[BobK]

Canady hadn’t left. Maybe she will maybe she won’t.

[BobK]

Canady hadn’t left. Maybe she will maybe she won’t.

[d4cohn]

One thought that comes to mind (hypothesis only) on Coach Nyberg leaving Stanford and college softball is wondering whether she doesn't want to navigate this new NIL era.

For potentially the second season in a row, she and the rest of the staff potentially lose a player to another program for, among other reasons, a bigger NIL offer. Especially after I could tell how much effort on the field and off the field mentoring she poured into helping her players.

I mean, Nick Saban even when he retired sounded like he didn't want to navigate this new era of collegiate athletics.

Bob, I think this news, along with Canady entering the portal, mean it is less likely she will return to Stanford than not. Danielle, I think has a lot of potential, but Coach Nyberg just simply had more experience as a pitching coach at the elite level of softball (between Stanford and Northwestern; not that Danielle won't get there with more years of experience).

[d4cohn]

One thought that comes to mind (hypothesis only) on Coach Nyberg leaving Stanford and college softball is wondering whether she doesn't want to navigate this new NIL era.

For potentially the second season in a row, she and the rest of the staff potentially lose a player to another program for, among other reasons, a bigger NIL offer. Especially after I could tell how much effort on the field and off the field mentoring she poured into helping her players.

I mean, Nick Saban even when he retired sounded like he didn't want to navigate this new era of collegiate athletics.

Bob, I think this news, along with Canady entering the portal, mean it is less likely she will return to Stanford than not. Danielle, I think has a lot of potential, but Coach Nyberg just simply had more experience as a pitching coach at the elite level of softball (between Stanford and Northwestern; not that Danielle won't get there with more years of experience).

[M T]

Canady hadn’t left.  Maybe she will maybe she won’t.

Thanks, Bob.  It is good to see hope that she might stay.

---

One thought that comes to mind (hypothesis only) on Coach Nyberg leaving Stanford and college softball is wondering whether she doesn't want to navigate this new NIL era.

For potentially the second season in a row, she and the rest of the staff potentially lose a player to another program for, among other reasons, a bigger NIL offer. Especially after I could tell how much effort on the field and off the field mentoring she poured into helping her players.

I mean, Nick Saban even when he retired sounded like he didn't want to navigate this new era of collegiate athletics.

And Tara Vanderveer’s decision to step down so soon after saying she was enjoying coaching.

[M T]

Canady hadn’t left.  Maybe she will maybe she won’t.

Thanks, Bob.  It is good to see hope that she might stay.

---

One thought that comes to mind (hypothesis only) on Coach Nyberg leaving Stanford and college softball is wondering whether she doesn't want to navigate this new NIL era.

For potentially the second season in a row, she and the rest of the staff potentially lose a player to another program for, among other reasons, a bigger NIL offer. Especially after I could tell how much effort on the field and off the field mentoring she poured into helping her players.

I mean, Nick Saban even when he retired sounded like he didn't want to navigate this new era of collegiate athletics.

And Tara Vanderveer’s decision to step down so soon after saying she was enjoying coaching.

[GK3]

Canady hadn’t left.  Maybe she will maybe she won’t.

Thanks, Bob.  It is good to see hope that she might stay.

---

One thought that comes to mind (hypothesis only) on Coach Nyberg leaving Stanford and college softball is wondering whether she doesn't want to navigate this new NIL era.

For potentially the second season in a row, she and the rest of the staff potentially lose a player to another program for, among other reasons, a bigger NIL offer. Especially after I could tell how much effort on the field and off the field mentoring she poured into helping her players.

I mean, Nick Saban even when he retired sounded like he didn't want to navigate this new era of collegiate athletics.

And Tara Vanderveer’s decision to step down so soon after saying she was enjoying coaching.

A good point.  Coaching isn't easy, and the job is about way more than just coaching.  You have to recruit and recruit well if you want to win, no matter how good a coach you are.  You have to keep the alumni who are seriously vested in your sport happy.  I am really surprised that Tara stuck with it so long, she really must have liked it.  The NIL and Portal issues probably started to make the job a Bridge too Far kind of thing. I think that for a lot of coaches, the NIL/Portal thing was just a big negative and seriously detracted from their enjoyment of just coaching.  The outlook of the coach has a lot to do with it I am sure.  Our newer coaches seem to view the issue more as an advantage than a negative.  At least I hope they do, we can't constantly be out looking for new coaches.

[GK3]

Canady hadn’t left.  Maybe she will maybe she won’t.

Thanks, Bob.  It is good to see hope that she might stay.

---

One thought that comes to mind (hypothesis only) on Coach Nyberg leaving Stanford and college softball is wondering whether she doesn't want to navigate this new NIL era.

For potentially the second season in a row, she and the rest of the staff potentially lose a player to another program for, among other reasons, a bigger NIL offer. Especially after I could tell how much effort on the field and off the field mentoring she poured into helping her players.

I mean, Nick Saban even when he retired sounded like he didn't want to navigate this new era of collegiate athletics.

And Tara Vanderveer’s decision to step down so soon after saying she was enjoying coaching.

