The CardBoard
Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? (/thread-25713.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - jacket3ree - 08-27-2025

There are two questions I'm interested in weighing in on:

1. Calfan - does it bother me if players aren't here to play school?

Ans: No, not at all. Certainly no more than any other random sample of 85 Stanford students, some of whom aren't there to play school either. I think Goose suggested the players are 'our lads' because we have something in common. Maybe. But more likely, no, the players are not 62-year-olds who attended Stanford for 9 months in the 1985-86 academic year. Got it, we went to the same place at different times, but there really isn't more connection to them than to my fellow commuters on 101, whomever the hell they are, because we all have something very in common. (Hopefully no direct connection that leads to insurance claims, blocked traffic, or worse.) 

Once upon a time I had a more visceral connection to high profile college athletes because they were classmates, frat bros, and in the case of a future NFL player and Super Bowl coach, a lab partner in CE 4214, Concrete Structural Components. Graduating Spring Quarter (no final!). Taught by Cookbook Caseman (no choice!), who liked to spend class and homework time on rote ACI code stuff (i.e. real life) and then spring esoteric parabolic beams on us for the tests so he could 'separate the smart ones from the idiots.' My lab partner, who lead Tech to a tie with #1 Notre Dame the year before I arrived; the -1 in a 1-9-1 record) was preparing for the NFL Combine while wrapping up his degree in civil engineering. He was clear-eyed that he would never be a civil engineer, but he said he wanted to finish what he started and he picked CE because he could say he had a degree in engineering and at least it wasn't insane like AE or EE.  Anyway, tons of respect for the guy schlubbing with the likes of us, who also had a foot out the door of impending graduation. Even Caseman was looking at retirement. But there he was, figuring out long column slenderness effects and eccentric loads.  (Caseman was an eccentric load....)  I had other athlete classmates from walkons doing real work, to the real (Dream Teamer) Mark Price doing real work, so some dudes phoning it in. Did I care? No, as long as Ken Whisenhunt held up his end of the project bargain (he did), that's no different than any other potential project partner holding up their end or not holding it up.

Today, frankly, I could not care less what sort of effort any student at GT or Stanford puts out. Their business.  And the business of athletes like it or not, is to entertain the masses, make alumni open up their feel-good checkbooks, make the school known to all the people in sports bars, and that brings us to the second question:

2. BostonCard - 'What are we even doing here?'

Wow, what a great question. At some point the new/old model of paying players but now above the table and the new model of pickup squads really will implode and schools can either be in the NASCAR league, or set up DII/III-like programs where you play because you love the sport, want the education, and people don't think you are worthy of a salary.  I hope Stanford doesn't take its ball and go home because the only glory left is watching the 2015 Rose Bowl on Youtube. Luck isn't here to do that.  But, still, a great question: "What are we even doing here?" I asked my AI research assistant /overlord that question. "Why do prestigious colleges play big time football?" Kind of what you'd expect -

1. Historical roots. Many elite universities were among the first to adopt football in the late 19th century when the sport developed. (Ref: Harvard-Yale and Army-Navy)

2. School Identity and Pride. Big-time football is a unifying force for students, alumni, and fans. And get this, without me asking about any specific prestigious university, "Iconic programs - like Notre Dame, Michigan, and Stanford - build a sense of belonging and pride that extends far beyond graduation."  (So, are these 3 schools some sort of AI cabal or something?)

3. Financial and Branding Power - Successful football programs generate significant revenue through ticket sales, television deals, sponsorships, and merchandise. The visibility of football raises a school's profile nationally, which can help with student recruitment, alumni donations, and even research funding through increased institutional prestige. Shorthand for MONEY.

4. Alumni Engagement - Football Saturdays often double as alumni gatherings, strengthening the network of of graduates who contribute time, money, and connections back to a school. High-profile games often keep alumni emotionally and financially invested in the university for decades. Shorthand for MONEY.

5. Recruiting Beyond Sports. A vibrant athletic culture can make a school more attractive to prospective students, even those who never plan to play sports. Schools like Stanford and Northwestern (holy crap - again unprompted) use the visibility of football to compete with other elite institutions for top talent in academics and athletics.

6. Media and Cultural Influence. Football connects colleges to the broader American sports culture, allowing even academically focused universities to gain mainstream recognition. Bowl games, playoff appearances, and media coverage provide marketing that no ad campaign could match in reach and emotion.

