[PalmTree]

People will donate to coaches and teams in whom they believe.  Mack Brown got by on that for a while.  I'm not sure Stanford pulls in a ton of donations in this current state of non-winning.  A successful AD can also curry favor with boosters and rack up the donations, but I don't see a lot of new donors being cultivated in that way right now (hope I'm wrong).  Money tends to follow wins.

looking at the last two AD annual reports they show

2022-23 $14.2m in Buck/Cardinal gifts ($9.8m) + expendable gifts ($4.4m)
2023-23 $20.1m in Expendable Gifts including Buck/Cardinal Club 14% - I'm assuming 14% of total revenue of $143.7

I for one am surprised at the almost 50% Y/Y increase and wonder if there is either some funny accounting, new definitions of what's in these buckets  and/or large one-time gifts in 2023-24

In re the increase, first thing that came to mind was pledge payments on gifts to support facilities projects, e.g. the tennis stadium renovation + I think one more largish project that started up recently (softball, soccer???...)

[PalmTree]

People will donate to coaches and teams in whom they believe.  Mack Brown got by on that for a while.  I'm not sure Stanford pulls in a ton of donations in this current state of non-winning.  A successful AD can also curry favor with boosters and rack up the donations, but I don't see a lot of new donors being cultivated in that way right now (hope I'm wrong).  Money tends to follow wins.

looking at the last two AD annual reports they show

2022-23 $14.2m in Buck/Cardinal gifts ($9.8m) + expendable gifts ($4.4m)
2023-23 $20.1m in Expendable Gifts including Buck/Cardinal Club 14% - I'm assuming 14% of total revenue of $143.7

I for one am surprised at the almost 50% Y/Y increase and wonder if there is either some funny accounting, new definitions of what's in these buckets  and/or large one-time gifts in 2023-24

In re the increase, first thing that came to mind was pledge payments on gifts to support facilities projects, e.g. the tennis stadium renovation + I think one more largish project that started up recently (softball, soccer???...)

[fullmetal]

The softball stadium is being renovated, hence the softball home games will be played in Stanford Stadium (football) this season.  The renovation should be done in Dec 2025.

https://gostanford.com/stanford-softball-stadium

[fullmetal]

The softball stadium is being renovated, hence the softball home games will be played in Stanford Stadium (football) this season.  The renovation should be done in Dec 2025.

https://gostanford.com/stanford-softball-stadium

[JJJ]

Major tennis upgrade too, iirc.

[JJJ]

Major tennis upgrade too, iirc.

[d4cohn]

There is an element of post hoc ergo propter hoc to all of this.  I mean, USC also invested a crap ton in NIL, recruited well, and picked a top, proven coach, for which it was rewarded with a losing Big Ten record and an overall pretty mediocre outcome (though one we'd be thrilled with, I'm sure).

Every year, you can pick a handful of programs and say "look, we should imitate them", without recognizing that pretty much every D1 program is trying to do what the successful ones are doing, just not as effectively.

At the end of the day, I don't think we should do "whatever it takes", and even if this group, collectively decides that we do in fact want to do whatever it takes, I don't think it is in our institutional DNA to do so.  Stanford's identity is not wrapped up in being a successful Tier 1 football program the way Notre Dame's is.  Even making the case that Stanford's identity is elite academics and athletics is probably a stretch.

One other quick comment I have is that there is a tendency towards what I call "Green Lantern thinking" (a reference to the "Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency", a theory described here (https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/th...-explained, which is that “the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics.")  I think we see a similar idea amongst sports fans, especially college sports fans, which is that success at school x can be achieved if the administration "tries hard enough or uses the right tactics".  The problem is that there are 134 FBS football schools, and the fan bases of all of them think the exact same thing.  Yet only 12 (<10% make the CFB playoff), and only 1 (0.7%) can win a championship every year.  When Calfan says "Cal could be a perennial football powerhouse if only the administration tried hard enough or usedt he right tactics, we scoff, but Stanford has a lifetime .570 winning percentage, not that much better than Cal's .546.

BC

If Stanford had spent like SC (in recruiting, coaching, stadium upgrades etc.) to get a 7-6 season, needing a miraculous comeback just to win their seventh game (the bowl game), and a losing conference record, Stanford fans would, I think, rightfully not be pleased with the state of affairs.

