Canady - 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: Canady (/thread-25025.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: Canady (/thread-25025.html)
RE: Canady - PVTree - 07-25-2024
(07-25-2024, 04:00 PM)Goose Wrote:(07-25-2024, 03:17 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Insane to spend a single cent of endowment money on this NIL garbage. They are mercenaries, and I mean that negatively and perjoratively. And she's a pro athlete so she can handle the jeers from online idiots like me. "Oh no, someone on The Cardboard called me a mercenary." I'm sure she's crying all the way to the bank.Agree with everything except not allowing them to come back and finish their degree. Lots of people go take a job before they graduate. IMO that's fine. Lots of people get that job because of what they learned at Stanford. That is also fine and IMO "good". If these people later want to return, they should be allowed to do so, subject to availability. I suspect there are so few of them it won't make a dent.
Endowment money should be going to support education and research, the core mission of the university. It should never go to hired gun pro athletes who will be around for a year or two and then off to the next place that will pay them more.
And BTW, these mercenary players should not be able to come back and get a Stanford degree after they've transferred.
I'm coming around more to the idea that Stanford ditch sports if this is the way things are going. I knew plenty of athletes when I was a student, and I would have no problem with them making money to sell ads or endorse products. But if the school has to pay them to attend, I think it's more appropriate their spot goes to someone else who is there to be a student.
Otherwise, 100% agree :-).
I also agree with this take, including no coming back to get a Stanford degree. Have that as a deterrent (maybe not a big one for many), but, you transfer away, say bye-bye to a Stanford degree.
RE: Canady - d4cohn - 07-25-2024
(07-24-2024, 03:54 PM)BobK Wrote: Texas Tech has a new coach who was successful elsewhere. They have a number of good players coming in thru the portal
I agree with Spiny, Bob. We had a solid roster with no obvious gaps 1-9 in our order, and we still almost didn't have enough hitting/pitching aside from Canady to get past either regional but definitely super regional. TTU's offense/roster around Canady is still going to be a (lot) worse than a young and on-the-rise Cardinal offense.
This clearly looks like a NIL-centric move IMO. If it was about competing for championships/greater media coverage, she could have transferred to the 4 time defending National Champs OU (now in the SEC) or even a multitude of other SEC schools and gotten more media coverage and a better chance to win a national championship than Texas Tech. The NIL deal wouldn't have been in the millions, but like the Stanford offer, would have been (mid-to-high) six figures.
RE: Canady - MV72018 - 07-25-2024
(07-25-2024, 07:57 PM)oldalum Wrote: I'm with dabigv on this. The get-a-job-and-come-back-later example is inapposite--those people have left college entirely to do something else. Just because getting $$$ from NIL may make playing a sport a job now, but those people are also students: they have to enroll in college and pass a specified minimum number of units. If someone transfers to a different university for any reason--an academic major, play a sport, music, be closer to family, whatever--they presumably plan to get a degree from that university. If they don't, they shouldn't be transferring, and we shouldn't be honoring their wish to return. If you want to graduate from Stanford, then attend 4 years like everyone else (who didn't first come as a transfer from a different college). I think you give up that option when you transfer out, for any reason. Come back for grad school if you want and can.
Hear, hear!
RE: Canady - Goose - 07-26-2024
(07-25-2024, 07:57 PM)oldalum Wrote: I'm with dabigv on this. The get-a-job-and-come-back-later example is inapposite--those people have left college entirely to do something else.This is demonstrably incorrect. Quite a few people leave Stanford and take a job because they have to. They need the money or their family needs the money. They have every intention to return. Others leave because they have a time-sensitive opportunity. For example, they join a start-up. If it works out, they are open to not finishing their degree. If it doesn't, they intend to return. It has always been a big plus that at Stanford you could do this. You didn't have to go through admissions again, although there were still administrative requirements involved. The "40 year decision" was exactly that, and part of that was the ability to interrupt your undergraduate education if necessary/desirable. The paeans to the wonderful contacts one makes at Stanford often make this an attractive option.
