[WBB fan]

What's evolving now makes me more and more inclined to look to D II and D III athletics to get interested in. The athletes at such schools are, of course, typically not the world class ones who want to have the big stage, but for the most part, they are genuine student-athletes, with student coming first. My son went to a small liberal arts college ( Haverford) that competed at the D II and D III level, and was able to enjoy being an athlete at the same time his education was his first priority.

[WBB fan]

What's evolving now makes me more and more inclined to look to D II and D III athletics to get interested in. The athletes at such schools are, of course, typically not the world class ones who want to have the big stage, but for the most part, they are genuine student-athletes, with student coming first. My son went to a small liberal arts college ( Haverford) that competed at the D II and D III level, and was able to enjoy being an athlete at the same time his education was his first priority.

[BillBradley]

The men and women who play on the Stanford basketball team were recruited to Stanford to play basketball. They were recruited by the basketball coaches, who are employees of the university. Therefore, I think it's correct to say that Stanford University wanted these men and women to come to the university to play basketball for the team. Stanford values their skill in sport. Furthermore, during recruiting, the Stanford coaches initiate the process (i.e. "We are interested in you").  This is altogether different than the regular student at Stanford. AFAIK, Stanford doesn't reach out and recruit high school kids who have 4.0's and 1550 SAT scores. 

So why do some folks think that basketball players go to Stanford first and foremost to be a student and get a degree? Seems to me that Stanford has asked them, first and foremost, to come play basketball. The degree is just one part of the value proposition in the recruiting process to get them to come. It's always been this way. NIL doesn't change this at all. It's just another factor.

[BillBradley]

The men and women who play on the Stanford basketball team were recruited to Stanford to play basketball. They were recruited by the basketball coaches, who are employees of the university. Therefore, I think it's correct to say that Stanford University wanted these men and women to come to the university to play basketball for the team. Stanford values their skill in sport. Furthermore, during recruiting, the Stanford coaches initiate the process (i.e. "We are interested in you").  This is altogether different than the regular student at Stanford. AFAIK, Stanford doesn't reach out and recruit high school kids who have 4.0's and 1550 SAT scores. 

So why do some folks think that basketball players go to Stanford first and foremost to be a student and get a degree? Seems to me that Stanford has asked them, first and foremost, to come play basketball. The degree is just one part of the value proposition in the recruiting process to get them to come. It's always been this way. NIL doesn't change this at all. It's just another factor.

[yvonne]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

[yvonne]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

[BillBradley]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

[BillBradley]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

[MV72018]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

IMO, it's extremely unlikely that the real Bill Bradley would share your stated point of view about college/university education, the portal, and NIL contracts.

[MV72018]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

IMO, it's extremely unlikely that the real Bill Bradley would share your stated point of view about college/university education, the portal, and NIL contracts.

[BillBradley]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

IMO, it's extremely unlikely that the real Bill Bradley would share your stated point of view about college/university education, the portal, and NIL contracts.

Oh, for sure. I was just joking.

[BillBradley]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

IMO, it's extremely unlikely that the real Bill Bradley would share your stated point of view about college/university education, the portal, and NIL contracts.

Oh, for sure. I was just joking.

[BostonCard]

The men and women who play on the Stanford basketball team were recruited to Stanford to play basketball. They were recruited by the basketball coaches, who are employees of the university. Therefore, I think it's correct to say that Stanford University wanted these men and women to come to the university to play basketball for the team. Stanford values their skill in sport. Furthermore, during recruiting, the Stanford coaches initiate the process (i.e. "We are interested in you").  This is altogether different than the regular student at Stanford. AFAIK, Stanford doesn't reach out and recruit high school kids who have 4.0's and 1550 SAT scores. 

So why do some folks think that basketball players go to Stanford first and foremost to be a student and get a degree? Seems to me that Stanford has asked them, first and foremost, to come play basketball. The degree is just one part of the value proposition in the recruiting process to get them to come. It's always been this way. NIL doesn't change this at all. It's just another factor.

