[GK3]

Does anyone have enough real data to be able to project what a top 20 college football team will cost in today's world?  I assume that we have plenty of Alumni who are capable of writing big checks if they choose to write them, but will they?  What is the Stanford's position going to be in all this?
Is Stanford willing to really participate in the Portal Contest?  
Unfortunately, I believe that if the current situation continues, college football will be dominated by a very limited number of teams, those who are willing to pay a lot of money to a lot of players.  If another Luck or McCaffery comes along can we expect to actually keep him for more than one year?  How much money do you think would have been thrown at those two guys to move somewhere else?  How do we go about recruiting and retaining enough talent to even make a run at the top 25?

Basketball on the other hand, primarily due to the much smaller team size there is a much better chance of us making a run into the top 25 now and then and making the final 64.  A one and done basketball player and do far more for a basketball team than a one and done football player can do for his team.

The NIL and the Portal really do not help Stanford in my opinion, FWLIW.

[GK3]

Does anyone have enough real data to be able to project what a top 20 college football team will cost in today's world?  I assume that we have plenty of Alumni who are capable of writing big checks if they choose to write them, but will they?  What is the Stanford's position going to be in all this?
Is Stanford willing to really participate in the Portal Contest?  
Unfortunately, I believe that if the current situation continues, college football will be dominated by a very limited number of teams, those who are willing to pay a lot of money to a lot of players.  If another Luck or McCaffery comes along can we expect to actually keep him for more than one year?  How much money do you think would have been thrown at those two guys to move somewhere else?  How do we go about recruiting and retaining enough talent to even make a run at the top 25?

Basketball on the other hand, primarily due to the much smaller team size there is a much better chance of us making a run into the top 25 now and then and making the final 64.  A one and done basketball player and do far more for a basketball team than a one and done football player can do for his team.

The NIL and the Portal really do not help Stanford in my opinion, FWLIW.

[gailtate]

Does anyone have enough real data to be able to project what a top 20 college football team will cost in today's world?  I assume that we have plenty of Alumni who are capable of writing big checks if they choose to write them, but will they?  What is the Stanford's position going to be in all this?
Is Stanford willing to really participate in the Portal Contest?  
Unfortunately, I believe that if the current situation continues, college football will be dominated by a very limited number of teams, those who are willing to pay a lot of money to a lot of players.  If another Luck or McCaffery comes along can we expect to actually keep him for more than one year?  How much money do you think would have been thrown at those two guys to move somewhere else?  How do we go about recruiting and retaining enough talent to even make a run at the top 25?

Basketball on the other hand, primarily due to the much smaller team size there is a much better chance of us making a run into the top 25 now and then and making the final 64.  A one and done basketball player and do far more for a basketball team than a one and done football player can do for his team.

The NIL and the Portal really do not help Stanford in my opinion, FWLIW.

"The NIL and the Portal really do not help Stanford in my opinion, FWLIW."

An understatement if there ever was one. What it now takes to compete at the highest level of college football--where Stanford lived for a brief shining moment during the Bob Bowlsby years--are anathema to what I suspect are the powers 
that be, no matter the collective net worth of ambivalent, football-fickle alums.

[gailtate]

Does anyone have enough real data to be able to project what a top 20 college football team will cost in today's world?  I assume that we have plenty of Alumni who are capable of writing big checks if they choose to write them, but will they?  What is the Stanford's position going to be in all this?
Is Stanford willing to really participate in the Portal Contest?  
Unfortunately, I believe that if the current situation continues, college football will be dominated by a very limited number of teams, those who are willing to pay a lot of money to a lot of players.  If another Luck or McCaffery comes along can we expect to actually keep him for more than one year?  How much money do you think would have been thrown at those two guys to move somewhere else?  How do we go about recruiting and retaining enough talent to even make a run at the top 25?

Basketball on the other hand, primarily due to the much smaller team size there is a much better chance of us making a run into the top 25 now and then and making the final 64.  A one and done basketball player and do far more for a basketball team than a one and done football player can do for his team.

The NIL and the Portal really do not help Stanford in my opinion, FWLIW.

"The NIL and the Portal really do not help Stanford in my opinion, FWLIW."

An understatement if there ever was one. What it now takes to compete at the highest level of college football--where Stanford lived for a brief shining moment during the Bob Bowlsby years--are anathema to what I suspect are the powers 
that be, no matter the collective net worth of ambivalent, football-fickle alums.

[ColoradoTree]

I mean, it's not just the powers that be that find the current landscape just a bit too much. Plenty of us who gleefully attended Rose Bowls in recent years and delight in our success also find a lot of this a bridge too far. And yes, I also think players should have NIL rights. But the way it's been done has cheapened the game, and I guess I can't be mad at our administration and/or donors for not hitting SEC-type NIL heights. It just all feels a bit gross. 

I will forever be furious at how the NCAA screwed all of this up. It has always been problematic that schools were pocketing tens of millions while players got only their scholarships. But solving that problem didn't have to mean blowing up the whole damn system. It was the NCAA's intransigence that led us all here. A little forethought, a little trying to get ahead of the curve--and perhaps we'd have a more sustainable model. 

We're well past it now, but my idea was always to take some of that revenue each year and plunk it into a retirement account for all the players. And you could have made some allowances for the Johnny Manziel types who transcended the sport by putting a lot more into their accounts. Or you eat the cost of adding these players to your employee health insurance plans--and you keep them on there for a number of years or for the rest of their lives, depending on the injury risk they faced in their particular sport (for football and other sports with a lot of concussive and sub-concussive impacts, I'd want lifelong health insurance). You could also provide free tuition for student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility to get a graduate degree at your school. Or even just an annuity that would pay dividends starting at age 25 or something. There were always smarter ways of doing this, but schools and the NCAA resisted until the courts forced them to change. And now we're left with the grossest, most transactional version of this brave, new world. 

Maybe it was always going to end up this way. But we could have at least tried something that channeled that extra revenue into a more sustainable path forward.

