Ouch - 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: Ouch (/thread-25632.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: Ouch (/thread-25632.html)
Ouch - gailtate - 06-04-2025
From today's SF Chron:
NiJaree Canady not only put an unheralded, 12th-seeded Texas Tech softball team on her back and carried it into the Women’s College World Series final. Along the way, she also delivered another blow to the image of Stanford sports.
The star pitcher wore the Stanford jersey until last June. After the Cardinal were eliminated in the 2024 WCWS semifinals, Canady entered the collegiate transfer portal and, within a month, landed the biggest name, image and likeness deal ever given to a softball player. She is reportedly making $1,050,024 on a one-year NIL deal with Texas Tech: one million for her, $50,000 for living expenses, plus another $24 to symbolize her jersey number.
Maybe Stanford couldn’t have competed with that kind of money. Maybe it didn’t want to. But Canady is another high-profile athlete who has come to symbolize how far behind Stanford has fallen in the current collegiate climate.
There have also been departures from the football team, like defensive end David Bailey (also to Texas Tech), cornerback Julian Neal (to Arkansas) and receiver Emmett Mosley (to Texas). Men’s basketball lost Oziyah Sellers, expected to be the Cardinal’s top returning player next season, to St. John’s.
Almost four years after the start of the NIL era, which began on July 1, 2021, Stanford is still scrambling to play catch-up. For years it was dismissive, even hostile, to the concept of paying athletes. Now, with a different attitude, Stanford continues to try to make up for lost time and previous arrogance.
The new administration has signaled that it is determined to change things. University President Jonathan Levin has been in place for almost a year and is far more engaged with athletics than his predecessor, Marc Tessier-Lavigne. In November, former Cardinal quarterback Andrew Luck was named the football program’s general manager, reporting directly to Levin. Since that time the football team has, according to the 247 Sports portal tracker, lost 17 players and gained 13. It has also dealt with the turmoil of firing head coach Troy Taylor over toxic workplace behavior and hiring Luck’s former NFL coach Frank Reich as a single-season bridge to the future.
In February, Stanford announced that athletic director Bernard Muir would step down after 13 years. Though Muir was originally expected to finish out the school year, an interim AD, Alden Mitchell, was named in March. At that time, the school announced the formation of a search committee to find the next athletic director. More than two months later, no announcement has been made. A spokesperson for the athletic department said there was a possibility there could be news at the end of this month.
But for the moment, there continues to be a void in athletic leadership at Stanford at this critical juncture, just as another major tremor shakes the college scene. Terms of a historic NCAA legal settlement are supposed to go into effect this summer, allowing schools to share revenues with athletes for the first time, while also creating more parameters around NIL deals and roster size.
The college athletics landscape continues to change rapidly, but Stanford hasn’t kept up.
Canady is a symbol of that. She went 24-17 in two years with Stanford, taking Cardinal softball to the semifinals last year. But two Texas Tech boosters — alumni with wealth from the oil and gas industry — wanted to change things up in West Texas and offered Canady a brobdingnagian NIL deal. The recruiting even included a phone call from the Red Raiders’ most famous male athlete, Patrick Mahomes. Canady, who grew up in Kansas, is a brobdingnagian Chiefs fan.
The investment has reaped benefits. Canady went 26-5 in the regular season with a 0.86 ERA. The junior also batted .305, with 11 homers. She has said that the opportunity to hit for the Red Raiders was something that helped sell her on the school; at Stanford she did not frequently bat.
In Monday’s semifinal against Oklahoma, which has won four consecutive softball championships, Canady was dominating until she hung a pitch that an Oklahoma player hit for a game-tying two-run homer in the seventh inning. It was just the third home run Canady has given up this season. She quickly got the third out and then her team came through with the winning run in the bottom of the inning, sending the Red Raiders to the finals. They will play Texas in a three-game series beginning Wednesday. On social media, Mahomes — now a Canady fan — was living and dying with every inning.
You can be sure Stanford was paying attention, too. To yet another symbol of its struggles to keep up with a world of change.