Someone could correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is a two way street.  Athletes send coaches videos, go to camps, and try to get noticed by the coaches as much as the coaches try to get noticed by the players.  Sure, the top recruits in the country don't need to do that, but the vast majority of recruits are not passive in this little dance.

And, while Stanford doesn't need to reach out to recruit regular high school kids (or, at least, Stanford didn't reach out to my kids), as the father of a son in college and a daughter in 11th grade, I can tell you we get plenty of unsolicited mail from schools who were trying to convince my kids to consider their school and apply (even some very good schools that my son did not wind up being accepted to).

Lastly, coaches at Stanford are not empowered to admit the athletes they recruit, and we have plenty of cases where someone who the coaches would have loved to come to Stanford not get admitted.  Yes, the coaches can identify students, and can encourage them to apply and let the admissions department know that they are recruited athletes, but at the end of the day the student still has to apply, and still has to be admitted.

BC

[BostonCard]

The men and women who play on the Stanford basketball team were recruited to Stanford to play basketball. They were recruited by the basketball coaches, who are employees of the university. Therefore, I think it's correct to say that Stanford University wanted these men and women to come to the university to play basketball for the team. Stanford values their skill in sport. Furthermore, during recruiting, the Stanford coaches initiate the process (i.e. "We are interested in you").  This is altogether different than the regular student at Stanford. AFAIK, Stanford doesn't reach out and recruit high school kids who have 4.0's and 1550 SAT scores. 

So why do some folks think that basketball players go to Stanford first and foremost to be a student and get a degree? Seems to me that Stanford has asked them, first and foremost, to come play basketball. The degree is just one part of the value proposition in the recruiting process to get them to come. It's always been this way. NIL doesn't change this at all. It's just another factor.

Someone could correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is a two way street.  Athletes send coaches videos, go to camps, and try to get noticed by the coaches as much as the coaches try to get noticed by the players.  Sure, the top recruits in the country don't need to do that, but the vast majority of recruits are not passive in this little dance.

And, while Stanford doesn't need to reach out to recruit regular high school kids (or, at least, Stanford didn't reach out to my kids), as the father of a son in college and a daughter in 11th grade, I can tell you we get plenty of unsolicited mail from schools who were trying to convince my kids to consider their school and apply (even some very good schools that my son did not wind up being accepted to).

Lastly, coaches at Stanford are not empowered to admit the athletes they recruit, and we have plenty of cases where someone who the coaches would have loved to come to Stanford not get admitted.  Yes, the coaches can identify students, and can encourage them to apply and let the admissions department know that they are recruited athletes, but at the end of the day the student still has to apply, and still has to be admitted.

BC

[Mick]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

IMO, it's extremely unlikely that the real Bill Bradley would share your stated point of view about college/university education, the portal, and NIL contracts.

Given that he was the #1 overall HS recruit and turned down 75 scholarship offers to go to Princeton, I would concur with your assessment. And when he played the single year in Europe, he was attending Oxford...

[Mick]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

IMO, it's extremely unlikely that the real Bill Bradley would share your stated point of view about college/university education, the portal, and NIL contracts.

Given that he was the #1 overall HS recruit and turned down 75 scholarship offers to go to Princeton, I would concur with your assessment. And when he played the single year in Europe, he was attending Oxford...

[BostonCard]

Kaitlin Clark's WNBA salary is only going to be $76,000.

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/ca...r-9881ecdd

If that is accurate, Iriafen has every reason to go to graduate school and take advantage of NIL.  Even though she would continue to be able to make money off of endorsement deals if she goes to the WNBA, those would actually be endorsement deals, and will not be underwritten by wealthy donors, and the actual WNBA salary would be a rounding error.  So, Iriafen might make nearly as much (maybe even more) as a college player as in the WNBA.

BC

[BostonCard]

Kaitlin Clark's WNBA salary is only going to be $76,000.

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/ca...r-9881ecdd

If that is accurate, Iriafen has every reason to go to graduate school and take advantage of NIL.  Even though she would continue to be able to make money off of endorsement deals if she goes to the WNBA, those would actually be endorsement deals, and will not be underwritten by wealthy donors, and the actual WNBA salary would be a rounding error.  So, Iriafen might make nearly as much (maybe even more) as a college player as in the WNBA.

