[81alum]

I was a big proponent of guaranteed four year scholarships.  But it seems unfair that players can shop around and leave whenever they like, but the team has a four year commitment.  If players can be mercenary with their services, then why can't teams be mercenary with their scholarships?

I hope that at Stanford neither of those things come to pass.

imo there are a few reasons why the relationship is asymmetric.

for the moment at least, these are student athletes. (non-athlete) students generally get to stay for 4 years unless they fail or break significant rules.   students get to transfer after 1, 2, 3 years. the school doesn't get to kick them out or revoke a scholarship if better students come along.

also, from an ethical point of view, top athletes find new schools easily, but the athletes who would lose their scholarships when they are recruited over are usually bench players and are at a big disadvantage in finding a new school. often, they have been compromising their studies in favor of long hours of practice. the school can more easily find new players than the student find a new school.

I would make it symmetric again not by getting rid of the four year guarantee, but by putting the transfer restrictions back on again.  Enforce some level of commitment from both sides.

As for "student athletes," I entirely agree with this concept which is why I am aghast at the changes underway that are undermining it.  To me, whenever a student transfers to gain an athletic advantage they are proving that they are athlete-students, that athletics comes before academics.  When 20-25% of WBB players are in the portal, that tells me that most of them are not choosing schools as students, but as athletes, and the student-athlete concept dies a little more.

[81alum]

I was a big proponent of guaranteed four year scholarships.  But it seems unfair that players can shop around and leave whenever they like, but the team has a four year commitment.  If players can be mercenary with their services, then why can't teams be mercenary with their scholarships?

I hope that at Stanford neither of those things come to pass.

imo there are a few reasons why the relationship is asymmetric.

for the moment at least, these are student athletes. (non-athlete) students generally get to stay for 4 years unless they fail or break significant rules.   students get to transfer after 1, 2, 3 years. the school doesn't get to kick them out or revoke a scholarship if better students come along.

also, from an ethical point of view, top athletes find new schools easily, but the athletes who would lose their scholarships when they are recruited over are usually bench players and are at a big disadvantage in finding a new school. often, they have been compromising their studies in favor of long hours of practice. the school can more easily find new players than the student find a new school.

I would make it symmetric again not by getting rid of the four year guarantee, but by putting the transfer restrictions back on again.  Enforce some level of commitment from both sides.

As for "student athletes," I entirely agree with this concept which is why I am aghast at the changes underway that are undermining it.  To me, whenever a student transfers to gain an athletic advantage they are proving that they are athlete-students, that athletics comes before academics.  When 20-25% of WBB players are in the portal, that tells me that most of them are not choosing schools as students, but as athletes, and the student-athlete concept dies a little more.