[BostonCard]

I'm not into superheroes, but back during the Obama administration, Brenden Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth coined the phrase to push back at the belief, particularly strong among leftist circles at the time, that the president (Obama at the time) can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough.  The idea harkened to the Green Lantern corps, whose members get a power ring capable of creating green energy projections of almost unlimited power, constrained only by the willpower and imagination of the ring's wearer.

Now, this is most definitely not meant to be a discussion of the Green Lantern Theory of the President, which is beyond the rules of the board, but rather a fact that I see a similar belief pop up around sports fans.  Basically, the idea (maybe we can call it the Cardinal Lantern Theory of Stanford Sports) that the only thing that is constraining success for our sports teams is the willpower and imagination of the school administration, and that if we adequately commit to success we should be competing for a national title in pretty much every sport every year (especially football).

The problem with this theory is that fans of every team feel the same way.  Calfan feels that the only reason that the Bears are not competing for a national title in every sport every year is because of inadequate commitment in the administration (they might have a point, to a degree).  Clearly the gazillionaires bankrolling SMU's entry into the ACC feel the same about that school.  Hell, I've seen delusional OSU, WSU and fans of G5 schools who believe that their teams ought to be good enough to compete for a championship.  "If school X (eg Boise State) can do it, why can't we", is the mantra.

The obvious fallacy is that not every school can compete for a national title in a given year, let alone most years.  In fact, unlike Lake Wobegon, by definition only half of the teams can even be above average, and in any given year less than 10% of teams have a legitimate chance for a title.

I was prompted to think of this in the thread about joining the ACC, and the implication that if we are going so far as to fly cross country to compete, that we ought to do "whatever it takes" to do so successfully.  The truth is that the real world is one of tradeoffs, and even most fans probably have limits on how far they would go.  Matt kind of snuck it in there, but it is kind of concerning that at least three players from the recent golden era (2009 - 2015) subsequently were busted for PEDs in the NFL (a fourth, Richard Sherman, had his ruling reversed on appeal).  Now, as far as I know, no one was ever found to use PEDs while at Stanford, and even if they had, that might not have been because of a systemic effort by the training or coaching staff. Nonetheless, a cynic might say that the dramatic improvement between 2006 and 2010 might have been chemically aided and that the drop-off that occurred between 2015 and 2019 might simply have been less rampant steroid use.  I'd like to think that nobody would be on board if commitment to success meant widespread use of PEDs.

Even stuff that isn't out and out illegal can sit poorly with certain stakeholders within the organization or broader community.  For me, the breaking point was the efflux of transfers without degrees, not just football (and mens basketball) but recently in women's basketball and swimming.  Given the value that most students place on their degree even when it is not free (something like 97% of students graduate), it is a big black mark for me that a substantial number of student athletes don't value it the way other students do.  Given that undergraduate enrollment is constrained by on campus housing and because of the tantrum that Palo Alto would throw if we were to dramatically expand enrollment, there is a bit of a zero sum game involved.  I don't think reserving about 12% of the spots for athletes is excessive, but I start to become sour when substantial numbers of them don't graduate.

My point is that there is a very broad swath between abandoning athletics altogether and doing whatever it takes to be successful, and I think that our decisions on things like admissions bars, incoming transfers, NIL, etc. should be guided not just by whether it demonstrates a commitment to win, but also whether it is consistent with the overall mission of the school.  And while it is easy to say that we should be excellent in everything we do, the truth is that we cannot.  Stanford has a very nice art museum, but the collection is limited.  Stanford has a lovely concert hall, but it is not world class.  Stanford used to have a premier shopping center, but it sold it (minus the land it sits on, which it cannot sell) 20 years ago.  Stanford operates a linear accelerator, but it is not the large hadron collider.  Stanford cannot be all things to all people, nor should it.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm not into superheroes, but back during the Obama administration, Brenden Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth coined the phrase to push back at the belief, particularly strong among leftist circles at the time, that the president (Obama at the time) can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough.  The idea harkened to the Green Lantern corps, whose members get a power ring capable of creating green energy projections of almost unlimited power, constrained only by the willpower and imagination of the ring's wearer.

Now, this is most definitely not meant to be a discussion of the Green Lantern Theory of the President, which is beyond the rules of the board, but rather a fact that I see a similar belief pop up around sports fans.  Basically, the idea (maybe we can call it the Cardinal Lantern Theory of Stanford Sports) that the only thing that is constraining success for our sports teams is the willpower and imagination of the school administration, and that if we adequately commit to success we should be competing for a national title in pretty much every sport every year (especially football).

The problem with this theory is that fans of every team feel the same way.  Calfan feels that the only reason that the Bears are not competing for a national title in every sport every year is because of inadequate commitment in the administration (they might have a point, to a degree).  Clearly the gazillionaires bankrolling SMU's entry into the ACC feel the same about that school.  Hell, I've seen delusional OSU, WSU and fans of G5 schools who believe that their teams ought to be good enough to compete for a championship.  "If school X (eg Boise State) can do it, why can't we", is the mantra.

The obvious fallacy is that not every school can compete for a national title in a given year, let alone most years.  In fact, unlike Lake Wobegon, by definition only half of the teams can even be above average, and in any given year less than 10% of teams have a legitimate chance for a title.

I was prompted to think of this in the thread about joining the ACC, and the implication that if we are going so far as to fly cross country to compete, that we ought to do "whatever it takes" to do so successfully.  The truth is that the real world is one of tradeoffs, and even most fans probably have limits on how far they would go.  Matt kind of snuck it in there, but it is kind of concerning that at least three players from the recent golden era (2009 - 2015) subsequently were busted for PEDs in the NFL (a fourth, Richard Sherman, had his ruling reversed on appeal).  Now, as far as I know, no one was ever found to use PEDs while at Stanford, and even if they had, that might not have been because of a systemic effort by the training or coaching staff. Nonetheless, a cynic might say that the dramatic improvement between 2006 and 2010 might have been chemically aided and that the drop-off that occurred between 2015 and 2019 might simply have been less rampant steroid use.  I'd like to think that nobody would be on board if commitment to success meant widespread use of PEDs.

