[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

This isn't the kind of money thrown around by the NBA and NFL, but, these kinds of numbers sure do get a lot closer to "one and done" players in WBB.  The reality has until now been you can't make much money as a pro in WBB, so focusing on school is a better choice than putting your attention on getting paid to hoop.  We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally, so seems like only a matter of time before the improved financial realities of WNBA players takes a big bite out of Stanford WBB's ability to attract the top talents and compete for titles.

It really is just how big the WNBA numbers get that will determine when it happens. It's not a matter of if because we've already seen the proof in sports that pay big money to athletes.

Thoughts?

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

This isn't the kind of money thrown around by the NBA and NFL, but, these kinds of numbers sure do get a lot closer to "one and done" players in WBB.  The reality has until now been you can't make much money as a pro in WBB, so focusing on school is a better choice than putting your attention on getting paid to hoop.  We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally, so seems like only a matter of time before the improved financial realities of WNBA players takes a big bite out of Stanford WBB's ability to attract the top talents and compete for titles.

It really is just how big the WNBA numbers get that will determine when it happens. It's not a matter of if because we've already seen the proof in sports that pay big money to athletes.

Thoughts?

[CornFed]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally

I thought tennis professionals did fairly well.  Or, perhaps your point is that we don't really get the elite of the elite recruits in tennis.    ;-)

[CornFed]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally

I thought tennis professionals did fairly well.  Or, perhaps your point is that we don't really get the elite of the elite recruits in tennis.    ;-)

[BobK]

As of now it's 4 years before you can be drafted or graduate in three. Oer drop out of school for a year to play overseas which has happened.

We just lost two women golfers to the Pro tour. They aren't elite?

Another weird tread OF. Why wouldn't Baylor or UConn or South Carolina lose players?????

[BobK]

As of now it's 4 years before you can be drafted or graduate in three. Oer drop out of school for a year to play overseas which has happened.

We just lost two women golfers to the Pro tour. They aren't elite?

Another weird tread OF. Why wouldn't Baylor or UConn or South Carolina lose players?????

[jonnyss]

glad the women will get paid.

that said, the only player i can think of who might have been wnba ready out of high school is candace parker. 

what will the rules be for entering the pros? out of high school like the nba? after 3 years of college like the nfl? 

stanford players like nneka, chiney, and haley - top-ranked out of high school - don't seem the sorts to want to forgo college to turn pro.

and 100k to 500k seems like a salary range that most stanford grads can reasonably expect if they stay and graduate.

maybe an occasional stanford player would leave after junior year, but likely fewer than would leave uconn early.

[jonnyss]

glad the women will get paid.

that said, the only player i can think of who might have been wnba ready out of high school is candace parker. 

what will the rules be for entering the pros? out of high school like the nba? after 3 years of college like the nfl? 

stanford players like nneka, chiney, and haley - top-ranked out of high school - don't seem the sorts to want to forgo college to turn pro.

and 100k to 500k seems like a salary range that most stanford grads can reasonably expect if they stay and graduate.

maybe an occasional stanford player would leave after junior year, but likely fewer than would leave uconn early.

[ColoradoTree]

I thought tennis professionals did fairly well.  Or, perhaps your point is that we don't really get the elite of the elite recruits in tennis.    ;-)

We do okay in women's tennis. ;-)

[ColoradoTree]

I thought tennis professionals did fairly well.  Or, perhaps your point is that we don't really get the elite of the elite recruits in tennis.    ;-)

We do okay in women's tennis. ;-)

[76lsjumb]

I thought tennis professionals did fairly well.  Or, perhaps your point is that we don't really get the elite of the elite recruits in tennis.    ;-)

We do okay in women's tennis. ;-)

What are the family demographics (ie, income) of elite tennis recruits? What are they for elite WBB recruits? 

What are the prospects for recruiting  one and done WBB players at UConn v Stanford? Is Geno in a better or worse position than Tara to fill holes with transfers?

