[82lsju]

Jon Levin interview in the Stanford Magazine about Athletics.

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/an-extr...ary-legacy

[82lsju]

Jon Levin interview in the Stanford Magazine about Athletics.

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/an-extr...ary-legacy

[newguy]

so glad this guy is our president.

[newguy]

so glad this guy is our president.

[Maple Leaf]

very refreshing outlook, one of a person who thrives on being a problem solver and difference maker.

[Maple Leaf]

very refreshing outlook, one of a person who thrives on being a problem solver and difference maker.

[old spanish trail]

very refreshing outlook, one of a person who thrives on being a problem solver and difference maker.

Exactly

[old spanish trail]

very refreshing outlook, one of a person who thrives on being a problem solver and difference maker.

Exactly

[GK3]

very refreshing outlook, one of a person who thrives on being a problem solver and difference maker.

Exactly

Best thing I have read in ages about our University's leadership.

[GK3]

very refreshing outlook, one of a person who thrives on being a problem solver and difference maker.

Exactly

Best thing I have read in ages about our University's leadership.

[BostonCard]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students. We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards. WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem. And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

[BostonCard]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students. We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards. WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem. And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

[GK3]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students.  We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards.  WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem.  And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

You are so right, the trifecta of revenue, record and academics will be very hard to pull off.  First thing we need to do is have better teams, get more butts in the seats and a better record and let the academics be what they are.  
One thing that impresses me from all these interviews is that the kids who are committing are buying what Andrew is selling.  Also, Frank Reich is creating a culture that appears to appear to resonate with these same guys. If Stanford can turn around its football and basketball teams would an achievement that would be remembered. Starting to win may create a even stronger bond between the players, coaches, and Stanford and most of the players would take less money to stay and be part of something unique. At least I hope so.  I think there is more to be optimistic about.

[GK3]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students.  We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards.  WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem.  And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

You are so right, the trifecta of revenue, record and academics will be very hard to pull off.  First thing we need to do is have better teams, get more butts in the seats and a better record and let the academics be what they are.  
One thing that impresses me from all these interviews is that the kids who are committing are buying what Andrew is selling.  Also, Frank Reich is creating a culture that appears to appear to resonate with these same guys. If Stanford can turn around its football and basketball teams would an achievement that would be remembered. Starting to win may create a even stronger bond between the players, coaches, and Stanford and most of the players would take less money to stay and be part of something unique. At least I hope so.  I think there is more to be optimistic about.

[StanUSwagU]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students. We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards. WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem. And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

*******************


Hi BC,

Hope all is well. I ask forgiveness from you, as I am about to go into 'broken-record mode' here:



You have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

(1) 1st I would ask, what is the definition of 'our standards' ?

(2) 2nd, has Stanford had these same 'standards' for its over 100+ year history ? ..or have these 'standards' been able to be modified based on the needs of the times ?

(3) If these 'standards' at Stanford have changed over its 100+year history, then why could we not change them again, 'a little bit' ...if this is an 'overall +/- net delta win for the University', & its Students, & Student-Athletes ?

(4) Seems to me 'rigidly clinging to some arbitrary, anachronistic standard' is not a good thing, and a good way to be left behind.



But actually, really its not such a hard dilemma or trilemma; This dilemma or trilemma is entirely self-imposed by ourselves here at Stanford', especially if we continue to think in such a binary 'all or nothing' fashion.



You & a few others (maybe inadvertently) have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

No one is talking about 'abandoning our standards' if this is seen as a 'binary choice'.
Rather we are talking about 'Modernizing our Standards' or maybe you would say 'modifying our standards a little' to be in line with NotreDame & Duke

If we modernize our standards to be in line with NotreDame (for Football) & Duke (for Mens Basketball), I think President Levins vision can be achieved !


And as I keep saying :

Duke has a nicely balanced University with Top20 academic standards & Top20 Mens Basketball Team.
NotreDame has a nicely balanced University with Top20 academic standards & Top20 Football Team.


Whispering to all here at Stanford, who might be open-minded:

(1) This really isnt so difficult a trilemma;
(2) Duke & NotreDame have solved this trilemma already;
(3) It is us here at Stanford that are getting in our own way, rigidly clinging to largely arbitrary, anachronistic 'standards' ....if one could even call them that.