Even stuff that isn't out and out illegal can sit poorly with certain stakeholders within the organization or broader community.  For me, the breaking point was the efflux of transfers without degrees, not just football (and mens basketball) but recently in women's basketball and swimming.  Given the value that most students place on their degree even when it is not free (something like 97% of students graduate), it is a big black mark for me that a substantial number of student athletes don't value it the way other students do.  Given that undergraduate enrollment is constrained by on campus housing and because of the tantrum that Palo Alto would throw if we were to dramatically expand enrollment, there is a bit of a zero sum game involved.  I don't think reserving about 12% of the spots for athletes is excessive, but I start to become sour when substantial numbers of them don't graduate.

My point is that there is a very broad swath between abandoning athletics altogether and doing whatever it takes to be successful, and I think that our decisions on things like admissions bars, incoming transfers, NIL, etc. should be guided not just by whether it demonstrates a commitment to win, but also whether it is consistent with the overall mission of the school.  And while it is easy to say that we should be excellent in everything we do, the truth is that we cannot.  Stanford has a very nice art museum, but the collection is limited.  Stanford has a lovely concert hall, but it is not world class.  Stanford used to have a premier shopping center, but it sold it (minus the land it sits on, which it cannot sell) 20 years ago.  Stanford operates a linear accelerator, but it is not the large hadron collider.  Stanford cannot be all things to all people, nor should it.

BC

[M T]

Thanks for your contributions, BC. I usually agree with them but always respect then. 

It is amazing to me what Stanford does achieve, in and on so many fields. Maybe willing isn’t enough to always win, but willing, supporting, being clever and smart, plus working hard often improves outcomes.

[M T]

Thanks for your contributions, BC. I usually agree with them but always respect then. 

It is amazing to me what Stanford does achieve, in and on so many fields. Maybe willing isn’t enough to always win, but willing, supporting, being clever and smart, plus working hard often improves outcomes.

[81alum]

I'm not into superheroes, but back during the Obama administration, Brenden Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth coined the phrase to push back at the belief, particularly strong among leftist circles at the time, that the president (Obama at the time) can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough.  The idea harkened to the Green Lantern corps, whose members get a power ring capable of creating green energy projections of almost unlimited power, constrained only by the willpower and imagination of the ring's wearer.

Now, this is most definitely not meant to be a discussion of the Green Lantern Theory of the President, which is beyond the rules of the board, but rather a fact that I see a similar belief pop up around sports fans.  Basically, the idea (maybe we can call it the Cardinal Lantern Theory of Stanford Sports) that the only thing that is constraining success for our sports teams is the willpower and imagination of the school administration, and that if we adequately commit to success we should be competing for a national title in pretty much every sport every year (especially football).

The problem with this theory is that fans of every team feel the same way.  Calfan feels that the only reason that the Bears are not competing for a national title in every sport every year is because of inadequate commitment in the administration (they might have a point, to a degree).  Clearly the gazillionaires bankrolling SMU's entry into the ACC feel the same about that school.  Hell, I've seen delusional OSU, WSU and fans of G5 schools who believe that their teams ought to be good enough to compete for a championship.  "If school X (eg Boise State) can do it, why can't we", is the mantra.

The obvious fallacy is that not every school can compete for a national title in a given year, let alone most years.  In fact, unlike Lake Wobegon, by definition only half of the teams can even be above average, and in any given year less than 10% of teams have a legitimate chance for a title.

I was prompted to think of this in the thread about joining the ACC, and the implication that if we are going so far as to fly cross country to compete, that we ought to do "whatever it takes" to do so successfully.  The truth is that the real world is one of tradeoffs, and even most fans probably have limits on how far they would go.  Matt kind of snuck it in there, but it is kind of concerning that at least three players from the recent golden era (2009 - 2015) subsequently were busted for PEDs in the NFL (a fourth, Richard Sherman, had his ruling reversed on appeal).  Now, as far as I know, no one was ever found to use PEDs while at Stanford, and even if they had, that might not have been because of a systemic effort by the training or coaching staff. Nonetheless, a cynic might say that the dramatic improvement between 2006 and 2010 might have been chemically aided and that the drop-off that occurred between 2015 and 2019 might simply have been less rampant steroid use.  I'd like to think that nobody would be on board if commitment to success meant widespread use of PEDs.

Even stuff that isn't out and out illegal can sit poorly with certain stakeholders within the organization or broader community.  For me, the breaking point was the efflux of transfers without degrees, not just football (and mens basketball) but recently in women's basketball and swimming.  Given the value that most students place on their degree even when it is not free (something like 97% of students graduate), it is a big black mark for me that a substantial number of student athletes don't value it the way other students do.  Given that undergraduate enrollment is constrained by on campus housing and because of the tantrum that Palo Alto would throw if we were to dramatically expand enrollment, there is a bit of a zero sum game involved.  I don't think reserving about 12% of the spots for athletes is excessive, but I start to become sour when substantial numbers of them don't graduate.

My point is that there is a very broad swath between abandoning athletics altogether and doing whatever it takes to be successful, and I think that our decisions on things like admissions bars, incoming transfers, NIL, etc. should be guided not just by whether it demonstrates a commitment to win, but also whether it is consistent with the overall mission of the school.  And while it is easy to say that we should be excellent in everything we do, the truth is that we cannot.  Stanford has a very nice art museum, but the collection is limited.  Stanford has a lovely concert hall, but it is not world class.  Stanford used to have a premier shopping center, but it sold it (minus the land it sits on, which it cannot sell) 20 years ago.  Stanford operates a linear accelerator, but it is not the large hadron collider.  Stanford cannot be all things to all people, nor should it.

BC

Well said, BC.  I'd go even further and say my enjoyment of Stanford sports was because of the academic and ethical constraints that Stanford imposed on itself when other schools did not.  I would never have become a college sports fan otherwise.  I also appreciate that you point out that Stanford faces other constraints--structural--that are beyond the control of our athletics administration and coaches.  

None of this is to say that we can't do better, and none of this excuses incompetence in athletic administration.  We can no doubt do better within the constraints we face than we have.  But a healthy dose of clear-eyed realism about both our internal (academic, ethical) and external constraints may help us manage expectations.

[81alum]

I'm not into superheroes, but back during the Obama administration, Brenden Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth coined the phrase to push back at the belief, particularly strong among leftist circles at the time, that the president (Obama at the time) can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough.  The idea harkened to the Green Lantern corps, whose members get a power ring capable of creating green energy projections of almost unlimited power, constrained only by the willpower and imagination of the ring's wearer.