[ColoradoTree]

I mean, it's not just the powers that be that find the current landscape just a bit too much. Plenty of us who gleefully attended Rose Bowls in recent years and delight in our success also find a lot of this a bridge too far. And yes, I also think players should have NIL rights. But the way it's been done has cheapened the game, and I guess I can't be mad at our administration and/or donors for not hitting SEC-type NIL heights. It just all feels a bit gross. 

I will forever be furious at how the NCAA screwed all of this up. It has always been problematic that schools were pocketing tens of millions while players got only their scholarships. But solving that problem didn't have to mean blowing up the whole damn system. It was the NCAA's intransigence that led us all here. A little forethought, a little trying to get ahead of the curve--and perhaps we'd have a more sustainable model. 

We're well past it now, but my idea was always to take some of that revenue each year and plunk it into a retirement account for all the players. And you could have made some allowances for the Johnny Manziel types who transcended the sport by putting a lot more into their accounts. Or you eat the cost of adding these players to your employee health insurance plans--and you keep them on there for a number of years or for the rest of their lives, depending on the injury risk they faced in their particular sport (for football and other sports with a lot of concussive and sub-concussive impacts, I'd want lifelong health insurance). You could also provide free tuition for student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility to get a graduate degree at your school. Or even just an annuity that would pay dividends starting at age 25 or something. There were always smarter ways of doing this, but schools and the NCAA resisted until the courts forced them to change. And now we're left with the grossest, most transactional version of this brave, new world. 

Maybe it was always going to end up this way. But we could have at least tried something that channeled that extra revenue into a more sustainable path forward.

[gailtate]

I mean, it's not just the powers that be that find the current landscape just a bit too much. Plenty of us who gleefully attended Rose Bowls in recent years and delight in our success also find a lot of this a bridge too far. And yes, I also think players should have NIL rights. But the way it's been done has cheapened the game, and I guess I can't be mad at our administration and/or donors for not hitting SEC-type NIL heights. It just all feels a bit gross. 

I will forever be furious at how the NCAA screwed all of this up. It has always been problematic that schools were pocketing tens of millions while players got only their scholarships. But solving that problem didn't have to mean blowing up the whole damn system. It was the NCAA's intransigence that led us all here. A little forethought, a little trying to get ahead of the curve--and perhaps we'd have a more sustainable model. 

We're well past it now, but my idea was always to take some of that revenue each year and plunk it into a retirement account for all the players. And you could have made some allowances for the Johnny Manziel types who transcended the sport by putting a lot more into their accounts. Or you eat the cost of adding these players to your employee health insurance plans--and you keep them on there for a number of years or for the rest of their lives, depending on the injury risk they faced in their particular sport (for football and other sports with a lot of concussive and sub-concussive impacts, I'd want lifelong health insurance). You could also provide free tuition for student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility to get a graduate degree at your school. Or even just an annuity that would pay dividends starting at age 25 or something. There were always smarter ways of doing this, but schools and the NCAA resisted until the courts forced them to change. And now we're left with the grossest, most transactional version of this brave, new world. 

Maybe it  was always going to end up this way. But we could have at least tried something that channeled that extra revenue into a more sustainable path forward.

 

Well put.
Reality: How much longer can Stanford stomach being the doormat of a Power Four conference while its fading fan-base circles the drain? Nothing "sustainable" there.

[gailtate]

I mean, it's not just the powers that be that find the current landscape just a bit too much. Plenty of us who gleefully attended Rose Bowls in recent years and delight in our success also find a lot of this a bridge too far. And yes, I also think players should have NIL rights. But the way it's been done has cheapened the game, and I guess I can't be mad at our administration and/or donors for not hitting SEC-type NIL heights. It just all feels a bit gross. 

I will forever be furious at how the NCAA screwed all of this up. It has always been problematic that schools were pocketing tens of millions while players got only their scholarships. But solving that problem didn't have to mean blowing up the whole damn system. It was the NCAA's intransigence that led us all here. A little forethought, a little trying to get ahead of the curve--and perhaps we'd have a more sustainable model. 

We're well past it now, but my idea was always to take some of that revenue each year and plunk it into a retirement account for all the players. And you could have made some allowances for the Johnny Manziel types who transcended the sport by putting a lot more into their accounts. Or you eat the cost of adding these players to your employee health insurance plans--and you keep them on there for a number of years or for the rest of their lives, depending on the injury risk they faced in their particular sport (for football and other sports with a lot of concussive and sub-concussive impacts, I'd want lifelong health insurance). You could also provide free tuition for student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility to get a graduate degree at your school. Or even just an annuity that would pay dividends starting at age 25 or something. There were always smarter ways of doing this, but schools and the NCAA resisted until the courts forced them to change. And now we're left with the grossest, most transactional version of this brave, new world. 

Maybe it  was always going to end up this way. But we could have at least tried something that channeled that extra revenue into a more sustainable path forward.

 

Well put.
Reality: How much longer can Stanford stomach being the doormat of a Power Four conference while its fading fan-base circles the drain? Nothing "sustainable" there.

[GK3]

I mean, it's not just the powers that be that find the current landscape just a bit too much. Plenty of us who gleefully attended Rose Bowls in recent years and delight in our success also find a lot of this a bridge too far. And yes, I also think players should have NIL rights. But the way it's been done has cheapened the game, and I guess I can't be mad at our administration and/or donors for not hitting SEC-type NIL heights. It just all feels a bit gross. 

I will forever be furious at how the NCAA screwed all of this up. It has always been problematic that schools were pocketing tens of millions while players got only their scholarships. But solving that problem didn't have to mean blowing up the whole damn system. It was the NCAA's intransigence that led us all here. A little forethought, a little trying to get ahead of the curve--and perhaps we'd have a more sustainable model. 

