WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - 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: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 (/thread-26130.html)
+- 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: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 (/thread-26130.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - crackpot - 03-24-2026
(03-24-2026, 05:02 PM)jonnyss Wrote: i'm a bit worried that stanford was easy to access from australia, musch less so from europe.
Enh...couple of hours difference.
But I did some sleuthing--the internet archive of the roster page lists March 9 and Dec 23. Dec 23 lists her hometown as Adelaide, and sometime between there and March 9 it changed to Mor, Hungary.
I can't imagine why anyone would move to Hungary these days UNLESS it was for very personal reasons (e.g., a grandparent needing care).
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - RuralFan - 03-24-2026
I truly can't believe this thread. If someone has offered Somfai a million dollars, and Stanford wants to compete in ACC WBB, Stanford needs to offer her $1.1 million or more. If Stanford is unwilling to admit transfer portal players that don't meet Stanford's academic standards, they have no other choice than to defend their freshman at any cost, and it still may not make Stanford competitive. I think we know from the last few years that trying to compete in the new world without major use of the transfer portal or major dollar investments just doesn't work.
It all depends what the University wants. Eventually Stanford will figure it out.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - Papa John - 03-24-2026
(03-24-2026, 06:43 PM)crackpot Wrote: <snip>
But I did some sleuthing--the internet archive of the roster page lists March 9 and Dec 23. Dec 23 lists her hometown as Adelaide, and sometime between there and March 9 it changed to Mor, Hungary.
I can't imagine why anyone would move to Hungary these days UNLESS it was for very personal reasons (e.g., a grandparent needing care).
Maybe to play water polo? Stanford men's water polo currently has a player from Hungary.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - BostonCard - 03-24-2026
(03-24-2026, 06:47 PM)RuralFan Wrote: I truly can't believe this thread. If someone has offered Somfai a million dollars, and Stanford wants to compete in ACC WBB, Stanford needs to offer her $1.1 million or more. If Stanford is unwilling to admit transfer portal players that don't meet Stanford's academic standards, they have no other choice than to defend their freshman at any cost, and it still may not make Stanford competitive. I think we know from the last few years that trying to compete in the new world without major use of the transfer portal or major dollar investments just doesn't work.
It all depends what the University wants. Eventually Stanford will figure it out.
No, actually it doesn’t. At a time when the University was facing $140 million in budget cuts and had to lay off 360 staff members (https://stanforddaily.com/2025/08/06/stanford-to-layoff-over-360-staff-following-140-million-budget-cuts/), and is looking at an athletics department that is hemorrhaging money because of the limited media rights in order to get into the ACC, in conjunction with the increased travel costs, and a third of its operating budget came from the University (https://gostanford.com/documents/35853ce8-e05e-435c-a19f-12a2c2da16d1.pdf), whether it pays a student athlete $1 million has to be weighed not against the student’s other options, but against the other possible uses of the $1 million.
This is not about what Stanford wants, but about what it can afford.
Of course, you are free to donate $1.1 million to Lifetime Cardinal earmarked as a Lara Somfai retention donation, and I am sure that Stanford would happily arrange for an NIL to ensure she stays a Cardinal at least through her sophomore year. But absent that, I doubt Stanford is going to put up that much of a deal for Somfai (or, for that matter, any women’s basketball player; it couldn’t match the $600,000 that USC paid for Kiki Iriafen, and Iriafen was a much more proven player).