Now, this is most definitely not meant to be a discussion of the Green Lantern Theory of the President, which is beyond the rules of the board, but rather a fact that I see a similar belief pop up around sports fans.  Basically, the idea (maybe we can call it the Cardinal Lantern Theory of Stanford Sports) that the only thing that is constraining success for our sports teams is the willpower and imagination of the school administration, and that if we adequately commit to success we should be competing for a national title in pretty much every sport every year (especially football).

The problem with this theory is that fans of every team feel the same way.  Calfan feels that the only reason that the Bears are not competing for a national title in every sport every year is because of inadequate commitment in the administration (they might have a point, to a degree).  Clearly the gazillionaires bankrolling SMU's entry into the ACC feel the same about that school.  Hell, I've seen delusional OSU, WSU and fans of G5 schools who believe that their teams ought to be good enough to compete for a championship.  "If school X (eg Boise State) can do it, why can't we", is the mantra.

The obvious fallacy is that not every school can compete for a national title in a given year, let alone most years.  In fact, unlike Lake Wobegon, by definition only half of the teams can even be above average, and in any given year less than 10% of teams have a legitimate chance for a title.

I was prompted to think of this in the thread about joining the ACC, and the implication that if we are going so far as to fly cross country to compete, that we ought to do "whatever it takes" to do so successfully.  The truth is that the real world is one of tradeoffs, and even most fans probably have limits on how far they would go.  Matt kind of snuck it in there, but it is kind of concerning that at least three players from the recent golden era (2009 - 2015) subsequently were busted for PEDs in the NFL (a fourth, Richard Sherman, had his ruling reversed on appeal).  Now, as far as I know, no one was ever found to use PEDs while at Stanford, and even if they had, that might not have been because of a systemic effort by the training or coaching staff. Nonetheless, a cynic might say that the dramatic improvement between 2006 and 2010 might have been chemically aided and that the drop-off that occurred between 2015 and 2019 might simply have been less rampant steroid use.  I'd like to think that nobody would be on board if commitment to success meant widespread use of PEDs.

Even stuff that isn't out and out illegal can sit poorly with certain stakeholders within the organization or broader community.  For me, the breaking point was the efflux of transfers without degrees, not just football (and mens basketball) but recently in women's basketball and swimming.  Given the value that most students place on their degree even when it is not free (something like 97% of students graduate), it is a big black mark for me that a substantial number of student athletes don't value it the way other students do.  Given that undergraduate enrollment is constrained by on campus housing and because of the tantrum that Palo Alto would throw if we were to dramatically expand enrollment, there is a bit of a zero sum game involved.  I don't think reserving about 12% of the spots for athletes is excessive, but I start to become sour when substantial numbers of them don't graduate.

My point is that there is a very broad swath between abandoning athletics altogether and doing whatever it takes to be successful, and I think that our decisions on things like admissions bars, incoming transfers, NIL, etc. should be guided not just by whether it demonstrates a commitment to win, but also whether it is consistent with the overall mission of the school.  And while it is easy to say that we should be excellent in everything we do, the truth is that we cannot.  Stanford has a very nice art museum, but the collection is limited.  Stanford has a lovely concert hall, but it is not world class.  Stanford used to have a premier shopping center, but it sold it (minus the land it sits on, which it cannot sell) 20 years ago.  Stanford operates a linear accelerator, but it is not the large hadron collider.  Stanford cannot be all things to all people, nor should it.

BC

Well said, BC.  I'd go even further and say my enjoyment of Stanford sports was because of the academic and ethical constraints that Stanford imposed on itself when other schools did not.  I would never have become a college sports fan otherwise.  I also appreciate that you point out that Stanford faces other constraints--structural--that are beyond the control of our athletics administration and coaches.  

None of this is to say that we can't do better, and none of this excuses incompetence in athletic administration.  We can no doubt do better within the constraints we face than we have.  But a healthy dose of clear-eyed realism about both our internal (academic, ethical) and external constraints may help us manage expectations.

[norcard10]

It's absolutely a will game with Stanford.

If Stanford offered NIL money, slightly relaxed admissions beyond what currently exists (what other school requires a full on application with essays, previously higher minimum test scores, plus *generally top* grades), and administrative support, why can't it succeed?  An elite degree with superb weather.


There is zero reason why Stanford can't become the Duke Basketball of Football. They choose not to for reasons that can be debated to be right or wrong ad infinitum.

If anything, the current test optional climate should help even more.

[norcard10]

It's absolutely a will game with Stanford.

If Stanford offered NIL money, slightly relaxed admissions beyond what currently exists (what other school requires a full on application with essays, previously higher minimum test scores, plus *generally top* grades), and administrative support, why can't it succeed?  An elite degree with superb weather.


There is zero reason why Stanford can't become the Duke Basketball of Football. They choose not to for reasons that can be debated to be right or wrong ad infinitum.

If anything, the current test optional climate should help even more.

[OutsiderFan]

Does anyone at Stanford in a decision making position know enough about the big and small picture of the major college sports business and the drivers of it, to make sound decisions that will lead to top performance in them? The evidence suggest the answer is a resounding no.

Like far too many other industries, people are in charge of things they don't understand and haven't let go of control to let those who do know what they are doing do the job.

I completely reject the notion that Stanford can't compete at the top level in hoops and football. There are so many things Stanford could do that would improve the performance of theses sports that have nothing to do with admissions or transfer portal, and if done wouldn't have resulted in so many transfers post-Shaw, and might have even led to a Big Ten invitation, or OMG, perish the thought, maybe even the Pac-12 staying together.

[OutsiderFan]

Does anyone at Stanford in a decision making position know enough about the big and small picture of the major college sports business and the drivers of it, to make sound decisions that will lead to top performance in them? The evidence suggest the answer is a resounding no.

Like far too many other industries, people are in charge of things they don't understand and haven't let go of control to let those who do know what they are doing do the job.

I completely reject the notion that Stanford can't compete at the top level in hoops and football. There are so many things Stanford could do that would improve the performance of theses sports that have nothing to do with admissions or transfer portal, and if done wouldn't have resulted in so many transfers post-Shaw, and might have even led to a Big Ten invitation, or OMG, perish the thought, maybe even the Pac-12 staying together.