We're well past it now, but my idea was always to take some of that revenue each year and plunk it into a retirement account for all the players. And you could have made some allowances for the Johnny Manziel types who transcended the sport by putting a lot more into their accounts. Or you eat the cost of adding these players to your employee health insurance plans--and you keep them on there for a number of years or for the rest of their lives, depending on the injury risk they faced in their particular sport (for football and other sports with a lot of concussive and sub-concussive impacts, I'd want lifelong health insurance). You could also provide free tuition for student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility to get a graduate degree at your school. Or even just an annuity that would pay dividends starting at age 25 or something. There were always smarter ways of doing this, but schools and the NCAA resisted until the courts forced them to change. And now we're left with the grossest, most transactional version of this brave, new world. 

Maybe it  was always going to end up this way. But we could have at least tried something that channeled that extra revenue into a more sustainable path forward.

 

Well put.
Reality: How much longer can Stanford stomach being the doormat of a Power Four conference while its fading fan-base circles the drain? Nothing "sustainable" there.

A very good question and one I think can only be answered "not long".  As I see it, if you want to be in the top 20 now days you need roughly 44 4 star guys if you want to be in the top ten.  In todays world, I do not see Stanford ever having 22 4 stars on its roster.  Just won't happen because we will not pay for it, or can't pay for it. 
For other sports the picture is different.  In BB I think one can make a run at the top with far less talent across the board.  A one and one or 2 another 4 star and you are going to do well.  I think the same applies to other sports as well,  in football do I see us being always on the outside looking in.

[GK3]

I mean, it's not just the powers that be that find the current landscape just a bit too much. Plenty of us who gleefully attended Rose Bowls in recent years and delight in our success also find a lot of this a bridge too far. And yes, I also think players should have NIL rights. But the way it's been done has cheapened the game, and I guess I can't be mad at our administration and/or donors for not hitting SEC-type NIL heights. It just all feels a bit gross. 

I will forever be furious at how the NCAA screwed all of this up. It has always been problematic that schools were pocketing tens of millions while players got only their scholarships. But solving that problem didn't have to mean blowing up the whole damn system. It was the NCAA's intransigence that led us all here. A little forethought, a little trying to get ahead of the curve--and perhaps we'd have a more sustainable model. 

We're well past it now, but my idea was always to take some of that revenue each year and plunk it into a retirement account for all the players. And you could have made some allowances for the Johnny Manziel types who transcended the sport by putting a lot more into their accounts. Or you eat the cost of adding these players to your employee health insurance plans--and you keep them on there for a number of years or for the rest of their lives, depending on the injury risk they faced in their particular sport (for football and other sports with a lot of concussive and sub-concussive impacts, I'd want lifelong health insurance). You could also provide free tuition for student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility to get a graduate degree at your school. Or even just an annuity that would pay dividends starting at age 25 or something. There were always smarter ways of doing this, but schools and the NCAA resisted until the courts forced them to change. And now we're left with the grossest, most transactional version of this brave, new world. 

Maybe it  was always going to end up this way. But we could have at least tried something that channeled that extra revenue into a more sustainable path forward.

 

Well put.
Reality: How much longer can Stanford stomach being the doormat of a Power Four conference while its fading fan-base circles the drain? Nothing "sustainable" there.

A very good question and one I think can only be answered "not long".  As I see it, if you want to be in the top 20 now days you need roughly 44 4 star guys if you want to be in the top ten.  In todays world, I do not see Stanford ever having 22 4 stars on its roster.  Just won't happen because we will not pay for it, or can't pay for it. 
For other sports the picture is different.  In BB I think one can make a run at the top with far less talent across the board.  A one and one or 2 another 4 star and you are going to do well.  I think the same applies to other sports as well,  in football do I see us being always on the outside looking in.

[qwerty49]

I mean, it's not just the powers that be that find the current landscape just a bit too much. Plenty of us who gleefully attended Rose Bowls in recent years and delight in our success also find a lot of this a bridge too far. And yes, I also think players should have NIL rights. But the way it's been done has cheapened the game, and I guess I can't be mad at our administration and/or donors for not hitting SEC-type NIL heights. It just all feels a bit gross. 

I will forever be furious at how the NCAA screwed all of this up. It has always been problematic that schools were pocketing tens of millions while players got only their scholarships. But solving that problem didn't have to mean blowing up the whole damn system. It was the NCAA's intransigence that led us all here. A little forethought, a little trying to get ahead of the curve--and perhaps we'd have a more sustainable model. 

We're well past it now, but my idea was always to take some of that revenue each year and plunk it into a retirement account for all the players. And you could have made some allowances for the Johnny Manziel types who transcended the sport by putting a lot more into their accounts. Or you eat the cost of adding these players to your employee health insurance plans--and you keep them on there for a number of years or for the rest of their lives, depending on the injury risk they faced in their particular sport (for football and other sports with a lot of concussive and sub-concussive impacts, I'd want lifelong health insurance). You could also provide free tuition for student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility to get a graduate degree at your school. Or even just an annuity that would pay dividends starting at age 25 or something. There were always smarter ways of doing this, but schools and the NCAA resisted until the courts forced them to change. And now we're left with the grossest, most transactional version of this brave, new world. 

Maybe it  was always going to end up this way. But we could have at least tried something that channeled that extra revenue into a more sustainable path forward.

 

Well put.
Reality: How much longer can Stanford stomach being the doormat of a Power Four conference while its fading fan-base circles the drain? Nothing "sustainable" there.

A very good question and one I think can only be answered "not long".  As I see it, if you want to be in the top 20 now days you need roughly 44 4 star guys if you want to be in the top ten.  In todays world, I do not see Stanford ever having 22 4 stars on its roster.  Just won't happen because we will not pay for it, or can't pay for it. 
For other sports the picture is different.  In BB I think one can make a run at the top with far less talent across the board.  A one and one or 2 another 4 star and you are going to do well.  I think the same applies to other sports as well,  in football do I see us being always on the outside looking in.

An excellent point. It’s way easier for, say, Duke to recruit 4 or 5 top hoopsters and be in the run for national contention than it is for them to find 25 or 30 great HS FB players.

So sure, we could become a power in a sport with less formidable numbers.

But I think the new math boils down to TV money, and I think that’s overwhelmingly from FB.