It makes me sad that this is what women’s basketball has become. I hope Somfai stays, but I can see why others might be pessimistic. It has not been a good few years in terms of retention of elite players, in any high visibility sport (including softball), and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that football, men’s and women’s basketball, and baseball have all struggled at the same time. I wish collegiate athletics were not pro-light, but that’s tilting against windmills. I have made my peace with the situation… I’m a lot less interested in collegiate athletics generally, and Stanford sports specifically, than I used to be, but, you know, I’m still here, which is a revealed preference, in economic terms. I accept that we will likely have fewer ups and more downs in major sports, and probably will be at a notch lower level in sports that we used to dominate (eg volleyball, tennis). Maybe we’ll have an alum tech billionaire with Arillaga’s commitment to Stanford athletics, but I’m not holding my breath. I think the most likely outcome, at some point, is that sports will be cut and we’ll still struggle for relevance in the revenue sports for structural reasons.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - fullmetal - 03-24-2026
When Stanford finally gets a full share of conference revenue (years from now?), there will be more money from donors to spread around the NIL table. Right now, my guess is that the athletics department is courting the heavy hitters to keep operations afloat because of the reduced revenue share from the ACC.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - BobK - 03-25-2026
The lifetime cardinal $$ went to the AD almost a year ago now.
Sadly that was an excellent post BC.
However people are donating. Is it enough?
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - Leftcoast - 03-25-2026
Well said, BC. Your post describes my own feelings perfectly.
Stanford teams still matter to me as my frequent visits here show ... but I'm not as passionate. Not even close.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - M T - 03-25-2026
So far, I see Stanford teams as being made up of Stanford students, not a bunch of mercenaries playing for the highest bidder. I believe they play for their love of the sport, for their teammates, their team, and their school.
Unfortunately, many of the teams they play against have a number of market players.
I guess I feel differently than others here. I would watch and cheer for a team with a losing record if I appreciate the players and the team. They don’t have to be in the top tier (but that is great).
In short, I cheer for the players, not the name on the uniform.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - RuralFan - 03-25-2026
(03-25-2026, 05:02 AM)BobK Wrote: The lifetime cardinal $$ went to the AD almost a year ago now.I hate to write this post because some of the readers (BC, BobK, others) know far more about Stanford options than I do. But here goes.
Sadly that was an excellent post BC.
However people are donating. Is it enough?
Stanford can continue on in the ACC knowing more than it once did about the annual costs, the chances of successful team participation, and the willingness of the Stanford community to contribute financially. The 30 percent revenue rule will eventually expire, but travel time, travel costs, officiating bias and other problems will probably remain.
Stanford can explore other alternatives. Maybe some other west coast conference will let us in without the punishing ACC treatment, but we will not be in a Power Four Conference. Is that the end of the world?
Stanford can give up on the D-1 status and explore other options. Ivy League schools have many athletic teams. The games still matter and are often fun to watch, but maybe not as much fun as Power Four stuff. But there is no West Coast Ivy League? Yes but Cal and Stanford would be a good start. Beyond that the options would seem to be many.
Sorry about the thread drift.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - Leftcoast - 03-25-2026
Quote:So far, I see Stanford teams as being made up of Stanford students, not a bunch of mercenaries playing for the highest bidder. I believe they play for their love of the sport, for their teammates, their team, and their school. -MT
Well, except for the many who left for higher $ to schools not of Stanford's caliber. The list is not short. Each one hurt.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - jacket3ree - 03-25-2026
I think we are seeing Stanford's "caliber" being monetized in real time, at least by athletes with options, and it might not be pretty. I'm 5 years beyond the 40-year decision and can clearly see in retrospect that the athletes choosing more money or a better program over degree prestige aren't wrong. Glad I went where I went but I have enough confidence in my ability to believe that I could have done fine having gone to Boulder or Ft. Collins or Mines like the original plan before my dad dared me to apply to GT. I wouldn't have the wife, children, and grandchildren I have (Butterfly Effect and all that) but people usually don't look back with regret on decisions they made coming out of high school or even half way through college.
Still confused by Stanford controlling NIL money in addition to the House revenue share, and while I don't think saving on linebackers gets better chemistry research, I understand BC's (and others') point. Very much into a "what are we doing here" mode as a fan. That said, I'll be in the stands in September with a six-pack of fraternity brothers (and their wives) when the mighty Jackets roll into Palo Alto with the next (and our first) younger brother Voldemort at the helm, a solid backfield, and probably that same weak ass defense we always seem to roll with. If only to see if Under Armor is better than Adidas after all the complaining.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - Canalejas - 03-25-2026
(03-25-2026, 11:51 AM)RuralFan Wrote: But there is no West Coast Ivy League? Yes but Cal and Stanford would be a good start. Beyond that the options would seem to be many.