Also, responding to a point from your other post, I don't think we can necessarily take much solace in this given how the loss to San Jose State etc. went down, but technically we exceeded pre-season ACC media expectations for us to finish in last place in the conference. We technically finished second to last (ahead of aforementioned Florida State in your other post).

The other factor beyond money (NIL, AD budgets etc.) that I don't think has been mentioned yet in this thread is student body size. Stanford, by (undergraduate) student body, is undoubtedly one of the smallest schools in the ACC (though I imagine we are ahead of Wake Forest; I haven't compiled/looked at the ACC schools or our current student body size). As such, money is not the only issue for Stanford but also student body size (particularly with so many sports and other non-athletic commitments to support etc.). I know Stanford had purchased Oak Creek and are working to increase housing (to I presume at least in part increase the student body size), but that is another non-trivial challenge that Stanford programs have to contend with.

[d4cohn]

There is an element of post hoc ergo propter hoc to all of this.  I mean, USC also invested a crap ton in NIL, recruited well, and picked a top, proven coach, for which it was rewarded with a losing Big Ten record and an overall pretty mediocre outcome (though one we'd be thrilled with, I'm sure).

Every year, you can pick a handful of programs and say "look, we should imitate them", without recognizing that pretty much every D1 program is trying to do what the successful ones are doing, just not as effectively.

At the end of the day, I don't think we should do "whatever it takes", and even if this group, collectively decides that we do in fact want to do whatever it takes, I don't think it is in our institutional DNA to do so.  Stanford's identity is not wrapped up in being a successful Tier 1 football program the way Notre Dame's is.  Even making the case that Stanford's identity is elite academics and athletics is probably a stretch.

One other quick comment I have is that there is a tendency towards what I call "Green Lantern thinking" (a reference to the "Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency", a theory described here (https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/th...-explained, which is that “the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics.")  I think we see a similar idea amongst sports fans, especially college sports fans, which is that success at school x can be achieved if the administration "tries hard enough or uses the right tactics".  The problem is that there are 134 FBS football schools, and the fan bases of all of them think the exact same thing.  Yet only 12 (<10% make the CFB playoff), and only 1 (0.7%) can win a championship every year.  When Calfan says "Cal could be a perennial football powerhouse if only the administration tried hard enough or usedt he right tactics, we scoff, but Stanford has a lifetime .570 winning percentage, not that much better than Cal's .546.

BC

If Stanford had spent like SC (in recruiting, coaching, stadium upgrades etc.) to get a 7-6 season, needing a miraculous comeback just to win their seventh game (the bowl game), and a losing conference record, Stanford fans would, I think, rightfully not be pleased with the state of affairs.

Also, responding to a point from your other post, I don't think we can necessarily take much solace in this given how the loss to San Jose State etc. went down, but technically we exceeded pre-season ACC media expectations for us to finish in last place in the conference. We technically finished second to last (ahead of aforementioned Florida State in your other post).

The other factor beyond money (NIL, AD budgets etc.) that I don't think has been mentioned yet in this thread is student body size. Stanford, by (undergraduate) student body, is undoubtedly one of the smallest schools in the ACC (though I imagine we are ahead of Wake Forest; I haven't compiled/looked at the ACC schools or our current student body size). As such, money is not the only issue for Stanford but also student body size (particularly with so many sports and other non-athletic commitments to support etc.). I know Stanford had purchased Oak Creek and are working to increase housing (to I presume at least in part increase the student body size), but that is another non-trivial challenge that Stanford programs have to contend with.

[82lsju]

The other factor beyond money (NIL, AD budgets etc.) that I don't think has been mentioned yet in this thread is student body size. Stanford, by (undergraduate) student body, is undoubtedly one of the smallest schools in the ACC (though I imagine we are ahead of Wake Forest; I haven't compiled/looked at the ACC schools or our current student body size). As such, money is not the only issue for Stanford but also student body size (particularly with so many sports and other non-athletic commitments to support etc.). I know Stanford had purchased Oak Creek and are working to increase housing (to I presume at least in part increase the student body size), but that is another non-trivial challenge that Stanford programs have to contend with.
[/quote]

