[JJJ]

When does the portal season end?

It's easy enough to look up. In the 2022-23 school year, the men’s and women’s basketball portals are open March 13-May 11. This is a 60-day window beginning the day after championships selections are made.

One exception - I believe that grad transfers can declare their intent and initiate a transfer at any time.

You also asked 1) How exactly does Stanford's academic mission conflict with WBB's use of the portal? and 2) Is there an inherent conflict between Stanford WBB striving to become/remain a championship caliber team and Stanford's academic mission?

While you or I or other Stanford sports fans may see no inherent conflict, the powers that be (specifically the president and the provost) may not. Athletics is not central to the academic mission in their world. The president is a world-renowned neuroscientist who comes mainly from the world of academia (though he did spend 8 years at Genentech leading their research). His most recent position before Stanford was president of Rockefeller University in New York, a school with only graduate programs and no sports teams. There is nothing in his background to indicate that he has any interest in sports. The Athletics Department falls under the Provost. She has something like 31 different schools, departments and missions that report to her. Athletics is one of the 31. She has seemed at best indifferent to Athletics.

Personally I don't think that most Stanford's leaders (including the Faculty Senate which is a very influential body) are hostile to Athletics per se. Intercollegiate athletics has been recognized as complementary to the academic mission of the University almost since the beginning. I think most University leaders enjoyed the favorable coverage of Stanford's football success from 2010-2015 for example. But I do think there is pushback to the increasing professionalization and monetization of the athletes (edit to add that 81's post above is a much more articulate description of this pushback). It will get worse as the courts give athletes employee status and bargaining rights.

Stanford's athletic director is not a strong or forceful voice. So fans should recognize that there may not be a leader on campus to advocate for and help push through the changes needed in Admissions and related areas to be competitive in an unlimited-transfer and NIL world.

On the other hand, changes might be happening just unknown to the general public. Change at Stanford happens verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly, often after months and months of study, discussion and decision-making. It's a very bureaucratic organization.

Edit - I'll also add that fans should not think that changing University practices to adapt to a new world of college athletics is a clear or simple decision for the University even if it seems clear to them. I hope that 81's post and input from others helps fans understand the difficult decision that Stanford is confronting. None of us can predict what they might do. It might be anywhere along the spectrum of "change to match the practices of other schools" to "do nothing" to "withdraw completely from the world of D1 athletics and scholarship athletes."

Thank you for taking the time to write this. (Missing Etch.)

[JJJ]

When does the portal season end?

It's easy enough to look up. In the 2022-23 school year, the men’s and women’s basketball portals are open March 13-May 11. This is a 60-day window beginning the day after championships selections are made.

One exception - I believe that grad transfers can declare their intent and initiate a transfer at any time.

You also asked 1) How exactly does Stanford's academic mission conflict with WBB's use of the portal? and 2) Is there an inherent conflict between Stanford WBB striving to become/remain a championship caliber team and Stanford's academic mission?

While you or I or other Stanford sports fans may see no inherent conflict, the powers that be (specifically the president and the provost) may not. Athletics is not central to the academic mission in their world. The president is a world-renowned neuroscientist who comes mainly from the world of academia (though he did spend 8 years at Genentech leading their research). His most recent position before Stanford was president of Rockefeller University in New York, a school with only graduate programs and no sports teams. There is nothing in his background to indicate that he has any interest in sports. The Athletics Department falls under the Provost. She has something like 31 different schools, departments and missions that report to her. Athletics is one of the 31. She has seemed at best indifferent to Athletics.

Personally I don't think that most Stanford's leaders (including the Faculty Senate which is a very influential body) are hostile to Athletics per se. Intercollegiate athletics has been recognized as complementary to the academic mission of the University almost since the beginning. I think most University leaders enjoyed the favorable coverage of Stanford's football success from 2010-2015 for example. But I do think there is pushback to the increasing professionalization and monetization of the athletes (edit to add that 81's post above is a much more articulate description of this pushback). It will get worse as the courts give athletes employee status and bargaining rights.

Stanford's athletic director is not a strong or forceful voice. So fans should recognize that there may not be a leader on campus to advocate for and help push through the changes needed in Admissions and related areas to be competitive in an unlimited-transfer and NIL world.

On the other hand, changes might be happening just unknown to the general public. Change at Stanford happens verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly, often after months and months of study, discussion and decision-making. It's a very bureaucratic organization.

Edit - I'll also add that fans should not think that changing University practices to adapt to a new world of college athletics is a clear or simple decision for the University even if it seems clear to them. I hope that 81's post and input from others helps fans understand the difficult decision that Stanford is confronting. None of us can predict what they might do. It might be anywhere along the spectrum of "change to match the practices of other schools" to "do nothing" to "withdraw completely from the world of D1 athletics and scholarship athletes."

Thank you for taking the time to write this. (Missing Etch.)

[BillBradley]

Excellent post 81alum.  I'm in agreement.  Leland and Jane Stanford gave a number of speeches about their vision for the university.  They emphasized the importance of undergraduates spending all four years at Stanford to maximize the Stanford experience and education.  That policy seems to still hold true.

I just read an article that the cost of a four year Stanford undergrad education for 21/22 was $315,000.  For five years it approaches $400k.  That includes tuition, campus housing, food, books, and incidentals.  Do student athletes appreciate the value of a full Stanford athletic scholarship?  My guess is most do.  For athletes (other than football and maybe MBB) many NIL deals are trivial compared to the worth of the scholarship.

Yeah, but I don't think that's the way we should be looking at it. Those aren't dollars in anyone's pocket. Fully loaded tuition, room/board, books, etc at many other schools are pretty near the same price. So if you're just comparing the sticker price of the scholarship at one school to another, then, the UCLA player (for instance) also has the same value scholarship PLUS the NIL $ on top of it. 

IMO it should come down to the value of the education/degree, so I always scratch my head when anyone transfers from Stanford for athletic reasons. 

Maybe the equation looks something like this for star athletes (using completely hypothetical figures):
1) Stanford degree lifetime value: $1M
2) UCLA degree lifetime value: $700K plus 4 years UCLA NIL of $100,000 = $1.1M (plus any ongoing post grad NIL through help of UCLA = $<ask Kiki Rice in 10 years>)

Plug in your own numbers. Just trying to show how a star athlete might look at things these days. Start plugging in football NIL dollars and you can see why signing big time prospects is going to get harder and harder.

