[82lsju]

He intends to fix it

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...047909.php

which says in part

Luck’s move into the newly created job traces to an hourlong October meeting with Jonathan Levin, who had become Stanford’s president two months earlier. Luck and Levin briefly met once previously, but Luck requested time with him to chat about the state of college athletics and share some observations.

Luck quickly realized Levin owned a “grasp on both the minutiae and macro” of sports. Levin was struck by Luck’s ideas and impressed with his natural leadership ability, and how he “exemplified” a Stanford student-athlete — including memorably bypassing the 2011 NFL draft to return to school (he was still the No. 1 pick a year later).

“We have this incredible tradition of excellence in athletics, with true student-athletes, and we have to figure out how to continue that in this new era,” Levin said. “… Andrew had a perspective (in the meeting) that was both thoughtful and comprehensive. He appreciated the competitive aspect of what it takes to build a special team, and he also thought about the athletic experience in an academic context.

“A great college football program can bring together so many people — students, staff, alums. Andrew appreciates all those different pieces.”

Levin ultimately steered the October conversation with Luck into an unexpected realm. He suggested the football program needed a general manager to supervise day-to-day operations, given the sport’s seismic changes — and maybe Luck would be interested?

Luck hemmed and hawed while instantly knowing the idea was tantalizing. He and his wife had “other plans,” he said, which they soon set aside.

“It makes sense for me personally, and I think it makes sense for Stanford and the college football landscape,” he said. “Look, my ego loves wanting to be wanted. But beyond that, Stanford’s position in the college football world was perhaps screaming out for this (a GM) in some ways.”

[82lsju]

He intends to fix it

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...047909.php

which says in part

Luck’s move into the newly created job traces to an hourlong October meeting with Jonathan Levin, who had become Stanford’s president two months earlier. Luck and Levin briefly met once previously, but Luck requested time with him to chat about the state of college athletics and share some observations.

Luck quickly realized Levin owned a “grasp on both the minutiae and macro” of sports. Levin was struck by Luck’s ideas and impressed with his natural leadership ability, and how he “exemplified” a Stanford student-athlete — including memorably bypassing the 2011 NFL draft to return to school (he was still the No. 1 pick a year later).

“We have this incredible tradition of excellence in athletics, with true student-athletes, and we have to figure out how to continue that in this new era,” Levin said. “… Andrew had a perspective (in the meeting) that was both thoughtful and comprehensive. He appreciated the competitive aspect of what it takes to build a special team, and he also thought about the athletic experience in an academic context.

“A great college football program can bring together so many people — students, staff, alums. Andrew appreciates all those different pieces.”

Levin ultimately steered the October conversation with Luck into an unexpected realm. He suggested the football program needed a general manager to supervise day-to-day operations, given the sport’s seismic changes — and maybe Luck would be interested?

Luck hemmed and hawed while instantly knowing the idea was tantalizing. He and his wife had “other plans,” he said, which they soon set aside.

“It makes sense for me personally, and I think it makes sense for Stanford and the college football landscape,” he said. “Look, my ego loves wanting to be wanted. But beyond that, Stanford’s position in the college football world was perhaps screaming out for this (a GM) in some ways.”

[BostonCard]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

[BostonCard]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

[SamuelMcF]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

"There’s no blueprint in many ways, which is why some of Luck’s friends compare the effort to working at a startup. He realizes the North Star is clear: winning."

Bad headline, IMO. The webpage title is more apt: "Andrew Luck’s second act: Guiding Stanford football out of wilderness"

[SamuelMcF]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

"There’s no blueprint in many ways, which is why some of Luck’s friends compare the effort to working at a startup. He realizes the North Star is clear: winning."

Bad headline, IMO. The webpage title is more apt: "Andrew Luck’s second act: Guiding Stanford football out of wilderness"

[82lsju]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

I did not see either the "clear and identifiable problem" or "the fix"....but they are both probably top secret/need to know....

[82lsju]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

I did not see either the "clear and identifiable problem" or "the fix"....but they are both probably top secret/need to know....

[cardcrimson]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

Too funny. Sad, but funny.

[cardcrimson]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

Too funny. Sad, but funny.

[JohnR34231]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

I did not see either the "clear and identifiable problem" or "the fix"....but they are both probably top secret/need to know....

