[yvonne]

"We are not Nebraska."

That was originally said as a way to dismiss making higher expenditures in sports facilities, but it actually represents current differences, differences that go beyond wins and losses.

Anyone driving through Nebraska on autumn weekends will notice signs urging on the Cornhuskers. The game reports are on TV and in any newspapers people may still read. For generations, Nebraskans, no matter where they attended college or whether they attended college, have worn red on game day. Nebraska's 389-game Memorial Stadium sellout extends from November 3, 1962 and spans even the lean years. The University of Nebraska's football team is Nebraska's team.

Conversely, Stanford didn't sell out its stadium even during the strong years. It's not only not California's team, it's not even Santa Clara County's team. Currently Santa Clara County is nearly  40 percent foreign born and a similar percentage is Asian, whether born here or abroad. Neither of those groups is particularly interested in American football, and the chances for winning them over even with strong teams are small. Some have, however, been interested in some other Stanford sports. Now, add those realities to the fact that Stanford supports 36 sports as compared to Nebraska's 23. At Stanford, football is regarded as simply one of many sports. Stanford excels in many of those sports and has a national championship streak dating back 47 years. Olympic sports and aren't revenue-generating, but fans like them and alumni value them. Moreover, athletes in these sports, like athletes in football, want to compete against the very best, who very often come from power conferences.

These are the everyday challenges Stanford sports administrators face. 

At its core, Stanford needs to fund sports without the burden that the football program will never be able to sustain even when it's winning. It needs an entirely new model. 

Stanford needs to work with Apple or NBC (Peacock, NBCSN, wealthy alumni, the local business community and anyone else to come up with a model that does this.

[yvonne]

"We are not Nebraska."

That was originally said as a way to dismiss making higher expenditures in sports facilities, but it actually represents current differences, differences that go beyond wins and losses.

Anyone driving through Nebraska on autumn weekends will notice signs urging on the Cornhuskers. The game reports are on TV and in any newspapers people may still read. For generations, Nebraskans, no matter where they attended college or whether they attended college, have worn red on game day. Nebraska's 389-game Memorial Stadium sellout extends from November 3, 1962 and spans even the lean years. The University of Nebraska's football team is Nebraska's team.

Conversely, Stanford didn't sell out its stadium even during the strong years. It's not only not California's team, it's not even Santa Clara County's team. Currently Santa Clara County is nearly  40 percent foreign born and a similar percentage is Asian, whether born here or abroad. Neither of those groups is particularly interested in American football, and the chances for winning them over even with strong teams are small. Some have, however, been interested in some other Stanford sports. Now, add those realities to the fact that Stanford supports 36 sports as compared to Nebraska's 23. At Stanford, football is regarded as simply one of many sports. Stanford excels in many of those sports and has a national championship streak dating back 47 years. Olympic sports and aren't revenue-generating, but fans like them and alumni value them. Moreover, athletes in these sports, like athletes in football, want to compete against the very best, who very often come from power conferences.

These are the everyday challenges Stanford sports administrators face. 

At its core, Stanford needs to fund sports without the burden that the football program will never be able to sustain even when it's winning. It needs an entirely new model. 

Stanford needs to work with Apple or NBC (Peacock, NBCSN, wealthy alumni, the local business community and anyone else to come up with a model that does this.

[yvonne]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's important to remember what is and act accordingly rather than lamenting and using a model based on what will never be.

[yvonne]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's important to remember what is and act accordingly rather than lamenting and using a model based on what will never be.

[GK3]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's important to remember what is and act accordingly rather than lamenting and using a model based on what will never be.

You are right on, the past has past on and we are in a new world and apparently totally unprepared. I appears to me that the administration has been asleep at the switch and it is certainly not possible to put the genie back in the bottle. When NIL started the hand writing was on the wall, our lack of interest in participating in the NIL cost us. Since then the Athletic Department and more importantly the BoT, President and Provost have barely said a word. There is nothing coming out of the upper reaches of the school that makes me think that things are going to get any better. I am not optomistic.

[GK3]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's important to remember what is and act accordingly rather than lamenting and using a model based on what will never be.

