[Spiny_Norman]

Matt - one small typo - Conrad Ukropina, not Tyler.

And depending on the audience for this letter, I would make a small change at the end - "it is time for new leadership for Stanford football. Bernard Muir and David Shaw must go."

I think you also could expand your argument for change. Stanford Athletics is in dire financial straits because of the lack of football success. Let's look at the numbers.

Stanford annually reports athletic income and expense to the Department of Education for its Equity in Athletics project. It's the best publicly available data we have.

2014-2015 total revenue = $109,670,730
2014-2015 non-athletic expense = $51,021,677
2014-2015 athletic expense = $58,649,053

2020-2021 total revenue = $127,653,964
2020-2021 non-athletic expense = $50,084,261
2020-2021 athletic expense = $77,569,703

Stanford always reports a balanced budget to the DoE which we know is not an actual representation of their financial position. Stanford AD has a structural deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $10M per year. But as I said, it's the best data we have.

If we delve further into the sport by sport expense:
2014-2015 football expense = $19,912,411
2014-2015 men's basketball expense = $5,138,665
2014-2015 women's basketball expense = $3,977,604
2014-2015 expenses for all other sports = $29,618,448


2020-2021 football expense = $27,585,061
2020-2021 men's basketball expense = $6,660,155
2020-2021 women's basketball expense = $6,160,030
2020-2021 expenses for all other sports = $36,919,814

My interpretation - the AD invested heavily during the period 2015-2021 in football (and other sports as well). But in football particularly, it has not realized any kind of return on investment. In fact, football could be the anchor which will drag down the rest of the department if action is not taken immediately. Stanford does not have to be successful on the field, but it has to be competitive, entertaining and compelling enough for people to want to watch. For the last few years, it has not been competitive, entertaining or compelling (or very successful). It's an anemic brand that has been surpassed by just about all of its peers/competitors. Any responsible corporate Board of Directors would recognize this dire situation as a potential to sink the entire company. The administration has to act now.

[Spiny_Norman]

Matt - one small typo - Conrad Ukropina, not Tyler.

And depending on the audience for this letter, I would make a small change at the end - "it is time for new leadership for Stanford football. Bernard Muir and David Shaw must go."

I think you also could expand your argument for change. Stanford Athletics is in dire financial straits because of the lack of football success. Let's look at the numbers.

Stanford annually reports athletic income and expense to the Department of Education for its Equity in Athletics project. It's the best publicly available data we have.

2014-2015 total revenue = $109,670,730
2014-2015 non-athletic expense = $51,021,677
2014-2015 athletic expense = $58,649,053

2020-2021 total revenue = $127,653,964
2020-2021 non-athletic expense = $50,084,261
2020-2021 athletic expense = $77,569,703

Stanford always reports a balanced budget to the DoE which we know is not an actual representation of their financial position. Stanford AD has a structural deficit of somewhere in the neighborhood of $10M per year. But as I said, it's the best data we have.

If we delve further into the sport by sport expense:
2014-2015 football expense = $19,912,411
2014-2015 men's basketball expense = $5,138,665
2014-2015 women's basketball expense = $3,977,604
2014-2015 expenses for all other sports = $29,618,448


2020-2021 football expense = $27,585,061
2020-2021 men's basketball expense = $6,660,155
2020-2021 women's basketball expense = $6,160,030
2020-2021 expenses for all other sports = $36,919,814

My interpretation - the AD invested heavily during the period 2015-2021 in football (and other sports as well). But in football particularly, it has not realized any kind of return on investment. In fact, football could be the anchor which will drag down the rest of the department if action is not taken immediately. Stanford does not have to be successful on the field, but it has to be competitive, entertaining and compelling enough for people to want to watch. For the last few years, it has not been competitive, entertaining or compelling (or very successful). It's an anemic brand that has been surpassed by just about all of its peers/competitors. Any responsible corporate Board of Directors would recognize this dire situation as a potential to sink the entire company. The administration has to act now.