Yeah, maybe it is classified and we don't have the need to know.
I doubt it though.

[JohnR34231]

Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

I did not see either the "clear and identifiable problem" or "the fix"....but they are both probably top secret/need to know....

Yeah, maybe it is classified and we don't have the need to know.
I doubt it though.

[gailtate]

The "problem" (that dare not speak its name) is the one that's been around, to one degree or another since the days of  David Starr Jordan. It is Stanford's infernal recalcitrance to commit to championship-level football. Money has never been a roadblock to this institution. For anything. And never will be. Political WILL, however, is another thing. Period. Good speed, Andrew Luck. We'll be watching you.

[gailtate]

The "problem" (that dare not speak its name) is the one that's been around, to one degree or another since the days of  David Starr Jordan. It is Stanford's infernal recalcitrance to commit to championship-level football. Money has never been a roadblock to this institution. For anything. And never will be. Political WILL, however, is another thing. Period. Good speed, Andrew Luck. We'll be watching you.

[ADPinWDC]

Chances are Muir does not know the "one thing" either.  

Rose Bowl 2016 with McCaffrey and Hogan was clearly the APEX, trouncing Iowa on New Year's Day.  BLOWOUT.  
I don't see how McCaffrey's 368 all purpose yardage record in the Rose Bowl can be broken.  
Then the crash, plus COVID.  Back in 2006, we finished 1-11, left for dead, before Harbaugh.  
It took Harbaugh four seasons to thrash VATech in the Orange Bowl.  

If Harbaugh came back today (he won't), then could he do it again, even with NIL, etc?   I believe so.  
He elevated recruiting without any track record in the NFL back then, especially on Offensive Lineman.  
Then he got five-star Luck in 2008 (red shirt frosh).  And Gerhart exploded behind a better line for 2009. 

Our 2012 recruiting class landed Top Ten in USA, especially for O-Line.  Five-star talent.  
Andrus Peat and Kyle Murphy both played well in the NFL.  Josh Garnett won the Outland Trophy in 2015, also NFL. 
Harbaugh did not recruit them.  

That one thing?  Five star O-Line.  NIL QBs and RBs like five-star O-Line.  Smashmouth.  TWU.  
And, then better QBs bring top WR talent.

[ADPinWDC]

Chances are Muir does not know the "one thing" either.  

Rose Bowl 2016 with McCaffrey and Hogan was clearly the APEX, trouncing Iowa on New Year's Day.  BLOWOUT.  
I don't see how McCaffrey's 368 all purpose yardage record in the Rose Bowl can be broken.  
Then the crash, plus COVID.  Back in 2006, we finished 1-11, left for dead, before Harbaugh.  
It took Harbaugh four seasons to thrash VATech in the Orange Bowl.  

If Harbaugh came back today (he won't), then could he do it again, even with NIL, etc?   I believe so.  
He elevated recruiting without any track record in the NFL back then, especially on Offensive Lineman.  
Then he got five-star Luck in 2008 (red shirt frosh).  And Gerhart exploded behind a better line for 2009. 

Our 2012 recruiting class landed Top Ten in USA, especially for O-Line.  Five-star talent.  
Andrus Peat and Kyle Murphy both played well in the NFL.  Josh Garnett won the Outland Trophy in 2015, also NFL. 
Harbaugh did not recruit them.  

That one thing?  Five star O-Line.  NIL QBs and RBs like five-star O-Line.  Smashmouth.  TWU.  
And, then better QBs bring top WR talent.

[BostonCard]

The "problem" (that dare not speak its name) is the one that's been around, to one degree or another since the days of  David Starr Jordan. It is Stanford's infernal recalcitrance to commit to championship-level football. Money has never been a roadblock to this institution. For anything. And never will be. Political WILL, however, is another thing. Period. Good speed, Andrew Luck. We'll be watching you.

Ah yes, the Green Lantern theory of college football success.  We have the mythical ring that allows its wearer infinite abilities, limited only by the organization’s willpower.

Unfortunately, the theory is unfalsifiable.  No matter how much we can or cannot do, we could have always done more if we had the political will to do it.  It’s also a convenient excuse, that absolves us of having to make tough choices, because we could always want it more.  Finally, it is not particularly useful, because somehow, you have to generate the political will to pull it off, and like the ring, there is no roadmap on how to accomplish that.