You are right on, the past has past on and we are in a new world and apparently totally unprepared. I appears to me that the administration has been asleep at the switch and it is certainly not possible to put the genie back in the bottle. When NIL started the hand writing was on the wall, our lack of interest in participating in the NIL cost us. Since then the Athletic Department and more importantly the BoT, President and Provost have barely said a word. There is nothing coming out of the upper reaches of the school that makes me think that things are going to get any better. I am not optomistic.

[BobK]

Stanford has supported or maybe encouraged is a better word NILs for all the football and MBB players

[BobK]

Stanford has supported or maybe encouraged is a better word NILs for all the football and MBB players

[jacket3ree]

Kinda wish we were.

[jacket3ree]

Kinda wish we were.

[yvonne]

Kinda wish we were.

Yeah, but that's a big part of my point. Stanford needs to move forward based on what is and what will be, not on what was or on what a small group of fans wish were true.

I.e.:
 - This is our community and fan environment
 - These are our strengths

How can we leverage the strengths in view of any obstacles or disadvantages?

BTW, Bob is correct. Many former Stanford athletes pushed for and are responsible for moving toward NILs.

[yvonne]

Kinda wish we were.

Yeah, but that's a big part of my point. Stanford needs to move forward based on what is and what will be, not on what was or on what a small group of fans wish were true.

I.e.:
 - This is our community and fan environment
 - These are our strengths

How can we leverage the strengths in view of any obstacles or disadvantages?

BTW, Bob is correct. Many former Stanford athletes pushed for and are responsible for moving toward NILs.

[norcard10]

Great thread.  A minority (no pun intended) of people overestimate Stanford's football cache here.  Additionally, the 40 year decision becomes diluted when NIL money comes into play.  Put the $500k or more potential NIL money some 5 star athletes might receive (especially the ones that might not get drafted) into the market at age 18 and compare that to typical earnings of a Stanford grad, and the picture becomes murky quick.

[norcard10]

Great thread.  A minority (no pun intended) of people overestimate Stanford's football cache here.  Additionally, the 40 year decision becomes diluted when NIL money comes into play.  Put the $500k or more potential NIL money some 5 star athletes might receive (especially the ones that might not get drafted) into the market at age 18 and compare that to typical earnings of a Stanford grad, and the picture becomes murky quick.

[Mick]

"We are not Nebraska."

That was originally said as a way to dismiss making higher expenditures in sports facilities, but it actually represents current differences, differences that go beyond wins and losses.

Anyone driving through Nebraska on autumn weekends will notice signs urging on the Cornhuskers. The game reports are on TV and in any newspapers people may still read. For generations, Nebraskans, no matter where they attended college or whether they attended college, have worn red on game day. Nebraska's 389-game Memorial Stadium sellout extends from November 3, 1962 and spans even the lean years. The University of Nebraska's football team is Nebraska's team.

Conversely, Stanford didn't sell out its stadium even during the strong years. It's not only not California's team, it's not even Santa Clara County's team. Currently Santa Clara County is nearly  40 percent foreign born and a similar percentage is Asian, whether born here or abroad. Neither of those groups is particularly interested in American football, and the chances for winning them over even with strong teams are small. Some have, however, been interested in some other Stanford sports. Now, add those realities to the fact that Stanford supports 36 sports as compared to Nebraska's 23. At Stanford, football is regarded as simply one of many sports. Stanford excels in many of those sports and has a national championship streak dating back 47 years. Olympic sports and aren't revenue-generating, but fans like them and alumni value them. Moreover, athletes in these sports, like athletes in football, want to compete against the very best, who very often come from power conferences.

These are the everyday challenges Stanford sports administrators face. 

At its core, Stanford needs to fund sports without the burden that the football program will never be able to sustain even when it's winning. It needs an entirely new model. 

Stanford needs to work with Apple or NBC (Peacock, NBCSN, wealthy alumni, the local business community and anyone else to come up with a model that does this.

Same is fundamentally true in Michigan. Michigan's highway signs employ the UMich logo.  It's that ubiquitous.  Helps that there are no other real competitors in Michigan, save for Michigan State.  There are no private school football programs (no Northwestern, USC, Duke, Vandy, Rice, Auburn, etc.) and the directional colleges in Michigan (Northern/Western/Eastern/Central) don't fog a mirror, football-wise, not like UCF, Coastal Carolina, West Virginia, etc.. There's over 100 colleges and universities in Michigan, 90% of which I promise you wouldn't recognize and 26 of them have football, but the average Michigan resident only cares about one or two.