So, we're all cool with being a Palo Alto version of Carnegie Mellon (no insult to that fine institution in a surprisingly fun city)? Do you want the brand to be 'No Fun Stanford Spitting Out One Elizabeth Holmes after Another' or 'Christian McCaffrey might go for half a mil against Iowa. You have to watch this!'

I now Chat GPT searches and regurgitates talking points from places like this, but there seems to be validity to these points. We are doing this because the branding and........MONEY.......far outweigh some people transferring in or out or not thinking Stanford is the greatest experience in their life or whatever.  Stanford ran a freaking shopping center for decades and continues to lease out commercial property for all sorts of uses that have zero to do with education.  How again is playing football to win and accrue the age old benefits of doing so going to crater the university's educational standards any more than Donor X Junior is walking around because we need Donor X Dollars? Or anything else going on around campus.

Stanford can pull up its football stakes, but what a horrible look that would be and its not a threat (they won't miss my relatively meager donations and the one prof who use to have me guest lecture is retired) but reality. Stanford would just be a place I spent nine months when the Talking Heads were a pretty bid deal all things considered.

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - paloalto - 08-27-2025

I understand this is a sports message board.  But as a sports fan who puts the academic mission first and foremost as the reason for Stanford and college in general, it's tough to read some of this.   I would rather see Stanford join a non-power four conference than sell its academic soul for football.

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - Mudhead - 08-27-2025

(08-27-2025, 07:04 PM)paloalto Wrote:  I understand this is a sports message board.  But as a sports fan who puts the academic mission first and foremost as the reason for Stanford and college in general, it's tough to read some of this.   I would rather see Stanford join a non-power four conference than sell its academic soul for football.

I’m not trying to play Word games but I doubt anyone is in favor of selling Stanfords academic soul for football.  And by the way, this won’t stop at football. The issues cover basketball, volleyball, soccer , baseball and softball as well .  Stanford has altered its academic standards, in terms of admittance before. If it hadn’t, I probably would not have gotten in or gone there. 

When Stanford decided to become a national school instead of a west coast institution of higher learning , it reached out to the Southwest and Midwest by booosting the value of leadership vs academics. Being a class president or other kind of leader was given heavy weighting.  The thinking was that admitting students who were “leaders” in their school would encourage follow on students to look beyond Rice ,  IT and the Ivies and consider Stanford.  Without that weighting, I don’t think I or many of my classmates in the 60s would have been there.  

Stanford might well have become a national school anyway and I don’t know to what degree their approach worked. But today , .stanford competes quite well with Harvard and the others throughout Texas and the Midwest.

I believe that if we become a school with a second rate athletic program, it will change our demographics and not in a good way. I have a grand daughter who is a serious candidate for any school, including .stanford.  Fairly high on her list of things to look for is a big time athletic program.  She is not a colllege level athlete.  But Princeton and Harvard are out; Duke is in. Chicago is out, Northwestern is in.  And so on.

I won’t claim that a sample of one proves much or that .stanford would never have become a national school if they hadn’t admitted me. But I do believe that a school composed solely of students with the highest gpas and highest test scores will be very different from the Stanford we know and love. MIT and Cal Tech and .carnagie Mellon are excellent schools, but they are not Stanford. The Ivies are important but they aren’t Stanford. 

I’m comfortable having flexible admission standards to accomplish a greater good.  I do t feel like I’m asking .stanford to sell its academic soul by asking it to be smart enough to attract and admit great athletes.m

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - paloalto - 08-27-2025

One of the difficulties in answering a question like this is the phrase "lower admissions standards" is so vague and undefined it has little meaning.  The question should be framed giving an exact metric of the lower standards.  Stanford takes a holistic approach in admissions as most schools do.  It's obviously not all about grades and test scores.  I agree with this 100%.  

My interpretation of lower admissions standards means this:  An applicant who would not be admitted under any circumstances whatsoever except the football coach wanted him.

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - SkiBum80 - 08-28-2025

Having a football program can be looked at like milk in a grocery store.
You put it in the back and you don't always make much profit on it.
Because people come into the store for it, and while there they walk past, and end up buying, other products.
Having the milk available benefits the sale of all the other products.
Having a D1 football program, even if usually losing games rather than winning, helps get you into the ACC power conference.
Once in that conference, all the other sports, from soccer to volleyball to basketball to swimming to baseball to softball to .... all benefit from being in among top competition with lots of national visibility.
If you drop the milk/football, then not likely to get the customers/get into or stay in a power conference, and then all the other products/sports get far less attention and sales/top athletes and would tail off.