BC

[BostonCard]

The "problem" (that dare not speak its name) is the one that's been around, to one degree or another since the days of  David Starr Jordan. It is Stanford's infernal recalcitrance to commit to championship-level football. Money has never been a roadblock to this institution. For anything. And never will be. Political WILL, however, is another thing. Period. Good speed, Andrew Luck. We'll be watching you.

Ah yes, the Green Lantern theory of college football success.  We have the mythical ring that allows its wearer infinite abilities, limited only by the organization’s willpower.

Unfortunately, the theory is unfalsifiable.  No matter how much we can or cannot do, we could have always done more if we had the political will to do it.  It’s also a convenient excuse, that absolves us of having to make tough choices, because we could always want it more.  Finally, it is not particularly useful, because somehow, you have to generate the political will to pull it off, and like the ring, there is no roadmap on how to accomplish that.

BC

[2006alum]

The "problem" (that dare not speak its name) is the one that's been around, to one degree or another since the days of  David Starr Jordan. It is Stanford's infernal recalcitrance to commit to championship-level football. Money has never been a roadblock to this institution. For anything. And never will be. Political WILL, however, is another thing. Period. Good speed, Andrew Luck. We'll be watching you.

Ah yes, the Green Lantern theory of college football success.  We have the mythical ring that allows its wearer infinite abilities, limited only by the organization’s willpower.

Unfortunately, the theory is unfalsifiable.  No matter how much we can or cannot do, we could have always done more if we had the political will to do it.  It’s also a convenient excuse, that absolves us of having to make tough choices, because we could always want it more.  Finally, it is not particularly useful, because somehow, you have to generate the political will to pull it off, and like the ring, there is no roadmap on how to accomplish that.

BC

I'm having a hard time identifying how your post could be better written or more on point. Well done, sir.

[2006alum]

The "problem" (that dare not speak its name) is the one that's been around, to one degree or another since the days of  David Starr Jordan. It is Stanford's infernal recalcitrance to commit to championship-level football. Money has never been a roadblock to this institution. For anything. And never will be. Political WILL, however, is another thing. Period. Good speed, Andrew Luck. We'll be watching you.

Ah yes, the Green Lantern theory of college football success.  We have the mythical ring that allows its wearer infinite abilities, limited only by the organization’s willpower.

Unfortunately, the theory is unfalsifiable.  No matter how much we can or cannot do, we could have always done more if we had the political will to do it.  It’s also a convenient excuse, that absolves us of having to make tough choices, because we could always want it more.  Finally, it is not particularly useful, because somehow, you have to generate the political will to pull it off, and like the ring, there is no roadmap on how to accomplish that.

BC

I'm having a hard time identifying how your post could be better written or more on point. Well done, sir.

[GK3]

The "problem" (that dare not speak its name) is the one that's been around, to one degree or another since the days of  David Starr Jordan. It is Stanford's infernal recalcitrance to commit to championship-level football. Money has never been a roadblock to this institution. For anything. And never will be. Political WILL, however, is another thing. Period. Good speed, Andrew Luck. We'll be watching you.

Ah yes, the Green Lantern theory of college football success.  We have the mythical ring that allows its wearer infinite abilities, limited only by the organization’s willpower.

Unfortunately, the theory is unfalsifiable.  No matter how much we can or cannot do, we could have always done more if we had the political will to do it.  It’s also a convenient excuse, that absolves us of having to make tough choices, because we could always want it more.  Finally, it is not particularly useful, because somehow, you have to generate the political will to pull it off, and like the ring, there is no roadmap on how to accomplish that.

BC

I'm having a hard time identifying how your post could be better written or more on point. Well done, sir.

I wish Andrew all the luck and believe he can get the job done, but it is a monumental job, no way around it.  Andrew, Troy and the Stanford President are going to take some big steps to turn this around.  First we have to have a very competitive NIL program, we need a strong in house system to help players market their Name and Likeness. Then we need to get really serious about the portal and junior college programs. Are we willing to further modify our acceptance to allow individuals who might be marginal in terms of Stanford past admittees, but we need to admit those whom we believe have shown the ability to do the work elsewhere and are good citizens.
We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  
Unlike most other games, football requires a lot of bodies and bodies who can play the game. If I were Stanford my focus would be entirely on finding 10 good offensive lineman.  If you don't have an offense you are not going to a bowl game.