That's just it, though. There is no West Coast Ivy League.
You or anyone else can come up with a list of criteria that schools out west might meet that would qualify them to be some sort of Ivy analogue, but I think that's going to be a tough task. But just in case anyone wants to try, here are a few resources:
The NCAA directory, so you can see which schools play in which division in any given NCAA sport:
https://web3.ncaa.org/directory/
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, in case you care about sharing certain institutional traits:
https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/institutions/
Membership in organizations like the AAU, again, just in case you care about aligning with a certain profile of school:
https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-members/aau-member-universities-year-entry
And any number of published school rankings lists. Some are more famous than others, but you can decide if any of them mean anything:
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest/world-ranking
https://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings
https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2025
If you look through all of those lists looking for schools on the west coast that play D1 sports, offer a wide range of undergrad and graduate degrees, and are all in the same range in the various rankings as the schools of the Ivy League, you're going to come up with this:
Stanford.
If you start to relax the criteria just a little bit you get to add UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. Relax them a little bit more and you can add more UC campuses, the University of Washington, and USC.
Honestly, that'd be a great league. And maybe even the Pac that I wish we would have had for the last century. But even as cool as it would be nobody outside of it would call it an Ivy equivalent. And a few of the schools in it can't really be persuaded to join in the first place.
edit: spelling
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - OCcardinal - 03-25-2026
The Admin for a Facebook Group I follow called "Women's Basketball Trash Talk Forum" posted the following yesterday:
"Stephen Perlman is working in behalf of Oregon State. He has discovered Lara Somphai and Addy Brown are going into the transfer portal."
It's the first public comment I've seen other than mere speculation and seems quite specific. But there's no way to confirm the authenticity. On the other hand, Stanford's pre-game press release for the BYU game has Somfai all over it.
But it's reminding me of the Catarina Macario situation at Chelsea. They kept talking about her even though she was away from the team. Then the big announcement came out that she had signed with the Wave and would be immediately transferring.
Separately, I don't agree with some that seem to suggest Stanford can't compete in big sports anymore. Men's Basketball has had its 2nd 20-win season in a row and has the 16th-ranked recruiting class in the country for 2026 (5 four-star players, compared to 0 the year before Smith arrived). And we are certainly doing great recruiting and holding onto players in Women's Soccer. Moreover, even though we famously lost Canady due to $$$, Stanford Softball is getting and retaining good recruits. They are currently in the Top 25 and Sophomore Zoe Prystajko won National Pitcher of the Week earlier this month. We are also currently #1 in the Director's Cup standings.
Moreover, the impact of having only 30% of Tier 1 media rights is not all that significant. That's like a $15M-$20M reduction for 2026, right? And it improves as time goes on. Plus, I believe Stanford still receives a full share of ACC Network, College Football Playoff (CFP), and NCAA tournament revenues. Unlike Cal, UCLA and many other Power Conference teams, we fully own our own football stadiums and, most importantly, Stanford has a sports-specific endowment of over $1 billion (they stopped publishing the exact amount some time ago, but by my estimate it has to be at least that big now). The draw on a billion dollar endowment would be $50 million a year. Other schools don't have that. We are way ahead before you cut back that Tier 1 media rights revenue. If Stanford starts cutting sports it won't be because of the tiny amount that the Tier 1 media revenue is reduced.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - paloalto - 03-25-2026
That's a good post OCcardinal.
" Stanford's pre-game press release for the BYU game has Somfai all over it."
For WVB, The University of Maryland had a big promotional article about their best player, setter Lily Wagner. That was two weeks before she publicly announced her transfer to Stanford.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - PVTree - 03-25-2026
(03-25-2026, 11:18 AM)M T Wrote: So far, I see Stanford teams as being made up of Stanford students, not a bunch of mercenaries playing for the highest bidder. I believe they play for their love of the sport, for their teammates, their team, and their school.
Unfortunately, many of the teams they play against have a number of market players.
