[DenverCard]

Add to Braden Montgomery and Andrei Minakov...

https://swimswam.com/tokyo-olympic-medal...er-portal/

Arghhh.

[DenverCard]

Add to Braden Montgomery and Andrei Minakov...

https://swimswam.com/tokyo-olympic-medal...er-portal/

Arghhh.

[msqueri]

I really don't know what to think about all of this. From a distance it seems like the transfer portal + NIL + COVID-19 + Stanford Hates Fun + maybe other social/cultural factors have added up to really challenge Stanford athletics. But it's also possible that these things are happening everywhere and our relative position is unchanged.

I also am starting to have philosophical thoughts about Stanford's place in the world, including the sports world, and what the natural order of things is. Thoughts way too nascent to put into words but part of it is wondering what were Stanford's decades of athletic dominance based on and is that any more right/proper/natural than schools with large passionate fan bases soaking up the fun? If Stanford's dominance was based in part on having more resources to spread across more sports, is a resource-intensive shifting of the power balance to schools that actually have fans a bad thing or just the Stanford rich kids finally getting put in their place by schools whose riches are more a function of having a large student/fan/donor/community base than Arrillaga-driven oligarchy?

Regardless of philosophical thoughts, viscerally I want Stanford to figure this out and churn out winning teams like we always have (and especially to figure it out in the sports people care about, in which we sometimes have had winning teams).

[msqueri]

I really don't know what to think about all of this. From a distance it seems like the transfer portal + NIL + COVID-19 + Stanford Hates Fun + maybe other social/cultural factors have added up to really challenge Stanford athletics. But it's also possible that these things are happening everywhere and our relative position is unchanged.

I also am starting to have philosophical thoughts about Stanford's place in the world, including the sports world, and what the natural order of things is. Thoughts way too nascent to put into words but part of it is wondering what were Stanford's decades of athletic dominance based on and is that any more right/proper/natural than schools with large passionate fan bases soaking up the fun? If Stanford's dominance was based in part on having more resources to spread across more sports, is a resource-intensive shifting of the power balance to schools that actually have fans a bad thing or just the Stanford rich kids finally getting put in their place by schools whose riches are more a function of having a large student/fan/donor/community base than Arrillaga-driven oligarchy?

Regardless of philosophical thoughts, viscerally I want Stanford to figure this out and churn out winning teams like we always have (and especially to figure it out in the sports people care about, in which we sometimes have had winning teams).

[M T]

I wish posters summarized their post and offer the link for more details.

The above link indicates swimmer Claire Curzan has entered the transfer portal as a "Do Not Contact" after her freshman season.  The timing of this precludes her swimming for Stanford next season. The article indicates that that both she and teammate Torri Huske were already going to red-shirt next season to train for the Olympics.  At that time, Coach Meehan indicated they'd stay at Stanford during next season.

[M T]

I wish posters summarized their post and offer the link for more details.

The above link indicates swimmer Claire Curzan has entered the transfer portal as a "Do Not Contact" after her freshman season.  The timing of this precludes her swimming for Stanford next season. The article indicates that that both she and teammate Torri Huske were already going to red-shirt next season to train for the Olympics.  At that time, Coach Meehan indicated they'd stay at Stanford during next season.

[cardcrimson]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

[cardcrimson]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

[Jamesy]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

[Jamesy]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

[Spiny_Norman]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

I read the comments. They pile on Greg Meehan for not developing talent. But I did not see disparaging comments about Stanford as an institution.

[Spiny_Norman]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

I read the comments. They pile on Greg Meehan for not developing talent. But I did not see disparaging comments about Stanford as an institution.

[SamuelMcF]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

[SamuelMcF]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

[cardcrimson]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

I didn't say the coach should be fired. Nor did I say the institution was panned by the swimming community. Reading the comments, and it is a swimming magazine comment section, it was apparent that Stanford's swim program doesn't appear to be held in high regard by the swimming community anymore. In fact, Stanford's program was pretty much panned. A year ago, Regan Smith, an Olympic medalist, swam for Stanford for one year and left. Claire Curzan, another Olympic medalist swims for Stanford for one year and leaves as well. Something appears to be wrong. The AD needs to find out what.


As for the past performance, I seem to remember a certain football coach win a few Rose Bowls, only to let the program fall into disarray.

[cardcrimson]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

I didn't say the coach should be fired. Nor did I say the institution was panned by the swimming community. Reading the comments, and it is a swimming magazine comment section, it was apparent that Stanford's swim program doesn't appear to be held in high regard by the swimming community anymore. In fact, Stanford's program was pretty much panned. A year ago, Regan Smith, an Olympic medalist, swam for Stanford for one year and left. Claire Curzan, another Olympic medalist swims for Stanford for one year and leaves as well. Something appears to be wrong. The AD needs to find out what.