Rank
College Name
Undergrads
1 University of California-Berkeley 33,078
2 Florida State University 32,936
3 Virginia Tech 30,434
4 North Carolina State 26,254
5 University of Pittsburgh 24,420
6 Clemson University 22,566
7 University of North Carolina 20,029
8 Georgia Tech 18,415
9 University of Virginia 17,444
10 University of Louisville 15,921
11 Syracuse University 15,421
12 University of Miami 12,504
13 Boston College 9,982
14 University of Notre Dame 8,971
15 Stanford University 7,841
16 Southern Methodist University 7,056
17 Duke University 6,640
18  Wake Forest University 5,447

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2024/...lment.html

[82lsju]

The other factor beyond money (NIL, AD budgets etc.) that I don't think has been mentioned yet in this thread is student body size. Stanford, by (undergraduate) student body, is undoubtedly one of the smallest schools in the ACC (though I imagine we are ahead of Wake Forest; I haven't compiled/looked at the ACC schools or our current student body size). As such, money is not the only issue for Stanford but also student body size (particularly with so many sports and other non-athletic commitments to support etc.). I know Stanford had purchased Oak Creek and are working to increase housing (to I presume at least in part increase the student body size), but that is another non-trivial challenge that Stanford programs have to contend with.
[/quote]

Rank
College Name
Undergrads
1 University of California-Berkeley 33,078
2 Florida State University 32,936
3 Virginia Tech 30,434
4 North Carolina State 26,254
5 University of Pittsburgh 24,420
6 Clemson University 22,566
7 University of North Carolina 20,029
8 Georgia Tech 18,415
9 University of Virginia 17,444
10 University of Louisville 15,921
11 Syracuse University 15,421
12 University of Miami 12,504
13 Boston College 9,982
14 University of Notre Dame 8,971
15 Stanford University 7,841
16 Southern Methodist University 7,056
17 Duke University 6,640
18  Wake Forest University 5,447

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2024/...lment.html

[jacket3ree]

I did a horrible job of making my simple point, which is that Stanford has money if it wants to spend it. I think. I did volunteer fundraising the Centennial Campaign long ago, but became somewhat disillusioned because no matter how much we raised, it was never enough. We made cold calls I hated making and a lot of the pushback was "Stanford doesn't need my money; check out the endowment."  How do you counter that? We were instructed that the endowment couldn't be spent, so make sure to get donations that can be spent. Unrestricted gifts were the best gifts.  Wait, what?  Why have a bunch of money that can never be spent?  Well, money makes money and we can spend that.  Ok, that makes sense.

I said the size of a university's endowment is more indicative of the school's wealth than its annual budget and I'll stand by that. I know they can't just use 0.01 percent of the endowment to buy (or rent really) a proven top-flight quarterback (that is what we learn from Notre Dame by the way), but part of that massive endowment is for athletics. We don't have head coaches, we have the Mr. and Mrs. Thurston Howell III Director of Synchronized Equestrian Water Wrestling. Two percent of the annual budget goes to athletics. Does anyone know the size of the athletic endowment? That is harder to find online than is the size of the overall endowment. There is no reason for it to be proportional, but if it were, it would be on the order of 3/4 of a billion dollars. Interest on that could fund someone capable of not turfing passes to end Big Games, couldn't it?

I reacted to the poor, poor, pitiful Stanford vibe that is creeping into these parts.  If I've misread that, I apologize, but Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.) 

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money. Maybe we don't need a stable of McLarens. My S2K gets me up to Alice's just as well and as fast without leaving Woodside Road pavement and we all wave to each other since they only made 100,000 or so of them. Sure my 17-year old version at the time only cost $16k out the door (low miles!) and no one heading in for breakfast is saying 'wow, a Honda!' but it gets the job done. But not free, and I don't spend a lot of time driving windy roads wondering how that money would be doing in an index fund instead.

It is easy to spend other people's money. I'm guilty of that, but it is my right as a 'merican to whine on a sports board when the scholarships I prefer to support are 529 funds for my own grandchildren.  (Honestly, I'm probably giving more to Navy Sprint Football these days than Tech or Stanford and my kid commissioned nine years ago.)