[qwerty49]

I mean, it's not just the powers that be that find the current landscape just a bit too much. Plenty of us who gleefully attended Rose Bowls in recent years and delight in our success also find a lot of this a bridge too far. And yes, I also think players should have NIL rights. But the way it's been done has cheapened the game, and I guess I can't be mad at our administration and/or donors for not hitting SEC-type NIL heights. It just all feels a bit gross. 

I will forever be furious at how the NCAA screwed all of this up. It has always been problematic that schools were pocketing tens of millions while players got only their scholarships. But solving that problem didn't have to mean blowing up the whole damn system. It was the NCAA's intransigence that led us all here. A little forethought, a little trying to get ahead of the curve--and perhaps we'd have a more sustainable model. 

We're well past it now, but my idea was always to take some of that revenue each year and plunk it into a retirement account for all the players. And you could have made some allowances for the Johnny Manziel types who transcended the sport by putting a lot more into their accounts. Or you eat the cost of adding these players to your employee health insurance plans--and you keep them on there for a number of years or for the rest of their lives, depending on the injury risk they faced in their particular sport (for football and other sports with a lot of concussive and sub-concussive impacts, I'd want lifelong health insurance). You could also provide free tuition for student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility to get a graduate degree at your school. Or even just an annuity that would pay dividends starting at age 25 or something. There were always smarter ways of doing this, but schools and the NCAA resisted until the courts forced them to change. And now we're left with the grossest, most transactional version of this brave, new world. 

Maybe it  was always going to end up this way. But we could have at least tried something that channeled that extra revenue into a more sustainable path forward.

 

Well put.
Reality: How much longer can Stanford stomach being the doormat of a Power Four conference while its fading fan-base circles the drain? Nothing "sustainable" there.

A very good question and one I think can only be answered "not long".  As I see it, if you want to be in the top 20 now days you need roughly 44 4 star guys if you want to be in the top ten.  In todays world, I do not see Stanford ever having 22 4 stars on its roster.  Just won't happen because we will not pay for it, or can't pay for it. 
For other sports the picture is different.  In BB I think one can make a run at the top with far less talent across the board.  A one and one or 2 another 4 star and you are going to do well.  I think the same applies to other sports as well,  in football do I see us being always on the outside looking in.

An excellent point. It’s way easier for, say, Duke to recruit 4 or 5 top hoopsters and be in the run for national contention than it is for them to find 25 or 30 great HS FB players.

So sure, we could become a power in a sport with less formidable numbers.

But I think the new math boils down to TV money, and I think that’s overwhelmingly from FB.

[jacket3ree]

One million dollars


Wait, that's just one player in a non-revenue sport.

It will cost a lot.  These are good questions being asked.  What are the alternatives to paying market rate for competitive teams in the competitive conference in which Stanford chose to compete?  (Not to mention chose to subsidize.) Are those alternatives worth the savings?  Stanford has more money than most if they want to spend it. What are the alternatives to paying what is necessary?

Getting teeth kicked in consistently on national TV. Losers. Is that good for the brand? 

Further loss of fan and alumni engagement, although how much emptier can it get? Lost opportunities for donations. Do they matter in the grand scheme?

Can Stanford really afford a luxurious athletic department without FBS football? Without P4 football?

What do you do with a stadium that is used once a year?

Correlation is not causation, but this full-on NIL/portal year has been wild. Vandy looks better than Bama. Army and Navy are on a collision course to run the table. Florida State sucks. Football teams are still made up of kids barely out of high school. Maybe this opens things up for those willing to pay. The days of stockpiling talent are long gone. 

Good coaches and good players. The formula is not difficult. It just worked at Stanford for almost a full decade.

[jacket3ree]

One million dollars


Wait, that's just one player in a non-revenue sport.

It will cost a lot.  These are good questions being asked.  What are the alternatives to paying market rate for competitive teams in the competitive conference in which Stanford chose to compete?  (Not to mention chose to subsidize.) Are those alternatives worth the savings?  Stanford has more money than most if they want to spend it. What are the alternatives to paying what is necessary?

Getting teeth kicked in consistently on national TV. Losers. Is that good for the brand? 

Further loss of fan and alumni engagement, although how much emptier can it get? Lost opportunities for donations. Do they matter in the grand scheme?

Can Stanford really afford a luxurious athletic department without FBS football? Without P4 football?

What do you do with a stadium that is used once a year?

Correlation is not causation, but this full-on NIL/portal year has been wild. Vandy looks better than Bama. Army and Navy are on a collision course to run the table. Florida State sucks. Football teams are still made up of kids barely out of high school. Maybe this opens things up for those willing to pay. The days of stockpiling talent are long gone. 

Good coaches and good players. The formula is not difficult. It just worked at Stanford for almost a full decade.

[BostonCard]

What is the relevant market?  It is hard to have a market system where labor costs exceed revenue, but this has always been a distorted market, and ego has always played a disproportionate role in the funding of athletics departments.  In a true market system some market participants declare bankruptcy and exit the market; while it can happen, it hasn’t happened nearly enough.  Even under a very regulated system (the old NCAA) boosters were throwing money left and right to prop up coach buyouts, ever more luxurious facilities, and a plethora of bloated AD staff, not to mention the occasional under-the-table inducement to athletes all for the luxury of being able to say that “my team” is better than “yours”, as if that makes me a better person than you.

I do think that at some point things will settle down into some sort of steady state, but I am not sure if it will happen before we decide it’s just not worth it.

BC

[BostonCard]

What is the relevant market?  It is hard to have a market system where labor costs exceed revenue, but this has always been a distorted market, and ego has always played a disproportionate role in the funding of athletics departments.  In a true market system some market participants declare bankruptcy and exit the market; while it can happen, it hasn’t happened nearly enough.  Even under a very regulated system (the old NCAA) boosters were throwing money left and right to prop up coach buyouts, ever more luxurious facilities, and a plethora of bloated AD staff, not to mention the occasional under-the-table inducement to athletes all for the luxury of being able to say that “my team” is better than “yours”, as if that makes me a better person than you.

