[Goose]

I don't think there's much discussion to be had. Stanford needs to get serious about the NIL program, about the transfer portal and about attracting and compensating top level coaches across the board, starting with football and men's basketball. Either they are cash cows or they aren't. Either they're important to the University's mission or they aren't. And there will always be challenges in the University, but wouldn't it be nice to make some hard choices and either eliminate varsity sports or play to win like Stanford does in literally every other area?

I think it is possible for Stanford to do two of the three. Stanford (or its surrogates) can get the money for NIL. Stanford can get the money to pay the coaches. Whether Stanford should is indeed the discussion that needs to be had. It really doesn't matter to what extent these sports are "cash cows". Stanford is allegedly a non-profit. To the degree football and basketball are important to the University's mission they should be supported. Note, it is unquestionably a matter of degree. It isn't "either/or". I recognize that makes it more difficult, but it reflects the underlying reality that there are lots of different opinions in the community. If it costs 100 million dollars, no chance. If it costs 1 million dollars, obviously do it. In between is where the truth lies.

The problem with the transfer portal can't be fixed. It can be ameliorated but in no universe is Stanford going to have an "open door" policy to athletes that is similar to what most other universities have, just as Stanford does not have an admissions policy that is similar to what other universities have. Our coaches and their support staff will always have a considerably more difficult task. That is always the way it has been and Stanford has continued to have a modicum of success. If we can't find a way to continue to do so subject to these constraints then we may have to eliminate some varsity sports. That is IMO an immutable fact. The "amelioration" is subject to negotiation and judgement, but elimination of these constraints is a non-starter.

[Goose]

I don't think there's much discussion to be had. Stanford needs to get serious about the NIL program, about the transfer portal and about attracting and compensating top level coaches across the board, starting with football and men's basketball. Either they are cash cows or they aren't. Either they're important to the University's mission or they aren't. And there will always be challenges in the University, but wouldn't it be nice to make some hard choices and either eliminate varsity sports or play to win like Stanford does in literally every other area?

I think it is possible for Stanford to do two of the three. Stanford (or its surrogates) can get the money for NIL. Stanford can get the money to pay the coaches. Whether Stanford should is indeed the discussion that needs to be had. It really doesn't matter to what extent these sports are "cash cows". Stanford is allegedly a non-profit. To the degree football and basketball are important to the University's mission they should be supported. Note, it is unquestionably a matter of degree. It isn't "either/or". I recognize that makes it more difficult, but it reflects the underlying reality that there are lots of different opinions in the community. If it costs 100 million dollars, no chance. If it costs 1 million dollars, obviously do it. In between is where the truth lies.

The problem with the transfer portal can't be fixed. It can be ameliorated but in no universe is Stanford going to have an "open door" policy to athletes that is similar to what most other universities have, just as Stanford does not have an admissions policy that is similar to what other universities have. Our coaches and their support staff will always have a considerably more difficult task. That is always the way it has been and Stanford has continued to have a modicum of success. If we can't find a way to continue to do so subject to these constraints then we may have to eliminate some varsity sports. That is IMO an immutable fact. The "amelioration" is subject to negotiation and judgement, but elimination of these constraints is a non-starter.