As for the past performance, I seem to remember a certain football coach win a few Rose Bowls, only to let the program fall into disarray.

[StanfordMatt]

I really don't know what to think about all of this. From a distance it seems like the transfer portal + NIL + COVID-19 + Stanford Hates Fun + maybe other social/cultural factors have added up to really challenge Stanford athletics. But it's also possible that these things are happening everywhere and our relative position is unchanged.

I can't imagine that NIL is significantly hurting Stanford in non-revenue sports and think it's helpful to think of NIL in two different realms.

Yesterday, I saw a post that Stanford track/cross country runner Juliette Whittaker had signed an NIL deal with On Running. Now, I don't have any inside knowledge but I would imagine that On Running entered into the deal because they want Juliette to be a face for their brand. If she's performing well and serving as a good brand ambassador, I'm guessing that On Running doesn't care if Juliette is running for Stanford or another top tier college program. I would guess that the same would hold true for any swimmer that signs an NIL deal.

On the other hand, if Braden Montgomery signs with an SEC program, it's reasonable to conclude that the funding behind his deal is predicated upon him suiting up for LSU, Mississippi State or whoever it ends up being. "Pay for play" is a taboo term but that's essentially the types of deals that these collectives are facilitating (and good luck ever coming up with a test that passes legal scrutiny and differentiates between an On Running NIL type deal and a “pay for play” NIL deal!).

I don't see the current climate of college sports having a materially negative impact on Olympic sports at Stanford. Of course the one caveat is that the meaning of the term Olympic or non-revenue sports is fluid. Baseball may not be a revenue sport in Ann Arbor but it definitely is in Baton Rouge. Same for women's volleyball in a place like Lincoln. And when it comes to sports that are universally accepted as revenue drivers where “pay for play” has become part and parcel of the playing field, football and men’s basketball, it's hard for me to see Stanford ever competing among the nation's best in the current landscape.

[StanfordMatt]

I really don't know what to think about all of this. From a distance it seems like the transfer portal + NIL + COVID-19 + Stanford Hates Fun + maybe other social/cultural factors have added up to really challenge Stanford athletics. But it's also possible that these things are happening everywhere and our relative position is unchanged.

I can't imagine that NIL is significantly hurting Stanford in non-revenue sports and think it's helpful to think of NIL in two different realms.

Yesterday, I saw a post that Stanford track/cross country runner Juliette Whittaker had signed an NIL deal with On Running. Now, I don't have any inside knowledge but I would imagine that On Running entered into the deal because they want Juliette to be a face for their brand. If she's performing well and serving as a good brand ambassador, I'm guessing that On Running doesn't care if Juliette is running for Stanford or another top tier college program. I would guess that the same would hold true for any swimmer that signs an NIL deal.

On the other hand, if Braden Montgomery signs with an SEC program, it's reasonable to conclude that the funding behind his deal is predicated upon him suiting up for LSU, Mississippi State or whoever it ends up being. "Pay for play" is a taboo term but that's essentially the types of deals that these collectives are facilitating (and good luck ever coming up with a test that passes legal scrutiny and differentiates between an On Running NIL type deal and a “pay for play” NIL deal!).

I don't see the current climate of college sports having a materially negative impact on Olympic sports at Stanford. Of course the one caveat is that the meaning of the term Olympic or non-revenue sports is fluid. Baseball may not be a revenue sport in Ann Arbor but it definitely is in Baton Rouge. Same for women's volleyball in a place like Lincoln. And when it comes to sports that are universally accepted as revenue drivers where “pay for play” has become part and parcel of the playing field, football and men’s basketball, it's hard for me to see Stanford ever competing among the nation's best in the current landscape.

[OutsiderFan]

All it takes is ONE wealthy Stanford fan to decide he or she wants to bankroll Stanford to compete in the glamour sports and not only will Stanford be able to compete with any school in the country for top talent via direct payments, but I would assume if they gave enough money to the university they could get more players in the door in exchange for it.

Everyone has their price. 

Does such a person exist? I have no idea, but I know if Bobk had hedge fund billions like Steve Cohen (Owner of New York Mets), he'd be that one!

[OutsiderFan]

All it takes is ONE wealthy Stanford fan to decide he or she wants to bankroll Stanford to compete in the glamour sports and not only will Stanford be able to compete with any school in the country for top talent via direct payments, but I would assume if they gave enough money to the university they could get more players in the door in exchange for it.

Everyone has their price. 

Does such a person exist? I have no idea, but I know if Bobk had hedge fund billions like Steve Cohen (Owner of New York Mets), he'd be that one!

