[Farm93]

Name two Farm 93 please


Meehan is the Olympics coach and the Stanford swim coach

I certainly didn't specify the reason for any of Muir's coach departures.  My point was using departures as the AD metric is a bit flawed because sometimes, not yet applicable for Muir, amazingly successful coaches (hires) will leave for far more prestigious opportunities.

Not under Muir, but to highlight examples
Montgomery - NBA
Harbaugh - NFL
Vanderveer - National Team/Olympics

FWIW - I can certainly imagine a scenario where Stanford loses one or both of its current head soccer coaches to the national level for USA soccer or national level teams in other countries.

A similar view can be applied to AD turnover - If an AD needs to leave because of a scandal, NCAA violations, poor budget management or inability to raise funds that would be alarming.   That has not been the case with Stanford's AD departures (thankfully).

Squabbling about coach or AD turnover rate misses the mark IMO.    Stanford's rate is remarkably low by NCAA D1 standards AND many of those that have left moved to objectively better opportunities.

Stanford has one rather unfortunate departure in the last decade...Softball. 
And then has had a tough time finding the right fit for basketball.

In 2020-2021 coach retention is not going to be the area of great concern.   
Health and safety of players and coaches will be top of the list thanks to COVID.
Expense management will be high too thanks to COVID's impact on revenue and expenses.
Fundraising will be challenged thanks to COVID's impact on the USA economy.

Worrying about turnover is a bit like a family worrying about weeds in their garden while a Category 5 hurricane is likely to hit town in a couple of days.  There are much bigger things to do in these days before the storm.   

Here in July 2020 there are much bigger things for every AD to worry about than coach retention, especially if coach retention is better than at peer schools.

[Farm93]

Name two Farm 93 please


Meehan is the Olympics coach and the Stanford swim coach

I certainly didn't specify the reason for any of Muir's coach departures.  My point was using departures as the AD metric is a bit flawed because sometimes, not yet applicable for Muir, amazingly successful coaches (hires) will leave for far more prestigious opportunities.

Not under Muir, but to highlight examples
Montgomery - NBA
Harbaugh - NFL
Vanderveer - National Team/Olympics

FWIW - I can certainly imagine a scenario where Stanford loses one or both of its current head soccer coaches to the national level for USA soccer or national level teams in other countries.

A similar view can be applied to AD turnover - If an AD needs to leave because of a scandal, NCAA violations, poor budget management or inability to raise funds that would be alarming.   That has not been the case with Stanford's AD departures (thankfully).

Squabbling about coach or AD turnover rate misses the mark IMO.    Stanford's rate is remarkably low by NCAA D1 standards AND many of those that have left moved to objectively better opportunities.

Stanford has one rather unfortunate departure in the last decade...Softball. 
And then has had a tough time finding the right fit for basketball.

In 2020-2021 coach retention is not going to be the area of great concern.   
Health and safety of players and coaches will be top of the list thanks to COVID.
Expense management will be high too thanks to COVID's impact on revenue and expenses.
Fundraising will be challenged thanks to COVID's impact on the USA economy.

Worrying about turnover is a bit like a family worrying about weeds in their garden while a Category 5 hurricane is likely to hit town in a couple of days.  There are much bigger things to do in these days before the storm.   

Here in July 2020 there are much bigger things for every AD to worry about than coach retention, especially if coach retention is better than at peer schools.

[BobK]

The original subject was who has Muir hired. I listed all that I could think of Nothing more except several more than you list were asked to leave

[BobK]

The original subject was who has Muir hired. I listed all that I could think of Nothing more except several more than you list were asked to leave

[BostonCard]

I don’t think we were squabbling about turnover.  The question was whether Muir’s hires were good.  In order to determine that, you need to list them and evaluate if they are any good.

Excessive turnover is not good, but I don’t think anyone was saying that we’ve had excessive turnover under Muir.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don’t think we were squabbling about turnover.  The question was whether Muir’s hires were good.  In order to determine that, you need to list them and evaluate if they are any good.

Excessive turnover is not good, but I don’t think anyone was saying that we’ve had excessive turnover under Muir.

BC

[slide]

on sailing, it reminds me that Operation Varstiy Blues issues are also under Muir's watch (or may be largely under his watch).

[slide]

on sailing, it reminds me that Operation Varstiy Blues issues are also under Muir's watch (or may be largely under his watch).