I do think that at some point things will settle down into some sort of steady state, but I am not sure if it will happen before we decide it’s just not worth it.

BC

[bl82]

Oregon's NIL budget is supposedly $23 million; Ohio State's $20 million. The NFL salary cap is about $250 million per team. I have read that NFL players receive close to half of NFL revenue. Some of the larger college football programs generate $150 million to $200 million in annual revenue. If this NIL experiment works, I would reason that NIL budgets could double or even triple, so that players earn a more NFL-like slice of the pie. It's all just business at this point.

Possibly the universities will discover the need for an "NIL cap" to keep the game relevant. Otherwise, it seems that a relative handful of teams will be able to outspend everyone else.

I favor college players sharing in the revenues, even substantially so. But I wonder if at some point, big-business college football becomes orthogonal to universities. At some point in time, do students begin to resent fellow students making millions of dollars per year? I don't know the answer, but do wonder about that.

As far as our beloved Cardinal are concerned, if we are going to compete, we are going to need to compete in NIL deal values. This is a problem that has a solution, but it may be that only those of us who love Stanford sports even see the matter as a problem. Does the board even want the university to compete at the highest levels of sport? Based upon what I've seen over the past few years, I have my doubts.

So...

$23 million - Oregon
$20 million - Ohio State ($13 million as of two years ago)
$7.2 million - Texas A&M (avg $85,000)
$5.5 million - Michigan and Oklahoma (avg $64,000 - $65,000)

The last few numbers came from ChatGPT and sound low to me, but if they are in the ballpark, we should be able to field a fairly solid team with a budget of $3-4 million, which an $100 million endowment should be able to cover

[bl82]

Oregon's NIL budget is supposedly $23 million; Ohio State's $20 million. The NFL salary cap is about $250 million per team. I have read that NFL players receive close to half of NFL revenue. Some of the larger college football programs generate $150 million to $200 million in annual revenue. If this NIL experiment works, I would reason that NIL budgets could double or even triple, so that players earn a more NFL-like slice of the pie. It's all just business at this point.

Possibly the universities will discover the need for an "NIL cap" to keep the game relevant. Otherwise, it seems that a relative handful of teams will be able to outspend everyone else.

I favor college players sharing in the revenues, even substantially so. But I wonder if at some point, big-business college football becomes orthogonal to universities. At some point in time, do students begin to resent fellow students making millions of dollars per year? I don't know the answer, but do wonder about that.

As far as our beloved Cardinal are concerned, if we are going to compete, we are going to need to compete in NIL deal values. This is a problem that has a solution, but it may be that only those of us who love Stanford sports even see the matter as a problem. Does the board even want the university to compete at the highest levels of sport? Based upon what I've seen over the past few years, I have my doubts.

So...

$23 million - Oregon
$20 million - Ohio State ($13 million as of two years ago)
$7.2 million - Texas A&M (avg $85,000)
$5.5 million - Michigan and Oklahoma (avg $64,000 - $65,000)

The last few numbers came from ChatGPT and sound low to me, but if they are in the ballpark, we should be able to field a fairly solid team with a budget of $3-4 million, which an $100 million endowment should be able to cover

[BostonCard]

I think those numbers are for entire athletic department budgets, not football.

TOSU football generated $127 million in 2023 for an athletic department as a whole that generated $279 million.

Michigan football made 142.7 million while the AD as a whole made $230 million.

Note those numbers include $57 million and $31 million respectively in donations.  The numbers also include “institutional support”, ie, money transferred from the university general fund to make up for any AD shortfalls.

I didn’t go through the entire list, but I didn’t see any school that reported football revenue above $150 million; the 23rd highest revenue AD (Oregon) brought in just over $150 million.

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/co...12519/amp/

BC

[BostonCard]

I think those numbers are for entire athletic department budgets, not football.

TOSU football generated $127 million in 2023 for an athletic department as a whole that generated $279 million.

Michigan football made 142.7 million while the AD as a whole made $230 million.

Note those numbers include $57 million and $31 million respectively in donations.  The numbers also include “institutional support”, ie, money transferred from the university general fund to make up for any AD shortfalls.

I didn’t go through the entire list, but I didn’t see any school that reported football revenue above $150 million; the 23rd highest revenue AD (Oregon) brought in just over $150 million.

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/co...12519/amp/

BC

[StanfordMatt]

Per the House settlement, which received preliminary approval last week, player payments for all sports combined are capped at roughly 22% of institutional revenue. The first-year cap is expected to be approximately $22,000,000. Whether this amount must be divied up equally between the genders or may be allocated proportionally per sport based on revenues generated will be left to the Title IX attorneys and judges.

https://www.si.com/fannation/name-image-...-challenge

[StanfordMatt]

Per the House settlement, which received preliminary approval last week, player payments for all sports combined are capped at roughly 22% of institutional revenue. The first-year cap is expected to be approximately $22,000,000. Whether this amount must be divied up equally between the genders or may be allocated proportionally per sport based on revenues generated will be left to the Title IX attorneys and judges.

https://www.si.com/fannation/name-image-...-challenge

[M T]

Pity the 16yo high school student:  Should he study for his math test, or keep lifting weights and take the pills someone said would help?  All he has to do is look good in high school sports to get the big bucks until he's old, like 21.


How will parents face the challenges?   "We lived in poverty but we wanted big things for our little Jacky.  That's why we slipped HGH into the cereal."

At the 20-year reunion:  "Look at Sandra, she split a Nobel Prize with her co-worker at a very young age.  But, remember Norm?  He got more money than that before his eligibility was up.  Poor Norm."

If this society didn't already seem to value show over education and progress, it seems to be tumbling down that hill right now.


(As I understand it, the $22M cap doesn't include what we call NIL at this time.  Canady's NIL is not being paid by Texas Tech.)

[M T]

Pity the 16yo high school student:  Should he study for his math test, or keep lifting weights and take the pills someone said would help?  All he has to do is look good in high school sports to get the big bucks until he's old, like 21.