[BobK]

I would if lol
Meanwhile if unlv can do for wbb so can Stanford

https://twitter.com/lindylarocque/status...D-jBbhrpNw

[BobK]

I would if lol
Meanwhile if unlv can do for wbb so can Stanford

https://twitter.com/lindylarocque/status...D-jBbhrpNw

[BostonCard]

I for one became disillusioned with Stanford sports and largely stopped posting here when the three women's basketball players transferred out after the season. Although it was the last straw, it looks like it wasn't an anomaly, and we are now in an era where many athletes view Stanford as broadly interchangeable with any other school. In contrast, the outbound transfer rate among all students is 1% (and a large share of that is outbound athletes). 

It was not because I think athletes should not transfer, and it is not because I'm worried that Stanford athletics will struggle in a future with NIL and relaxed transfer rules (though I think it will).  Rather, it is because it has become clear that too many athletes are enrolling in Stanford for reasons completely unrelated to the opportunities they will get from Stanford's primary mission (education), and in a world where the admission rate is under 4% (and even lower for non-atheletes), I just can't get enthusiastic about a system built upon athletes who don't recognize the value of what Stanford offers.  Yes, it has always been a very transactional and I will fully admit that there has been some willful ignorance on my part.  But I can no longer believe that the majority of the athletes at Stanford are pursuing their sport primarily to further their education and that makes me sad.   The NCAA reports that fewer than 2% of NCAA athletes become pros (it is likely higher at a place like Stanford, but still a minority, and those who have a cup of coffee as pros will still have to depend on more than their athletic talent), so it really pains me to see us recruit athletes disregard what so many non-athletes work so hard to have such a tiny chance to get.  It's too bad, because I really thought that the prospect of not getting a Stanford degree would be a substantial barrier to outbound transfer, particularly for the vast majority of athletes who won't be able to support themselves as pros.  Oh well.  The original idea behind intercollegiate athletics was a competition between students in different schools.  That is not what the system has become.  So, while some people hope that a wealthy alum buys the school athletics success, that's not what why I was a fan, and now that it is the reality of collegiate sports, it is not something that interests me.

BC

[BostonCard]

I for one became disillusioned with Stanford sports and largely stopped posting here when the three women's basketball players transferred out after the season. Although it was the last straw, it looks like it wasn't an anomaly, and we are now in an era where many athletes view Stanford as broadly interchangeable with any other school. In contrast, the outbound transfer rate among all students is 1% (and a large share of that is outbound athletes). 

It was not because I think athletes should not transfer, and it is not because I'm worried that Stanford athletics will struggle in a future with NIL and relaxed transfer rules (though I think it will).  Rather, it is because it has become clear that too many athletes are enrolling in Stanford for reasons completely unrelated to the opportunities they will get from Stanford's primary mission (education), and in a world where the admission rate is under 4% (and even lower for non-atheletes), I just can't get enthusiastic about a system built upon athletes who don't recognize the value of what Stanford offers.  Yes, it has always been a very transactional and I will fully admit that there has been some willful ignorance on my part.  But I can no longer believe that the majority of the athletes at Stanford are pursuing their sport primarily to further their education and that makes me sad.   The NCAA reports that fewer than 2% of NCAA athletes become pros (it is likely higher at a place like Stanford, but still a minority, and those who have a cup of coffee as pros will still have to depend on more than their athletic talent), so it really pains me to see us recruit athletes disregard what so many non-athletes work so hard to have such a tiny chance to get.  It's too bad, because I really thought that the prospect of not getting a Stanford degree would be a substantial barrier to outbound transfer, particularly for the vast majority of athletes who won't be able to support themselves as pros.  Oh well.  The original idea behind intercollegiate athletics was a competition between students in different schools.  That is not what the system has become.  So, while some people hope that a wealthy alum buys the school athletics success, that's not what why I was a fan, and now that it is the reality of collegiate sports, it is not something that interests me.

BC

[winflop]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

I didn't say the coach should be fired. Nor did I say the institution was panned by the swimming community. Reading the comments, and it is a swimming magazine comment section, it was apparent that Stanford's swim program doesn't appear to be held in high regard by the swimming community anymore. In fact, Stanford's program was pretty much panned. A year ago, Regan Smith, an Olympic medalist, swam for Stanford for one year and left. Claire Curzan, another Olympic medalist swims for Stanford for one year and leaves as well. Something appears to be wrong. The AD needs to find out what.


As for the past performance, I seem to remember a certain football coach win a few Rose Bowls, only to let the program fall into disarray.