The WNBA should pay whatever they want... but it’s wishful thinking to assume that won’t adversely impact Stanford

[76lsjumb]

I thought tennis professionals did fairly well.  Or, perhaps your point is that we don't really get the elite of the elite recruits in tennis.    ;-)

We do okay in women's tennis. ;-)

What are the family demographics (ie, income) of elite tennis recruits? What are they for elite WBB recruits? 

What are the prospects for recruiting  one and done WBB players at UConn v Stanford? Is Geno in a better or worse position than Tara to fill holes with transfers?

The WNBA should pay whatever they want... but it’s wishful thinking to assume that won’t adversely impact Stanford

[OutsiderFan]

As of now it's 4 years before you can be drafted or graduate in three.    Oer drop out of school for a year to play overseas which has happened.

We just lost two women golfers to the Pro tour.    They aren't elite?   

Another weird tread OF.    Why wouldn't Baylor or UConn or South Carolina lose players?????

They will. But they will also have the ability to recruit more such players in a way Stanford won't. Maybe the fact girls tend to be higher achieving than boys  in general when younger, will mitigate the shrinking of Stanford WBB's pool of available elite recruits because there will still be a good number of Stanford-eligible athletes.  I am skeptical this will be the case.

[OutsiderFan]

As of now it's 4 years before you can be drafted or graduate in three.    Oer drop out of school for a year to play overseas which has happened.

We just lost two women golfers to the Pro tour.    They aren't elite?   

Another weird tread OF.    Why wouldn't Baylor or UConn or South Carolina lose players?????

They will. But they will also have the ability to recruit more such players in a way Stanford won't. Maybe the fact girls tend to be higher achieving than boys  in general when younger, will mitigate the shrinking of Stanford WBB's pool of available elite recruits because there will still be a good number of Stanford-eligible athletes.  I am skeptical this will be the case.

[BosCard]

As of now it's 4 years before you can be drafted or graduate in three.    Oer drop out of school for a year to play overseas which has happened.

We just lost two women golfers to the Pro tour.    They aren't elite?   

Another weird tread OF.    Why wouldn't Baylor or UConn or South Carolina lose players?????

They will. But they will also have the ability to recruit more such players in a way Stanford won't. Maybe the fact girls tend to be higher achieving than boys  in general when younger, will mitigate the shrinking of Stanford WBB's pool of available elite recruits because there will still be a good number of Stanford-eligible athletes.  I am skeptical this will be the case.

I am not sure this has that much of an impact since top women's basketball players can already make a lot of money in overseas leagues.  If anything, I think more college players leaving early helps Stanford relative to other schools as our recruits/players must invest a lot of time in high school taking AP classes and preparing for standardized tests.  Those type of players are highly unlikely to leave early whereas top players who only focus on basketball are likely to leave Baylor, South Carolina, Louisville etc ... early

[BosCard]

As of now it's 4 years before you can be drafted or graduate in three.    Oer drop out of school for a year to play overseas which has happened.

We just lost two women golfers to the Pro tour.    They aren't elite?   

Another weird tread OF.    Why wouldn't Baylor or UConn or South Carolina lose players?????

They will. But they will also have the ability to recruit more such players in a way Stanford won't. Maybe the fact girls tend to be higher achieving than boys  in general when younger, will mitigate the shrinking of Stanford WBB's pool of available elite recruits because there will still be a good number of Stanford-eligible athletes.  I am skeptical this will be the case.

I am not sure this has that much of an impact since top women's basketball players can already make a lot of money in overseas leagues.  If anything, I think more college players leaving early helps Stanford relative to other schools as our recruits/players must invest a lot of time in high school taking AP classes and preparing for standardized tests.  Those type of players are highly unlikely to leave early whereas top players who only focus on basketball are likely to leave Baylor, South Carolina, Louisville etc ... early

[ColoradoTree]

I readily concede the point that to the extent the one-and-done phenomenon reaches women's college basketball, Stanford would not be as well-positioned to grab a player intent on playing college basketball for just one year. But I also agree with the points that it's the rare women's college player that is so obviously better than everyone as a freshman that they should be playing professionally. (Brittney Griner is another one that comes to mind.) And also with the point that some of the elite recruits that come to our program are intent on academic achievement, recognizing that there will need to be a life after professional basketball. 