[BobK]

Or take Men’s Rowing where the axe fell very fast

[BobK]

Or take Men’s Rowing where the axe fell very fast

[winflop]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

[winflop]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

[chrisk]

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-...c-director

Ucla has had a new AD for over a month now

Effective July 1

[chrisk]

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-...c-director

Ucla has had a new AD for over a month now

Effective July 1

[StanfordMatt]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

[StanfordMatt]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

[Farm93]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

The donation was provided by a family worth billions.  Given their wealth and a daughter already admitted it likely would have cleared any review.  Remember the family likely thought that was OK and the press at the time showed they felt like victims too.  500k is like a 500 gift for a millionaire.  Mere pocket change.

My guess is Stanford walked away from several million in future donations by forcing her out of school.   

The girl is in was admitted without AD involvement.  So to put any of that on Muir would be a weak sauce.   I would be very upset if the school tried to blame the AD for that one.   Talk to the admissions office and or the development office if seeking accountability on the gift. 

The coach willingness to take the deal or the others that got phishing offers might be on Muir.  The admit and gift were not on him.  IMHO

[Farm93]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

The donation was provided by a family worth billions.  Given their wealth and a daughter already admitted it likely would have cleared any review.  Remember the family likely thought that was OK and the press at the time showed they felt like victims too.  500k is like a 500 gift for a millionaire.  Mere pocket change.

My guess is Stanford walked away from several million in future donations by forcing her out of school.   

The girl is in was admitted without AD involvement.  So to put any of that on Muir would be a weak sauce.   I would be very upset if the school tried to blame the AD for that one.   Talk to the admissions office and or the development office if seeking accountability on the gift. 

The coach willingness to take the deal or the others that got phishing offers might be on Muir.  The admit and gift were not on him.  IMHO

[oldalum]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

[oldalum]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

[StanfordMatt]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

[StanfordMatt]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

[winflop]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

The donation was provided by a family worth billions.  Given their wealth and a daughter already admitted it likely would have cleared any review.  Remember the family likely thought that was OK and the press at the time showed they felt like victims too.  500k is like a 500 gift for a millionaire.  Mere pocket change.

My guess is Stanford walked away from several million in future donations by forcing her out of school.   

The girl is in was admitted without AD involvement.  So to put any of that on Muir would be a weak sauce.   I would be very upset if the school tried to blame the AD for that one.   Talk to the admissions office and or the development office if seeking accountability on the gift. 

The coach willingness to take the deal or the others that got phishing offers might be on Muir.  The admit and gift were not on him.  IMHO

The donation came from a foundation that had never donated to Stanford before. It was highly suspicious and should have been thoroughly vetted

[winflop]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

The donation was provided by a family worth billions.  Given their wealth and a daughter already admitted it likely would have cleared any review.  Remember the family likely thought that was OK and the press at the time showed they felt like victims too.  500k is like a 500 gift for a millionaire.  Mere pocket change.

My guess is Stanford walked away from several million in future donations by forcing her out of school.   

The girl is in was admitted without AD involvement.  So to put any of that on Muir would be a weak sauce.   I would be very upset if the school tried to blame the AD for that one.   Talk to the admissions office and or the development office if seeking accountability on the gift. 

The coach willingness to take the deal or the others that got phishing offers might be on Muir.  The admit and gift were not on him.  IMHO

The donation came from a foundation that had never donated to Stanford before. It was highly suspicious and should have been thoroughly vetted

[pefloresjr]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

The donation was provided by a family worth billions.  Given their wealth and a daughter already admitted it likely would have cleared any review.  Remember the family likely thought that was OK and the press at the time showed they felt like victims too.  500k is like a 500 gift for a millionaire.  Mere pocket change.

My guess is Stanford walked away from several million in future donations by forcing her out of school.   

The girl is in was admitted without AD involvement.  So to put any of that on Muir would be a weak sauce.   I would be very upset if the school tried to blame the AD for that one.   Talk to the admissions office and or the development office if seeking accountability on the gift. 

The coach willingness to take the deal or the others that got phishing offers might be on Muir.  The admit and gift were not on him.  IMHO

The donation came from a foundation that had never donated to Stanford before. It was highly suspicious and should have been thoroughly vetted

Why?  After a daughter is admitted through the regular process, her wealthy family is interested in donating to the university.  There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that.  We could probably find hundreds of such situations if we examined all donations, even though few would be as large.  This idea that it "should" have been examined for criminal behavior makes no sense.  Feels like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking over an area where there was no real reason to look for such activity.  It makes sense now, but when the donation had no bearing on admission, it is not at all obvious to examine it.  And even if it were examined, it would have looked like a family donating to support the school of their family member.  The bribe portion only came out because Singer the dirtbag decided to try to cut his sentence by talking.  Stanford "investigators" would have had no way to pressure Singer to talk in the way the Feds. did.  Muir bears no real responsibility for this.  More robust systems make sense now, but I place no fault on Muir for the scandal.  