How will parents face the challenges?   "We lived in poverty but we wanted big things for our little Jacky.  That's why we slipped HGH into the cereal."

At the 20-year reunion:  "Look at Sandra, she split a Nobel Prize with her co-worker at a very young age.  But, remember Norm?  He got more money than that before his eligibility was up.  Poor Norm."

If this society didn't already seem to value show over education and progress, it seems to be tumbling down that hill right now.


(As I understand it, the $22M cap doesn't include what we call NIL at this time.  Canady's NIL is not being paid by Texas Tech.)

[Goose]

One important constraint of "How much will it cost?" for Stanford to "buy" a good football team is admissions. That is IMO even more a limiting factor than money. The coaches would still have to find on average 11 four star (or better) athletes every year that want to do the work and can be admitted to Stanford. IMO that won't be even remotely possible. If you are a four star athlete set to make millions a year wherever you go why would you chose to take the risk that if you bust your ass and take a bunch of AP classes you MIGHT be admissible to Stanford? After that you get to work hard to remain eligible. Attracting such players was difficult enough when there wasn't "set for life" money available. Now that there is, it won't happen, period. You don't (appear to) need a "40 year decision" under those circumstances.

The alternative would be to change admission standards to align with "everybody else". Anything less still leaves Stanford at a disadvantage. Today it is a substantial disadvantage. IMO changing that would challenge the core premises of the University and I would oppose it. What I think probably matters exactly zero but there are are plenty of faculty that think the same way. That does matter and ensures Stanford will always be operating at a disadvantage with respect to the vast majority of other Universities. It comes with the territory.

It must also be stated that as Jerry Jones proves year over year in Dallas no matter how much money you spend you cannot reliably "buy" a championship team. This is even more true of younger players like college athletes. Lots of "can't miss" prospects do "miss". That means that year over year 11 four star "prospects" aren't enough. You probably need 18-19 as "insurance", but which ones??

[Goose]

One important constraint of "How much will it cost?" for Stanford to "buy" a good football team is admissions. That is IMO even more a limiting factor than money. The coaches would still have to find on average 11 four star (or better) athletes every year that want to do the work and can be admitted to Stanford. IMO that won't be even remotely possible. If you are a four star athlete set to make millions a year wherever you go why would you chose to take the risk that if you bust your ass and take a bunch of AP classes you MIGHT be admissible to Stanford? After that you get to work hard to remain eligible. Attracting such players was difficult enough when there wasn't "set for life" money available. Now that there is, it won't happen, period. You don't (appear to) need a "40 year decision" under those circumstances.

The alternative would be to change admission standards to align with "everybody else". Anything less still leaves Stanford at a disadvantage. Today it is a substantial disadvantage. IMO changing that would challenge the core premises of the University and I would oppose it. What I think probably matters exactly zero but there are are plenty of faculty that think the same way. That does matter and ensures Stanford will always be operating at a disadvantage with respect to the vast majority of other Universities. It comes with the territory.

It must also be stated that as Jerry Jones proves year over year in Dallas no matter how much money you spend you cannot reliably "buy" a championship team. This is even more true of younger players like college athletes. Lots of "can't miss" prospects do "miss". That means that year over year 11 four star "prospects" aren't enough. You probably need 18-19 as "insurance", but which ones??

[GK3]

Pity the 16yo high school student:  Should he study for his math test, or keep lifting weights and take the pills someone said would help?  All he has to do is look good in high school sports to get the big bucks until he's old, like 21.


How will parents face the challenges?   "We lived in poverty but we wanted big things for our little Jacky.  That's why we slipped HGH into the cereal."

At the 20-year reunion:  "Look at Sandra, she split a Nobel Prize with her co-worker at a very young age.  But, remember Norm?  He got more money than that before his eligibility was up.  Poor Norm."

If this society didn't already seem to value show over education and progress, it seems to be tumbling down that hill right now.


(As I understand it, the $22M cap doesn't include what we call NIL at this time.  Canady's NIL is not being paid by Texas Tech.)

I believe all NIL payments are being made by booster funded cooperatives, not the schools.  
Do we have enough boosters willing to cough up 20 or 30 million a year?

What are professors going to start thinking when they are teaching students who mostly haven't done anything of note, but are making more than they are?

How big is the deficit for the football portion of the AD? Can we actually be making money?

[GK3]

Pity the 16yo high school student:  Should he study for his math test, or keep lifting weights and take the pills someone said would help?  All he has to do is look good in high school sports to get the big bucks until he's old, like 21.


How will parents face the challenges?   "We lived in poverty but we wanted big things for our little Jacky.  That's why we slipped HGH into the cereal."

At the 20-year reunion:  "Look at Sandra, she split a Nobel Prize with her co-worker at a very young age.  But, remember Norm?  He got more money than that before his eligibility was up.  Poor Norm."

If this society didn't already seem to value show over education and progress, it seems to be tumbling down that hill right now.


(As I understand it, the $22M cap doesn't include what we call NIL at this time.  Canady's NIL is not being paid by Texas Tech.)

I believe all NIL payments are being made by booster funded cooperatives, not the schools.  
Do we have enough boosters willing to cough up 20 or 30 million a year?

What are professors going to start thinking when they are teaching students who mostly haven't done anything of note, but are making more than they are?

How big is the deficit for the football portion of the AD? Can we actually be making money?

[StanfordMatt]

(As I understand it, the $22M cap doesn't include what we call NIL at this time.  Canady's NIL is not being paid by Texas Tech.)

Ok, let's dig into this further because there are multiple issues at play.

First, it is correct that Canady's NIL is not being paid by Texas Tech because the NCAA currently prohibits member schools from paying players directly.

The wild west aspect of NIL that has people up in arms is the fact that only a small fraction of the dollars that have been paid to players under the guise of "Name, Image and Likeness" have truly been disbursed for these purposes (e.g. Jimbo's Ford paying Johnny Football $1,000 to do a local commercial). The vast majority of NIL dollars have been paid via collectives that are de facto "pay for play" deals.

