I have SUCH mixed feelings about this topic. Selfishly, I am so infinitely glad that our son is close to home. It is not just seeing games, but that he pops in every couple of weeks and we get to get a glimpse of him. His younger sisters in particular are just so excited when he comes home even for a half an hour. Also, with younger children at home, it would hard for us to EVER travel to games because the girls need us at home for all of their activities on weekends.
But overall, I think that there is so much maturing that goes on when the kids truly leave home and don't have parents around as a safety net. I can really sees pros and cons. But I would never have told him, or my girls, that they were geographically restricted in their choice of colleges. I think that this is one of their first adult decisions and it should be theirs to make. If I were to push them to go to a particular place, and they were unhappy, who would get blamed?
I also have to correct my earlier post. The article I quoted said that the president and other top levels of administration were profoundly indifferent to football, not athletics in general. In his defense, I think that he is a wonderful President and has done a tremendous amount to help Stanford, and I HAVE seen him at baseball games
. It's just that, as at many other colleges, there is a lively debate about the role of athletics in the university's mission. Justbb and I agree that Stanford's excellence in athletics is one of the things that sets it apart and makes it special, but I know that they struggle with the pressures that are put on student-athletes from the outside, such as the expansion of the basketball schedule, etc....