[SkiBum80]

So there is a lot more upside to our still developing younger players than to our graduating class, which has shown us all they have.  Umeh, too, is doing well but is a freshman.  We will get an enormous influx of talent next year--but they (of course) will all be freshmen.  Even if Paye installs a simpler offense over the summer, I think we are probably looking at 2026-27 before we get back to dominant form.  Any maybe we never will if our best player gets purchased away from us each year.

Question:  Which would you (and others) prefer?
1) Stanford "sells its soul", offers $1M in NIL (just making that up) and keeps Nunu.
2) Stanford "sticks to it's principles", only offers $400K, and Nunu goes to USC. 

I know both of those options make many throw up a little, but is there a preference? Assuming Nunu is going to do what's in her own best interest, is there even a 3rd option?

Good questions; ones which I hope have been resolved in favor of (1).  My only caveat is the assumption that speeding  $1m, or whatever amount, on Nunu is better for our talent pool than spending it elsewhere on thee team or to succeed in the portal.  The ‘Principle’ here is that failing to pay Nunu what the market says she is worth , after allowing for the  perceived  value of a Stanford degree to Nunu vs a USC degree, is not principled at all. That will only work as long as Nunu doesn’t understand the market.

On a pragmatic basis , we need to be perceived as a place that will fight back and not let our talent be raided on the cheap. That will deter forays into our talent pool and encourage new entrants.

The alternatives are (1) drop down to what used to be Div 3 or (2) get comfortable with finding talent and developing it for USC to use to win championships.

My opinion and I recognize the legitimacy of not agreeing with it. But it is as ‘Principled’
’ as any other approach.

Thanks for a thought provoking post.
Apologies for simplifying it down to:
    Pay the player what they're worth.  What are they worth? What the Market says they are worth.
This is easier to do with something like NASDAQ where there is liquidity and lots of activity on equally valuable items, a common share in a particular company.
The complication, as life is never that easy, is that NIL for athletes is more like a Sotheby's auction,
and worse case, maybe even a silent auction where you don't know exactly what others are bidding.
So NIL on Agara is more like a Van Gogh coming up for auction that maybe has some comparables, but is not identical to any other painting recently auctioned. You can make a guess beforehand on the value.
But the guess could end up being far wrong.
Only after the auction completed can you know what was the actual market value.
If the auction was silent, you never had a chance to adjust your bid higher than your initial guess, even if you wanted or could afford to do so.
Bottom line, I see the job of those running the Lifetime Cardinal and making hard-to-do judgement calls on the reasonableness of specific offers to top athletes, and whether such offers will end up being a winning market setter, as being a really difficult job.

[SkiBum80]

So there is a lot more upside to our still developing younger players than to our graduating class, which has shown us all they have.  Umeh, too, is doing well but is a freshman.  We will get an enormous influx of talent next year--but they (of course) will all be freshmen.  Even if Paye installs a simpler offense over the summer, I think we are probably looking at 2026-27 before we get back to dominant form.  Any maybe we never will if our best player gets purchased away from us each year.

Question:  Which would you (and others) prefer?
1) Stanford "sells its soul", offers $1M in NIL (just making that up) and keeps Nunu.
2) Stanford "sticks to it's principles", only offers $400K, and Nunu goes to USC. 

I know both of those options make many throw up a little, but is there a preference? Assuming Nunu is going to do what's in her own best interest, is there even a 3rd option?

Good questions; ones which I hope have been resolved in favor of (1).  My only caveat is the assumption that speeding  $1m, or whatever amount, on Nunu is better for our talent pool than spending it elsewhere on thee team or to succeed in the portal.  The ‘Principle’ here is that failing to pay Nunu what the market says she is worth , after allowing for the  perceived  value of a Stanford degree to Nunu vs a USC degree, is not principled at all. That will only work as long as Nunu doesn’t understand the market.

On a pragmatic basis , we need to be perceived as a place that will fight back and not let our talent be raided on the cheap. That will deter forays into our talent pool and encourage new entrants.

The alternatives are (1) drop down to what used to be Div 3 or (2) get comfortable with finding talent and developing it for USC to use to win championships.

My opinion and I recognize the legitimacy of not agreeing with it. But it is as ‘Principled’
’ as any other approach.

Thanks for a thought provoking post.
Apologies for simplifying it down to:
    Pay the player what they're worth.  What are they worth? What the Market says they are worth.
This is easier to do with something like NASDAQ where there is liquidity and lots of activity on equally valuable items, a common share in a particular company.
The complication, as life is never that easy, is that NIL for athletes is more like a Sotheby's auction,
and worse case, maybe even a silent auction where you don't know exactly what others are bidding.
So NIL on Agara is more like a Van Gogh coming up for auction that maybe has some comparables, but is not identical to any other painting recently auctioned. You can make a guess beforehand on the value.
But the guess could end up being far wrong.
Only after the auction completed can you know what was the actual market value.
If the auction was silent, you never had a chance to adjust your bid higher than your initial guess, even if you wanted or could afford to do so.
Bottom line, I see the job of those running the Lifetime Cardinal and making hard-to-do judgement calls on the reasonableness of specific offers to top athletes, and whether such offers will end up being a winning market setter, as being a really difficult job.