It's important to recognize that the salary jump here is primarily for veteran players. It's only the top handful in the league that will make $500K. $130K is expected to be the average. But there is still a rookie salary scale, and for the top 4 players drafted, the salary is $68,000/year (though there is a chance to access additional bonus money from a marketing fund, though the amount they could get would likely be modest, and the mechanism for accessing that is unclear, other than "be really successful"). http://www.startribune.com/wnba-players-...566969712/

Given the modest rookie salary, and the fact that only a bare handful of players will make north of $300,000/year, I don't agree that this salary scale change will move the needle considerably in terms of bringing about one-and-done women's college basketball players. Per Forbes, the average length of a woman's professional basketball career is five years, so the value proposition of leaving early just doesn't seem to be there yet. 

If WNBA salaries ever get within shouting distance of NBA ones, then sure, all bets are off. But we're a long way from that point as yet.

[ColoradoTree]

I readily concede the point that to the extent the one-and-done phenomenon reaches women's college basketball, Stanford would not be as well-positioned to grab a player intent on playing college basketball for just one year. But I also agree with the points that it's the rare women's college player that is so obviously better than everyone as a freshman that they should be playing professionally. (Brittney Griner is another one that comes to mind.) And also with the point that some of the elite recruits that come to our program are intent on academic achievement, recognizing that there will need to be a life after professional basketball. 

It's important to recognize that the salary jump here is primarily for veteran players. It's only the top handful in the league that will make $500K. $130K is expected to be the average. But there is still a rookie salary scale, and for the top 4 players drafted, the salary is $68,000/year (though there is a chance to access additional bonus money from a marketing fund, though the amount they could get would likely be modest, and the mechanism for accessing that is unclear, other than "be really successful"). http://www.startribune.com/wnba-players-...566969712/

Given the modest rookie salary, and the fact that only a bare handful of players will make north of $300,000/year, I don't agree that this salary scale change will move the needle considerably in terms of bringing about one-and-done women's college basketball players. Per Forbes, the average length of a woman's professional basketball career is five years, so the value proposition of leaving early just doesn't seem to be there yet. 

If WNBA salaries ever get within shouting distance of NBA ones, then sure, all bets are off. But we're a long way from that point as yet.

[bbm233]

This is a "no news" story for Stanford. As noted elsewhere, rookies don't get paid much by the WNBA, so they have to go overseas. Those opportunities already exist today. The annual value of a Stanford scholarship is more than a rookie WNBA paycheck. And realistically, we're talking about 10 or so college players each year who make an impact in the WNBA in their first year. How often is one of those a Stanford player? One every five years? On the current roster, I see only Haley Jones with that potential. I'm not saying others won't have pro careers - they just aren't going to be paid at the top scale.

[bbm233]

This is a "no news" story for Stanford. As noted elsewhere, rookies don't get paid much by the WNBA, so they have to go overseas. Those opportunities already exist today. The annual value of a Stanford scholarship is more than a rookie WNBA paycheck. And realistically, we're talking about 10 or so college players each year who make an impact in the WNBA in their first year. How often is one of those a Stanford player? One every five years? On the current roster, I see only Haley Jones with that potential. I'm not saying others won't have pro careers - they just aren't going to be paid at the top scale.

[winflop]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

This isn't the kind of money thrown around by the NBA and NFL, but, these kinds of numbers sure do get a lot closer to "one and done" players in WBB.  The reality has until now been you can't make much money as a pro in WBB, so focusing on school is a better choice than putting your attention on getting paid to hoop.  We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally, so seems like only a matter of time before the improved financial realities of WNBA players takes a big bite out of Stanford WBB's ability to attract the top talents and compete for titles.

It really is just how big the WNBA numbers get that will determine when it happens. It's not a matter of if because we've already seen the proof in sports that pay big money to athletes.

Thoughts?

If anything I think this will impact some of the other leading programs more than Stanford. Not to be an elitist, but our ladies upon graduation have more six-figure opportunities outside of basketball than most of the other top programs. I could see other programs more likely to lose top players early than Stanford.