A few months ago we saw former Cardinal Lauren Betts take UCLA to the Final Four. We watched another former Stanford player, Kiki Iriafen, pour in 36 points for USC’s basketball team in the NCAA second round after teammate Juju Watkins tore her ACL. If Watkins had been healthy, the Trojans might also have advanced to the Final Four.
There have also been departures from the football team, like defensive end David Bailey (also to Texas Tech), cornerback Julian Neal (to Arkansas) and receiver Emmett Mosley (to Texas). Men’s basketball lost Oziyah Sellers, expected to be the Cardinal’s top returning player next season, to St. John’s.
Almost four years after the start of the NIL era, which began on July 1, 2021, Stanford is still scrambling to play catch-up. For years it was dismissive, even hostile, to the concept of paying athletes. Now, with a different attitude, Stanford continues to try to make up for lost time and previous arrogance.
The new administration has signaled that it is determined to change things. University President Jonathan Levin has been in place for almost a year and is far more engaged with athletics than his predecessor, Marc Tessier-Lavigne. In November, former Cardinal quarterback Andrew Luck was named the football program’s general manager, reporting directly to Levin. Since that time the football team has, according to the 247 Sports portal tracker, lost 17 players and gained 13. It has also dealt with the turmoil of firing head coach Troy Taylor over toxic workplace behavior and hiring Luck’s former NFL coach Frank Reich as a single-season bridge to the future.
In February, Stanford announced that athletic director Bernard Muir would step down after 13 years. Though Muir was originally expected to finish out the school year, an interim AD, Alden Mitchell, was named in March. At that time, the school announced the formation of a search committee to find the next athletic director. More than two months later, no announcement has been made. A spokesperson for the athletic department said there was a possibility there could be news at the end of this month.
But for the moment, there continues to be a void in athletic leadership at Stanford at this critical juncture, just as another major tremor shakes the college scene. Terms of a historic NCAA legal settlement are supposed to go into effect this summer, allowing schools to share revenues with athletes for the first time, while also creating more parameters around NIL deals and roster size.
The college athletics landscape continues to change rapidly, but Stanford hasn’t kept up.
Canady is a symbol of that. She went 24-17 in two years with Stanford, taking Cardinal softball to the semifinals last year. But two Texas Tech boosters — alumni with wealth from the oil and gas industry — wanted to change things up in West Texas and offered Canady a brobdingnagian NIL deal. The recruiting even included a phone call from the Red Raiders’ most famous male athlete, Patrick Mahomes. Canady, who grew up in Kansas, is a brobdingnagian Chiefs fan.
The investment has reaped benefits. Canady went 26-5 in the regular season with a 0.86 ERA. The junior also batted .305, with 11 homers. She has said that the opportunity to hit for the Red Raiders was something that helped sell her on the school; at Stanford she did not frequently bat.
In Monday’s semifinal against Oklahoma, which has won four consecutive softball championships, Canady was dominating until she hung a pitch that an Oklahoma player hit for a game-tying two-run homer in the seventh inning. It was just the third home run Canady has given up this season. She quickly got the third out and then her team came through with the winning run in the bottom of the inning, sending the Red Raiders to the finals. They will play Texas in a three-game series beginning Wednesday. On social media, Mahomes — now a Canady fan — was living and dying with every inning.
You can be sure Stanford was paying attention, too. To yet another symbol of its struggles to keep up with a world of change.
RE: Ouch - BobK - 06-04-2025
24-17 is poor reporting
Certainly glad other schools don’t have this problem. Ann how many incoming transfers to Stanford mbb and football
4 national championships by Stanford last couple of months
Neal never attended Stanford
RE: Ouch - BostonCard - 06-04-2025
Why “ouch”. I mean, sure, all else being equal I would have rather had Canady and a likely national title than not. But it’s not like I gave any money to Lifetime Cardinal to keep her, so clearly I don’t care enough to put my own money where my mouth is.
