[PalmTree]

I know very few on this board are likely to agree with me, but in my opinion, we need to 'Aim Really High Profile' for our next AD

(1) Offer a Top Dollar contract that could entice/lure the 'Best ADs' in the profession like a 7yr $70 Million Dollar Contract !

Then Among the most important characteristics/qualifications for the next AD (in my opinion) are:

(1) Been the AD of a Power4 University whose Football Program has been a perennial Top25 program or Was a Legendary  College Football player or College Football Coach at a Power4 University  who 'lived, ate,  & breathed Football his whole Life !

or

(2) At some point Played or Coached or AD'd in the #1 Football Conference = SEC

So, look to lure any of these following Current ADs:


--Alabama AD = Greg Byrne
--Ole Miss AD = Keith Carter
--Georgia AD = John Brooks

or

Maybe consider these following people who have not been in the 'AD world' but are  'College Football icons' =

--Peyton Manning
--Steve Spurrier
--Steve Young

And then they (these 6 AD candidates)  or the University can hire a regular 'AD Type person to be their assistant to tackle all the tedious procedural beaurocratic 'day to day' AD stuff' while these 6 AD candidates ensure 'Every stone is turned over to (A) 'Get a Top 10 DollarWise NIL collective' for Football & Mens Basketball & (B) March down to the Admissions office to force them to have the same Freshman-admissions & Transfer-Admissions as NotreDame & Duke for Football & Mens Basketball) These 6men will  'definitely depart from the staid old Stanford-Way' & will Ensure the best chance of  Top25 Football & Top25 Mens Basketball !

Byrne's annual salary is $2M, Carter's is $1.1M and Brooks' is $1.3M. Oh, and the university is sweating a potential loss of $160+M in research funding. Kinda guessing the BoT would <probably> take a pass on a $70M salary package

[PalmTree]

I know very few on this board are likely to agree with me, but in my opinion, we need to 'Aim Really High Profile' for our next AD

(1) Offer a Top Dollar contract that could entice/lure the 'Best ADs' in the profession like a 7yr $70 Million Dollar Contract !

Then Among the most important characteristics/qualifications for the next AD (in my opinion) are:

(1) Been the AD of a Power4 University whose Football Program has been a perennial Top25 program or Was a Legendary  College Football player or College Football Coach at a Power4 University  who 'lived, ate,  & breathed Football his whole Life !

or

(2) At some point Played or Coached or AD'd in the #1 Football Conference = SEC

So, look to lure any of these following Current ADs:


--Alabama AD = Greg Byrne
--Ole Miss AD = Keith Carter
--Georgia AD = John Brooks

or

Maybe consider these following people who have not been in the 'AD world' but are  'College Football icons' =

--Peyton Manning
--Steve Spurrier
--Steve Young

And then they (these 6 AD candidates)  or the University can hire a regular 'AD Type person to be their assistant to tackle all the tedious procedural beaurocratic 'day to day' AD stuff' while these 6 AD candidates ensure 'Every stone is turned over to (A) 'Get a Top 10 DollarWise NIL collective' for Football & Mens Basketball & (B) March down to the Admissions office to force them to have the same Freshman-admissions & Transfer-Admissions as NotreDame & Duke for Football & Mens Basketball) These 6men will  'definitely depart from the staid old Stanford-Way' & will Ensure the best chance of  Top25 Football & Top25 Mens Basketball !

Byrne's annual salary is $2M, Carter's is $1.1M and Brooks' is $1.3M. Oh, and the university is sweating a potential loss of $160+M in research funding. Kinda guessing the BoT would <probably> take a pass on a $70M salary package

[chrisk]

I know very few on this board are likely to agree with me, but in my opinion, we need to 'Aim Really High Profile' for our next AD

(1) Offer a Top Dollar contract that could entice/lure the 'Best ADs' in the profession like a 7yr $70 Million Dollar Contract !