[winflop]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

This isn't the kind of money thrown around by the NBA and NFL, but, these kinds of numbers sure do get a lot closer to "one and done" players in WBB.  The reality has until now been you can't make much money as a pro in WBB, so focusing on school is a better choice than putting your attention on getting paid to hoop.  We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally, so seems like only a matter of time before the improved financial realities of WNBA players takes a big bite out of Stanford WBB's ability to attract the top talents and compete for titles.

It really is just how big the WNBA numbers get that will determine when it happens. It's not a matter of if because we've already seen the proof in sports that pay big money to athletes.

Thoughts?

If anything I think this will impact some of the other leading programs more than Stanford. Not to be an elitist, but our ladies upon graduation have more six-figure opportunities outside of basketball than most of the other top programs. I could see other programs more likely to lose top players early than Stanford.

[CompSci87]

This thread is a weird take on the story. The new collective bargaining agreement doesn't allow one-and-done any more than the old one did. The WNBA still has the same requirements that mean U.S. players generally won't be eligible until they are old enough to have finished college (sorry, that is fuzzy; I didn't look up the details).

A positive Stanford take is to note that our own Nneka Ogwumike is president of the WNBA Players Association and thus had a big role in getting this new CBA done with higher salaries and better benefits for players. (And Chiney is one of the vice-presidents.) So let's laud it instead of seeing it as some kind of gloom and doom for Stanford.

https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/284...-increases

https://wnbpa.com/about/leadership/

[CompSci87]

This thread is a weird take on the story. The new collective bargaining agreement doesn't allow one-and-done any more than the old one did. The WNBA still has the same requirements that mean U.S. players generally won't be eligible until they are old enough to have finished college (sorry, that is fuzzy; I didn't look up the details).

A positive Stanford take is to note that our own Nneka Ogwumike is president of the WNBA Players Association and thus had a big role in getting this new CBA done with higher salaries and better benefits for players. (And Chiney is one of the vice-presidents.) So let's laud it instead of seeing it as some kind of gloom and doom for Stanford.

https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/284...-increases

https://wnbpa.com/about/leadership/

[BobK]

Plus Jayne Appel

[BobK]

Plus Jayne Appel

[MVCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

This isn't the kind of money thrown around by the NBA and NFL, but, these kinds of numbers sure do get a lot closer to "one and done" players in WBB.  The reality has until now been you can't make much money as a pro in WBB, so focusing on school is a better choice than putting your attention on getting paid to hoop.  We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally, so seems like only a matter of time before the improved financial realities of WNBA players takes a big bite out of Stanford WBB's ability to attract the top talents and compete for titles.

It really is just how big the WNBA numbers get that will determine when it happens. It's not a matter of if because we've already seen the proof in sports that pay big money to athletes.

Thoughts?

I expect this to have the opposite effect: it will make Stanford more competitive, because with a better post-grad salary differentiation (over the long term), we'll be more likely than others to retain our talent.  Statista reports Stanford average starting salary of $84K and mid-career salary of $161K... that adds up over a 40-year career, vs the 4-year average WNBA career.  It might be a different story for other schools.  Duke is #15 on that salary list, the first major basketball school other than Stanford (which is #2).

The only exception might be if students want to stop out for 4 years of WNBA and then return to school... that might be the case if peak WNBA performance is in the 20-24 age range... but I recall seeing elsewhere that female athletes tend to hit their prime later than men, so it probably doesn't apply.  Others here may know better.

[MVCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

This isn't the kind of money thrown around by the NBA and NFL, but, these kinds of numbers sure do get a lot closer to "one and done" players in WBB.  The reality has until now been you can't make much money as a pro in WBB, so focusing on school is a better choice than putting your attention on getting paid to hoop.  We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally, so seems like only a matter of time before the improved financial realities of WNBA players takes a big bite out of Stanford WBB's ability to attract the top talents and compete for titles.

It really is just how big the WNBA numbers get that will determine when it happens. It's not a matter of if because we've already seen the proof in sports that pay big money to athletes.

