[gailtate]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/ostle...433437.php

But ya gotta love the love that Andrew Luck gets in this column.

[gailtate]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/ostle...433437.php

But ya gotta love the love that Andrew Luck gets in this column.

[JohnR34231]

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?

[JohnR34231]

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?

[MarinCard]

Even if we suppose that B1G invite comes for us in the next few years, I struggle to see us crossing the Tiber into paying players, which is where this is all inevitably (if slowly) headed. B1G commish Kevin Warren said on the record he foresees players being paid in the future. That's just something culturally and fiscally I have a hard time seeing the administration doing. If the choice is that or de-emphasis down to FCS (with Cal doing the same, most likely), I see the latter happening before the former.

[MarinCard]

Even if we suppose that B1G invite comes for us in the next few years, I struggle to see us crossing the Tiber into paying players, which is where this is all inevitably (if slowly) headed. B1G commish Kevin Warren said on the record he foresees players being paid in the future. That's just something culturally and fiscally I have a hard time seeing the administration doing. If the choice is that or de-emphasis down to FCS (with Cal doing the same, most likely), I see the latter happening before the former.

[82lsju]

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....rm_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....0-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....0-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....

[82lsju]

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....rm_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....0-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....0-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....

[JohnR34231]

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....rm_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....0-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....0-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.

[JohnR34231]

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....rm_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....0-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....0-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.

[TonyLima]

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

[TonyLima]

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

[82lsju]

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

[82lsju]

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

[lex24]

Unbelievable.  The article is about the new world order of College football. USC’s mercenaries. And whether Stanford can or should adapt.  Yet what gets talked about - Shaws salary. Amazing.

[lex24]

Unbelievable.  The article is about the new world order of College football. USC’s mercenaries. And whether Stanford can or should adapt.  Yet what gets talked about - Shaws salary. Amazing.

[French Rage]

Unbelievable.  The article is about the new world order of College football.  USC’s mercenaries. And whether Stanford can or should adapt.  Yet what gets talked about - Shaws salary. Amazing.

This.  The article did a great job of summing up what came before versus what is coming around the bend.  I just can't look at in a way where what is coming isn't essentially a minor league with schools that happened to be attached to the teams.  I love college football and I have loved rooting for this team ever since I arrived as a grad student in 2004, but it is better for society in general if we just let the NFL have its own private minor league system and let our universities be universities.  I realize it's naive to think that this is the first time someone has felt this way throughout history, as those older than me (I'm 39) have probably felt it at other milestones in college football, but between immediate transfers, NIL, and super-conferences, really, what are we aiming for here?

[French Rage]

Unbelievable.  The article is about the new world order of College football.  USC’s mercenaries. And whether Stanford can or should adapt.  Yet what gets talked about - Shaws salary. Amazing.

This.  The article did a great job of summing up what came before versus what is coming around the bend.  I just can't look at in a way where what is coming isn't essentially a minor league with schools that happened to be attached to the teams.  I love college football and I have loved rooting for this team ever since I arrived as a grad student in 2004, but it is better for society in general if we just let the NFL have its own private minor league system and let our universities be universities.  I realize it's naive to think that this is the first time someone has felt this way throughout history, as those older than me (I'm 39) have probably felt it at other milestones in college football, but between immediate transfers, NIL, and super-conferences, really, what are we aiming for here?

[Maple Leaf]

Unbelievable.  The article is about the new world order of College football.  USC’s mercenaries. And whether Stanford can or should adapt.  Yet what gets talked about - Shaws salary. Amazing.

This.  The article did a great job of summing up what came before versus what is coming around the bend.  I just can't look at in a way where what is coming isn't essentially a minor league with schools that happened to be attached to the teams.  I love college football and I have loved rooting for this team ever since I arrived as a grad student in 2004, but it is better for society in general if we just let the NFL have its own private minor league system and let our universities be universities.  I realize it's naive to think that this is the first time someone has felt this way throughout history, as those older than me (I'm 39) have probably felt it at other milestones in college football, but between immediate transfers, NIL, and super-conferences, really, what are we aiming for here?

