[TrumpCard]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...e-sharing/

[TrumpCard]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...e-sharing/

[chrisk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...e-sharing/

Putting a $20M cap on payments by a school seems like it could work to Stanford's advantage.

[chrisk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...e-sharing/

Putting a $20M cap on payments by a school seems like it could work to Stanford's advantage.

[Goose]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...e-sharing/

Putting a $20M cap on payments by a school seems like it could work to Stanford's advantage.

There are a lot of potential legal and practical problems with paying college athletes. Those discussions are important, but I don't think they are the point of this thread. IMO the question is whether professional athletics is compatible with the goals and mission of the university. If not, it will have to go. One may argue that we already had that, we simply didn't admit it. This proposition may be arguable, but the ability to at least credibly pretend that our student athletes were really that and definitely amateurs allowed the fundamental question above to be ignored. If that pretense is no longer available, the question must be answered and the answer may be "No, professional athletics is not compatible with the goals and mission of the university". I think it is not at all certain that will not happen.

[Goose]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...e-sharing/

Putting a $20M cap on payments by a school seems like it could work to Stanford's advantage.

There are a lot of potential legal and practical problems with paying college athletes. Those discussions are important, but I don't think they are the point of this thread. IMO the question is whether professional athletics is compatible with the goals and mission of the university. If not, it will have to go. One may argue that we already had that, we simply didn't admit it. This proposition may be arguable, but the ability to at least credibly pretend that our student athletes were really that and definitely amateurs allowed the fundamental question above to be ignored. If that pretense is no longer available, the question must be answered and the answer may be "No, professional athletics is not compatible with the goals and mission of the university". I think it is not at all certain that will not happen.

[GK3]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...e-sharing/

Putting a $20M cap on payments by a school seems like it could work to Stanford's advantage.

There are a lot of potential legal and practical problems with paying college athletes. Those discussions are important, but I don't think they are the point of this thread. IMO the question is whether professional athletics is compatible with the goals and mission of the university. If not, it will have to go. One may argue that we already had that, we simply didn't admit it. This proposition may be arguable, but the ability to at least credibly pretend that our student athletes were really that and definitely amateurs allowed the fundamental question above to be ignored. If that pretense is no longer available, the question must be answered and the answer may be "No, professional athletics is not compatible with the goals and mission of the university". I think it is not at all certain that will not happen.

How far are now from the position that the players are being paid to come to school to play a sport so why add on the requirement that they be students?  So far Stanford seems to be willing to go along since the athletes still have to go to class and in theory stay eligible.  My guess is that we aren't far from some player somewhere contending that staying academically eligible should not be required. He or she is getting paid to play a sport, not to be a student.

[GK3]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...e-sharing/

Putting a $20M cap on payments by a school seems like it could work to Stanford's advantage.

There are a lot of potential legal and practical problems with paying college athletes. Those discussions are important, but I don't think they are the point of this thread. IMO the question is whether professional athletics is compatible with the goals and mission of the university. If not, it will have to go. One may argue that we already had that, we simply didn't admit it. This proposition may be arguable, but the ability to at least credibly pretend that our student athletes were really that and definitely amateurs allowed the fundamental question above to be ignored. If that pretense is no longer available, the question must be answered and the answer may be "No, professional athletics is not compatible with the goals and mission of the university". I think it is not at all certain that will not happen.

How far are now from the position that the players are being paid to come to school to play a sport so why add on the requirement that they be students?  So far Stanford seems to be willing to go along since the athletes still have to go to class and in theory stay eligible.  My guess is that we aren't far from some player somewhere contending that staying academically eligible should not be required. He or she is getting paid to play a sport, not to be a student.

[SkiBum80]

Notre Dame President weighs in:

5/23
Statement from President Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., on House v. NCAA settlement
“The settlement, though undesirable in many respects and promising only temporary stability, is necessary to avoid what would be the bankruptcy of college athletics,” said University of Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. 
“To save the great American institution of college sports, Congress must pass legislation that will preempt the current patchwork of state laws; 
establish that our athletes are not employees, but students seeking college degrees;
and provide protection from further anti-trust lawsuits that will allow colleges to make and enforce rules that will protect our student-athletes and help ensure competitive equity among our teams.”