I guess I feel differently than others here. I would watch and cheer for a team with a losing record if I appreciate the players and the team. They don’t have to be in the top tier (but that is great).
In short, I cheer for the players, not the name on the uniform.
I'm the opposite, I cheer for the name on the uniform, and the players that wear it. For example when Betts wore the Stanford uniform, I cheered for her. Now that she has a Ruin uniform, I have stopped cheering for her.
I forget which coach said something like, what's important is the name on the front (of the uniform), not the one in the back.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - PalmTree - 03-25-2026
(03-25-2026, 01:13 PM)OCcardinal Wrote: Moreover, the impact of having only 30% of Tier 1 media rights is not all that significant. That's like a $15M-$20M reduction for 2026, right? And it improves as time goes on. Plus, I believe Stanford still receives a full share of ACC Network, College Football Playoff (CFP), and NCAA tournament revenues. Unlike Cal, UCLA and many other Power Conference teams, we fully own our own football stadiums and, most importantly, Stanford has a sports-specific endowment of over $1 billion (they stopped publishing the exact amount some time ago, but by my estimate it has to be at least that big now). The draw on a billion dollar endowment would be $50 million a year. Other schools don't have that. We are way ahead before you cut back that Tier 1 media rights revenue. If Stanford starts cutting sports it won't be because of the tiny amount that the Tier 1 media revenue is reduced.
Looking back at university Budget Books, I think your estimate of the DAPER endowment is pretty close, though I think probably closer to ~$1B range. Based on DAPER's revenue projections from 2022-25, one sees those endowments are grouped into 3 sets:
- Financial aid, i.e. scholarships
- "Non Varsity", which seems to cover general DAPER &/or sport-specific operations (so including coaching salries, facilities, etc.) &
- Recreation & wellness, which supports rec programs, club sports, etc.
From what I can see, financial aid endowments comprise ~ 70% of total DAPER principal/income - this is not availlable to support NIL, etc.. In fact, DAPER even projected a $6M deficit in financial aid endowment income - projected at $33.2M - vs actual need for 2025, saying they anticipated making up the difference with one-time gifts. They sure have a number of financial pickles in their barrel.
Anyhow, since financial aid makes up the lion's share of DAPER's endowment portfolio, I'd have to surmise restrictions on how the majority of the remainder of DAPER's endowments can be used doesn't really leave much other endowment income to help offset the drop in media rights revenues. Thinking they need to put their fundraisers on IVs pumping Peet's Major Dickasons....
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - Spiny_Norman - 03-25-2026
(03-25-2026, 01:13 PM)OCcardinal Wrote: Moreover, the impact of having only 30% of Tier 1 media rights is not all that significant. That's like a $15M-$20M reduction for 2026, right? And it improves as time goes on. Plus, I believe Stanford still receives a full share of ACC Network, College Football Playoff (CFP), and NCAA tournament revenues. Unlike Cal, UCLA and many other Power Conference teams, we fully own our own football stadiums and, most importantly, Stanford has a sports-specific endowment of over $1 billion (they stopped publishing the exact amount some time ago, but by my estimate it has to be at least that big now). The draw on a billion dollar endowment would be $50 million a year. Other schools don't have that. We are way ahead before you cut back that Tier 1 media rights revenue. If Stanford starts cutting sports it won't be because of the tiny amount that the Tier 1 media revenue is reduced.
The Board of Trustees has agreed to subsidize Athletics to make up for the 70% of Tier 1 media rights that Stanford is returning to the ACC. I don't know if the current financial stress has changed that commitment. But the BoT has made a strong statement that it wants Stanford to have resources to be competitive in this new environment.
Has anyone heard any word from AD Donahoe since he started? I hope he is not as opaque as Bernard Muir was in communicating with the extended Stanford Athletics community.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 03-25-2026
(03-25-2026, 11:18 AM)M T Wrote: So far, I see Stanford teams as being made up of Stanford students, not a bunch of mercenaries playing for the highest bidder. I believe they play for their love of the sport, for their teammates, their team, and their school.For better or worse , you are right. So far there is no indication anywhere in any sport that college fans would rather cheer for a losing team composed of students who could not be swayed by NIL, playing in a second rate league vs paid players in a top league. I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Unfortunately, many of the teams they play against have a number of market players.
