Historically, Stanford's argument that potential women recruits should think about the next forty years not just the next four had more salience.
First, women had fewer options in their sport after graduation than now. Women basketball and volleyball players did not have American professional leagues as a lucrative target. Increases in prominence and raises in compensation in women's leagues have made college for many seem more like prep time for a continuation of their sports life than for other more academic pursuits. Both Paye's WBB and Hambly's WVB #3 best, nationwide, 2025 recruiting are amazing. How did each actually succeed? Stanford's location and academics and coaches? Or cash?
Second, women did not have different colleges and their alumni throwing money at them. If you can earn the big bucks now, why should you focus on your forty year plan as much. Take the money from the highest bidder and play. We definitely have seen a star throw us that curve ball. Texas A & M? Really? Women following the money is the thoroughly dispiriting if thoroughly understandable trend. Potential stars like Canady and Betts are commodities who can be bought with money and playing time, the former enticement more disappointing than the latter.
Third, women could not jump from college to college through the portals. Stanford basketball has suffered more than volleyball, but each faces that continuing challenge. In essence a Stanford coach has to re-recruit players year to year. To my knowledge, Hambly has been very successful in keeping players even though they don't play much their first year here. I'm glad Jordyn and Ipar are still with us. Lizzy may in one way have been a message to recruits that you will play early and often if you are really good. But, other schools are using the portals to win.
My wife (who has taught at Stanford Law School) and I (a Stanford B.A. grad who met my wife at Yale Law School) may be sports fanatic outliers. We care less about championships than about players' maturation. For us, seeing a player develop over four years (See, e.g., Brooke), or two years {Nunu or Tami) or even one year (Lizzy) is -- or was -- perhaps the most interesting part of the Stanford (or Yale) sports experience. That facet of fandom is fading with portals and cash.
Finally, for us, Stanford sports teams which are supposed to compete for championships are less involving than ones which are likely not to succeed. Stanford WVB 2023, which was heralded to win every game, was less thrilling, and more crushing, than WVB 2024, which was not supposed to win it all, but almost did, three wins short. We can see how fans who only tune in for the playoff events might put a premium on winning a championship, but we follow season long and know how difficult and interesting the journey is for players and their teams.
Each individual player must do what is best for her or him. For fans like us, however, even if Stanford (or Yale) could buy championships with new portal players, year to year, something beautiful has been lost.
Elegiacally yours,
David
First, women had fewer options in their sport after graduation than now. Women basketball and volleyball players did not have American professional leagues as a lucrative target. Increases in prominence and raises in compensation in women's leagues have made college for many seem more like prep time for a continuation of their sports life than for other more academic pursuits. Both Paye's WBB and Hambly's WVB #3 best, nationwide, 2025 recruiting are amazing. How did each actually succeed? Stanford's location and academics and coaches? Or cash?
Second, women did not have different colleges and their alumni throwing money at them. If you can earn the big bucks now, why should you focus on your forty year plan as much. Take the money from the highest bidder and play. We definitely have seen a star throw us that curve ball. Texas A & M? Really? Women following the money is the thoroughly dispiriting if thoroughly understandable trend. Potential stars like Canady and Betts are commodities who can be bought with money and playing time, the former enticement more disappointing than the latter.
Third, women could not jump from college to college through the portals. Stanford basketball has suffered more than volleyball, but each faces that continuing challenge. In essence a Stanford coach has to re-recruit players year to year. To my knowledge, Hambly has been very successful in keeping players even though they don't play much their first year here. I'm glad Jordyn and Ipar are still with us. Lizzy may in one way have been a message to recruits that you will play early and often if you are really good. But, other schools are using the portals to win.
My wife (who has taught at Stanford Law School) and I (a Stanford B.A. grad who met my wife at Yale Law School) may be sports fanatic outliers. We care less about championships than about players' maturation. For us, seeing a player develop over four years (See, e.g., Brooke), or two years {Nunu or Tami) or even one year (Lizzy) is -- or was -- perhaps the most interesting part of the Stanford (or Yale) sports experience. That facet of fandom is fading with portals and cash.
Finally, for us, Stanford sports teams which are supposed to compete for championships are less involving than ones which are likely not to succeed. Stanford WVB 2023, which was heralded to win every game, was less thrilling, and more crushing, than WVB 2024, which was not supposed to win it all, but almost did, three wins short. We can see how fans who only tune in for the playoff events might put a premium on winning a championship, but we follow season long and know how difficult and interesting the journey is for players and their teams.
Each individual player must do what is best for her or him. For fans like us, however, even if Stanford (or Yale) could buy championships with new portal players, year to year, something beautiful has been lost.
Elegiacally yours,
David
Last edited:
