[Mick]

Stanford dominates in non-revenue sports because athletes know that they are unlikely to be able to make a career in the sport and thus even the best athletes are open to the idea of leveraging their athletic prowess into a degree that will, in the long run, unlock doors that their athletic success doesn't.  In sports where the very best hope to make a professional team, that line of thinking caries a lot less weight for the very best of athletes, so Stanford's point of differentiation is largely moot.  In addition, we found a successful niche by valuing under-appreciated sports, for example, investing early in women's sports, and keeping sports such as men's gymnastics that few other schools field teams for.  The niche strategy brings athletic success broadly, but we see how much other conferences (channeling their TV sponsor) value it.  If Texas' poaching of the UCLA beach coach, LSU building a national champion women's basketball program through a combination of poaching Kim Mulkey from Baylor and then assembling a team of free agents, or Nebraska selling out its football stadium for a women's volleyball match, it will be harder to sustain the success going forward.

If that's true, does Stanford need to be part of a Power 5 conference to attract Olympic level athletes? Given that statement, wouldn't they come to Stanford for the coaching, the education, the degree, the overall environment...the 40 year decision? 

We may get an invite to the ACC, and that might convince us that we are still relevant, but I think that only keeps things going until the next round of conference realignment.  I think the eventual outcome is going to be a 20-40 team super-conference along the lines of what is suggested in this Athletic article: https://theathletic.com/4776402/2023/08/...er-league/ and whether this round or the next or the one after that, at some point the consolidation will leave Stanford without a seat.  I'm at peace with that.  Things change; the Ivy League was the center of the football universe a century ago; Chicago dropped football in the 30's and left the Big Ten in the 40's.  I think it is probably time to think about life after big time athletics for Stanford as well.
BC

Agreed...and frankly, I'd rather it be sooner rather than later. I don't want it to turn into a long twilight version of collegiate sports where we fade into irrelevance. If Stanford is going to turn its collective back on well over a century of athletic and Olympic and NFL/MLB/NBA/tennis/golf/track/other and NCAA championship success and succumb to non-sporting interests and crumble into a non-sports technical school, I'd just as soon get it over with.

[Mick]

Stanford dominates in non-revenue sports because athletes know that they are unlikely to be able to make a career in the sport and thus even the best athletes are open to the idea of leveraging their athletic prowess into a degree that will, in the long run, unlock doors that their athletic success doesn't.  In sports where the very best hope to make a professional team, that line of thinking caries a lot less weight for the very best of athletes, so Stanford's point of differentiation is largely moot.  In addition, we found a successful niche by valuing under-appreciated sports, for example, investing early in women's sports, and keeping sports such as men's gymnastics that few other schools field teams for.  The niche strategy brings athletic success broadly, but we see how much other conferences (channeling their TV sponsor) value it.  If Texas' poaching of the UCLA beach coach, LSU building a national champion women's basketball program through a combination of poaching Kim Mulkey from Baylor and then assembling a team of free agents, or Nebraska selling out its football stadium for a women's volleyball match, it will be harder to sustain the success going forward.

If that's true, does Stanford need to be part of a Power 5 conference to attract Olympic level athletes? Given that statement, wouldn't they come to Stanford for the coaching, the education, the degree, the overall environment...the 40 year decision? 

We may get an invite to the ACC, and that might convince us that we are still relevant, but I think that only keeps things going until the next round of conference realignment.  I think the eventual outcome is going to be a 20-40 team super-conference along the lines of what is suggested in this Athletic article: https://theathletic.com/4776402/2023/08/...er-league/ and whether this round or the next or the one after that, at some point the consolidation will leave Stanford without a seat.  I'm at peace with that.  Things change; the Ivy League was the center of the football universe a century ago; Chicago dropped football in the 30's and left the Big Ten in the 40's.  I think it is probably time to think about life after big time athletics for Stanford as well.
BC

Agreed...and frankly, I'd rather it be sooner rather than later. I don't want it to turn into a long twilight version of collegiate sports where we fade into irrelevance. If Stanford is going to turn its collective back on well over a century of athletic and Olympic and NFL/MLB/NBA/tennis/golf/track/other and NCAA championship success and succumb to non-sporting interests and crumble into a non-sports technical school, I'd just as soon get it over with.