I guess I feel differently than others here. I would watch and cheer for a team with a losing record if I appreciate the players and the team. They don’t have to be in the top tier (but that is great).
In short, I cheer for the players, not the name on the uniform.
RE: WBB: Stanford 81-- Quinnipiac 69 - 82lsju - 03-25-2026
(03-25-2026, 06:35 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(03-25-2026, 01:13 PM)OCcardinal Wrote: Moreover, the impact of having only 30% of Tier 1 media rights is not all that significant. That's like a $15M-$20M reduction for 2026, right? And it improves as time goes on. Plus, I believe Stanford still receives a full share of ACC Network, College Football Playoff (CFP), and NCAA tournament revenues. Unlike Cal, UCLA and many other Power Conference teams, we fully own our own football stadiums and, most importantly, Stanford has a sports-specific endowment of over $1 billion (they stopped publishing the exact amount some time ago, but by my estimate it has to be at least that big now). The draw on a billion dollar endowment would be $50 million a year. Other schools don't have that. We are way ahead before you cut back that Tier 1 media rights revenue. If Stanford starts cutting sports it won't be because of the tiny amount that the Tier 1 media revenue is reduced.
The Board of Trustees has agreed to subsidize Athletics to make up for the 70% of Tier 1 media rights that Stanford is returning to the ACC. I don't know if the current financial stress has changed that commitment. But the BoT has made a strong statement that it wants Stanford to have resources to be competitive in this new environment.
Has anyone heard any word from AD Donahoe since he started? I hope he is not as opaque as Bernard Muir was in communicating with the extended Stanford Athletics community.
one of the two incoming BoT members (Jeff Bird '82) would appear to have some interest and knowledge about the finances of the AD
Quote:Bird currently serves as vice chair of the board of Stanford Health Care, and sits on the boards of the Hoover Institution and the Department of Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation (DAPER) Investment Fund.
https://stanforddaily.com/2026/03/04/two-new-members-board-of-trustees/
Mudhead - Mudhead - 03-25-2026
(03-25-2026, 01:04 PM)Canalejas Wrote:Most of us have friends who care a lot about college sports. I know I do. I have never heard any of the. Talk about a race for the championship in any league . Even the Ivy Grads who played ball there aren’t interested. It just doesn’t matter.(03-25-2026, 11:51 AM)RuralFan Wrote: But there is no West Coast Ivy League? Yes but Cal and Stanford would be a good start. Beyond that the options would seem to be many.
That's just it, though. There is no West Coast Ivy League.
You or anyone else can come up with a list of criteria that schools out west might meet that would qualify them to be some sort of Ivy analogue, but I think that's going to be a tough task. But just in case anyone wants to try, here are a few resources:
The NCAA directory, so you can see which schools play in which division in any given NCAA sport:
https://web3.ncaa.org/directory/
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, in case you care about sharing certain institutional traits:
https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/institutions/
Membership in organizations like the AAU, again, just in case you care about aligning with a certain profile of school:
https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-members/aau-member-universities-year-entry
And any number of published school rankings lists. Some are more famous than others, but you can decide if any of them mean anything:
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest/world-ranking
https://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings
https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2025
If you look through all of those lists looking for schools on the west coast that play D1 sports, offer a wide range of undergrad and graduate degrees, and are all in the same range in the various rankings as the schools of the Ivy League, you're going to come up with this:
Stanford.
If you start to relax the criteria just a little bit you get to add UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. Relax them a little bit more and you can add more UC campuses, the University of Washington, and USC.
Honestly, that'd be a great league. And maybe even the Pac that I wish we would have had for the last century. But even as cool as it would be nobody outside of it would call it an Ivy equivalent. And a few of the schools in it can't really be persuaded to join in the first place.
edit: spelling