Thoughts?

I expect this to have the opposite effect: it will make Stanford more competitive, because with a better post-grad salary differentiation (over the long term), we'll be more likely than others to retain our talent.  Statista reports Stanford average starting salary of $84K and mid-career salary of $161K... that adds up over a 40-year career, vs the 4-year average WNBA career.  It might be a different story for other schools.  Duke is #15 on that salary list, the first major basketball school other than Stanford (which is #2).

The only exception might be if students want to stop out for 4 years of WNBA and then return to school... that might be the case if peak WNBA performance is in the 20-24 age range... but I recall seeing elsewhere that female athletes tend to hit their prime later than men, so it probably doesn't apply.  Others here may know better.

[81alum]

This gets into complex sociological and economic factors that are hard to predict.  However, my impression is that Stanford has a major recruiting advantage in all those sports which are truly amateur sports, since the value of the Stanford degree and the 40 year decision dwarfs any other rational consideration.

As sports become more professionalized and the amounts of fame and money mount up, Stanford maintains its advantage for most admissible college athletes but begins to lose it for a handful of elite performers who believe they have a reasonable prospect of being set for life with their first contract.  The more money in the sport and the more professionalized--the larger this relatively small pool of athletes becomes. 

I think we are still a long way away from that for WBB.  A $500k contract (maximum and probably quite unusual) is far from setting up an athlete for life.  The kind of women who get admitted to Stanford are not delusional.  Giving up the 40 year Stanford degree for $500k would be inane.

[81alum]

This gets into complex sociological and economic factors that are hard to predict.  However, my impression is that Stanford has a major recruiting advantage in all those sports which are truly amateur sports, since the value of the Stanford degree and the 40 year decision dwarfs any other rational consideration.

As sports become more professionalized and the amounts of fame and money mount up, Stanford maintains its advantage for most admissible college athletes but begins to lose it for a handful of elite performers who believe they have a reasonable prospect of being set for life with their first contract.  The more money in the sport and the more professionalized--the larger this relatively small pool of athletes becomes. 

I think we are still a long way away from that for WBB.  A $500k contract (maximum and probably quite unusual) is far from setting up an athlete for life.  The kind of women who get admitted to Stanford are not delusional.  Giving up the 40 year Stanford degree for $500k would be inane.

[Griffins78]

This thread is a weird take on the story. The new collective bargaining agreement doesn't allow one-and-done any more than the old one did. The WNBA still has the same requirements that mean U.S. players generally won't be eligible until they are old enough to have finished college (sorry, that is fuzzy; I didn't look up the details).

A positive Stanford take is to note that our own Nneka Ogwumike is president of the WNBA Players Association and thus had a big role in getting this new CBA done with higher salaries and better benefits for players. (And Chiney is one of the vice-presidents.) So let's laud it instead of seeing it as some kind of gloom and doom for Stanford.

https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/284...-increases

https://wnbpa.com/about/leadership/

I agree. Decided to start another thread with a different title.

[Griffins78]

This thread is a weird take on the story. The new collective bargaining agreement doesn't allow one-and-done any more than the old one did. The WNBA still has the same requirements that mean U.S. players generally won't be eligible until they are old enough to have finished college (sorry, that is fuzzy; I didn't look up the details).

A positive Stanford take is to note that our own Nneka Ogwumike is president of the WNBA Players Association and thus had a big role in getting this new CBA done with higher salaries and better benefits for players. (And Chiney is one of the vice-presidents.) So let's laud it instead of seeing it as some kind of gloom and doom for Stanford.

https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/284...-increases

https://wnbpa.com/about/leadership/

I agree. Decided to start another thread with a different title.

[StanFanFam13]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

This isn't the kind of money thrown around by the NBA and NFL, but, these kinds of numbers sure do get a lot closer to "one and done" players in WBB.  The reality has until now been you can't make much money as a pro in WBB, so focusing on school is a better choice than putting your attention on getting paid to hoop.  We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally, so seems like only a matter of time before the improved financial realities of WNBA players takes a big bite out of Stanford WBB's ability to attract the top talents and compete for titles.

