[Langdude]

Yes! IMHO, I think that the reason that Stanford was ultra competitive for about 10 years was because they discovered an inefficiency in the market, maybe even by accident. There were a disproportionate number of student-atheletes who could qualify for Stanford and who were either (1) highly ranked, or (2) had enough qualities that would enable them to be coached up, that made for good players **in a particular system** - i.e., big and strong bodies that did not need to be exceptionally fast or nimble, but who were also exceptionally smart and super competitive. Combine that with the right system, a good strength, nutrition, and conditioning program, and some coaches who were smart, creative, enthusiastic, and committed -- and you get a program that attracts kids to the 40 year decision. But if you lose any of these things - system, the right coaches, excellent strength/conditioning, smart and competitive players - it goes downhill. If you lose a combination of them, it goes downhill fast.

-m.

[Langdude]

Yes! IMHO, I think that the reason that Stanford was ultra competitive for about 10 years was because they discovered an inefficiency in the market, maybe even by accident. There were a disproportionate number of student-atheletes who could qualify for Stanford and who were either (1) highly ranked, or (2) had enough qualities that would enable them to be coached up, that made for good players **in a particular system** - i.e., big and strong bodies that did not need to be exceptionally fast or nimble, but who were also exceptionally smart and super competitive. Combine that with the right system, a good strength, nutrition, and conditioning program, and some coaches who were smart, creative, enthusiastic, and committed -- and you get a program that attracts kids to the 40 year decision. But if you lose any of these things - system, the right coaches, excellent strength/conditioning, smart and competitive players - it goes downhill. If you lose a combination of them, it goes downhill fast.

-m.