Men's Hoops Recruiting The exodus begins - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Men's Hoops Recruiting The exodus begins (/thread-24852.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Men's Hoops Recruiting The exodus begins (/thread-24852.html)
RE: The exodus begins - Mick - 03-20-2024
(03-19-2024, 09:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-19-2024, 09:24 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: Et tu Reynaud? Sacre' bleu. Whatever happened to the "40-year decision"? More like a 40-week or 40-month decision for some of these (student)-athletes?
Reynaud and all the others have every right to transfer, but if this is what it means to have a DI basketball team in the portal/NIL era, then what the hell are we doing. Of all the players that Haase has recruited and signed, how many of them will wind up having graduated from Stanford? Is it even half? How many football players recruited in Shaw's last five years graduated from Stanford? Even the women's basketball team has had a rather large share of recent recruits going to other schools, including three last year alone.x
This is not a system that Stanford should be a part of. It's not good for the school, it's not good for the scholar athletes, and as a fan, I've never been less interested in Stanford sports, and for that matter the University itself (though I won't be able to help myself in rooting for the women's basketball team in the next few weeks).
If it weren't for loss aversion and the fact that a lot of people depend on Stanford athletics, there is no way that we would establish an athletics program under these circumstances. We keep engaging in this madness because we always have, but it is largely time to get off this train. Collegiate athletics will fall under the weight of its own internal contradictions. It's sad, but this is why we can't have nice things.
BC
100% agree. Maybe it's time to discuss dismantling the programs.
RE: The exodus begins - BobK - 03-20-2024
Half of the WBB last few years graduated from Stanford. One of three last year
Almost all of the Shaw recruits graduated
Kind of hard to be a grad transfer and not graduate
As to basketball those players have to look out for themselves. What if we hire a coach who brings the mascot as an assistant?? Did that once
RE: The exodus begins - bbm233 - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 06:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 05:53 AM)burger Wrote: Unless the new MBB coach brings in a bunch of transfers (which would require the coach to have excellent blackmail on admissions officials), we're looking at a ceiling of probably under 10 wins next year. This is going be the worst MBB team in decades.
They'd better hire an amazing coach to make this coaching change worthwhile, because the transition period is going to be painful.
So why would any "amazing" coach want to get involved in this mess? Maybe only if he is amazingly stupid. We aren't going to drive a Brinks truck up and pay him multiple millions to take the job. Only way we can offer any real money considering the probable revenue stream would be if some alumni endows the job with big bucks. Many coaches are willing to take on a challenge, but they need to find a new word to describe our situation.
To field a team next year that could win more than 5 games will take some amazing portal luck. If Benny is our best player next year, we might not win any.
100% agree. We'll be lucky to have 5 legit D-1 players next year since the portal isn't much of an option. I am thinking the over-under for wins is 3.5. Even if Haase had been retained and Carlyle, Reynaud, Stojakovich had stayed, it would have been a bad year as there is no depth. Now, there aren't enough bodies to even run a practice. Yikes.
RE: The exodus begins - Goose - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 07:42 AM)Mick Wrote:(03-19-2024, 09:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-19-2024, 09:24 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: Et tu Reynaud? Sacre' bleu. Whatever happened to the "40-year decision"? More like a 40-week or 40-month decision for some of these (student)-athletes?
Reynaud and all the others have every right to transfer, but if this is what it means to have a DI basketball team in the portal/NIL era, then what the hell are we doing. Of all the players that Haase has recruited and signed, how many of them will wind up having graduated from Stanford? Is it even half? How many football players recruited in Shaw's last five years graduated from Stanford? Even the women's basketball team has had a rather large share of recent recruits going to other schools, including three last year alone.x
This is not a system that Stanford should be a part of. It's not good for the school, it's not good for the scholar athletes, and as a fan, I've never been less interested in Stanford sports, and for that matter the University itself (though I won't be able to help myself in rooting for the women's basketball team in the next few weeks).