These same discussions are everywhere. 'Why are we building a new athletic center or these buildings when we should be funneling money directly into a better linebacking corps?' I don't have answers, but StanUSwag is asking a salient question. Why is Notre Dame so far ahead of us now? Yes, more of their identity is tied up in football than is Stanford, but once fairly equally competitive programs are headed in different directions. There is always short-term variance but Stanford's current four-year streak of terrible is the longest since Teevens through Harbaugh's third year (7 years). Wait, forget it. Stanford does this all the time. Let's see if they can pull out of the tailspin. That said, Notre Dame reacted for more quickly and aggressively to the changed environment than did flat-footed Stanford. I get that the NIL and Portal aren't compatible with how Stanford wants to operate, but it has no choice. Adapt or die.  Not to keep on harping on Muir, but he just wasn't made for these times. I'll simmer my whining down for a couple more years and see if they can get the nose up before ground zero.

Hopefully Luck has great success. Many other schools have "GMs" or "personnel" people in to manage where the money is spent to properly build a team in what is now an unfettered market. I am not aware, however, of any program that put a GM in over the head coach. Wow. That is NFL. (Not always, but certainly one model). Either a bold, bold move on Levin's part or a passive aggressive move vis a vis Muir. If he's that bad, just relieve him of duties, don't take football away and hope he (Muir) goes away. Taylor can't have but one more season to show something. Is Luck hiring the next coach?  The one thing I wasn't happy hearing from Luck, although it is fairly obligatory, is that he was on Taylor's hiring committee (no committees moving forward!) and that he has the team on the 'right track'. The right track to where? I've seen no evidence that the track runs anywhere other than Crapville. He didn't need to say anything other than they are evaluating all aspects of the program.

Yes, it is all very hard and only half the teams win on any given day.  I need to see they are trying. With other's money for the most part. :)  I can't even afford, like, the holder.

---

Hey 82, Georgia Tech is a vastly different place than when you and I were there.  Total makeover.  Check out the Fall 2024 enrollment numbers:

20,592 undergraduate (61% in-state; 61% STEM)
32,771 graduate students (probably at least 5x the number than when I was there)

53,363 total enrolled. Holy Hell!

Granted, many of these, particularly the graduate students, are virtual (online) and not jamming Bobby Dodd. But maybe all those virtual students are why Tech was the most watched ACC team this year. Or maybe that was because they were in a bunch of marquee games without TV competition. Yeah, one of those two.

Their "Big Bet No. 2" to double the annual number of degrees granted. Only a matter of time before WORLD DOMINATION, which really means beating UGA more than three times in a quarter century.

Big Bet #1 is to "be a national leader in outcomes and value for all students."  I hear keeping tuition reasonable in that, but we'll see. Big Bet No. 3 is to "double the scale and amplify the impact of [our] research." Hey, at least that is someone measurable and they were smart enough to stop with a three-bet.

[jacket3ree]

I did a horrible job of making my simple point, which is that Stanford has money if it wants to spend it. I think. I did volunteer fundraising the Centennial Campaign long ago, but became somewhat disillusioned because no matter how much we raised, it was never enough. We made cold calls I hated making and a lot of the pushback was "Stanford doesn't need my money; check out the endowment."  How do you counter that? We were instructed that the endowment couldn't be spent, so make sure to get donations that can be spent. Unrestricted gifts were the best gifts.  Wait, what?  Why have a bunch of money that can never be spent?  Well, money makes money and we can spend that.  Ok, that makes sense.

I said the size of a university's endowment is more indicative of the school's wealth than its annual budget and I'll stand by that. I know they can't just use 0.01 percent of the endowment to buy (or rent really) a proven top-flight quarterback (that is what we learn from Notre Dame by the way), but part of that massive endowment is for athletics. We don't have head coaches, we have the Mr. and Mrs. Thurston Howell III Director of Synchronized Equestrian Water Wrestling. Two percent of the annual budget goes to athletics. Does anyone know the size of the athletic endowment? That is harder to find online than is the size of the overall endowment. There is no reason for it to be proportional, but if it were, it would be on the order of 3/4 of a billion dollars. Interest on that could fund someone capable of not turfing passes to end Big Games, couldn't it?

I reacted to the poor, poor, pitiful Stanford vibe that is creeping into these parts.  If I've misread that, I apologize, but Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.) 