Quote:Getting $$$ from NIL may make playing a sport a job now, but those people are also students: they have to enroll in college and pass a specified minimum number of units. If someone transfers to a different university for any reason--an academic major, play a sport, music, be closer to family, whatever--they presumably plan to get a degree from that university.There is no reason to assume that attending a particular university means you intend to receive a degree there. Athletics requires that you are making progress towards a degree, so on paper you need to be a degree candidate. This is an anachronism left over from the distant past when athletes were not paid to play. This is part of the inherent contradiction of today's college athletics. In today's brave new world going elsewhere to get paid $1.2M is no different than pausing your education to take any other job. The student athletes are merely responding to the environment that they must exist within.
Quote:If they don't, they shouldn't be transferring, and we shouldn't be honoring their wish to return. If you want to graduate from Stanford, then attend 4 years like everyone else (who didn't first come as a transfer from a different college). I think you give up that option when you transfer out, for any reason. Come back for grad school if you want and can.Lots of people don't graduate from Stanford in four years. They do other things. Sometimes they just take a year off. Sometimes they attend classes at Podunk U near home while they deal with family issues. They train for the Olympics. They join the Peace Corps. The "like everyone else" context is IMO inaccurate. While going through in four years with no interruptions is the most common, it is far from the universal condition.
AFAIK Stanford still honors your ability to return. They do not agree to necessarily accept credits from other schools you may attend, although some of them may transfer. They also do not guarantee any financial aid will resume. There is no guarantee you will be able to compete as an athlete (assuming remaining eligibility) at Stanford. As a student, yes. As an athlete, TBD.
I "get it" that many consider wearing another university's uniform to be a "traitorous" act. When college athletics was completely amateur that might have been a reasonable belief. Given that in the NIL era at least some Stanford athletes themselves are at Stanford not out of any particular loyalty but rather because Stanford offered the most NIL money, I personally find it hard to assign any weight or moral force to any "loyalty" requirement. We have already accepted that isn't the case. It is the money, plain and simple. We (and the rest of the world) can't have it both ways. If it is all about the money, and that is OK, then it must be OK without stigma. The stigma would be rational only if it were about more than the money. It isn't anymore, unfortunately.
If someone actually wants to return to Stanford to finish their education, that to me is a plus and should be encouraged. Presumably that is why they were admitted in the first place. If they were admitted for other reasons, that in itself is a different problem. I don't at all support downgrading the admission to Stanford by removing the "right of return". Students who do not compete in college athletics do this all the time and we don't stigmatize or condemn them. IMO it in very inconsistent to treat athletes differently, given that they are ab initio not competing for "Stanford and glory", but rather for the money.
RE: Canady - Vandelay - 07-26-2024
Wasn't there a football player a few years ago who quit football but wanted to remain a student at Stanford? And Stanford said "See ya. Good luck with your academic endeavors at another university"? How is that any different than an athlete who transfers out but then wants to come back for their degree after they have exhausted their playing eligiblity?
RE: Canady - dabigv13 - 07-26-2024
FWIW, I doubt very much that if a non-athlete student transferred to another university, that they would be guaranteed to be able to return to Stanford at some indeterminate time to finish their degree. An NIL transfer shouldn't have more right to a Stanford degree in that scenario than a regular student IMHO.
I think it would be a case by case basis, dependent on their grades and personal circumstances. If Canady gets her degree at Texas Tech, maybe she can come back for a graduate degree, if she would otherwise be a competitive applicant to that program. If she doesn't get her degree at Texas Tech, that would seem to be a red flag about how serious she is with her academics. If she transfers to some other third school for a different NIL deal, that would also seem to me to be a red flag about her academic commitment.