---

Follow on question for '81 et al regarding transfers:

Stanford loses 3 undergraduate students to the portal. If Tara wants to bring in 3 transfers to replace them, are they competing in any way in the admission process with other transfer applicants into the university? Or are the WBB slots "held in reserve exclusively for WBB applicants" and admissions is just evaluating the incoming transfers independently to determine if they are/are not of Stanford academic quality?

[BillBradley]

Excellent post 81alum.  I'm in agreement.  Leland and Jane Stanford gave a number of speeches about their vision for the university.  They emphasized the importance of undergraduates spending all four years at Stanford to maximize the Stanford experience and education.  That policy seems to still hold true.

I just read an article that the cost of a four year Stanford undergrad education for 21/22 was $315,000.  For five years it approaches $400k.  That includes tuition, campus housing, food, books, and incidentals.  Do student athletes appreciate the value of a full Stanford athletic scholarship?  My guess is most do.  For athletes (other than football and maybe MBB) many NIL deals are trivial compared to the worth of the scholarship.

Yeah, but I don't think that's the way we should be looking at it. Those aren't dollars in anyone's pocket. Fully loaded tuition, room/board, books, etc at many other schools are pretty near the same price. So if you're just comparing the sticker price of the scholarship at one school to another, then, the UCLA player (for instance) also has the same value scholarship PLUS the NIL $ on top of it. 

IMO it should come down to the value of the education/degree, so I always scratch my head when anyone transfers from Stanford for athletic reasons. 

Maybe the equation looks something like this for star athletes (using completely hypothetical figures):
1) Stanford degree lifetime value: $1M
2) UCLA degree lifetime value: $700K plus 4 years UCLA NIL of $100,000 = $1.1M (plus any ongoing post grad NIL through help of UCLA = $<ask Kiki Rice in 10 years>)

Plug in your own numbers. Just trying to show how a star athlete might look at things these days. Start plugging in football NIL dollars and you can see why signing big time prospects is going to get harder and harder.

---

Follow on question for '81 et al regarding transfers:

Stanford loses 3 undergraduate students to the portal. If Tara wants to bring in 3 transfers to replace them, are they competing in any way in the admission process with other transfer applicants into the university? Or are the WBB slots "held in reserve exclusively for WBB applicants" and admissions is just evaluating the incoming transfers independently to determine if they are/are not of Stanford academic quality?

[WBB fan]

I am curious to know 1) How exactly does Stanford's academic mission conflict with WBB's use of the portal? and 2) Is there an inherent conflict between Stanford WBB striving to become/remain a championship caliber team and Stanford's academic mission? 

That was a thoughtful post!  I've been debating putting myself on a Cardboard time out for a few months given how discouraged I am about the current situation, but you deserve an answer as best I can give one.

There is no mystery, really.  Stanford believes strongly in a four year experience for ALL its undergraduates.  Nearly all the elite universities do--this distinguishes the Ivies, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, MIT and the like from the top land grant universities like Cal, Michigan, etc.  The elites believe (rightly or wrongly) that they should have four years to educated a student, and when that student graduates, then that student will reflect four years of influence.  They also believe (correctly, and selfishly) that students who spend four years at a university will feel a stronger bond to their alma mater and contribute more in the long run.

As a result of the four year model, all the elites tend to operate on a "replacement rate" transfer concept.  Only as many transfers are admitted as are necessary to replace those undergraduates who depart.  And very, very few Stanford undergraduates depart without a degree.  That means that there are very, very few slots available for transfer students.  The elites take enormous bragging rites in graduation percentages and thus every transfer out is a disaster from their point-of-view.  They compete with each other for the highest 4 year graduation rates, and are routinely 30 points higher than state universities.

Stanford's retention rate is so high that they only have room for 20-30 transfers in for the entire university every year.  When 3 students from WBB transfer out, it is a debacle from the enrollment management perspective, since one small sports team just created 10% of the negative statistics for the university.

None of these factors are problems for big state universities, or privates (like USC) that do not claim to have elite academic standards.  Those universities were founded on the philosophy that a high percentage of their students would be transfers.  In some states 50% of the students at such universities are CC transfers.  There have been some states that have even tried for 100%--segregating freshman/sophomore years to the community colleges and reserving junior/senior years for the big universities.  That has not worked out well for a variety of reasons, but when that was attempted the sports teams were among the few parts of such universities that actually maintained the four year experience.  They wanted their student-athletes for four years of development and training, even if the rest of the campus was primarily a 2 year campus.

Now, enter the new reality of unlimited transfers for athletes.  Which kind of university is going to be most impacted?  Those non-elites that have always had large volumes of transfer students, or the elites that have attempted to have as few as possible?  Obviously the elites will suffer while the non-elites can just take it in stride.

To complicate things further, most of the elites gave up on Div I athletics (Chicago, MIT, Caltech) or gave up on athletic scholarships (the Ivies) long ago.  There was really only one university in the world that was trying to compete at the highest level of Div I while maintaining its status as an elite university:  Stanford.  Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, Rice, etc would all have liked to be like Stanford--but none of them were ever really academic elite institutions like Stanford and the Ivies.

And so the changes in transfer rules (and NIL I would argue on a whole different front) were uniquely bad for one university in the nation: Stanford.  If someone wanted to design rules changes that would hurt Stanford and not hurt our competitors, this is what they might come up with.

Now, fans of Stanford sports will ask a number of plausible questions.  For example: why can't Stanford just expand the number of transfer students it admits--at least for the purposes of sports?  To this there are a few answers:

1) In order to maintain its elite academic status, Stanford wants to limit the size of its undergraduate student body.  This improves the student/faculty ratio, promotes a sense of undergraduate community, and helps Stanford maintain its prestige as the most selective university in the world.  Adding more students through transfer--who may have lower GPAs, test scores, or other stats associated with them--does not serve the academic reputation of the university well.

2) Stanford is unique among the elites in how willing it has been to support athletics.  Many of you can't see this, because you have a tendency to compare Stanford to its competitors in athletics and not to its peers academically.  The concept that a university would "privilege" a student-athlete above other students is anathema to Stanford and all the elites--they are equal to other students--at best.  If Stanford were going to start allowing large number of athletes to transfer in, then I think faculty and administration would insist on similar priorities for other kinds of students who are not athletes.  There are all kinds of students who get off to a slow start in high school but are outstanding during their first 2 years in college who might be candidates for transfer.  So why should Stanford say all 25 or so of its transfer slots should go to athletes alone?  Believe me, there would be plenty of others who would be extremely competitive--but once you go down that path you lose control of the smaller study body with a four year memory you are attempting to create. 