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money. Maybe we don't need a stable of McLarens. My S2K gets me up to Alice's just as well and as fast without leaving Woodside Road pavement and we all wave to each other since they only made 100,000 or so of them. Sure my 17-year old version at the time only cost $16k out the door (low miles!) and no one heading in for breakfast is saying 'wow, a Honda!' but it gets the job done. But not free, and I don't spend a lot of time driving windy roads wondering how that money would be doing in an index fund instead.

It is easy to spend other people's money. I'm guilty of that, but it is my right as a 'merican to whine on a sports board when the scholarships I prefer to support are 529 funds for my own grandchildren.  (Honestly, I'm probably giving more to Navy Sprint Football these days than Tech or Stanford and my kid commissioned nine years ago.)

These same discussions are everywhere. 'Why are we building a new athletic center or these buildings when we should be funneling money directly into a better linebacking corps?' I don't have answers, but StanUSwag is asking a salient question. Why is Notre Dame so far ahead of us now? Yes, more of their identity is tied up in football than is Stanford, but once fairly equally competitive programs are headed in different directions. There is always short-term variance but Stanford's current four-year streak of terrible is the longest since Teevens through Harbaugh's third year (7 years). Wait, forget it. Stanford does this all the time. Let's see if they can pull out of the tailspin. That said, Notre Dame reacted for more quickly and aggressively to the changed environment than did flat-footed Stanford. I get that the NIL and Portal aren't compatible with how Stanford wants to operate, but it has no choice. Adapt or die.  Not to keep on harping on Muir, but he just wasn't made for these times. I'll simmer my whining down for a couple more years and see if they can get the nose up before ground zero.

Hopefully Luck has great success. Many other schools have "GMs" or "personnel" people in to manage where the money is spent to properly build a team in what is now an unfettered market. I am not aware, however, of any program that put a GM in over the head coach. Wow. That is NFL. (Not always, but certainly one model). Either a bold, bold move on Levin's part or a passive aggressive move vis a vis Muir. If he's that bad, just relieve him of duties, don't take football away and hope he (Muir) goes away. Taylor can't have but one more season to show something. Is Luck hiring the next coach?  The one thing I wasn't happy hearing from Luck, although it is fairly obligatory, is that he was on Taylor's hiring committee (no committees moving forward!) and that he has the team on the 'right track'. The right track to where? I've seen no evidence that the track runs anywhere other than Crapville. He didn't need to say anything other than they are evaluating all aspects of the program.

Yes, it is all very hard and only half the teams win on any given day.  I need to see they are trying. With other's money for the most part. :)  I can't even afford, like, the holder.

---

Hey 82, Georgia Tech is a vastly different place than when you and I were there.  Total makeover.  Check out the Fall 2024 enrollment numbers:

20,592 undergraduate (61% in-state; 61% STEM)
32,771 graduate students (probably at least 5x the number than when I was there)

53,363 total enrolled. Holy Hell!

Granted, many of these, particularly the graduate students, are virtual (online) and not jamming Bobby Dodd. But maybe all those virtual students are why Tech was the most watched ACC team this year. Or maybe that was because they were in a bunch of marquee games without TV competition. Yeah, one of those two.

Their "Big Bet No. 2" to double the annual number of degrees granted. Only a matter of time before WORLD DOMINATION, which really means beating UGA more than three times in a quarter century.

Big Bet #1 is to "be a national leader in outcomes and value for all students."  I hear keeping tuition reasonable in that, but we'll see. Big Bet No. 3 is to "double the scale and amplify the impact of [our] research." Hey, at least that is someone measurable and they were smart enough to stop with a three-bet.

[paloalto]

'Why are we building a new athletic center or these buildings when we should be funneling money directly into a better linebacking corps?' I don't have answers,

I don't have the answers either.  It could be the money was given for the athletic center and the buildings; not linebackers?

Last season Stanford had a generational softball pitcher.  She (or maybe her parents) decided she would play for the school offering her the most money.  She got a $1mil offer from Texas Tech and transferred.  The reports I read said Stanford offered her several hundred thousand dollars to stay.  If true,  there must be money sloshing around somewhere to buy athletes.

BTW that was a good post jacket.

[paloalto]

'Why are we building a new athletic center or these buildings when we should be funneling money directly into a better linebacking corps?' I don't have answers,

I don't have the answers either.  It could be the money was given for the athletic center and the buildings; not linebackers?