[terry]

Good post, BC.

[terry]

Good post, BC.

[GK3]

Good post, BC.

I also concur with BC, and I also agree with OF.  Basketball is certainly a sport where I see no reason why we can't at least be in the NCAA's every year.  I think Haase has recruited well enough that if he could coach better, we would have at least made the tournament the last few years. Now this year there can be no excuse for not making it.  
How we do in either Football and Basketball (men and women) is going to be very dependent on recruiting and coaching.  If more transfers are allowed, all the better.  It comes down to the University being unwilling to accept a mediocre performance in its athletic department.  Unfortunately, it has in recent years pretty much allowed football and basketball to suffer because no one at the top cared enough to tell Muir to get with it or get out.

[GK3]

Good post, BC.

I also concur with BC, and I also agree with OF.  Basketball is certainly a sport where I see no reason why we can't at least be in the NCAA's every year.  I think Haase has recruited well enough that if he could coach better, we would have at least made the tournament the last few years. Now this year there can be no excuse for not making it.  
How we do in either Football and Basketball (men and women) is going to be very dependent on recruiting and coaching.  If more transfers are allowed, all the better.  It comes down to the University being unwilling to accept a mediocre performance in its athletic department.  Unfortunately, it has in recent years pretty much allowed football and basketball to suffer because no one at the top cared enough to tell Muir to get with it or get out.

[msqueri]

BC, it's a good and important post but also a bit of a strawman. No serious people are saying Stanford should expect to compete for championships in football and men's basketball. Arguments that we can do better with more commitment are, in the main, about saying we can do better than irrelevance in the two sports most people care about. There is a modest (IMHO unassailable) version of this argument and a more ambitious argument. 

The modest version is that even with Stanford's historic level of commitment, school size, geography, unwillingness to compromise academic principles too much, and other inherent advantages and disadvantages, we historically are a program that can compete in a major conference; in football it's a historic norm of winning slightly more than we lose; in basketball it's a shorter history of relevance but nonetheless decades showing a comparable norm of relevance (a top 40 median prior to Haase, top 60 inclusive of his disastrous reign in which he's never once been top 60). We just moved on from a football coach who went four straight years without reaching the Stanford norm (most charitably one can say he reached it in once in four years in 2020....debatable) and for some reason continue to refuse to move on from a basketball coach who not a single time in seven years has reached the Stanford norm. Even with a Batman Theory of Sports Fandom that one should be as powerful as the available resources - that is, not even talking about any change in historical commitment at all - the last half decade of Stanford sports is wholly unacceptable. In other words, the problem isn't that we aren't raising our commitment, it's that we've lowered it. We've accepted programs that aren't even mediocre but among the very least relevant in the nation in the two sports most people care about. It's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom to want Stanford football and basketball to be mediocre. Make us #40 in the country in football and basketball and that would be sustainable forever. Those upset with Stanford's level of commitment are not your Obama-era leftists.

The more ambitious version is that Stanford is the best university in the world with more money than god and a commitment to excellence in everything and we should be able to aspire to be more than generally relevant but rather perennially relevant. Say a top 25 program rather than a top 40 program. I don't think that's so outlandish and it's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom either.

BC, your worldview is quite coherent and cogently argued but you and I fundamentally disagree on what is "consistent with the overall mission of the school." I don't think athletes transferring out for a better angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is inconsistent with Stanford's mission, putting students in a position where Stanford doesn't give them an angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is what is inconsistent with Stanford's mission. I don't view players leaving early for the NFL or even for opportunities at other universities - better universities in their field of choice, which is a shame on us rather than a shame on them - any different than the startup founder dropping out or Tiger Woods or John McEnroe. We, and you, have the balance way off skew on how much Stanford should be committed to excellence in the things that are most important to the society in which we live. It's frankly more important to Stanford's relevance as what it purports to be - the best all-around university in America and home of future leaders - that we are at least top 40 (and I'd say top 25) in football and basketball than it is that we have the best art museum, concert hall, or shopping mall.

[msqueri]

BC, it's a good and important post but also a bit of a strawman. No serious people are saying Stanford should expect to compete for championships in football and men's basketball. Arguments that we can do better with more commitment are, in the main, about saying we can do better than irrelevance in the two sports most people care about. There is a modest (IMHO unassailable) version of this argument and a more ambitious argument. 

The modest version is that even with Stanford's historic level of commitment, school size, geography, unwillingness to compromise academic principles too much, and other inherent advantages and disadvantages, we historically are a program that can compete in a major conference; in football it's a historic norm of winning slightly more than we lose; in basketball it's a shorter history of relevance but nonetheless decades showing a comparable norm of relevance (a top 40 median prior to Haase, top 60 inclusive of his disastrous reign in which he's never once been top 60). We just moved on from a football coach who went four straight years without reaching the Stanford norm (most charitably one can say he reached it in once in four years in 2020....debatable) and for some reason continue to refuse to move on from a basketball coach who not a single time in seven years has reached the Stanford norm. Even with a Batman Theory of Sports Fandom that one should be as powerful as the available resources - that is, not even talking about any change in historical commitment at all - the last half decade of Stanford sports is wholly unacceptable. In other words, the problem isn't that we aren't raising our commitment, it's that we've lowered it. We've accepted programs that aren't even mediocre but among the very least relevant in the nation in the two sports most people care about. It's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom to want Stanford football and basketball to be mediocre. Make us #40 in the country in football and basketball and that would be sustainable forever. Those upset with Stanford's level of commitment are not your Obama-era leftists.

The more ambitious version is that Stanford is the best university in the world with more money than god and a commitment to excellence in everything and we should be able to aspire to be more than generally relevant but rather perennially relevant. Say a top 25 program rather than a top 40 program. I don't think that's so outlandish and it's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom either.

