[StanfordMatt]

Separately, I think it does help to have some Stanford experience, but it is not critical (and should not be).  Bowlsby had no Stanford experience (to my knowledge) and turned out pretty well.  Muir didn't either, and, well... I agree we should hire the best candidate, but part of being the "best candidate" is someone who understands the unique situation that Stanford is in within college athletics.  That being said, I would prioritize success as an AD (or at least success running a large organization with diverse stakeholders) over Stanford ties.

BC

I agree with this sentiment. I'll also point out that Bowlsby's hire came at a different time in college athletics.

College athletics has been big business for a long time now but these days it's business with a capital B. Any pretense is out the window. Old-time AD's with backgrounds in college athletics like Tom Holmoe (BYU) and Rick Hart (SMU) are being eschewed in favor of the Fortune 500 CEO mold. Private equity is a topic that is coming up on a daily basis in conversations among ADs.

The incredibly tricky dynamic for Stanford Athletics to navigate in this new world is that it has one foot in and one foot out of the water. We sold half of our soul and signed up for the brutal logistics that came along with ACC membership. At the same time, we're presumably still committed to fielding 36 varsity programs which is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

Everyone likes to think that they are unique but there is some truth to the idea when it comes to Stanford Athletics. Familiarity with the environment wouldn't be the worst thing for the new AD.

[StanfordMatt]

Separately, I think it does help to have some Stanford experience, but it is not critical (and should not be).  Bowlsby had no Stanford experience (to my knowledge) and turned out pretty well.  Muir didn't either, and, well... I agree we should hire the best candidate, but part of being the "best candidate" is someone who understands the unique situation that Stanford is in within college athletics.  That being said, I would prioritize success as an AD (or at least success running a large organization with diverse stakeholders) over Stanford ties.

BC

I agree with this sentiment. I'll also point out that Bowlsby's hire came at a different time in college athletics.

College athletics has been big business for a long time now but these days it's business with a capital B. Any pretense is out the window. Old-time AD's with backgrounds in college athletics like Tom Holmoe (BYU) and Rick Hart (SMU) are being eschewed in favor of the Fortune 500 CEO mold. Private equity is a topic that is coming up on a daily basis in conversations among ADs.

The incredibly tricky dynamic for Stanford Athletics to navigate in this new world is that it has one foot in and one foot out of the water. We sold half of our soul and signed up for the brutal logistics that came along with ACC membership. At the same time, we're presumably still committed to fielding 36 varsity programs which is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

Everyone likes to think that they are unique but there is some truth to the idea when it comes to Stanford Athletics. Familiarity with the environment wouldn't be the worst thing for the new AD.