Last season Stanford had a generational softball pitcher.  She (or maybe her parents) decided she would play for the school offering her the most money.  She got a $1mil offer from Texas Tech and transferred.  The reports I read said Stanford offered her several hundred thousand dollars to stay.  If true,  there must be money sloshing around somewhere to buy athletes.

BTW that was a good post jacket.

[82lsju]

My S2K gets me up to Alice's just as well and as fast without leaving Woodside Road pavement and we all wave to each other since they only made 100,000 or so of them. Sure my 17-year old version at the time only cost $16k out the door (low miles!) and no one heading in for breakfast is saying 'wow, a Honda!' but it gets the job done. But not free, and I don't spend a lot of time driving windy roads wondering how that money would be doing in an index fund instead.

Hey 82, Georgia Tech is a vastly different place than when you and I were there.  Total makeover.  Check out the Fall 2024 enrollment numbers:

20,592 undergraduate (61% in-state; 61% STEM)
32,771 graduate students (probably at least 5x the number than when I was there)

53,363 total enrolled. Holy Hell!

Granted, many of these, particularly the graduate students, are virtual (online) and not jamming Bobby Dodd. But maybe all those virtual students are why Tech was the most watched ACC team this year. Or maybe that was because they were in a bunch of marquee games without TV competition. Yeah, one of those two.

Their "Big Bet No. 2" to double the annual number of degrees granted. Only a matter of time before WORLD DOMINATION, which really means beating UGA more than three times in a quarter century.

Big Bet #1 is to "be a national leader in outcomes and value for all students."  I hear keeping tuition reasonable in that, but we'll see. Big Bet No. 3 is to "double the scale and amplify the impact of [our] research." Hey, at least that is someone measurable and they were smart enough to stop with a three-bet.

no kidding it is not the same, I was last back in Atlanta 5-10 years ago and walked around the campus, I recognized very little.....but I had not been there is ~30 years.  I'm not sure how many people who have not been on the Stanford campus in 30 years would recognize beyond Hoover Tower and the Quad and Stern and Wilbur.....

The S2K is a nice ride.  I think the best fun/$ car today is probably a Miata, the bump in HP in the last generation is about right.  I miss my 1974 Alfa Romeo GTV, it was a great car for driving on the street, my Cayman is in all respects a "better" car but you can't use much of the "better" unless you go to the track, which I hope to do more of this year.

We should do a car lunch at Alice's.

[82lsju]

My S2K gets me up to Alice's just as well and as fast without leaving Woodside Road pavement and we all wave to each other since they only made 100,000 or so of them. Sure my 17-year old version at the time only cost $16k out the door (low miles!) and no one heading in for breakfast is saying 'wow, a Honda!' but it gets the job done. But not free, and I don't spend a lot of time driving windy roads wondering how that money would be doing in an index fund instead.

Hey 82, Georgia Tech is a vastly different place than when you and I were there.  Total makeover.  Check out the Fall 2024 enrollment numbers:

20,592 undergraduate (61% in-state; 61% STEM)
32,771 graduate students (probably at least 5x the number than when I was there)

53,363 total enrolled. Holy Hell!

Granted, many of these, particularly the graduate students, are virtual (online) and not jamming Bobby Dodd. But maybe all those virtual students are why Tech was the most watched ACC team this year. Or maybe that was because they were in a bunch of marquee games without TV competition. Yeah, one of those two.

Their "Big Bet No. 2" to double the annual number of degrees granted. Only a matter of time before WORLD DOMINATION, which really means beating UGA more than three times in a quarter century.

Big Bet #1 is to "be a national leader in outcomes and value for all students."  I hear keeping tuition reasonable in that, but we'll see. Big Bet No. 3 is to "double the scale and amplify the impact of [our] research." Hey, at least that is someone measurable and they were smart enough to stop with a three-bet.

no kidding it is not the same, I was last back in Atlanta 5-10 years ago and walked around the campus, I recognized very little.....but I had not been there is ~30 years.  I'm not sure how many people who have not been on the Stanford campus in 30 years would recognize beyond Hoover Tower and the Quad and Stern and Wilbur.....