RE: Canady - Goose - 07-26-2024
(07-26-2024, 10:21 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: FWIW, I doubt very much that if a non-athlete student transferred to another university, that they would be guaranteed to be able to return to Stanford at some indeterminate time to finish their degree. An NIL transfer shouldn't have more right to a Stanford degree in that scenario than a regular student IMHO.We were told when we entered Stanford back in the late 60s that once you were "in", you were "in", period. There were administrative restrictions that meant if you left you wouldn't necessarily be able to come back exactly when you wished, but if you were in "good standing" when you left, you could come back. It literally didn't matter if you did or did not take classes in the interim. That may no longer be true, but FWIW I do know of several people that went elsewhere for a year with the intent to return and did so. We certainly do allow people to defer starting their freshman year at Stanford.
Quote:I think it would be a case by case basis, dependent on their grades and personal circumstances. If Canady gets her degree at Texas Tech, maybe she can come back for a graduate degree, if she would otherwise be a competitive applicant to that program. If she doesn't get her degree at Texas Tech, that would seem to be a red flag about how serious she is with her academics. If she transfers to some other third school for a different NIL deal, that would also seem to me to be a red flag about her academic commitment.I guess where you and I differ is that IMO Canady going elsewhere to earn $1.2M a year is in any way, good or bad, related to academics. If she could, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she took no classes at all at Texas Tech and concentrated on softball. It is a job, nothing more. If/when that job goes away and if she wanted to finish her studies at Stanford, I see no reason to oppose that. If she was academically "good enough" to admit and was in good standing when she left, why does working for one or two years disqualify her? If she obtains a degree elsewhere using transfer credits from Stanford that probably prevents her from doing so at Stanford anyway.
RE: Canady - BobK - 07-26-2024
Canady was all academic
RE: Canady - oldalum - 07-26-2024
(07-26-2024, 09:10 AM)Goose Wrote:I'm all in favor of the right of return. Great example is Casey Jacobsen who returned many years later after time out for a pro career, broadcasting, and having a family. But my opinion is that anyone, not just athletes, who transfers to a different 4-year university for any reason, should not automatically be granted a right of return. That is the sole disqualifying reason I am in favor of. No inconsistency there, it applies to equally to everyone who transfers universities for any reason. People can still make college a smorgasbord where they take one year from college X and 2 from college Y and finish up with a year at college Z, if that's what they want and can make it work. I just don't think they should be given a right of return to college X. That's an opinion, nothing more. Colleges can make their own rules, I'm arguing for what I think Stanford's rule should be.(07-25-2024, 07:57 PM)oldalum Wrote: I'm with dabigv on this. The get-a-job-and-come-back-later example is inapposite--those people have left college entirely to do something else.This is demonstrably incorrect. Quite a few people leave Stanford and take a job because they have to. They need the money or their family needs the money. They have every intention to return. Others leave because they have a time-sensitive opportunity. For example, they join a start-up. If it works out, they are open to not finishing their degree. If it doesn't, they intend to return. It has always been a big plus that at Stanford you could do this. You didn't have to go through admissions again, although there were still administrative requirements involved. The "40 year decision" was exactly that, and part of that was the ability to interrupt your undergraduate education if necessary/desirable. The paeans to the wonderful contacts one makes at Stanford often make this an attractive option.
You misunderstood my sentence, sorry for not being more clear. By leaving college entirely, I did not mean they did not intend to return. I meant, during their time away from Stanford, they did not become a student at another 4-year college. In my opinion, they can do any of the things you mention and still return, EXCEPT transfer to a different college. You are treating the transfer to T Tech as a job that happens to be at another university, but that ignores the requirement of being an enrolled STUDENT in a degree track, in good standing, at that college. You seem to regard that as a purely technical, nuisance requirement. Current environment in 2024 notwithstanding, I am unwilling to treat 4-year universities as universities attached to semi-pro athletic teams.