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

Neither of these two things are serious problems at most of our competitors.  Hence, I think the rules changes we have seen in the last couple of years are uniquely bad for Stanford alone, and will inevitably lead to our further decline in the money sports and possibly other sports too.  I hope to be wrong.  But hence my depression, sadness, and even some short-tempered posts.

Thanks so much for really good analysis and explanation.  (And to me, an explanation of why an academically serious but also athletically serious high schooler should really want to come to Stanford, and stay there for 4 years)

[WBB fan]

I am curious to know 1) How exactly does Stanford's academic mission conflict with WBB's use of the portal? and 2) Is there an inherent conflict between Stanford WBB striving to become/remain a championship caliber team and Stanford's academic mission? 

That was a thoughtful post!  I've been debating putting myself on a Cardboard time out for a few months given how discouraged I am about the current situation, but you deserve an answer as best I can give one.

There is no mystery, really.  Stanford believes strongly in a four year experience for ALL its undergraduates.  Nearly all the elite universities do--this distinguishes the Ivies, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, MIT and the like from the top land grant universities like Cal, Michigan, etc.  The elites believe (rightly or wrongly) that they should have four years to educated a student, and when that student graduates, then that student will reflect four years of influence.  They also believe (correctly, and selfishly) that students who spend four years at a university will feel a stronger bond to their alma mater and contribute more in the long run.

As a result of the four year model, all the elites tend to operate on a "replacement rate" transfer concept.  Only as many transfers are admitted as are necessary to replace those undergraduates who depart.  And very, very few Stanford undergraduates depart without a degree.  That means that there are very, very few slots available for transfer students.  The elites take enormous bragging rites in graduation percentages and thus every transfer out is a disaster from their point-of-view.  They compete with each other for the highest 4 year graduation rates, and are routinely 30 points higher than state universities.

Stanford's retention rate is so high that they only have room for 20-30 transfers in for the entire university every year.  When 3 students from WBB transfer out, it is a debacle from the enrollment management perspective, since one small sports team just created 10% of the negative statistics for the university.

None of these factors are problems for big state universities, or privates (like USC) that do not claim to have elite academic standards.  Those universities were founded on the philosophy that a high percentage of their students would be transfers.  In some states 50% of the students at such universities are CC transfers.  There have been some states that have even tried for 100%--segregating freshman/sophomore years to the community colleges and reserving junior/senior years for the big universities.  That has not worked out well for a variety of reasons, but when that was attempted the sports teams were among the few parts of such universities that actually maintained the four year experience.  They wanted their student-athletes for four years of development and training, even if the rest of the campus was primarily a 2 year campus.

Now, enter the new reality of unlimited transfers for athletes.  Which kind of university is going to be most impacted?  Those non-elites that have always had large volumes of transfer students, or the elites that have attempted to have as few as possible?  Obviously the elites will suffer while the non-elites can just take it in stride.

To complicate things further, most of the elites gave up on Div I athletics (Chicago, MIT, Caltech) or gave up on athletic scholarships (the Ivies) long ago.  There was really only one university in the world that was trying to compete at the highest level of Div I while maintaining its status as an elite university:  Stanford.  Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, Rice, etc would all have liked to be like Stanford--but none of them were ever really academic elite institutions like Stanford and the Ivies.

And so the changes in transfer rules (and NIL I would argue on a whole different front) were uniquely bad for one university in the nation: Stanford.  If someone wanted to design rules changes that would hurt Stanford and not hurt our competitors, this is what they might come up with.

Now, fans of Stanford sports will ask a number of plausible questions.  For example: why can't Stanford just expand the number of transfer students it admits--at least for the purposes of sports?  To this there are a few answers:

1) In order to maintain its elite academic status, Stanford wants to limit the size of its undergraduate student body.  This improves the student/faculty ratio, promotes a sense of undergraduate community, and helps Stanford maintain its prestige as the most selective university in the world.  Adding more students through transfer--who may have lower GPAs, test scores, or other stats associated with them--does not serve the academic reputation of the university well.

2) Stanford is unique among the elites in how willing it has been to support athletics.  Many of you can't see this, because you have a tendency to compare Stanford to its competitors in athletics and not to its peers academically.  The concept that a university would "privilege" a student-athlete above other students is anathema to Stanford and all the elites--they are equal to other students--at best.  If Stanford were going to start allowing large number of athletes to transfer in, then I think faculty and administration would insist on similar priorities for other kinds of students who are not athletes.  There are all kinds of students who get off to a slow start in high school but are outstanding during their first 2 years in college who might be candidates for transfer.  So why should Stanford say all 25 or so of its transfer slots should go to athletes alone?  Believe me, there would be plenty of others who would be extremely competitive--but once you go down that path you lose control of the smaller study body with a four year memory you are attempting to create. 

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

Neither of these two things are serious problems at most of our competitors.  Hence, I think the rules changes we have seen in the last couple of years are uniquely bad for Stanford alone, and will inevitably lead to our further decline in the money sports and possibly other sports too.  I hope to be wrong.  But hence my depression, sadness, and even some short-tempered posts.

Thanks so much for really good analysis and explanation.  (And to me, an explanation of why an academically serious but also athletically serious high schooler should really want to come to Stanford, and stay there for 4 years)

[81alum]

Stanford loses 3 undergraduate students to the portal. If Tara wants to bring in 3 transfers to replace them, are they competing in any way in the admission process with other transfer applicants into the university? Or are the WBB slots "held in reserve exclusively for WBB applicants" and admissions is just evaluating the incoming transfers independently to determine if they are/are not of Stanford academic quality?

I don't know the answer to this, BB.  I suggested about a month ago that athletics teams should be allowed to replace any transfers out with academically qualified transfers in, rather than pooling their slots with the rest of the university.  In a year in which WBB has 0 transfers out, there would be no transfers in (except possibly grad transfers.)  In a year like this, there could be three transfers in--but of course they would have to meet admissions criteria as stringent as the outgoing students met.  My suggestion won't be popular, though, because at this rate the athletics teams at Stanford could easily double the transfer-out rate of the rest of the university, putting a serious dent in one of the stats that elite universities prize.  Princeton and Harvard are not too worried about their student-athletes transferring out, and this is going to give them a serious edge in the competition for lowest transfer rates.