BC

[magnus]

 Furthermore, during recruiting, the Stanford coaches initiate the process (i.e. "We are interested in you").  This is altogether different than the regular student at Stanford. AFAIK, Stanford doesn't reach out and recruit high school kids who have 4.0's and 1550 SAT scores. 

If "we are interested in you" counts as recruiting then I've seen a letter from a Stanford math professor saying just that.  But maybe it was just a sign of those times (last century)

[magnus]

 Furthermore, during recruiting, the Stanford coaches initiate the process (i.e. "We are interested in you").  This is altogether different than the regular student at Stanford. AFAIK, Stanford doesn't reach out and recruit high school kids who have 4.0's and 1550 SAT scores. 

If "we are interested in you" counts as recruiting then I've seen a letter from a Stanford math professor saying just that.  But maybe it was just a sign of those times (last century)

[Goose]

Kaitlin Clark's WNBA salary is only going to be $76,000.

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/ca...r-9881ecdd

If that is accurate, Iriafen has every reason to go to graduate school and take advantage of NIL.  Even though she would continue to be able to make money off of endorsement deals if she goes to the WNBA, those would actually be endorsement deals, and will not be underwritten by wealthy donors, and the actual WNBA salary would be a rounding error.  So, Iriafen might make nearly as much (maybe even more) as a college player as in the WNBA.

BC

It is indeed accurate. She will make in her four year initial contract $338K, less than half of the $750K Iriafen supposedly will make for one year at school X. I am of course certain that none of that money distorted the acceptance process at school X, and similarly have not and will not result in her receiving atypical benefits.

[Goose]

Kaitlin Clark's WNBA salary is only going to be $76,000.

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/ca...r-9881ecdd

If that is accurate, Iriafen has every reason to go to graduate school and take advantage of NIL.  Even though she would continue to be able to make money off of endorsement deals if she goes to the WNBA, those would actually be endorsement deals, and will not be underwritten by wealthy donors, and the actual WNBA salary would be a rounding error.  So, Iriafen might make nearly as much (maybe even more) as a college player as in the WNBA.

BC

It is indeed accurate. She will make in her four year initial contract $338K, less than half of the $750K Iriafen supposedly will make for one year at school X. I am of course certain that none of that money distorted the acceptance process at school X, and similarly have not and will not result in her receiving atypical benefits.

[OCcardinal]

Non-athletes can be quasi-recruited to Stanford too. They just don't get scholarships. My daughter was one of the nation's top high school musicians on her instrument. She was able to schedule a lengthy (free) private lesson with a Stanford music professor, who then gave a favorable recommendation to admissions. This is standard for high-level musicians. She did the same thing at 5 or 6 other top universities too. (Regular applicants are only allowed to submit recorded arts portfolios.)

The same daughter was also a recruited athlete and participated in ID camps at several colleges.  The processes were not all that different, though she was a higher-level musician than athlete so got a lot more personal attention through that.

[OCcardinal]

Non-athletes can be quasi-recruited to Stanford too. They just don't get scholarships. My daughter was one of the nation's top high school musicians on her instrument. She was able to schedule a lengthy (free) private lesson with a Stanford music professor, who then gave a favorable recommendation to admissions. This is standard for high-level musicians. She did the same thing at 5 or 6 other top universities too. (Regular applicants are only allowed to submit recorded arts portfolios.)

The same daughter was also a recruited athlete and participated in ID camps at several colleges.  The processes were not all that different, though she was a higher-level musician than athlete so got a lot more personal attention through that.

[82lsju]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

well there is a Bill Bradley '76 in the alumni database.....so maybe....

there are several others as well, but they are all deceased....

[82lsju]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

well there is a Bill Bradley '76 in the alumni database.....so maybe....

there are several others as well, but they are all deceased....

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

What's evolving now makes me more and more inclined to look to D II and D III athletics to get interested in. The athletes at such schools are, of course, typically not the world class ones who want to have the big stage, but for the most part, they are genuine student-athletes, with student coming first. My son went to a small liberal arts college ( Haverford) that competed at the D II and D III level, and was able to enjoy being an athlete at the same time his education was his first priority.