Quote:Getting $$$ from NIL may make playing a sport a job now, but those people are also students: they have to enroll in college and pass a specified minimum number of units. If someone transfers to a different university for any reason--an academic major, play a sport, music, be closer to family, whatever--they presumably plan to get a degree from that university.There is no reason to assume that attending a particular university means you intend to receive a degree there. Athletics requires that you are making progress towards a degree, so on paper you need to be a degree candidate. This is an anachronism left over from the distant past when athletes were not paid to play. This is part of the inherent contradiction of today's college athletics. In today's brave new world going elsewhere to get paid $1.2M is no different than pausing your education to take any other job. The student athletes are merely responding to the environment that they must exist within. Loose wording on my part again, sorry. I meant, they should be presumed to be getting a degree from that university. That seems like the point of being admitted to a degree track. People can take individual courses at community colleges without any expectation they'll be getting a degree out of it, but 4-year universities are different, they don't allow that. To me it doesn't matter if the transferring student, athlete or otherwise, does not actually intend to get a degree from that university. By applying to a degree track, that university is assuming they want to get a degree, else they are taking up a space from someone who does. They should be treated as such by that institution and by the institution they transferred from. Which is why I think they should give up the right of return. If they want to return, they can apply again as a transfer student if they still qualify.
Quote:If they don't, they shouldn't be transferring, and we shouldn't be honoring their wish to return. If you want to graduate from Stanford, then attend 4 years like everyone else (who didn't first come as a transfer from a different college). I think you give up that option when you transfer out, for any reason. Come back for grad school if you want and can.Lots of people don't graduate from Stanford in four years. They do other things. Sometimes they just take a year off. Sometimes they attend classes at Podunk U near home while they deal with family issues. They train for the Olympics. They join the Peace Corps. The "like everyone else" context is IMO inaccurate. While going through in four years with no interruptions is the most common, it is far from the universal condition.
Sorry again I should have been clearer. I did not intend to mean (nor did I say) 4 consecutive years. To be clearer I guess I should have said attend for 180 units, or for transfer students whatever remains after you transfer in.
I "get it" that many consider wearing another university's uniform to be a "traitorous" act. When college athletics was completely amateur that might have been a reasonable belief. Given that in the NIL era at least some Stanford athletes themselves are at Stanford not out of any particular loyalty but rather because Stanford offered the most NIL money, I personally find it hard to assign any weight or moral force to any "loyalty" requirement. We have already accepted that isn't the case. It is the money, plain and simple. We (and the rest of the world) can't have it both ways. If it is all about the money, and that is OK, then it must be OK without stigma. The stigma would be rational only if it were about more than the money. It isn't anymore, unfortunately.
At least for me, that has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter.
If someone actually wants to return to Stanford to finish their education, that to me is a plus and should be encouraged. Presumably that is why they were admitted in the first place. If they were admitted for other reasons, that in itself is a different problem. I don't at all support downgrading the admission to Stanford by removing the "right of return". Students who do not compete in college athletics do this all the time and we don't stigmatize or condemn them. IMO it in very inconsistent to treat athletes differently, given that they are ab initio not competing for "Stanford and glory", but rather for the money.
RE: Canady - GK3 - 07-26-2024
(07-25-2024, 08:37 PM)PVTree Wrote:(07-25-2024, 04:00 PM)Goose Wrote:(07-25-2024, 03:17 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Insane to spend a single cent of endowment money on this NIL garbage. They are mercenaries, and I mean that negatively and perjoratively. And she's a pro athlete so she can handle the jeers from online idiots like me. "Oh no, someone on The Cardboard called me a mercenary." I'm sure she's crying all the way to the bank.Agree with everything except not allowing them to come back and finish their degree. Lots of people go take a job before they graduate. IMO that's fine. Lots of people get that job because of what they learned at Stanford. That is also fine and IMO "good". If these people later want to return, they should be allowed to do so, subject to availability. I suspect there are so few of them it won't make a dent.