But even if my proposal were accepted, it raises another problem.  To get outstanding student-athletes to have the credentials to get through admissions, the coaches and counselors at Stanford often have to cultivate them for years.  Many prospects are contacted very early in high school and they are told how high they have to keep their grades, how many AP courses they need to take, how often they need to take the tests, etc.  None of that is possible with transfer students.  When a student decides to transfer during the portal they get a decision within weeks.  It is not as if our coaches can contact students in the portal and say "you need to take courses X, Y, and Z and add an extracurricular A, B, or C so that our admissions office will approve you for Stanford." 

Yet another serious problem that the new transfer flexibility posed for Stanford vis a vis our competitors.

[81alum]

Stanford loses 3 undergraduate students to the portal. If Tara wants to bring in 3 transfers to replace them, are they competing in any way in the admission process with other transfer applicants into the university? Or are the WBB slots "held in reserve exclusively for WBB applicants" and admissions is just evaluating the incoming transfers independently to determine if they are/are not of Stanford academic quality?

I don't know the answer to this, BB.  I suggested about a month ago that athletics teams should be allowed to replace any transfers out with academically qualified transfers in, rather than pooling their slots with the rest of the university.  In a year in which WBB has 0 transfers out, there would be no transfers in (except possibly grad transfers.)  In a year like this, there could be three transfers in--but of course they would have to meet admissions criteria as stringent as the outgoing students met.  My suggestion won't be popular, though, because at this rate the athletics teams at Stanford could easily double the transfer-out rate of the rest of the university, putting a serious dent in one of the stats that elite universities prize.  Princeton and Harvard are not too worried about their student-athletes transferring out, and this is going to give them a serious edge in the competition for lowest transfer rates.

But even if my proposal were accepted, it raises another problem.  To get outstanding student-athletes to have the credentials to get through admissions, the coaches and counselors at Stanford often have to cultivate them for years.  Many prospects are contacted very early in high school and they are told how high they have to keep their grades, how many AP courses they need to take, how often they need to take the tests, etc.  None of that is possible with transfer students.  When a student decides to transfer during the portal they get a decision within weeks.  It is not as if our coaches can contact students in the portal and say "you need to take courses X, Y, and Z and add an extracurricular A, B, or C so that our admissions office will approve you for Stanford." 

Yet another serious problem that the new transfer flexibility posed for Stanford vis a vis our competitors.

[stopandpop]

I am curious to know 1) How exactly does Stanford's academic mission conflict with WBB's use of the portal? and 2) Is there an inherent conflict between Stanford WBB striving to become/remain a championship caliber team and Stanford's academic mission? 

That was a thoughtful post!  I've been debating putting myself on a Cardboard time out for a few months given how discouraged I am about the current situation, but you deserve an answer as best I can give one.

There is no mystery, really.  Stanford believes strongly in a four year experience for ALL its undergraduates.  Nearly all the elite universities do--this distinguishes the Ivies, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, MIT and the like from the top land grant universities like Cal, Michigan, etc.  The elites believe (rightly or wrongly) that they should have four years to educated a student, and when that student graduates, then that student will reflect four years of influence.  They also believe (correctly, and selfishly) that students who spend four years at a university will feel a stronger bond to their alma mater and contribute more in the long run.

As a result of the four year model, all the elites tend to operate on a "replacement rate" transfer concept.  Only as many transfers are admitted as are necessary to replace those undergraduates who depart.  And very, very few Stanford undergraduates depart without a degree.  That means that there are very, very few slots available for transfer students.  The elites take enormous bragging rites in graduation percentages and thus every transfer out is a disaster from their point-of-view.  They compete with each other for the highest 4 year graduation rates, and are routinely 30 points higher than state universities.

Stanford's retention rate is so high that they only have room for 20-30 transfers in for the entire university every year.  When 3 students from WBB transfer out, it is a debacle from the enrollment management perspective, since one small sports team just created 10% of the negative statistics for the university.

None of these factors are problems for big state universities, or privates (like USC) that do not claim to have elite academic standards.  Those universities were founded on the philosophy that a high percentage of their students would be transfers.  In some states 50% of the students at such universities are CC transfers.  There have been some states that have even tried for 100%--segregating freshman/sophomore years to the community colleges and reserving junior/senior years for the big universities.  That has not worked out well for a variety of reasons, but when that was attempted the sports teams were among the few parts of such universities that actually maintained the four year experience.  They wanted their student-athletes for four years of development and training, even if the rest of the campus was primarily a 2 year campus.

Now, enter the new reality of unlimited transfers for athletes.  Which kind of university is going to be most impacted?  Those non-elites that have always had large volumes of transfer students, or the elites that have attempted to have as few as possible?  Obviously the elites will suffer while the non-elites can just take it in stride.

To complicate things further, most of the elites gave up on Div I athletics (Chicago, MIT, Caltech) or gave up on athletic scholarships (the Ivies) long ago.  There was really only one university in the world that was trying to compete at the highest level of Div I while maintaining its status as an elite university:  Stanford.  Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, Rice, etc would all have liked to be like Stanford--but none of them were ever really academic elite institutions like Stanford and the Ivies.

And so the changes in transfer rules (and NIL I would argue on a whole different front) were uniquely bad for one university in the nation: Stanford.  If someone wanted to design rules changes that would hurt Stanford and not hurt our competitors, this is what they might come up with.

Now, fans of Stanford sports will ask a number of plausible questions.  For example: why can't Stanford just expand the number of transfer students it admits--at least for the purposes of sports?  To this there are a few answers:

1) In order to maintain its elite academic status, Stanford wants to limit the size of its undergraduate student body.  This improves the student/faculty ratio, promotes a sense of undergraduate community, and helps Stanford maintain its prestige as the most selective university in the world.  Adding more students through transfer--who may have lower GPAs, test scores, or other stats associated with them--does not serve the academic reputation of the university well.