Don't forget the NAIA. Our softball and football players regularly shovel snow off their fields before games and practices. [The school president has even been known to shovel yard lines during snowy football games.] Our rodeo team members shovel another substance . . . the one George C. Scott, as Patton, referred to along with the state of Louisiana in his opening speech in the movie. The athletes from one sport sell concessions at other teams' games, or pick up garbage after games. They eat at cheap buffets and sleep four to a room (and not a very good one) on their road trips. [In my days playing NAIA golf, we paired off with a teammate, with whomever having the better score on the first day of the tournament getting the bed and the other sleeping on the floor. I must admit that I never slept in a bed. But the guy I partnered with was the best golfer on the team, and one of the best in the conference. I . . .  was not.]

At every level down (i.e., DI to DII and DII to DIII and NAIA), the athletes are a little smaller and a little slower. But they are still mighty good. And every bit as passionate and committed.

In all seriousness, consider adopting a small college near you. The games are very watchable, for a very reasonable price for up front seats.

And you don't have to give up DI athletics to invest in small college athletics. In our family, we enjoy and are passionate about both.

[One a side note, I hate it when our athletes go elsewhere. But I can't hold it against Kiki, one of my favorites. She carried our team on her back for her last two Stanford games, and did it amazingly well, with grace and grins. She is apparently going to graduate with a Stanford degree. If she wants to monetize her skill set before she loses the chance to do so, I get it. I will miss her, but I don't resent her.]

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

What's evolving now makes me more and more inclined to look to D II and D III athletics to get interested in. The athletes at such schools are, of course, typically not the world class ones who want to have the big stage, but for the most part, they are genuine student-athletes, with student coming first. My son went to a small liberal arts college ( Haverford) that competed at the D II and D III level, and was able to enjoy being an athlete at the same time his education was his first priority.

Don't forget the NAIA. Our softball and football players regularly shovel snow off their fields before games and practices. [The school president has even been known to shovel yard lines during snowy football games.] Our rodeo team members shovel another substance . . . the one George C. Scott, as Patton, referred to along with the state of Louisiana in his opening speech in the movie. The athletes from one sport sell concessions at other teams' games, or pick up garbage after games. They eat at cheap buffets and sleep four to a room (and not a very good one) on their road trips. [In my days playing NAIA golf, we paired off with a teammate, with whomever having the better score on the first day of the tournament getting the bed and the other sleeping on the floor. I must admit that I never slept in a bed. But the guy I partnered with was the best golfer on the team, and one of the best in the conference. I . . .  was not.]

At every level down (i.e., DI to DII and DII to DIII and NAIA), the athletes are a little smaller and a little slower. But they are still mighty good. And every bit as passionate and committed.

In all seriousness, consider adopting a small college near you. The games are very watchable, for a very reasonable price for up front seats.

And you don't have to give up DI athletics to invest in small college athletics. In our family, we enjoy and are passionate about both.

[One a side note, I hate it when our athletes go elsewhere. But I can't hold it against Kiki, one of my favorites. She carried our team on her back for her last two Stanford games, and did it amazingly well, with grace and grins. She is apparently going to graduate with a Stanford degree. If she wants to monetize her skill set before she loses the chance to do so, I get it. I will miss her, but I don't resent her.]

[jacket3ree]

Kaitlin Clark's WNBA salary is only going to be $76,000.

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/ca...r-9881ecdd

If that is accurate, Iriafen has every reason to go to graduate school and take advantage of NIL.  Even though she would continue to be able to make money off of endorsement deals if she goes to the WNBA, those would actually be endorsement deals, and will not be underwritten by wealthy donors, and the actual WNBA salary would be a rounding error.  So, Iriafen might make nearly as much (maybe even more) as a college player as in the WNBA.

BC

It is indeed accurate. She will make in her four year initial contract $338K, less than half of the $750K Iriafen supposedly will make for one year at school X. I am of course certain that none of that money distorted the acceptance process at school X, and similarly have not and will not result in her receiving atypical benefits.