If it weren't for loss aversion and the fact that a lot of people depend on Stanford athletics, there is no way that we would establish an athletics program under these circumstances. We keep engaging in this madness because we always have, but it is largely time to get off this train. Collegiate athletics will fall under the weight of its own internal contradictions. It's sad, but this is why we can't have nice things.
BC
100% agree. Maybe it's time to discuss dismantling the programs.
I agree with BC's analysis of the current situation. I also agree it is (past) time for the University to discuss how to respond. It may be that dismantling the programs is the only feasible response. I would hope that there are lots of like-minded institutions that could put together a system that would curb the excesses of the present. This system wouldn't attract "one and done" players etc. It may be that legislation will be required to make this possible. It also will result in an athletic program that loses money regularly, as the TV interest will be much lower (if it exists at all).
I am stubborn enough to believe that a system of collegiate athletics can still exist that does not involve the compromises and excesses that the present system exhibits. It does require getting off the current express train to disaster. It also requires the University to actually do something to help make it happen and change trains. Failing that, we either ride the train to the inevitable disaster or dismantle the programs.
RE: The exodus begins - Mick - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 08:31 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-20-2024, 07:42 AM)Mick Wrote:(03-19-2024, 09:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-19-2024, 09:24 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: Et tu Reynaud? Sacre' bleu. Whatever happened to the "40-year decision"? More like a 40-week or 40-month decision for some of these (student)-athletes?
Reynaud and all the others have every right to transfer, but if this is what it means to have a DI basketball team in the portal/NIL era, then what the hell are we doing. Of all the players that Haase has recruited and signed, how many of them will wind up having graduated from Stanford? Is it even half? How many football players recruited in Shaw's last five years graduated from Stanford? Even the women's basketball team has had a rather large share of recent recruits going to other schools, including three last year alone.x
This is not a system that Stanford should be a part of. It's not good for the school, it's not good for the scholar athletes, and as a fan, I've never been less interested in Stanford sports, and for that matter the University itself (though I won't be able to help myself in rooting for the women's basketball team in the next few weeks).
If it weren't for loss aversion and the fact that a lot of people depend on Stanford athletics, there is no way that we would establish an athletics program under these circumstances. We keep engaging in this madness because we always have, but it is largely time to get off this train. Collegiate athletics will fall under the weight of its own internal contradictions. It's sad, but this is why we can't have nice things.
BC
100% agree. Maybe it's time to discuss dismantling the programs.
I agree with BC's analysis of the current situation. I also agree it is (past) time for the University to discuss how to respond. It may be that dismantling the programs is the only feasible response. I would hope that there are lots of like-minded institutions that could put together a system that would curb the excesses of the present. This system wouldn't attract "one and done" players etc. It may be that legislation will be required to make this possible. It also will result in an athletic program that loses money regularly, as the TV interest will be much lower (if it exists at all).
I am stubborn enough to believe that a system of collegiate athletics can still exist that does not involve the compromises and excesses that the present system exhibits. It does require getting off the current express train to disaster. It also requires the University to actually do something to help make it happen and change trains. Failing that, we either ride the train to the inevitable disaster or dismantle the programs.
It also requires a critical mass of like-thinking institutions. The Ivies survive because (a) eight very similar institutions have not only agreed upon the ground rules, but have agreed upon them for the last century+; e.g., no Ivy college has played in a football bowl game since the 1930s, and (b) there are a host of what used to be called D1-AA colleges that exist in the same geographic region that have adopted similar rules.
If Stanford were to go that route, it would find itself in a league with Montana, Montana State, Idaho State, Portland State, UC-Davis or similar schools. There was a resounding hue and cry when the Pac-12 first disintegrated, and no one wanted to even consider the MWC, which is a conference that resides in between what used to be called the Power 5 and what used to be called the D1-AA schools.
I agree with you...there's three options. Dismantle. Disengage. Disaster. I think the inevitable result is disaster (looming), followed by dismantle. I don't believe Stanford would countenance the "disengage" option. If there were seven other Stanford-level schools (academically speaking), then Stanford would go that route. Unfortunately, I think Stanford will end up joining the other 63 colleges that have dropped D1 football.