BC, your worldview is quite coherent and cogently argued but you and I fundamentally disagree on what is "consistent with the overall mission of the school." I don't think athletes transferring out for a better angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is inconsistent with Stanford's mission, putting students in a position where Stanford doesn't give them an angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is what is inconsistent with Stanford's mission. I don't view players leaving early for the NFL or even for opportunities at other universities - better universities in their field of choice, which is a shame on us rather than a shame on them - any different than the startup founder dropping out or Tiger Woods or John McEnroe. We, and you, have the balance way off skew on how much Stanford should be committed to excellence in the things that are most important to the society in which we live. It's frankly more important to Stanford's relevance as what it purports to be - the best all-around university in America and home of future leaders - that we are at least top 40 (and I'd say top 25) in football and basketball than it is that we have the best art museum, concert hall, or shopping mall.

[SkiBum80]

BC, many challenging thoughts and questions raised about who and what should Stanford strive to be, and expect to be, in the drastically and rapidly changing world of college sports going forward.
I can't answer many of your challenges and questions.
But I would like to politely suggest that the recent move by us to join the ACC is not necessarily a solid answer to many of these questions either.
It is more of an immediate and practical jump for survival to remain with a chance to stay relevant.
And for this I don't just mean for football and basketball, but for many other sports too, soccer, baseball, swimming, etc.
We got to a twisted and very dangerous point (thanks to USC/UCLA, then the other lesser traitors) where it was either join ACC or doom many of our sports to immediate national irrelevance.
By irrelevance I mean a quick loss of the top coaching and recruits that are needed to give you the chance to contend for best, or near best, in the country.
Joining the ACC guaranteed nothing going forward, except the opportunity to succeed in fielding a top team if the opportunity can be well acted upon.
Not joining the ACC almost guaranteed not even having that chance.
So I continue to tip my hat to the Stanford leaders of Condi Rice et. al. that made this ACC move happen.

[SkiBum80]

BC, many challenging thoughts and questions raised about who and what should Stanford strive to be, and expect to be, in the drastically and rapidly changing world of college sports going forward.
I can't answer many of your challenges and questions.
But I would like to politely suggest that the recent move by us to join the ACC is not necessarily a solid answer to many of these questions either.
It is more of an immediate and practical jump for survival to remain with a chance to stay relevant.
And for this I don't just mean for football and basketball, but for many other sports too, soccer, baseball, swimming, etc.
We got to a twisted and very dangerous point (thanks to USC/UCLA, then the other lesser traitors) where it was either join ACC or doom many of our sports to immediate national irrelevance.
By irrelevance I mean a quick loss of the top coaching and recruits that are needed to give you the chance to contend for best, or near best, in the country.
Joining the ACC guaranteed nothing going forward, except the opportunity to succeed in fielding a top team if the opportunity can be well acted upon.
Not joining the ACC almost guaranteed not even having that chance.
So I continue to tip my hat to the Stanford leaders of Condi Rice et. al. that made this ACC move happen.

[GK3]

BC, it's a good and important post but also a bit of a strawman. No serious people are saying Stanford should expect to compete for championships in football and men's basketball. Arguments that we can do better with more commitment are, in the main, about saying we can do better than irrelevance in the two sports most people care about. There is a modest (IMHO unassailable) version of this argument and a more ambitious argument. 

The modest version is that even with Stanford's historic level of commitment, school size, geography, unwillingness to compromise academic principles too much, and other inherent advantages and disadvantages, we historically are a program that can compete in a major conference; in football it's a historic norm of winning slightly more than we lose; in basketball it's a shorter history of relevance but nonetheless decades showing a comparable norm of relevance (a top 40 median prior to Haase, top 60 inclusive of his disastrous reign in which he's never once been top 60). We just moved on from a football coach who went four straight years without reaching the Stanford norm (most charitably one can say he reached it in once in four years in 2020....debatable) and for some reason continue to refuse to move on from a basketball coach who not a single time in seven years has reached the Stanford norm. Even with a Batman Theory of Sports Fandom that one should be as powerful as the available resources - that is, not even talking about any change in historical commitment at all - the last half decade of Stanford sports is wholly unacceptable. In other words, the problem isn't that we aren't raising our commitment, it's that we've lowered it. We've accepted programs that aren't even mediocre but among the very least relevant in the nation in the two sports most people care about. It's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom to want Stanford football and basketball to be mediocre. Make us #40 in the country in football and basketball and that would be sustainable forever. Those upset with Stanford's level of commitment are not your Obama-era leftists.

The more ambitious version is that Stanford is the best university in the world with more money than god and a commitment to excellence in everything and we should be able to aspire to be more than generally relevant but rather perennially relevant. Say a top 25 program rather than a top 40 program. I don't think that's so outlandish and it's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom either.

BC, your worldview is quite coherent and cogently argued but you and I fundamentally disagree on what is "consistent with the overall mission of the school." I don't think athletes transferring out for a better angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is inconsistent with Stanford's mission, putting students in a position where Stanford doesn't give them an angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is what is inconsistent with Stanford's mission. I don't view players leaving early for the NFL or even for opportunities at other universities - better universities in their field of choice, which is a shame on us rather than a shame on them - any different than the startup founder dropping out or Tiger Woods or John McEnroe. We, and you, have the balance way off skew on how much Stanford should be committed to excellence in the things that are most important to the society in which we live. It's frankly more important to Stanford's relevance as what it purports to be - the best all-around university in America and home of future leaders - that we are at least top 40 (and I'd say top 25) in football and basketball than it is that we have the best art museum, concert hall, or shopping mall.

You make some good points, but the bottom line as I see it is that the BoT, President and Provost must be committed to Stanford at least being average in sports.  It seems obvious the the departing President and Provost had no interest in sports and probably preferred they went away.  The BoT by their inaction seemed ok with that. I have serious doubts that Muir ever had the personal authority to fire coaches who were not performing.  Any rational AD would have acted by now in basketball, and probably in football. 
How the new administration thinks and acts on this subject will pretty much define the future of our sports over the next few years. Frankly, I wish the BoT had a few members who played one of the major sports at Stanford.

[GK3]

BC, it's a good and important post but also a bit of a strawman. No serious people are saying Stanford should expect to compete for championships in football and men's basketball. Arguments that we can do better with more commitment are, in the main, about saying we can do better than irrelevance in the two sports most people care about. There is a modest (IMHO unassailable) version of this argument and a more ambitious argument. 