That's an interesting economic question. Will Clark's or Reese's or Brink's or anyone's endorsement deals suffer because they are in the WNBA instead of at Iowa, LSU, or Stanford? There is no salary at Iowa, so Clark should be slightly wealthier in the WNBA than she would have by staying one more year at Iowa. Iriafen isn't yet 22 so she didn't have the same choice.

---

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

IMO, it's extremely unlikely that the real Bill Bradley would share your stated point of view about college/university education, the portal, and NIL contracts.

Given that he was the #1 overall HS recruit and turned down 75 scholarship offers to go to Princeton, I would concur with your assessment. And when he played the single year in Europe, he was attending Oxford...

That other Bill Bradley thinks advertising one's image is stupid, so yes, he wants today's college athletes off his lawn.

Pretty clear cut about it in the Princeton Alumni Weekly:

Bill Speaks His Mind

[jacket3ree]

Kaitlin Clark's WNBA salary is only going to be $76,000.

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/ca...r-9881ecdd

If that is accurate, Iriafen has every reason to go to graduate school and take advantage of NIL.  Even though she would continue to be able to make money off of endorsement deals if she goes to the WNBA, those would actually be endorsement deals, and will not be underwritten by wealthy donors, and the actual WNBA salary would be a rounding error.  So, Iriafen might make nearly as much (maybe even more) as a college player as in the WNBA.

BC

It is indeed accurate. She will make in her four year initial contract $338K, less than half of the $750K Iriafen supposedly will make for one year at school X. I am of course certain that none of that money distorted the acceptance process at school X, and similarly have not and will not result in her receiving atypical benefits.

That's an interesting economic question. Will Clark's or Reese's or Brink's or anyone's endorsement deals suffer because they are in the WNBA instead of at Iowa, LSU, or Stanford? There is no salary at Iowa, so Clark should be slightly wealthier in the WNBA than she would have by staying one more year at Iowa. Iriafen isn't yet 22 so she didn't have the same choice.

---

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

IMO, it's extremely unlikely that the real Bill Bradley would share your stated point of view about college/university education, the portal, and NIL contracts.

Given that he was the #1 overall HS recruit and turned down 75 scholarship offers to go to Princeton, I would concur with your assessment. And when he played the single year in Europe, he was attending Oxford...

That other Bill Bradley thinks advertising one's image is stupid, so yes, he wants today's college athletes off his lawn.

Pretty clear cut about it in the Princeton Alumni Weekly:

Bill Speaks His Mind

[dabigv13]

Famous Bill Bradley has it spot on in that article, thanks for sharing.

This article, about college athlete betting in Iowa, is a good chaser. SCOTUS nuking his law definitely a bad thing for our country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...s-betting/

Nobody looks good in it, but the seemingly blithe attitude all these athletes had about sports betting was striking to me. And in the current lawless environment, I suppose why would they think they need to follow some dumb seeming rules from the NCAA.

Bigger scandals are surely coming. The whole rotten house will need to fall before something better can maybe be rebuilt.

[dabigv13]

Famous Bill Bradley has it spot on in that article, thanks for sharing.

This article, about college athlete betting in Iowa, is a good chaser. SCOTUS nuking his law definitely a bad thing for our country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...s-betting/

Nobody looks good in it, but the seemingly blithe attitude all these athletes had about sports betting was striking to me. And in the current lawless environment, I suppose why would they think they need to follow some dumb seeming rules from the NCAA.

Bigger scandals are surely coming. The whole rotten house will need to fall before something better can maybe be rebuilt.

[WBB fan]

What's evolving now makes me more and more inclined to look to D II and D III athletics to get interested in. The athletes at such schools are, of course, typically not the world class ones who want to have the big stage, but for the most part, they are genuine student-athletes, with student coming first. My son went to a small liberal arts college ( Haverford) that competed at the D II and D III level, and was able to enjoy being an athlete at the same time his education was his first priority.