RE: The exodus begins - SkiBum80 - 03-20-2024
A thread title focused on who was staying, and who was leaving, our MBB team, seems to have morphed into dire predictions of abandoning not only the MBB team but the FB team as well.
I'm not buying it.
For one thing it is way less expense to run a BB team vs football, as witnessed by the hu.ge numbers of smaller schools that offer the former but not the latter.
Second, our acceptance into ACC provides an opportunity for coaching and playing at Stanford MBB that cannot be replicated were we to linger in some fragmented pablum of the remaining PAC-4-ish number of schools potentially merging with some other regional schools. None of which was arranged or maybe even possible, more than as a passing fancy.
That Opportunity being: National Visibility and Potential Relevance
As stated back in the ACC acceptance day, this opportunity does not guarantee that we have a good team.
It only offers an opportunity.
RE: The exodus begins - BillBradley - 03-20-2024
+1 to SkiBum's post.
This is the best line in the thread:
"...as a fan, I've never been less interested in Stanford sports, and for that matter the University itself (though I won't be able to help myself in rooting for the women's basketball team in the next few weeks)."
Not trying to pick on a single poster, just making a broader point: this is the way it is in sports for fans. Everything is great when your team is winning. Stanford is so pure. We do it right. Should we go back and review all those threads during the Luck/McAffrey years and see how many people were complaining about Stanford taking its $25M from the P12 TV contract? Apparently that level of money and all the politics that came with it didn't "dirty it up" enough. Soooo many people complaining about Stanford winning the Rose Bowl and so much praise for those Ivy League teams for not playing in bowl games. And how about all the travel hardship on the "student athletes" and not having enough time to study that still existed back then? Now all of a sudden that's a hot button because of a few extra road trips to the east. I could go on and on.
Our football and mens basketball programs were stinking it up long before NIL and the transfer portal came along. All that's happening is that it's no fun to watch us go from national powerhouses to the bottom of the barrel. People are just blaming it on all the things that are wrong in the world of college sports. I would bet my last dollar that if our football team made it to the national championship this past season and our basketball team was a #1 seed in this March Madness, no one would be "soured on college sports". Instead, it would probably go the other way - how Stanford is able to compete in high level sports without somehow selling its soul.
My opinion is more like this: Our football team sucks, our basketball team sucks, and it's going to be that way until Stanford pulls its head out, hires a better AD, and embraces the new world of sports. Super conferences, NIL, etc are here to stay. Football is not going to implode. But in the meantime, I'll still continue to root for the womens basketball team, womens golf, all our Olympic athletes, etc. etc. Hopefully in 10 years we'll be back competing on the gridiron and the hardwood again.
RE: The exodus begins - norcard10 - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 06:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 05:53 AM)burger Wrote: Unless the new MBB coach brings in a bunch of transfers (which would require the coach to have excellent blackmail on admissions officials), we're looking at a ceiling of probably under 10 wins next year. This is going be the worst MBB team in decades.
They'd better hire an amazing coach to make this coaching change worthwhile, because the transition period is going to be painful.
So why would any "amazing" coach want to get involved in this mess? Maybe only if he is amazingly stupid. We aren't going to drive a Brinks truck up and pay him multiple millions to take the job. Only way we can offer any real money considering the probable revenue stream would be if some alumni endows the job with big bucks. Many coaches are willing to take on a challenge, but they need to find a new word to describe our situation.
To field a team next year that could win more than 5 games will take some amazing portal luck. If Benny is our best player next year, we might not win any.
Didn't Shaw make 9 million a year? They could back up the truck if they were serious. But TBD.
RE: The exodus begins - 82lsju - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 12:42 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 06:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 05:53 AM)burger Wrote: Unless the new MBB coach brings in a bunch of transfers (which would require the coach to have excellent blackmail on admissions officials), we're looking at a ceiling of probably under 10 wins next year. This is going be the worst MBB team in decades.
