[Goose]

My guess is most of us on this board are like me, old farts. (62). From different eras, with different mindsets.  Back when we were yutes, college athletes played at one school.  Almost exclusively.  You had the rare transfer.  Emphasis rare.  Then kids could leave “early”, generally after junior year to go to NFL/NBA. Still relatively rare.

I agree with this point completely. For some of us that are even a bit older, the players who played both basketball and football entered college with no expectation of playing professionally. Some guys who were really good thought maybe that would possibly happen, but it wasn't a realistic "goal". First of all, pro sports at that time didn't pay nearly as well as they do now. You couldn't make tons of money even if you were real good, and if you just warmed the bench in pro ball you made peanuts. Second of all, there were fewer teams so there were fewer slots available. The players were actually "student athletes". Obviously, the current situation is not like that, and that leads to lots of the issues we are seeing in the modern era. For better or worse (mostly worse IMHO), we on the Cardboard, Stanford Athletics, and the NCAA have to deal with how things are. No obvious good answers.

---

Stanford should be below the median in outbound transfers (ignoring grad transfers) because of the value of the degree.  A player who is stuck on the bench and not getting much playing time can comfort himself in knowing that at the end of his four years he will be leaving with a bachelor’s degree from Stanford.  You might even argue that this is especially important for those stuck on the bench; they are unlikely to be going to the NBA, so the degree has even more value.



BC

You are correct that getting a Stanford degree beats leaving and then later not being good enough/making it to the NBA. The problem is that the athletes involved think that they ARE good enough for the NBA and it is just coaching incompetence holding them back. In many cases, basketball is so important to them that they are making their life decisions based on that and not much else. I don't think that is rational, especially given the number of "can't miss" prospects that have in fact "missed".

I suspect that the players involved would tell you that if you think you can't make it, you won't, and that you need to be "all in" to have a shot. I can't say that they are wrong, but it is a risk I wouldn't recommend taking. Maybe that is why I am not in the NBA? OK, probably the fact I can't play basketball worth a damn has more to do with it .

[Goose]

My guess is most of us on this board are like me, old farts. (62). From different eras, with different mindsets.  Back when we were yutes, college athletes played at one school.  Almost exclusively.  You had the rare transfer.  Emphasis rare.  Then kids could leave “early”, generally after junior year to go to NFL/NBA. Still relatively rare.

I agree with this point completely. For some of us that are even a bit older, the players who played both basketball and football entered college with no expectation of playing professionally. Some guys who were really good thought maybe that would possibly happen, but it wasn't a realistic "goal". First of all, pro sports at that time didn't pay nearly as well as they do now. You couldn't make tons of money even if you were real good, and if you just warmed the bench in pro ball you made peanuts. Second of all, there were fewer teams so there were fewer slots available. The players were actually "student athletes". Obviously, the current situation is not like that, and that leads to lots of the issues we are seeing in the modern era. For better or worse (mostly worse IMHO), we on the Cardboard, Stanford Athletics, and the NCAA have to deal with how things are. No obvious good answers.

---

Stanford should be below the median in outbound transfers (ignoring grad transfers) because of the value of the degree.  A player who is stuck on the bench and not getting much playing time can comfort himself in knowing that at the end of his four years he will be leaving with a bachelor’s degree from Stanford.  You might even argue that this is especially important for those stuck on the bench; they are unlikely to be going to the NBA, so the degree has even more value.



BC

You are correct that getting a Stanford degree beats leaving and then later not being good enough/making it to the NBA. The problem is that the athletes involved think that they ARE good enough for the NBA and it is just coaching incompetence holding them back. In many cases, basketball is so important to them that they are making their life decisions based on that and not much else. I don't think that is rational, especially given the number of "can't miss" prospects that have in fact "missed".

I suspect that the players involved would tell you that if you think you can't make it, you won't, and that you need to be "all in" to have a shot. I can't say that they are wrong, but it is a risk I wouldn't recommend taking. Maybe that is why I am not in the NBA? OK, probably the fact I can't play basketball worth a damn has more to do with it .