A good point.  Coaching isn't easy, and the job is about way more than just coaching.  You have to recruit and recruit well if you want to win, no matter how good a coach you are.  You have to keep the alumni who are seriously vested in your sport happy.  I am really surprised that Tara stuck with it so long, she really must have liked it.  The NIL and Portal issues probably started to make the job a Bridge too Far kind of thing. I think that for a lot of coaches, the NIL/Portal thing was just a big negative and seriously detracted from their enjoyment of just coaching.  The outlook of the coach has a lot to do with it I am sure.  Our newer coaches seem to view the issue more as an advantage than a negative.  At least I hope they do, we can't constantly be out looking for new coaches.

[Maple Leaf]

Canady hadn’t left.  Maybe she will maybe she won’t.

Thanks, Bob.  It is good to see hope that she might stay.

---

One thought that comes to mind (hypothesis only) on Coach Nyberg leaving Stanford and college softball is wondering whether she doesn't want to navigate this new NIL era.

For potentially the second season in a row, she and the rest of the staff potentially lose a player to another program for, among other reasons, a bigger NIL offer. Especially after I could tell how much effort on the field and off the field mentoring she poured into helping her players.

I mean, Nick Saban even when he retired sounded like he didn't want to navigate this new era of collegiate athletics.

And Tara Vanderveer’s decision to step down so soon after saying she was enjoying coaching.

A good point.  Coaching isn't easy, and the job is about way more than just coaching.  You have to recruit and recruit well if you want to win, no matter how good a coach you are.  You have to keep the alumni who are seriously vested in your sport happy.  I am really surprised that Tara stuck with it so long, she really must have liked it.  The NIL and Portal issues probably started to make the job a Bridge too Far kind of thing. I think that for a lot of coaches, the NIL/Portal thing was just a big negative and seriously detracted from their enjoyment of just coaching.  The outlook of the coach has a lot to do with it I am sure.  Our newer coaches seem to view the issue more as an advantage than a negative.  At least I hope they do, we can't constantly be out looking for new coaches.

Totally agree with your opinion.  Back in the early spring the The Athletic had an article on the upcoming college baseball season.  One question posed to a number of coaches was what impact that the NIL and Portal has on college baseball.  One coach said it was a disaster and referenced Brandon Montgomery transferring from Stanford, he was shocked that anyone, especially an athlete would give up that kind of education.  This coach went on to say he now knows what it is like to coach the lower divisions where players were for years allowed to transfer, in addition he said that he has looked into going back to coaching at a Junior College since there is not NIL.

[Maple Leaf]

Canady hadn’t left.  Maybe she will maybe she won’t.

Thanks, Bob.  It is good to see hope that she might stay.

---

One thought that comes to mind (hypothesis only) on Coach Nyberg leaving Stanford and college softball is wondering whether she doesn't want to navigate this new NIL era.

For potentially the second season in a row, she and the rest of the staff potentially lose a player to another program for, among other reasons, a bigger NIL offer. Especially after I could tell how much effort on the field and off the field mentoring she poured into helping her players.

I mean, Nick Saban even when he retired sounded like he didn't want to navigate this new era of collegiate athletics.

And Tara Vanderveer’s decision to step down so soon after saying she was enjoying coaching.

A good point.  Coaching isn't easy, and the job is about way more than just coaching.  You have to recruit and recruit well if you want to win, no matter how good a coach you are.  You have to keep the alumni who are seriously vested in your sport happy.  I am really surprised that Tara stuck with it so long, she really must have liked it.  The NIL and Portal issues probably started to make the job a Bridge too Far kind of thing. I think that for a lot of coaches, the NIL/Portal thing was just a big negative and seriously detracted from their enjoyment of just coaching.  The outlook of the coach has a lot to do with it I am sure.  Our newer coaches seem to view the issue more as an advantage than a negative.  At least I hope they do, we can't constantly be out looking for new coaches.

Totally agree with your opinion.  Back in the early spring the The Athletic had an article on the upcoming college baseball season.  One question posed to a number of coaches was what impact that the NIL and Portal has on college baseball.  One coach said it was a disaster and referenced Brandon Montgomery transferring from Stanford, he was shocked that anyone, especially an athlete would give up that kind of education.  This coach went on to say he now knows what it is like to coach the lower divisions where players were for years allowed to transfer, in addition he said that he has looked into going back to coaching at a Junior College since there is not NIL.

[Card10Fan]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

[Card10Fan]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

[2006alum]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

With some experts saying that bidding for Canady could reach as high as $1 million, Stanford finds itself in negotiations that could forever alter non-revenue sports. One source with knowledge of the talks would not disclose specific figures but said Stanford’s NIL collective, Lifetime Cardinal, was “giving their all” to retain the nation’s top returning player.

It's absolutely wild to me how quickly we've all embraced pay to play. I find myself thinking of the other ways we could spend $1m than to buy a slightly better chance at a national championship in a second-tier sport.

[2006alum]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

With some experts saying that bidding for Canady could reach as high as $1 million, Stanford finds itself in negotiations that could forever alter non-revenue sports. One source with knowledge of the talks would not disclose specific figures but said Stanford’s NIL collective, Lifetime Cardinal, was “giving their all” to retain the nation’s top returning player.

