[GK3]

BC, it's a good and important post but also a bit of a strawman. No serious people are saying Stanford should expect to compete for championships in football and men's basketball. Arguments that we can do better with more commitment are, in the main, about saying we can do better than irrelevance in the two sports most people care about. There is a modest (IMHO unassailable) version of this argument and a more ambitious argument. 

The modest version is that even with Stanford's historic level of commitment, school size, geography, unwillingness to compromise academic principles too much, and other inherent advantages and disadvantages, we historically are a program that can compete in a major conference; in football it's a historic norm of winning slightly more than we lose; in basketball it's a shorter history of relevance but nonetheless decades showing a comparable norm of relevance (a top 40 median prior to Haase, top 60 inclusive of his disastrous reign in which he's never once been top 60). We just moved on from a football coach who went four straight years without reaching the Stanford norm (most charitably one can say he reached it in once in four years in 2020....debatable) and for some reason continue to refuse to move on from a basketball coach who not a single time in seven years has reached the Stanford norm. Even with a Batman Theory of Sports Fandom that one should be as powerful as the available resources - that is, not even talking about any change in historical commitment at all - the last half decade of Stanford sports is wholly unacceptable. In other words, the problem isn't that we aren't raising our commitment, it's that we've lowered it. We've accepted programs that aren't even mediocre but among the very least relevant in the nation in the two sports most people care about. It's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom to want Stanford football and basketball to be mediocre. Make us #40 in the country in football and basketball and that would be sustainable forever. Those upset with Stanford's level of commitment are not your Obama-era leftists.

The more ambitious version is that Stanford is the best university in the world with more money than god and a commitment to excellence in everything and we should be able to aspire to be more than generally relevant but rather perennially relevant. Say a top 25 program rather than a top 40 program. I don't think that's so outlandish and it's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom either.

BC, your worldview is quite coherent and cogently argued but you and I fundamentally disagree on what is "consistent with the overall mission of the school." I don't think athletes transferring out for a better angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is inconsistent with Stanford's mission, putting students in a position where Stanford doesn't give them an angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is what is inconsistent with Stanford's mission. I don't view players leaving early for the NFL or even for opportunities at other universities - better universities in their field of choice, which is a shame on us rather than a shame on them - any different than the startup founder dropping out or Tiger Woods or John McEnroe. We, and you, have the balance way off skew on how much Stanford should be committed to excellence in the things that are most important to the society in which we live. It's frankly more important to Stanford's relevance as what it purports to be - the best all-around university in America and home of future leaders - that we are at least top 40 (and I'd say top 25) in football and basketball than it is that we have the best art museum, concert hall, or shopping mall.

You make some good points, but the bottom line as I see it is that the BoT, President and Provost must be committed to Stanford at least being average in sports.  It seems obvious the the departing President and Provost had no interest in sports and probably preferred they went away.  The BoT by their inaction seemed ok with that. I have serious doubts that Muir ever had the personal authority to fire coaches who were not performing.  Any rational AD would have acted by now in basketball, and probably in football. 
How the new administration thinks and acts on this subject will pretty much define the future of our sports over the next few years. Frankly, I wish the BoT had a few members who played one of the major sports at Stanford.

[GK3]

BC, it's a good and important post but also a bit of a strawman. No serious people are saying Stanford should expect to compete for championships in football and men's basketball. Arguments that we can do better with more commitment are, in the main, about saying we can do better than irrelevance in the two sports most people care about. There is a modest (IMHO unassailable) version of this argument and a more ambitious argument. 

The modest version is that even with Stanford's historic level of commitment, school size, geography, unwillingness to compromise academic principles too much, and other inherent advantages and disadvantages, we historically are a program that can compete in a major conference; in football it's a historic norm of winning slightly more than we lose; in basketball it's a shorter history of relevance but nonetheless decades showing a comparable norm of relevance (a top 40 median prior to Haase, top 60 inclusive of his disastrous reign in which he's never once been top 60). We just moved on from a football coach who went four straight years without reaching the Stanford norm (most charitably one can say he reached it in once in four years in 2020....debatable) and for some reason continue to refuse to move on from a basketball coach who not a single time in seven years has reached the Stanford norm. Even with a Batman Theory of Sports Fandom that one should be as powerful as the available resources - that is, not even talking about any change in historical commitment at all - the last half decade of Stanford sports is wholly unacceptable. In other words, the problem isn't that we aren't raising our commitment, it's that we've lowered it. We've accepted programs that aren't even mediocre but among the very least relevant in the nation in the two sports most people care about. It's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom to want Stanford football and basketball to be mediocre. Make us #40 in the country in football and basketball and that would be sustainable forever. Those upset with Stanford's level of commitment are not your Obama-era leftists.

The more ambitious version is that Stanford is the best university in the world with more money than god and a commitment to excellence in everything and we should be able to aspire to be more than generally relevant but rather perennially relevant. Say a top 25 program rather than a top 40 program. I don't think that's so outlandish and it's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom either.

BC, your worldview is quite coherent and cogently argued but you and I fundamentally disagree on what is "consistent with the overall mission of the school." I don't think athletes transferring out for a better angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is inconsistent with Stanford's mission, putting students in a position where Stanford doesn't give them an angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is what is inconsistent with Stanford's mission. I don't view players leaving early for the NFL or even for opportunities at other universities - better universities in their field of choice, which is a shame on us rather than a shame on them - any different than the startup founder dropping out or Tiger Woods or John McEnroe. We, and you, have the balance way off skew on how much Stanford should be committed to excellence in the things that are most important to the society in which we live. It's frankly more important to Stanford's relevance as what it purports to be - the best all-around university in America and home of future leaders - that we are at least top 40 (and I'd say top 25) in football and basketball than it is that we have the best art museum, concert hall, or shopping mall.

You make some good points, but the bottom line as I see it is that the BoT, President and Provost must be committed to Stanford at least being average in sports.  It seems obvious the the departing President and Provost had no interest in sports and probably preferred they went away.  The BoT by their inaction seemed ok with that. I have serious doubts that Muir ever had the personal authority to fire coaches who were not performing.  Any rational AD would have acted by now in basketball, and probably in football. 
How the new administration thinks and acts on this subject will pretty much define the future of our sports over the next few years. Frankly, I wish the BoT had a few members who played one of the major sports at Stanford.