[Mick]

Et tu Reynaud? Sacre' bleu. Whatever happened to the "40-year decision"? More like a 40-week or 40-month decision for some of these (student)-athletes?

Reynaud and all the others have every right to transfer, but if this is what it means to have a DI basketball team in the portal/NIL era, then what the hell are we doing.  Of all the players that Haase has recruited and signed, how many of them will wind up having graduated from Stanford?  Is it even half?  How many football players recruited in Shaw's last five years graduated from Stanford?  Even the women's basketball team has had a rather large share of recent recruits going to other schools, including three last year alone.x

This is not a system that Stanford should be a part of.  It's not good for the school, it's not good for the scholar athletes, and as a fan, I've never been less interested in Stanford sports, and for that matter the University itself (though I won't be able to help myself in rooting for the women's basketball team in the next few weeks).

If it weren't for loss aversion and the fact that a lot of people depend on Stanford athletics, there is no way that we would establish an athletics program under these circumstances.   We keep engaging in this madness because we always have, but it is largely time to get off this train.  Collegiate athletics will fall under the weight of its own internal contradictions.   It's sad, but this is why we can't have nice things.

BC

100% agree. Maybe it's time to discuss dismantling the programs.

I agree with BC's analysis of the current situation. I also agree it is (past) time for the University to discuss how to respond. It may be that dismantling the programs is the only feasible response. I would hope that there are lots of like-minded institutions that could put together a system that would curb the excesses of the present. This system wouldn't attract "one and done" players etc. It may be that legislation will be required to make this possible. It also will result in an athletic program that loses money regularly, as the TV interest will be much lower (if it exists at all).

I am stubborn enough to believe that a system of collegiate athletics can still exist that does not involve the compromises and excesses that the present system exhibits. It does require getting off the current express train to disaster. It also requires the University to actually do something to help make it happen and change trains. Failing that, we either ride the train to the inevitable disaster or dismantle the programs.

It also requires a critical mass of like-thinking institutions. The Ivies survive because (a) eight very similar institutions have not only agreed upon the ground rules, but have agreed upon them for the last century+; e.g., no Ivy college has played in a football bowl game since the 1930s, and (b) there are a host of what used to be called D1-AA colleges that exist in the same geographic region that have adopted similar rules.

If Stanford were to go that route, it would find itself in a league with Montana, Montana State, Idaho State, Portland State, UC-Davis or similar schools. There was a resounding hue and cry when the Pac-12 first disintegrated, and no one wanted to even consider the MWC, which is a conference that resides in between what used to be called the Power 5 and what used to be called the D1-AA schools.

I agree with you...there's three options. Dismantle. Disengage. Disaster. I think the inevitable result is disaster (looming), followed by dismantle. I don't believe Stanford would countenance the "disengage" option. If there were seven other Stanford-level schools (academically speaking), then Stanford would go that route. Unfortunately, I think Stanford will end up joining the other 63 colleges that have dropped D1 football.

[Mick]

Et tu Reynaud? Sacre' bleu. Whatever happened to the "40-year decision"? More like a 40-week or 40-month decision for some of these (student)-athletes?

Reynaud and all the others have every right to transfer, but if this is what it means to have a DI basketball team in the portal/NIL era, then what the hell are we doing.  Of all the players that Haase has recruited and signed, how many of them will wind up having graduated from Stanford?  Is it even half?  How many football players recruited in Shaw's last five years graduated from Stanford?  Even the women's basketball team has had a rather large share of recent recruits going to other schools, including three last year alone.x

This is not a system that Stanford should be a part of.  It's not good for the school, it's not good for the scholar athletes, and as a fan, I've never been less interested in Stanford sports, and for that matter the University itself (though I won't be able to help myself in rooting for the women's basketball team in the next few weeks).

If it weren't for loss aversion and the fact that a lot of people depend on Stanford athletics, there is no way that we would establish an athletics program under these circumstances.   We keep engaging in this madness because we always have, but it is largely time to get off this train.  Collegiate athletics will fall under the weight of its own internal contradictions.   It's sad, but this is why we can't have nice things.

BC

100% agree. Maybe it's time to discuss dismantling the programs.

I agree with BC's analysis of the current situation. I also agree it is (past) time for the University to discuss how to respond. It may be that dismantling the programs is the only feasible response. I would hope that there are lots of like-minded institutions that could put together a system that would curb the excesses of the present. This system wouldn't attract "one and done" players etc. It may be that legislation will be required to make this possible. It also will result in an athletic program that loses money regularly, as the TV interest will be much lower (if it exists at all).

I am stubborn enough to believe that a system of collegiate athletics can still exist that does not involve the compromises and excesses that the present system exhibits. It does require getting off the current express train to disaster. It also requires the University to actually do something to help make it happen and change trains. Failing that, we either ride the train to the inevitable disaster or dismantle the programs.

It also requires a critical mass of like-thinking institutions. The Ivies survive because (a) eight very similar institutions have not only agreed upon the ground rules, but have agreed upon them for the last century+; e.g., no Ivy college has played in a football bowl game since the 1930s, and (b) there are a host of what used to be called D1-AA colleges that exist in the same geographic region that have adopted similar rules.

If Stanford were to go that route, it would find itself in a league with Montana, Montana State, Idaho State, Portland State, UC-Davis or similar schools. There was a resounding hue and cry when the Pac-12 first disintegrated, and no one wanted to even consider the MWC, which is a conference that resides in between what used to be called the Power 5 and what used to be called the D1-AA schools.

I agree with you...there's three options. Dismantle. Disengage. Disaster. I think the inevitable result is disaster (looming), followed by dismantle. I don't believe Stanford would countenance the "disengage" option. If there were seven other Stanford-level schools (academically speaking), then Stanford would go that route. Unfortunately, I think Stanford will end up joining the other 63 colleges that have dropped D1 football.