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - Mick - 08-28-2025

(08-27-2025, 07:04 PM)paloalto Wrote:  I understand this is a sports message board.  But as a sports fan who puts the academic mission first and foremost as the reason for Stanford and college in general, it's tough to read some of this.   I would rather see Stanford join a non-power four conference than sell its academic soul for football.

Personally, I thought Stanford and Cal should have stuck with the Pac-12. Yeah, I know, it's not the big time.

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - qwerty49 - 08-29-2025

I want to go back to the original issue: transfer restrictions (not admissions standards per se)

I think this refers to the notoriously low rate of undergraduate transfers permitted.  I think that is at least partially affected by our stingy <4% frosh admission rate, and by other issues (housing, facilities, etc) that for one reason or another seem to have kept our student body undergraduate numbers at roughly the same levels for the past 50-60 years.

I am a bit bothered by what I see as the schizophrenic view of two Stanfords: undergrad and grad, which are totally different universes (I can speak directly to this, having been a student in both).  

Undergrad was for many of us the first time out of the nest, an eye-opening experience and exposure to new people, new ideas, a much deeper academic dig into things like history, literature, philosophy, and yeah, a chance to grow up and find ourselves, and a chance to be and feel part of a community of intelligent folks. 

The grad universe is all about research and grants, or professional preparation (Biz, Med, Law, Ed) -- with a few exceptions, I didn't see a lot of identification with the Stanford Community as a whole IMHO, and certainly almost no interaction with the undergrad universe.  And going all the way back to Caspar, it got most of the attention from the administration because there always seemed to be a big institutional motivation to land those research grants or Silicon Valley donations.  I really think there's an imbalance here.

I would really like to see a bit more emphasis on the care, feeding and development of the undergrad community, and I think more undergrad transfers would be very helpful in that regard.  After all, transfers are older, have more experience, and can provide important perspective.  (I know I had several upperclass mentors who helped me immensely).  They have proven that they can "do the work" required to be academically competent.  And, in the case of athletes, they have shown they have the grit and energy to hold their own both in the classroom and on the field.

Now here's where admissions standards come in:  I would submit that a 3.0 GPA at the college level is just as impressive as a 4.0+ in high school.  Most of us here are Stanford folks.  Generalize for a moment:  Ask yourself how hard HS was academically for you, compared to your first 2 years at Stanford.  I think it's apples and oranges to apply the same admissions standards to HS and transfer applicants.  I'll say again -- transfers are relatively proven commodities. 

IMHO the recruiting issue is not just about athletes, but about transfers in general.  I wonder if "word has gotten around" that it's not worth considering trying to transfer to Stanford.  I think some positive steps need to be taken to bring in more undergrad transfers, in terms of both policy and results.  I think that can be done without compromising the integrity of the University's mission of higher education (if indeed higher education is the goal).

Of course, the strings attached these days are NIL, etc.  I think of that as the modern equivalent of scholarship/financial aid money.  Back in the day, Stanford offered me more financial aid than the 2 other schools in my top 3.  That certainly played a role in my decision.  But as everyone on this board knows, NIL money is a whole different thread for discussion.

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - 82lsju - 08-29-2025

(08-29-2025, 02:17 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  I want to go back to the original issue: transfer restrictions (not admissions standards per se)

I think this refers to the notoriously low rate of undergraduate transfers permitted.  I think that is at least partially affected by our stingy <4% frosh admission rate, and by other issues (housing, facilities, etc) that for one reason or another seem to have kept our student body undergraduate numbers at roughly the same levels for the past 50-60 years.

I am a bit bothered by what I see as the schizophrenic view of two Stanfords: undergrad and grad, which are totally different universes (I can speak directly to this, having been a student in both).  

Undergrad was for many of us the first time out of the nest, an eye-opening experience and exposure to new people, new ideas, a much deeper academic dig into things like history, literature, philosophy, and yeah, a chance to grow up and find ourselves, and a chance to be and feel part of a community of intelligent folks. 

The grad universe is all about research and grants, or professional preparation (Biz, Med, Law, Ed) -- with a few exceptions, I didn't see a lot of identification with the Stanford Community as a whole IMHO, and certainly almost no interaction with the undergrad universe.  And going all the way back to Caspar, it got most of the attention from the administration because there always seemed to be a big institutional motivation to land those research grants or Silicon Valley donations.  I really think there's an imbalance here.