Don't forget the NAIA. Our softball and football players regularly shovel snow off their fields before games and practices. [The school president has even been known to shovel yard lines during snowy football games.] Our rodeo team members shovel another substance . . . the one George C. Scott, as Patton, referred to along with the state of Louisiana in his opening speech in the movie. The athletes from one sport sell concessions at other teams' games, or pick up garbage after games. They eat at cheap buffets and sleep four to a room (and not a very good one) on their road trips. [In my days playing NAIA golf, we paired off with a teammate, with whomever having the better score on the first day of the tournament getting the bed and the other sleeping on the floor. I must admit that I never slept in a bed. But the guy I partnered with was the best golfer on the team, and one of the best in the conference. I . . .  was not.]

At every level down (i.e., DI to DII and DII to DIII and NAIA), the athletes are a little smaller and a little slower. But they are still mighty good. And every bit as passionate and committed.

In all seriousness, consider adopting a small college near you. The games are very watchable, for a very reasonable price for up front seats.

And you don't have to give up DI athletics to invest in small college athletics. In our family, we enjoy and are passionate about both.

[One a side note, I hate it when our athletes go elsewhere. But I can't hold it against Kiki, one of my favorites. She carried our team on her back for her last two Stanford games, and did it amazingly well, with grace and grins. She is apparently going to graduate with a Stanford degree. If she wants to monetize her skill set before she loses the chance to do so, I get it. I will miss her, but I don't resent her.]

Good suggestions. I like them. Also, another possible shift, just change interest focus to the the non- revenue sports.

[WBB fan]

What's evolving now makes me more and more inclined to look to D II and D III athletics to get interested in. The athletes at such schools are, of course, typically not the world class ones who want to have the big stage, but for the most part, they are genuine student-athletes, with student coming first. My son went to a small liberal arts college ( Haverford) that competed at the D II and D III level, and was able to enjoy being an athlete at the same time his education was his first priority.

Don't forget the NAIA. Our softball and football players regularly shovel snow off their fields before games and practices. [The school president has even been known to shovel yard lines during snowy football games.] Our rodeo team members shovel another substance . . . the one George C. Scott, as Patton, referred to along with the state of Louisiana in his opening speech in the movie. The athletes from one sport sell concessions at other teams' games, or pick up garbage after games. They eat at cheap buffets and sleep four to a room (and not a very good one) on their road trips. [In my days playing NAIA golf, we paired off with a teammate, with whomever having the better score on the first day of the tournament getting the bed and the other sleeping on the floor. I must admit that I never slept in a bed. But the guy I partnered with was the best golfer on the team, and one of the best in the conference. I . . .  was not.]

At every level down (i.e., DI to DII and DII to DIII and NAIA), the athletes are a little smaller and a little slower. But they are still mighty good. And every bit as passionate and committed.

In all seriousness, consider adopting a small college near you. The games are very watchable, for a very reasonable price for up front seats.

And you don't have to give up DI athletics to invest in small college athletics. In our family, we enjoy and are passionate about both.

[One a side note, I hate it when our athletes go elsewhere. But I can't hold it against Kiki, one of my favorites. She carried our team on her back for her last two Stanford games, and did it amazingly well, with grace and grins. She is apparently going to graduate with a Stanford degree. If she wants to monetize her skill set before she loses the chance to do so, I get it. I will miss her, but I don't resent her.]

Good suggestions. I like them. Also, another possible shift, just change interest focus to the the non- revenue sports.

[81alum]

Good suggestions. I like them. Also, another possible shift, just change interest focus to the the non- revenue sports.

Much my own thinking, as I mentioned earlier.  

I agree about Iriafen--I don't begrudge any player going elsewhere who graduates first.  Of course, what this means for Stanford is that most all of our best players we will have for three years, precisely because their academic abilities and excellent academic counseling get them graduated in three years.  Paradoxically, the 40 year decision also seems to mean--in the new environment--the three year decision.

[81alum]

Good suggestions. I like them. Also, another possible shift, just change interest focus to the the non- revenue sports.

Much my own thinking, as I mentioned earlier.  

I agree about Iriafen--I don't begrudge any player going elsewhere who graduates first.  Of course, what this means for Stanford is that most all of our best players we will have for three years, precisely because their academic abilities and excellent academic counseling get them graduated in three years.  Paradoxically, the 40 year decision also seems to mean--in the new environment--the three year decision.