It's absolutely wild to me how quickly we've all embraced pay to play. I find myself thinking of the other ways we could spend $1m than to buy a slightly better chance at a national championship in a second-tier sport.

[SkiBum80]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

With some experts saying that bidding for Canady could reach as high as $1 million, Stanford finds itself in negotiations that could forever alter non-revenue sports. One source with knowledge of the talks would not disclose specific figures but said Stanford’s NIL collective, Lifetime Cardinal, was “giving their all” to retain the nation’s top returning player.

It's absolutely wild to me how quickly we've all embraced pay to play. I find myself thinking of the other ways we could spend $1m than to buy a slightly better chance at a national championship in a second-tier sport.

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

[SkiBum80]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

With some experts saying that bidding for Canady could reach as high as $1 million, Stanford finds itself in negotiations that could forever alter non-revenue sports. One source with knowledge of the talks would not disclose specific figures but said Stanford’s NIL collective, Lifetime Cardinal, was “giving their all” to retain the nation’s top returning player.

It's absolutely wild to me how quickly we've all embraced pay to play. I find myself thinking of the other ways we could spend $1m than to buy a slightly better chance at a national championship in a second-tier sport.

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

[BostonCard]

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

Because Stanford's mission is "Stanford was founded almost 150 years ago on a bedrock of societal purpose. Our mission is to contribute to the world by educating students for lives of leadership and contribution with integrity; advancing fundamental knowledge and cultivating creativity; leading in pioneering research for effective clinical therapies; and accelerating solutions and amplifying their impact."

https://www.stanford.edu/about/

Now, that is not incompatible with athletics, and if you scroll down to the "community" section, athletics (and the 36 varsity sports Stanford sponsors) is mentioned, but $1 mm or whatever is a lot of money to be spent on a single person whose contribution is, at best, tangential to Stanford's mission. $1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  I get that those who are contributing to "lifetime Cardinal" are doing so to further athletic glory, but if that's your jam, I suggest a donation to the US Olympic committee.

I personally think that in the long run, high dollar NIL deals actually work against the University's mission.

BC

[BostonCard]

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

Because Stanford's mission is "Stanford was founded almost 150 years ago on a bedrock of societal purpose. Our mission is to contribute to the world by educating students for lives of leadership and contribution with integrity; advancing fundamental knowledge and cultivating creativity; leading in pioneering research for effective clinical therapies; and accelerating solutions and amplifying their impact."

https://www.stanford.edu/about/

Now, that is not incompatible with athletics, and if you scroll down to the "community" section, athletics (and the 36 varsity sports Stanford sponsors) is mentioned, but $1 mm or whatever is a lot of money to be spent on a single person whose contribution is, at best, tangential to Stanford's mission. $1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  I get that those who are contributing to "lifetime Cardinal" are doing so to further athletic glory, but if that's your jam, I suggest a donation to the US Olympic committee.

I personally think that in the long run, high dollar NIL deals actually work against the University's mission.

BC

[d4cohn]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

With some experts saying that bidding for Canady could reach as high as $1 million, Stanford finds itself in negotiations that could forever alter non-revenue sports. One source with knowledge of the talks would not disclose specific figures but said Stanford’s NIL collective, Lifetime Cardinal, was “giving their all” to retain the nation’s top returning player.

It's absolutely wild to me how quickly we've all embraced pay to play. I find myself thinking of the other ways we could spend $1m than to buy a slightly better chance at a national championship in a second-tier sport.

I know this wasn't the main point of your comment, but as a general principle, every sport we offer is a "first-tier" sport to someone (e.g. the athletes, coaches, families of athletes and coaches etc.). You could make your point by focusing on the earnings, revenue, ratings etc. generated in a sport like football vs. softball without using the term 'second-tier sport'.

---

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

Because Stanford's mission is "Stanford was founded almost 150 years ago on a bedrock of societal purpose. Our mission is to contribute to the world by educating students for lives of leadership and contribution with integrity; advancing fundamental knowledge and cultivating creativity; leading in pioneering research for effective clinical therapies; and accelerating solutions and amplifying their impact."

https://www.stanford.edu/about/

Now, that is not incompatible with athletics, and if you scroll down to the "community" section, athletics (and the 36 varsity sports Stanford sponsors) is mentioned, but $1 mm or whatever is a lot of money to be spent on a single person whose contribution is, at best, tangential to Stanford's mission. $1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  I get that those who are contributing to "lifetime Cardinal" are doing so to further athletic glory, but if that's your jam, I suggest a donation to the US Olympic committee.

I personally think that in the long run, high dollar NIL deals actually work against the University's mission.

BC

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

As far as my opinion on the matter, do I hope Canady stays at Stanford? Of course. Would this still impact my opinion on her? To be honest, yes to a degree because 1) maybe I am old-fashioned or naive or both, but I don't like how this (NIL) raise is effectively being negotiated (e.g. in the media).

