Illegal Pete
New Member
I see it now, thanks.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Stanford Cardinal
- Thread starter Shldr2Shldr
- Start date
Deleted member 807
Guest
In sum:
'Furd = Bay Aggies who talk ****, but can't fill their stadium.
Where geeks have pit hair, and they guys do, too.
Maxer
Member
Have you ever in your life met a Stanford grad? I hate Stanford and everything about it, but comparing them to A&M alums is about the stangest comparison I can possibly imagine. They have a lot more in common with stuck up Princeton alums than Aggies.
Also not sure where you got the idea that their major donors are a result of their petroleum engineering dept. While I don't doubt that it's a good department, their biggest football booster is a billionaire named John Arrillaga, who made his money buying farmland all over the South Bay and building office buildings (which now house many of the tech companies that are household names) all over it. I know that alums like Joe Lacob (venture capitalist who just bought the Golden State Warriors) and Peter Thiel (venture capitalist, first investor in Facebook) also give a great deal of money.
Maxer
Member
When you go to actual games and your experience branches out beyond the internet, I am confident you will find the opposite to be true.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Being one of the new kids in the P12, CU fans gotta bring something fresh to the table.
Otherwise it's just regurgitating Cal smack. No one wants to sound like Cal.
Vail's own Mr. Jay Precourt here sounds really aggie.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/peec/cgi-bin/docs/news/PIEE Founding Announcement.pdf
As does this cozy relationship between Stanford and Exxon.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/february25/exxon-022509.html
http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/exxonmobil.html
As does this relationship with ConocoPhilips and Stanford swimming.
http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-swim/spec-rel/051211aaa.html
Oh my. A close link with Royal Dutch Shell and Stanford, too. At the highest levels.
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/93/930629Arc3190.html
British Petrolium giving Stanford money? Youbetcha!
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=2016092
And yes, a Stanford grad was in my MBA program. Unimpressed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maxer
Member
I think I'm missing your point, but if you want to compare Stanford fans to Aggies, knock yourself out. I'll let the Cal thing go =)
And I see this press release you've linked is about a rich Stanford alum funding an energy efficiency institute. I am not saying there are zero boosters that are in the energy business -- my point is simply that the majority of Stanford boosters are in the tech/venture capital businesses. That is a fact.
As for being unimpressed by a Stanford grad -- welcome to the club. They are like the Ivies -- really hard to get into, easy classes and almost impossible to flunk out once you're there.
It is definitely one of the weirdest comparisons I have ever seen.
Stanford's list of alumni, thier donors, and thier academic programs are top notch; your aggie theory looks like the huskers touting thier list of academic AA's.
I have family who are alumni of both of those institutions. I've been to football games at both stadiums. I'm not sure whether I should be insulted or not.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Now that is a wierd comparison.
Tell your wife she's a Tree Aggie.
Those Stanford schmo's love to be put in the same light as Texas A&M.
You've stopped making any sense. Are you feeling alright? Your humor is usually top notch.
Are you absolutely positive this is a fact? The majority? I'm in that line of work you mention above, and certainly Stanford is one of the leading institutions, but they graduate a lot of MBA's and people from non-technical backgrounds that end up running businesses of all kinds. The venture capital community is rather small compared to many other industries such as..... Energy for one.
I remain unconvinced that this is a fact.
Is anyone else here uncomfortable with Creatini, with his wise old age of 18, representing us Buff fans on ESPN?
I figure his opposition is at the same level. No worries.
Maxer
Member
That is a good point. It is a fact for the football program - Arrillaga's donations are into 8 figures (possibly 9, they are a private school and so aren't required to publicize all donations) but for the larger university (which now tops all other schools in money raised from private donors (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/local/la-me-donate4-2010feb04) it's possible another industry contributes more.
Deleted member 807
Guest
You cannot deny Stanford University is wedded to big oil, just like Aggy.
Stanford has a close relationship to Exxon Mobile, which has contributed in excess of $100M towards the university. In return, Stanford has a standing member on Exxon's board of directors.