And how many seasons of that downhill slide did it take? There's no real indication of any slide in either men's or women's swimming, much less multiple years

[winflop]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

I didn't say the coach should be fired. Nor did I say the institution was panned by the swimming community. Reading the comments, and it is a swimming magazine comment section, it was apparent that Stanford's swim program doesn't appear to be held in high regard by the swimming community anymore. In fact, Stanford's program was pretty much panned. A year ago, Regan Smith, an Olympic medalist, swam for Stanford for one year and left. Claire Curzan, another Olympic medalist swims for Stanford for one year and leaves as well. Something appears to be wrong. The AD needs to find out what.


As for the past performance, I seem to remember a certain football coach win a few Rose Bowls, only to let the program fall into disarray.

And how many seasons of that downhill slide did it take? There's no real indication of any slide in either men's or women's swimming, much less multiple years

[cardcrimson]

Love the Kevin Bacon replies: "Stay calm! All is well!"

Just a sampling of a the first twenty or so comments of the over 200 now on Swimswam:

She likely wants to make the Olympic team again and she probably couldn’t do it with Meehan and Stanford.

Oh dear, Stanford swimming is falling apart. Of course she’ll be going to UVA.

Stanford really has not been the powerhouse they were back in the Ledecky, Manuel days!

Greg Meehan is the Ron Zook of swimming; great recruiter but not much of a coach.

Stanford University recruits itself. Between the academic excellence and the Avery Aquatic Center, what else could an athlete ask for, well aside from a real coach.

Stanford Cardinal women’s swimming program sinking faster than the RMS Titanic. Per naval tradition, the captain goes down with the ship. No lifeboat for you, Greg.

Wow, this comment section has out-done the last comment section about Meehan – and that’s saying something! The Cardinal and The Coach having a rough go.


Glad to know they are all just trolls. . . . .

That said:

https://y.yarn.co/d384b8af-b4a8-46a4-92c...7d3121.mp4

---

I for one became disillusioned with Stanford sports and largely stopped posting here when the three women's basketball players transferred out after the season. Although it was the last straw, it looks like it wasn't an anomaly, and we are now in an era where many athletes view Stanford as broadly interchangeable with any other school. In contrast, the outbound transfer rate among all students is 1% (and a large share of that is outbound athletes). 

It was not because I think athletes should not transfer, and it is not because I'm worried that Stanford athletics will struggle in a future with NIL and relaxed transfer rules (though I think it will).  Rather, it is because it has become clear that too many athletes are enrolling in Stanford for reasons completely unrelated to the opportunities they will get from Stanford's primary mission (education), and in a world where the admission rate is under 4% (and even lower for non-atheletes), I just can't get enthusiastic about a system built upon athletes who don't recognize the value of what Stanford offers.  Yes, it has always been a very transactional and I will fully admit that there has been some willful ignorance on my part.  But I can no longer believe that the majority of the athletes at Stanford are pursuing their sport primarily to further their education and that makes me sad.   The NCAA reports that fewer than 2% of NCAA athletes become pros (it is likely higher at a place like Stanford, but still a minority, and those who have a cup of coffee as pros will still have to depend on more than their athletic talent), so it really pains me to see us recruit athletes disregard what so many non-athletes work so hard to have such a tiny chance to get.  It's too bad, because I really thought that the prospect of not getting a Stanford degree would be a substantial barrier to outbound transfer, particularly for the vast majority of athletes who won't be able to support themselves as pros.  Oh well.  The original idea behind intercollegiate athletics was a competition between students in different schools.  That is not what the system has become.  So, while some people hope that a wealthy alum buys the school athletics success, that's not what why I was a fan, and now that it is the reality of collegiate sports, it is not something that interests me.

BC

Thanks BC. Great post. You are missed here. . ..

[cardcrimson]

Love the Kevin Bacon replies: "Stay calm! All is well!"

Just a sampling of a the first twenty or so comments of the over 200 now on Swimswam:

She likely wants to make the Olympic team again and she probably couldn’t do it with Meehan and Stanford.

Oh dear, Stanford swimming is falling apart. Of course she’ll be going to UVA.

Stanford really has not been the powerhouse they were back in the Ledecky, Manuel days!

Greg Meehan is the Ron Zook of swimming; great recruiter but not much of a coach.

Stanford University recruits itself. Between the academic excellence and the Avery Aquatic Center, what else could an athlete ask for, well aside from a real coach.

Stanford Cardinal women’s swimming program sinking faster than the RMS Titanic. Per naval tradition, the captain goes down with the ship. No lifeboat for you, Greg.

Wow, this comment section has out-done the last comment section about Meehan – and that’s saying something! The Cardinal and The Coach having a rough go.


Glad to know they are all just trolls. . . . .