I also don't think it really takes 6 weeks to have a sense of the (NIL) market in terms of what NIL organizations by different schools' alums will offer. Will this, on the other hand, allow her to maximize her NIL deal(s)? It appears to be yes, if that article is to be believed. My opinion has always been I want athletes to compensated fairly (i.e. $0 for NIL is inherently unfair IMO). On the other hand, at some point, there are other important factors to consider (professionally or now in NIL) such as fit, opportunity for success etc.

Having said all of that, I do think Stanford's alumni NIL organizations could have been a lot more proactive in supporting NiJaree for her significant contributions to our AD (i.e. if NiJaree had to enter the transfer portal for that to be realized, I think Stanford's alumni NIL organizations could have done a lot better (by NiJaree) there).

[d4cohn]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

With some experts saying that bidding for Canady could reach as high as $1 million, Stanford finds itself in negotiations that could forever alter non-revenue sports. One source with knowledge of the talks would not disclose specific figures but said Stanford’s NIL collective, Lifetime Cardinal, was “giving their all” to retain the nation’s top returning player.

It's absolutely wild to me how quickly we've all embraced pay to play. I find myself thinking of the other ways we could spend $1m than to buy a slightly better chance at a national championship in a second-tier sport.

I know this wasn't the main point of your comment, but as a general principle, every sport we offer is a "first-tier" sport to someone (e.g. the athletes, coaches, families of athletes and coaches etc.). You could make your point by focusing on the earnings, revenue, ratings etc. generated in a sport like football vs. softball without using the term 'second-tier sport'.

---

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

Because Stanford's mission is "Stanford was founded almost 150 years ago on a bedrock of societal purpose. Our mission is to contribute to the world by educating students for lives of leadership and contribution with integrity; advancing fundamental knowledge and cultivating creativity; leading in pioneering research for effective clinical therapies; and accelerating solutions and amplifying their impact."

https://www.stanford.edu/about/

Now, that is not incompatible with athletics, and if you scroll down to the "community" section, athletics (and the 36 varsity sports Stanford sponsors) is mentioned, but $1 mm or whatever is a lot of money to be spent on a single person whose contribution is, at best, tangential to Stanford's mission. $1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  I get that those who are contributing to "lifetime Cardinal" are doing so to further athletic glory, but if that's your jam, I suggest a donation to the US Olympic committee.

I personally think that in the long run, high dollar NIL deals actually work against the University's mission.

BC

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

As far as my opinion on the matter, do I hope Canady stays at Stanford? Of course. Would this still impact my opinion on her? To be honest, yes to a degree because 1) maybe I am old-fashioned or naive or both, but I don't like how this (NIL) raise is effectively being negotiated (e.g. in the media).

I also don't think it really takes 6 weeks to have a sense of the (NIL) market in terms of what NIL organizations by different schools' alums will offer. Will this, on the other hand, allow her to maximize her NIL deal(s)? It appears to be yes, if that article is to be believed. My opinion has always been I want athletes to compensated fairly (i.e. $0 for NIL is inherently unfair IMO). On the other hand, at some point, there are other important factors to consider (professionally or now in NIL) such as fit, opportunity for success etc.

Having said all of that, I do think Stanford's alumni NIL organizations could have been a lot more proactive in supporting NiJaree for her significant contributions to our AD (i.e. if NiJaree had to enter the transfer portal for that to be realized, I think Stanford's alumni NIL organizations could have done a lot better (by NiJaree) there).

[BostonCard]

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

Let's just say that I am glad that Andrew Luck played at Stanford when he did.  An Andrew Luck who was the exact same talent on the field but played at Stanford because we scrounged a 7-digit paycheck for him would not hold the same special place in my heart, as the one who forwent an opportunity to go pro as the number one pick in the draft after his junior season in order to graduate and play one more season at Stanford.

For me, this isn't about the sport (football versus softball), and I can't really hold it against any athlete who is offered those amounts for their talents.  I just don't think Stanford should be playing those games, and for me, it's not worth the cost (more in terms of values than in terms of nominal $$$) to pursue D1 national championships in sports where that will take offering 6 and 7 figure NIL deals.  To me, it is just anathema to what Stanford ought to stand for.

BC

[BostonCard]

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

Let's just say that I am glad that Andrew Luck played at Stanford when he did.  An Andrew Luck who was the exact same talent on the field but played at Stanford because we scrounged a 7-digit paycheck for him would not hold the same special place in my heart, as the one who forwent an opportunity to go pro as the number one pick in the draft after his junior season in order to graduate and play one more season at Stanford.

For me, this isn't about the sport (football versus softball), and I can't really hold it against any athlete who is offered those amounts for their talents.  I just don't think Stanford should be playing those games, and for me, it's not worth the cost (more in terms of values than in terms of nominal $$$) to pursue D1 national championships in sports where that will take offering 6 and 7 figure NIL deals.  To me, it is just anathema to what Stanford ought to stand for.

BC

[d4cohn]

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

Let's just say that I am glad that Andrew Luck played at Stanford when he did.  An Andrew Luck who was the exact same talent on the field but played at Stanford because we scrounged a 7-digit paycheck for him would not hold the same special place in my heart, as the one who forwent an opportunity to go pro as the number one pick in the draft after his junior season in order to graduate and play one more season at Stanford.