ExxonMobile: Michael J. Boskin, T.M. Friedman Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Another Stanford alum is on BP's board of directors. Paul Allen Stanford MBA. Former BP CEO John Browne (Deepwater Horizon) is also a Stanford man.
An another Tree Aggie is currently on Chevron's BoD, Samuel Armacost. MBA.
Current Stanford Professor Condoleeza Rice (Bush admin) was on the Chevron board.
Just Google Stanford and Exxon and see what comes up. It's a little more than some casual relationship that sounds like Nebraska touting Academic All Americans. In fact, the relationship between Stanford and Exxon has been too cozy. Some alums are pissed off that Exxon (mis)uses the Stanford brand to promote it's environmental side.
So while Stanford enjoys the perception of being all about Silicon Valley and a tech engine that spawns the likes of Google, Cisco, SUN Microsystems and ARPNET, it is not so vocal about their oil and energy heritage that goes way back, prior to the internet boom.
What are the top schools for Petroleum Engineering? Stanford, UT and A&M top the list. Stanford has a really good series of seminars on energy they put on the web. Here's one on the future of oil that is long, but very good if you have an hour to kill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTsYjRqPmNA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
While the culture of A&M and Stanford are very different, they both are cultish. And if you follow the money, you'll find big oil as a material foundation of both places.
Gig 'em.
Tree Aggies.
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on what I've seen on ESPN message boards, Creatini should fit right in with the other teens representin on those boards.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
to my understanding, and quick google confirms it....UT, OU, and Tech all had top 10 Pet Eng programs as well among the Big XII....and other regional flavors with Tulsa, LSU, etc. no real factor distinguishing ATM to me in that regard. in the Pac region, USC is also in the top 10 (and Mines locally)....so, not sure that ATM is all that unique here.
i like the counter-intuitive comparison but i'd still say the more ready comparison if it has to be made is Texas. see themselves as the "academic elite" of the conference, the blue bloods, big oil money alums, and a wide-ranging AD. i don't agree that UT is "all that" and these are broad categories that may be perception as much as anything, just speaking from within the common sense propaganda. Austin is a great city, but I'd rather go to CU and wouldn't even have to think twice about it. maybe some grad programs i'd choose UT, but that could be said about many schools.
i like the counter-intuitive comparison but i'd still say the more ready comparison if it has to be made is Texas. see themselves as the "academic elite" of the conference, the blue bloods, big oil money alums, and a wide-ranging AD. i don't agree that UT is "all that" and these are broad categories that may be perception as much as anything, just speaking from within the common sense propaganda. Austin is a great city, but I'd rather go to CU and wouldn't even have to think twice about it. maybe some grad programs i'd choose UT, but that could be said about many schools.
Deleted member 807
Guest
What's key to my arguement is one of openness and acceptance.
A Buff is likely to be embraced by the Cardinal nation with about the same degree of success as the Aggy nation.
A tight knit network defines both. Both College Station and Palo Alto are fortresses of incestiouous relationships.
Atleast with UT, there is a commonality with CU and Cal. All are state flagship universities that pride themselves on a history of progressive liberalism. Stanford & A&M...not so much. Austin, Berkeley and Boulder are known for their vibrancy and happening cultural scenes.
Culture in College Station and Palo Alto means something entirely different. A&M is steeped in their special brand of Aggie culture and traditions. The culture in Palo Alto is about business. Both are about making money, making big risks, and potentially striking it big.
A Buff is likely to be embraced by the Cardinal nation with about the same degree of success as the Aggy nation.
A tight knit network defines both. Both College Station and Palo Alto are fortresses of incestiouous relationships.
Atleast with UT, there is a commonality with CU and Cal. All are state flagship universities that pride themselves on a history of progressive liberalism. Stanford & A&M...not so much. Austin, Berkeley and Boulder are known for their vibrancy and happening cultural scenes.
Culture in College Station and Palo Alto means something entirely different. A&M is steeped in their special brand of Aggie culture and traditions. The culture in Palo Alto is about business. Both are about making money, making big risks, and potentially striking it big.