[SkiBum80]

Notre Dame President weighs in:

5/23
Statement from President Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., on House v. NCAA settlement
“The settlement, though undesirable in many respects and promising only temporary stability, is necessary to avoid what would be the bankruptcy of college athletics,” said University of Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. 
“To save the great American institution of college sports, Congress must pass legislation that will preempt the current patchwork of state laws; 
establish that our athletes are not employees, but students seeking college degrees;
and provide protection from further anti-trust lawsuits that will allow colleges to make and enforce rules that will protect our student-athletes and help ensure competitive equity among our teams.”

[Spiny_Norman]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

[Spiny_Norman]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

[Bruce Wang]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Has anybody else hear that we got an invite to join the B1G before UW and Oregon?  It appears in the vacumn of leadership in the form of Arillaga and the University President, Muir and Tara's opposition to joining the B1G prevailed.  If true, what a gigantic mistake.

[Bruce Wang]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Has anybody else hear that we got an invite to join the B1G before UW and Oregon?  It appears in the vacumn of leadership in the form of Arillaga and the University President, Muir and Tara's opposition to joining the B1G prevailed.  If true, what a gigantic mistake.

[dabigv13]

I'm pretty doubtful that's true.

[dabigv13]

I'm pretty doubtful that's true.

[Giants]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Has anybody else hear that we got an invite to join the B1G before UW and Oregon?  It appears in the vacumn of leadership in the form of Arillaga and the University President, Muir and Tara's opposition to joining the B1G prevailed.  If true, what a gigantic mistake.

Not sure where you heard that; however, I do not believe it is true. 

First, Fox was the key player in the discussions.  They aren’t interested in enhancing the academic reputation of their partner conference.  They are only interested in selling commercial time on their telecasts.  At this time, Stanford would not have moved the needle enough to pique Fox’s interest.  

Secondly, Stanford would have needed a partner to join with them.  Had Notre Dame been a realistic possibility, that would have changed the dynamic, Fox would have immediately made a play for the two schools.  Of course, the Irish do not need the Big Ten.  They are doing fine as an independent.  The only other potential partner was Cal and that was a big non-starter.  

Third, Oregon and Washington were always the target but they had to wait until things fell apart before joining the Big Ten.  With Phil Knight in Eugene, a traditionally strong program in a good-sized TV market in Seattle and two very attractive football programs, why not? 

No, Stanford was not a player.  The proof is in the pudding - Stanford has been relegated to a second tier conference with only a 30% share of TV revenue. That tells us about the level of interest in the program from those who control the future of college football (Fox and Disney).

[Giants]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Has anybody else hear that we got an invite to join the B1G before UW and Oregon?  It appears in the vacumn of leadership in the form of Arillaga and the University President, Muir and Tara's opposition to joining the B1G prevailed.  If true, what a gigantic mistake.

Not sure where you heard that; however, I do not believe it is true. 

First, Fox was the key player in the discussions.  They aren’t interested in enhancing the academic reputation of their partner conference.  They are only interested in selling commercial time on their telecasts.  At this time, Stanford would not have moved the needle enough to pique Fox’s interest.  

Secondly, Stanford would have needed a partner to join with them.  Had Notre Dame been a realistic possibility, that would have changed the dynamic, Fox would have immediately made a play for the two schools.  Of course, the Irish do not need the Big Ten.  They are doing fine as an independent.  The only other potential partner was Cal and that was a big non-starter.  

Third, Oregon and Washington were always the target but they had to wait until things fell apart before joining the Big Ten.  With Phil Knight in Eugene, a traditionally strong program in a good-sized TV market in Seattle and two very attractive football programs, why not? 