The S2K is a nice ride.  I think the best fun/$ car today is probably a Miata, the bump in HP in the last generation is about right.  I miss my 1974 Alfa Romeo GTV, it was a great car for driving on the street, my Cayman is in all respects a "better" car but you can't use much of the "better" unless you go to the track, which I hope to do more of this year.

We should do a car lunch at Alice's.

[d4cohn]

'Why are we building a new athletic center or these buildings when we should be funneling money directly into a better linebacking corps?' I don't have answers,

I don't have the answers either.  It could be the money was given for the athletic center and the buildings; not linebackers?

Last season Stanford had a generational softball pitcher.  She (or maybe her parents) decided she would play for the school offering her the most money.  She got a $1mil offer from Texas Tech and transferred.  The reports I read said Stanford offered her several hundred thousand dollars to stay.  If true,  there must be money sloshing around somewhere to buy athletes.

BTW that was a good post jacket.

NiJaree Canady, which, I was just thinking before this post as I think about how that transfer portal saga played out in June/July, Stanford really didn't have a chance to compete with TTU's offer (which was further enhanced by the fact that Texas has no state income tax). As of right now, the vast majority of NIL money is in football and basketball, but it makes one wonder, barring Silicon Valley more prominently getting involved in Stanford's NIL efforts, whether Stanford's other programs will similarly struggle to compete in the future (at least at the elite/Director's Cup level that has been the standard for 50+ years).

[d4cohn]

'Why are we building a new athletic center or these buildings when we should be funneling money directly into a better linebacking corps?' I don't have answers,

I don't have the answers either.  It could be the money was given for the athletic center and the buildings; not linebackers?

Last season Stanford had a generational softball pitcher.  She (or maybe her parents) decided she would play for the school offering her the most money.  She got a $1mil offer from Texas Tech and transferred.  The reports I read said Stanford offered her several hundred thousand dollars to stay.  If true,  there must be money sloshing around somewhere to buy athletes.

BTW that was a good post jacket.

NiJaree Canady, which, I was just thinking before this post as I think about how that transfer portal saga played out in June/July, Stanford really didn't have a chance to compete with TTU's offer (which was further enhanced by the fact that Texas has no state income tax). As of right now, the vast majority of NIL money is in football and basketball, but it makes one wonder, barring Silicon Valley more prominently getting involved in Stanford's NIL efforts, whether Stanford's other programs will similarly struggle to compete in the future (at least at the elite/Director's Cup level that has been the standard for 50+ years).

[Goose]

If I've misread that, I apologize, but Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.)

No, Stanford is NOT an "athletic behemoth". As you proceed to point out, it is a financial behemoth. The two are not at all the same. That is in some large measure what we are discussing here IMO. Stanford has lots of financial resources that could be directed towards the athletic program. Stanford also probably has the ability to raise even more money (above and beyond what it already has) that could also be so directed. Since that has yet to happen Stanford is still in large measure what it was throughout its history. We are operating in large measure according to the values that existed before the big money TV deals and certainly before NIL and the transfer portal became major factors in college athletics.

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money.

In this you are IMO exactly correct. That is the question we are addressing. Of course, it isn't exactly that simple. There are all kinds of different policies that could be adopted. "Do this but not that" is in many cases an option. This makes the problem more difficult.

<snip>
That said, Notre Dame reacted for more quickly and aggressively to the changed environment than did flat-footed Stanford. I get that the NIL and Portal aren't compatible with how Stanford wants to operate, but it has no choice. Adapt or die.

I am pretty sure nobody believes that doing nothing at all is even an option. Stanford will adapt in many ways. We already have, starting with allowing freshmen to start in winter quarter several years ago. A baby step, but a step. You are correct that Stanford preferred the "old" system where the playing field was kept reasonably level by NCAA rules and it was possible to be reasonably competitive without becoming an "athletic behemoth". That goes directly to BC's question. Stanford did absolutely feel that we did a "better than average" job of competing at the highest level of athletics while maintaining our academic standards and not "compromising our values". One might dispute the degree to which that was even true, but that was the position Stanford espoused. The "40 year decision" and all that was real. Yes, the fans were a chardonnay drinking group that were experts at the golf clap, but that was OK. It "worked" then. It doesn't now. Actually, I must say I have always seen much more red wine than chardonnay, but maybe it is the company I keep.