Moving forward, maybe I’m paranoid, but I think it is going to get a lot worse in the next few years. The national environment has turned against elite academic institutions and while I think we are back to having an athletics-friendly administration, that may be of limited value when the University is facing a financial Armageddon. I don’t think athletics, which right now is dependent on a massive subsidy from the University due to the loss of revenue and increase in expenses from the transfer to the ACC, will be spared. Notwithstanding the blowback after Muir’s recent attempt to cut sports, my base case scenario is that Stanford will have a lot fewer than 36 varsity sports in a few years. Losing Canady is the least of our recent problems; we may not even be fielding a softball team (though I think that for Title IX reasons, it’s unlikely that women’s softball, specifically, would go).
BC
RE: Ouch - dabigv13 - 06-04-2025
Is it arrogance or virtue that Stanford resisted the new pay to play world? Is Stanford supposed to be ashamed that we don't have oil tycoons poaching players for us? Time always moves forward, but that doesn't mean that the changes count as progress.
RE: Ouch - Vandelay - 06-04-2025
Blame Canady!
-Townsfolk of South Park
Mudhead - Mudhead - 06-04-2025
(06-04-2025, 08:45 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is it arrogance or virtue that Stanford resisted the new pay to play world? Is Stanford supposed to be ashamed that we don't have oil tycoons poaching players for us? Time always moves forward, but that doesn't mean that the changes count as progress.
Unless our goal is to be the farm club for championship teams at other school, it is not a virtue. Stanford does have the “silicon barons” willing and able to compete with “oil barons. “. We never harnessed them, i guess because it was beneath us. Texas Tech is competing for a natty, we are rooting for a former Stanford star now at TT.
Recognize my opinion is not universal . I thought you deserved a frank response to your very legitimate question.
RE: Ouch - BobK - 06-04-2025
Interesting as I know of three donations to WBB totaling $1.1M.
I have no clue right now of contributions to mbb and football so maybe that’s your point Mudhead which I respect. But never isn’t correct
76lsjumb - 76lsjumb - 06-04-2025
(06-04-2025, 10:36 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(06-04-2025, 08:45 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is it arrogance or virtue that Stanford resisted the new pay to play world? Is Stanford supposed to be ashamed that we don't have oil tycoons poaching players for us? Time always moves forward, but that doesn't mean that the changes count as progress.
Unless our goal is to be the farm club for championship teams at other school, it is not a virtue. Stanford does have the “silicon barons” willing and able to compete with “oil barons. “. We never harnessed them, i guess because it was beneath us. Texas Tech is competing for a natty, we are rooting for a former Stanford star now at TT.
Recognize my opinion is not universal . I thought you deserved a frank response to your very legitimate question.
“Texas Tech is competing for a natty.”
Stanford has won two this year and came within a putt or two of winning a third. So that’s nice.
RE: Mudhead - dabigv13 - 06-04-2025
(06-04-2025, 10:36 AM)Mudhead Wrote:(06-04-2025, 08:45 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: Is it arrogance or virtue that Stanford resisted the new pay to play world? Is Stanford supposed to be ashamed that we don't have oil tycoons poaching players for us? Time always moves forward, but that doesn't mean that the changes count as progress.
Unless our goal is to be the farm club for championship teams at other school, it is not a virtue. Stanford does have the “silicon barons” willing and able to compete with “oil barons. “. We never harnessed them, i guess because it was beneath us. Texas Tech is competing for a natty, we are rooting for a former Stanford star now at TT.
Recognize my opinion is not universal . I thought you deserved a frank response to your very legitimate question.
My post was in response to the tone of the article, with terms like "previous arrogance". I recognize Stanford is a nice juicy target for reporters, but that labeling seemed misplaced, as it ignores the possibility that there could be non-arrogant reasons for not wanting to engage heavily in pay to play even when other schools are.
I agree Stanford should be trying to win national championships, and they should try to do it without abandoning academic principles, and without having to eliminate other more important university functions. I personally don't think that's an arrogant attitude.