[StanUSwagU]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students. We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards. WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem. And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

*******************


Hi BC,

Hope all is well. I ask forgiveness from you, as I am about to go into 'broken-record mode' here:



You have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

(1) 1st I would ask, what is the definition of 'our standards' ?

(2) 2nd, has Stanford had these same 'standards' for its over 100+ year history ? ..or have these 'standards' been able to be modified based on the needs of the times ?

(3) If these 'standards' at Stanford have changed over its 100+year history, then why could we not change them again, 'a little bit' ...if this is an 'overall +/- net delta win for the University', & its Students, & Student-Athletes ?

(4) Seems to me 'rigidly clinging to some arbitrary, anachronistic standard' is not a good thing, and a good way to be left behind.



But actually, really its not such a hard dilemma or trilemma; This dilemma or trilemma is entirely self-imposed by ourselves here at Stanford', especially if we continue to think in such a binary 'all or nothing' fashion.



You & a few others (maybe inadvertently) have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

No one is talking about 'abandoning our standards' if this is seen as a 'binary choice'.
Rather we are talking about 'Modernizing our Standards' or maybe you would say 'modifying our standards a little' to be in line with NotreDame & Duke

If we modernize our standards to be in line with NotreDame (for Football) & Duke (for Mens Basketball), I think President Levins vision can be achieved !


And as I keep saying :

Duke has a nicely balanced University with Top20 academic standards & Top20 Mens Basketball Team.
NotreDame has a nicely balanced University with Top20 academic standards & Top20 Football Team.


Whispering to all here at Stanford, who might be open-minded:

(1) This really isnt so difficult a trilemma;
(2) Duke & NotreDame have solved this trilemma already;
(3) It is us here at Stanford that are getting in our own way, rigidly clinging to largely arbitrary, anachronistic 'standards' ....if one could even call them that.

[paloalto]

We are in an endless do loop on this topic but there's nothing else going on now.  I like our academic standards just fine.  I want to keep them.  I like seeing Stanford ranked academically as one of the top universities in the world.

[paloalto]

We are in an endless do loop on this topic but there's nothing else going on now.  I like our academic standards just fine.  I want to keep them.  I like seeing Stanford ranked academically as one of the top universities in the world.

[Goose]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students.  We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards.  WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem.  And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

*******************


Hi BC,

Hope all is well. I ask forgiveness from you, as I am about to go into 'broken-record mode' here:



You have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

(1) 1st I would ask, what is the definition of 'our standards' ?

(2) 2nd, has Stanford had these same 'standards' for its over 100+ year history ? ..or have these 'standards' been able to be modified based on the needs of the times ?

(3) If these 'standards' at Stanford have changed over its 100+year history, then why could we not change them again, 'a little bit' ...if this is an 'overall +/- net delta win for the University', & its Students, & Student-Athletes ?

(4) Seems to me 'rigidly clinging to some arbitrary, anachronistic standard' is not a good thing, and a  good way to be left behind.



But actually, really its not such a hard dilemma or trilemma;  This dilemma or trilemma  is entirely self-imposed by ourselves here at Stanford', especially if we continue to think in such a binary 'all or nothing' fashion.



You & a few others (maybe inadvertently) have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

No one is talking about 'abandoning our standards' if this is seen as a 'binary choice'.
Rather we are talking about 'Modernizing our Standards' or maybe you would say 'modifying our standards a little' to be in line with NotreDame & Duke

If we modernize our standards to be in line with NotreDame (for Football) & Duke (for Mens Basketball), I think President Levins vision can be achieved !


And as I keep saying : 

Duke has a nicely balanced University with  Top20 academic standards & Top20 Mens Basketball Team.
NotreDame has a nicely balanced University with Top20 academic standards & Top20 Football Team.


Whispering to all here at Stanfor, who might be open-minded:

(1) This really isnt so difficult a trilemma; 
(2) Duke & NotreDame have solved this trilemma already;
(3) It is us here at Stanford that are getting in our own way, rigidly clinging to largely arbitrary, anachronistic 'standards' ....if one could even call them that.

