The sobering truth that faces Stanford

The sobering truth that faces Stanford - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The sobering truth that faces Stanford (/thread-23440.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - MV72018 - 09-12-2022

(09-11-2022, 10:22 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(09-11-2022, 10:02 AM)82lsju Wrote:
(09-11-2022, 09:33 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: People cling to the notion that Shaw makes $9 million a year.
That was a one time payment that included deferred compensation.
I don't think Stanford has disclosed what he actually does make, but I believe it is considerably less.
Anyone know?

in the most recent 990 filed by Stanford (for the year ending Aug 31, 2021 - note compensation is for the calendar year ending with or within the organization's tax year so the numbers below are for CY2020)

https://bondholder-information.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj21416/files/media/file/stanford_fy21_form_990.pdf

it shows Shaw had

- $5.2m base comp
- $0.6m bonus and incentives
- $0.6m other reportable comp
- $0.1m retirement and other deferred comp
- $0.05m non-taxable benefits

total $6.6m of which $0.4m was reported as deferred comp in previous years

the previous 990 (for the year ending Aug 31, 2020, so comp for CY2019)

https://bondholder-information.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj21416/files/media/file/stanford-form-990-fy20.pdf

had the total comp of $8.9m (which included $0.4m reported as deferred comp in previous years), the big deltas from the above

- $6.8m in base comp ($1.4m more than the most recent form 990)
- $1.4m in bonus and incentives ($0.8m more than the most recent form 990)

for the 990 for the period ending Aug 31, 2019, so comp for CY2018

https://bondholder-information.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj21416/files/media/file/stanford-form-990-fy19.pdf

the big differences are

- $3.3m base comp ($1.9m less than the most recent 990)

for total comp of $4.8m (which included $0.4m in deferred comp reported in previous years

Bernard Muir makes the most recent 990, his comp......$2.5m (base pay of $1.4m).....this is his first time showing up in the 990....

Thanks. I figured it was around $6 million or so.

$6 million a year! Quite the compensation given the low quality of the product put on the field in recent years, due to lackluster recruiting and coaching.

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - McKenwood - 09-12-2022

(09-12-2022, 09:32 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I am not able to read the Ostler article since it's behind a pay wall. But it probably covers similar ground to Ivan Maisel's article in the latest Stanford Magazine - https://stanfordmag.org/contents/throwing-out-the-rule-book

Stanford has a hard decision. The commitment to a broad athletic program that can compete for national championships across multiple sports requires the money that football has provided. Stanford can probably retain that commitment for the most part as a member of the B10. It almost certainly cannot do so as a member of a post-USC and UCLA P10, as an independent, or in FCS. So if the University decides to step back from Big Time Semi-Professional College Football (and all that comes with it, like NIL, transfers, Alston payments, maybe paying players as employees), many sports would be cut to match athletic costs with reduced revenues. Fewer of the ones that remain would be nationally competitive.

I'm not saying this with the intention of telegraphing the obvious answer. There is no obvious answer. The tradeoffs for either route are painful and will displease many loyal and passionate alumni and other stakeholders regardless of the decision that the University makes. But the one thing that seems obvious is that the status quo current environment is unsustainable.

I agree that the status quo is unsustainable. Football in particular has gotten away from any tenable student-athlete model. The sport brings in millions for a university that goes all in but ultimately there will be some employer-employee relationship based on revenue sharing. Then add in the unknowns about CTE and you have a really toxic brew. A move to the Big10 would result in a bottom tier football team and ridiculous travel schedules for every other team.

So I would suggest Stanford drop football or move down to UC Davis's league and refuse to compete semi-pro teams with college names on their jerseys. MBB might fall into this category but I like the fact that good players who aren't interested in a university education have solid alternaitves so maybe MBB can continue to have a more traditional approach .

For all the other teams, I would suggest Stanford reallocate a sufficient amount of its endowment to fund the teams at the highest level. This means scholarships, coaching salaries, training facilities, travel budgets and support would be top of any college teams, even those with SEC football TV money.

Stanford would retain a singular characteristic that differentiates it from other academically oriented universities namely a broadbased, highly successful athletic program. It would remove the necessity of football covering much of the cost of running such a program.

The decision isn't that hard but right now Stanford doesn't have the leadership either in the AD or at the executive level. The fact that Muir still has a job indicates real weakness in Stanford's governance. This will play out in a messy way over the next 3-5 years with Stanford being behind on every major change.