Endowment money should be going to support education and research, the core mission of the university. It should never go to hired gun pro athletes who will be around for a year or two and then off to the next place that will pay them more.
And BTW, these mercenary players should not be able to come back and get a Stanford degree after they've transferred.
I'm coming around more to the idea that Stanford ditch sports if this is the way things are going. I knew plenty of athletes when I was a student, and I would have no problem with them making money to sell ads or endorse products. But if the school has to pay them to attend, I think it's more appropriate their spot goes to someone else who is there to be a student.
Otherwise, 100% agree :-).
I also agree with this take, including no coming back to get a Stanford degree. Have that as a deterrent (maybe not a big one for many), but, you transfer away, say bye-bye to a Stanford degree.
Amen +1
(07-26-2024, 11:09 AM)Goose Wrote:(07-26-2024, 10:21 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: FWIW, I doubt very much that if a non-athlete student transferred to another university, that they would be guaranteed to be able to return to Stanford at some indeterminate time to finish their degree. An NIL transfer shouldn't have more right to a Stanford degree in that scenario than a regular student IMHO.We were told when we entered Stanford back in the late 60s that once you were "in", you were "in", period. There were administrative restrictions that meant if you left you wouldn't necessarily be able to come back exactly when you wished, but if you were in "good standing" when you left, you could come back. It literally didn't matter if you did or did not take classes in the interim. That may no longer be true, but FWIW I do know of several people that went elsewhere for a year with the intent to return and did so. We certainly do allow people to defer starting their freshman year at Stanford.
Quote:I think it would be a case by case basis, dependent on their grades and personal circumstances. If Canady gets her degree at Texas Tech, maybe she can come back for a graduate degree, if she would otherwise be a competitive applicant to that program. If she doesn't get her degree at Texas Tech, that would seem to be a red flag about how serious she is with her academics. If she transfers to some other third school for a different NIL deal, that would also seem to me to be a red flag about her academic commitment.I guess where you and I differ is that IMO Canady going elsewhere to earn $1.2M a year is in any way, good or bad, related to academics. If she could, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she took no classes at all at Texas Tech and concentrated on softball. It is a job, nothing more. If/when that job goes away and if she wanted to finish her studies at Stanford, I see no reason to oppose that. If she was academically "good enough" to admit and was in good standing when she left, why does working for one or two years disqualify her? If she obtains a degree elsewhere using transfer credits from Stanford that probably prevents her from doing so at Stanford anyway.
I am ok with coming back if you finished two years and were in good standing, but no more financial support. You left for the money, then invest it wisely and pay your tuition if you come back.
RE: Canady - Goose - 07-26-2024
(07-26-2024, 11:52 AM)oldalum Wrote: You misunderstood my sentence, sorry for not being more clear. By leaving college entirely, I did not mean they did not intend to return. I meant, during their time away from Stanford, they did not become a student at another 4-year college. In my opinion, they can do any of the things you mention and still return, EXCEPT transfer to a different college. You are treating the transfer to T Tech as a job that happens to be at another university, but that ignores the requirement of being an enrolled STUDENT in a degree track, in good standing, at that college. You seem to regard that as a purely technical, nuisance requirement. Current environment in 2024 notwithstanding, I am unwilling to treat 4-year universities as universities attached to semi-pro athletic teams.
I understand your point. I understand you are unwilling to trivialize the academic significance of being enrolled in a degree program at another university. Certainly in the past that requirement was enforced by NCAA regulations. You couldn't jump around between universities even if the universities would let you. I wish it was still that way. Unfortunately, it is not. TBH I think the current (lack of) regulations suck. I just can't bring myself to tell a student that they can't go make a lot of money and then return to Stanford because of a regulation (to be a "legitimate" degree candidate) that neither the universities nor the students take seriously. Is the fact that neither take it seriously deplorable? IMO, yes it is. However that is the world in which we live. Casey Jacobsen was fortunate that his opportunity was in the NBA, which you don't object to. Canady doesn't have a similar option. Why are these two cases different? On that we just disagree, which is fine :-).