I have already asked you to please read Chapter 16 of Stanford's Wallace Sterling by Nilan and Kirk. I am sure you can find a copy to borrow if you don't want to buy the book. Sterling explicitly answered the question why we can't "lower our standards just a little" and he did it in a way that is timeless. Until you can explain why you disagree with him I don't think you have much of an argument for your position. You are correct that at one time Stanford's admission standards were quite "flexible", especially when athletes and/or money was involved. To some degree, they still are today. However, Sterling changed those standards and produced the academic powerhouse Stanford is today. Our current "standards" are largely based on what Stirling installed. I seriously doubt very many people want to return to the previous situation. Frankly I find the idea that Stanford's standards are "arbitrary" very difficult to credit. Their purpose certainly isn't arbitrary.
 
One may argue that the standards are not perfectly "fit for purpose" in today's world, but to do that one has to show the new standards are better fit for purpose. You don't argue that. You argue that they aren't much worse. I don't agree with that argument, but even if I did you seem to concede they aren't "better". Not an adequate reason to change IMO.

[Goose]

We want to ensure that even in this new era, Stanford student-athletes are true Stanford students.  We want athletics to be financially sustainable and hopefully have strong support from alumni. And we want our athletes and teams to excel.

Massive respect if he pulls it off, but this strikes me as a trilema in that we can probably only get two out of three out of:
* *Student* athletes
* Financial sustainability
* Team success

We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards.  WE could probably get team success with Stanford caliber students if we throw large amounts of money at the problem.  And we can probably keep academic standards and maintain fiscal discipline, but it is hard to see how in the new era we will have sustained team success, at least in the revenue sports that Levin is trying to address.

BC

*******************


Hi BC,

Hope all is well. I ask forgiveness from you, as I am about to go into 'broken-record mode' here:



You have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

(1) 1st I would ask, what is the definition of 'our standards' ?

(2) 2nd, has Stanford had these same 'standards' for its over 100+ year history ? ..or have these 'standards' been able to be modified based on the needs of the times ?

(3) If these 'standards' at Stanford have changed over its 100+year history, then why could we not change them again, 'a little bit' ...if this is an 'overall +/- net delta win for the University', & its Students, & Student-Athletes ?

(4) Seems to me 'rigidly clinging to some arbitrary, anachronistic standard' is not a good thing, and a  good way to be left behind.



But actually, really its not such a hard dilemma or trilemma;  This dilemma or trilemma  is entirely self-imposed by ourselves here at Stanford', especially if we continue to think in such a binary 'all or nothing' fashion.



You & a few others (maybe inadvertently) have characterized part of the trilemma as:

"We can probably beget financial sustainability and team success if we abandon our standards."

No one is talking about 'abandoning our standards' if this is seen as a 'binary choice'.
Rather we are talking about 'Modernizing our Standards' or maybe you would say 'modifying our standards a little' to be in line with NotreDame & Duke

If we modernize our standards to be in line with NotreDame (for Football) & Duke (for Mens Basketball), I think President Levins vision can be achieved !


And as I keep saying : 

Duke has a nicely balanced University with  Top20 academic standards & Top20 Mens Basketball Team.
NotreDame has a nicely balanced University with Top20 academic standards & Top20 Football Team.


Whispering to all here at Stanfor, who might be open-minded:

(1) This really isnt so difficult a trilemma; 
(2) Duke & NotreDame have solved this trilemma already;
(3) It is us here at Stanford that are getting in our own way, rigidly clinging to largely arbitrary, anachronistic 'standards' ....if one could even call them that.

I have already asked you to please read Chapter 16 of Stanford's Wallace Sterling by Nilan and Kirk. I am sure you can find a copy to borrow if you don't want to buy the book. Sterling explicitly answered the question why we can't "lower our standards just a little" and he did it in a way that is timeless. Until you can explain why you disagree with him I don't think you have much of an argument for your position. You are correct that at one time Stanford's admission standards were quite "flexible", especially when athletes and/or money was involved. To some degree, they still are today. However, Sterling changed those standards and produced the academic powerhouse Stanford is today. Our current "standards" are largely based on what Stirling installed. I seriously doubt very many people want to return to the previous situation. Frankly I find the idea that Stanford's standards are "arbitrary" very difficult to credit. Their purpose certainly isn't arbitrary.
 
One may argue that the standards are not perfectly "fit for purpose" in today's world, but to do that one has to show the new standards are better fit for purpose. You don't argue that. You argue that they aren't much worse. I don't agree with that argument, but even if I did you seem to concede they aren't "better". Not an adequate reason to change IMO.