For this reason, collectives and athletic departments have been inextricably linked from early on in the NIL era and you've seen AD's openly campaign for donors to contribute to collectives associated with a particular program. Mr. AD doesn't care about Jimbo's Ford paying Johnny Football to do a local commercial but you better believe they want to know what's going on when those checks serve as the primary inducement for a star QB or pitcher attending their school.

When the NCAA has tried to step in and police the line between "true NIL" deals and pay-for-play, they've been shot down (see cases filed by attorneys general of VA and TN). What the courts have said, and I personally find to be a compelling argument, is that it's an impossible line to demarcate. There is simply too much gray area.

When the House settlement was first announced, it was a boon for former players who would become eligible to receive a share of billion dollar pie of damages. There was also a benefit for the NCAA and schools, however, in that it was supposed to rein in the wild west aspect of the NIL world and set real caps on spending on players that would be paid directly by the schools (anticipated to be roughly $22 million initially and grow over time). Immediately, collectives affiliated with major athletic programs began to shut down because they were viewed as an unnecessary middle man if schools would be processing payments themselves (most notably, Alabama shut down its collective "Walk of Champions").

Fast forward to September when Judge Wilken unexpectedly rejected the initially proposed House settlement for a couple of reasons, most notably her view that it gave the NCAA too much power to police what is and is not "true NIL." So the NCAA and attorneys went back to the drawing board to rework the settlement agreement. Just last week, Judge Wilken accepted the revisions and granted preliminary approval.  While I do not believe details have been released, presumably the NCAA will have minimal authority to arbitrate NIL deals.

TLDR, yes, it is possible that high powered donors will still funnel money to star players outside of the scope of a school's athletic department in a post-House world. However, I anticipate AD's will do everything in their power to bring everything in-house and under the school's control. I don't see collectives that are affiliated with a single school playing much, if any, of a role going forward. Only a tiny fraction of athletic departments will have enough cash in excess of $22 million to be looking for ways to circumvent the revenue sharing cap. If Alabama is shutting down its collective, that should tell you all you need to know.

[StanfordMatt]

(As I understand it, the $22M cap doesn't include what we call NIL at this time.  Canady's NIL is not being paid by Texas Tech.)

Ok, let's dig into this further because there are multiple issues at play.

First, it is correct that Canady's NIL is not being paid by Texas Tech because the NCAA currently prohibits member schools from paying players directly.

The wild west aspect of NIL that has people up in arms is the fact that only a small fraction of the dollars that have been paid to players under the guise of "Name, Image and Likeness" have truly been disbursed for these purposes (e.g. Jimbo's Ford paying Johnny Football $1,000 to do a local commercial). The vast majority of NIL dollars have been paid via collectives that are de facto "pay for play" deals.

For this reason, collectives and athletic departments have been inextricably linked from early on in the NIL era and you've seen AD's openly campaign for donors to contribute to collectives associated with a particular program. Mr. AD doesn't care about Jimbo's Ford paying Johnny Football to do a local commercial but you better believe they want to know what's going on when those checks serve as the primary inducement for a star QB or pitcher attending their school.

When the NCAA has tried to step in and police the line between "true NIL" deals and pay-for-play, they've been shot down (see cases filed by attorneys general of VA and TN). What the courts have said, and I personally find to be a compelling argument, is that it's an impossible line to demarcate. There is simply too much gray area.

When the House settlement was first announced, it was a boon for former players who would become eligible to receive a share of billion dollar pie of damages. There was also a benefit for the NCAA and schools, however, in that it was supposed to rein in the wild west aspect of the NIL world and set real caps on spending on players that would be paid directly by the schools (anticipated to be roughly $22 million initially and grow over time). Immediately, collectives affiliated with major athletic programs began to shut down because they were viewed as an unnecessary middle man if schools would be processing payments themselves (most notably, Alabama shut down its collective "Walk of Champions").

Fast forward to September when Judge Wilken unexpectedly rejected the initially proposed House settlement for a couple of reasons, most notably her view that it gave the NCAA too much power to police what is and is not "true NIL." So the NCAA and attorneys went back to the drawing board to rework the settlement agreement. Just last week, Judge Wilken accepted the revisions and granted preliminary approval.  While I do not believe details have been released, presumably the NCAA will have minimal authority to arbitrate NIL deals.

TLDR, yes, it is possible that high powered donors will still funnel money to star players outside of the scope of a school's athletic department in a post-House world. However, I anticipate AD's will do everything in their power to bring everything in-house and under the school's control. I don't see collectives that are affiliated with a single school playing much, if any, of a role going forward. Only a tiny fraction of athletic departments will have enough cash in excess of $22 million to be looking for ways to circumvent the revenue sharing cap. If Alabama is shutting down its collective, that should tell you all you need to know.

[mutoo1]

does anyone on this board know what percentage of stanford's tenured professors actually attended stanford as an undergrad?  as a grad student?

i've always thought stanford ought to admit its recruited student-athletes so long as those in the admissions department assess that the prospective student-athlete can do the work necessary to graduate and productively contribute to stanford.

correspondingly, there ought to be less elitism with respect to admissions.

[mutoo1]

does anyone on this board know what percentage of stanford's tenured professors actually attended stanford as an undergrad?  as a grad student?

i've always thought stanford ought to admit its recruited student-athletes so long as those in the admissions department assess that the prospective student-athlete can do the work necessary to graduate and productively contribute to stanford.

correspondingly, there ought to be less elitism with respect to admissions.

[BostonCard]

To answer the original question, I think the old saw applies; if you have to ask, you can’t afford it.

BC

[BostonCard]

To answer the original question, I think the old saw applies; if you have to ask, you can’t afford it.

BC

[martyup]

Everyone knows that NIL is a farce.  The money given to these athletes is to induce them to play at a particular school, not for advertising purposes.  If NIL payments are legit purchases of rights to use the athlete's name, image, and likeness, then the owners of those rights would be selling them to advertisers.  Is there any evidence that the NIL collectives are selling the rights that they purchased to advertisers?

