[Goose]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students.  We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards.  WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem.  And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

*******************


Hi BC,

Hope all is well. I ask forgiveness from you, as I am about to go into 'broken-record mode' here:



You have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

(1) 1st I would ask, what is the definition of 'our standards' ?

(2) 2nd, has Stanford had these same 'standards' for its over 100+ year history ? ..or have these 'standards' been able to be modified based on the needs of the times ?

(3) If these 'standards' at Stanford have changed over its 100+year history, then why could we not change them again, 'a little bit' ...if this is an 'overall +/- net delta win for the University', & its Students, & Student-Athletes ?

(4) Seems to me 'rigidly clinging to some arbitrary, anachronistic standard' is not a good thing, and a  good way to be left behind.



But actually, really its not such a hard dilemma or trilemma;  This dilemma or trilemma  is entirely self-imposed by ourselves here at Stanford', especially if we continue to think in such a binary 'all or nothing' fashion.



You & a few others (maybe inadvertently) have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

No one is talking about 'abandoning our standards' if this is seen as a 'binary choice'.
Rather we are talking about 'Modernizing our Standards' or maybe you would say 'modifying our standards a little' to be in line with NotreDame & Duke

If we modernize our standards to be in line with NotreDame (for Football) & Duke (for Mens Basketball), I think President Levins vision can be achieved !


And as I keep saying : 

Duke has a nicely balanced University with  Top20 academic standards & Top20 Mens Basketball Team.
NotreDame has a nicely balanced University with Top20 academic standards & Top20 Football Team.


Whispering to all here at Stanfor, who might be open-minded:

(1) This really isnt so difficult a trilemma; 
(2) Duke & NotreDame have solved this trilemma already;
(3) It is us here at Stanford that are getting in our own way, rigidly clinging to largely arbitrary, anachronistic 'standards' ....if one could even call them that.

I have already asked you to please read Chapter 16 of Stanford's Wallace Sterling by Nilan and Kirk. I am sure you can find a copy to borrow if you don't want to buy the book. Sterling explicitly answered the question why we can't "lower our standards just a little" and he did it in a way that is timeless. Until you can explain why you disagree with him I don't think you have much of an argument for your position. You are correct that at one time Stanford's admission standards were quite "flexible", especially when athletes and/or money was involved. To some degree, they still are today. However, Sterling changed those standards and produced the academic powerhouse Stanford is today. Our current "standards" are largely based on what Stirling installed. I seriously doubt very many people want to return to the previous situation. Frankly I find the idea that Stanford's standards are "arbitrary" very difficult to credit. Their purpose certainly isn't arbitrary.
 
One may argue that the standards are not perfectly "fit for purpose" in today's world, but to do that one has to show the new standards are better fit for purpose. You don't argue that. You argue that they aren't much worse. I don't agree with that argument, but even if I did you seem to concede they aren't "better". Not an adequate reason to change IMO.

[Goose]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students.  We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards.  WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem.  And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

*******************


Hi BC,

Hope all is well. I ask forgiveness from you, as I am about to go into 'broken-record mode' here:



You have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

(1) 1st I would ask, what is the definition of 'our standards' ?

(2) 2nd, has Stanford had these same 'standards' for its over 100+ year history ? ..or have these 'standards' been able to be modified based on the needs of the times ?

(3) If these 'standards' at Stanford have changed over its 100+year history, then why could we not change them again, 'a little bit' ...if this is an 'overall +/- net delta win for the University', & its Students, & Student-Athletes ?

(4) Seems to me 'rigidly clinging to some arbitrary, anachronistic standard' is not a good thing, and a  good way to be left behind.



But actually, really its not such a hard dilemma or trilemma;  This dilemma or trilemma  is entirely self-imposed by ourselves here at Stanford', especially if we continue to think in such a binary 'all or nothing' fashion.



You & a few others (maybe inadvertently) have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

No one is talking about 'abandoning our standards' if this is seen as a 'binary choice'.
Rather we are talking about 'Modernizing our Standards' or maybe you would say 'modifying our standards a little' to be in line with NotreDame & Duke

If we modernize our standards to be in line with NotreDame (for Football) & Duke (for Mens Basketball), I think President Levins vision can be achieved !


And as I keep saying : 

Duke has a nicely balanced University with  Top20 academic standards & Top20 Mens Basketball Team.
NotreDame has a nicely balanced University with Top20 academic standards & Top20 Football Team.


Whispering to all here at Stanfor, who might be open-minded:

(1) This really isnt so difficult a trilemma; 
(2) Duke & NotreDame have solved this trilemma already;
(3) It is us here at Stanford that are getting in our own way, rigidly clinging to largely arbitrary, anachronistic 'standards' ....if one could even call them that.

I have already asked you to please read Chapter 16 of Stanford's Wallace Sterling by Nilan and Kirk. I am sure you can find a copy to borrow if you don't want to buy the book. Sterling explicitly answered the question why we can't "lower our standards just a little" and he did it in a way that is timeless. Until you can explain why you disagree with him I don't think you have much of an argument for your position. You are correct that at one time Stanford's admission standards were quite "flexible", especially when athletes and/or money was involved. To some degree, they still are today. However, Sterling changed those standards and produced the academic powerhouse Stanford is today. Our current "standards" are largely based on what Stirling installed. I seriously doubt very many people want to return to the previous situation. Frankly I find the idea that Stanford's standards are "arbitrary" very difficult to credit. Their purpose certainly isn't arbitrary.
 
One may argue that the standards are not perfectly "fit for purpose" in today's world, but to do that one has to show the new standards are better fit for purpose. You don't argue that. You argue that they aren't much worse. I don't agree with that argument, but even if I did you seem to concede they aren't "better". Not an adequate reason to change IMO.