[BostonCard]

Listen, I think it is fine to want to win more and be willing to tolerate lower academic  in order to accomplish that, as StanUSwagU wants; it is ultimately a somewhat subjective and ambiguous process.  For me, personally, the football team ending the season 7-5 and on its way to a third tier bowl is not enough to merit altering the standards.

And yes, to answer StanU’s question, the standards have changed over time.  There was a period under Robin Mamlet when Stanford raised its academic standards for athletes, and it coincided with a period when we struggled a bit, especially in football.  But aside from having somewhat less successful teams at the time, it wasn’t the end of the world and the University did just fine.  

BC

[BostonCard]

Listen, I think it is fine to want to win more and be willing to tolerate lower academic  in order to accomplish that, as StanUSwagU wants; it is ultimately a somewhat subjective and ambiguous process.  For me, personally, the football team ending the season 7-5 and on its way to a third tier bowl is not enough to merit altering the standards.

And yes, to answer StanU’s question, the standards have changed over time.  There was a period under Robin Mamlet when Stanford raised its academic standards for athletes, and it coincided with a period when we struggled a bit, especially in football.  But aside from having somewhat less successful teams at the time, it wasn’t the end of the world and the University did just fine.  

BC

[GK3]

We are in an endless do loop on this topic but there's nothing else going on now.  I like our academic standards just fine.  I want to keep them.  I like seeing Stanford ranked academically as one of the top universities in the world.

I do not think we have to change our academic standards, but we should perhaps be more flexible in allowing those who have proven they have the academic chops but missing something else that would keep them from getting in. We have no business allowing people to enter who can't do the work or do not have the character one would expect.

That said I think it is MUCH more important to have a University leadership who see the benefit of athletics at the college level and want Stanford to be successful in this area. That leadership has to make sure they have an AD who buys into this and who is also really capable of find the right coaches.  Now that we have General Managers we absolutely have to have men or women in this capacity who buy in to all of this and perhaps more importantly truly believe in Stanford and can sell that vision to recruits.  Luck seems to be the perfect example and I would guess Rev will also. 

Then we need people like Kyle Smith who firmly believe Stanford is their "best job"

Lastly we need our AD be a person who is creative when it comes to finding ways to put people in the seats.  Nothing is worse than going to a game in Stanford Stadium when there are so few people it seems empty.  I buy an endzone seat, then walk over to the 50 yard line and enjoy the game.  Insane.  I have no idea how many "season ticket holders" we have, but it seems most put their tickets up for sale and then just write the loss off when they don't sell.  We need to find a way to get those tickets back and give them away if necessary an hour before game time.  We NEED people in the seats. 

Then we have to start fielding teams that are fun to watch and start to once again add value to Season Ticket Holders. 

It isn't easy to turn a program around, maybe even harder in today's world. A challenge like this should be right in Stanford's wheelhouse.  As I see it the final steps are to get the "right AD" and perhaps the right GM for Women's basketball. The BoD has to buy into this 100%

[GK3]

We are in an endless do loop on this topic but there's nothing else going on now.  I like our academic standards just fine.  I want to keep them.  I like seeing Stanford ranked academically as one of the top universities in the world.

I do not think we have to change our academic standards, but we should perhaps be more flexible in allowing those who have proven they have the academic chops but missing something else that would keep them from getting in. We have no business allowing people to enter who can't do the work or do not have the character one would expect.

That said I think it is MUCH more important to have a University leadership who see the benefit of athletics at the college level and want Stanford to be successful in this area. That leadership has to make sure they have an AD who buys into this and who is also really capable of find the right coaches.  Now that we have General Managers we absolutely have to have men or women in this capacity who buy in to all of this and perhaps more importantly truly believe in Stanford and can sell that vision to recruits.  Luck seems to be the perfect example and I would guess Rev will also. 

Then we need people like Kyle Smith who firmly believe Stanford is their "best job"

Lastly we need our AD be a person who is creative when it comes to finding ways to put people in the seats.  Nothing is worse than going to a game in Stanford Stadium when there are so few people it seems empty.  I buy an endzone seat, then walk over to the 50 yard line and enjoy the game.  Insane.  I have no idea how many "season ticket holders" we have, but it seems most put their tickets up for sale and then just write the loss off when they don't sell.  We need to find a way to get those tickets back and give them away if necessary an hour before game time.  We NEED people in the seats. 