I agree with you on the typical engagement with Stanford by undergrad and grad alumni

some interesting tid-bits on alumni from a recent zoom session with the SAA

total alums ~250k

so ~115k total undergrad alums (~90k + ~25k above), so just under half of the alums have an undergrad experience

alums by location (a rough SWAG at the number of undergrad alums would be half of each number below)

total alums in the US ~225k (~123k undergrad?)

total alums outside the US ~25k (~12.5k undergrad?)


RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - GK3 - 08-29-2025

(08-27-2025, 02:10 PM)JeebsOak Wrote:  Degree from Mater Dei, Stanford and with more than six figures in the bank before 25. Good for him.

The whole transfer question is hardly simple or easy to understand if you consider how an 18 to 22 year old student athlete is going to look at it. If you are just an ordinary Stanford Student who spends four years at Stanford and graduates, how many of them will have a million dollars in the bank, some, yes, but most almost none.
You take a guy like Bachmier, his coach gets fired, the other guys whispering in his ear offer him more money so he leaves. Hardly suprising.  Frankly I think that any incoming athlete who will get NIL money at Stanford should be required to take a first quarter  course on how to manage your money and find good advisors. Stanford owes them that much for playing for us for at least one year.  I think always trying to recruit 4 and 5 star kids out of highschool is just leading to disappointment. I would focus on Junior and Seniors from other schools who are proven players who we can accept academically and then make them a very good NIL offer. 
How much time do we spend getting first and second year players up to speed physically?
It is particularly applicable to Basketball.  Look how much better we were last year with Blakes and the USC deserter.  I think we really need to recruit the Euros in many other sports.  For them, the education is probably more important than it is to many of our kids.
It is just a very different game than it used to be.
(08-28-2025, 07:29 AM)SkiBum80 Wrote:  Having a football program can be looked at like milk in a grocery store.
You put it in the back and you don't always make much profit on it.
Because people come into the store for it, and while there they walk past, and end up buying, other products.
Having the milk available benefits the sale of all the other products.
Having a D1 football program, even if usually losing games rather than winning, helps get you into the ACC power conference.
Once in that conference, all the other sports, from soccer to volleyball to basketball to swimming to baseball to softball to .... all benefit from being in among top competition with lots of national visibility.
If you drop the milk/football, then not likely to get the customers/get into or stay in a power conference, and then all the other products/sports get far less attention and sales/top athletes and would tail off.

Agree 100 percent

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - chrisk - 08-29-2025

As a refresher, this is the report from the Faculty Senate meeting on 5/8 regarding the committee studying significant increases in undergraduate enrollment.

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/05/faculty-senate-hears-updates-on-the-undergraduate-experience-emeriti

Provost Jenny Martinez discussed a task force of faculty students and staff that was recently appointed to consider expanding the undergraduate class. The task force is co-chaired by Hamilton and Kathryn “Kam” Moler, the Marvin Chodorow Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences, professor of applied physics, of physics, and of energy science and engineering...

The new task force will assess how to increase the undergraduate class while preserving Stanford’s educational quality and culture, Martinez said.

RE: Would you accept lowered transfer restrictions? - Treebound - 08-30-2025

Stanford has long wanted to expand the undergraduate class size.  The problem for much of the last decade has been the GUP - General Use Permit.  This has kept the university from expanding much of its building footprint, including new facilities and dorms that would be needed if you wanted to increase the undergrad population.  Joe Simitian used the GUP process to fuel his political career and MTL made very little progress, if at all, during his tenure.  Perhaps Levin and Martinez can now move things forward in this area as there are plenty of qualified candidates that would love to matriculate to Stanford and pay our tuition rates or receive our financial aid.

As for admissions and lowering standards, I'm not convinced we need to make drastic changes and I really don't want non student mercenaries at Stanford.  I want the Andrew's, CMacs and Skovs that make an impact here and then go out and do great things. Old Union/Dean Shaw have opened up to the transfer portal more than I thought they ever would.  I think Luck, Levin and now Donahoe will find a reasonable path forward for Stanford.  The key will be Donahoe's ability to raise $'s and bring us back from the brink given the NIL landscape.  No, it won't happen overnight, but I'm much more optimistic with the new team in place (Luck, Levin and Donahoe) versus what we had a year ago.  Time for Stanford to change the game!