Then Among the most important characteristics/qualifications for the next AD (in my opinion) are:

(1) Been the AD of a Power4 University whose Football Program has been a perennial Top25 program or Was a Legendary  College Football player or College Football Coach at a Power4 University  who 'lived, ate,  & breathed Football his whole Life !

or

(2) At some point Played or Coached or AD'd in the #1 Football Conference = SEC

So, look to lure any of these following Current ADs:


--Alabama AD = Greg Byrne
--Ole Miss AD = Keith Carter
--Georgia AD = John Brooks

or

Maybe consider these following people who have not been in the 'AD world' but are  'College Football icons' =

--Peyton Manning
--Steve Spurrier
--Steve Young

And then they (these 6 AD candidates)  or the University can hire a regular 'AD Type person to be their assistant to tackle all the tedious procedural beaurocratic 'day to day' AD stuff' while these 6 AD candidates ensure 'Every stone is turned over to (A) 'Get a Top 10 DollarWise NIL collective' for Football & Mens Basketball & (B) March down to the Admissions office to force them to have the same Freshman-admissions & Transfer-Admissions as NotreDame & Duke for Football & Mens Basketball) These 6men will  'definitely depart from the staid old Stanford-Way' & will Ensure the best chance of  Top25 Football & Top25 Mens Basketball !

Byrne's annual salary is $2M, Carter's is $1.1M and Brooks' is $1.3M. Oh, and the university is sweating a potential loss of $160+M in research funding. Kinda guessing the BoT would <probably> take a pass on a $70M salary package

It’s not just the $160M in indirect costs but the spigot for new NIH grants is turned off now. Stanford would also be affected by potential cuts in financial aid and new taxes on endowments.

[chrisk]

I know very few on this board are likely to agree with me, but in my opinion, we need to 'Aim Really High Profile' for our next AD

(1) Offer a Top Dollar contract that could entice/lure the 'Best ADs' in the profession like a 7yr $70 Million Dollar Contract !

Then Among the most important characteristics/qualifications for the next AD (in my opinion) are:

(1) Been the AD of a Power4 University whose Football Program has been a perennial Top25 program or Was a Legendary  College Football player or College Football Coach at a Power4 University  who 'lived, ate,  & breathed Football his whole Life !

or

(2) At some point Played or Coached or AD'd in the #1 Football Conference = SEC

So, look to lure any of these following Current ADs:


--Alabama AD = Greg Byrne
--Ole Miss AD = Keith Carter
--Georgia AD = John Brooks

or

Maybe consider these following people who have not been in the 'AD world' but are  'College Football icons' =

--Peyton Manning
--Steve Spurrier
--Steve Young

And then they (these 6 AD candidates)  or the University can hire a regular 'AD Type person to be their assistant to tackle all the tedious procedural beaurocratic 'day to day' AD stuff' while these 6 AD candidates ensure 'Every stone is turned over to (A) 'Get a Top 10 DollarWise NIL collective' for Football & Mens Basketball & (B) March down to the Admissions office to force them to have the same Freshman-admissions & Transfer-Admissions as NotreDame & Duke for Football & Mens Basketball) These 6men will  'definitely depart from the staid old Stanford-Way' & will Ensure the best chance of  Top25 Football & Top25 Mens Basketball !

Byrne's annual salary is $2M, Carter's is $1.1M and Brooks' is $1.3M. Oh, and the university is sweating a potential loss of $160+M in research funding. Kinda guessing the BoT would <probably> take a pass on a $70M salary package

It’s not just the $160M in indirect costs but the spigot for new NIH grants is turned off now. Stanford would also be affected by potential cuts in financial aid and new taxes on endowments.

[gailtate]

Best line so far: He couldn't think of five things he did last week so he quit.

Someone is stealing my material I posted on the Rivals site. . . .

"Someone is stealing my material..."
--Woody Allen

[gailtate]

Best line so far: He couldn't think of five things he did last week so he quit.

Someone is stealing my material I posted on the Rivals site. . . .

"Someone is stealing my material..."
--Woody Allen

[cardcrimson]

Best line so far: He couldn't think of five things he did last week so he quit.

Someone is stealing my material I posted on the Rivals site. . . .

"Someone is stealing my material..."
--Woody Allen

Nice. . . .