Then we have to start fielding teams that are fun to watch and start to once again add value to Season Ticket Holders. 

It isn't easy to turn a program around, maybe even harder in today's world. A challenge like this should be right in Stanford's wheelhouse.  As I see it the final steps are to get the "right AD" and perhaps the right GM for Women's basketball. The BoD has to buy into this 100%

[Mick]

Stanford = Excellence

That's what I've always been told. That's the brand. Hence the Directors Cup/Sears Cup/annual athletic success across the board in non-revenue sports.

If you reduce standards for athletes -- and we have, particularly in football -- it is with the expectation that success is in the offing, either actualized, imminent, soon, or on the way. Perpetuating visible mediocrity is not the Stanford way. Never has been.

I once stood at the shoulder of Stanford's head coach at the most prominent national tournament in his sport. He had the Top 50 players listed in alpha order on his clipboard. Four were highlighted. We were friendly, and I asked him if those were the four he really wanted. He replied "those are the only four who can get into Stanford. I need to sign all four, plus one more."

Pretty tall task. And he does well enough every year and of course Stanford's brand helps immeasurably. He once recruited a multi-year All American player who had (I've been reliably told, not by the coach or anyone associated with Stanford) the lowest SAT score in the history of the program. Said SAT was at the 86th percentile.

I don't know that we have much room to lower standards further. Perhaps for budding All-Americans. I imagine there's one set of standards for five-star recruits, one set for four-stars and so on. Personally, I'd rather see Stanford eliminate their sports program than completely give over to drastic reduction of academic standards, much as I enjoy Stanford's success.

BTW, some interesting SAT/ACT stats of which I was unaware. We all knew that some universities went through a period in which they didn't accept test scores, a trend that has been reversed. Today, half of all states mandate that all 11th graders take the test, as follows:

SAT: NM, CO, ID, MI, IN, WV, CT, RI, ME, NH, DE
ACT: NV, AZ, WY, MT, NE, OK, WI, IL, KY, NC, MS, AL, HI
ACT or SAT: OH, TN
No requirement: CA, and all the rest

ACT & SAT Graduation Requirements by State | Piqosity

The test itself has changed a great deal. Test time is now two hours and 14 minutes and is fully digital, among other things. If you took your SAT before 1995, the scores were recentered.

History of the SAT

[Mick]

Stanford = Excellence

That's what I've always been told. That's the brand. Hence the Directors Cup/Sears Cup/annual athletic success across the board in non-revenue sports.

If you reduce standards for athletes -- and we have, particularly in football -- it is with the expectation that success is in the offing, either actualized, imminent, soon, or on the way. Perpetuating visible mediocrity is not the Stanford way. Never has been.

I once stood at the shoulder of Stanford's head coach at the most prominent national tournament in his sport. He had the Top 50 players listed in alpha order on his clipboard. Four were highlighted. We were friendly, and I asked him if those were the four he really wanted. He replied "those are the only four who can get into Stanford. I need to sign all four, plus one more."

Pretty tall task. And he does well enough every year and of course Stanford's brand helps immeasurably. He once recruited a multi-year All American player who had (I've been reliably told, not by the coach or anyone associated with Stanford) the lowest SAT score in the history of the program. Said SAT was at the 86th percentile.

I don't know that we have much room to lower standards further. Perhaps for budding All-Americans. I imagine there's one set of standards for five-star recruits, one set for four-stars and so on. Personally, I'd rather see Stanford eliminate their sports program than completely give over to drastic reduction of academic standards, much as I enjoy Stanford's success.

BTW, some interesting SAT/ACT stats of which I was unaware. We all knew that some universities went through a period in which they didn't accept test scores, a trend that has been reversed. Today, half of all states mandate that all 11th graders take the test, as follows:

SAT: NM, CO, ID, MI, IN, WV, CT, RI, ME, NH, DE
ACT: NV, AZ, WY, MT, NE, OK, WI, IL, KY, NC, MS, AL, HI
ACT or SAT: OH, TN
No requirement: CA, and all the rest

ACT & SAT Graduation Requirements by State | Piqosity

The test itself has changed a great deal. Test time is now two hours and 14 minutes and is fully digital, among other things. If you took your SAT before 1995, the scores were recentered.