They'd better hire an amazing coach to make this coaching change worthwhile, because the transition period is going to be painful.
So why would any "amazing" coach want to get involved in this mess? Maybe only if he is amazingly stupid. We aren't going to drive a Brinks truck up and pay him multiple millions to take the job. Only way we can offer any real money considering the probable revenue stream would be if some alumni endows the job with big bucks. Many coaches are willing to take on a challenge, but they need to find a new word to describe our situation.
To field a team next year that could win more than 5 games will take some amazing portal luck. If Benny is our best player next year, we might not win any.
Didn't Shaw make 9 million a year? They could back up the truck if they were serious. But TBD.
According to the most recent form 990 in CY21 Shaw made "only" $7.4m....
https://bondholder-information.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj21416/files/media/file/stanford-fy22-form-990.pdf
the other four "highly compensated employees" listed are
- FRANK HANLEY CHIEF, PED CARDIOTHORACIC - $4.7m
- JAY KANG SR. MD, SMC - $2.5m
- MARK SHOBERG SR. MD, SMC - $2.5m
- YIPING WOO PROF. & CHAIR, CARDIO SURGERY - $2.7m
other people making $1m+ in other categories
officers
- ROBERT F. WALLACE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SMC - $5.1m
- MARTIN SHELL VP & CHIEF ERO - $1.7m
- ROBERT C. REIDY VP LAND, BUILDINGS & REAL EST - $1.7m
- RANDALL LIVINGSTON VP BUS AFFAIRS/CFO - $1.5m
- MARC TESSIER-LAVIGNE PRESIDENT/TRUSTEE - $1.1m
Key employees
- LLOYD B. MINOR DEAN, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE - $2.1m
RE: The exodus begins - Jamesy - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 01:23 PM)82lsju Wrote:(03-20-2024, 12:42 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 06:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 05:53 AM)burger Wrote: Unless the new MBB coach brings in a bunch of transfers (which would require the coach to have excellent blackmail on admissions officials), we're looking at a ceiling of probably under 10 wins next year. This is going be the worst MBB team in decades.
They'd better hire an amazing coach to make this coaching change worthwhile, because the transition period is going to be painful.
So why would any "amazing" coach want to get involved in this mess? Maybe only if he is amazingly stupid. We aren't going to drive a Brinks truck up and pay him multiple millions to take the job. Only way we can offer any real money considering the probable revenue stream would be if some alumni endows the job with big bucks. Many coaches are willing to take on a challenge, but they need to find a new word to describe our situation.
To field a team next year that could win more than 5 games will take some amazing portal luck. If Benny is our best player next year, we might not win any.
Didn't Shaw make 9 million a year? They could back up the truck if they were serious. But TBD.
According to the most recent form 990 in CY21 Shaw made "only" $7.4m....
https://bondholder-information.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj21416/files/media/file/stanford-fy22-form-990.pdf
the other four "highly compensated employees" listed are
- FRANK HANLEY CHIEF, PED CARDIOTHORACIC - $4.7m
- JAY KANG SR. MD, SMC - $2.5m
- MARK SHOBERG SR. MD, SMC - $2.5m
- YIPING WOO PROF. & CHAIR, CARDIO SURGERY - $2.7m
other people making $1m+ in other categories
officers
- ROBERT F. WALLACE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SMC - $5.1m
- MARTIN SHELL VP & CHIEF ERO - $1.7m
- ROBERT C. REIDY VP LAND, BUILDINGS & REAL EST - $1.7m
- RANDALL LIVINGSTON VP BUS AFFAIRS/CFO - $1.5m
- MARC TESSIER-LAVIGNE PRESIDENT/TRUSTEE - $1.1m
Key employees
- LLOYD B. MINOR DEAN, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE - $2.1m
If you paid Taylor and the new MBB coach combined Shaw's salary, you'd be able to get a pretty good MBB coach...