That said:

https://y.yarn.co/d384b8af-b4a8-46a4-92c...7d3121.mp4

---

I for one became disillusioned with Stanford sports and largely stopped posting here when the three women's basketball players transferred out after the season. Although it was the last straw, it looks like it wasn't an anomaly, and we are now in an era where many athletes view Stanford as broadly interchangeable with any other school. In contrast, the outbound transfer rate among all students is 1% (and a large share of that is outbound athletes). 

It was not because I think athletes should not transfer, and it is not because I'm worried that Stanford athletics will struggle in a future with NIL and relaxed transfer rules (though I think it will).  Rather, it is because it has become clear that too many athletes are enrolling in Stanford for reasons completely unrelated to the opportunities they will get from Stanford's primary mission (education), and in a world where the admission rate is under 4% (and even lower for non-atheletes), I just can't get enthusiastic about a system built upon athletes who don't recognize the value of what Stanford offers.  Yes, it has always been a very transactional and I will fully admit that there has been some willful ignorance on my part.  But I can no longer believe that the majority of the athletes at Stanford are pursuing their sport primarily to further their education and that makes me sad.   The NCAA reports that fewer than 2% of NCAA athletes become pros (it is likely higher at a place like Stanford, but still a minority, and those who have a cup of coffee as pros will still have to depend on more than their athletic talent), so it really pains me to see us recruit athletes disregard what so many non-athletes work so hard to have such a tiny chance to get.  It's too bad, because I really thought that the prospect of not getting a Stanford degree would be a substantial barrier to outbound transfer, particularly for the vast majority of athletes who won't be able to support themselves as pros.  Oh well.  The original idea behind intercollegiate athletics was a competition between students in different schools.  That is not what the system has become.  So, while some people hope that a wealthy alum buys the school athletics success, that's not what why I was a fan, and now that it is the reality of collegiate sports, it is not something that interests me.

BC

Thanks BC. Great post. You are missed here. . ..

[2006alum]

I for one became disillusioned with Stanford sports and largely stopped posting here when the three women's basketball players transferred out after the season. Although it was the last straw, it looks like it wasn't an anomaly, and we are now in an era where many athletes view Stanford as broadly interchangeable with any other school. In contrast, the outbound transfer rate among all students is 1% (and a large share of that is outbound athletes). 

It was not because I think athletes should not transfer, and it is not because I'm worried that Stanford athletics will struggle in a future with NIL and relaxed transfer rules (though I think it will).  Rather, it is because it has become clear that too many athletes are enrolling in Stanford for reasons completely unrelated to the opportunities they will get from Stanford's primary mission (education), and in a world where the admission rate is under 4% (and even lower for non-atheletes), I just can't get enthusiastic about a system built upon athletes who don't recognize the value of what Stanford offers.  Yes, it has always been a very transactional and I will fully admit that there has been some willful ignorance on my part.  But I can no longer believe that the majority of the athletes at Stanford are pursuing their sport primarily to further their education and that makes me sad.   The NCAA reports that fewer than 2% of NCAA athletes become pros (it is likely higher at a place like Stanford, but still a minority, and those who have a cup of coffee as pros will still have to depend on more than their athletic talent), so it really pains me to see us recruit athletes disregard what so many non-athletes work so hard to have such a tiny chance to get.  It's too bad, because I really thought that the prospect of not getting a Stanford degree would be a substantial barrier to outbound transfer, particularly for the vast majority of athletes who won't be able to support themselves as pros.  Oh well.  The original idea behind intercollegiate athletics was a competition between students in different schools.  That is not what the system has become.  So, while some people hope that a wealthy alum buys the school athletics success, that's not what why I was a fan, and now that it is the reality of collegiate sports, it is not something that interests me.

BC

+1(000). We miss you and your always great insights BC, and please come back more often! I share basically all your sentiments, but my love of Stanford remains sufficient to keep me reading and enjoying our fellow posters' posts, even if I post far less these days than I used to. :)

[2006alum]

I for one became disillusioned with Stanford sports and largely stopped posting here when the three women's basketball players transferred out after the season. Although it was the last straw, it looks like it wasn't an anomaly, and we are now in an era where many athletes view Stanford as broadly interchangeable with any other school. In contrast, the outbound transfer rate among all students is 1% (and a large share of that is outbound athletes). 