---

I know very few on this board are likely to agree with me, but in my opinion, we need to 'Aim Really High Profile' for our next AD

(1) Offer a Top Dollar contract that could entice/lure the 'Best ADs' in the profession like a 7yr $70 Million Dollar Contract !

Then Among the most important characteristics/qualifications for the next AD (in my opinion) are:

(1) Been the AD of a Power4 University whose Football Program has been a perennial Top25 program or Was a Legendary  College Football player or College Football Coach at a Power4 University  who 'lived, ate,  & breathed Football his whole Life !

or

(2) At some point Played or Coached or AD'd in the #1 Football Conference = SEC

So, look to lure any of these following Current ADs:


--Alabama AD = Greg Byrne
--Ole Miss AD = Keith Carter
--Georgia AD = John Brooks

or

Maybe consider these following people who have not been in the 'AD world' but are  'College Football icons' =

--Peyton Manning
--Steve Spurrier
--Steve Young

And then they (these 6 AD candidates)  or the University can hire a regular 'AD Type person to be their assistant to tackle all the tedious procedural beaurocratic 'day to day' AD stuff' while these 6 AD candidates ensure 'Every stone is turned over to (A) 'Get a Top 10 DollarWise NIL collective' for Football & Mens Basketball & (B) March down to the Admissions office to force them to have the same Freshman-admissions & Transfer-Admissions as NotreDame & Duke for Football & Mens Basketball) These 6men will  'definitely depart from the staid old Stanford-Way' & will Ensure the best chance of  Top25 Football & Top25 Mens Basketball !

Byrne's annual salary is $2M, Carter's is $1.1M and Brooks' is $1.3M. Oh, and the university is sweating a potential loss of $160+M in research funding. Kinda guessing the BoT would <probably> take a pass on a $70M salary package

Pry Byrne away from Alabama for a reclamation project? That's hilarious. The football team is still at the top of college football and the Hoops team appears to be headed for a One Seed. Not likely. And the cost of living is a lot lower and there's no traffic and some great golf in Alabama. He does have some friends in the Bay Area (Tolbert for one), but not likely an incentive enough to move here.

[cardcrimson]

Best line so far: He couldn't think of five things he did last week so he quit.

Someone is stealing my material I posted on the Rivals site. . . .

"Someone is stealing my material..."
--Woody Allen

Nice. . . .

---

I know very few on this board are likely to agree with me, but in my opinion, we need to 'Aim Really High Profile' for our next AD

(1) Offer a Top Dollar contract that could entice/lure the 'Best ADs' in the profession like a 7yr $70 Million Dollar Contract !

Then Among the most important characteristics/qualifications for the next AD (in my opinion) are:

(1) Been the AD of a Power4 University whose Football Program has been a perennial Top25 program or Was a Legendary  College Football player or College Football Coach at a Power4 University  who 'lived, ate,  & breathed Football his whole Life !

or

(2) At some point Played or Coached or AD'd in the #1 Football Conference = SEC

So, look to lure any of these following Current ADs:


--Alabama AD = Greg Byrne
--Ole Miss AD = Keith Carter
--Georgia AD = John Brooks

or

Maybe consider these following people who have not been in the 'AD world' but are  'College Football icons' =

--Peyton Manning
--Steve Spurrier
--Steve Young

And then they (these 6 AD candidates)  or the University can hire a regular 'AD Type person to be their assistant to tackle all the tedious procedural beaurocratic 'day to day' AD stuff' while these 6 AD candidates ensure 'Every stone is turned over to (A) 'Get a Top 10 DollarWise NIL collective' for Football & Mens Basketball & (B) March down to the Admissions office to force them to have the same Freshman-admissions & Transfer-Admissions as NotreDame & Duke for Football & Mens Basketball) These 6men will  'definitely depart from the staid old Stanford-Way' & will Ensure the best chance of  Top25 Football & Top25 Mens Basketball !