[GK3]

The "problem" (that dare not speak its name) is the one that's been around, to one degree or another since the days of  David Starr Jordan. It is Stanford's infernal recalcitrance to commit to championship-level football. Money has never been a roadblock to this institution. For anything. And never will be. Political WILL, however, is another thing. Period. Good speed, Andrew Luck. We'll be watching you.

Ah yes, the Green Lantern theory of college football success.  We have the mythical ring that allows its wearer infinite abilities, limited only by the organization’s willpower.

Unfortunately, the theory is unfalsifiable.  No matter how much we can or cannot do, we could have always done more if we had the political will to do it.  It’s also a convenient excuse, that absolves us of having to make tough choices, because we could always want it more.  Finally, it is not particularly useful, because somehow, you have to generate the political will to pull it off, and like the ring, there is no roadmap on how to accomplish that.

BC

I'm having a hard time identifying how your post could be better written or more on point. Well done, sir.

I wish Andrew all the luck and believe he can get the job done, but it is a monumental job, no way around it.  Andrew, Troy and the Stanford President are going to take some big steps to turn this around.  First we have to have a very competitive NIL program, we need a strong in house system to help players market their Name and Likeness. Then we need to get really serious about the portal and junior college programs. Are we willing to further modify our acceptance to allow individuals who might be marginal in terms of Stanford past admittees, but we need to admit those whom we believe have shown the ability to do the work elsewhere and are good citizens.
We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  
Unlike most other games, football requires a lot of bodies and bodies who can play the game. If I were Stanford my focus would be entirely on finding 10 good offensive lineman.  If you don't have an offense you are not going to a bowl game.

[BostonCard]

We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  

Or… what?

Don’t get me wrong; I would rather be cheering for a winning team than a losing team, but I’m not sure what the long term consequences of having a chronically losing football team are.  It doesn’t threaten Stanford’s accreditation, it doesn’t threaten the school’s financial health.  People will still write 8-figure checks to get their name on buildings and Stanford’s applications are not hurting.  I think it would make the place more enjoyable, and as I said I would rather root for a winning team than a losing team.  Winning might have a marginal effect on alumni donations and applications, but I doubt it would be dramatic.  Let’s face it, the long term consequences of having a chronically bad football team are not catastrophic, and although I do think we will eventually turn things around, I don’t think your statement is supported by any evidence.

BC

[BostonCard]

We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  

Or… what?

Don’t get me wrong; I would rather be cheering for a winning team than a losing team, but I’m not sure what the long term consequences of having a chronically losing football team are.  It doesn’t threaten Stanford’s accreditation, it doesn’t threaten the school’s financial health.  People will still write 8-figure checks to get their name on buildings and Stanford’s applications are not hurting.  I think it would make the place more enjoyable, and as I said I would rather root for a winning team than a losing team.  Winning might have a marginal effect on alumni donations and applications, but I doubt it would be dramatic.  Let’s face it, the long term consequences of having a chronically bad football team are not catastrophic, and although I do think we will eventually turn things around, I don’t think your statement is supported by any evidence.

BC

[Hulk01]

Im not sure we should talk about NIL.  Collectives rule, and they're not getting players millions in endorsements for players.  It is pay to play.

[Hulk01]

Im not sure we should talk about NIL.  Collectives rule, and they're not getting players millions in endorsements for players.  It is pay to play.

[GK3]

We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  

Or… what?

Don’t get me wrong; I would rather be cheering for a winning team than a losing team, but I’m not sure what the long term consequences of having a chronically losing football team are.  It doesn’t threaten Stanford’s accreditation, it doesn’t threaten the school’s financial health.  People will still write 8-figure checks to get their name on buildings and Stanford’s applications are not hurting.  I think it would make the place more enjoyable, and as I said I would rather root for a winning team than a losing team.  Winning might have a marginal effect on alumni donations and applications, but I doubt it would be dramatic.  Let’s face it, the long term consequences of having a chronically bad football team are not catastrophic, and although I do think we will eventually turn things around, I don’t think your statement is supported by any evidence.