History of the SAT

[Treebound]

Mick's thread is spot on - thank you, Mick!
There has long been a different level of requirements for athletes at Stanford and some testing of those standards over the years by both coaches and admissions.  In the 80's, the university accepted some JC transfers for football and I knew some of them.  Some struggled mightily.   Today, we are accepting more transfers than ever before and ideally all of those student athletes are up to the task of being Stanford students and contributing in the class room and on the field.   

I believe that Levin, Luck, Kyle and Rev will, with the help of we fans, donors and ideally some very deep pockets, find a "Stanford Way" to attract as Andrew says, "Stanford Men and Women!" Student athletes that get that we are different here and that we are driven to be the best in all fields, athletic and otherwise.   

To compete in this new NIL world, it's going to take real dollars and people going to the games.  Everyone needs to pitch in, especially given the size of our alumni base.   Hopefully people will step up to help, but I still hear the "Stanford has enough money" argument from some of my colleagues.  If you want to compete at the highest levels, then you also need to compete at the highest dollar levels with a serious budget.  We carry 36 sports and travel farther than most.  I'm hopeful people will step up with the new leadership that has been brought in.  Without real $'s, it won't happen in this new world.

[Treebound]

Mick's thread is spot on - thank you, Mick!
There has long been a different level of requirements for athletes at Stanford and some testing of those standards over the years by both coaches and admissions.  In the 80's, the university accepted some JC transfers for football and I knew some of them.  Some struggled mightily.   Today, we are accepting more transfers than ever before and ideally all of those student athletes are up to the task of being Stanford students and contributing in the class room and on the field.   

I believe that Levin, Luck, Kyle and Rev will, with the help of we fans, donors and ideally some very deep pockets, find a "Stanford Way" to attract as Andrew says, "Stanford Men and Women!" Student athletes that get that we are different here and that we are driven to be the best in all fields, athletic and otherwise.   

To compete in this new NIL world, it's going to take real dollars and people going to the games.  Everyone needs to pitch in, especially given the size of our alumni base.   Hopefully people will step up to help, but I still hear the "Stanford has enough money" argument from some of my colleagues.  If you want to compete at the highest levels, then you also need to compete at the highest dollar levels with a serious budget.  We carry 36 sports and travel farther than most.  I'm hopeful people will step up with the new leadership that has been brought in.  Without real $'s, it won't happen in this new world.

[M T]

So, if a prospect says "I'm a good athlete and I have the academics to get through Stanford.  But if Stanford wants me, they're in a tough spot.  Pay me $10M a year and I'll show up, for the first year at least", then is it worth it to those paying for athletics?    What if it were $20M/year?

As the old saying goes, then it comes down to haggling over price.  What is Stanford's price?

[M T]

So, if a prospect says "I'm a good athlete and I have the academics to get through Stanford.  But if Stanford wants me, they're in a tough spot.  Pay me $10M a year and I'll show up, for the first year at least", then is it worth it to those paying for athletics?    What if it were $20M/year?

As the old saying goes, then it comes down to haggling over price.  What is Stanford's price?

[Mick]

So, if a prospect says "I'm a good athlete and I have the academics to get through Stanford.  But if Stanford wants me, they're in a tough spot.  Pay me $10M a year and I'll show up, for the first year at least", then is it worth it to those paying for athletics?    What if it were $20M/year?

As the old saying goes, then it comes down to haggling over price.  What is Stanford's price?

To me, the old value equation was acceptable. The very good student who wouldn't otherwise get into Stanford is admitted because he or she is a world-class amateur athlete and they typically receive some form of scholarship or other recompense. They stay at Stanford and 97% of them get a Stanford degree. In exchange, Stanford gets the best athletics program in the NCAA, Olympic medals, NCAA championships of one form or another every year. No other academic powerhouse has the pervasive, persuasive combination of Top-1-5 academics and Top 1-5 athletics. The next closest are Top 20 in both categories, maybe.