[Mick]

"We are not Nebraska."

That was originally said as a way to dismiss making higher expenditures in sports facilities, but it actually represents current differences, differences that go beyond wins and losses.

Anyone driving through Nebraska on autumn weekends will notice signs urging on the Cornhuskers. The game reports are on TV and in any newspapers people may still read. For generations, Nebraskans, no matter where they attended college or whether they attended college, have worn red on game day. Nebraska's 389-game Memorial Stadium sellout extends from November 3, 1962 and spans even the lean years. The University of Nebraska's football team is Nebraska's team.

Conversely, Stanford didn't sell out its stadium even during the strong years. It's not only not California's team, it's not even Santa Clara County's team. Currently Santa Clara County is nearly  40 percent foreign born and a similar percentage is Asian, whether born here or abroad. Neither of those groups is particularly interested in American football, and the chances for winning them over even with strong teams are small. Some have, however, been interested in some other Stanford sports. Now, add those realities to the fact that Stanford supports 36 sports as compared to Nebraska's 23. At Stanford, football is regarded as simply one of many sports. Stanford excels in many of those sports and has a national championship streak dating back 47 years. Olympic sports and aren't revenue-generating, but fans like them and alumni value them. Moreover, athletes in these sports, like athletes in football, want to compete against the very best, who very often come from power conferences.

These are the everyday challenges Stanford sports administrators face. 

At its core, Stanford needs to fund sports without the burden that the football program will never be able to sustain even when it's winning. It needs an entirely new model. 

Stanford needs to work with Apple or NBC (Peacock, NBCSN, wealthy alumni, the local business community and anyone else to come up with a model that does this.

Same is fundamentally true in Michigan. Michigan's highway signs employ the UMich logo.  It's that ubiquitous.  Helps that there are no other real competitors in Michigan, save for Michigan State.  There are no private school football programs (no Northwestern, USC, Duke, Vandy, Rice, Auburn, etc.) and the directional colleges in Michigan (Northern/Western/Eastern/Central) don't fog a mirror, football-wise, not like UCF, Coastal Carolina, West Virginia, etc.. There's over 100 colleges and universities in Michigan, 90% of which I promise you wouldn't recognize and 26 of them have football, but the average Michigan resident only cares about one or two.

[Canalejas]

 not like UCF, Coastal Carolina, West Virginia, etc.

Oh, that was good.

[Canalejas]

 not like UCF, Coastal Carolina, West Virginia, etc.

Oh, that was good.

[PersonalLegend]

Thanks Yvonne. 

In other words, to trot out an old one:

“How did you go bankrupt?”

“Two ways.  Gradually, and then suddenly.” 

You’ve seen it coming. You knew it was coming. You just weren’t willing to admit it. 

A new model:  no football, big investment in and support of basketball (a la a mid major model), alumni-driven athletic department. Half or fewer the salaries and benefits. Axe the million dollar administrators. Rationalize the facilities.  Lease the football stadium to the next football league upstart. Win in tennis, swimming, golf, maybe an occasional baseball run. Make the tournament in basketball every now and then. 

Dream about the good old days of beating the snot out of USC and heading back to the grove for a bourbon. Tell your grandkids about it. 

Get on with life.  He’s dead, Jim.

[PersonalLegend]

Thanks Yvonne. 

In other words, to trot out an old one:

“How did you go bankrupt?”

“Two ways.  Gradually, and then suddenly.” 

You’ve seen it coming. You knew it was coming. You just weren’t willing to admit it. 

A new model:  no football, big investment in and support of basketball (a la a mid major model), alumni-driven athletic department. Half or fewer the salaries and benefits. Axe the million dollar administrators. Rationalize the facilities.  Lease the football stadium to the next football league upstart. Win in tennis, swimming, golf, maybe an occasional baseball run. Make the tournament in basketball every now and then. 

Dream about the good old days of beating the snot out of USC and heading back to the grove for a bourbon. Tell your grandkids about it. 