For me, this isn't about the sport (football versus softball), and I can't really hold it against any athlete who is offered those amounts for their talents.  I just don't think Stanford should be playing those games, and for me, it's not worth the cost (more in terms of values than in terms of nominal $$$) to pursue D1 national championships in sports where that will take offering 6 and 7 figure NIL deals.  To me, it is just anathema to what Stanford ought to stand for.

BC

I think we agree on wanting athletes who are committed to being Stanford athletes for reasons beyond simply NIL deals even if we ultimately reach different conclusions on whether to pay the NIL deals nor not. For me at least, couldn't I have made the argument about pursuing D1 national championships in sports, but substitute coaches salaries for NIL deals? We have paid out 7 figure deals to David Shaw (and to coaches with far less success than him at Stanford like Haase).

[d4cohn]

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

Let's just say that I am glad that Andrew Luck played at Stanford when he did.  An Andrew Luck who was the exact same talent on the field but played at Stanford because we scrounged a 7-digit paycheck for him would not hold the same special place in my heart, as the one who forwent an opportunity to go pro as the number one pick in the draft after his junior season in order to graduate and play one more season at Stanford.

For me, this isn't about the sport (football versus softball), and I can't really hold it against any athlete who is offered those amounts for their talents.  I just don't think Stanford should be playing those games, and for me, it's not worth the cost (more in terms of values than in terms of nominal $$$) to pursue D1 national championships in sports where that will take offering 6 and 7 figure NIL deals.  To me, it is just anathema to what Stanford ought to stand for.

BC

I think we agree on wanting athletes who are committed to being Stanford athletes for reasons beyond simply NIL deals even if we ultimately reach different conclusions on whether to pay the NIL deals nor not. For me at least, couldn't I have made the argument about pursuing D1 national championships in sports, but substitute coaches salaries for NIL deals? We have paid out 7 figure deals to David Shaw (and to coaches with far less success than him at Stanford like Haase).

[2006alum]

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

Let's just say that I am glad that Andrew Luck played at Stanford when he did.  An Andrew Luck who was the exact same talent on the field but played at Stanford because we scrounged a 7-digit paycheck for him would not hold the same special place in my heart, as the one who forwent an opportunity to go pro as the number one pick in the draft after his junior season in order to graduate and play one more season at Stanford.

For me, this isn't about the sport (football versus softball), and I can't really hold it against any athlete who is offered those amounts for their talents.  I just don't think Stanford should be playing those games, and for me, it's not worth the cost (more in terms of values than in terms of nominal $$$) to pursue D1 national championships in sports where that will take offering 6 and 7 figure NIL deals.  To me, it is just anathema to what Stanford ought to stand for.

BC

Thank you. As usual, you've said it more eloquently than I could. (I think somewhere in the back of my mind I was hoping my original post would flash the "BC Signal," which sure enough, it did! :)

And the one thing I'd add: the reason all pro sports have leagues and associations with salary caps, luxury taxes, and max deals is the recognition that unbridled pay-to-play ruins fair competition and promotes quid pro quo corruption, because over time, the deepest pockets will almost always win (at the expensive of fair competition). Now maybe that's a comfortable notion for alumni of the school whose mascot *should* be the Robber Barons. But it's not one that sits comfortably with me. And when you combine pay-to-play with the fact that our bribe targets are often barely legal adults, with none of the trappings (and legal protections) of professionalization about them, the whole thing just feels seedy and in pursuit of a quick win at all costs.

Sorry, but the ethos of the Stanford I went to raised me to expect better, and I do.

[2006alum]

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

Let's just say that I am glad that Andrew Luck played at Stanford when he did.  An Andrew Luck who was the exact same talent on the field but played at Stanford because we scrounged a 7-digit paycheck for him would not hold the same special place in my heart, as the one who forwent an opportunity to go pro as the number one pick in the draft after his junior season in order to graduate and play one more season at Stanford.

For me, this isn't about the sport (football versus softball), and I can't really hold it against any athlete who is offered those amounts for their talents.  I just don't think Stanford should be playing those games, and for me, it's not worth the cost (more in terms of values than in terms of nominal $$$) to pursue D1 national championships in sports where that will take offering 6 and 7 figure NIL deals.  To me, it is just anathema to what Stanford ought to stand for.

BC

Thank you. As usual, you've said it more eloquently than I could. (I think somewhere in the back of my mind I was hoping my original post would flash the "BC Signal," which sure enough, it did! :)

And the one thing I'd add: the reason all pro sports have leagues and associations with salary caps, luxury taxes, and max deals is the recognition that unbridled pay-to-play ruins fair competition and promotes quid pro quo corruption, because over time, the deepest pockets will almost always win (at the expensive of fair competition). Now maybe that's a comfortable notion for alumni of the school whose mascot *should* be the Robber Barons. But it's not one that sits comfortably with me. And when you combine pay-to-play with the fact that our bribe targets are often barely legal adults, with none of the trappings (and legal protections) of professionalization about them, the whole thing just feels seedy and in pursuit of a quick win at all costs.

Sorry, but the ethos of the Stanford I went to raised me to expect better, and I do.