[martyup]

Everyone knows that NIL is a farce.  The money given to these athletes is to induce them to play at a particular school, not for advertising purposes.  If NIL payments are legit purchases of rights to use the athlete's name, image, and likeness, then the owners of those rights would be selling them to advertisers.  Is there any evidence that the NIL collectives are selling the rights that they purchased to advertisers?

[GK3]

One important constraint of "How much will it cost?" for Stanford to "buy" a good football team is admissions. That is IMO even more a limiting factor than money. The coaches would still have to find on average 11 four star (or better) athletes every year that want to do the work and can be admitted to Stanford. IMO that won't be even remotely possible. If you are a four star athlete set to make millions a year wherever you go why would you chose to take the risk that if you bust your ass and take a bunch of AP classes you MIGHT be admissible to Stanford? After that you get to work hard to remain eligible. Attracting such players was difficult enough when there wasn't "set for life" money available. Now that there is, it won't happen, period. You don't (appear to) need a "40 year decision" under those circumstances.

The alternative would be to change admission standards to align with "everybody else". Anything less still leaves Stanford at a disadvantage. Today it is a substantial disadvantage. IMO changing that would challenge the core premises of the University and I would oppose it. What I think probably matters exactly zero but there are are plenty of faculty that think the same way. That does matter and ensures Stanford will always be operating at a disadvantage with respect to the vast majority of other Universities. It comes with the territory.

It must also be stated that as Jerry Jones proves year over year in Dallas no matter how much money you spend you cannot reliably "buy" a championship team. This is even more true of younger players like college athletes. Lots of "can't miss" prospects do "miss". That means that year over year 11 four star "prospects" aren't enough. You probably need 18-19 as "insurance", but which ones??

Your point is well taken.  The NIL/Portal issue has really made the old "40 year" decision argument pretty weak. I am NOT in favor of Stanford giving any significant break to athletes, I think they have always gotten a little break, but they have all be capable of doing the work.  We have obviously eased up on accepting transfers as compared to the past, but as you say, how many are there who have adequate academic chops?  The ACC has a number of very good academic institutions.  Four are in the top 20 and 6 in the top 30.  Duke, Notre Dame and Vanderbilt join Stanford and Cal in the top 20.  My guess is that we are a distant last in willingness to accept athletic transfers.  
Notre Dame lost a number players at the end of last year, Cal took at least two of them.  Did we make any effort to take any?  Was it even possible?
Duke lost 7 from its basketball team, we got one of those.  Was Jaylen to only one of that group who could get into Stanford?

I think many of our teams can do very well in the current environment IF we are allowed really use the Portal and our teams are competitive enough to be attractive.  I think the route to rebuilding may lie more in the Portal than in who we get out of high school, at least in football.

It used to be that the coaches only needed to worry about who they could get in as Freshmen, now they have to still deal with that, but they have to have a "transfer" list and figure out how to legally mine that, if we can.

I think if you are a coach at Stanford your life is much more difficult than it used to be.

[GK3]

One important constraint of "How much will it cost?" for Stanford to "buy" a good football team is admissions. That is IMO even more a limiting factor than money. The coaches would still have to find on average 11 four star (or better) athletes every year that want to do the work and can be admitted to Stanford. IMO that won't be even remotely possible. If you are a four star athlete set to make millions a year wherever you go why would you chose to take the risk that if you bust your ass and take a bunch of AP classes you MIGHT be admissible to Stanford? After that you get to work hard to remain eligible. Attracting such players was difficult enough when there wasn't "set for life" money available. Now that there is, it won't happen, period. You don't (appear to) need a "40 year decision" under those circumstances.

The alternative would be to change admission standards to align with "everybody else". Anything less still leaves Stanford at a disadvantage. Today it is a substantial disadvantage. IMO changing that would challenge the core premises of the University and I would oppose it. What I think probably matters exactly zero but there are are plenty of faculty that think the same way. That does matter and ensures Stanford will always be operating at a disadvantage with respect to the vast majority of other Universities. It comes with the territory.

It must also be stated that as Jerry Jones proves year over year in Dallas no matter how much money you spend you cannot reliably "buy" a championship team. This is even more true of younger players like college athletes. Lots of "can't miss" prospects do "miss". That means that year over year 11 four star "prospects" aren't enough. You probably need 18-19 as "insurance", but which ones??

Your point is well taken.  The NIL/Portal issue has really made the old "40 year" decision argument pretty weak. I am NOT in favor of Stanford giving any significant break to athletes, I think they have always gotten a little break, but they have all be capable of doing the work.  We have obviously eased up on accepting transfers as compared to the past, but as you say, how many are there who have adequate academic chops?  The ACC has a number of very good academic institutions.  Four are in the top 20 and 6 in the top 30.  Duke, Notre Dame and Vanderbilt join Stanford and Cal in the top 20.  My guess is that we are a distant last in willingness to accept athletic transfers.  
Notre Dame lost a number players at the end of last year, Cal took at least two of them.  Did we make any effort to take any?  Was it even possible?
Duke lost 7 from its basketball team, we got one of those.  Was Jaylen to only one of that group who could get into Stanford?

I think many of our teams can do very well in the current environment IF we are allowed really use the Portal and our teams are competitive enough to be attractive.  I think the route to rebuilding may lie more in the Portal than in who we get out of high school, at least in football.

It used to be that the coaches only needed to worry about who they could get in as Freshmen, now they have to still deal with that, but they have to have a "transfer" list and figure out how to legally mine that, if we can.

I think if you are a coach at Stanford your life is much more difficult than it used to be.

[SamuelMcF]

Notre Dame lost a number players at the end of last year, Cal took at least two of them.  Did we make any effort to take any?  Was it even possible?

Yes and (academically speaking) yes

[SamuelMcF]

Notre Dame lost a number players at the end of last year, Cal took at least two of them.  Did we make any effort to take any?  Was it even possible?

Yes and (academically speaking) yes