2) Stanford is unique among the elites in how willing it has been to support athletics.  Many of you can't see this, because you have a tendency to compare Stanford to its competitors in athletics and not to its peers academically.  The concept that a university would "privilege" a student-athlete above other students is anathema to Stanford and all the elites--they are equal to other students--at best.  If Stanford were going to start allowing large number of athletes to transfer in, then I think faculty and administration would insist on similar priorities for other kinds of students who are not athletes.  There are all kinds of students who get off to a slow start in high school but are outstanding during their first 2 years in college who might be candidates for transfer.  So why should Stanford say all 25 or so of its transfer slots should go to athletes alone?  Believe me, there would be plenty of others who would be extremely competitive--but once you go down that path you lose control of the smaller study body with a four year memory you are attempting to create. 

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

Neither of these two things are serious problems at most of our competitors.  Hence, I think the rules changes we have seen in the last couple of years are uniquely bad for Stanford alone, and will inevitably lead to our further decline in the money sports and possibly other sports too.  I hope to be wrong.  But hence my depression, sadness, and even some short-tempered posts.

As many others have said, a great post. Thank you!  As a relative outsider to Stanford women's basketball, I already had an extremely high regard for Tara, but now I see her greatness in building such a highly competitive (and championship) program in spite of Stanford's academic culture.  BRAVO!

[stopandpop]

I am curious to know 1) How exactly does Stanford's academic mission conflict with WBB's use of the portal? and 2) Is there an inherent conflict between Stanford WBB striving to become/remain a championship caliber team and Stanford's academic mission? 

That was a thoughtful post!  I've been debating putting myself on a Cardboard time out for a few months given how discouraged I am about the current situation, but you deserve an answer as best I can give one.

There is no mystery, really.  Stanford believes strongly in a four year experience for ALL its undergraduates.  Nearly all the elite universities do--this distinguishes the Ivies, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, MIT and the like from the top land grant universities like Cal, Michigan, etc.  The elites believe (rightly or wrongly) that they should have four years to educated a student, and when that student graduates, then that student will reflect four years of influence.  They also believe (correctly, and selfishly) that students who spend four years at a university will feel a stronger bond to their alma mater and contribute more in the long run.

As a result of the four year model, all the elites tend to operate on a "replacement rate" transfer concept.  Only as many transfers are admitted as are necessary to replace those undergraduates who depart.  And very, very few Stanford undergraduates depart without a degree.  That means that there are very, very few slots available for transfer students.  The elites take enormous bragging rites in graduation percentages and thus every transfer out is a disaster from their point-of-view.  They compete with each other for the highest 4 year graduation rates, and are routinely 30 points higher than state universities.

Stanford's retention rate is so high that they only have room for 20-30 transfers in for the entire university every year.  When 3 students from WBB transfer out, it is a debacle from the enrollment management perspective, since one small sports team just created 10% of the negative statistics for the university.

None of these factors are problems for big state universities, or privates (like USC) that do not claim to have elite academic standards.  Those universities were founded on the philosophy that a high percentage of their students would be transfers.  In some states 50% of the students at such universities are CC transfers.  There have been some states that have even tried for 100%--segregating freshman/sophomore years to the community colleges and reserving junior/senior years for the big universities.  That has not worked out well for a variety of reasons, but when that was attempted the sports teams were among the few parts of such universities that actually maintained the four year experience.  They wanted their student-athletes for four years of development and training, even if the rest of the campus was primarily a 2 year campus.

Now, enter the new reality of unlimited transfers for athletes.  Which kind of university is going to be most impacted?  Those non-elites that have always had large volumes of transfer students, or the elites that have attempted to have as few as possible?  Obviously the elites will suffer while the non-elites can just take it in stride.

To complicate things further, most of the elites gave up on Div I athletics (Chicago, MIT, Caltech) or gave up on athletic scholarships (the Ivies) long ago.  There was really only one university in the world that was trying to compete at the highest level of Div I while maintaining its status as an elite university:  Stanford.  Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, Rice, etc would all have liked to be like Stanford--but none of them were ever really academic elite institutions like Stanford and the Ivies.

And so the changes in transfer rules (and NIL I would argue on a whole different front) were uniquely bad for one university in the nation: Stanford.  If someone wanted to design rules changes that would hurt Stanford and not hurt our competitors, this is what they might come up with.

Now, fans of Stanford sports will ask a number of plausible questions.  For example: why can't Stanford just expand the number of transfer students it admits--at least for the purposes of sports?  To this there are a few answers:

1) In order to maintain its elite academic status, Stanford wants to limit the size of its undergraduate student body.  This improves the student/faculty ratio, promotes a sense of undergraduate community, and helps Stanford maintain its prestige as the most selective university in the world.  Adding more students through transfer--who may have lower GPAs, test scores, or other stats associated with them--does not serve the academic reputation of the university well.

2) Stanford is unique among the elites in how willing it has been to support athletics.  Many of you can't see this, because you have a tendency to compare Stanford to its competitors in athletics and not to its peers academically.  The concept that a university would "privilege" a student-athlete above other students is anathema to Stanford and all the elites--they are equal to other students--at best.  If Stanford were going to start allowing large number of athletes to transfer in, then I think faculty and administration would insist on similar priorities for other kinds of students who are not athletes.  There are all kinds of students who get off to a slow start in high school but are outstanding during their first 2 years in college who might be candidates for transfer.  So why should Stanford say all 25 or so of its transfer slots should go to athletes alone?  Believe me, there would be plenty of others who would be extremely competitive--but once you go down that path you lose control of the smaller study body with a four year memory you are attempting to create. 

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

Neither of these two things are serious problems at most of our competitors.  Hence, I think the rules changes we have seen in the last couple of years are uniquely bad for Stanford alone, and will inevitably lead to our further decline in the money sports and possibly other sports too.  I hope to be wrong.  But hence my depression, sadness, and even some short-tempered posts.

As many others have said, a great post. Thank you!  As a relative outsider to Stanford women's basketball, I already had an extremely high regard for Tara, but now I see her greatness in building such a highly competitive (and championship) program in spite of Stanford's academic culture.  BRAVO!

[Softball Fan]

Quote: "I suggested about a month ago that athletics teams should be allowed to replace any transfers out with academically qualified transfers in, rather than pooling their slots with the rest of the university."

I don't know if this would be a disincentive for coaches to do everything they can to hold on to all undergraduate student athletes.  If it's a disincentive, I'm pretty sure Admissions would be strongly against it.  They and the administration want to keep the graduation rate for undergraduates as high as possible.  Stanford and Ivy League schools are into things like that.

The current Director of Admissions has no sports-related positions in his work history.  I don't know where sports are in his priorities although policy is probably set by the President, the Deans of Stanford schools, and other high ranking officials.