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - Spiny_Norman - 09-12-2022

(09-12-2022, 02:23 PM)McKenwood Wrote: So I would suggest Stanford drop football or move down to UC Davis's league and refuse to compete semi-pro teams with college names on their jerseys. MBB might fall into this category but I like the fact that good players who aren't interested in a university education have solid alternaitves so maybe MBB can continue to have a more traditional approach .

For all the other teams, I would suggest Stanford reallocate a sufficient amount of its endowment to fund the teams at the highest level. This means scholarships, coaching salaries, training facilities, travel budgets and support would be top of any college teams, even those with SEC football TV money.

Stanford would retain a singular characteristic that differentiates it from other academically oriented universities namely a broadbased, highly successful athletic program. It would remove the necessity of football covering much of the cost of running such a program.

The decision isn't that hard but right now Stanford doesn't have the leadership either in the AD or at the executive level. The fact that Muir still has a job indicates real weakness in Stanford's governance. This will play out in a messy way over the next 3-5 years with Stanford being behind on every major change.

The difference in football media revenue between say a Big Sky team like UC Davis and an SEC or B10 team is over $50M per year. And the gap is increasing. Even a P10 conference (assuming everyone stays) vs. SEC/B10 would be a $30M+ per year gap. Do you think that Stanford would subsidize athletics to that extent?? It may not choose to subsidize athletics at all (at least no more than it current does).

Stanford Athletics needs a champion. But I don't see any fans of athletics among the Provost, President or Board of Trustees.Take a look at the current Trustees list. Does anyone recognize anyone with ties to Athletics, either a former athlete, someone who has endowed a scholarship for Athletics, someone who has had a lead role in the Buck Cardinal Club, etc.?
https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/board-members/

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - McKenwood - 09-12-2022

(09-12-2022, 02:53 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:
(09-12-2022, 02:23 PM)McKenwood Wrote: So I would suggest Stanford drop football or move down to UC Davis's league and refuse to compete semi-pro teams with college names on their jerseys. MBB might fall into this category but I like the fact that good players who aren't interested in a university education have solid alternaitves so maybe MBB can continue to have a more traditional approach .

For all the other teams, I would suggest Stanford reallocate a sufficient amount of its endowment to fund the teams at the highest level. This means scholarships, coaching salaries, training facilities, travel budgets and support would be top of any college teams, even those with SEC football TV money.

Stanford would retain a singular characteristic that differentiates it from other academically oriented universities namely a broadbased, highly successful athletic program. It would remove the necessity of football covering much of the cost of running such a program.

The decision isn't that hard but right now Stanford doesn't have the leadership either in the AD or at the executive level. The fact that Muir still has a job indicates real weakness in Stanford's governance. This will play out in a messy way over the next 3-5 years with Stanford being behind on every major change.

The difference in football media revenue between say a Big Sky team like UC Davis and an SEC or B10 team is over $50M per year. And the gap is increasing. Even a P10 conference (assuming everyone stays) vs. SEC/B10 would be a $30M+ per year gap. Do you think that Stanford would subsidize athletics to that extent?? It may not choose to subsidize athletics at all (at least no more than it current does).

Stanford Athletics needs a champion. But I don't see any fans of athletics among the Provost, President or Board of Trustees.Take a look at the current Trustees list. Does anyone recognize anyone with ties to Athletics, either a former athlete, someone who has endowed a scholarship for Athletics, someone who has had a lead role in the Buck Cardinal Club, etc.?
https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/board-members/

To answer your last question there a several champions of athletics and student life at Stanford on the BofT. Several of them are classmates of mine. I have stopped sending letters to the President and Provost and instead send notes to BofT members. There is a conversation going at the level. Not sure how it will turn out but it is happening. I also get the sense that there is unhappiness with the current executive team At Stanford. Not sure what that means either.

As for money spent on athletics don't forget that schools like Harvard offer even more sports than Stanford. So there is already a big number that would be spent even at lower level and without any football money.

As I suggested Stanford needs to go big for non-football sports. It will be expensive but worth it. Also don't forget the number of pissed off donors that will be unhappy with Stanford becoming the University of Chicago. They might even have a case to get their scholarship endowments back.