Get on with life.  He’s dead, Jim.

[Mick]

Option Zed: Eliminate all varsity sports. Turn all facilities into community use; e.g. housing, classrooms, laboratories, social, retail, parking, services. Double the number of undergraduate and graduate acceptances. Recruit more and double the size of the faculty while holding admin steady. Partner even further with VC/PE community, F1000, global service firms, etc.

[Mick]

Option Zed: Eliminate all varsity sports. Turn all facilities into community use; e.g. housing, classrooms, laboratories, social, retail, parking, services. Double the number of undergraduate and graduate acceptances. Recruit more and double the size of the faculty while holding admin steady. Partner even further with VC/PE community, F1000, global service firms, etc.

[cardcrimson]

"We are not Nebraska."

That was originally said as a way to dismiss making higher expenditures in sports facilities, but it actually represents current differences, differences that go beyond wins and losses.

Anyone driving through Nebraska on autumn weekends will notice signs urging on the Cornhuskers. The game reports are on TV and in any newspapers people may still read. For generations, Nebraskans, no matter where they attended college or whether they attended college, have worn red on game day. Nebraska's 389-game Memorial Stadium sellout extends from November 3, 1962 and spans even the lean years. The University of Nebraska's football team is Nebraska's team.

Conversely, Stanford didn't sell out its stadium even during the strong years. It's not only not California's team, it's not even Santa Clara County's team. Currently Santa Clara County is nearly  40 percent foreign born and a similar percentage is Asian, whether born here or abroad. Neither of those groups is particularly interested in American football, and the chances for winning them over even with strong teams are small. Some have, however, been interested in some other Stanford sports. Now, add those realities to the fact that Stanford supports 36 sports as compared to Nebraska's 23. At Stanford, football is regarded as simply one of many sports. Stanford excels in many of those sports and has a national championship streak dating back 47 years. Olympic sports and aren't revenue-generating, but fans like them and alumni value them. Moreover, athletes in these sports, like athletes in football, want to compete against the very best, who very often come from power conferences.

These are the everyday challenges Stanford sports administrators face. 

At its core, Stanford needs to fund sports without the burden that the football program will never be able to sustain even when it's winning. It needs an entirely new model. 

Stanford needs to work with Apple or NBC (Peacock, NBCSN, wealthy alumni, the local business community and anyone else to come up with a model that does this.

Same is fundamentally true in Michigan. Michigan's highway signs employ the UMich logo.  It's that ubiquitous.  Helps that there are no other real competitors in Michigan, save for Michigan State.  There are no private school football programs (no Northwestern, USC, Duke, Vandy, Rice, Auburn, etc.) and the directional colleges in Michigan (Northern/Western/Eastern/Central) don't fog a mirror, football-wise, not like UCF, Coastal Carolina, West Virginia, etc.. There's over 100 colleges and universities in Michigan, 90% of which I promise you wouldn't recognize and 26 of them have football, but the average Michigan resident only cares about one or two.

Just a quick correction, Auburn is a public, land grant school. . . .

[cardcrimson]

"We are not Nebraska."

That was originally said as a way to dismiss making higher expenditures in sports facilities, but it actually represents current differences, differences that go beyond wins and losses.

Anyone driving through Nebraska on autumn weekends will notice signs urging on the Cornhuskers. The game reports are on TV and in any newspapers people may still read. For generations, Nebraskans, no matter where they attended college or whether they attended college, have worn red on game day. Nebraska's 389-game Memorial Stadium sellout extends from November 3, 1962 and spans even the lean years. The University of Nebraska's football team is Nebraska's team.

Conversely, Stanford didn't sell out its stadium even during the strong years. It's not only not California's team, it's not even Santa Clara County's team. Currently Santa Clara County is nearly  40 percent foreign born and a similar percentage is Asian, whether born here or abroad. Neither of those groups is particularly interested in American football, and the chances for winning them over even with strong teams are small. Some have, however, been interested in some other Stanford sports. Now, add those realities to the fact that Stanford supports 36 sports as compared to Nebraska's 23. At Stanford, football is regarded as simply one of many sports. Stanford excels in many of those sports and has a national championship streak dating back 47 years. Olympic sports and aren't revenue-generating, but fans like them and alumni value them. Moreover, athletes in these sports, like athletes in football, want to compete against the very best, who very often come from power conferences.