[Softball Fan]

Quote: "I suggested about a month ago that athletics teams should be allowed to replace any transfers out with academically qualified transfers in, rather than pooling their slots with the rest of the university."

I don't know if this would be a disincentive for coaches to do everything they can to hold on to all undergraduate student athletes.  If it's a disincentive, I'm pretty sure Admissions would be strongly against it.  They and the administration want to keep the graduation rate for undergraduates as high as possible.  Stanford and Ivy League schools are into things like that.

The current Director of Admissions has no sports-related positions in his work history.  I don't know where sports are in his priorities although policy is probably set by the President, the Deans of Stanford schools, and other high ranking officials.

[stopandpop]

One of the Ivy League grad transfers, McKenzie Forbes (Harvard), who was mentioned as a potential fit for Stanford has transferred to USC.

Raoul on Twitter: "Harvard WBB grad transfer McKenzie Forbes (6-0 SR wing, Folsom, CA) has announced her commitment to Southern Cal" / Twitter

No word yet on Kayla Padilla.

[stopandpop]

One of the Ivy League grad transfers, McKenzie Forbes (Harvard), who was mentioned as a potential fit for Stanford has transferred to USC.

Raoul on Twitter: "Harvard WBB grad transfer McKenzie Forbes (6-0 SR wing, Folsom, CA) has announced her commitment to Southern Cal" / Twitter

No word yet on Kayla Padilla.

[joemontes]

One of the Ivy League grad transfers, McKenzie Forbes (Harvard), who was mentioned as a potential fit for Stanford has transferred to USC.

Raoul on Twitter: "Harvard WBB grad transfer McKenzie Forbes (6-0 SR wing, Folsom, CA) has announced her commitment to Southern Cal" / Twitter

No word yet on Kayla Padilla.

6'0 McKenzie FORBES, #35 overall from the Class of 2018 and 2018 McDAA participant and 3-point shooting champion, is a great get for USC.  She only played for 3 seasons (2018-19 for Cal and 2021-2022/2022-2023 for Harvard), so I believe she has 2 more years of eligibility left.

And, yes, USC is a revolving door for grad transfers, and they just had two very good ones last season in SOSSOKO and ADIKA, who were both drafted in the 2023 WNBA.

[joemontes]

One of the Ivy League grad transfers, McKenzie Forbes (Harvard), who was mentioned as a potential fit for Stanford has transferred to USC.

Raoul on Twitter: "Harvard WBB grad transfer McKenzie Forbes (6-0 SR wing, Folsom, CA) has announced her commitment to Southern Cal" / Twitter

No word yet on Kayla Padilla.

6'0 McKenzie FORBES, #35 overall from the Class of 2018 and 2018 McDAA participant and 3-point shooting champion, is a great get for USC.  She only played for 3 seasons (2018-19 for Cal and 2021-2022/2022-2023 for Harvard), so I believe she has 2 more years of eligibility left.

And, yes, USC is a revolving door for grad transfers, and they just had two very good ones last season in SOSSOKO and ADIKA, who were both drafted in the 2023 WNBA.

[BobK]

MBB has two undergrad transfers out 2 grad transfers out , although one was a walk-on most of his career

They have added a grad transfer. Of all the MBB undergrad players in the portal they found one who was good enough academically. One. Thank about that

[BobK]

MBB has two undergrad transfers out 2 grad transfers out , although one was a walk-on most of his career

They have added a grad transfer. Of all the MBB undergrad players in the portal they found one who was good enough academically. One. Thank about that

[jonnyss]

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

it's been a while since i studied algebra, but assuming i remember correctly, if (as suggested above) we make it easier to replace the number of athletes transferring out with an equal number of athletes transferring in, the total number of athletes does not "expand"; it remains constant - at or below the number of athletic scholarships. the size of the student body also remains constant. and the % of athletes in the student body does not increase; it, too, remains constant. or am i misunderstanding?

[jonnyss]

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

it's been a while since i studied algebra, but assuming i remember correctly, if (as suggested above) we make it easier to replace the number of athletes transferring out with an equal number of athletes transferring in, the total number of athletes does not "expand"; it remains constant - at or below the number of athletic scholarships. the size of the student body also remains constant. and the % of athletes in the student body does not increase; it, too, remains constant. or am i misunderstanding?

[81alum]

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

it's been a while since i studied algebra, but assuming i remember correctly, if (as suggested above) we make it easier to replace the number of athletes transferring out with an equal number of athletes transferring in, the total number of athletes does not "expand"; it remains constant - at or below the number of athletic scholarships. the size of the student body also remains constant. and the % of athletes in the student body does not increase; it, too, remains constant.  or am i misunderstanding?

That was my proposal, but the problem is not that it expands the number of athletes, but that it would set the precedent for non-athletes to transfer as well, which would in fact increase the size of the student body.  On the other hand, restricting transfers just to athletes would create the opposite problem--privileging a certain class of students over others who may be equally talented in other ways. 

The other problem--and perhaps a big one--is that if transfers of athletes in and out of Stanford heats up, it winds up damaging the university's stats on graduation rates and retention rates vis a vis our elite academic competitors, who do not have that problem.  So participating in the revolving door--even successfully--will come at a price to one of the ways elite universities compare themselves.

[81alum]

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

it's been a while since i studied algebra, but assuming i remember correctly, if (as suggested above) we make it easier to replace the number of athletes transferring out with an equal number of athletes transferring in, the total number of athletes does not "expand"; it remains constant - at or below the number of athletic scholarships. the size of the student body also remains constant. and the % of athletes in the student body does not increase; it, too, remains constant.  or am i misunderstanding?

That was my proposal, but the problem is not that it expands the number of athletes, but that it would set the precedent for non-athletes to transfer as well, which would in fact increase the size of the student body.  On the other hand, restricting transfers just to athletes would create the opposite problem--privileging a certain class of students over others who may be equally talented in other ways. 

The other problem--and perhaps a big one--is that if transfers of athletes in and out of Stanford heats up, it winds up damaging the university's stats on graduation rates and retention rates vis a vis our elite academic competitors, who do not have that problem.  So participating in the revolving door--even successfully--will come at a price to one of the ways elite universities compare themselves.

