[CTcard]

What I think is going unsaid though is the tremendous financial resource advantage Stanford enjoys relative to other schools. 

... Unlike other athletic departments that rely overwhelmingly on the revenue sports to support the non-revenue sports, Stanford can sustain athletic programs with endowment returns.  ...  But, I think it is more than a little disingenuous to look down on schools that focus more on revenue sports and/or can't field 30+ varsity teams without at least acknowledging that Stanford is playing by a different set of rules (from a resource-constraint perspective).

... A cynical person (not me, I swear) could fairly say that what is most exceptional about Stanford athletics is the number and magnitude of donations to the university that are earmarked for sports.

Just my two cents.  Welcome your thoughts.

Stanford athletics has a clear financial advantage over most schools, whether that is true over all schools depends on how you count. There is a rather famous USA Today ongoing look at university AD revenues, expenses, subsidies etc. These are required to be filed by universities with the NCAA and are available through FOI requests from public universities. So, unfortunately for this discussion, Stanford isn't on it.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

The biggest AD revenue in the country in 2013 was University of Texas at $166 million. I am pretty certain from bits and pieces I have seen reported that Stanford's revenue is nowhere near that - which would include income from the endowment but not the endowment itself. My memory of Stanford numbers from other sources was that they were most likely in the $60 million range, or 50-ish in ranking. Probably a few others on here would have a better idea on where Stanford may stand.

Regardless of the source, I like the fact that Stanford has chosen to raise these funds and to use them to support a broad-based athletic department that supports many student athletes. I don't think that liking the fact Stanford does that, and reveling in the success Stanford has had in doing so, is the same thing as looking down on schools that don't.
[On the other hand, I feel perfectly comfortable looking down on schools that have completely divorced their revenue sports operation for the overall running of the university, particularly when that has led to athletes making no pretence of acquiring an education, grade/major fixing, and cheating. But that's not really on point.]

You don't have to be cynical to note that the Stanford is exceptional in the amount of donations earmarked towards sports. It is quite possible to revel in that. Those donations don't just happen, they come from many decades of Stanford making its particular brand of sports programs a school priority, going out and raising the funds to run that sports program, and then receiving further donations down the road from those who benefited from the approach while they were at Stanford. That is not something to be cynical about, even though like all things in life it does have its negative aspects.

[CTcard]

What I think is going unsaid though is the tremendous financial resource advantage Stanford enjoys relative to other schools. 

... Unlike other athletic departments that rely overwhelmingly on the revenue sports to support the non-revenue sports, Stanford can sustain athletic programs with endowment returns.  ...  But, I think it is more than a little disingenuous to look down on schools that focus more on revenue sports and/or can't field 30+ varsity teams without at least acknowledging that Stanford is playing by a different set of rules (from a resource-constraint perspective).

... A cynical person (not me, I swear) could fairly say that what is most exceptional about Stanford athletics is the number and magnitude of donations to the university that are earmarked for sports.

Just my two cents.  Welcome your thoughts.

Stanford athletics has a clear financial advantage over most schools, whether that is true over all schools depends on how you count. There is a rather famous USA Today ongoing look at university AD revenues, expenses, subsidies etc. These are required to be filed by universities with the NCAA and are available through FOI requests from public universities. So, unfortunately for this discussion, Stanford isn't on it.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

The biggest AD revenue in the country in 2013 was University of Texas at $166 million. I am pretty certain from bits and pieces I have seen reported that Stanford's revenue is nowhere near that - which would include income from the endowment but not the endowment itself. My memory of Stanford numbers from other sources was that they were most likely in the $60 million range, or 50-ish in ranking. Probably a few others on here would have a better idea on where Stanford may stand.

Regardless of the source, I like the fact that Stanford has chosen to raise these funds and to use them to support a broad-based athletic department that supports many student athletes. I don't think that liking the fact Stanford does that, and reveling in the success Stanford has had in doing so, is the same thing as looking down on schools that don't.
[On the other hand, I feel perfectly comfortable looking down on schools that have completely divorced their revenue sports operation for the overall running of the university, particularly when that has led to athletes making no pretence of acquiring an education, grade/major fixing, and cheating. But that's not really on point.]

You don't have to be cynical to note that the Stanford is exceptional in the amount of donations earmarked towards sports. It is quite possible to revel in that. Those donations don't just happen, they come from many decades of Stanford making its particular brand of sports programs a school priority, going out and raising the funds to run that sports program, and then receiving further donations down the road from those who benefited from the approach while they were at Stanford. That is not something to be cynical about, even though like all things in life it does have its negative aspects.