The new value equation is less acceptable, for some it is unacceptable. Stanford is shunted aside into the bottom of the top-tier "national" conferences, one that isn't as good as the Pac-12 but considerably better than the MWC or other alternatives. Now, Stanford has to offer scholarships and pay professional athletes, some of them, anyways -- and there is no loyalty, just a transfer portal. And people wonder, every year, if the 250-300 athletes who are admitted annually to Stanford should be 250-300 GREAT STUDENTS instead of the student-athletes, or -- these days -- ATHLETE - students. 

That's the price, and it is an expensive one. Other factors to take into account include (a) inertia and history of the most successful athletic department in the country with (b) unsuccessful football and MBB teams and ( c) enormous investments in the physical plant and (d) alumni and other Stanford people who really, really like the successful teams...and you have a giant conundrum.

For me, the NLI and transfer portal made it no longer worth it. I'd rather watch a minor league pro team than minor league pros attached to the World's Greatest University. For others, it'll be a hold-my-beer moment.

[Mick]

So, if a prospect says "I'm a good athlete and I have the academics to get through Stanford.  But if Stanford wants me, they're in a tough spot.  Pay me $10M a year and I'll show up, for the first year at least", then is it worth it to those paying for athletics?    What if it were $20M/year?

As the old saying goes, then it comes down to haggling over price.  What is Stanford's price?

To me, the old value equation was acceptable. The very good student who wouldn't otherwise get into Stanford is admitted because he or she is a world-class amateur athlete and they typically receive some form of scholarship or other recompense. They stay at Stanford and 97% of them get a Stanford degree. In exchange, Stanford gets the best athletics program in the NCAA, Olympic medals, NCAA championships of one form or another every year. No other academic powerhouse has the pervasive, persuasive combination of Top-1-5 academics and Top 1-5 athletics. The next closest are Top 20 in both categories, maybe.

The new value equation is less acceptable, for some it is unacceptable. Stanford is shunted aside into the bottom of the top-tier "national" conferences, one that isn't as good as the Pac-12 but considerably better than the MWC or other alternatives. Now, Stanford has to offer scholarships and pay professional athletes, some of them, anyways -- and there is no loyalty, just a transfer portal. And people wonder, every year, if the 250-300 athletes who are admitted annually to Stanford should be 250-300 GREAT STUDENTS instead of the student-athletes, or -- these days -- ATHLETE - students. 

That's the price, and it is an expensive one. Other factors to take into account include (a) inertia and history of the most successful athletic department in the country with (b) unsuccessful football and MBB teams and ( c) enormous investments in the physical plant and (d) alumni and other Stanford people who really, really like the successful teams...and you have a giant conundrum.

For me, the NLI and transfer portal made it no longer worth it. I'd rather watch a minor league pro team than minor league pros attached to the World's Greatest University. For others, it'll be a hold-my-beer moment.

[chrisk]

So, if a prospect says "I'm a good athlete and I have the academics to get through Stanford.  But if Stanford wants me, they're in a tough spot.  Pay me $10M a year and I'll show up, for the first year at least", then is it worth it to those paying for athletics?    What if it were $20M/year?

As the old saying goes, then it comes down to haggling over price.  What is Stanford's price?

Every school has to live within the $20M cap. No school is going to allocate $10M to one player. The $10M deal would have to come from a 3rd party from Nike or a similar company promoting its brand and most of these companies are subject to the discipline of the public markets. An NIL collective is going to have a hard time justifying an outsize deal because what do they get in return for the money.

[chrisk]

So, if a prospect says "I'm a good athlete and I have the academics to get through Stanford.  But if Stanford wants me, they're in a tough spot.  Pay me $10M a year and I'll show up, for the first year at least", then is it worth it to those paying for athletics?    What if it were $20M/year?

As the old saying goes, then it comes down to haggling over price.  What is Stanford's price?

Every school has to live within the $20M cap. No school is going to allocate $10M to one player. The $10M deal would have to come from a 3rd party from Nike or a similar company promoting its brand and most of these companies are subject to the discipline of the public markets. An NIL collective is going to have a hard time justifying an outsize deal because what do they get in return for the money.

[Treebound]

ChrisK,
My understanding is that third party collectives, acting on behalf of the universities that they support, can offer payments to athletes above and beyond the $20.5M stated in the House Settlement.    These "third party" payments, greater than $600, would still need to go through the NIL clearinghouse run by Deloitte.  So this still sounds like a semi-sanctioned, uncapped, "pay to play" arms race where those with the deepest pockets can build the best rosters via raising and spending more money.