[82lsju]

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

it's been a while since i studied algebra, but assuming i remember correctly, if (as suggested above) we make it easier to replace the number of athletes transferring out with an equal number of athletes transferring in, the total number of athletes does not "expand"; it remains constant - at or below the number of athletic scholarships. the size of the student body also remains constant. and the % of athletes in the student body does not increase; it, too, remains constant.  or am i misunderstanding?

That was my proposal, but the problem is not that it expands the number of athletes, but that it would set the precedent for non-athletes to transfer as well, which would in fact increase the size of the student body.  On the other hand, restricting transfers just to athletes would create the opposite problem--privileging a certain class of students over others who may be equally talented in other ways. 

The other problem--and perhaps a big one--is that if transfers of athletes in and out of Stanford heats up, it winds up damaging the university's stats on graduation rates and retention rates vis a vis our elite academic competitors, who do not have that problem.  So participating in the revolving door--even successfully--will come at a price to one of the ways elite universities compare themselves.

way back in pre-historic times my class ('82) had ~200 total transfers in, ~50% as sophomores (I was one of them) and ~50% as juniors which is ~12% of the class.  We generated a list of the ~200 likely transfers in with the SAA as part of our 35th reunion.  I have no idea if the transfers out for my class totaled ~200.  My vague recollection is that back then the transfers in were a planned net add to the class size

[82lsju]

So, opening Stanford up broadly to athletic transfers will result in one of two things: 1) expanding the size of the Stanford student body beyond what the university has determined is optimal for its elite status, or 2) privileging athletes above other equally talented students, resulting in resentment and inequality.

it's been a while since i studied algebra, but assuming i remember correctly, if (as suggested above) we make it easier to replace the number of athletes transferring out with an equal number of athletes transferring in, the total number of athletes does not "expand"; it remains constant - at or below the number of athletic scholarships. the size of the student body also remains constant. and the % of athletes in the student body does not increase; it, too, remains constant.  or am i misunderstanding?

That was my proposal, but the problem is not that it expands the number of athletes, but that it would set the precedent for non-athletes to transfer as well, which would in fact increase the size of the student body.  On the other hand, restricting transfers just to athletes would create the opposite problem--privileging a certain class of students over others who may be equally talented in other ways. 

The other problem--and perhaps a big one--is that if transfers of athletes in and out of Stanford heats up, it winds up damaging the university's stats on graduation rates and retention rates vis a vis our elite academic competitors, who do not have that problem.  So participating in the revolving door--even successfully--will come at a price to one of the ways elite universities compare themselves.

way back in pre-historic times my class ('82) had ~200 total transfers in, ~50% as sophomores (I was one of them) and ~50% as juniors which is ~12% of the class.  We generated a list of the ~200 likely transfers in with the SAA as part of our 35th reunion.  I have no idea if the transfers out for my class totaled ~200.  My vague recollection is that back then the transfers in were a planned net add to the class size

[Goose]

way back in pre-historic times my class ('82) had ~200 total transfers in, ~50% as sophomores (I was one of them) and ~50% as juniors which is ~12% of the class.  We generated a list of the ~200 likely transfers in with the SAA as part of our 35th reunion.  I have no idea if the transfers out for my class totaled ~200.  My vague recollection is that back then the transfers in were a planned net add to the class size

I don't know if it applied in '82, but I do know that back in the even more prehistoric times of the late 60s/early 70s the ability to have significantly larger transfer classes was created by attrition. It was possible to "flunk out" and a noticeable number of people in fact did. Today, that simply doesn't happen. Another form of attrition was people who just didn't like/could no longer afford Stanford. There were a significant number of people in these categories. One friend of mine transferred out, explaining himself as follows: "I am pre-med. I am fighting for grades against an elite student body to get into med school. My parents are paying a large pile of money for me to do so. My Stanford undergraduate degree will make no difference after I become an MD. It isn't worth the money. I can go to UCLA for much less, get better grades (and thus a higher rating for med school), and enjoy my college experience a lot more. It won't hurt my MCATs". He did exactly that.

[Goose]

way back in pre-historic times my class ('82) had ~200 total transfers in, ~50% as sophomores (I was one of them) and ~50% as juniors which is ~12% of the class.  We generated a list of the ~200 likely transfers in with the SAA as part of our 35th reunion.  I have no idea if the transfers out for my class totaled ~200.  My vague recollection is that back then the transfers in were a planned net add to the class size

I don't know if it applied in '82, but I do know that back in the even more prehistoric times of the late 60s/early 70s the ability to have significantly larger transfer classes was created by attrition. It was possible to "flunk out" and a noticeable number of people in fact did. Today, that simply doesn't happen. Another form of attrition was people who just didn't like/could no longer afford Stanford. There were a significant number of people in these categories. One friend of mine transferred out, explaining himself as follows: "I am pre-med. I am fighting for grades against an elite student body to get into med school. My parents are paying a large pile of money for me to do so. My Stanford undergraduate degree will make no difference after I become an MD. It isn't worth the money. I can go to UCLA for much less, get better grades (and thus a higher rating for med school), and enjoy my college experience a lot more. It won't hurt my MCATs". He did exactly that.

[cardfan1996]

Padilla to USC too. USC is getting all viable Ivy League transfers in through the door. I think most of you are letting Tara off the hook and giving her credit based on speculation. Obviously the shake up with the players and coach leaving and historical inability to attract Division 1 skilled point guards probably have more to do with Stanford not attracting Ivy League graduates in a desperate position of need.

If it’s so hard to attract transfers and now you can’t even keep your players happy enough to stay for a Stanford degree, you are definitely not the right person for the future (both Tara and her named successor, Kate).

[cardfan1996]

Padilla to USC too. USC is getting all viable Ivy League transfers in through the door. I think most of you are letting Tara off the hook and giving her credit based on speculation. Obviously the shake up with the players and coach leaving and historical inability to attract Division 1 skilled point guards probably have more to do with Stanford not attracting Ivy League graduates in a desperate position of need.

If it’s so hard to attract transfers and now you can’t even keep your players happy enough to stay for a Stanford degree, you are definitely not the right person for the future (both Tara and her named successor, Kate).

[Hoops9092]

Padilla to USC too. USC is getting all viable Ivy League transfers in through the door. I think most of you are letting Tara off the hook and giving her credit based on speculation. Obviously the shake up with the players and coach leaving and historical inability to attract Division 1 skilled point guards probably have more to do with Stanford not attracting Ivy League graduates in a desperate position of need.