Byrne's annual salary is $2M, Carter's is $1.1M and Brooks' is $1.3M. Oh, and the university is sweating a potential loss of $160+M in research funding. Kinda guessing the BoT would <probably> take a pass on a $70M salary package

Pry Byrne away from Alabama for a reclamation project? That's hilarious. The football team is still at the top of college football and the Hoops team appears to be headed for a One Seed. Not likely. And the cost of living is a lot lower and there's no traffic and some great golf in Alabama. He does have some friends in the Bay Area (Tolbert for one), but not likely an incentive enough to move here.

[needle]

 
Muir, who served as Stanford AD for nearly 13 years, didn’t offer a specific reason for his resignation.

“I just knew the timing was right for me, after we got through all the portal stuff,” he said. “Just looking at the entire enterprise, it seemed right with 36 sports. I thought this could be the time to pivot and try something else.”

Muir speaks, and, if my reading comprehension is OK, he's still complaining about there being too many sports at Stanford! I really hate this guy.

More comments from him about the proposed cuts:

 “We have to remember this is a community decision, not just the AD waking up one morning and deciding,” Muir said of those proposed cuts. “And the pressure on college sports is so great. We have only one program that cash flows, so to speak, so we were under great pressure, especially coming out of the pandemic.

“We’re trying to do this with 36 sports to keep our Olympic village strong, and it’s going to require great support. Now, more than ever, whoever is sitting in the chair is going to have to rely on the greater community.”  

Also, he claims to be assessing what his next professional move will be:

 Muir, 56, wasn’t sure about his next step, but he sounded ready to take a break.

“I’ve been on the collegiate treadmill for quite some time, and I worked up quite a sweat,” he said. “I need to take a pause and assess what’s out there.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...188493.php

[needle]

 
Muir, who served as Stanford AD for nearly 13 years, didn’t offer a specific reason for his resignation.

“I just knew the timing was right for me, after we got through all the portal stuff,” he said. “Just looking at the entire enterprise, it seemed right with 36 sports. I thought this could be the time to pivot and try something else.”

Muir speaks, and, if my reading comprehension is OK, he's still complaining about there being too many sports at Stanford! I really hate this guy.

More comments from him about the proposed cuts:

 “We have to remember this is a community decision, not just the AD waking up one morning and deciding,” Muir said of those proposed cuts. “And the pressure on college sports is so great. We have only one program that cash flows, so to speak, so we were under great pressure, especially coming out of the pandemic.

“We’re trying to do this with 36 sports to keep our Olympic village strong, and it’s going to require great support. Now, more than ever, whoever is sitting in the chair is going to have to rely on the greater community.”  

Also, he claims to be assessing what his next professional move will be:

 Muir, 56, wasn’t sure about his next step, but he sounded ready to take a break.

“I’ve been on the collegiate treadmill for quite some time, and I worked up quite a sweat,” he said. “I need to take a pause and assess what’s out there.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...188493.php

[Spiny_Norman]

Jon Wilner in the Mercury News said that Stanford should look at candidates with Stanford connections (either alumni or prior AD employees). But I agree with StanUSwagU that Stanford should not limit the search only to candidates who fit that specific criteria. 

Stanford hit a home run when they hired Bob Bowlsby from Iowa. He had no prior Stanford affiliation. But he clearly understood both the importance of football AND the academic mission of the University. I hope that the search will look for, identify and speak with candidates from outside the Stanford bubble.

[Spiny_Norman]

Jon Wilner in the Mercury News said that Stanford should look at candidates with Stanford connections (either alumni or prior AD employees). But I agree with StanUSwagU that Stanford should not limit the search only to candidates who fit that specific criteria. 

Stanford hit a home run when they hired Bob Bowlsby from Iowa. He had no prior Stanford affiliation. But he clearly understood both the importance of football AND the academic mission of the University. I hope that the search will look for, identify and speak with candidates from outside the Stanford bubble.

[Mick]

Best line so far: He couldn't think of five things he did last week so he quit.

Someone is stealing my material I posted on the Rivals site. . . .

"Someone is stealing my material..."
--Woody Allen

Nice. . . .

Stole my line

[Mick]

Best line so far: He couldn't think of five things he did last week so he quit.

