[StanUSwagU]

When evaluating the worth of successful football and basketball programs to a university in the "new world", I find that practically all of the discussions center around these topics:
1) The cost of becoming competitive
2) The acceptance of change
3) The hypocrisy of academic institutions increasing the priority/investment in athletics
4) Negative impact on the college athlete (time, pressure, travel, etc.)

As with any complex decision on change, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Each of the topics in the above list are cons. Spending more money. Change. Hypocrisy. Negative impact. The discussions are mostly downers, and center around debating the extent of the cons. Those who have spent time in their careers as strategy/management consultants know that this is a rather typical experience that large organizations go through when faced with a major decision. That's why they are hired. 

The Stanford community needs to spend more time on creating a new vision of a Stanford in the new world of college athletics and articulating the associated benefits. How does a successful football and basketball program benefit the university? What is the version of a Stanford in the new world of athletics that's better than today's Stanford?  What does that look like and why is it better? Without something to compare against the current version of Stanford, no one will ever need, want or accept the change. They will stay stuck on their favorite con or two and continue to steer discussions in that direction.

Work like this is difficult and I don't want to spend my time trying to lay something out on a sports board that's nowhere close to complete. I will say though that high on my list of benefits of the new version of Stanford would be some sort of improved picture of student life/culture. I believe the students that get to enjoy Duke or Gonzaga mens basketball or Iowa womens basketball or Alabama/Ohio St <insert pretty much any SEC/B10 school here> simply have a more enjoyable experience at their university because of their teams vs. if they had gone to Stanford. I believe the students that got to experience the Luck/CMac years have a leg up on today's students as far as their enjoyment of their years in college goes. To me, that's really important.

BillBradley,

Great post;

(1) I think the bullet list of the 4 items you refer to above, are many of the important factors.

(2) I think we at Stanford are making this 'way harder' than it needs to be when it comes to Football & Mens Basketball.

(3) NotreDame in Football & Duke in Mens Basketball have already shown that you dont have to 'entirely 100% forsake your values' to be successful.

(4) Those 2 institutions are 'Top Academic Universities' & as I have stated many times before, anyone from DukeUniversity would laugh at us here at Stanford thinking ourselves (Stanford) to be 'exceptional or above Duke'; I think its almost an affliction that we Stanford Folks have that we think we are somehow 'better academically, ethically, and morally' or that we have 'higher standards' than say a Duke University.
[And this fallacy or myth that our 'standards are somehow higher than a DukeUniversity is what is preventing us from 'modernizing' & adapting the way Duke and NotreDame have];
Remember the mission of a Great University's undergraduate program is to graduate 'well-rounded graduates who will help elevate society & humanity in large impactful ways with their innovations and inventions' & who may actually care about 'solving our social problems like the ever-increasing homelessness & substance-addiction , not to graduate a ratpack of 'narrow focused professional nerds' who invent 'marginally useful 'gadgets/software,social-media apps' or who will master 'a new 5 card monte crypto trading strategy' that just siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another.' This being the 'true mission' of a great University, I would say (a) Stanford needs to adjust/modernize its 'undergraduate/transfer admissions criteria & process' to be more like Duke' & NotreDame's & (b) The reality is that when it comes to 'academic standards' Duke, Stanford, NotreDame, GaTech, are in the same strata; ...Ours (Stanford) is not higher than theirs !
And no imho, I dont think the measure (or mission) of a GreatUniversity is how many publications in Journals its Noble Laureates, professors, or students have, or whatever the ordinal metrics/rankings US News & World Report uses to rank universities in some artificial 'ordinal ranking'. There are stratas for universities, but within that strata, all the universities that are 'in that same-strata...are not better or worse than one another'. Yes, as far as 'undergraduate studies', 'Duke & Stanford & NotreDame, & GaTech, Cal, Northwestern, & Vanderbilt, UCLA are in a different Strata than say 'Valdosta-State', (Just using ValdostaState as a random comp,...no negative shade intended to anyone from ValdostaState, as ValdostaState does what it does academically, very well) but those aforementioned universities are 'all in the same strata' ...so no, we at Stanford (for the undergraduate context which is what matters for our Athletics Dept and Football and Mens Basketball programs), are not on some 'higher-level' than Duke or NotreDame, period full-stop.

(5) Also I dont think there needs to be a 180 degree change to how we do things (maybe only a 15 degree change/pivot/modernization) ; I think some small adjustments & 'modernized thinking' about our admissions criteria & processing of undergraduates & transfers & the 4 factors you list above, will be able to make us competitive.

(6) Again, I conclude by saying if Duke and NotreDame can do it, so can we; We and our Administration have just chosen to be 'stuck in an old mindset' & have made this way more difficult than it needs to be; Largely our problems are 'self inflicted & unnecessary' ...and I might add 'somewhat silly' in that we are delusional if after the last 10 years of Academic Scandals here at Stanford, if we think we somehow have a 'higher academic standard than Duke or NotreDame'.