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - Austroturf - 09-12-2022

(09-12-2022, 08:48 AM)gailtate Wrote:
(09-12-2022, 05:33 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Yes, this article excellently outlines the true challenges facing Stanford going forward. Over the past few years, we have attributed Stanford's waning fortunes to:

1) a decline in the coaching staff (particularly the coordinators);
2) inadequate recruiting;
3) the drop-off in strength & conditioning;
4) the lapsing of Harbaugh's vaunted "EUTM" culture;
5) Shaw's stubbornness and inability to change;
6) the complicated playbook;
7) etc.

Successfully addressing these issues would be mere band-aids if Stanford cannot find a way to navigate college football's new world order. Not even Shaw's salary matters. Pay him 2 million, pay a new coach 20 million. It won't matter.

To me, Tara VanDerveer personifies the best of Stanford athletics, as well as Stanford itself, in every essence. Her thoughtful, measured view of the the New Landscape is alarming to say the least. Thus I am equally alarmed and dismayed by the prospects, given the reality of the university. May it navigate this bewildering maze (her well-chosen word, not mine) and prevail. Only time can tell.

Agree. And this is because most female college basketball players are true student athletes, so the old laws still apply (coach well, recruit well, instill a winning culture, etc.). Whenever the $$$ rule the day (as in football), the old laws are being rewritten by greed.

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - Spiny_Norman - 09-12-2022

(09-12-2022, 03:04 PM)McKenwood Wrote: To answer your last question there a several champions of athletics and student life at Stanford on the BofT. Several of them are classmates of mine. I have stopped sending letters to the President and Provost and instead send notes to BofT members. There is a conversation going at the level. Not sure how it will turn out but it is happening. I also get the sense that there is unhappiness with the current executive team At Stanford. Not sure what that means either.

Good to hear, McKenwood. The future of athletics at Stanford really is in the hands of the BoT.

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - gailtate - 09-12-2022

(09-12-2022, 02:19 PM)Mick Wrote:
(09-11-2022, 07:48 AM)gailtate Wrote: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/ostler/article/USC-gives-Stanford-a-harsh-up-close-look-at-17433437.php

It definitely narrows the list of football haves. But that's been happening for a century. Schools have been dropping out of the football arms race for a very long time as the bar to entry gets raised. Maybe it's time to call it a day. I, for one, will never watch any SEC v. B1G game. No interest whatsoever.

Be interesting to see what happens to the college football landscape when the first successful CLE head trauma cases are waged against the universities...

So if Stanford's in the B1G you'll no longer watch or root for them? Hmm.

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - chrisk - 09-12-2022

Not sure why so many people think that the Pac-10 in its 2024 form is not sustainable for the next cycle.

Why can't rich Stanford survive with $30M less than the B1G and SEC?

(09-11-2022, 06:41 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(09-11-2022, 06:04 PM)TonyLima Wrote: Eric: many thanks. I usually stick to SEC EDGAR data. Your 990 data is from Stanford. Do you know of any 990 database equivalent to EDGAR? Always fun to run into another financial statistics geek.

I gotta add that $6 mil ain’t peanuts. Question is whether it’s more or less than his MRP.

Thanks,
Tony

I don't know of any free form 990 data sites that are very good, and many filers are not all that keen on posting them on-line.

The IRS has a search tool, but I have not found it very useful in actually producing the 990 for the org I am looking for

charity navigator and guidestar sometimes have links to at least partial 990s

This sublink to Guidestar/Candid gets you access to many university 990s, but they tend to be one year behind, but with several years of history.

https://candid.org/research-and-verify-nonprofits/990-finder

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - dabigv13 - 09-12-2022

Stanford has been getting like 20m/year less than the Big 10 already and our other sports teams seem to be doing fine. Also, with football and MBB at most schools in the megaconferences likely to take even bigger slices of the pie going forward than they already do, not even factoring in potential revenue sharing with players, I have a hard time seeing the Stanford AD as a whole being in trouble.

Big 10 may have merit as a destination for Stanford. But it won't be to the benefit of the non football sports.

RE: The sobering truth that faces Stanford - cardcrimson - 09-13-2022

(09-12-2022, 10:05 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford has been getting like 20m/year less than the Big 10 already and our other sports teams seem to be doing fine. Also, with football and MBB at most schools in the megaconferences likely to take even bigger slices of the pie going forward than they already do, not even factoring in potential revenue sharing with players, I have a hard time seeing the Stanford AD as a whole being in trouble.

Big 10 may have merit as a destination for Stanford. But it won't be to the benefit of the non football sports.

Don't forget that Muir tried to cancel a bunch of sports programs because of alleged budget constraints.