RE: The exodus begins - SkiBum80 - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 02:12 PM)Jamesy Wrote:I think a lot of us here would be happy to land a fiery and energetic coach like, oh, say, MMadsen.(03-20-2024, 01:23 PM)82lsju Wrote:(03-20-2024, 12:42 PM)norcard10 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 06:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 05:53 AM)burger Wrote: Unless the new MBB coach brings in a bunch of transfers (which would require the coach to have excellent blackmail on admissions officials), we're looking at a ceiling of probably under 10 wins next year. This is going be the worst MBB team in decades.
They'd better hire an amazing coach to make this coaching change worthwhile, because the transition period is going to be painful.
So why would any "amazing" coach want to get involved in this mess? Maybe only if he is amazingly stupid. We aren't going to drive a Brinks truck up and pay him multiple millions to take the job. Only way we can offer any real money considering the probable revenue stream would be if some alumni endows the job with big bucks. Many coaches are willing to take on a challenge, but they need to find a new word to describe our situation.
To field a team next year that could win more than 5 games will take some amazing portal luck. If Benny is our best player next year, we might not win any.
Didn't Shaw make 9 million a year? They could back up the truck if they were serious. But TBD.
According to the most recent form 990 in CY21 Shaw made "only" $7.4m....
https://bondholder-information.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj21416/files/media/file/stanford-fy22-form-990.pdf
the other four "highly compensated employees" listed are
- FRANK HANLEY CHIEF, PED CARDIOTHORACIC - $4.7m
- JAY KANG SR. MD, SMC - $2.5m
- MARK SHOBERG SR. MD, SMC - $2.5m
- YIPING WOO PROF. & CHAIR, CARDIO SURGERY - $2.7m
other people making $1m+ in other categories
officers
- ROBERT F. WALLACE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SMC - $5.1m
- MARTIN SHELL VP & CHIEF ERO - $1.7m
- ROBERT C. REIDY VP LAND, BUILDINGS & REAL EST - $1.7m
- RANDALL LIVINGSTON VP BUS AFFAIRS/CFO - $1.5m
- MARC TESSIER-LAVIGNE PRESIDENT/TRUSTEE - $1.1m
Key employees
- LLOYD B. MINOR DEAN, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE - $2.1m
If you paid Taylor and the new MBB coach combined Shaw's salary, you'd be able to get a pretty good MBB coach...
Whose salary is about $2 mil plus a one time sign bonus about $600k that looks like majority went to cover buyout from Utah Valley coaching position.
RE: The exodus begins - jacket3ree - 03-20-2024
Wow, that escalated quickly. Some players who couldn't finish above .500 leave and now we're going to drop sports?
Stanford had a golden opportunity to get off the college sports professionalization carousel, but instead they joined a conference on Eastern Time. They aren't dropping sports anytime soon. Pay millions to exit the conference and quit? Not happening.
I'm glad players now have the same freedom of movement as coaches.
Root for laundry, even with that black piping - this is just entertainment. What students get out of it is up to them.
Stanford once ran a shopping center for goodness sake. They do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with an educational mission because they do all sorts of things. They can run a competitive athletic department.
Drop football and basketball? Drop everything. I don't see how donors make up that revenue.
People get way too hung up on P5/6. Enjoy the competition. Kudos to the B1G and SEC for convincing the world their stuff don't stink. Everyone bought it.
And finally, I demand to know what happens after the 40 years of the 40-year decision. I'm four years past that. So, we just gain more weight, or what?
RE: The exodus begins - GK3 - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 12:41 PM)BillBradley Wrote: +1 to SkiBum's post.
This is the best line in the thread:
"...as a fan, I've never been less interested in Stanford sports, and for that matter the University itself (though I won't be able to help myself in rooting for the women's basketball team in the next few weeks)."