BC

BC, I agree with you that the long term consequences of playing bad football won't hurt the University as simply a University.  I also do not see us continuing to field chronically bad teams, that is nonsense as far as I am concerned.  So we have to decide are we willing to pay the price we will have to pay to field a decent team and put some people in the seats on Saturdays. If we can't or won't do what we have to do do then we ought to either give up big time football or go say Div 2.
NIL and the portal have completely changed college football.  If you want a good team, you have to be willing to pay for it.  There will probably always be a few high school players who go to Stanford because it is Stanford.  After that it is all about who we will accept and how much money we would be willing to pay for one years service of a 4 or 5 star player.  To really compete at the upper levels it is going to take a lot of money and perhaps willingness to allow transfers we would normally not accept.  Do we want to do that?

[GK3]

We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  

Or… what?

Don’t get me wrong; I would rather be cheering for a winning team than a losing team, but I’m not sure what the long term consequences of having a chronically losing football team are.  It doesn’t threaten Stanford’s accreditation, it doesn’t threaten the school’s financial health.  People will still write 8-figure checks to get their name on buildings and Stanford’s applications are not hurting.  I think it would make the place more enjoyable, and as I said I would rather root for a winning team than a losing team.  Winning might have a marginal effect on alumni donations and applications, but I doubt it would be dramatic.  Let’s face it, the long term consequences of having a chronically bad football team are not catastrophic, and although I do think we will eventually turn things around, I don’t think your statement is supported by any evidence.

BC

BC, I agree with you that the long term consequences of playing bad football won't hurt the University as simply a University.  I also do not see us continuing to field chronically bad teams, that is nonsense as far as I am concerned.  So we have to decide are we willing to pay the price we will have to pay to field a decent team and put some people in the seats on Saturdays. If we can't or won't do what we have to do do then we ought to either give up big time football or go say Div 2.
NIL and the portal have completely changed college football.  If you want a good team, you have to be willing to pay for it.  There will probably always be a few high school players who go to Stanford because it is Stanford.  After that it is all about who we will accept and how much money we would be willing to pay for one years service of a 4 or 5 star player.  To really compete at the upper levels it is going to take a lot of money and perhaps willingness to allow transfers we would normally not accept.  Do we want to do that?

[SamuelMcF]

 
To really compete at the upper levels it is going to take a lot of money and perhaps willingness to allow transfers we would normally not accept.  Do we want to do that?

We just took TWELVE transfers. Though to your point, admissions dinged a couple more.

[SamuelMcF]

 
To really compete at the upper levels it is going to take a lot of money and perhaps willingness to allow transfers we would normally not accept.  Do we want to do that?

We just took TWELVE transfers. Though to your point, admissions dinged a couple more.

[Giants]

We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  

Or… what?

Don’t get me wrong; I would rather be cheering for a winning team than a losing team, but I’m not sure what the long term consequences of having a chronically losing football team are.  It doesn’t threaten Stanford’s accreditation, it doesn’t threaten the school’s financial health.  People will still write 8-figure checks to get their name on buildings and Stanford’s applications are not hurting.  I think it would make the place more enjoyable, and as I said I would rather root for a winning team than a losing team.  Winning might have a marginal effect on alumni donations and applications, but I doubt it would be dramatic.  Let’s face it, the long term consequences of having a chronically bad football team are not catastrophic, and although I do think we will eventually turn things around, I don’t think your statement is supported by any evidence.

BC

The current direction of college football is taking the sport towards a round of realignment that would result in Stanford’s relegation to a lower level within the FBS group.  The question Stanford leadership should be asking themselves is how would that impact the overall athletic program.  If the answer to that question is yes, Stanford would still be able to continue to field championship level teams in most sports, then I believe the administrators would choose to go down that road.  Of course, that would require a substantial subsidy because without a football program at the premier level of the game, the finances would take a significant hit.

[Giants]

We absolutely have to start winning games and make a bowl game.  

Or… what?