These are the everyday challenges Stanford sports administrators face. 

At its core, Stanford needs to fund sports without the burden that the football program will never be able to sustain even when it's winning. It needs an entirely new model. 

Stanford needs to work with Apple or NBC (Peacock, NBCSN, wealthy alumni, the local business community and anyone else to come up with a model that does this.

Same is fundamentally true in Michigan. Michigan's highway signs employ the UMich logo.  It's that ubiquitous.  Helps that there are no other real competitors in Michigan, save for Michigan State.  There are no private school football programs (no Northwestern, USC, Duke, Vandy, Rice, Auburn, etc.) and the directional colleges in Michigan (Northern/Western/Eastern/Central) don't fog a mirror, football-wise, not like UCF, Coastal Carolina, West Virginia, etc.. There's over 100 colleges and universities in Michigan, 90% of which I promise you wouldn't recognize and 26 of them have football, but the average Michigan resident only cares about one or two.

Just a quick correction, Auburn is a public, land grant school. . . .

[Spiny_Norman]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

[Spiny_Norman]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

[dabigv13]

I'm curious if anyone knows what Stanford football brings in to the school, minus the costs associated with running the program. I doubt it's more than a fraction of a percent of Stanford's overall annual budget.

[dabigv13]

I'm curious if anyone knows what Stanford football brings in to the school, minus the costs associated with running the program. I doubt it's more than a fraction of a percent of Stanford's overall annual budget.

[msqueri]

I'm curious if anyone knows what Stanford football brings in to the school, minus the costs associated with running the program. I doubt it's more than a fraction of a percent of Stanford's overall annual budget.

You mean other than the ability to compete in the single most popular extracurricular activity in America, have a student body that purports to have the best in all fields not have a glaring omission of not having standouts in the one sport Americans really care about, anchor an athletic department that fields dozens of sports (many at a high level and all contributing in their own ways to Stanford competing at the highest levels in extracurricular activities and having a student body with people who are the best in their fields), give tens of thousands of alumni and community members a reason to come to campus and feel connected to the university in a way they might not (and certainly wouldn't as often) without fall Saturdays, project to the world that Stanford is a well-rounded university, give an opportunity to attend Stanford to individuals who contribute to campus life and alumni connection but predominantly wouldn't otherwise (and going forward may check certain diversity and inclusion boxes without requiring affirmative action), provide priceless memories (not only building that alumni connection but in the good times potentially spurring increased donations and applications)....

Monetarily, my understanding is an outsider's one based on Google searches and others may know better. I believe Stanford typically generates about $130-140 million in athletic department revenue. I doubt it turns much, if any, of a profit and am under the impression the idea is for it to sustain itself, not be relevant in terms of the overall university annual budget. I doubt very many programs turn a net profit and assume football is by far the largest. In the past I've heard net football profit numbers in the teen millions. I assume that's pretty variable based on how good the football team is.

[msqueri]

I'm curious if anyone knows what Stanford football brings in to the school, minus the costs associated with running the program. I doubt it's more than a fraction of a percent of Stanford's overall annual budget.

You mean other than the ability to compete in the single most popular extracurricular activity in America, have a student body that purports to have the best in all fields not have a glaring omission of not having standouts in the one sport Americans really care about, anchor an athletic department that fields dozens of sports (many at a high level and all contributing in their own ways to Stanford competing at the highest levels in extracurricular activities and having a student body with people who are the best in their fields), give tens of thousands of alumni and community members a reason to come to campus and feel connected to the university in a way they might not (and certainly wouldn't as often) without fall Saturdays, project to the world that Stanford is a well-rounded university, give an opportunity to attend Stanford to individuals who contribute to campus life and alumni connection but predominantly wouldn't otherwise (and going forward may check certain diversity and inclusion boxes without requiring affirmative action), provide priceless memories (not only building that alumni connection but in the good times potentially spurring increased donations and applications)....