Not trying to pick on a single poster, just making a broader point: this is the way it is in sports for fans. Everything is great when your team is winning. Stanford is so pure. We do it right. Should we go back and review all those threads during the Luck/McAffrey years and see how many people were complaining about Stanford taking its $25M from the P12 TV contract? Apparently that level of money and all the politics that came with it didn't "dirty it up" enough. Soooo many people complaining about Stanford winning the Rose Bowl and so much praise for those Ivy League teams for not playing in bowl games. And how about all the travel hardship on the "student athletes" and not having enough time to study that still existed back then? Now all of a sudden that's a hot button because of a few extra road trips to the east. I could go on and on.
Our football and mens basketball programs were stinking it up long before NIL and the transfer portal came along. All that's happening is that it's no fun to watch us go from national powerhouses to the bottom of the barrel. People are just blaming it on all the things that are wrong in the world of college sports. I would bet my last dollar that if our football team made it to the national championship this past season and our basketball team was a #1 seed in this March Madness, no one would be "soured on college sports". Instead, it would probably go the other way - how Stanford is able to compete in high level sports without somehow selling its soul.
My opinion is more like this: Our football team sucks, our basketball team sucks, and it's going to be that way until Stanford pulls its head out, hires a better AD, and embraces the new world of sports. Super conferences, NIL, etc are here to stay. Football is not going to implode. But in the meantime, I'll still continue to root for the womens basketball team, womens golf, all our Olympic athletes, etc. etc. Hopefully in 10 years we'll be back competing on the gridiron and the hardwood again.
You can't compare the Luck/McCaffery years with now. What would Luck have been worth in the NIL market, or McCaffery? There is no certainty that they would not have hopped in the portal and taken the 10,000,000 dollars they could have commanded. The apparent failure of the AD to see this coming and not to have had some sort of plan in place is the biggest crime in this as far as Stanford is concerned. What the NCAA, Congress, and the others do is not something we can control. Muir should have been in touch enough with his fellow AD's to have a good idea of what was coming and have done some planning. Of course, the top two administrators in the University were also going through their issues. I think that much of what is going on runs contrary to what Stanford feels is its primary mission. I think it is likely that the situation will have to get completely out of hand before anything happens to change it. The big football schools are not immune to potential disaster. There isn't anything that now prevents some schools with good programs and very well heeled alumni from simply going out and buying the best players from the top teams. t If you have enough money you can buy yourself the best team you can get, particularly if academics play no role in the decision. What prevents an NFL team from simply turning one schools team into a farm team and stocking it with the best players through the NIL.
Common sense seems to have disappeared from lots of things in today's world.
RE: The exodus begins - Mick - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 03:30 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Stanford once ran a shopping center for goodness sake. They do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with an educational mission because they do all sorts of things. They can run a competitive athletic department.
I heard a rumor that Stanford operated a golf course. Supposedly has a five year waiting list and makes a fair bit of money. Just a rumor, I suppose.
RE: The exodus begins - 82lsju - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 06:21 PM)Mick Wrote:(03-20-2024, 03:30 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Stanford once ran a shopping center for goodness sake. They do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with an educational mission because they do all sorts of things. They can run a competitive athletic department.
I heard a rumor that Stanford operated a golf course. Supposedly has a five year waiting list and makes a fair bit of money. Just a rumor, I suppose.
I'm pretty sure the golf course and shopping center at least breakeven, and I'm sure real estate in the Stanford Industrial Park is better than breakeven.
The last AD annual reports showed as I recall ~$15m shortfall, sure in the grad scheme of Stanford's overall spend that's really small but funding it is "new", and not that long ago the AD touted their ability to self-fund. The shortfall is apparently not a big priority for the people who control the budget, although they have covered at least part of the shortfall so maybe not all that low of a priority....
RE: The exodus begins - Hieronymus - 03-20-2024
(03-20-2024, 08:15 AM)bbm233 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 06:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:(03-20-2024, 05:53 AM)burger Wrote: Unless the new MBB coach brings in a bunch of transfers (which would require the coach to have excellent blackmail on admissions officials), we're looking at a ceiling of probably under 10 wins next year. This is going be the worst MBB team in decades.
They'd better hire an amazing coach to make this coaching change worthwhile, because the transition period is going to be painful.