Don’t get me wrong; I would rather be cheering for a winning team than a losing team, but I’m not sure what the long term consequences of having a chronically losing football team are.  It doesn’t threaten Stanford’s accreditation, it doesn’t threaten the school’s financial health.  People will still write 8-figure checks to get their name on buildings and Stanford’s applications are not hurting.  I think it would make the place more enjoyable, and as I said I would rather root for a winning team than a losing team.  Winning might have a marginal effect on alumni donations and applications, but I doubt it would be dramatic.  Let’s face it, the long term consequences of having a chronically bad football team are not catastrophic, and although I do think we will eventually turn things around, I don’t think your statement is supported by any evidence.

BC

The current direction of college football is taking the sport towards a round of realignment that would result in Stanford’s relegation to a lower level within the FBS group.  The question Stanford leadership should be asking themselves is how would that impact the overall athletic program.  If the answer to that question is yes, Stanford would still be able to continue to field championship level teams in most sports, then I believe the administrators would choose to go down that road.  Of course, that would require a substantial subsidy because without a football program at the premier level of the game, the finances would take a significant hit.

[M T]

Of course, that would require a substantial subsidy because without a football program at the premier level of the game, the finances would take a significant hit.

substantial subsidy {> | = | <} significant hit   ???

[M T]

Of course, that would require a substantial subsidy because without a football program at the premier level of the game, the finances would take a significant hit.

substantial subsidy {> | = | <} significant hit   ???

[SkiBum80]

Ivy League Opts Out

Perhaps kind of going a bit further off topic,
and not sure if this reported already elsewhere in another thread,
But if not, then FYI, the Ivy League is opting out of the NCAA settlement. They won't do revenue sharing.
So the ideal of amateur athletics lives on.
May they revel in their moral purity.
For my case, I'd rather live with some impurity and be the team that hired Andrew Luck.

https://www.espn.com.au/college-sports/s...settlement

[SkiBum80]

Ivy League Opts Out

Perhaps kind of going a bit further off topic,
and not sure if this reported already elsewhere in another thread,
But if not, then FYI, the Ivy League is opting out of the NCAA settlement. They won't do revenue sharing.
So the ideal of amateur athletics lives on.
May they revel in their moral purity.
For my case, I'd rather live with some impurity and be the team that hired Andrew Luck.

https://www.espn.com.au/college-sports/s...settlement

[82lsju]

Of course, that would require a substantial subsidy because without a football program at the premier level of the game, the finances would take a significant hit.

substantial subsidy {> | = | <} significant hit   ???

so looking at the 2023-24 AD annual report shows total expenses/revenue of $147m including the current subsidy of ~$49m (which includes more than varsity sports)

if football went away let's assume we lose the following revenues

95% of the broadcast revenue or ~$20m
100% of football ticket sales or ~$6m
75% of corp partnerships or ~$4m
75% of NCAA/conference rev or ~$2m
50% of expendable gifts or ~$10m

so around ~$42m in lost rev

I'm assuming that all the football scholarships and football coaches pay are covered by part of the endowment payout and not counting that part of the endowment payout as either football rev or expense.  I think the former is probably close to correct, the later is probably not as I don't think all the coaching positions are endowed.

for other expenses I SWAG that football is 25% of sports operating budgets (~$6m) and 25% of facilities and operations (~$6m), I'm assuming these don't change much, for the former it would go down some for either Div 2 or no football, for the later it might go down a little but the stadium would still need to be maintained unless they tear it down.

the 2023-24 reported University support was ~$49m, previous annual reports had line items that talked to things like PE and other programs for students, faculty, and staff that were paid to the AD by the University, those seemed to be ~$10m range so "varsity sports support" was maybe ~$39m

so if football was discontinued the AD would have to get funding of ~$80m/year (of which they got $39m (taking out ~$10m for PE etc.) in 2023-24) or about $40m more than last year

They might (or might not) have to give back some of the endowment that was given for things like the endowed football scholarships and coaching positions but that would likely not impact other sports much if at all

[82lsju]

Of course, that would require a substantial subsidy because without a football program at the premier level of the game, the finances would take a significant hit.

substantial subsidy {> | = | <} significant hit   ???