Monetarily, my understanding is an outsider's one based on Google searches and others may know better. I believe Stanford typically generates about $130-140 million in athletic department revenue. I doubt it turns much, if any, of a profit and am under the impression the idea is for it to sustain itself, not be relevant in terms of the overall university annual budget. I doubt very many programs turn a net profit and assume football is by far the largest. In the past I've heard net football profit numbers in the teen millions. I assume that's pretty variable based on how good the football team is.

[Bruce Wang]

Please don't assume Asians or other new immigrants won't embrace football.  In my observation, it's the sport that new Americans gravitate most towards.  

The elite academic status of Stanford limits its appeal to those outside the Stanford family.  Even here in Boston, you will find people that will cheer for BC even if they didn't go there.  Nobody would cheer for Harvard.  Not even me and I went there.

[Bruce Wang]

Please don't assume Asians or other new immigrants won't embrace football.  In my observation, it's the sport that new Americans gravitate most towards.  

The elite academic status of Stanford limits its appeal to those outside the Stanford family.  Even here in Boston, you will find people that will cheer for BC even if they didn't go there.  Nobody would cheer for Harvard.  Not even me and I went there.

[Mick]

Please don't assume Asians or other new immigrants won't embrace football.  In my observation, it's the sport that new Americans gravitate most towards.  

The elite academic status of Stanford limits its appeal to those outside the Stanford family.  Even here in Boston, you will find people that will cheer for BC even if they didn't go there.  Nobody would cheer for Harvard.  Not even me and I went there.

Two of the truest statements ever.

[Mick]

Please don't assume Asians or other new immigrants won't embrace football.  In my observation, it's the sport that new Americans gravitate most towards.  

The elite academic status of Stanford limits its appeal to those outside the Stanford family.  Even here in Boston, you will find people that will cheer for BC even if they didn't go there.  Nobody would cheer for Harvard.  Not even me and I went there.

Two of the truest statements ever.

[82lsju]

Monetarily, my understanding is an outsider's one based on Google searches and others may know better. I believe Stanford typically generates about $130-140 million in athletic department revenue. I doubt it turns much, if any, of a profit and am under the impression the idea is for it to sustain itself, not be relevant in terms of the overall university annual budget. I doubt very many programs turn a net profit and assume football is by far the largest. In the past I've heard net football profit numbers in the teen millions. I assume that's pretty variable based on how good the football team is.

the 2021-22 Athletics annual report is here

https://gostanford.com/documents/2022/11..._FINAL.pdf

page four shows $134m in revenue and $146m in expenses

FY22 FINANCES The Department of Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation (“DAPER”) earned $134.1M in revenues throughout FY22, while incurring $145.6M in expenses related to varsity sports. DAPER was able to bridge the deficit through one-time relief mechanisms including a withdrawal from the Daper Investment Fund, and increased funding from the University. As the expenses required to compete nationally rise steadily, DAPER must continue to allocate resources strategically, while maximizing new and existing revenue streams to ensure that Cardinal student-athletes receive a student-athlete experience which allows them to pursue their fullest academic and athletic potentials.

revenue

PHILANTHROPIC REVENUES 

A) ENDOWMENT PAYOUTS $37.77 M 
B) BUCK/CARDINAL CLUB GIFTS $9.90 M 
C) EXPENDABLE GIFTS $2.46 M 

OTHER REVENUES 

D) BROADCAST $27.82 M 
E) NCAA / PAC-12 $11.45 M 
F) UNIV. SUPPORT FOR COMBINED VARSITY & RECREATION SERVICES $11.45 M 
G) UNIV. SUPPORT FOR VARSITY SPORTS $10.00 M 
H) FOOTBALL GATE $8.48 M 
I) CORPORATE PARTNERSHIPS $6.66 M 
J) MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $3.22 M 
K) OTHER GATE $3.11 M 
L) GOLF COURSE NET REVENUE $913 K

expenses

OPERATING EXPENSES 

A) SPORT OPERATING BUDGETS $18.88 M 
B) FACILITIES & OPERATIONS $18.15 M 
C) ADMINISTRATION* $6.81 M  (*Includes HR, legal, taxes, accounting, etc.)
D) STUDENT-ATHLETE PERFORMANCE SERVICES $3.74 M 
E) EXTERNAL RELATIONS $2.11 M 

