[BostonCard]

Is seems evident Stanford will do better in sports where the most elite go pro early and the rest of the pool therefore considers education the key to their future earning more than their sports ability.

Stanford probably does well in tennis because of this.  All the best players go pro early, and though some may end up in college, the vast majority of college players are never sniffing any real pro success.  Probably also has a lot to do with the fact tennis is a global game with many more players to compete against for not a lot of money.

There may be 300 or so college football players annually who start to earn decent money playing football.  There are maybe what, 50 tennis players who come from college into the pros annually and can make any kind of money near what they would make in jobs?

Stanford is always going to have an advantage in a sport like tennis. Because you can't make a lot playing volleyball professionally unless elite of elite (like Kerri Walsh),  Stanford is allays going to have an advantage in volleyball. I'm just not sure it will always exist for WBB, and the new WNBA CBA may foreshadow that future. We'll see.

A football team is also 10-fold larger than a tennis team, so you have to take the denominator into account as well.  A better comparison is basketball, where Stanford has probably been hurt by the one-and-done rule, because those players rarely come to Stanford, but they can have an enormous impact on another team, even if for just one year (for example, Zion Williamson at Duke).

For each sport the calculation is a bit different; for football Stanford used to come out way ahead because we redshirted nearly all our players and they stuck around to their fifth year when their contributions were more significant.  However, a combination of a larger share of players leaving early across multiple teams, Stanford's improved recruiting results compared to a 10-20 years ago, and the graduate transfer route have dramatically altered the calculus.

BC

[BostonCard]

Is seems evident Stanford will do better in sports where the most elite go pro early and the rest of the pool therefore considers education the key to their future earning more than their sports ability.

Stanford probably does well in tennis because of this.  All the best players go pro early, and though some may end up in college, the vast majority of college players are never sniffing any real pro success.  Probably also has a lot to do with the fact tennis is a global game with many more players to compete against for not a lot of money.

There may be 300 or so college football players annually who start to earn decent money playing football.  There are maybe what, 50 tennis players who come from college into the pros annually and can make any kind of money near what they would make in jobs?

Stanford is always going to have an advantage in a sport like tennis. Because you can't make a lot playing volleyball professionally unless elite of elite (like Kerri Walsh),  Stanford is allays going to have an advantage in volleyball. I'm just not sure it will always exist for WBB, and the new WNBA CBA may foreshadow that future. We'll see.

A football team is also 10-fold larger than a tennis team, so you have to take the denominator into account as well.  A better comparison is basketball, where Stanford has probably been hurt by the one-and-done rule, because those players rarely come to Stanford, but they can have an enormous impact on another team, even if for just one year (for example, Zion Williamson at Duke).

For each sport the calculation is a bit different; for football Stanford used to come out way ahead because we redshirted nearly all our players and they stuck around to their fifth year when their contributions were more significant.  However, a combination of a larger share of players leaving early across multiple teams, Stanford's improved recruiting results compared to a 10-20 years ago, and the graduate transfer route have dramatically altered the calculus.

BC