so looking at the 2023-24 AD annual report shows total expenses/revenue of $147m including the current subsidy of ~$49m (which includes more than varsity sports)

if football went away let's assume we lose the following revenues

95% of the broadcast revenue or ~$20m
100% of football ticket sales or ~$6m
75% of corp partnerships or ~$4m
75% of NCAA/conference rev or ~$2m
50% of expendable gifts or ~$10m

so around ~$42m in lost rev

I'm assuming that all the football scholarships and football coaches pay are covered by part of the endowment payout and not counting that part of the endowment payout as either football rev or expense.  I think the former is probably close to correct, the later is probably not as I don't think all the coaching positions are endowed.

for other expenses I SWAG that football is 25% of sports operating budgets (~$6m) and 25% of facilities and operations (~$6m), I'm assuming these don't change much, for the former it would go down some for either Div 2 or no football, for the later it might go down a little but the stadium would still need to be maintained unless they tear it down.

the 2023-24 reported University support was ~$49m, previous annual reports had line items that talked to things like PE and other programs for students, faculty, and staff that were paid to the AD by the University, those seemed to be ~$10m range so "varsity sports support" was maybe ~$39m

so if football was discontinued the AD would have to get funding of ~$80m/year (of which they got $39m (taking out ~$10m for PE etc.) in 2023-24) or about $40m more than last year

They might (or might not) have to give back some of the endowment that was given for things like the endowed football scholarships and coaching positions but that would likely not impact other sports much if at all

[ADPinWDC]

...
so if football was discontinued the AD would have to get funding of ~$80m/year (of which they got $39m
(taking out ~$10m for PE etc.) in 2023-24) or about $40m more than last year

They might (or might not) have to give back some of the endowment that was given for things like
the endowed football scholarships and coaching positions but that would likely not impact other sports much if at all
[/quote]

---

Stanford opened with Football in 1891-92.   Walter Camp.  Pop Warner, Ernie Nevers, Vow Boys in the 20s.
 Lotta greats over the years.  J.Brody, Plunkett, the Thunder-Chickens, Elway, Nelson, J.Lynch, Gerhart, Luck, CMC. 
The back-to-back Rose Bowl wins over BigTen SuperPowers 1971-72. 

It ain't just Dollars & Cents.  For me; it's part of the soul of the University -- there from the beginning.  
Seeking to compete; Daring to innovate.  Beating the Domers when they were on top; stuffing Lou Holtz THERE. 
And whacking the Blunt Skulls, like U$C in 2007(!), 2009, 2011, 2015 (2x).   
You don't get "Hey, what's your deal, Man?!" in physics -- though we could.   Plus the Nobel Prizes.  
I love the combo.  And slamming KALSucks in the 1990s and in the 2010s.  "Party in the Backfield".  
And the rudest band at Half time... (OK, not all the performances).   Without football, no halftime. 

Beyond the numbers are the Cultural Impact of Stanford rearing up and smacking the Powers that Be.  
"Intellectual Brutality", then.   I'm in.

[ADPinWDC]

...
so if football was discontinued the AD would have to get funding of ~$80m/year (of which they got $39m
(taking out ~$10m for PE etc.) in 2023-24) or about $40m more than last year

They might (or might not) have to give back some of the endowment that was given for things like
the endowed football scholarships and coaching positions but that would likely not impact other sports much if at all
[/quote]

---

Stanford opened with Football in 1891-92.   Walter Camp.  Pop Warner, Ernie Nevers, Vow Boys in the 20s.
 Lotta greats over the years.  J.Brody, Plunkett, the Thunder-Chickens, Elway, Nelson, J.Lynch, Gerhart, Luck, CMC. 
The back-to-back Rose Bowl wins over BigTen SuperPowers 1971-72. 

It ain't just Dollars & Cents.  For me; it's part of the soul of the University -- there from the beginning.  
Seeking to compete; Daring to innovate.  Beating the Domers when they were on top; stuffing Lou Holtz THERE. 
And whacking the Blunt Skulls, like U$C in 2007(!), 2009, 2011, 2015 (2x).   
You don't get "Hey, what's your deal, Man?!" in physics -- though we could.   Plus the Nobel Prizes.  
I love the combo.  And slamming KALSucks in the 1990s and in the 2010s.  "Party in the Backfield".  
And the rudest band at Half time... (OK, not all the performances).   Without football, no halftime. 

Beyond the numbers are the Cultural Impact of Stanford rearing up and smacking the Powers that Be.  
"Intellectual Brutality", then.   I'm in.