OTHER EXPENSES 

F) COACH COMPENSATION $39.50 M 
G) SCHOLARSHIPS $30.51 M 
H) STAFF COMPENSATION $25.90 M

some comments on expenses,

I think there are ~385 full time equivalent scholarships so the cost for those is ~$80k each ($30.5m/385).

looking at the AD directory there are about 110 people listed as coaches (some more than once so I did not double count them, some are not listed as coaches (e.g., director of Men's water polo) so I added those back in). Coaching comp was $39.5m so the average is $360m, if I back out say $15m for football and $3m for men's basketball and $2m for women's basketball I get an average of ~$210k/coach

Staff compensation (I'm assuming non-coaching staff) is $25.9m, eyeballing the staff directory (not willing to count the non-coaching staff), I'd conservatively SWAG there are ~250 people so average comp of ~$100k

Not sure what sports operating budgets includes but I'd assume things like travel and consumables for the teams

some comments on revenue

endowment payout of almost $38m, if a 5% payout implies the endowment is ~$760m. I'm guessing few schools have this revenue line item

TV $27.8m which we have talked to death here

NCAA/Pac-12 $11.45m I assume this includes things like the NCAA tournament payouts

Football gate is ~75% of total gate ($8.58m football, $3.11m all others), given how few sports charge for tickers I'm surprised it is only ~75%

[82lsju]

Monetarily, my understanding is an outsider's one based on Google searches and others may know better. I believe Stanford typically generates about $130-140 million in athletic department revenue. I doubt it turns much, if any, of a profit and am under the impression the idea is for it to sustain itself, not be relevant in terms of the overall university annual budget. I doubt very many programs turn a net profit and assume football is by far the largest. In the past I've heard net football profit numbers in the teen millions. I assume that's pretty variable based on how good the football team is.

the 2021-22 Athletics annual report is here

https://gostanford.com/documents/2022/11..._FINAL.pdf

page four shows $134m in revenue and $146m in expenses

FY22 FINANCES The Department of Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation (“DAPER”) earned $134.1M in revenues throughout FY22, while incurring $145.6M in expenses related to varsity sports. DAPER was able to bridge the deficit through one-time relief mechanisms including a withdrawal from the Daper Investment Fund, and increased funding from the University. As the expenses required to compete nationally rise steadily, DAPER must continue to allocate resources strategically, while maximizing new and existing revenue streams to ensure that Cardinal student-athletes receive a student-athlete experience which allows them to pursue their fullest academic and athletic potentials.

revenue

PHILANTHROPIC REVENUES 

A) ENDOWMENT PAYOUTS $37.77 M 
B) BUCK/CARDINAL CLUB GIFTS $9.90 M 
C) EXPENDABLE GIFTS $2.46 M 

OTHER REVENUES 

D) BROADCAST $27.82 M 
E) NCAA / PAC-12 $11.45 M 
F) UNIV. SUPPORT FOR COMBINED VARSITY & RECREATION SERVICES $11.45 M 
G) UNIV. SUPPORT FOR VARSITY SPORTS $10.00 M 
H) FOOTBALL GATE $8.48 M 
I) CORPORATE PARTNERSHIPS $6.66 M 
J) MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $3.22 M 
K) OTHER GATE $3.11 M 
L) GOLF COURSE NET REVENUE $913 K

expenses

OPERATING EXPENSES 

A) SPORT OPERATING BUDGETS $18.88 M 
B) FACILITIES & OPERATIONS $18.15 M 
C) ADMINISTRATION* $6.81 M  (*Includes HR, legal, taxes, accounting, etc.)
D) STUDENT-ATHLETE PERFORMANCE SERVICES $3.74 M 
E) EXTERNAL RELATIONS $2.11 M 

OTHER EXPENSES 

F) COACH COMPENSATION $39.50 M 
G) SCHOLARSHIPS $30.51 M 
H) STAFF COMPENSATION $25.90 M

some comments on expenses,

I think there are ~385 full time equivalent scholarships so the cost for those is ~$80k each ($30.5m/385).

looking at the AD directory there are about 110 people listed as coaches (some more than once so I did not double count them, some are not listed as coaches (e.g., director of Men's water polo) so I added those back in). Coaching comp was $39.5m so the average is $360m, if I back out say $15m for football and $3m for men's basketball and $2m for women's basketball I get an average of ~$210k/coach