RE: Canady - old spanish trail - 07-26-2024
(07-26-2024, 11:44 AM)BobK Wrote: Canady was all academic
Thanks for that, Bob. I just don't get the naysayers.
RE: Canady - SamuelMcF - 07-26-2024
(07-26-2024, 12:55 PM)GK3 Wrote: I am ok with coming back if you finished two years and were in good standing, but no more financial support. You left for the money, then invest it wisely and pay your tuition if you come back.
For example, Tyrell Terry is back on campus and paying tuition.
RE: Canady - oldalum - 07-26-2024
(07-26-2024, 01:01 PM)Goose Wrote: Casey Jacobsen was fortunate that his opportunity was in the NBA, which you don't object to. Canady doesn't have a similar option. Why are these two cases different? On that we just disagree, which is fine :-).Yes, that is a tough comparison, but it is tough because of the relevant external job market, of which fairness is not a characteristic. But in view of her apparent academic chops, perhaps that means she's a person who would be readmitted as a transfer, were that required (and clearly would be if she had eligibility left and wanted to play). I'm not saying she can't come back, she just doesn't get a guarantee.
I admit I'm an old luddite whose views are orthogonal to today's realities. I just can't separate the educational mission of colleges from their now-professional sports teams. My wish that some things continue to mean what they used to is just that -- wishful thinking.
RE: Canady - chrisk - 07-26-2024
(07-26-2024, 04:37 PM)oldalum Wrote:(07-26-2024, 01:01 PM)Goose Wrote: Casey Jacobsen was fortunate that his opportunity was in the NBA, which you don't object to. Canady doesn't have a similar option. Why are these two cases different? On that we just disagree, which is fine :-).Yes, that is a tough comparison, but it is tough because of the relevant external job market, of which fairness is not a characteristic. But in view of her apparent academic chops, perhaps that means she's a person who would be readmitted as a transfer, were that required (and clearly would be if she had eligibility left and wanted to play). I'm not saying she can't come back, she just doesn't get a guarantee.
I admit I'm an old luddite whose views are orthogonal to today's realities. I just can't separate the educational mission of colleges from their now-professional sports teams. My wish that some things continue to mean what they used to is just that -- wishful thinking.
Canady would be in a position to pay full freight. I’m sure if she made good use of her time since transferring, Stanford would welcome her money.
(07-26-2024, 04:37 PM)oldalum Wrote:(07-26-2024, 01:01 PM)Goose Wrote: Casey Jacobsen was fortunate that his opportunity was in the NBA, which you don't object to. Canady doesn't have a similar option. Why are these two cases different? On that we just disagree, which is fine :-).Yes, that is a tough comparison, but it is tough because of the relevant external job market, of which fairness is not a characteristic. But in view of her apparent academic chops, perhaps that means she's a person who would be readmitted as a transfer, were that required (and clearly would be if she had eligibility left and wanted to play). I'm not saying she can't come back, she just doesn't get a guarantee.
I admit I'm an old luddite whose views are orthogonal to today's realities. I just can't separate the educational mission of colleges from their now-professional sports teams. My wish that some things continue to mean what they used to is just that -- wishful thinking.
Canady would be in a position to pay full freight. I’m sure if she made good use of her time since transferring, Stanford would welcome her money.