It was not because I think athletes should not transfer, and it is not because I'm worried that Stanford athletics will struggle in a future with NIL and relaxed transfer rules (though I think it will).  Rather, it is because it has become clear that too many athletes are enrolling in Stanford for reasons completely unrelated to the opportunities they will get from Stanford's primary mission (education), and in a world where the admission rate is under 4% (and even lower for non-atheletes), I just can't get enthusiastic about a system built upon athletes who don't recognize the value of what Stanford offers.  Yes, it has always been a very transactional and I will fully admit that there has been some willful ignorance on my part.  But I can no longer believe that the majority of the athletes at Stanford are pursuing their sport primarily to further their education and that makes me sad.   The NCAA reports that fewer than 2% of NCAA athletes become pros (it is likely higher at a place like Stanford, but still a minority, and those who have a cup of coffee as pros will still have to depend on more than their athletic talent), so it really pains me to see us recruit athletes disregard what so many non-athletes work so hard to have such a tiny chance to get.  It's too bad, because I really thought that the prospect of not getting a Stanford degree would be a substantial barrier to outbound transfer, particularly for the vast majority of athletes who won't be able to support themselves as pros.  Oh well.  The original idea behind intercollegiate athletics was a competition between students in different schools.  That is not what the system has become.  So, while some people hope that a wealthy alum buys the school athletics success, that's not what why I was a fan, and now that it is the reality of collegiate sports, it is not something that interests me.

BC

+1(000). We miss you and your always great insights BC, and please come back more often! I share basically all your sentiments, but my love of Stanford remains sufficient to keep me reading and enjoying our fellow posters' posts, even if I post far less these days than I used to. :)

[RuralFan]

I for one became disillusioned with Stanford sports and largely stopped posting here when the three women's basketball players transferred out after the season. Although it was the last straw, it looks like it wasn't an anomaly, and we are now in an era where many athletes view Stanford as broadly interchangeable with any other school. In contrast, the outbound transfer rate among all students is 1% (and a large share of that is outbound athletes). 

It was not because I think athletes should not transfer, and it is not because I'm worried that Stanford athletics will struggle in a future with NIL and relaxed transfer rules (though I think it will).  Rather, it is because it has become clear that too many athletes are enrolling in Stanford for reasons completely unrelated to the opportunities they will get from Stanford's primary mission (education), and in a world where the admission rate is under 4% (and even lower for non-atheletes), I just can't get enthusiastic about a system built upon athletes who don't recognize the value of what Stanford offers.  Yes, it has always been a very transactional and I will fully admit that there has been some willful ignorance on my part.  But I can no longer believe that the majority of the athletes at Stanford are pursuing their sport primarily to further their education and that makes me sad.   The NCAA reports that fewer than 2% of NCAA athletes become pros (it is likely higher at a place like Stanford, but still a minority, and those who have a cup of coffee as pros will still have to depend on more than their athletic talent), so it really pains me to see us recruit athletes disregard what so many non-athletes work so hard to have such a tiny chance to get.  It's too bad, because I really thought that the prospect of not getting a Stanford degree would be a substantial barrier to outbound transfer, particularly for the vast majority of athletes who won't be able to support themselves as pros.  Oh well.  The original idea behind intercollegiate athletics was a competition between students in different schools.  That is not what the system has become.  So, while some people hope that a wealthy alum buys the school athletics success, that's not what why I was a fan, and now that it is the reality of collegiate sports, it is not something that interests me.

BC

BC - I have read many of your past WBB posts with much interest and appreciation.  With that said, I think your most recent post was the most insightful.

[RuralFan]

I for one became disillusioned with Stanford sports and largely stopped posting here when the three women's basketball players transferred out after the season. Although it was the last straw, it looks like it wasn't an anomaly, and we are now in an era where many athletes view Stanford as broadly interchangeable with any other school. In contrast, the outbound transfer rate among all students is 1% (and a large share of that is outbound athletes). 

It was not because I think athletes should not transfer, and it is not because I'm worried that Stanford athletics will struggle in a future with NIL and relaxed transfer rules (though I think it will).  Rather, it is because it has become clear that too many athletes are enrolling in Stanford for reasons completely unrelated to the opportunities they will get from Stanford's primary mission (education), and in a world where the admission rate is under 4% (and even lower for non-atheletes), I just can't get enthusiastic about a system built upon athletes who don't recognize the value of what Stanford offers.  Yes, it has always been a very transactional and I will fully admit that there has been some willful ignorance on my part.  But I can no longer believe that the majority of the athletes at Stanford are pursuing their sport primarily to further their education and that makes me sad.   The NCAA reports that fewer than 2% of NCAA athletes become pros (it is likely higher at a place like Stanford, but still a minority, and those who have a cup of coffee as pros will still have to depend on more than their athletic talent), so it really pains me to see us recruit athletes disregard what so many non-athletes work so hard to have such a tiny chance to get.  It's too bad, because I really thought that the prospect of not getting a Stanford degree would be a substantial barrier to outbound transfer, particularly for the vast majority of athletes who won't be able to support themselves as pros.  Oh well.  The original idea behind intercollegiate athletics was a competition between students in different schools.  That is not what the system has become.  So, while some people hope that a wealthy alum buys the school athletics success, that's not what why I was a fan, and now that it is the reality of collegiate sports, it is not something that interests me.