No, Stanford was not a player.  The proof is in the pudding - Stanford has been relegated to a second tier conference with only a 30% share of TV revenue. That tells us about the level of interest in the program from those who control the future of college football (Fox and Disney).

[chrisk]

Goose has nailed the key points in the lack of invitation to join the Big 10.

Think of the motives of the people spreading the rumor that Stanford was invited. They are people who indiscriminately throw shade on the Athletic Department and the Administration for any reason they can imagine, whether it has any basis in fact or not.

The AD and administration can be criticized for a number of valid reasons. I think it is not useful for true Stanford supporters to indulge in unsupported rumors.

[chrisk]

Goose has nailed the key points in the lack of invitation to join the Big 10.

Think of the motives of the people spreading the rumor that Stanford was invited. They are people who indiscriminately throw shade on the Athletic Department and the Administration for any reason they can imagine, whether it has any basis in fact or not.

The AD and administration can be criticized for a number of valid reasons. I think it is not useful for true Stanford supporters to indulge in unsupported rumors.

[fullmetal]

Muir has said that we didn't have the option to join the Big Ten, though there are some who don't see that as mutually exclusive with having been offered a secret deal.  I don't think the Big Ten would have offered Stanford before USC/UCLA, UW, and Oregon.  Those four programs command much greater market share.

[fullmetal]

Muir has said that we didn't have the option to join the Big Ten, though there are some who don't see that as mutually exclusive with having been offered a secret deal.  I don't think the Big Ten would have offered Stanford before USC/UCLA, UW, and Oregon.  Those four programs command much greater market share.

[Mick]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Has anybody else hear that we got an invite to join the B1G before UW and Oregon?  It appears in the vacumn of leadership in the form of Arillaga and the University President, Muir and Tara's opposition to joining the B1G prevailed.  If true, what a gigantic mistake.

Not sure where you heard that; however, I do not believe it is true. 

First, Fox was the key player in the discussions.  They aren’t interested in enhancing the academic reputation of their partner conference.  They are only interested in selling commercial time on their telecasts.  At this time, Stanford would not have moved the needle enough to pique Fox’s interest.  

Secondly, Stanford would have needed a partner to join with them.  Had Notre Dame been a realistic possibility, that would have changed the dynamic, Fox would have immediately made a play for the two schools.  Of course, the Irish do not need the Big Ten.  They are doing fine as an independent.  The only other potential partner was Cal and that was a big non-starter.  

Third, Oregon and Washington were always the target but they had to wait until things fell apart before joining the Big Ten.  With Phil Knight in Eugene, a traditionally strong program in a good-sized TV market in Seattle and two very attractive football programs, why not? 

No, Stanford was not a player.  The proof is in the pudding - Stanford has been relegated to a second tier conference with only a 30% share of TV revenue. That tells us about the level of interest in the program from those who control the future of college football (Fox and Disney).

Fourth, ESPN reported that USC and UCLA approached the B1G, not the other way around. I don't see Stanford making the first move under any circumstances.

[Mick]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Has anybody else hear that we got an invite to join the B1G before UW and Oregon?  It appears in the vacumn of leadership in the form of Arillaga and the University President, Muir and Tara's opposition to joining the B1G prevailed.  If true, what a gigantic mistake.

Not sure where you heard that; however, I do not believe it is true. 

First, Fox was the key player in the discussions.  They aren’t interested in enhancing the academic reputation of their partner conference.  They are only interested in selling commercial time on their telecasts.  At this time, Stanford would not have moved the needle enough to pique Fox’s interest.  

Secondly, Stanford would have needed a partner to join with them.  Had Notre Dame been a realistic possibility, that would have changed the dynamic, Fox would have immediately made a play for the two schools.  Of course, the Irish do not need the Big Ten.  They are doing fine as an independent.  The only other potential partner was Cal and that was a big non-starter.  

Third, Oregon and Washington were always the target but they had to wait until things fell apart before joining the Big Ten.  With Phil Knight in Eugene, a traditionally strong program in a good-sized TV market in Seattle and two very attractive football programs, why not? 

