[akiddoc]

27/52 of our offered recruits last year who went elsewhere enrolled early. That's incredibly significant. I know for a fact we've lost out on studs for this reason.

And I've been ok with that.  Changing a policy because "we've lost out on studs for this reason" is not a good reason to change the policy.

I think we are going to face a reckoning in the next ten years about Stanford's identity.

BC

if they are going to allow early enrollment it should be open to all not just athletes.

I believe that this must be the case, by rule. Athletes cannot receive preferential treatment unrelated to their actual athletic needs. Early enrollment is an academic, not athletic issue. I am sure the NCAA would see it that way, and even if they don't, somebody would sue the university over it, I'm sure. Just another layer in the can of worms.

This will be considered directly related to athletic needs. Just like it is at every other school that does it.

[akiddoc]

27/52 of our offered recruits last year who went elsewhere enrolled early. That's incredibly significant. I know for a fact we've lost out on studs for this reason.

And I've been ok with that.  Changing a policy because "we've lost out on studs for this reason" is not a good reason to change the policy.

I think we are going to face a reckoning in the next ten years about Stanford's identity.

BC

if they are going to allow early enrollment it should be open to all not just athletes.

I believe that this must be the case, by rule. Athletes cannot receive preferential treatment unrelated to their actual athletic needs. Early enrollment is an academic, not athletic issue. I am sure the NCAA would see it that way, and even if they don't, somebody would sue the university over it, I'm sure. Just another layer in the can of worms.

This will be considered directly related to athletic needs. Just like it is at every other school that does it.