BC

BC - I have read many of your past WBB posts with much interest and appreciation.  With that said, I think your most recent post was the most insightful.

[Jamesy]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

I didn't say the coach should be fired. Nor did I say the institution was panned by the swimming community. Reading the comments, and it is a swimming magazine comment section, it was apparent that Stanford's swim program doesn't appear to be held in high regard by the swimming community anymore. In fact, Stanford's program was pretty much panned. A year ago, Regan Smith, an Olympic medalist, swam for Stanford for one year and left. Claire Curzan, another Olympic medalist swims for Stanford for one year and leaves as well. Something appears to be wrong. The AD needs to find out what.


As for the past performance, I seem to remember a certain football coach win a few Rose Bowls, only to let the program fall into disarray.

And how many seasons of that downhill slide did it take? There's no real indication of any slide in either men's or women's swimming, much less multiple years

Men's swimming hasn't been competitive on the national level for years and the women's team is not going to win a natty for at least four years. I think the knock on Meehan is that he regularly has a top 1-2 recruiting class and their times don't improve during their collegiate years. Hence the relative back sliding in performance.

[Jamesy]

Forget about the article, what is stunning is the comment section. Stanford is completely panned by pretty much everyone. No longer is it perceived as a go to school for swimming, it's not even perceived as a good place to go anymore. Stunning and sad. Where is our AD?

Oh, and read on another site that Jack Martin, the fourth leading scorer and a lefty on the polo team, is transferring to USC. Ugh.

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

I didn't say the coach should be fired. Nor did I say the institution was panned by the swimming community. Reading the comments, and it is a swimming magazine comment section, it was apparent that Stanford's swim program doesn't appear to be held in high regard by the swimming community anymore. In fact, Stanford's program was pretty much panned. A year ago, Regan Smith, an Olympic medalist, swam for Stanford for one year and left. Claire Curzan, another Olympic medalist swims for Stanford for one year and leaves as well. Something appears to be wrong. The AD needs to find out what.


As for the past performance, I seem to remember a certain football coach win a few Rose Bowls, only to let the program fall into disarray.

And how many seasons of that downhill slide did it take? There's no real indication of any slide in either men's or women's swimming, much less multiple years

Men's swimming hasn't been competitive on the national level for years and the women's team is not going to win a natty for at least four years. I think the knock on Meehan is that he regularly has a top 1-2 recruiting class and their times don't improve during their collegiate years. Hence the relative back sliding in performance.

[BobK]

5 of the last 6 years two thirds and 3
National titles
With swimmers not improving that’s amazing coaching

[BobK]

5 of the last 6 years two thirds and 3
National titles
With swimmers not improving that’s amazing coaching

[triangle2]

Has the reckoning finally arrived?

I’m not far from BC’s opinion. We’ve been playing the college admissions game with our kids over the past couple of years, and I’m honestly disheartened and angry at how athletics has distorted the entire admissions process. Back in the dark ages, my wife and I both went to small colleges and played DIII sports in an era where you could show up and walk on for a sport that wasn’t football or basketball. I think we didn’t understand on a granular level how much things had changed until we started touring the NESCAC schools and heard horrifying stats about how the overall student body is about one-third recruited athletes. At a couple of those schools, we learned that about 2/3 of the early decision slots go to athletes.

We had noticed locally that lots of fairly affluent (mostly white) parents were pushing their kids into the fairly obscure ‘non-revenue’ sports like crew, lacrosse, sailing, and ultimate frisbee. All of these sports have become weaponized for college admissions. If you had told me 35 years ago that there were going to be ultimate frisbee national travel teams, I would have passed out laughing. 

Our kids decided to play soccer primarily, and we all know that there are tens of thousands of kids playing club soccer and gunning for college spots; so, we recognized that they would end up in the non-recruited athlete candidate pool even though both of them are considerably more athletically talented than their parents. (I can reasonably speculate that one of our kids could have been a three-sport guy where I went to college and would have started on the soccer team. Now, he’s probably not even going to get a whisper of interest from even the small DIII schools who get pummeled with applications from hundreds of academy/DA/ECNL kids.)

This makes me wonder out loud - what’s the societal good that comes from reserving spots for athletes and placing them ahead of other academically qualified kids who didn’t win the VO2 max lottery but might nevertheless be excellent well-qualified students? I mean, in the NIL and money era, I can at least see why big DI schools are in the game to make money, but what justification is there to do this for a place like Williams, or Pomona, or even for schools like Stanford, or Northwestern, or Brown? Like BC, I’m saying this as a fan, and it makes me sad that I’m struggling to find a moral justification for my fandom.