It really is just how big the WNBA numbers get that will determine when it happens. It's not a matter of if because we've already seen the proof in sports that pay big money to athletes.

Thoughts?

I expect this to have the opposite effect: it will make Stanford more competitive, because with a better post-grad salary differentiation (over the long term), we'll be more likely than others to retain our talent.  Statista reports Stanford average starting salary of $84K and mid-career salary of $161K... that adds up over a 40-year career, vs the 4-year average WNBA career.  It might be a different story for other schools.  Duke is #15 on that salary list, the first major basketball school other than Stanford (which is #2).

The only exception might be if students want to stop out for 4 years of WNBA and then return to school... that might be the case if peak WNBA performance is in the 20-24 age range... but I recall seeing elsewhere that female athletes tend to hit their prime later than men, so it probably doesn't apply.  Others here may know better.

This may not be at the top of student-athletes' initial consideration in picking colleges, but since you mention stopping out and returning to school, Stanford's generous re-enrollment policy is even more reason for competitive players to choose the cardinal. My understanding is that the University is relatively understanding of students who need or elect to take time away and is generally willing to let them come back and finish their degrees. I grew up as a fan of Curtis Borchardt and was pleasantly surprised to find him in one of my undergrad seminars, back from his pro basketball career and working to complete his Stanford education. I'm sure it's tough to be back in a classroom surrounded by 20 year olds, but still, a pretty great option to come back to!

[StanFanFam13]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1217088417806323713?s=20[/tweet]

This isn't the kind of money thrown around by the NBA and NFL, but, these kinds of numbers sure do get a lot closer to "one and done" players in WBB.  The reality has until now been you can't make much money as a pro in WBB, so focusing on school is a better choice than putting your attention on getting paid to hoop.  We know Stanford doesn't get the elite of the elite in sports that pay big bucks professionally, so seems like only a matter of time before the improved financial realities of WNBA players takes a big bite out of Stanford WBB's ability to attract the top talents and compete for titles.

It really is just how big the WNBA numbers get that will determine when it happens. It's not a matter of if because we've already seen the proof in sports that pay big money to athletes.

Thoughts?

I expect this to have the opposite effect: it will make Stanford more competitive, because with a better post-grad salary differentiation (over the long term), we'll be more likely than others to retain our talent.  Statista reports Stanford average starting salary of $84K and mid-career salary of $161K... that adds up over a 40-year career, vs the 4-year average WNBA career.  It might be a different story for other schools.  Duke is #15 on that salary list, the first major basketball school other than Stanford (which is #2).

The only exception might be if students want to stop out for 4 years of WNBA and then return to school... that might be the case if peak WNBA performance is in the 20-24 age range... but I recall seeing elsewhere that female athletes tend to hit their prime later than men, so it probably doesn't apply.  Others here may know better.

This may not be at the top of student-athletes' initial consideration in picking colleges, but since you mention stopping out and returning to school, Stanford's generous re-enrollment policy is even more reason for competitive players to choose the cardinal. My understanding is that the University is relatively understanding of students who need or elect to take time away and is generally willing to let them come back and finish their degrees. I grew up as a fan of Curtis Borchardt and was pleasantly surprised to find him in one of my undergrad seminars, back from his pro basketball career and working to complete his Stanford education. I'm sure it's tough to be back in a classroom surrounded by 20 year olds, but still, a pretty great option to come back to!

[OutsiderFan]

Is seems evident Stanford will do better in sports where the most elite go pro early and the rest of the pool therefore considers education the key to their future earning more than their sports ability.

Stanford probably does well in tennis because of this.  All the best players go pro early, and though some may end up in college, the vast majority of college players are never sniffing any real pro success.  Probably also has a lot to do with the fact tennis is a global game with many more players to compete against for not a lot of money.

There may be 300 or so college football players annually who start to earn decent money playing football.  There are maybe what, 50 tennis players who come from college into the pros annually and can make any kind of money near what they would make in jobs?