It can only get more insane with the pinnacle of college football being controlled by the gaming industry.  Take Mercenary University and have the privates and non-coms (oline) throwing the point spreads just to get a bit more $$$$$$$$$$, at the expense of the officers (qb, rb, wr, te, db's).  There is too much TV $$$ at stake for many college presidents to say enough and either institute meaningful reforms or just drop football and men's basketball.  I fear the only real change for the better will only happen after the MOB and friends are caught by the feds and the NFL see's their life blood of readymade mercenaries is in danger of becoming extinct or greatly diminished, at which point the NFL will institute their own minor league system similar to pro baseball and g-league basketball.

[Maple Leaf]

Unbelievable.  The article is about the new world order of College football.  USC’s mercenaries. And whether Stanford can or should adapt.  Yet what gets talked about - Shaws salary. Amazing.

This.  The article did a great job of summing up what came before versus what is coming around the bend.  I just can't look at in a way where what is coming isn't essentially a minor league with schools that happened to be attached to the teams.  I love college football and I have loved rooting for this team ever since I arrived as a grad student in 2004, but it is better for society in general if we just let the NFL have its own private minor league system and let our universities be universities.  I realize it's naive to think that this is the first time someone has felt this way throughout history, as those older than me (I'm 39) have probably felt it at other milestones in college football, but between immediate transfers, NIL, and super-conferences, really, what are we aiming for here?

It can only get more insane with the pinnacle of college football being controlled by the gaming industry.  Take Mercenary University and have the privates and non-coms (oline) throwing the point spreads just to get a bit more $$$$$$$$$$, at the expense of the officers (qb, rb, wr, te, db's).  There is too much TV $$$ at stake for many college presidents to say enough and either institute meaningful reforms or just drop football and men's basketball.  I fear the only real change for the better will only happen after the MOB and friends are caught by the feds and the NFL see's their life blood of readymade mercenaries is in danger of becoming extinct or greatly diminished, at which point the NFL will institute their own minor league system similar to pro baseball and g-league basketball.

[Austroturf]

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.

[Austroturf]

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.

[gailtate]

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.

[gailtate]

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.

[Spiny_Norman]

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/throwin...-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.

[Spiny_Norman]

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/throwin...-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.

[gailtate]

The fact is, as Spiny Norman concisely expressed, there is no practical financial alternative at this moment to the harsh reality of joining the Big Ten. As painful as that may be for many in the Stanford realm, the prospect of a far diminished institution (bereft of essential revenue streams) is even worse. It is, to use an overworked word, unacceptable.

[gailtate]

The fact is, as Spiny Norman concisely expressed, there is no practical financial alternative at this moment to the harsh reality of joining the Big Ten. As painful as that may be for many in the Stanford realm, the prospect of a far diminished institution (bereft of essential revenue streams) is even worse. It is, to use an overworked word, unacceptable.

[newguy]

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/throwin...-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.

My magazine just arrived an hour ago.  Excellent article.

If it were up to me (which it isn't), then we would stay in the soon-to-be Pac-10 and compete with football teams who might be paying their players.  If we lose, then we lose, but when Coach Shaw retires in a couple decades, we might start winning some more.  

It's like the answer to the question asked by prospective students who haven't done their research:  Should I take the easy class and get an A, or take the hard class and get a B?  
Take the hard class and get an A.

[newguy]

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/throwin...-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.

My magazine just arrived an hour ago.  Excellent article.

If it were up to me (which it isn't), then we would stay in the soon-to-be Pac-10 and compete with football teams who might be paying their players.  If we lose, then we lose, but when Coach Shaw retires in a couple decades, we might start winning some more.  

It's like the answer to the question asked by prospective students who haven't done their research:  Should I take the easy class and get an A, or take the hard class and get a B?  
Take the hard class and get an A.

[ca245]

Another "sobering truth" we may have to confront is that B1G and SEC teams, flush with TV money, can approach our more successful coaches and say, "Come on over, we'll double your salary." Coaches in MSoc, WSoc, MGym, and WSwim immediately come to mind.

[ca245]

Another "sobering truth" we may have to confront is that B1G and SEC teams, flush with TV money, can approach our more successful coaches and say, "Come on over, we'll double your salary." Coaches in MSoc, WSoc, MGym, and WSwim immediately come to mind.