Someone is stealing my material I posted on the Rivals site. . . .

"Someone is stealing my material..."
--Woody Allen

Nice. . . .

Stole my line

[BostonCard]

Jon Wilner in the Mercury News said that Stanford should look at candidates with Stanford connections (either alumni or prior AD employees). But I agree with StanUSwagU that Stanford should not limit the search only to candidates who fit that specific criteria. 

Stanford hit a home run when they hired Bob Bowlsby from Iowa. He had no prior Stanford affiliation. But he clearly understood both the importance of football AND the academic mission of the University. I hope that the search will look for, identify and speak with candidates from outside the Stanford bubble.

Muir also had no previous ties to Stanford.  Sometimes a hire is a home run, sometimes it’s not.  As I posted earlier, prior experience with Stanford is a plus but we shouldn’t sacrifice other important skills just to pull someone who has a Stanford connection.

BC

[BostonCard]

Jon Wilner in the Mercury News said that Stanford should look at candidates with Stanford connections (either alumni or prior AD employees). But I agree with StanUSwagU that Stanford should not limit the search only to candidates who fit that specific criteria. 

Stanford hit a home run when they hired Bob Bowlsby from Iowa. He had no prior Stanford affiliation. But he clearly understood both the importance of football AND the academic mission of the University. I hope that the search will look for, identify and speak with candidates from outside the Stanford bubble.

Muir also had no previous ties to Stanford.  Sometimes a hire is a home run, sometimes it’s not.  As I posted earlier, prior experience with Stanford is a plus but we shouldn’t sacrifice other important skills just to pull someone who has a Stanford connection.

BC

[fullmetal]

As I've mentioned in other threads before, I think we've been going through an era where Stanford has had a lot of "non-Stanford" leaders and decision-makers who see Stanford as a brand and entity to be protected and preserved.  I submit that such an attitude does not serve the students and fails to advance Stanford in meaninguful ways that do entail risk.  President Levin may be a first step in the other direction: someone who understands that Stanford is the people: the students, the professors, and the alumni.  Stanford should exist to serve its people so that the people can do great and admirable things out in the world that improve all of society.

Maybe we shouldn't overvalue a Stanford connection in the next hire, but I wouldn't mind someone who knows that Stanford Athletics is more than just a P&L sheet or budget to be balanced on the backs of cutting sports. The budget, conference revenue, and fundraising are existentially important, but they are important because they support the student-athletes.

[fullmetal]

As I've mentioned in other threads before, I think we've been going through an era where Stanford has had a lot of "non-Stanford" leaders and decision-makers who see Stanford as a brand and entity to be protected and preserved.  I submit that such an attitude does not serve the students and fails to advance Stanford in meaninguful ways that do entail risk.  President Levin may be a first step in the other direction: someone who understands that Stanford is the people: the students, the professors, and the alumni.  Stanford should exist to serve its people so that the people can do great and admirable things out in the world that improve all of society.

Maybe we shouldn't overvalue a Stanford connection in the next hire, but I wouldn't mind someone who knows that Stanford Athletics is more than just a P&L sheet or budget to be balanced on the backs of cutting sports. The budget, conference revenue, and fundraising are existentially important, but they are important because they support the student-athletes.

[Red80]

Jon Wilner in the Mercury News said that Stanford should look at candidates with Stanford connections (either alumni or prior AD employees). But I agree with StanUSwagU that Stanford should not limit the search only to candidates who fit that specific criteria. 

Stanford hit a home run when they hired Bob Bowlsby from Iowa. He had no prior Stanford affiliation. But he clearly understood both the importance of football AND the academic mission of the University. I hope that the search will look for, identify and speak with candidates from outside the Stanford bubble.

BC

My first call would be to John Lynch.

[Red80]

Jon Wilner in the Mercury News said that Stanford should look at candidates with Stanford connections (either alumni or prior AD employees). But I agree with StanUSwagU that Stanford should not limit the search only to candidates who fit that specific criteria. 