The modest version is that even with Stanford's historic level of commitment, school size, geography, unwillingness to compromise academic principles too much, and other inherent advantages and disadvantages, we historically are a program that can compete in a major conference; in football it's a historic norm of winning slightly more than we lose; in basketball it's a shorter history of relevance but nonetheless decades showing a comparable norm of relevance (a top 40 median prior to Haase, top 60 inclusive of his disastrous reign in which he's never once been top 60). We just moved on from a football coach who went four straight years without reaching the Stanford norm (most charitably one can say he reached it in once in four years in 2020....debatable) and for some reason continue to refuse to move on from a basketball coach who not a single time in seven years has reached the Stanford norm. Even with a Batman Theory of Sports Fandom that one should be as powerful as the available resources - that is, not even talking about any change in historical commitment at all - the last half decade of Stanford sports is wholly unacceptable. In other words, the problem isn't that we aren't raising our commitment, it's that we've lowered it. We've accepted programs that aren't even mediocre but among the very least relevant in the nation in the two sports most people care about. It's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom to want Stanford football and basketball to be mediocre. Make us #40 in the country in football and basketball and that would be sustainable forever. Those upset with Stanford's level of commitment are not your Obama-era leftists.

The more ambitious version is that Stanford is the best university in the world with more money than god and a commitment to excellence in everything and we should be able to aspire to be more than generally relevant but rather perennially relevant. Say a top 25 program rather than a top 40 program. I don't think that's so outlandish and it's not the Green Lantern Theory of Sports Fandom either.

BC, your worldview is quite coherent and cogently argued but you and I fundamentally disagree on what is "consistent with the overall mission of the school." I don't think athletes transferring out for a better angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is inconsistent with Stanford's mission, putting students in a position where Stanford doesn't give them an angle on the brass ring in their field of choice is what is inconsistent with Stanford's mission. I don't view players leaving early for the NFL or even for opportunities at other universities - better universities in their field of choice, which is a shame on us rather than a shame on them - any different than the startup founder dropping out or Tiger Woods or John McEnroe. We, and you, have the balance way off skew on how much Stanford should be committed to excellence in the things that are most important to the society in which we live. It's frankly more important to Stanford's relevance as what it purports to be - the best all-around university in America and home of future leaders - that we are at least top 40 (and I'd say top 25) in football and basketball than it is that we have the best art museum, concert hall, or shopping mall.

You make some good points, but the bottom line as I see it is that the BoT, President and Provost must be committed to Stanford at least being average in sports.  It seems obvious the the departing President and Provost had no interest in sports and probably preferred they went away.  The BoT by their inaction seemed ok with that. I have serious doubts that Muir ever had the personal authority to fire coaches who were not performing.  Any rational AD would have acted by now in basketball, and probably in football. 
How the new administration thinks and acts on this subject will pretty much define the future of our sports over the next few years. Frankly, I wish the BoT had a few members who played one of the major sports at Stanford.

[M T]

It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

[M T]

It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

[Mudhead]

1694802737[/url]']
It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

At my age, I find anything even remotely childish to be quite invigorating.

[Mudhead]

1694802737[/url]']
It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

At my age, I find anything even remotely childish to be quite invigorating.

[grendalor]

It's absolutely a will game with Stanford.

If Stanford offered NIL money, slightly relaxed admissions beyond what currently exists (what other school requires a full on application with essays, previously higher minimum test scores, plus *generally top* grades), and administrative support, why can't it succeed?  An elite degree with superb weather.


There is zero reason why Stanford can't become the Duke Basketball of Football. They choose not to for reasons that can be debated to be right or wrong ad infinitum.

If anything, the current test optional climate should help even more.

Duke basketball embraces one and done (recruiting players who explicitly tell them that they are staying for one year only barring extenuating circumstances), and has done so since 1999.  I don't think many Stanford community stakeholders would be comfortable with Stanford doing that.  No way Duke would have remained as competitive at the top level in NCAA hoops without doing that, I think. 

Now, of course that doesn't mean there aren't other things we could do to become more competitive in the current environment without running afoul of core values many stakeholders have.  But I don't think Duke basketball can be a model for us, in any sport.

[grendalor]

It's absolutely a will game with Stanford.

If Stanford offered NIL money, slightly relaxed admissions beyond what currently exists (what other school requires a full on application with essays, previously higher minimum test scores, plus *generally top* grades), and administrative support, why can't it succeed?  An elite degree with superb weather.


There is zero reason why Stanford can't become the Duke Basketball of Football. They choose not to for reasons that can be debated to be right or wrong ad infinitum.

If anything, the current test optional climate should help even more.

Duke basketball embraces one and done (recruiting players who explicitly tell them that they are staying for one year only barring extenuating circumstances), and has done so since 1999.  I don't think many Stanford community stakeholders would be comfortable with Stanford doing that.  No way Duke would have remained as competitive at the top level in NCAA hoops without doing that, I think. 

Now, of course that doesn't mean there aren't other things we could do to become more competitive in the current environment without running afoul of core values many stakeholders have.  But I don't think Duke basketball can be a model for us, in any sport.

[qwerty49]

It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

Even more sad to see such a smirking, smug pronouncement. Since you are obviously way more wiser than all of us, perhaps you can descend from Mt Olympus and offer us mere mortals some specificity behind your judgment?

[qwerty49]

It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

Even more sad to see such a smirking, smug pronouncement. Since you are obviously way more wiser than all of us, perhaps you can descend from Mt Olympus and offer us mere mortals some specificity behind your judgment?

[gailtate]

It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

Even more sad to see such a smirking, smug pronouncement. Since you are obviously way more wiser than all of us, perhaps you can descend from Mt Olympus and offer us mere mortals some specificity behind your judgment?

Damn! You beat me to it!

[gailtate]

It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

Even more sad to see such a smirking, smug pronouncement. Since you are obviously way more wiser than all of us, perhaps you can descend from Mt Olympus and offer us mere mortals some specificity behind your judgment?

Damn! You beat me to it!

[fullmetal]

A deeper reading of comics and graphic novels and their relationship to society shows that the writers and authors build their fantastic universes around universally human stories to reflect certain aspects of society.

It is the athletes who are expected to be the Green Lantern Corps (willpower).  They show up to train, compete, and sacrifice (yeah that's a bit dramatic) years in the prime of their lives for athletic competition representing Stanford.  They must believe that every season, every game/match, every practice can result in victory/progress if they want it enough.  