[M T]

Another "sobering truth" we may have to confront is that B1G and SEC teams, flush with TV money, can approach our more successful coaches and say, "Come on over, we'll double your salary." Coaches in MSoc, WSoc, MGym, and WSwim immediately come to mind.

And approach our athletes with money.

As in a recent case, if you can take an NCAA athlete at Stanford and convince them to turn pro (vs giving them NIL), then they can't compete for Stanford any more (even if they continue or come back as a student).  It makes the Stanford team weaker, and thus improves the chance of another NCAA team to beat us.   We tend not to think of Stanford as a one-and-done school, but maybe it will become that way, except that the "one and done" refers to competing rather than getting a degree.

A new form of the Varsity Blues scheme might develop?  "Hey, I've got this world class athlete that wants a good college education, but has only OK academics.  Think you can get them into Stanford, even if they have no intent to play for the school?"

[M T]

Another "sobering truth" we may have to confront is that B1G and SEC teams, flush with TV money, can approach our more successful coaches and say, "Come on over, we'll double your salary." Coaches in MSoc, WSoc, MGym, and WSwim immediately come to mind.

And approach our athletes with money.

As in a recent case, if you can take an NCAA athlete at Stanford and convince them to turn pro (vs giving them NIL), then they can't compete for Stanford any more (even if they continue or come back as a student).  It makes the Stanford team weaker, and thus improves the chance of another NCAA team to beat us.   We tend not to think of Stanford as a one-and-done school, but maybe it will become that way, except that the "one and done" refers to competing rather than getting a degree.

A new form of the Varsity Blues scheme might develop?  "Hey, I've got this world class athlete that wants a good college education, but has only OK academics.  Think you can get them into Stanford, even if they have no intent to play for the school?"

[Mick]

Another "sobering truth" we may have to confront is that B1G and SEC teams, flush with TV money, can approach our more successful coaches and say, "Come on over, we'll double your salary." Coaches in MSoc, WSoc, MGym, and WSwim immediately come to mind.

And the comparative purchasing power of the dollar in non-SFBA regions can be substantial, particularly in the Midwest and South.  I remember when I moved to Detroit, I called Mrs. Mick and said we could buy the fourth most expensive house in Grosse Pointe for what we sold our nice-but-not-remarkable Willow Glen house in San Jose.  The dollar goes far in those areas.

[Mick]

Another "sobering truth" we may have to confront is that B1G and SEC teams, flush with TV money, can approach our more successful coaches and say, "Come on over, we'll double your salary." Coaches in MSoc, WSoc, MGym, and WSwim immediately come to mind.

And the comparative purchasing power of the dollar in non-SFBA regions can be substantial, particularly in the Midwest and South.  I remember when I moved to Detroit, I called Mrs. Mick and said we could buy the fourth most expensive house in Grosse Pointe for what we sold our nice-but-not-remarkable Willow Glen house in San Jose.  The dollar goes far in those areas.

[oman]

The fact is, as Spiny Norman concisely expressed, there is no practical financial alternative at this moment to the harsh reality of joining the Big Ten. As painful as that may be for many in the Stanford realm, the prospect of a far diminished institution (bereft of essential revenue streams) is even worse. It is, to use an overworked word, unacceptable.

This is it.  Hire a new coach who will try to recapture the old culture and try to play the game.  The other choice is to give up now.

I'd rather we try.

Our Texas rival for the Director's Cup is reveling in the muck.  The only way we can keep up is to hold our nose and revel in the muck.

[oman]

The fact is, as Spiny Norman concisely expressed, there is no practical financial alternative at this moment to the harsh reality of joining the Big Ten. As painful as that may be for many in the Stanford realm, the prospect of a far diminished institution (bereft of essential revenue streams) is even worse. It is, to use an overworked word, unacceptable.

This is it.  Hire a new coach who will try to recapture the old culture and try to play the game.  The other choice is to give up now.

I'd rather we try.

Our Texas rival for the Director's Cup is reveling in the muck.  The only way we can keep up is to hold our nose and revel in the muck.

[Mick]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/ostle...433437.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...

[Mick]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/ostle...433437.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...