If it’s so hard to attract transfers and now you can’t even keep your players happy enough to stay for a Stanford degree, you are definitely not the right person for the future (both Tara and her named successor, Kate).

USC is also in the final 3 for Aneesah Morrow, who is considered the #2 transfer prospect out of DePaul, who also has S. Car and LSU in her final 3.

[Hoops9092]

Padilla to USC too. USC is getting all viable Ivy League transfers in through the door. I think most of you are letting Tara off the hook and giving her credit based on speculation. Obviously the shake up with the players and coach leaving and historical inability to attract Division 1 skilled point guards probably have more to do with Stanford not attracting Ivy League graduates in a desperate position of need.

If it’s so hard to attract transfers and now you can’t even keep your players happy enough to stay for a Stanford degree, you are definitely not the right person for the future (both Tara and her named successor, Kate).

USC is also in the final 3 for Aneesah Morrow, who is considered the #2 transfer prospect out of DePaul, who also has S. Car and LSU in her final 3.

[stopandpop]

Padilla to USC too. USC is getting all viable Ivy League transfers in through the door. I think most of you are letting Tara off the hook and giving her credit based on speculation. Obviously the shake up with the players and coach leaving and historical inability to attract Division 1 skilled point guards probably have more to do with Stanford not attracting Ivy League graduates in a desperate position of need.

If it’s so hard to attract transfers and now you can’t even keep your players happy enough to stay for a Stanford degree, you are definitely not the right person for the future (both Tara and her named successor, Kate).

This news is a dagger for Stanford WBB.  Padilla was arguably the one Ivy League transfer who could best fill the void at guard.  She can score at all three levels and could have taken a lot of the burden off Brink and to a lesser degree, Jump.  The only possible avenue left is to get a scoring guard and a backup post from overseas, if there are any left.

Raoul on Twitter: "Penn WBB grad transfer Kayla Padilla (5-9 SR guard, Torrance, CA) has announced her commitment to Southern Cal" / Twitter

[stopandpop]

Padilla to USC too. USC is getting all viable Ivy League transfers in through the door. I think most of you are letting Tara off the hook and giving her credit based on speculation. Obviously the shake up with the players and coach leaving and historical inability to attract Division 1 skilled point guards probably have more to do with Stanford not attracting Ivy League graduates in a desperate position of need.

If it’s so hard to attract transfers and now you can’t even keep your players happy enough to stay for a Stanford degree, you are definitely not the right person for the future (both Tara and her named successor, Kate).

This news is a dagger for Stanford WBB.  Padilla was arguably the one Ivy League transfer who could best fill the void at guard.  She can score at all three levels and could have taken a lot of the burden off Brink and to a lesser degree, Jump.  The only possible avenue left is to get a scoring guard and a backup post from overseas, if there are any left.

Raoul on Twitter: "Penn WBB grad transfer Kayla Padilla (5-9 SR guard, Torrance, CA) has announced her commitment to Southern Cal" / Twitter

[cardfan1996]

Gottlieb is putting in the work to cut the rebuild of USC into a few years vs 5-10 years. If she lands Morrow, they are a Final Four team IMO

[cardfan1996]

Gottlieb is putting in the work to cut the rebuild of USC into a few years vs 5-10 years. If she lands Morrow, they are a Final Four team IMO

[Spiny_Norman]

I am sure that Gottlieb and her staff are hustling like no tomorrow for these elite players. But she has the support of her AD and University Admissions and likely other non-Athletics departments in her pursuit of transfers. It's the same alignment of support one would expect she has for high school recruits. Gottlieb has to compete against other schools for players. But she does not have to fight against her own university too.

Stanford is not the same. Coach VanDerveer's efforts (such as they are) may be thwarted by an administration that is reluctant to make changes to its practices to accommodate NIL and immediate transfers (as discussed extensively earlier in this thread). 

I think it is more accurate and more appropriate to say that "USC is putting in the work to cut the rebuild of [its women's basketball program] into a few years vs 5-10 years." They have made an institutional commitment to Athletics while Stanford is still trying to decide what to do in this new environment. Stanford as a whole needs to be more aggressive (yes, including the coaching staff but also the AD and other campus leadership) to compete and be successful going forward.

[Spiny_Norman]

I am sure that Gottlieb and her staff are hustling like no tomorrow for these elite players. But she has the support of her AD and University Admissions and likely other non-Athletics departments in her pursuit of transfers. It's the same alignment of support one would expect she has for high school recruits. Gottlieb has to compete against other schools for players. But she does not have to fight against her own university too.

Stanford is not the same. Coach VanDerveer's efforts (such as they are) may be thwarted by an administration that is reluctant to make changes to its practices to accommodate NIL and immediate transfers (as discussed extensively earlier in this thread). 

I think it is more accurate and more appropriate to say that "USC is putting in the work to cut the rebuild of [its women's basketball program] into a few years vs 5-10 years." They have made an institutional commitment to Athletics while Stanford is still trying to decide what to do in this new environment. Stanford as a whole needs to be more aggressive (yes, including the coaching staff but also the AD and other campus leadership) to compete and be successful going forward.

[BillBradley]

Gottlieb is putting in the work to cut the rebuild of USC into a few years vs 5-10 years. If she lands Morrow, they are a Final Four team IMO

Wow, a Final Four team? Seems like a big stretch. Awful lot to ask of their freshmen.

[BillBradley]

Gottlieb is putting in the work to cut the rebuild of USC into a few years vs 5-10 years. If she lands Morrow, they are a Final Four team IMO

Wow, a Final Four team? Seems like a big stretch. Awful lot to ask of their freshmen.

[chimera]

Why does it feel to me that most everyone has forgotten that Stanford was in the F4 in 2022 and won it all in 2021.  It is still 2023, right?  Not like this was all ancient history.  I've made my position clear on the future of the sport and what it means for Stanford.  Still and all, even if things are not rosy and the team may not be as good next year as it might be if the transfers had not happened, the cupboard is not bare, good recruits are coming in next year, and the team is probably not going to suck.

[chimera]

Why does it feel to me that most everyone has forgotten that Stanford was in the F4 in 2022 and won it all in 2021.  It is still 2023, right?  Not like this was all ancient history.  I've made my position clear on the future of the sport and what it means for Stanford.  Still and all, even if things are not rosy and the team may not be as good next year as it might be if the transfers had not happened, the cupboard is not bare, good recruits are coming in next year, and the team is probably not going to suck.