Stanford hit a home run when they hired Bob Bowlsby from Iowa. He had no prior Stanford affiliation. But he clearly understood both the importance of football AND the academic mission of the University. I hope that the search will look for, identify and speak with candidates from outside the Stanford bubble.

BC

My first call would be to John Lynch.

[Spiny_Norman]

Maybe we shouldn't overvalue a Stanford connection in the next hire, but I wouldn't mind someone who knows that Stanford Athletics is more than just a P&L sheet or budget to be balanced on the backs of cutting sports. The budget, conference revenue, and fundraising are existentially important, but they are important because they support the student-athletes.

To be fair, Muir was pressured by his boss Persis Drell to cut costs. I don't think he initiated that action. My critique of Muir is how he handled that situation. He did not consult with or advance notify the coaches and players of the affected sports. He dumped the news on them and other stakeholders via an email and a web page, both of which said "we will not be taking any questions." That's just bad management.

I think that Bernard Muir was (and is) a good administrator which is an important part of the job. But he was not successful as a leader when leadership was required.

Whomever is hired WILL have to deal with a messy financial situation. The University subsidy for Athletics does take a bit of pressure off to act immediately. But I think that some drastic action (either on the cost or revenue side) is going to be required.

[Spiny_Norman]

Maybe we shouldn't overvalue a Stanford connection in the next hire, but I wouldn't mind someone who knows that Stanford Athletics is more than just a P&L sheet or budget to be balanced on the backs of cutting sports. The budget, conference revenue, and fundraising are existentially important, but they are important because they support the student-athletes.

To be fair, Muir was pressured by his boss Persis Drell to cut costs. I don't think he initiated that action. My critique of Muir is how he handled that situation. He did not consult with or advance notify the coaches and players of the affected sports. He dumped the news on them and other stakeholders via an email and a web page, both of which said "we will not be taking any questions." That's just bad management.

I think that Bernard Muir was (and is) a good administrator which is an important part of the job. But he was not successful as a leader when leadership was required.

Whomever is hired WILL have to deal with a messy financial situation. The University subsidy for Athletics does take a bit of pressure off to act immediately. But I think that some drastic action (either on the cost or revenue side) is going to be required.

[82lsju]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

[82lsju]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

[fullmetal]

Maybe, but as posted earlier, it's clear that cutting sports had always been on Muir's mind, at least since the O'Bannon case.

Muir has always had a cut-sports-first approach to budget issues.
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19/ber...-fatalist/

[fullmetal]

Maybe, but as posted earlier, it's clear that cutting sports had always been on Muir's mind, at least since the O'Bannon case.

Muir has always had a cut-sports-first approach to budget issues.
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19/ber...-fatalist/

[chrisk]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment). The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

[chrisk]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment). The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

[StanUSwagU]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment). The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost miniscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers; I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). If this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4). Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

[StanUSwagU]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment). The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost miniscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers; I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). If this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4). Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

[chrisk]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment). The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost minuscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers; I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4). Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Stanford's financial projections have become much more uncertain this year. I suspect they will proceed cautiously until there is more certainty and there is no guarantee that the certainty will be close to what has been budgeted. (see dropping the NDNU purchase option).

[chrisk]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment). The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost minuscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers; I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4). Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Stanford's financial projections have become much more uncertain this year. I suspect they will proceed cautiously until there is more certainty and there is no guarantee that the certainty will be close to what has been budgeted. (see dropping the NDNU purchase option).

[PalmTree]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment).  The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost minuscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers;  I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4).  Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Stanford's financial projections have become much more uncertain this year.  I suspect they will proceed cautiously until there is more certainty and there is no guarantee that the certainty will be close to what has been budgeted.  (see dropping the NDNU purchase option).

Also see the hiring freeze for staff positions just announced today:

"We have more work to do on our next budget, and we will learn more in the coming months about the outcomes of the various federal policy proposals. Given the uncertainty, we need to take prudent steps to limit spending and ensure that we have flexibility and resilience.