Also, if fans complaining about an AD not firing coaches soon enough soon after they take a job was sufficient to get rid of him or be happy that he leaves, no AD would be employed for more than a year at any university.  I am not saying Muir is the greatest, but the criticism of him seems extremely paltry.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

It's not just hires. It's also waiting too long to fire someone.

Jury's still out on how good Haase is. He's proven he can recruit, but it hasn't translated into results on the court. Obviously next season (if there is one) is make or break for him. But you also have to knock down Muir on MBB for keeping Dawkins around. Letting him go should have been one of his first moves. Instead we got a few more years of Johnny ball and empty Maples.

Operation Varsity Blues still hangs over Muir like a dark cloud. When someone donates half a million to the freaking sailing program, especially if they aren't a long-time donor, you have to investigate that. Looks like Muir and his staff just took the money and didn't do any kind of diligence. Will they make that mistake again? Of course not. But they never should have made it in the first place. It was an embarrassment for the University that was avoidable.

The donation was provided by a family worth billions.  Given their wealth and a daughter already admitted it likely would have cleared any review.  Remember the family likely thought that was OK and the press at the time showed they felt like victims too.  500k is like a 500 gift for a millionaire.  Mere pocket change.

My guess is Stanford walked away from several million in future donations by forcing her out of school.   

The girl is in was admitted without AD involvement.  So to put any of that on Muir would be a weak sauce.   I would be very upset if the school tried to blame the AD for that one.   Talk to the admissions office and or the development office if seeking accountability on the gift. 

The coach willingness to take the deal or the others that got phishing offers might be on Muir.  The admit and gift were not on him.  IMHO

The donation came from a foundation that had never donated to Stanford before. It was highly suspicious and should have been thoroughly vetted

Why?  After a daughter is admitted through the regular process, her wealthy family is interested in donating to the university.  There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that.  We could probably find hundreds of such situations if we examined all donations, even though few would be as large.  This idea that it "should" have been examined for criminal behavior makes no sense.  Feels like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking over an area where there was no real reason to look for such activity.  It makes sense now, but when the donation had no bearing on admission, it is not at all obvious to examine it.  And even if it were examined, it would have looked like a family donating to support the school of their family member.  The bribe portion only came out because Singer the dirtbag decided to try to cut his sentence by talking.  Stanford "investigators" would have had no way to pressure Singer to talk in the way the Feds. did.  Muir bears no real responsibility for this.  More robust systems make sense now, but I place no fault on Muir for the scandal.  

Also, if fans complaining about an AD not firing coaches soon enough soon after they take a job was sufficient to get rid of him or be happy that he leaves, no AD would be employed for more than a year at any university.  I am not saying Muir is the greatest, but the criticism of him seems extremely paltry.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[CTcard]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

In cases like this, it is not entirely clear what forward thinking really is. I don't think Stanford prides itself on hopping on whatever bandwagon starts rolling in the media. What I think Stanford prides itself on is having true concern for its student athletes; looking for the broadest benefit for the broadest number of people [note "prides itself on" is not the same as "always manages to keep true to"]. Whether paying more to football players accomplishes that is unclear, especially in articles like the one linked that does not spell out any particular proposal. 

Stanford's unique athletics funding model, relying far more on wealthy donations than normal markets, does tend to protect the non-revenue sports - which is why Stanford has more than most any other place. Whether that well is infinitely deep, able to continue to any level of expenditure, is not clear to me. 

My own suspicion is that Stanford stays in the big time sports game under any provisions that keep the Pac 12 alive and provide uniform payments to players. However, there will be a lot of soul-searching if actual market-based, negotiated salaries for players emerges.

[CTcard]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

In cases like this, it is not entirely clear what forward thinking really is. I don't think Stanford prides itself on hopping on whatever bandwagon starts rolling in the media. What I think Stanford prides itself on is having true concern for its student athletes; looking for the broadest benefit for the broadest number of people [note "prides itself on" is not the same as "always manages to keep true to"]. Whether paying more to football players accomplishes that is unclear, especially in articles like the one linked that does not spell out any particular proposal. 

Stanford's unique athletics funding model, relying far more on wealthy donations than normal markets, does tend to protect the non-revenue sports - which is why Stanford has more than most any other place. Whether that well is infinitely deep, able to continue to any level of expenditure, is not clear to me. 