So why would any "amazing" coach want to get involved in this mess? Maybe only if he is amazingly stupid. We aren't going to drive a Brinks truck up and pay him multiple millions to take the job. Only way we can offer any real money considering the probable revenue stream would be if some alumni endows the job with big bucks. Many coaches are willing to take on a challenge, but they need to find a new word to describe our situation.
To field a team next year that could win more than 5 games will take some amazing portal luck. If Benny is our best player next year, we might not win any.
100% agree. We'll be lucky to have 5 legit D-1 players next year since the portal isn't much of an option. I am thinking the over-under for wins is 3.5. Even if Haase had been retained and Carlyle, Reynaud, Stojakovich had stayed, it would have been a bad year as there is no depth. Now, there aren't enough bodies to even run a practice. Yikes.
Yeah, I am not sure the likely roster could beat an upper tier high school team. 3.5 sounds about right.
RE: The exodus begins - 82 Card - 03-21-2024
(03-18-2024, 12:13 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Also, Moraga ain't a bad place to live. A coach would be an idiot to move from there to Palo Alto. Maybe we're looking for an idiot?
Moraga is indeed a fine place to live, especially if you have offspring that are swimming prodigies. However, Palo Alto is a great place too if the University provides on campus housing as part of the deal. I'm having a hard time seeing moving from Moraga to Palo Alto being a major obstacle.
RE: The exodus begins - slide - 03-23-2024
(03-20-2024, 06:21 PM)Mick Wrote: I heard a rumor that Stanford operated a golf course. Supposedly has a five year waiting list and makes a fair bit of money. Just a rumor, I suppose.
Golf coach runs it in the black, but not too much in the black. Stanford tax folks watch it closely.
RE: The exodus begins - lex24 - 03-23-2024
(03-20-2024, 03:30 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Wow, that escalated quickly. Some players who couldn't finish above .500 leave and now we're going to drop sports?
Stanford had a golden opportunity to get off the college sports professionalization carousel, but instead they joined a conference on Eastern Time. They aren't dropping sports anytime soon. Pay millions to exit the conference and quit? Not happening.
I'm glad players now have the same freedom of movement as coaches.
Root for laundry, even with that black piping - this is just entertainment. What students get out of it is up to them.
Stanford once ran a shopping center for goodness sake. They do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with an educational mission because they do all sorts of things. They can run a competitive athletic department.
Drop football and basketball? Drop everything. I don't see how donors make up that revenue.
People get way too hung up on P5/6. Enjoy the competition. Kudos to the B1G and SEC for convincing the world their stuff don't stink. Everyone bought it.
And finally, I demand to know what happens after the 40 years of the 40-year decision. I'm four years past that. So, we just gain more weight, or what?
I understand on the one hand that 18 to 22-year-old ought to be able to decide where they go to school and then if they don’t like it go elsewhere. I really do. I also think that the portal is ruining major college sports.
I know that I have almost no interest in March madness this year. Which is different. I’ve watched almost no college basketball. Which is different.
I suspect you heard Saben’s comments. And yes, they were self-serving and on one level somewhat “questionable“. But I do have this silly belief that for many in the coaching business, the relationships with the players over the course of their college years matter. And those essentially disappear. Kids are there for a year or two and are gone. You watch a college football game and it’s quarterback (transfer from X) to wide receiver (transfer from Y) being tackled by defense back(transfer from Z).
There is certainly no reason to get excited or invested in the recruits. Because they’re just as likely to be gone after a year or two.
I don’t know what the answer is. But I can unequivocally say that it’s sucked most of the enjoyment out for me.
RE: The exodus begins - PVTree - 03-27-2024
Speaking of Exodus, Colorado just lost Lampkin and Hadley to the transfer portal.
What is baffling to me is why now. Why not wait until Colorado is eliminated (probably the next game)? Did something happen that they both sensed an urgency to get out of dodge at this instant?
It really sux for Colorado fans and their (former) teammates.