WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 (/thread-25441.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 (/thread-25441.html)
RE: Mudhead - SkiBum80 - 02-05-2025
(02-03-2025, 08:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(02-03-2025, 02:22 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Apologies for simplifying it down to:
Pay the player what they're worth. What are they worth? What the Market says they are worth.
Are you volunteering to front the money. If so, Bob has provided the link to lifetime Cardinal, but if not, then no, Stanford should not pay every athlete whatever the market says they are worth because Stanford does not have a bottomless source of funds to pay all athletes whatever they could get. Stanford (via Lifetime Cardinal, at least until the House settlement is approved) should pay athletes whatever it determienes they are worth, taking into account competing funding requirements. Sometimes that will be less than athletes can get elsewhere, just as sometimes a professor will say "School X is offering me an endowed professorship and a position heading an institute with 8 FTE's, can you match it?" and the the Stanford department chair will be left saying; "Congratulations and best of luck at school X".
BC
I was intrigued by Mudhead's post and was trying to see if his thoughts boiled down to a simple thesis, which I tried restating, to see if I was understanding him correctly, and if not, to allow his correction.
If I did understand and restated in simple form, then I fully agree it may agreeable to some, and not agreeable to others, as has been discussed a lot on Cardboard in other threads.
In addition though, my main point was that if you agree it is good to pay athletes what they are worth and if that is what the market says they are worth, then determining that market worth is really hard to do a priori.
More similar to a Sotheby's auction than a stock market transaction.
Only after an athlete achieves some NIL or other deal do you really know what someone in the market was willing to pay.
As far as my own personal involvement, I've financially supported Stanford U, the Buck/Cardinal club, and Hopkins Marine Station for multiple decades.
And since last year added Lifetime Cardinal.
I note this not for selfishly soliciting accolades, but for agreeing with you that Lifetime Cardinal does have limited funds.
However, I disagree with a claim on a prior thread from long ago, that said any funds going to Lifetime Cardinal would be for sure detrimental to, and subtracting from, University donations, as it would be robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
My own experience is not that case.
I believe Lifetime Cardinal is a good idea and new avenue to raise new funds, possibly from some new donors even.
Getting back to my main point, which is that establishing the market value of college athletes is a very hard and tricky business,
I am acknowledging that those running Lifetime Cardinal have a hard job, trying to distribute limited funds across multiple sports,
trying to maximize the overall benefit to all our sports teams, while trying to pay athletes what they are worth,
but not overpay anyone, and trying to know when to back off because someone's auction is going so high as to blow the budget for what is needed to pay other athletes.
Kind of reminds me of a MLB GM's job in some ways, which then makes me think of Moneyball too.
Not easy to get it right.
Getting it right probably means getting it more than 50% right cause you'll never hit 100%.
RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - jonnyss - 02-05-2025
how do the nfl and nba manage endorsements? both have salary caps, and the players make ad money on the side. can the 49ers quietly help myles garrett land a $20 million endorsement deal that he couldn't find in cleveland. can the warrior do the same for kevin durant or lebron james?
more immediately, brock purdy's ads seem pretty minor. can the niners give him a 40 million per year contract and arrange 15 million more per year in ads?
RE: Mudhead - BostonCard - 02-05-2025
(02-05-2025, 08:54 AM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I was intrigued by Mudhead's post and was trying to see if his thoughts boiled down to a simple thesis, which I tried restating, to see if I was understanding him correctly, and if not, to allow his correction.
My apologies, I read your post as an imperative, not as rephrasing someone else’s point; in that case, feel free to pass along my rejoinder to, who is welcome to donate tens of millions of dollars each year to lifetime cardinal in order to ensure that we can pay every athlete whatever it takes to keep them at Stanford.
BC
RE: Mudhead - BillBradley - 02-05-2025
(02-05-2025, 09:31 AM)BostonCard Wrote:I'm still curious BC...in the hypothetical case that we will lose Nunu in a few months to USC who has offered her an attractive NIL package, what do you think Stanford should do? I realize what camp you're in re: the state of college athletics, but I'm interested in hearingfrom you (and others) if there is any middle ground here at all. Is your answer to offer her a scholarship as a student athlete and hope for the best? Or offer her some amount of money such that Stanford dips a toe in the NIL waters but doesn't dive in head first? Or is it an unfair/unanswerable question?(02-05-2025, 08:54 AM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I was intrigued by Mudhead's post and was trying to see if his thoughts boiled down to a simple thesis, which I tried restating, to see if I was understanding him correctly, and if not, to allow his correction.
My apologies, I read your post as an imperative, not as rephrasing someone else’s point; in that case, feel free to pass along my rejoinder to, who is welcome to donate tens of millions of dollars each year to lifetime cardinal in order to ensure that we can pay every athlete whatever it takes to keep them at Stanford.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - BostonCard - 02-05-2025
Personally, I don't like NIL as currently practiced by collectives, as a way to circumvent pay-to-play rules (I have no problems with paying athletes to use their name, image, or likeness in a legitimate way, such as Nike paying an athlete to appear in a TV commercial, but that is not what you are asking). But it's not my money, so if others are keen to donate to Lifetime Cardinal that is their business.
As far as Agara specifically, in your hypothetical, we should allocate whatever money the collective has in such a way to maximize return across our teams. Unless donors have given Lifetime Cardinal so much money that we functionally have no limit, then presumably whoever is allocating the funds will have to find a way to budget it. My guess is that you develop a budget by sport, and the coach will have some input into how it is allocated. So, let's say there is a pot of $10 million/year, of which $500k is allocated, to WBB, then we might have to determine whether matching USC by spending $400k (throwing out a number) to keep Agara is worth it, or if it would be better to invest less money across more players.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - chrisk - 02-05-2025
If USC has more star players to compete for the pool of money, Stanford may not be at a disadvantage.
Would she really command more in 3rd party deals in LA than here? The LA market is bigger but it is very
competitive. In WBB, it's not clear how much location matters. Clark came out of Iowa and raked in endorsements.
A key issue will be how each school allocates the $20M between sports.
RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina 69 - BillBradley - 02-06-2025
(02-05-2025, 05:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Personally, I don't like NIL as currently practiced by collectives, as a way to circumvent pay-to-play rules (I have no problems with paying athletes to use their name, image, or likeness in a legitimate way, such as Nike paying an athlete to appear in a TV commercial, but that is not what you are asking). But it's not my money, so if others are keen to donate to Lifetime Cardinal that is their business.That was how I was thinking about it as well. Crazy difficult, even if you have deep pockets. I continue to think the best way through this mess is through 3rd party deals. You can grow it as you go and not be on the hook to fork out a bunch of cash up front. And as others have pointed out, the cash up front piece will be limited in the next go round.
As far as Agara specifically, in your hypothetical, we should allocate whatever money the collective has in such a way to maximize return across our teams. Unless donors have given Lifetime Cardinal so much money that we functionally have no limit, then presumably whoever is allocating the funds will have to find a way to budget it. My guess is that you develop a budget by sport, and the coach will have some input into how it is allocated. So, let's say there is a pot of $10 million/year, of which $500k is allocated, to WBB, then we might have to determine whether matching USC by spending $400k (throwing out a number) to keep Agara is worth it, or if it would be better to invest less money across more players.
BC