To better prepare us to meet these challenges, we are implementing a freeze on staff hiring in the university. Critically needed positions may be approved by the cognizant dean, vice president, or vice provost, though these situations should be limited. Similarly, hiring may continue for positions that are fully funded through externally-sponsored research awards; please confirm these hires with the cognizant dean’s office. The freeze does not apply to faculty positions, contingent employees (temporary and casual), or student workers."

This has happened just a handful of times in the past 40 or so years, so pretty major.  Bottom line, guessing PPO and BoT are highly unlikely to sink major $ into an idea with unproven/unsubstantiated positive ROI - think along a the lines of paraphrased version of CJ's quote (thanks, Spiny), "We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything <unwise>."

[PalmTree]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment).  The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost minuscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers;  I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4).  Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Stanford's financial projections have become much more uncertain this year.  I suspect they will proceed cautiously until there is more certainty and there is no guarantee that the certainty will be close to what has been budgeted.  (see dropping the NDNU purchase option).

Also see the hiring freeze for staff positions just announced today:

"We have more work to do on our next budget, and we will learn more in the coming months about the outcomes of the various federal policy proposals. Given the uncertainty, we need to take prudent steps to limit spending and ensure that we have flexibility and resilience.

To better prepare us to meet these challenges, we are implementing a freeze on staff hiring in the university. Critically needed positions may be approved by the cognizant dean, vice president, or vice provost, though these situations should be limited. Similarly, hiring may continue for positions that are fully funded through externally-sponsored research awards; please confirm these hires with the cognizant dean’s office. The freeze does not apply to faculty positions, contingent employees (temporary and casual), or student workers."

This has happened just a handful of times in the past 40 or so years, so pretty major.  Bottom line, guessing PPO and BoT are highly unlikely to sink major $ into an idea with unproven/unsubstantiated positive ROI - think along a the lines of paraphrased version of CJ's quote (thanks, Spiny), "We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything <unwise>."

[fullmetal]

(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4).  Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Spending from various parts of the endowments are legally restricted to whatever uses the donors have specified.  The sum of Stanford's endowments is probably largely comprised of restricted use endowments, not general fund or operating expense endowments, though those do exist.  You may not rob Peter to pay Paul and still be legal.

[fullmetal]

(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4).  Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Spending from various parts of the endowments are legally restricted to whatever uses the donors have specified.  The sum of Stanford's endowments is probably largely comprised of restricted use endowments, not general fund or operating expense endowments, though those do exist.  You may not rob Peter to pay Paul and still be legal.

[PalmTree]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment).  The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost minuscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers;  I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4).  Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Stanford's financial projections have become much more uncertain this year.  I suspect they will proceed cautiously until there is more certainty and there is no guarantee that the certainty will be close to what has been budgeted.  (see dropping the NDNU purchase option).

BTW - just checked the 2024-25 Budget Plan (developed last spring) and estimated capital cost for bringing the NDNU campus on line was $143M (pg 65) - not sure what that estimate and planning assumptions included, the project timeline, or what current estimates leading to today's announcements are

[PalmTree]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment).  The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost minuscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers;  I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4).  Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Stanford's financial projections have become much more uncertain this year.  I suspect they will proceed cautiously until there is more certainty and there is no guarantee that the certainty will be close to what has been budgeted.  (see dropping the NDNU purchase option).

BTW - just checked the 2024-25 Budget Plan (developed last spring) and estimated capital cost for bringing the NDNU campus on line was $143M (pg 65) - not sure what that estimate and planning assumptions included, the project timeline, or what current estimates leading to today's announcements are

[paloalto]

(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

Wouldn't it be better for Stanford Athletics to get specific funding from donors?  There are probably a hundred different activities, departments, and projects at Stanford that would like more funding. Why not more financial aid for students? Why not more funding for buildings and dorms? Why not more funding to increase professor salaries?

[paloalto]

(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

Wouldn't it be better for Stanford Athletics to get specific funding from donors?  There are probably a hundred different activities, departments, and projects at Stanford that would like more funding. Why not more financial aid for students? Why not more funding for buildings and dorms? Why not more funding to increase professor salaries?