[M T]

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

You might contract with Tiger Woods for $1M to get him to play in a tournament, but I wouldn't call that "contributing" or "donating".  I find it hard to equate "contributing" to the 49ers or SJ Giants or Tiger Woods with contributing toward academic related endowments.

IANAL, but as I understand it, money given to Lifetime Cardinal would not be considered a charitable donation by the IRS.  I do note that Lifetime Cardinal does NOT claim to be a "charitable" 501©3 organization on its web site, but then, the web site does not warn donors that they are not a charitable organization.  Indeed, the words "tax", "charitable", "501©3" do not appear, but "Stanford", "student", "general fund," "Haven House," "Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital," and "Ronald McDonald House" do appear.   Hmmm.....  I note that GoFundMe.com has a help page to explain the tax situation when you give money there.

So, (IANACPA) the $1M Lifetime Cardinal NIL payout would typically represent maybe $1.3M (22 full scholarships) of before-tax earnings for the donors and only about $700K of value to the recipient.  That's a lot of potential academic support that winds up getting eaten up by taxes.

I presume that the money is committed by a contract before the athlete puts on a uniform or enrolls.  Technically, the money is for Name, Image, Likeness, and, oh no, definitely not pay-to-play.   What if the athlete chooses not to play, whether holding out for more money or worrying about an injury before a pro draft, or transferring, or quits going to class and become ineligible, or has a falling out with the coach, or does some stunt making them ineligible?  How the heck do they write the contract to in effect commit the player to play in order to get paid, without actually stepping over the line into pay-to-play rather than NIL?

If s requirement is somehow that they maintain their team membership, what's the financial liability of the school if the athlete drives a golf cart while intoxicated and the coach kicks the athlete off the team, thereby impacting the anticipated income of the athlete?

And, where does this stop when looking at younger players?  Suppose Gargantuan U. pays $20K/yr "NIL" to each of the top 20 8th-12th grade athletes in a sport with a contract that puts the money in a trust with the athlete as beneficiary, whose value is doubled the first year that they play at G.U.  Of course the NIL would be for wearing G.U. gear and coming to some events at G.U.

[M T]

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

You might contract with Tiger Woods for $1M to get him to play in a tournament, but I wouldn't call that "contributing" or "donating".  I find it hard to equate "contributing" to the 49ers or SJ Giants or Tiger Woods with contributing toward academic related endowments.

IANAL, but as I understand it, money given to Lifetime Cardinal would not be considered a charitable donation by the IRS.  I do note that Lifetime Cardinal does NOT claim to be a "charitable" 501©3 organization on its web site, but then, the web site does not warn donors that they are not a charitable organization.  Indeed, the words "tax", "charitable", "501©3" do not appear, but "Stanford", "student", "general fund," "Haven House," "Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital," and "Ronald McDonald House" do appear.   Hmmm.....  I note that GoFundMe.com has a help page to explain the tax situation when you give money there.

So, (IANACPA) the $1M Lifetime Cardinal NIL payout would typically represent maybe $1.3M (22 full scholarships) of before-tax earnings for the donors and only about $700K of value to the recipient.  That's a lot of potential academic support that winds up getting eaten up by taxes.

I presume that the money is committed by a contract before the athlete puts on a uniform or enrolls.  Technically, the money is for Name, Image, Likeness, and, oh no, definitely not pay-to-play.   What if the athlete chooses not to play, whether holding out for more money or worrying about an injury before a pro draft, or transferring, or quits going to class and become ineligible, or has a falling out with the coach, or does some stunt making them ineligible?  How the heck do they write the contract to in effect commit the player to play in order to get paid, without actually stepping over the line into pay-to-play rather than NIL?

If s requirement is somehow that they maintain their team membership, what's the financial liability of the school if the athlete drives a golf cart while intoxicated and the coach kicks the athlete off the team, thereby impacting the anticipated income of the athlete?

And, where does this stop when looking at younger players?  Suppose Gargantuan U. pays $20K/yr "NIL" to each of the top 20 8th-12th grade athletes in a sport with a contract that puts the money in a trust with the athlete as beneficiary, whose value is doubled the first year that they play at G.U.  Of course the NIL would be for wearing G.U. gear and coming to some events at G.U.

[Mick]

No one has had employees poached for more pay, more vacation, less work, or whatever?  Is your first act to fire the director of HR when that happens?  People leave all the time and there is only so much anyone can control.  Frankly if Stanford's NIL czar wanted to spend a million bucks on a single softball player, then yeah, I'd think twice about keeping them on as czar.

When is the last time the Moneybags Yankees won a World Series?

2009. They've been in the playoffs 10 times since then. 

Moneybags Dodgers last won a full-year WS title in 1988. They've been in the playoffs the last 11 years in a row.

[Mick]

No one has had employees poached for more pay, more vacation, less work, or whatever?  Is your first act to fire the director of HR when that happens?  People leave all the time and there is only so much anyone can control.  Frankly if Stanford's NIL czar wanted to spend a million bucks on a single softball player, then yeah, I'd think twice about keeping them on as czar.

When is the last time the Moneybags Yankees won a World Series?

