[Goose]

Duke benefits from having a dedicated fanbase and tradition that fuels a lot of its recruiting cachet.

While I totally agree with what you post above, there is an elephant in the room that IMO is being ignored because dealing with it may create some "controversy". Both Stanford and Duke admit student-athletes that are academically "below the mean". Both schools also admit students that do not intend to graduate (one-and-dones). The difference is (and what some would say Stanford can "learn from Duke") is that Duke has been willing to go further below the mean than Stanford has and to do so more frequently.

I know two Duke alums that are loyal enthusiastic Duke basketball fans. They agree this is the case and has been the case for many years. One indicator of this atypical situation is that the Duke basketball graduation rate is 67%. Obviously part of this low rate is that successful Duke basketball players almost universally leave for the NBA. Others leave thinking they are going to the NBA but it doesn't work out for them. They certainly are not "typical" of the rest of the student body.

Let it be clear that I am not saying Duke admits basketball players that are totally unqualified to be college students. I am saying they admit basketball players that are much more "atypical" of their overall student body than Stanford does. This generates a much larger potential recruiting pool. Due to Duke's long history of success they have many more great basketball players wanting to attend than Stanford does. It is equally true that Duke can get a larger percentage of their larger pool admitted than Stanford can.

I am not advocating the proposition that Stanford should change its admission policies to match Duke's. There has been some movement in that direction in that Stanford now admits players that are avowedly one-and-done.  IMO it is however necessary that differences be recognized. IMO it would also be a good idea for everybody to read Chapter 16 of Stanford's Wallace Sterling. He identified the "NIL inequity" about 65 years before the Supreme Court opined. He also has a lot to say about admission standards. IMO what he says is timeless and statically true.

[Goose]

Duke benefits from having a dedicated fanbase and tradition that fuels a lot of its recruiting cachet.

While I totally agree with what you post above, there is an elephant in the room that IMO is being ignored because dealing with it may create some "controversy". Both Stanford and Duke admit student-athletes that are academically "below the mean". Both schools also admit students that do not intend to graduate (one-and-dones). The difference is (and what some would say Stanford can "learn from Duke") is that Duke has been willing to go further below the mean than Stanford has and to do so more frequently.

I know two Duke alums that are loyal enthusiastic Duke basketball fans. They agree this is the case and has been the case for many years. One indicator of this atypical situation is that the Duke basketball graduation rate is 67%. Obviously part of this low rate is that successful Duke basketball players almost universally leave for the NBA. Others leave thinking they are going to the NBA but it doesn't work out for them. They certainly are not "typical" of the rest of the student body.

Let it be clear that I am not saying Duke admits basketball players that are totally unqualified to be college students. I am saying they admit basketball players that are much more "atypical" of their overall student body than Stanford does. This generates a much larger potential recruiting pool. Due to Duke's long history of success they have many more great basketball players wanting to attend than Stanford does. It is equally true that Duke can get a larger percentage of their larger pool admitted than Stanford can.

I am not advocating the proposition that Stanford should change its admission policies to match Duke's. There has been some movement in that direction in that Stanford now admits players that are avowedly one-and-done.  IMO it is however necessary that differences be recognized. IMO it would also be a good idea for everybody to read Chapter 16 of Stanford's Wallace Sterling. He identified the "NIL inequity" about 65 years before the Supreme Court opined. He also has a lot to say about admission standards. IMO what he says is timeless and statically true.