We, the fans and families, are the Blue Lantern Corps (hope).  We hope every game, every season that the teams we support will win.  Some of us donate to the teams and support them more personally (yes, there are heroes who have worn both blue and green rings simultaneously).  We hope for a championship every year, knowing or not knowing the limitations of each team's roster, resources, and circumstances.  Blue Lantern rings supercharge Green Lantern rings, though Blue Lantern rings are less powerful by themselves.  An apt metaphor.

The athletic department?  Charitably, let's say their primary interests don't align with the teams.  The athletic department staff, at least the non-Stanford grads, are primarily concerned with keeping the donors happy, keeping everyone's noses clean (no NCAA violations or academic eligibility issues), and keeping the board happy.  Bare minimum do that, and it's unlikely that you'll get fired.  The performance of the teams seems to have very little bearing on the performance of athletic department staff.  (Should it?  At least indirectly...!)

The athletic staff is concerned about the brand of Stanford Athletics more than the performance of Stanford Athletics.  As long as it looks like we're smart, clean, and excellent, all is well, results notwithstanding.  Why is that?  Because non-Stanford people buy into the brand of Stanford.  They are focused on keeping the brand valuable.  It's easier to keep the brand shiny by keeping the machine moving on the surface than it is to fight the entropy at the foundation--the foundation that is actual athletic success.  Stanford athletics became good because they won, a lot.  But some people think a department will look good with a large endowment and budget, that pays more, hires more, and has more social media presence.  Maybe we're in the age of social media administrators.

The athletic dept isn't against success, but success isn't as high up on their list of priorities as stability and how it supports the brand.  If anything, the athletic department (with exceptions) is the Orange Lantern Corps (greed), fueled by self-interest.  Greed is perhaps too strong, but if you're going to work for Stanford athletics, you need to keep athletic success right up there with compliance and fiscal responsibility as a core tenet.  Sometimes that means holding head coaches accountable for holding their staff accountable when the results become unacceptable.  The Orange Lantern Corps is led by a creature who inhabits and takes over a host body.  I really hope that's not the case here, but I'm not seeing proof.

As far as the Board is concerned, I think most of them are acting as if the athletic department does not matter as long as the department is not a liability: no scandals, no eligibility issues, no irresponsible spending.  They probably don't care.

[fullmetal]

A deeper reading of comics and graphic novels and their relationship to society shows that the writers and authors build their fantastic universes around universally human stories to reflect certain aspects of society.

It is the athletes who are expected to be the Green Lantern Corps (willpower).  They show up to train, compete, and sacrifice (yeah that's a bit dramatic) years in the prime of their lives for athletic competition representing Stanford.  They must believe that every season, every game/match, every practice can result in victory/progress if they want it enough.  

We, the fans and families, are the Blue Lantern Corps (hope).  We hope every game, every season that the teams we support will win.  Some of us donate to the teams and support them more personally (yes, there are heroes who have worn both blue and green rings simultaneously).  We hope for a championship every year, knowing or not knowing the limitations of each team's roster, resources, and circumstances.  Blue Lantern rings supercharge Green Lantern rings, though Blue Lantern rings are less powerful by themselves.  An apt metaphor.

The athletic department?  Charitably, let's say their primary interests don't align with the teams.  The athletic department staff, at least the non-Stanford grads, are primarily concerned with keeping the donors happy, keeping everyone's noses clean (no NCAA violations or academic eligibility issues), and keeping the board happy.  Bare minimum do that, and it's unlikely that you'll get fired.  The performance of the teams seems to have very little bearing on the performance of athletic department staff.  (Should it?  At least indirectly...!)

The athletic staff is concerned about the brand of Stanford Athletics more than the performance of Stanford Athletics.  As long as it looks like we're smart, clean, and excellent, all is well, results notwithstanding.  Why is that?  Because non-Stanford people buy into the brand of Stanford.  They are focused on keeping the brand valuable.  It's easier to keep the brand shiny by keeping the machine moving on the surface than it is to fight the entropy at the foundation--the foundation that is actual athletic success.  Stanford athletics became good because they won, a lot.  But some people think a department will look good with a large endowment and budget, that pays more, hires more, and has more social media presence.  Maybe we're in the age of social media administrators.

The athletic dept isn't against success, but success isn't as high up on their list of priorities as stability and how it supports the brand.  If anything, the athletic department (with exceptions) is the Orange Lantern Corps (greed), fueled by self-interest.  Greed is perhaps too strong, but if you're going to work for Stanford athletics, you need to keep athletic success right up there with compliance and fiscal responsibility as a core tenet.  Sometimes that means holding head coaches accountable for holding their staff accountable when the results become unacceptable.  The Orange Lantern Corps is led by a creature who inhabits and takes over a host body.  I really hope that's not the case here, but I'm not seeing proof.

As far as the Board is concerned, I think most of them are acting as if the athletic department does not matter as long as the department is not a liability: no scandals, no eligibility issues, no irresponsible spending.  They probably don't care.

[M T]

It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

Even more sad to see such a smirking, smug pronouncement. Since you are obviously way more wiser than all of us, perhaps you can descend from Mt Olympus and offer us mere mortals some specificity behind your judgment?

I thought I was avoiding calling out the author with the focus being on the immediately previous post's argument.

Mine was a serious comment.  I didn't dress it up in the sarcastic fashion as in your post.  I suppose I could have.

 ...the BoT, President and Provost must be committed to Stanford at least being average in sports. 
 It seems obvious the the departing President and Provost had no interest in sports and probably preferred they went away.  ... 

That quote makes assertions that the author must know aren't true, that counters the fact that Stanford continues on a long streak of excellence in sports.   It asserts what I think most of us know as blatant falsehoods, asserting an extreme characterization of the people mentioned.  It won't convince anyone and just seems to be an outburst.

[M T]

It is sad to see such childish argumentation on the CardBoard.

Even more sad to see such a smirking, smug pronouncement. Since you are obviously way more wiser than all of us, perhaps you can descend from Mt Olympus and offer us mere mortals some specificity behind your judgment?

I thought I was avoiding calling out the author with the focus being on the immediately previous post's argument.

Mine was a serious comment.  I didn't dress it up in the sarcastic fashion as in your post.  I suppose I could have.