2009. They've been in the playoffs 10 times since then. 

Moneybags Dodgers last won a full-year WS title in 1988. They've been in the playoffs the last 11 years in a row.

[SkiBum80]

A contribution to Lifetime Cardinal is not tax deductible as a charitable contribution, nor do they portray or suggest it to be so, by my experience.
Contributing to LC as well as to LSJU, which is a charitable contribution, are not mutually exclusive, by my experience.
Not sure why this is a controversial situation.
Lots of people spend $100 or more a month on bougie barista-made coffees where they instead could spend a fraction of that amount on home brewed drip. (no admission if my experience or not).
My buddy spends $85 (plus tip) for a hair stylist once every month or two, while I spend $25 at supercuts (plus tip of course) when desperately needed.
Seems a pointless argument about where and how folks choose to willingly spend their hard earned income, and seems like a cat chasing it's tail to argue they should spend it better elsewhere.
While at it, I'd like to give a shout out to LC for lighting a candle in the chaotic athletic darkness rather than simply cursing the lack of light.

[SkiBum80]

A contribution to Lifetime Cardinal is not tax deductible as a charitable contribution, nor do they portray or suggest it to be so, by my experience.
Contributing to LC as well as to LSJU, which is a charitable contribution, are not mutually exclusive, by my experience.
Not sure why this is a controversial situation.
Lots of people spend $100 or more a month on bougie barista-made coffees where they instead could spend a fraction of that amount on home brewed drip. (no admission if my experience or not).
My buddy spends $85 (plus tip) for a hair stylist once every month or two, while I spend $25 at supercuts (plus tip of course) when desperately needed.
Seems a pointless argument about where and how folks choose to willingly spend their hard earned income, and seems like a cat chasing it's tail to argue they should spend it better elsewhere.
While at it, I'd like to give a shout out to LC for lighting a candle in the chaotic athletic darkness rather than simply cursing the lack of light.

[GK3]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

Is the NIL basically just money from donators, does it include money for things like shoes or other types of things. Exceeding the Alabama number seems doable, but how much more would that number have to be?  I sure hope she stays, she definitely sells tickets.

---

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

Because Stanford's mission is "Stanford was founded almost 150 years ago on a bedrock of societal purpose. Our mission is to contribute to the world by educating students for lives of leadership and contribution with integrity; advancing fundamental knowledge and cultivating creativity; leading in pioneering research for effective clinical therapies; and accelerating solutions and amplifying their impact."

https://www.stanford.edu/about/

Now, that is not incompatible with athletics, and if you scroll down to the "community" section, athletics (and the 36 varsity sports Stanford sponsors) is mentioned, but $1 mm or whatever is a lot of money to be spent on a single person whose contribution is, at best, tangential to Stanford's mission. $1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  I get that those who are contributing to "lifetime Cardinal" are doing so to further athletic glory, but if that's your jam, I suggest a donation to the US Olympic committee.

I personally think that in the long run, high dollar NIL deals actually work against the University's mission.

BC

I agree that the whole concept of NIL and most use of the Portal flies in face of what unversities are supposed to be about.  Stanford certainly has a number of alumni who if they wanted, could easily give a million dollars a year to a NIL program and still send money to the University for other purposes.  I have a bigger problem with the Portal.  Changing schools every year for the sake a few dollars more makes mockery of the purpose of going to a University.  I can live with the NIL, but the Portal has to go or get changed significantly.

[GK3]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

Is the NIL basically just money from donators, does it include money for things like shoes or other types of things. Exceeding the Alabama number seems doable, but how much more would that number have to be?  I sure hope she stays, she definitely sells tickets.

---

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

Because Stanford's mission is "Stanford was founded almost 150 years ago on a bedrock of societal purpose. Our mission is to contribute to the world by educating students for lives of leadership and contribution with integrity; advancing fundamental knowledge and cultivating creativity; leading in pioneering research for effective clinical therapies; and accelerating solutions and amplifying their impact."

https://www.stanford.edu/about/

Now, that is not incompatible with athletics, and if you scroll down to the "community" section, athletics (and the 36 varsity sports Stanford sponsors) is mentioned, but $1 mm or whatever is a lot of money to be spent on a single person whose contribution is, at best, tangential to Stanford's mission. $1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  I get that those who are contributing to "lifetime Cardinal" are doing so to further athletic glory, but if that's your jam, I suggest a donation to the US Olympic committee.

I personally think that in the long run, high dollar NIL deals actually work against the University's mission.

BC

I agree that the whole concept of NIL and most use of the Portal flies in face of what unversities are supposed to be about.  Stanford certainly has a number of alumni who if they wanted, could easily give a million dollars a year to a NIL program and still send money to the University for other purposes.  I have a bigger problem with the Portal.  Changing schools every year for the sake a few dollars more makes mockery of the purpose of going to a University.  I can live with the NIL, but the Portal has to go or get changed significantly.