(7) As Jacket3ree, said in 1 of his posts, we really need to 'stop clutching our pearls'; [ Erroneously & laughably thinking 'becoming more like Duke or NotreDame, would be transforming to a 'lower-standard']

[StanUSwagU]

When evaluating the worth of successful football and basketball programs to a university in the "new world", I find that practically all of the discussions center around these topics:
1) The cost of becoming competitive
2) The acceptance of change
3) The hypocrisy of academic institutions increasing the priority/investment in athletics
4) Negative impact on the college athlete (time, pressure, travel, etc.)

As with any complex decision on change, it comes down to weighing the pros and cons. Each of the topics in the above list are cons. Spending more money. Change. Hypocrisy. Negative impact. The discussions are mostly downers, and center around debating the extent of the cons. Those who have spent time in their careers as strategy/management consultants know that this is a rather typical experience that large organizations go through when faced with a major decision. That's why they are hired. 

The Stanford community needs to spend more time on creating a new vision of a Stanford in the new world of college athletics and articulating the associated benefits. How does a successful football and basketball program benefit the university? What is the version of a Stanford in the new world of athletics that's better than today's Stanford?  What does that look like and why is it better? Without something to compare against the current version of Stanford, no one will ever need, want or accept the change. They will stay stuck on their favorite con or two and continue to steer discussions in that direction.

Work like this is difficult and I don't want to spend my time trying to lay something out on a sports board that's nowhere close to complete. I will say though that high on my list of benefits of the new version of Stanford would be some sort of improved picture of student life/culture. I believe the students that get to enjoy Duke or Gonzaga mens basketball or Iowa womens basketball or Alabama/Ohio St <insert pretty much any SEC/B10 school here> simply have a more enjoyable experience at their university because of their teams vs. if they had gone to Stanford. I believe the students that got to experience the Luck/CMac years have a leg up on today's students as far as their enjoyment of their years in college goes. To me, that's really important.

BillBradley,

Great post;

(1) I think the bullet list of the 4 items you refer to above, are many of the important factors.

(2) I think we at Stanford are making this 'way harder' than it needs to be when it comes to Football & Mens Basketball.

(3) NotreDame in Football & Duke in Mens Basketball have already shown that you dont have to 'entirely 100% forsake your values' to be successful.

(4) Those 2 institutions are 'Top Academic Universities' & as I have stated many times before, anyone from DukeUniversity would laugh at us here at Stanford thinking ourselves (Stanford) to be 'exceptional or above Duke'; I think its almost an affliction that we Stanford Folks have that we think we are somehow 'better academically, ethically, and morally' or that we have 'higher standards' than say a Duke University.
[And this fallacy or myth that our 'standards are somehow higher than a DukeUniversity is what is preventing us from 'modernizing' & adapting the way Duke and NotreDame have];
Remember the mission of a Great University's undergraduate program is to graduate 'well-rounded graduates who will help elevate society & humanity in large impactful ways with their innovations and inventions' & who may actually care about 'solving our social problems like the ever-increasing homelessness & substance-addiction , not to graduate a ratpack of 'narrow focused professional nerds' who invent 'marginally useful 'gadgets/software,social-media apps' or who will master 'a new 5 card monte crypto trading strategy' that just siphons money from 1 sector of the economy to another.' This being the 'true mission' of a great University, I would say (a) Stanford needs to adjust/modernize its 'undergraduate/transfer admissions criteria & process' to be more like Duke' & NotreDame's & (b) The reality is that when it comes to 'academic standards' Duke, Stanford, NotreDame, GaTech, are in the same strata; ...Ours (Stanford) is not higher than theirs !
And no imho, I dont think the measure (or mission) of a GreatUniversity is how many publications in Journals its Noble Laureates, professors, or students have, or whatever the ordinal metrics/rankings US News & World Report uses to rank universities in some artificial 'ordinal ranking'. There are stratas for universities, but within that strata, all the universities that are 'in that same-strata...are not better or worse than one another'. Yes, as far as 'undergraduate studies', 'Duke & Stanford & NotreDame, & GaTech, Cal, Northwestern, & Vanderbilt, UCLA are in a different Strata than say 'Valdosta-State', (Just using ValdostaState as a random comp,...no negative shade intended to anyone from ValdostaState, as ValdostaState does what it does academically, very well) but those aforementioned universities are 'all in the same strata' ...so no, we at Stanford (for the undergraduate context which is what matters for our Athletics Dept and Football and Mens Basketball programs), are not on some 'higher-level' than Duke or NotreDame, period full-stop.

(5) Also I dont think there needs to be a 180 degree change to how we do things (maybe only a 15 degree change/pivot/modernization) ; I think some small adjustments & 'modernized thinking' about our admissions criteria & processing of undergraduates & transfers & the 4 factors you list above, will be able to make us competitive.

(6) Again, I conclude by saying if Duke and NotreDame can do it, so can we; We and our Administration have just chosen to be 'stuck in an old mindset' & have made this way more difficult than it needs to be; Largely our problems are 'self inflicted & unnecessary' ...and I might add 'somewhat silly' in that we are delusional if after the last 10 years of Academic Scandals here at Stanford, if we think we somehow have a 'higher academic standard than Duke or NotreDame'.

(7) As Jacket3ree, said in 1 of his posts, we really need to 'stop clutching our pearls'; [ Erroneously & laughably thinking 'becoming more like Duke or NotreDame, would be transforming to a 'lower-standard']