No, Stanford was not a player.  The proof is in the pudding - Stanford has been relegated to a second tier conference with only a 30% share of TV revenue. That tells us about the level of interest in the program from those who control the future of college football (Fox and Disney).

Fourth, ESPN reported that USC and UCLA approached the B1G, not the other way around. I don't see Stanford making the first move under any circumstances.

[BostonCard]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Is that a good thing?  Could that $300 mm be spent on other activities more consistent with the university mission “to qualify its students for personal success, and direct usefulness in life” and its purpose “to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."  Not saying that some degree of athletic investment is inconsistent with that mission, but I think there are probably better uses for that money.

BC

[BostonCard]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Is that a good thing?  Could that $300 mm be spent on other activities more consistent with the university mission “to qualify its students for personal success, and direct usefulness in life” and its purpose “to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."  Not saying that some degree of athletic investment is inconsistent with that mission, but I think there are probably better uses for that money.

BC

[Goose]

Is that a good thing?  Could that $300 mm be spent on other activities more consistent with the university mission “to qualify its students for personal success, and direct usefulness in life” and its purpose “to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."  Not saying that some degree of athletic investment is inconsistent with that mission, but I think there are probably better uses for that money.

BC

IMO there are plenty of better uses for that money. It is perfectly possible to justify an athletic program that is revenue positive, or even slightly revenue negative if that program is composed of students who are truly students. When the program is 300 million revenue negative I find it very difficult to justify the expenditure. I find it impossible to do so in an environment where the players are paid professionals.

[Goose]

Is that a good thing?  Could that $300 mm be spent on other activities more consistent with the university mission “to qualify its students for personal success, and direct usefulness in life” and its purpose “to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."  Not saying that some degree of athletic investment is inconsistent with that mission, but I think there are probably better uses for that money.

BC

IMO there are plenty of better uses for that money. It is perfectly possible to justify an athletic program that is revenue positive, or even slightly revenue negative if that program is composed of students who are truly students. When the program is 300 million revenue negative I find it very difficult to justify the expenditure. I find it impossible to do so in an environment where the players are paid professionals.

[82lsju]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Is that a good thing?  Could that $300 mm be spent on other activities more consistent with the university mission “to qualify its students for personal success, and direct usefulness in life” and its purpose “to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."  Not saying that some degree of athletic investment is inconsistent with that mission, but I think there are probably better uses for that money.

BC

it's all relative, Stanford's 2023-24 budget is $8.9 billion

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/15/pro...20expenses.

$300m spent over 7 years is ~$45m/year or about 0.5% of the 2023-24 budget.

[82lsju]

I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Is that a good thing?  Could that $300 mm be spent on other activities more consistent with the university mission “to qualify its students for personal success, and direct usefulness in life” and its purpose “to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization."  Not saying that some degree of athletic investment is inconsistent with that mission, but I think there are probably better uses for that money.

BC

it's all relative, Stanford's 2023-24 budget is $8.9 billion

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/15/pro...20expenses.

$300m spent over 7 years is ~$45m/year or about 0.5% of the 2023-24 budget.

[lex24]

Lawyers are going to have a field day with this one. So many potential issues. The end of college sports as we’ve known it. Interesting to see what takes its place.

[lex24]

Lawyers are going to have a field day with this one. So many potential issues. The end of college sports as we’ve known it. Interesting to see what takes its place.

[StanfordMatt]

It’s a good day to be a Title IX attorney. The programs that are able to come up with upwards of $20 million for the revenue share are NOT going to be inclined to split that number equally among the sexes when women’s sports are not generating the revenue that football does.

[StanfordMatt]

It’s a good day to be a Title IX attorney. The programs that are able to come up with upwards of $20 million for the revenue share are NOT going to be inclined to split that number equally among the sexes when women’s sports are not generating the revenue that football does.

[CowboyIndian]

Does Title IX have a revenue component...or is it just about scholarships and "opportunity"?