 ...the BoT, President and Provost must be committed to Stanford at least being average in sports. 
 It seems obvious the the departing President and Provost had no interest in sports and probably preferred they went away.  ... 

That quote makes assertions that the author must know aren't true, that counters the fact that Stanford continues on a long streak of excellence in sports.   It asserts what I think most of us know as blatant falsehoods, asserting an extreme characterization of the people mentioned.  It won't convince anyone and just seems to be an outburst.

[SkiBum80]

It's absolutely a will game with Stanford.

If Stanford offered NIL money, slightly relaxed admissions beyond what currently exists (what other school requires a full on application with essays, previously higher minimum test scores, plus *generally top* grades), and administrative support, why can't it succeed?  An elite degree with superb weather.


There is zero reason why Stanford can't become the Duke Basketball of Football. They choose not to for reasons that can be debated to be right or wrong ad infinitum.

If anything, the current test optional climate should help even more.

Duke basketball embraces one and done (recruiting players who explicitly tell them that they are staying for one year only barring extenuating circumstances), and has done so since 1999.  I don't think many Stanford community stakeholders would be comfortable with Stanford doing that.  No way Duke would have remained as competitive at the top level in NCAA hoops without doing that, I think. 

Now, of course that doesn't mean there aren't other things we could do to become more competitive in the current environment without running afoul of core values many stakeholders have.  But I don't think Duke basketball can be a model for us, in any sport.

We may not have embraced it, but we’ve dabbled in it. The one or two and done.
KZ Okpala, Tyrell Terry, Ziaire Williams, Harrison Ingram.
As far as I could tell our stakeholders, or at least coaches and AD folks, were greatly enthused to get such high ranking recruits.
Brushing aside any concerns they might not stay for more than a year or two let alone a degree.

[SkiBum80]

It's absolutely a will game with Stanford.

If Stanford offered NIL money, slightly relaxed admissions beyond what currently exists (what other school requires a full on application with essays, previously higher minimum test scores, plus *generally top* grades), and administrative support, why can't it succeed?  An elite degree with superb weather.


There is zero reason why Stanford can't become the Duke Basketball of Football. They choose not to for reasons that can be debated to be right or wrong ad infinitum.

If anything, the current test optional climate should help even more.

Duke basketball embraces one and done (recruiting players who explicitly tell them that they are staying for one year only barring extenuating circumstances), and has done so since 1999.  I don't think many Stanford community stakeholders would be comfortable with Stanford doing that.  No way Duke would have remained as competitive at the top level in NCAA hoops without doing that, I think. 

Now, of course that doesn't mean there aren't other things we could do to become more competitive in the current environment without running afoul of core values many stakeholders have.  But I don't think Duke basketball can be a model for us, in any sport.

We may not have embraced it, but we’ve dabbled in it. The one or two and done.
KZ Okpala, Tyrell Terry, Ziaire Williams, Harrison Ingram.
As far as I could tell our stakeholders, or at least coaches and AD folks, were greatly enthused to get such high ranking recruits.
Brushing aside any concerns they might not stay for more than a year or two let alone a degree.

[norcard10]

It's absolutely a will game with Stanford.

If Stanford offered NIL money, slightly relaxed admissions beyond what currently exists (what other school requires a full on application with essays, previously higher minimum test scores, plus *generally top* grades), and administrative support, why can't it succeed?  An elite degree with superb weather.


There is zero reason why Stanford can't become the Duke Basketball of Football. They choose not to for reasons that can be debated to be right or wrong ad infinitum.

If anything, the current test optional climate should help even more.

Duke basketball embraces one and done (recruiting players who explicitly tell them that they are staying for one year only barring extenuating circumstances), and has done so since 1999.  I don't think many Stanford community stakeholders would be comfortable with Stanford doing that.  No way Duke would have remained as competitive at the top level in NCAA hoops without doing that, I think. 

Now, of course that doesn't mean there aren't other things we could do to become more competitive in the current environment without running afoul of core values many stakeholders have.  But I don't think Duke basketball can be a model for us, in any sport.

We may not have embraced it, but we’ve dabbled in it. The one or two and done.
KZ Okpala, Tyrell Terry, Ziaire Williams, Harrison Ingram.
As far as I could tell our stakeholders, or at least coaches and AD folks, were greatly enthused to get such high ranking recruits.
Brushing aside any concerns they might not stay for more than a year or two let alone a degree.

Basketball is an area where we just don't have the right coach.  We've been able to get the right recruits.  Ziaire was great academically: https://theathletic.com/2193008/2020/11/...ole-court/

[norcard10]

It's absolutely a will game with Stanford.

If Stanford offered NIL money, slightly relaxed admissions beyond what currently exists (what other school requires a full on application with essays, previously higher minimum test scores, plus *generally top* grades), and administrative support, why can't it succeed?  An elite degree with superb weather.


There is zero reason why Stanford can't become the Duke Basketball of Football. They choose not to for reasons that can be debated to be right or wrong ad infinitum.

If anything, the current test optional climate should help even more.

Duke basketball embraces one and done (recruiting players who explicitly tell them that they are staying for one year only barring extenuating circumstances), and has done so since 1999.  I don't think many Stanford community stakeholders would be comfortable with Stanford doing that.  No way Duke would have remained as competitive at the top level in NCAA hoops without doing that, I think. 

Now, of course that doesn't mean there aren't other things we could do to become more competitive in the current environment without running afoul of core values many stakeholders have.  But I don't think Duke basketball can be a model for us, in any sport.

We may not have embraced it, but we’ve dabbled in it. The one or two and done.
KZ Okpala, Tyrell Terry, Ziaire Williams, Harrison Ingram.
As far as I could tell our stakeholders, or at least coaches and AD folks, were greatly enthused to get such high ranking recruits.
Brushing aside any concerns they might not stay for more than a year or two let alone a degree.

Basketball is an area where we just don't have the right coach.  We've been able to get the right recruits.  Ziaire was great academically: https://theathletic.com/2193008/2020/11/...ole-court/

[BobK]

I don’t think the coaches had any thoughts that Terry was one and done.
But we can go way back to the Lopez twins several coaches ago.

[BobK]

I don’t think the coaches had any thoughts that Terry was one and done.
But we can go way back to the Lopez twins several coaches ago.