<p>For overall athletics, encompassing all teams and sports throughout the histories of both institutions, which school has a better history: Blue Devils or Cardinal?</p>
<p>Stanford. They win the Directors Cup every year. Duke is far superior in lacrosse and baseball but for overall sports (everything included), Stanford is better.</p>
<p>For the two sports people generally care about (football and basketball), Stanford is better at football but Duke at basketball. The Stanford football team is getting legit real fast, too. But yeah I guess Duke won that national championship in basketball. </p>
<p>For most other sports, Stanford has Duke covered. But, then again, most fans don’t pay too much attention to these sports. For athletic atmosphere, most people at Stanford are physically fit, but few non-athletes play sports regularly. It’s hard to get, for instance, a pick-up football game going. Not sure about Duke, though.</p>
<p>most pick up football games I’ve seen are really sad to look at anyway.
idk about history, but I’d say stanford is a better overall sports school.</p>
<p>All the sports I’ve seen stanford play are top notch, whether it’s volleyball, ultimate frisbee, tennis, etc. </p>
<p>btw Shawn Johnson (the one who got screwed by 15 year old Chinese girls in Beijing) is going to go to Stanford, I think. So is this one skater who represented the USA in figure skating in Vancouver. Duke? Well they have lacrosse</p>
<p>I think the second guy meant Duke is better at basketball. We are much better at baseball than Duke.</p>
<p>For overall sports its Stanford hands down. We’ve won the Director’s Cup (given to the top NCAA sports program) for 16 straight seasons for a reason.</p>
<p>I should add that the sports atmosphere in the bay area, and really California for that matter, is severely lacking. Whereas at home (midwest) almost everyone would regularly watch the college and pro sporting events and know what was going on (in addition to intense intramurals derived from years of house-league and all-star experience), it seems all that people in California care about is getting a suntan. North Carolina? Probably better than California, although probably not up there with the likes of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, etc.</p>
<p>^I can assure you that at any school with competitive division 1 sports teams, the student atmosphere for those games is going to be amazing no matter where the location.</p>
<p>Stanford in everything but men’s basketball.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can assure you that’s not true.</p>
<p>hmm maybe I’m making assumptions because I go to Clemson but for example this past year the volleyball team did amazing and all the games were packed out and there was a lot of excitement over it.</p>
<p>
Duke is better in lacrosse</p>
<p>Hmm, it looks like Clemson averaged just short of 1,000 people at women’s volleyball matches. That doesn’t look like too much excitement to me. UCLA had a much better team and 40% better attendance, but apart from the USC match there wasn’t much buzz.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lacrosse doesn’t exist on the West Coast.</p>
<p>hmm well we probably don’t have a huge facility then, we had a lot of people it seemed at every game. Anyways, I’m speaking of atmosphere not numbers so that could be completely different.</p>
<p>Here’s an example of that, a decent amount of people showed up to basketball games this year at Clemson but I thought that we had a pathetic crowd compared to other big basketball schools (maybe wasn’t loud enough, didn’t care too much since we are a football school?)</p>
<p>stanford. they aren’t a bunch of a$$holes (disclaimer: I’m a Maryland fan).</p>
<p>oh and I just checked out the Clemson men’s soccer attendance statistics. There is NO WAY we were #10 in the country for men’s soccer. On many sunday afternoons, I was one of the only students there haha</p>