RE: Canady - Goose - 07-26-2024
(07-26-2024, 04:37 PM)oldalum Wrote:I too have a hard time separating the educational mission of colleges from their now-professional sports teams. IMO many of us are. I too am unhappy with today's realities. I guess that I am doing the same thing, holding on to a policy that may no longer be appropriate given the changed conditions. I am attached to the idea that getting admitted to Stanford allowed return without conditions, as long as you were in good standing when you left. It was a "feature", not a "bug". In today's reality, that may no longer be true.(07-26-2024, 01:01 PM)Goose Wrote: Casey Jacobsen was fortunate that his opportunity was in the NBA, which you don't object to. Canady doesn't have a similar option. Why are these two cases different? On that we just disagree, which is fine :-).Yes, that is a tough comparison, but it is tough because of the relevant external job market, of which fairness is not a characteristic. But in view of her apparent academic chops, perhaps that means she's a person who would be readmitted as a transfer, were that required (and clearly would be if she had eligibility left and wanted to play). I'm not saying she can't come back, she just doesn't get a guarantee.
I admit I'm an old luddite whose views are orthogonal to today's realities. I just can't separate the educational mission of colleges from their now-professional sports teams. My wish that some things continue to mean what they used to is just that -- wishful thinking.
RE: Canady - lex24 - 07-27-2024
She got her money. Good for her. But if I’m Stanford, she isn’t coming back. Period.
It’s bad enough they are going to lose all their best athletes to other schools. But to then take them back? Suckers.
It’s a bit different if they go pro. And I get there isn’t that opportunity in softball. But that isn’t Stanford’s fault.
If they want to take the “highroad“ so be it. But they might as well then just go to club sports. Because they aren’t gonna be able to compete.
The other option is to get serious about NIL. But that’s not gonna happen.
RE: Canady - chrisk - 07-27-2024
(07-26-2024, 05:00 PM)Goose Wrote:(07-26-2024, 04:37 PM)oldalum Wrote:I too have a hard time separating the educational mission of colleges from their now-professional sports teams. IMO many of us are. I too am unhappy with today's realities. I guess that I am doing the same thing, holding on to a policy that may no longer be appropriate given the changed conditions. I am attached to the idea that getting admitted to Stanford allowed return without conditions, as long as you were in good standing when you left. It was a "feature", not a "bug". In today's reality, that may no longer be true.(07-26-2024, 01:01 PM)Goose Wrote: Casey Jacobsen was fortunate that his opportunity was in the NBA, which you don't object to. Canady doesn't have a similar option. Why are these two cases different? On that we just disagree, which is fine :-).Yes, that is a tough comparison, but it is tough because of the relevant external job market, of which fairness is not a characteristic. But in view of her apparent academic chops, perhaps that means she's a person who would be readmitted as a transfer, were that required (and clearly would be if she had eligibility left and wanted to play). I'm not saying she can't come back, she just doesn't get a guarantee.
I admit I'm an old luddite whose views are orthogonal to today's realities. I just can't separate the educational mission of colleges from their now-professional sports teams. My wish that some things continue to mean what they used to is just that -- wishful thinking.
If she came back, it would be as an academically qualified student who would be paying her tuition. It doesn’t really relate to any previous policies for athletes.
RE: Canady - Goose - 07-27-2024
(07-27-2024, 01:52 PM)chrisk Wrote: If she came back, it would be as an academically qualified student who would be paying her tuition.That is IMO the "way it should be". As I understand it, quite a few people, possibly a majority, believe athletes who transfer to another school should not be able to return to Stanford at all. It is unspecified if they believe that policy should apply to non-athletes. Some would allow return but would require the individual to go through the transfer process as if they had never been admitted.
Quote:It doesn’t really relate to any previous policies for athletes.I agree it certainly shouldn't. The only potential issue would be for people who believe the original admission was aided/based on athletic "preference" in admissions and therefore the original admission wasn't "as good" as for non-athletes.
RE: Canady - needle - 07-27-2024
Thankfully, I've never heard of any college having a blanket rule denying an athlete's return to finish out their eligibility.
Also, you have to consider coaching changes, which lead many students to make an emotional decision to transfer out that may not actually be in their own best interest: https://scarletandgame.com/posts/ohio-state-football-player-is-transferring-back-to-northwestern-01j0hhg453sm