[CowboyIndian]

Does Title IX have a revenue component...or is it just about scholarships and "opportunity"?

[BostonCard]

Does Title IX have a revenue component...or is it just about scholarships and "opportunity"?

Yes, a good question.  Here's the NCAA's FAQ page on Title IX:

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/27/ti...tions.aspx

This is probably the most relevant, and I'm sure will be the subject of litigation

Q. How is Title IX applied to athletics?

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                         
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                         
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; © travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

The question will be if "other benefits" includes payments from the schools.  I would think yes, but I'm guessing this will ultimately be decided in court.

Speaking of court cases, I came across this WSJ article (gifted):
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/jade..._permalink

On Tuesday, Rashada sued the University of Florida’s head football coach, an administrator and a top donor in federal court, alleging they fraudulently induced him to abandon a lucrative offer from another program to sign with the Gators instead.

The lawsuit accuses prominent Florida booster Hugh Hathcock of conspiring with Gators coach Billy Napier and former director of player engagement Marcus Castro-Walker to entice Rashada with a payday they had no intention of fulfilling. As a result of those “fraudulent assurances” from Florida, Rashada lost the chance to pursue other opportunities.

I doubt this will be the last such case.

And, yes, 72lsju, I recognize that the subsidy is a small share of the whole university budget (and, in fact, the entirety of athletics spending doesn't even get broken out in Stanford's public financial disclosures).  It's still a lot of money, I would guess more than the budget of most university departments, and I still contend that it is not being used in a manner consistent with the University's mission.  Moreover, the settlement will make things worse.  Now, of course, a lot of expenditures probably could be categorized similarly, but I agree with Goose; it's one thing for athletics to be revenue neutral or to have a small budget deficit, but this is a bad use of University funds, IMHO.

BC

[BostonCard]

Does Title IX have a revenue component...or is it just about scholarships and "opportunity"?

Yes, a good question.  Here's the NCAA's FAQ page on Title IX:

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/27/ti...tions.aspx

This is probably the most relevant, and I'm sure will be the subject of litigation

Q. How is Title IX applied to athletics?

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                         
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                         
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; © travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

The question will be if "other benefits" includes payments from the schools.  I would think yes, but I'm guessing this will ultimately be decided in court.

Speaking of court cases, I came across this WSJ article (gifted):
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/jade..._permalink

On Tuesday, Rashada sued the University of Florida’s head football coach, an administrator and a top donor in federal court, alleging they fraudulently induced him to abandon a lucrative offer from another program to sign with the Gators instead.

The lawsuit accuses prominent Florida booster Hugh Hathcock of conspiring with Gators coach Billy Napier and former director of player engagement Marcus Castro-Walker to entice Rashada with a payday they had no intention of fulfilling. As a result of those “fraudulent assurances” from Florida, Rashada lost the chance to pursue other opportunities.

I doubt this will be the last such case.

And, yes, 72lsju, I recognize that the subsidy is a small share of the whole university budget (and, in fact, the entirety of athletics spending doesn't even get broken out in Stanford's public financial disclosures).  It's still a lot of money, I would guess more than the budget of most university departments, and I still contend that it is not being used in a manner consistent with the University's mission.  Moreover, the settlement will make things worse.  Now, of course, a lot of expenditures probably could be categorized similarly, but I agree with Goose; it's one thing for athletics to be revenue neutral or to have a small budget deficit, but this is a bad use of University funds, IMHO.

BC

[akiddoc]

I can see the men’s gymnastics team and the women’s golf team suing for more money. The value to Stanford’s reputation of those teams is much greater than that of our hideous football team. None of the gymnasts even have a full scholarship. The football team no longer funds the other sports.

[akiddoc]

I can see the men’s gymnastics team and the women’s golf team suing for more money. The value to Stanford’s reputation of those teams is much greater than that of our hideous football team. None of the gymnasts even have a full scholarship. The football team no longer funds the other sports.