RE: Ouch - BostonCard - 06-04-2025
I mean, it’s not like John Arillaga didn’t donate $300 million over the course of his lifetime to Stanford (largely Athletics). I suspect that had he still been alive, the conversation around Iriafen, Canady, and NIL might be very different. I never knew Arillaga, but I suspect he would have been all in on NIL.
Stanford has dozens of very wealthy alums, many of whom are very generous to the University. However, I don’t think any of them prioritize athletics to the extent that Arillaga did. That’s not arrogance, that’s just a difference in values and preferences. Many would prefer to endow buildings, a new school of sustainability, professorships or academic scholarships than athletics facilities, coaches, or NILs. It’s their money; how to give it away is their business. And while it would be fun to be talking about picking up a national title in Softball or having a competitive football team, I can’t honestly say that I would have preferred to see John and Ann Doerr direct their $1.1 billion donation towards the athletic department instead of the school of Sustainability that now bears their name (and again, not really my business what they want to give to anyways).
BC
RE: Ouch - chrisk - 06-04-2025
With the Big 10 and SEC willing to limit NIL with the House settlement, it may be that Stanford has been waiting out the craziness? For the last few years, there have been essentially no rules.
RE: Ouch - Giants - 06-04-2025
(06-04-2025, 12:21 PM)chrisk Wrote: With the Big 10 and SEC willing to limit NIL with the House settlement, it may be that Stanford has been waiting out the craziness? For the last few years, there have been essentially no rules.
There are no limits to NIL under the House settlement (note: a decision will come no earlier late June). The only new provision is a vetting process for agreements over $600. The payment players will receive from schools is in addition to any NIL monies they can secure from outside sources.
RE: Ouch - TrumpCard - 06-04-2025
(06-04-2025, 11:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I mean, it’s not like John Arillaga didn’t donate $300 million over the course of his lifetime to Stanford (largely Athletics). I suspect that had he still been alive, the conversation around Iriafen, Canady, and NIL might be very different. I never knew Arillaga, but I suspect he would have been all in on NIL.
Stanford has dozens of very wealthy alums, many of whom are very generous to the University. However, I don’t think any of them prioritize athletics to the extent that Arillaga did. That’s not arrogance, that’s just a difference in values and preferences. Many would prefer to endow buildings, a new school of sustainability, professorships or academic scholarships than athletics facilities, coaches, or NILs. It’s their money; how to give it away is their business. And while it would be fun to be talking about picking up a national title in Softball or having a competitive football team, I can’t honestly say that I would have preferred to see John and Ann Doerr direct their $1.1 billion donation towards the athletic department instead of the school of Sustainability that now bears their name (and again, not really my business what they want to give to anyways).
BC
I agree with BC's normative view. Taking it a step further, elite sports at Stanford brought value in earlier eras, but I don't see the value proposition continuing. IMHO, in the not too long term, Stanford is going to find that it will be better served to voluntarily withdraw from the arms race and focus more on bringing top students to the Farm.
RE: Ouch - M T - 06-04-2025
(06-04-2025, 07:27 AM)gailtate Wrote: From today's SF Chron:
....
The junior also batted .305, with 11 homers. She has said that the opportunity to hit for the Red Raiders was something that helped sell her on the school; at Stanford she did not frequently bat.
....
Too bad the author didn't mention that of the top 11 batters for Stanford in terms of at-bats, none had an average that low. The HR/AB average would put her 3rd.
For all of us on the Cardboard:
(10-15-2014, 10:43 AM)admin Wrote: 4. Do not copy material wholesale from other sites or blogs. Small excerpts for the purpose of discussion are welcome. As a general guideline, do not copy or quote more than four lines from an external source. The CardBoard style for quoting is [elided]
Under no circumstances post material from behind a paywall.
Also, I suggest that posters include a clickable link to their sources.