Staff compensation (I'm assuming non-coaching staff) is $25.9m, eyeballing the staff directory (not willing to count the non-coaching staff), I'd conservatively SWAG there are ~250 people so average comp of ~$100k

Not sure what sports operating budgets includes but I'd assume things like travel and consumables for the teams

some comments on revenue

endowment payout of almost $38m, if a 5% payout implies the endowment is ~$760m. I'm guessing few schools have this revenue line item

TV $27.8m which we have talked to death here

NCAA/Pac-12 $11.45m I assume this includes things like the NCAA tournament payouts

Football gate is ~75% of total gate ($8.58m football, $3.11m all others), given how few sports charge for tickers I'm surprised it is only ~75%

[2006alum]

On the theme that Stanford may one day need to reconsider its relationship with football, there's more damning research coming out on the long-term health of former players:

Researchers led by Boston University examined 1,875 men enrolled in an online study by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. They concluded a history of playing football was associated with 61% higher odds of having a Parkinsonism or a Parkinson's diagnosis — and that those who played the sport at a higher level were 2.93 times as likely.

Source: Playing football linked with higher odds of Parkinson's disease

I'm not sure we're quite there yet, but at some point the discordance between everything else Stanford is doing to invest in its students' brains and the toll football takes on them is going to get too stark to continue.

[2006alum]

On the theme that Stanford may one day need to reconsider its relationship with football, there's more damning research coming out on the long-term health of former players:

Researchers led by Boston University examined 1,875 men enrolled in an online study by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. They concluded a history of playing football was associated with 61% higher odds of having a Parkinsonism or a Parkinson's diagnosis — and that those who played the sport at a higher level were 2.93 times as likely.

Source: Playing football linked with higher odds of Parkinson's disease

I'm not sure we're quite there yet, but at some point the discordance between everything else Stanford is doing to invest in its students' brains and the toll football takes on them is going to get too stark to continue.

[yvonne]

Please don't assume Asians or other new immigrants won't embrace football.  In my observation, it's the sport that new Americans gravitate most towards.  

The elite academic status of Stanford limits its appeal to those outside the Stanford family.  Even here in Boston, you will find people that will cheer for BC even if they didn't go there.  Nobody would cheer for Harvard.  Not even me and I went there.

Your experience with Asians is going to encompass a broader set of ages and backgrounds than mine. I work with high school students from around Santa Clara County (Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos); they are almost exclusively Asian and from affluent backgrounds. They seem to gravitate more toward basketball; some don't even pay attention to their high school teams, though they like homecoming events. My Indian students in particular seem less interested in sports although occasionally, I'll get a track athlete. As a non-native born, I would say that yes, I and many of my friends have watched (American) football, but we're still pretty attached to our (Association) football teams at home. Nevertheless, the friends I have who have gotten into have adopted the NFL.

In any case, I don't think that an audience of new residents will be far less amenable to attending local college football games than those who identify with the team as the state team and have been attending packed games for generations, including during the lean times such as those led by Scott Frost.

[yvonne]

Please don't assume Asians or other new immigrants won't embrace football.  In my observation, it's the sport that new Americans gravitate most towards.  

The elite academic status of Stanford limits its appeal to those outside the Stanford family.  Even here in Boston, you will find people that will cheer for BC even if they didn't go there.  Nobody would cheer for Harvard.  Not even me and I went there.

Your experience with Asians is going to encompass a broader set of ages and backgrounds than mine. I work with high school students from around Santa Clara County (Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos); they are almost exclusively Asian and from affluent backgrounds. They seem to gravitate more toward basketball; some don't even pay attention to their high school teams, though they like homecoming events. My Indian students in particular seem less interested in sports although occasionally, I'll get a track athlete. As a non-native born, I would say that yes, I and many of my friends have watched (American) football, but we're still pretty attached to our (Association) football teams at home. Nevertheless, the friends I have who have gotten into have adopted the NFL.

In any case, I don't think that an audience of new residents will be far less amenable to attending local college football games than those who identify with the team as the state team and have been attending packed games for generations, including during the lean times such as those led by Scott Frost.