[SkiBum80]

I just hope this isn't the beginning of a trend. Every time we get a player who emerges as a star she gets bought away by another program.

IMO we are going to see many more players, both those that have "emerged as a star" and those who have not (and probably will not) changing schools. So will all other schools. NIL is part of the issue, obviously. If you can get more money elsewhere, that is a reason to move. However, every athlete's situation is different.

The "40 year decision" and the academic programs at Stanford have different levels of attraction to different people. An athlete that is "all basketball" (or all any other sport) may not care at all about having a Stanford degree vs a degree from X, vs no degree at all. They may find Stanford's academics a hindrance to their "real reason" to be in college at all and are only at Stanford because that was the best opportunity sports-wise at the time. There is obviously a continuum of "values" and trade-offs on this subject. The vast majority of athletes at Stanford probably value a degree from Stanford to some extent. Some also value the education and think it superior to what they would get elsewhere. Others do not. It then becomes a trade-off among these factors the athletes have to make about leaving with no Stanford degree or staying to get one. Things like playing time, NIL money and guesses at the relative levels of athletic "success" also will be factored in. Some will stay, some won't. Each and every year, the athlete makes this choice. They are not in Kansas anymore :-).

There will also be other athletes, like KiKi, who get the degree and have achieved whatever cachet that delivers to them. The question before these athletes is fundamentally different. If they desire to get a post-graduate education, they can get it paid for by athletics. It may be they can't do that at Stanford because they can't get into the program they want. It may be that they can get admitted but think the programs available at another school fit their future needs/desires better than remaining at Stanford will. In some cases it may just be geography. They intend to live in place X so having a "local" degree and "local" contacts is valuable to them. We have had some non-star football players do exactly that. Makes eminent sense IMO.

It makes almost no sense to stick around and "waste a year" in a degree program that you don't care about (and probably won't actually finish) just to play a sport. It may make sense to somebody who is in effect taking a "year out", or if there is big NIL money they won't get elsewhere, but otherwise probably not. There is definetly something to be said for broadening your academic and sports experience base. Highly motivated and ambitious people (like we try to attract to Stanford) probably will find moving on to be a better choice. Expecting them to do otherwise is pointless.

The "problem" for Stanford (as uncountable other posts have stated) is that these transfers are heavily weighted in the "out" direction and that will probably not change much if at all. That is just how it is.

Well said, on many good points.
One slight caveat, is that it seems like Stanford's NIL is a work in progress, with the emphasis on progress,
given the recent university embrace of Lifetime Cardinal, and its apparent recent success, eg Raynaud.

[SkiBum80]

I just hope this isn't the beginning of a trend. Every time we get a player who emerges as a star she gets bought away by another program.

IMO we are going to see many more players, both those that have "emerged as a star" and those who have not (and probably will not) changing schools. So will all other schools. NIL is part of the issue, obviously. If you can get more money elsewhere, that is a reason to move. However, every athlete's situation is different.

The "40 year decision" and the academic programs at Stanford have different levels of attraction to different people. An athlete that is "all basketball" (or all any other sport) may not care at all about having a Stanford degree vs a degree from X, vs no degree at all. They may find Stanford's academics a hindrance to their "real reason" to be in college at all and are only at Stanford because that was the best opportunity sports-wise at the time. There is obviously a continuum of "values" and trade-offs on this subject. The vast majority of athletes at Stanford probably value a degree from Stanford to some extent. Some also value the education and think it superior to what they would get elsewhere. Others do not. It then becomes a trade-off among these factors the athletes have to make about leaving with no Stanford degree or staying to get one. Things like playing time, NIL money and guesses at the relative levels of athletic "success" also will be factored in. Some will stay, some won't. Each and every year, the athlete makes this choice. They are not in Kansas anymore :-).

There will also be other athletes, like KiKi, who get the degree and have achieved whatever cachet that delivers to them. The question before these athletes is fundamentally different. If they desire to get a post-graduate education, they can get it paid for by athletics. It may be they can't do that at Stanford because they can't get into the program they want. It may be that they can get admitted but think the programs available at another school fit their future needs/desires better than remaining at Stanford will. In some cases it may just be geography. They intend to live in place X so having a "local" degree and "local" contacts is valuable to them. We have had some non-star football players do exactly that. Makes eminent sense IMO.

It makes almost no sense to stick around and "waste a year" in a degree program that you don't care about (and probably won't actually finish) just to play a sport. It may make sense to somebody who is in effect taking a "year out", or if there is big NIL money they won't get elsewhere, but otherwise probably not. There is definetly something to be said for broadening your academic and sports experience base. Highly motivated and ambitious people (like we try to attract to Stanford) probably will find moving on to be a better choice. Expecting them to do otherwise is pointless.

The "problem" for Stanford (as uncountable other posts have stated) is that these transfers are heavily weighted in the "out" direction and that will probably not change much if at all. That is just how it is.

Well said, on many good points.
One slight caveat, is that it seems like Stanford's NIL is a work in progress, with the emphasis on progress,
given the recent university embrace of Lifetime Cardinal, and its apparent recent success, eg Raynaud.