My own suspicion is that Stanford stays in the big time sports game under any provisions that keep the Pac 12 alive and provide uniform payments to players. However, there will be a lot of soul-searching if actual market-based, negotiated salaries for players emerges.

[Softball Fan]

It's my understanding Stanford did a thorough investigation of the donation after it became known to the administration.   If Muir had any knowledge or should have known about the deceptive reason for the donation, wouldn't he have been fired almost immediately.

[Softball Fan]

It's my understanding Stanford did a thorough investigation of the donation after it became known to the administration.   If Muir had any knowledge or should have known about the deceptive reason for the donation, wouldn't he have been fired almost immediately.

[StanfordMatt]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

In cases like this, it is not entirely clear what forward thinking really is. I don't think Stanford prides itself on hopping on whatever bandwagon starts rolling in the media. What I think Stanford prides itself on is having true concern for its student athletes; looking for the broadest benefit for the broadest number of people [note "prides itself on" is not the same as "always manages to keep true to"]. Whether paying more to football players accomplishes that is unclear, especially in articles like the one linked that does not spell out any particular proposal. 

Stanford's unique athletics funding model, relying far more on wealthy donations than normal markets, does tend to protect the non-revenue sports - which is why Stanford has more than most any other place. Whether that well is infinitely deep, able to continue to any level of expenditure, is not clear to me. 

My own suspicion is that Stanford stays in the big time sports game under any provisions that keep the Pac 12 alive and provide uniform payments to players. However, there will be a lot of soul-searching if actual market-based, negotiated salaries for players emerges.

I respectfully beg to differ that it's not entirely clear what "forward thinking" means in this context. "Forward thinking" means moving away from an archaic fantasy of amateurism in which an arbitrary cap has been placed on student-athletes' ability to profit from the fruits of their labor while universities have exploited this labor in the construction of multi-million dollar facilities complete with barbershops, tatoo parlors and miniature golf courses. At the highest levels of Division I, it's a modern version of indentured servitude. Is this representative of what is going on at Stanford? No, but Stanford is complicit in the system, especially when Muir testifies before congressional committees on behalf of the NCAA and threatens that Stanford will have to move to Division III if players are paid.

Do I or The Daily writer or anyone else for that matter have all the answers to this dilemma? Certainly not. But I know enough to recognize that the system of exploitation must be fundamentally changed and Muir's stance of digging in his heels and dutifully reciting the NCAA's propaganda is not "forward thinking" in any way.

[StanfordMatt]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

In cases like this, it is not entirely clear what forward thinking really is. I don't think Stanford prides itself on hopping on whatever bandwagon starts rolling in the media. What I think Stanford prides itself on is having true concern for its student athletes; looking for the broadest benefit for the broadest number of people [note "prides itself on" is not the same as "always manages to keep true to"]. Whether paying more to football players accomplishes that is unclear, especially in articles like the one linked that does not spell out any particular proposal. 

Stanford's unique athletics funding model, relying far more on wealthy donations than normal markets, does tend to protect the non-revenue sports - which is why Stanford has more than most any other place. Whether that well is infinitely deep, able to continue to any level of expenditure, is not clear to me. 

My own suspicion is that Stanford stays in the big time sports game under any provisions that keep the Pac 12 alive and provide uniform payments to players. However, there will be a lot of soul-searching if actual market-based, negotiated salaries for players emerges.

I respectfully beg to differ that it's not entirely clear what "forward thinking" means in this context. "Forward thinking" means moving away from an archaic fantasy of amateurism in which an arbitrary cap has been placed on student-athletes' ability to profit from the fruits of their labor while universities have exploited this labor in the construction of multi-million dollar facilities complete with barbershops, tatoo parlors and miniature golf courses. At the highest levels of Division I, it's a modern version of indentured servitude. Is this representative of what is going on at Stanford? No, but Stanford is complicit in the system, especially when Muir testifies before congressional committees on behalf of the NCAA and threatens that Stanford will have to move to Division III if players are paid.

Do I or The Daily writer or anyone else for that matter have all the answers to this dilemma? Certainly not. But I know enough to recognize that the system of exploitation must be fundamentally changed and Muir's stance of digging in his heels and dutifully reciting the NCAA's propaganda is not "forward thinking" in any way.

