[threepointer]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I found threepointer's post in "How it happened" very enlightening where Etchemundy didn't actually know that Mamlet had screwed up the admissions process until Mike Eubanks proved it to him, after which she was fired.

Mike wrote a 4 part article on Stanford Sports from the view of the Provost.  One of the major topics was that our Director of Admissions, Robin Mamlet, who had come from Swarthmore, had really clamped down on Athletic admissions in all sports, Men's and Women's.  She just didn't get it.  

Etchemendy said, "I don't think that's true, our admission standards for Athletes have not changed.  They are held to the same standard as other applicants, with modest flexibility to acknowledge the investment of time that they make in their sport."

 

Mike said, I can prove it to you."  And he did by giving Etchemendy the statistics on Athletic admissions before and after Mamlet."  One year later Stanford fired Robin Mamlet as the Director of Admissions and replaced her with Richard Shaw from Yale.  Previously, he was Director of Admissions at Michigan.  He knew that in order to fill a 110,000 seat stadium you had to deliver a good product.  And Stanford Stadium has only 50,000 seats.

I just asked threepointer in the other thread, but also opening it up to anybody: Was Mamlet actually fired? (I hope so). Or was she gently nudged out the door with the privilege of spinning her departure however she wanted to?

First let me say that my role in this process was not entirely spontaneous. I was confident that I could create an opening for Eubanks.  What took place might have taken place anyway.   Bowlsby would have met Eubanks eventually.  Harbaugh would have figured out that Eubanks could be a recruiting maven.  What I did was provide a catalyst.  I knew that the pump was primed because it was one of Bowlsby's first official meeting (as far as I know).  Nothing like creating a shit storm to welcome the new guy.

I was on the Board, that's it.  I had no "official" role.  But I have been involved in enough board meetings to know that sometimes a small catalyst creates a big result.  That's what happened.  

So - to answer the question, I have no idea if Mamlet was officially fired.  But the writing was on the wall in big capital letters after Eubanks was done with Etchemendy.

[threepointer]

I don't understand why anyone would purposefully hobble a major activity at a major university that had already made major commitments and had major success in that activity. It makes zero sense. You don't like athletics? Fine. Eliminate the varsity program and commit to club sports, or go D3 or NAIA. But you're already moderating basic academic admissions underwriting guidelines in order to attract athletes. If you're already committed to doing so, why hobble the program on purpose? Why not allow it -- forget about "allow", why not encourage it to succeed?

I found threepointer's post in "How it happened" very enlightening where Etchemundy didn't actually know that Mamlet had screwed up the admissions process until Mike Eubanks proved it to him, after which she was fired.

Mike wrote a 4 part article on Stanford Sports from the view of the Provost.  One of the major topics was that our Director of Admissions, Robin Mamlet, who had come from Swarthmore, had really clamped down on Athletic admissions in all sports, Men's and Women's.  She just didn't get it.  

Etchemendy said, "I don't think that's true, our admission standards for Athletes have not changed.  They are held to the same standard as other applicants, with modest flexibility to acknowledge the investment of time that they make in their sport."

 

Mike said, I can prove it to you."  And he did by giving Etchemendy the statistics on Athletic admissions before and after Mamlet."  One year later Stanford fired Robin Mamlet as the Director of Admissions and replaced her with Richard Shaw from Yale.  Previously, he was Director of Admissions at Michigan.  He knew that in order to fill a 110,000 seat stadium you had to deliver a good product.  And Stanford Stadium has only 50,000 seats.

I just asked threepointer in the other thread, but also opening it up to anybody: Was Mamlet actually fired? (I hope so). Or was she gently nudged out the door with the privilege of spinning her departure however she wanted to?

First let me say that my role in this process was not entirely spontaneous. I was confident that I could create an opening for Eubanks.  What took place might have taken place anyway.   Bowlsby would have met Eubanks eventually.  Harbaugh would have figured out that Eubanks could be a recruiting maven.  What I did was provide a catalyst.  I knew that the pump was primed because it was one of Bowlsby's first official meeting (as far as I know).  Nothing like creating a shit storm to welcome the new guy.

I was on the Board, that's it.  I had no "official" role.  But I have been involved in enough board meetings to know that sometimes a small catalyst creates a big result.  That's what happened.  

So - to answer the question, I have no idea if Mamlet was officially fired.  But the writing was on the wall in big capital letters after Eubanks was done with Etchemendy.