[BillBradley]

First of all, I'd ask everyone to quit digging up old articles about me. My views have changed a lot since my Princeton days. 

re: Clark, Brink, Reese and the money they will make in the WNBA vs. staying in college. This year's women's NCAA basketball finals was watched by over 18 million people. The average WNBA finals game hasn't been watched by over 1 million people since it's inaugural years. 
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/10...iewership/

For sure, this year's NCAAW viewership blew up because of Caitlin. But womens college hoop has always been more popular than the professional women's league. The 2012 Baylor Stanford final 4 game drew almost 4M viewers. The Bird-Taurasi UConn years in the early 2000's drew around 5M viewers.

Angel Reese alone (!) has over 2M unique Instagram followers and over 6M combined followers on social media. Caitlin Clark has about 1.2M Instagram followers and it will balloon from there. Any individual post of theirs generates more eyeballs than a broadcasted WNBA game. I really do think they are collectively trying to launch the WNBA into popularity, much like the Magic-Bird time period of the NBA. (side note - I don't think they will be successful, because the WNBA leadership is pretty clueless IMO. They don't have a David Stern). As I've posted before, the popularity of top college players drops significantly when they go pro (e.g. how many of you think about Sabrina now vs. when she was in college and on SportsCenter every game). IMO, Caitlin and Cam have a chance to be special for the league and to maintain their popularity, but Angel Reese's career has likely peaked. 

The top draft picks are leaving a ton of money on the table by not using their final year of college eligibility, especially if they were to transfer. Each could pick up Kiki-like money, probably more. But the bigger money would come from a rise in their popularity. They would accumulate more followers (which are gold) and endorsement deals. I do commend them for trying to drive change and pave the path for others to follow.

[BillBradley]

First of all, I'd ask everyone to quit digging up old articles about me. My views have changed a lot since my Princeton days. 

re: Clark, Brink, Reese and the money they will make in the WNBA vs. staying in college. This year's women's NCAA basketball finals was watched by over 18 million people. The average WNBA finals game hasn't been watched by over 1 million people since it's inaugural years. 
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/10...iewership/

For sure, this year's NCAAW viewership blew up because of Caitlin. But womens college hoop has always been more popular than the professional women's league. The 2012 Baylor Stanford final 4 game drew almost 4M viewers. The Bird-Taurasi UConn years in the early 2000's drew around 5M viewers.

Angel Reese alone (!) has over 2M unique Instagram followers and over 6M combined followers on social media. Caitlin Clark has about 1.2M Instagram followers and it will balloon from there. Any individual post of theirs generates more eyeballs than a broadcasted WNBA game. I really do think they are collectively trying to launch the WNBA into popularity, much like the Magic-Bird time period of the NBA. (side note - I don't think they will be successful, because the WNBA leadership is pretty clueless IMO. They don't have a David Stern). As I've posted before, the popularity of top college players drops significantly when they go pro (e.g. how many of you think about Sabrina now vs. when she was in college and on SportsCenter every game). IMO, Caitlin and Cam have a chance to be special for the league and to maintain their popularity, but Angel Reese's career has likely peaked. 

The top draft picks are leaving a ton of money on the table by not using their final year of college eligibility, especially if they were to transfer. Each could pick up Kiki-like money, probably more. But the bigger money would come from a rise in their popularity. They would accumulate more followers (which are gold) and endorsement deals. I do commend them for trying to drive change and pave the path for others to follow.

[crackpot]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

well there is a Bill Bradley '76 in the alumni database.....so maybe....

there are several others as well, but they are all deceased....

I'm old enough to remember seeing the Bill Bradley attending SWBB games at the beginning of his post-Senate career.

[crackpot]

Boy, somebody picked the wrong screen name.

Hey, I played professionally in Europe, was a 2 time NBA champion, and an Olympic gold medalist long before I was a Senator :>

well there is a Bill Bradley '76 in the alumni database.....so maybe....

there are several others as well, but they are all deceased....

I'm old enough to remember seeing the Bill Bradley attending SWBB games at the beginning of his post-Senate career.