCS title game:


                                http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27466334/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X