[Nurdyguy]

Even the best coaches must be able to reload with quality upper-class and graduate players in the portal in revenue sports, so I don't think Stanford will be able to get back to prominence or attract good coaches who care about their careers until our Stanford Administration eliminates its hostility to transfers. And that hostility to transfers is a conscious choice that our Stanford Administration continues to make...and something they could change, but they won't unless someone forces them.

First of all, Stanford is not "hostile" to transfers in general. There are however limiting factors. First, the number of students Stanford accepts is more-or-less fixed. Therefore for every transfer in there notionally has to be a transfer out. Stanford is unwilling to adopt a policy of reserving transfer in slots for athletes for corresponding athletes who transfer out. Second, like the freshman admissions process Stanford is not willing to give absolute preference to athletes. Athletes do get some preference, but definitely not a free pass in. Third, the transfer process, like all Stanford processes it seems, is structured and "measured", i.e. slow. You aren't going to get a yes/no in 48 hours in general.
 
These factors inherently limit the utility of the transfer portal. Add to that the academic degree of difficulty for Stanford admissions of any kind and it becomes clear that the transfer in path, while still useful, is never going to be a "reload" the entire team every year option. Some of the "friction" in transfer admissions has been mitigated. More probably can and will be. However, it is never going to approach what is possible at e.g. UCLA or ASU. Student body size and admission standards alone ensure that.
 
As far as "somebody" forcing Stanford to fundamentally change its transfer policies, no such "somebody" exists. Even the president has to satisfy a large academic constituency that is not supportive of absolute athletic preferences in admissions, transfer or otherwise. Some of the limitations are structural. As an example, Stanford has about 8000 undergraduate students UCLA has about 33,000. The transfers in to UCLA are a lot easier to fit into the norms of the school than they are at Stanford simply based on quantity.

I agree that, given past history, Stanford is unlikely to adapt to the transfer/NIL era, as the self-imposed limitations our revenue sports are suffering under are tolerated by our alumni and key donors, and the Stanford Administration refuses to change.  I'll still cheer for all Stanford teams to win as many games as possible, while understanding that our inability and lack of will to adapt to the transfer/NIL era will severely limit our ability to attract good coaches and players, so our mediocrity in revenue sports will continue.  So be it.

[Nurdyguy]

Even the best coaches must be able to reload with quality upper-class and graduate players in the portal in revenue sports, so I don't think Stanford will be able to get back to prominence or attract good coaches who care about their careers until our Stanford Administration eliminates its hostility to transfers. And that hostility to transfers is a conscious choice that our Stanford Administration continues to make...and something they could change, but they won't unless someone forces them.

First of all, Stanford is not "hostile" to transfers in general. There are however limiting factors. First, the number of students Stanford accepts is more-or-less fixed. Therefore for every transfer in there notionally has to be a transfer out. Stanford is unwilling to adopt a policy of reserving transfer in slots for athletes for corresponding athletes who transfer out. Second, like the freshman admissions process Stanford is not willing to give absolute preference to athletes. Athletes do get some preference, but definitely not a free pass in. Third, the transfer process, like all Stanford processes it seems, is structured and "measured", i.e. slow. You aren't going to get a yes/no in 48 hours in general.
 
These factors inherently limit the utility of the transfer portal. Add to that the academic degree of difficulty for Stanford admissions of any kind and it becomes clear that the transfer in path, while still useful, is never going to be a "reload" the entire team every year option. Some of the "friction" in transfer admissions has been mitigated. More probably can and will be. However, it is never going to approach what is possible at e.g. UCLA or ASU. Student body size and admission standards alone ensure that.
 
As far as "somebody" forcing Stanford to fundamentally change its transfer policies, no such "somebody" exists. Even the president has to satisfy a large academic constituency that is not supportive of absolute athletic preferences in admissions, transfer or otherwise. Some of the limitations are structural. As an example, Stanford has about 8000 undergraduate students UCLA has about 33,000. The transfers in to UCLA are a lot easier to fit into the norms of the school than they are at Stanford simply based on quantity.

I agree that, given past history, Stanford is unlikely to adapt to the transfer/NIL era, as the self-imposed limitations our revenue sports are suffering under are tolerated by our alumni and key donors, and the Stanford Administration refuses to change.  I'll still cheer for all Stanford teams to win as many games as possible, while understanding that our inability and lack of will to adapt to the transfer/NIL era will severely limit our ability to attract good coaches and players, so our mediocrity in revenue sports will continue.  So be it.