[BostonCard]

An alternative read of “forward thinking” is actually an embrace of true amateurism.  It would mean maximizing athlete well-being and academics rather than money.  So, it might mean fewer games (a return to 11, for example), a move away from playoffs or other hyped games made primarily for a television audience, fewer bowl games, and a “worse” television contract in exchange for games at times more conducive for the players (for example, no Saturday night games in Pullman, no weekday games, etc.). Unfortunately, we are in a weird hybrid system where the money has caused schools to sacrifice the athletes’ academics and well-being in exchange for money that is not making its way to the athletes, and that’s why the system seems unfair.  So, you could consider paying athletes... or you could consider going backwards and moving away from the profesionalizatiom of college athletics.

BC

[BostonCard]

An alternative read of “forward thinking” is actually an embrace of true amateurism.  It would mean maximizing athlete well-being and academics rather than money.  So, it might mean fewer games (a return to 11, for example), a move away from playoffs or other hyped games made primarily for a television audience, fewer bowl games, and a “worse” television contract in exchange for games at times more conducive for the players (for example, no Saturday night games in Pullman, no weekday games, etc.). Unfortunately, we are in a weird hybrid system where the money has caused schools to sacrifice the athletes’ academics and well-being in exchange for money that is not making its way to the athletes, and that’s why the system seems unfair.  So, you could consider paying athletes... or you could consider going backwards and moving away from the profesionalizatiom of college athletics.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

An alternative read of “forward thinking” is actually an embrace of true amateurism.  It would mean maximizing athlete well-being and academics rather than money.  So, it might mean fewer games (a return to 11, for example), a move away from playoffs or other hyped games made primarily for a television audience, fewer bowl games, and a “worse” television contract in exchange for games at times more conducive for the players (for example, no Saturday night games in Pullman, no weekday games, etc.). Unfortunately, we are in a weird hybrid system where the money has caused schools to sacrifice the athletes’ academics and well-being in exchange for money that is not making its way to the athletes, and that’s why the system seems unfair.  So, you could consider paying athletes... or you could consider going backwards and moving away from the profesionalizatiom of college athletics.

BC

BC, your alternative reading sounds a lot like DIII to me, at least for football and basketball.

Are we talking mainly about football and men's basketball in this discussion? Personally, I don't have a problem at all with how the D1 system works for all other sports. I am really only uncomfortable with the arms race/big money/corruption/exploitation in football and men's hoops. I do understand that the revenue they generate allow the other sports to exist. But just by themselves, I don't see undue influence of money on golf, tennis, swimming, wrestling, volleyball, baseball, women's hoops (yet), etc.

[Spiny_Norman]

An alternative read of “forward thinking” is actually an embrace of true amateurism.  It would mean maximizing athlete well-being and academics rather than money.  So, it might mean fewer games (a return to 11, for example), a move away from playoffs or other hyped games made primarily for a television audience, fewer bowl games, and a “worse” television contract in exchange for games at times more conducive for the players (for example, no Saturday night games in Pullman, no weekday games, etc.). Unfortunately, we are in a weird hybrid system where the money has caused schools to sacrifice the athletes’ academics and well-being in exchange for money that is not making its way to the athletes, and that’s why the system seems unfair.  So, you could consider paying athletes... or you could consider going backwards and moving away from the profesionalizatiom of college athletics.

BC

BC, your alternative reading sounds a lot like DIII to me, at least for football and basketball.

Are we talking mainly about football and men's basketball in this discussion? Personally, I don't have a problem at all with how the D1 system works for all other sports. I am really only uncomfortable with the arms race/big money/corruption/exploitation in football and men's hoops. I do understand that the revenue they generate allow the other sports to exist. But just by themselves, I don't see undue influence of money on golf, tennis, swimming, wrestling, volleyball, baseball, women's hoops (yet), etc.

[BostonCard]

I’d be ok with football/basketball 40 years ago.  There were 11 games, no playoffs, a handful of bowl games. Games were generally at noon or 4 pm, almost always on Saturday, and a small proportion of games were televised, so most of the point was watching it in person.  I don’t mind athletic scholarships, which is the difference between that and D3.

And I have no objections not the non-revenue sports.

Also, I know that what I’m proposing is unrealistic.

BC

[BostonCard]

I’d be ok with football/basketball 40 years ago.  There were 11 games, no playoffs, a handful of bowl games. Games were generally at noon or 4 pm, almost always on Saturday, and a small proportion of games were televised, so most of the point was watching it in person.  I don’t mind athletic scholarships, which is the difference between that and D3.

And I have no objections not the non-revenue sports.

Also, I know that what I’m proposing is unrealistic.

BC

[teejers1]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].

[teejers1]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].