[Treebound]

ChrisK,
My understanding is that third party collectives, acting on behalf of the universities that they support, can offer payments to athletes above and beyond the $20.5M stated in the House Settlement.    These "third party" payments, greater than $600, would still need to go through the NIL clearinghouse run by Deloitte.  So this still sounds like a semi-sanctioned, uncapped, "pay to play" arms race where those with the deepest pockets can build the best rosters via raising and spending more money.

[chrisk]

ChrisK,
My understanding is that third party collectives, acting on behalf of the universities that they support, can offer payments to athletes above and beyond the $20.5M stated in the House Settlement.    These "third party" payments, greater than $600, would still need to go through the NIL clearinghouse run by Deloitte.  So this still sounds like a semi-sanctioned, uncapped, "pay to play" arms race where those with the deepest pockets can build the best rosters via raising and spending more money.

The people in the industry are saying that the Deloitte review will work drive most NIL collective payments out because 90% of them won't meet muster and the NIL deals that will be approved will be from public companies whose deals will be subject to review by their auditors. Here is an Athletic article (may be behind paywall) about Georgia's NIL collective closing and Georgia setting up a deal with Learfield to work on setting up legitimate deals that will pass muster.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6463398...e-sharing/

There are a lot of changes going on in this space that have not penetrated very deeply into Stanford fandom.

CBS Sports article

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...contracts/

"Per reports, Deloitte told ACC officials that 90% of existing NIL contracts with public companies would have been approved. More than 70% of deals with booster collectives would have been denied."

"There's no one consensus answer on the future of collectives; every school will handle them differently. Some will sunset their collectives and move all operations in-house. Others will use third-party collectives as a support tool for services like connecting athletes with outside endorsements or financial education. Different collectives have different relationships with their respective schools."

With no AD in place, Stanford has been very quiet on its plans.

[chrisk]

ChrisK,
My understanding is that third party collectives, acting on behalf of the universities that they support, can offer payments to athletes above and beyond the $20.5M stated in the House Settlement.    These "third party" payments, greater than $600, would still need to go through the NIL clearinghouse run by Deloitte.  So this still sounds like a semi-sanctioned, uncapped, "pay to play" arms race where those with the deepest pockets can build the best rosters via raising and spending more money.

The people in the industry are saying that the Deloitte review will work drive most NIL collective payments out because 90% of them won't meet muster and the NIL deals that will be approved will be from public companies whose deals will be subject to review by their auditors. Here is an Athletic article (may be behind paywall) about Georgia's NIL collective closing and Georgia setting up a deal with Learfield to work on setting up legitimate deals that will pass muster.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6463398...e-sharing/

There are a lot of changes going on in this space that have not penetrated very deeply into Stanford fandom.

CBS Sports article

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...contracts/

"Per reports, Deloitte told ACC officials that 90% of existing NIL contracts with public companies would have been approved. More than 70% of deals with booster collectives would have been denied."

"There's no one consensus answer on the future of collectives; every school will handle them differently. Some will sunset their collectives and move all operations in-house. Others will use third-party collectives as a support tool for services like connecting athletes with outside endorsements or financial education. Different collectives have different relationships with their respective schools."

With no AD in place, Stanford has been very quiet on its plans.

[BostonCard]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC

[BostonCard]

Every year there are many talented and academically qualified students who would love to attend, and would thrive if they did, but aren’t admitted for the sole reason that there are not enough spots for entering freshmen. I don’t have a problem with athletes having a lower high school academic record than non-athletes, since being able to be a merely very very good student while also pursuing athletics is itself proof of a strong work ethic, time management, and all the other traits that are necessary for success at Stanford.  The thing is, that when every year more than a quarter of your football team decides that, actually, they don’t appreciate the Stanford education that they are getting (for free) enough to forgo a higher caliber football program, or more playing time, or an NIL payment or a bunch of other reasons, and opt not to stay.  It’s really hard to say that the academic allowances that they are getting should be loosened even further when, it doesn’t even seem like they care that much to be at the school.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everyone has to love or even like Stanford, but something seems profoundly broken if every year a substantial number off athletes (mostly football but increasingly other sports) are indifferent to it.

BC