RE: Ouch - BobK - 06-04-2025
Alums and or other donors have contributed to the building of two tennis stadiums, new locker rooms and meeting rooms for Maples, new softball stadium
RE: Ouch - chrisk - 06-04-2025
(06-04-2025, 12:52 PM)Giants Wrote:(06-04-2025, 12:21 PM)chrisk Wrote: With the Big 10 and SEC willing to limit NIL with the House settlement, it may be that Stanford has been waiting out the craziness? For the last few years, there have been essentially no rules.
There are no limits to NIL under the House settlement (note: a decision will come no earlier late June). The only new provision is a vetting process for agreements over $600. The payment players will receive from schools is in addition to any NIL monies they can secure from outside sources.
Are you suggesting that the Big10 and SEC will not follow the House rules or that $20M is beyond Stanford's capability?
RE: Ouch - BostonCard - 06-04-2025
There’s no limit on “true NIL” payments, so if a local business wanted to film an advertisement featuring an athlete and pay them for it, that doesn’t count against the limit. The only restriction is that the payment represents “fair market value” and that it is not a “pay to play” (I assume this means that it cannot be an inducement to play at a specific place before enrollment).
Here’s an Athletic link to what it means, pending final approval:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5672150/2024/08/01/nil-collectives-ncaa-lawsuit-settlement/
BC
RE: Ouch - BrevinsBest - 06-04-2025
(06-04-2025, 11:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I mean, it’s not like John Arillaga didn’t donate $300 million over the course of his lifetime to Stanford (largely Athletics). I suspect that had he still been alive, the conversation around Iriafen, Canady, and NIL might be very different. I never knew Arillaga, but I suspect he would have been all in on NIL.
Stanford has dozens of very wealthy alums, many of whom are very generous to the University. However, I don’t think any of them prioritize athletics to the extent that Arillaga did. That’s not arrogance, that’s just a difference in values and preferences. Many would prefer to endow buildings, a new school of sustainability, professorships or academic scholarships than athletics facilities, coaches, or NILs. It’s their money; how to give it away is their business. And while it would be fun to be talking about picking up a national title in Softball or having a competitive football team, I can’t honestly say that I would have preferred to see John and Ann Doerr direct their $1.1 billion donation towards the athletic department instead of the school of Sustainability that now bears their name (and again, not really my business what they want to give to anyways).
BC
While Arrillaga gave a massive amount to athletics, I think he may have created an environment where other big donors were less inclined to give. I also think development's reliance on Arrillaga reduced their efforts for finding other significant donors. We'll see what the next few years looks like, but I hope the group is able to find a handful of large donors to give.
RE: Ouch - Leftcoast - 06-04-2025
I love Stanford and I love sports. The Sports programs at Stanford are the main reason I stay in frequent contact with the university other than various (and less frequent) contribution/minor philanthropy.
So it pains me to see the warning signs that our programs may be falling behind in the rat race of NIL and revenue sports. Having said that, I don't like this Brave New World and I don't want Stanford to be bidding in the millions to rent or poach a Softball pitcher. If Canady, Iriafan, Kiki, and Betts want to go to a higher bidder then let them. If we have to reevaluate each player mid season and re-recruit them with higher pay for performance NIL deals I'll start actively retching.
Then I'll drop Stanford for the Giants, Warriors, and 49ers. At least the pro-team hypocrisy is above the fold and includes less sophistry. When the thing you love is no longer recognizable what else can you do?
Is that "arrogant"? No idea, BUT it is my truth.
RE: Ouch - Mudhead - 06-04-2025
(06-04-2025, 10:51 AM)BobK Wrote: Interesting as I know of three donations to WBB totaling $1.1M.Fair comment. Strike “Never” and just leave it at we didn’t harness our capability. I’m not near the $1.1M NIL class, but when I talked about making NIL contributions prior to last year or so, I was advised that NIL didn’t make economic sense and that with the value of a Stanford degree , we didn’t need to “ do that stuff in a big way.” It came across as arrogance re the Stanford brand. Perhaps it was just wrong and short sighted rather than arrogant. It was definitely wrong.
I have no clue right now of contributions to mbb and football so maybe that’s your point Mudhead which I respect. But never isn’t correct