[Spiny_Norman]

My thinking on the Approach/Philosophy for hiring a Mens Bball (& Football) Coach is the following:

(1).  When the 'Musical Chairs of conference realignment happened' we were nearly left out in the cold without a seat in a 'Major Power Conference'  largely because 'Our Football & Mens Basketball'  .. at the time & for a while, not being Top20 programs .....were not seen as a 'value-add' for the Major-Conferences.

One correction - Stanford was not seen as a value-add by Fox which controls the Big 10 TV money. USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington are going to the Big 10 because Fox agreed to increase its payment to the conference for them. We presume that the Big 10 school presidents would have been glad to add Stanford to increase the academic prestige of the conference.

And I don't necessarily think that football and basketball success is an existential threat to the University. Stanford has made a substantial commitment to subsidize Athletics for the foreseeable future regardless of the results on the field or the court. I agree with someone else (Jacket3ree?) that Stanford is playing the wait-and-see game. They are going to subsidize ACC participation for the next few years as they wait to see if college athletics reaches a point of acceptable stability. Until then, I expect Stanford to support men's basketball relatively cheaply (and maybe after as well - men's hoops does not seem to be a priority at Arrillaga).

But I do appreciate the ambitious suggestions! When I was a junior, Stanford fired hoops coach Dick Dibiaso. A few of us tried to generate energy for a campaign to hire Al McGuire who had retired after winning a national championship a few years before. The AD Andy Geiger did make an ambitious hire, getting Tom Davis from Boston College. But Davis left after 4 years of chafing under Admissions restrictions.

[Spiny_Norman]

My thinking on the Approach/Philosophy for hiring a Mens Bball (& Football) Coach is the following:

(1).  When the 'Musical Chairs of conference realignment happened' we were nearly left out in the cold without a seat in a 'Major Power Conference'  largely because 'Our Football & Mens Basketball'  .. at the time & for a while, not being Top20 programs .....were not seen as a 'value-add' for the Major-Conferences.

One correction - Stanford was not seen as a value-add by Fox which controls the Big 10 TV money. USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington are going to the Big 10 because Fox agreed to increase its payment to the conference for them. We presume that the Big 10 school presidents would have been glad to add Stanford to increase the academic prestige of the conference.

And I don't necessarily think that football and basketball success is an existential threat to the University. Stanford has made a substantial commitment to subsidize Athletics for the foreseeable future regardless of the results on the field or the court. I agree with someone else (Jacket3ree?) that Stanford is playing the wait-and-see game. They are going to subsidize ACC participation for the next few years as they wait to see if college athletics reaches a point of acceptable stability. Until then, I expect Stanford to support men's basketball relatively cheaply (and maybe after as well - men's hoops does not seem to be a priority at Arrillaga).

But I do appreciate the ambitious suggestions! When I was a junior, Stanford fired hoops coach Dick Dibiaso. A few of us tried to generate energy for a campaign to hire Al McGuire who had retired after winning a national championship a few years before. The AD Andy Geiger did make an ambitious hire, getting Tom Davis from Boston College. But Davis left after 4 years of chafing under Admissions restrictions.