[2006alum]

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

As usual, MT, thanks for your refreshing (and thorough) perspective. I wondered about the same - sure, football brings in a lot of money, but it sure does cost a lot. For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. And of course, to a lesser degree, all of the Ivies have deprioritized football as a revenue generator but still seem to be able to juice their alumni donations on an annual basis.

To me, the pertinent question is not its fiscal impact but its cultural: what does it mean for a university to go from the Alma Mater of Jim Plunkett, John Elway, and Andrew Luck to not seeking to be a "football school" at all?

I'm not sure I'm especially well equipped to answer, as my time at Stanford we were the first class in half a century not to win a big game, didn't have a winning season even once, went 1-11 the year after I graduated, and didn't even get to do the Wacky Walk in the stadium as it was being renovated during the spring of our graduation year. So for me, football was a non-entity (and all the more so because our men's Bball team was really good back then, so all my energy was devoted to Sixth Man). But I suspect others have had different experiences in their time on the Farm.

[2006alum]

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

As usual, MT, thanks for your refreshing (and thorough) perspective. I wondered about the same - sure, football brings in a lot of money, but it sure does cost a lot. For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. And of course, to a lesser degree, all of the Ivies have deprioritized football as a revenue generator but still seem to be able to juice their alumni donations on an annual basis.

To me, the pertinent question is not its fiscal impact but its cultural: what does it mean for a university to go from the Alma Mater of Jim Plunkett, John Elway, and Andrew Luck to not seeking to be a "football school" at all?

I'm not sure I'm especially well equipped to answer, as my time at Stanford we were the first class in half a century not to win a big game, didn't have a winning season even once, went 1-11 the year after I graduated, and didn't even get to do the Wacky Walk in the stadium as it was being renovated during the spring of our graduation year. So for me, football was a non-entity (and all the more so because our men's Bball team was really good back then, so all my energy was devoted to Sixth Man). But I suspect others have had different experiences in their time on the Farm.