Last edited by a moderator:
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
I was not, but now I am ok with it. If they get used to him, then I will look just that more awesome and brilliant when they actually meet me.
Del
Well-Known Member
Agree with Mick. I grew up in Austin and UT is a great school but once I had a chance to go to CU on an ROTC scholarship I never looked back. If I had to do it all over again I would make the same choice. The campus, and overall environment at CU blows UT away. I also think CU has a cool factor to it that UT will never have. I've had a chance to travel all over the world being stationed in Germany. When I say I went to CU after getting asked, people always say things like wow that must have been so cool, I wanted to go to CU or its beautiful there or I hear the campus is amazing.
I think you're reaching. The devotion to aggy approaches a religious fervor. The Stanford grads I know have a passing interest in the school and the athletic department as a whole. They're proud of the school, but are far more interested in whatever happens to be occupying their lives at the moment to give much thought to the goings on in Palo Alto.
Honestly he's probably tustling with a ram fan who is sick of him tormenting them on lambnation.
Deleted member 807
Guest
The truth is that Stanford is a graduate school with an undergraduate program.
6,878 undergrades and 8,441 graduate students. This ratio is a spirit killer.
At A&M there are 36,952 undergraduates and 8,961 graduate students. There's no doubt having all those 18-22 year old kids at College Station creates a culture that is NOTHING like Palo Alto. I get that.
I'm just pointing out the big oil aspect of Stanford, which often gets ignored or glossed over when explaining how Stanford got to be where they now are. That school has whored itself to big oil and doesn't like to talk about their crude little secret.
The problem with your analogy is that you can do this with many industries and academic fileds, Stanford is wedded to "big" everything. They certainly do have a strong relationship with the energy secotor but one could make near the same case with 20+ fileds of study and intdustries, say: the internet, retail, particle physics, psychology, developement, cancer research, the list goes on. 100 million dollar donors are not dime a dozen but that particular numerb in the scheme of stanford's fund raising is pretty imaterial. If you wanted to make a better case for the school prostituting itself to an industry it would be commercial real-estate and developement. simply look at the numerb of buildings and the amount of money Arrillaga has donated.
Deleted member 807
Guest
I took you up on that and looked up some landmark Stanford gifts over the past decade.
$400M in 2001 by William and Flora Hewlett (think HP) to Humanities & Nat Science
$105M by Phil Knight (Nike) to the B-School
$100M by John Arrillaga to various depatments, including Athletics
$100M by ExxonMobil for Global Climate & Energy project
$75M anonymous for stemcell research
$50M by Jay Precourt for Precourt Institute of Energy
$50M by Thomas Steyer, Kat Taylor and others for Precourt Institute of Energy
$30M by Ward and Pricilla Woods for Environmental Studies
This is not a comprehensive list, but contains some of the jumbo whales that make headlines.
My conclusion is that Arrillaga is not the big swinging dick as made out by Abs and Maxer. The two Energy projects I've pointed out are double Arrillaga's giving, and only half of the Hewlett's astronomical gift.
With a $15.9B endowment, these jumbo gifts are a fraction of the total.
Based on this sample, and based on the relative age and profitablily of the energy sector versus the tech bubble, I'm nowhere near to conceeding that real estate or technology has eclipsed oil money as the engine behind Tree Aggie's vast wealth.
It would probally take someone from the Stanford foundation to ultimately resolve this, though.
I all fairness to this rather bizarre comparison, Stanford does call their campus "the Farm" which would indicate that they are Aggies in that sense. : )
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
I would love for CU to have those ties, and cash, from the oil industry.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Ain't that the truth. It's amazing how sensitive the Stanford reputation is to this fact. At least A&M embraces their identity.
For CU to get a stronger foothold in the Oil Patch, it wouldn't hurt to bring the Colorado School of Mines under the CU system umbrella.
Some big hitters at Mines include Jack Grunberg (Ivanhoe Energy), Steven Newman (CEO Transocean), and Joseph Wright, Jr. (Scientific Games, Grace Energy).