Stanford is always going to have an advantage in a sport like tennis. Because you can't make a lot playing volleyball professionally unless elite of elite (like Kerri Walsh),  Stanford is allays going to have an advantage in volleyball. I'm just not sure it will always exist for WBB, and the new WNBA CBA may foreshadow that future. We'll see.

[OutsiderFan]

Is seems evident Stanford will do better in sports where the most elite go pro early and the rest of the pool therefore considers education the key to their future earning more than their sports ability.

Stanford probably does well in tennis because of this.  All the best players go pro early, and though some may end up in college, the vast majority of college players are never sniffing any real pro success.  Probably also has a lot to do with the fact tennis is a global game with many more players to compete against for not a lot of money.

There may be 300 or so college football players annually who start to earn decent money playing football.  There are maybe what, 50 tennis players who come from college into the pros annually and can make any kind of money near what they would make in jobs?

Stanford is always going to have an advantage in a sport like tennis. Because you can't make a lot playing volleyball professionally unless elite of elite (like Kerri Walsh),  Stanford is allays going to have an advantage in volleyball. I'm just not sure it will always exist for WBB, and the new WNBA CBA may foreshadow that future. We'll see.

[BostonCard]

Is seems evident Stanford will do better in sports where the most elite go pro early and the rest of the pool therefore considers education the key to their future earning more than their sports ability.

Stanford probably does well in tennis because of this.  All the best players go pro early, and though some may end up in college, the vast majority of college players are never sniffing any real pro success.  Probably also has a lot to do with the fact tennis is a global game with many more players to compete against for not a lot of money.

There may be 300 or so college football players annually who start to earn decent money playing football.  There are maybe what, 50 tennis players who come from college into the pros annually and can make any kind of money near what they would make in jobs?

Stanford is always going to have an advantage in a sport like tennis. Because you can't make a lot playing volleyball professionally unless elite of elite (like Kerri Walsh),  Stanford is allays going to have an advantage in volleyball. I'm just not sure it will always exist for WBB, and the new WNBA CBA may foreshadow that future. We'll see.

A football team is also 10-fold larger than a tennis team, so you have to take the denominator into account as well.  A better comparison is basketball, where Stanford has probably been hurt by the one-and-done rule, because those players rarely come to Stanford, but they can have an enormous impact on another team, even if for just one year (for example, Zion Williamson at Duke).

For each sport the calculation is a bit different; for football Stanford used to come out way ahead because we redshirted nearly all our players and they stuck around to their fifth year when their contributions were more significant.  However, a combination of a larger share of players leaving early across multiple teams, Stanford's improved recruiting results compared to a 10-20 years ago, and the graduate transfer route have dramatically altered the calculus.

BC

[BostonCard]

Is seems evident Stanford will do better in sports where the most elite go pro early and the rest of the pool therefore considers education the key to their future earning more than their sports ability.

Stanford probably does well in tennis because of this.  All the best players go pro early, and though some may end up in college, the vast majority of college players are never sniffing any real pro success.  Probably also has a lot to do with the fact tennis is a global game with many more players to compete against for not a lot of money.

There may be 300 or so college football players annually who start to earn decent money playing football.  There are maybe what, 50 tennis players who come from college into the pros annually and can make any kind of money near what they would make in jobs?

Stanford is always going to have an advantage in a sport like tennis. Because you can't make a lot playing volleyball professionally unless elite of elite (like Kerri Walsh),  Stanford is allays going to have an advantage in volleyball. I'm just not sure it will always exist for WBB, and the new WNBA CBA may foreshadow that future. We'll see.

A football team is also 10-fold larger than a tennis team, so you have to take the denominator into account as well.  A better comparison is basketball, where Stanford has probably been hurt by the one-and-done rule, because those players rarely come to Stanford, but they can have an enormous impact on another team, even if for just one year (for example, Zion Williamson at Duke).

For each sport the calculation is a bit different; for football Stanford used to come out way ahead because we redshirted nearly all our players and they stuck around to their fifth year when their contributions were more significant.  However, a combination of a larger share of players leaving early across multiple teams, Stanford's improved recruiting results compared to a 10-20 years ago, and the graduate transfer route have dramatically altered the calculus.

BC