[triangle2]

Has the reckoning finally arrived?

I’m not far from BC’s opinion. We’ve been playing the college admissions game with our kids over the past couple of years, and I’m honestly disheartened and angry at how athletics has distorted the entire admissions process. Back in the dark ages, my wife and I both went to small colleges and played DIII sports in an era where you could show up and walk on for a sport that wasn’t football or basketball. I think we didn’t understand on a granular level how much things had changed until we started touring the NESCAC schools and heard horrifying stats about how the overall student body is about one-third recruited athletes. At a couple of those schools, we learned that about 2/3 of the early decision slots go to athletes.

We had noticed locally that lots of fairly affluent (mostly white) parents were pushing their kids into the fairly obscure ‘non-revenue’ sports like crew, lacrosse, sailing, and ultimate frisbee. All of these sports have become weaponized for college admissions. If you had told me 35 years ago that there were going to be ultimate frisbee national travel teams, I would have passed out laughing. 

Our kids decided to play soccer primarily, and we all know that there are tens of thousands of kids playing club soccer and gunning for college spots; so, we recognized that they would end up in the non-recruited athlete candidate pool even though both of them are considerably more athletically talented than their parents. (I can reasonably speculate that one of our kids could have been a three-sport guy where I went to college and would have started on the soccer team. Now, he’s probably not even going to get a whisper of interest from even the small DIII schools who get pummeled with applications from hundreds of academy/DA/ECNL kids.)

This makes me wonder out loud - what’s the societal good that comes from reserving spots for athletes and placing them ahead of other academically qualified kids who didn’t win the VO2 max lottery but might nevertheless be excellent well-qualified students? I mean, in the NIL and money era, I can at least see why big DI schools are in the game to make money, but what justification is there to do this for a place like Williams, or Pomona, or even for schools like Stanford, or Northwestern, or Brown? Like BC, I’m saying this as a fan, and it makes me sad that I’m struggling to find a moral justification for my fandom.

[cardcrimson]

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

I didn't say the coach should be fired. Nor did I say the institution was panned by the swimming community. Reading the comments, and it is a swimming magazine comment section, it was apparent that Stanford's swim program doesn't appear to be held in high regard by the swimming community anymore. In fact, Stanford's program was pretty much panned. A year ago, Regan Smith, an Olympic medalist, swam for Stanford for one year and left. Claire Curzan, another Olympic medalist swims for Stanford for one year and leaves as well. Something appears to be wrong. The AD needs to find out what.


As for the past performance, I seem to remember a certain football coach win a few Rose Bowls, only to let the program fall into disarray.

And how many seasons of that downhill slide did it take? There's no real indication of any slide in either men's or women's swimming, much less multiple years

Men's swimming hasn't been competitive on the national level for years and the women's team is not going to win a natty for at least four years. I think the knock on Meehan is that he regularly has a top 1-2 recruiting class and their times don't improve during their collegiate years. Hence the relative back sliding in performance.

Bingo. I've no experience at collegiate swimming (a good bit at high school), but that seems to be the issue. Great recruiting. Lack of swimmer development. Now where have I heard that before? The parallels are eerie.

[cardcrimson]

If our AD won't fire Haase with his track record, there's no way he's firing Meehan.

Pac-12 champions in 6 of the last 7 seasons and national champions in 3 of them.
3rd place nationally in the last 2 seasons as well.

On the surface, firing the coach with these results would be batshit insane.

I didn't say the coach should be fired. Nor did I say the institution was panned by the swimming community. Reading the comments, and it is a swimming magazine comment section, it was apparent that Stanford's swim program doesn't appear to be held in high regard by the swimming community anymore. In fact, Stanford's program was pretty much panned. A year ago, Regan Smith, an Olympic medalist, swam for Stanford for one year and left. Claire Curzan, another Olympic medalist swims for Stanford for one year and leaves as well. Something appears to be wrong. The AD needs to find out what.


As for the past performance, I seem to remember a certain football coach win a few Rose Bowls, only to let the program fall into disarray.

And how many seasons of that downhill slide did it take? There's no real indication of any slide in either men's or women's swimming, much less multiple years

Men's swimming hasn't been competitive on the national level for years and the women's team is not going to win a natty for at least four years. I think the knock on Meehan is that he regularly has a top 1-2 recruiting class and their times don't improve during their collegiate years. Hence the relative back sliding in performance.

Bingo. I've no experience at collegiate swimming (a good bit at high school), but that seems to be the issue. Great recruiting. Lack of swimmer development. Now where have I heard that before? The parallels are eerie.