[OCcardinal]

$1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  

A couple reactions to that:

- Tuition next year is $65K, but more importantly, donating $1M to Stanford likely wouldn't cause the university to give any more money out in financial aid. Stanford already has enough money to make undergrad entirely tuition free.  But like all schools with Stanford's kinds of resources, they make a choice to charge tuition for wealthier families.  It's really a form of forced donation.  Stanford won't give up that income stream just because endowment donations increase.  So I think it's a bit unfair to imply that Canady getting an NIL deal would somehow harm other students' ability to pay their Stanford tuition.
- More of a response to others, but Canady is also the best softball player in the country.  She would likely continue to pitch every inning of any Softball World Series games for Stanford.  Softball is broadcast on ESPN and is a "B" category sport (same as football and women's basketball) in weighting for the Capital One Cup trophy.  A little more hitting and we are in the running for a Softball national championship. Not a chance without Canady. She is also a great human and a great representative of the university. In a world where college athletes get NIL deals, there is no question in my mind she would be worth $1M.

[OCcardinal]

$1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  

A couple reactions to that:

- Tuition next year is $65K, but more importantly, donating $1M to Stanford likely wouldn't cause the university to give any more money out in financial aid. Stanford already has enough money to make undergrad entirely tuition free.  But like all schools with Stanford's kinds of resources, they make a choice to charge tuition for wealthier families.  It's really a form of forced donation.  Stanford won't give up that income stream just because endowment donations increase.  So I think it's a bit unfair to imply that Canady getting an NIL deal would somehow harm other students' ability to pay their Stanford tuition.
- More of a response to others, but Canady is also the best softball player in the country.  She would likely continue to pitch every inning of any Softball World Series games for Stanford.  Softball is broadcast on ESPN and is a "B" category sport (same as football and women's basketball) in weighting for the Capital One Cup trophy.  A little more hitting and we are in the running for a Softball national championship. Not a chance without Canady. She is also a great human and a great representative of the university. In a world where college athletes get NIL deals, there is no question in my mind she would be worth $1M.

[M T]

For those that think Stanford donors should pay $1M for any player, go ahead and donate it, unless you're wanting to pay with someone else's money.

For the argument about selling tickets, in 2024, softball season tickets started at $175.  $1M is more than 5700 season tickets.  For the Super Regionals at home, the crowd was under 1500 per game.

For the argument against comparing $1M to 17 full-ride scholarships, what do you not understand about money?  Whether you count it in dollars, gold bars, or Stanford scholarships, they are just different units of value that are fungible.  Or 980 years of monthly $85 hair stylings.

For the argument of why not do both, I'm sorry to point out that we live in a finite world.  If a donor has $10M he was thinking of donating to Stanford University but decides to give $1M to Lifetime Cardinal, most likely the $10M gets decreased, maybe by $1.3M.  If you have only $500 burning a hole in your pocket, and you choose to give it or some portion of it to some athlete, most likely you won't give as much to Stanford University as you would have otherwise.  Lifetime Cardinal is a competitor to Stanford University for discretionary dollars.

I wish it was the case that each dollar donated to Stanford University directly contributed to a cure for cancer or world peace.  Nope, some will get spent on asphalt or janitor closets or all the other things that makes the University run.  But overall, Stanford trains the leaders of tomorrow to help the world in significant ways.  I don't believe that even a MVP in the Super Bowl can match the value of any of many, many different Stanford graduates.

Yes, each of us spends money on our vanities, whether they be lattes or hair salons or NIL merchandise.  There is a benefit from feeling good from such expenditures.   But $1M is a lot of vanity.


Welcome to the dotNIL boom when value is out of whack.

[M T]

For those that think Stanford donors should pay $1M for any player, go ahead and donate it, unless you're wanting to pay with someone else's money.

For the argument about selling tickets, in 2024, softball season tickets started at $175.  $1M is more than 5700 season tickets.  For the Super Regionals at home, the crowd was under 1500 per game.

For the argument against comparing $1M to 17 full-ride scholarships, what do you not understand about money?  Whether you count it in dollars, gold bars, or Stanford scholarships, they are just different units of value that are fungible.  Or 980 years of monthly $85 hair stylings.

For the argument of why not do both, I'm sorry to point out that we live in a finite world.  If a donor has $10M he was thinking of donating to Stanford University but decides to give $1M to Lifetime Cardinal, most likely the $10M gets decreased, maybe by $1.3M.  If you have only $500 burning a hole in your pocket, and you choose to give it or some portion of it to some athlete, most likely you won't give as much to Stanford University as you would have otherwise.  Lifetime Cardinal is a competitor to Stanford University for discretionary dollars.

I wish it was the case that each dollar donated to Stanford University directly contributed to a cure for cancer or world peace.  Nope, some will get spent on asphalt or janitor closets or all the other things that makes the University run.  But overall, Stanford trains the leaders of tomorrow to help the world in significant ways.  I don't believe that even a MVP in the Super Bowl can match the value of any of many, many different Stanford graduates.

Yes, each of us spends money on our vanities, whether they be lattes or hair salons or NIL merchandise.  There is a benefit from feeling good from such expenditures.   But $1M is a lot of vanity.


Welcome to the dotNIL boom when value is out of whack.

[BobK]

Actually the games were sellouts. I was there. That’s why they are building a second deck.

[BobK]

Actually the games were sellouts. I was there. That’s why they are building a second deck.