I could be mistaken, but IMO Stanford is never going to adopt an "all in" approach to athletics, where winning at all costs is admissible. One reason for this is that as we have seen being "all in" doesn't guarantee winning. Buying a championship in almost any sport is hard. At Stanford it also risks alienating lots of the people who we really want to be "fans". It may be there is no way to reconcile the many points of view well enough to maintain a reasonable presence in college athletics.  I hope that isn't the case, but I for one can't justify paying a softball pitcher a million dollars to play for Stanford. One may ask "Why does it matter if it isn't your million dollars?".  Good question. The answer is mostly that amateur athletics has always had some aura of virtue about it. You can easily support and respect somebody who represents your organization (in this case your University) for "the love of the game". It is still possible to do so if they get their education paid for by so doing. That too is arguably laudable.

Doing it for a million dollars is just fine, but I can't find any intrinsic moral or social virtue in that. It is a job. I don't care about it or those who do it. I am not going out of my way to support those who do it. It may compete for my entertainment dollar but it will receive no affection or respect, as it did previously. Just my opinion. Yes, it can be true that the amateur athletes we rooted for "back in the day" were not always "good people". But we could remain ignorant of that in most cases. We could adopt them as "our lads". Can't do that if they leave for better NIL money at the drop of a hat.

[Goose]

If I've misread that, I apologize, but Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.)

No, Stanford is NOT an "athletic behemoth". As you proceed to point out, it is a financial behemoth. The two are not at all the same. That is in some large measure what we are discussing here IMO. Stanford has lots of financial resources that could be directed towards the athletic program. Stanford also probably has the ability to raise even more money (above and beyond what it already has) that could also be so directed. Since that has yet to happen Stanford is still in large measure what it was throughout its history. We are operating in large measure according to the values that existed before the big money TV deals and certainly before NIL and the transfer portal became major factors in college athletics.

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money.

In this you are IMO exactly correct. That is the question we are addressing. Of course, it isn't exactly that simple. There are all kinds of different policies that could be adopted. "Do this but not that" is in many cases an option. This makes the problem more difficult.

<snip>
That said, Notre Dame reacted for more quickly and aggressively to the changed environment than did flat-footed Stanford. I get that the NIL and Portal aren't compatible with how Stanford wants to operate, but it has no choice. Adapt or die.

I am pretty sure nobody believes that doing nothing at all is even an option. Stanford will adapt in many ways. We already have, starting with allowing freshmen to start in winter quarter several years ago. A baby step, but a step. You are correct that Stanford preferred the "old" system where the playing field was kept reasonably level by NCAA rules and it was possible to be reasonably competitive without becoming an "athletic behemoth". That goes directly to BC's question. Stanford did absolutely feel that we did a "better than average" job of competing at the highest level of athletics while maintaining our academic standards and not "compromising our values". One might dispute the degree to which that was even true, but that was the position Stanford espoused. The "40 year decision" and all that was real. Yes, the fans were a chardonnay drinking group that were experts at the golf clap, but that was OK. It "worked" then. It doesn't now. Actually, I must say I have always seen much more red wine than chardonnay, but maybe it is the company I keep.

I could be mistaken, but IMO Stanford is never going to adopt an "all in" approach to athletics, where winning at all costs is admissible. One reason for this is that as we have seen being "all in" doesn't guarantee winning. Buying a championship in almost any sport is hard. At Stanford it also risks alienating lots of the people who we really want to be "fans". It may be there is no way to reconcile the many points of view well enough to maintain a reasonable presence in college athletics.  I hope that isn't the case, but I for one can't justify paying a softball pitcher a million dollars to play for Stanford. One may ask "Why does it matter if it isn't your million dollars?".  Good question. The answer is mostly that amateur athletics has always had some aura of virtue about it. You can easily support and respect somebody who represents your organization (in this case your University) for "the love of the game". It is still possible to do so if they get their education paid for by so doing. That too is arguably laudable.

Doing it for a million dollars is just fine, but I can't find any intrinsic moral or social virtue in that. It is a job. I don't care about it or those who do it. I am not going out of my way to support those who do it. It may compete for my entertainment dollar but it will receive no affection or respect, as it did previously. Just my opinion. Yes, it can be true that the amateur athletes we rooted for "back in the day" were not always "good people". But we could remain ignorant of that in most cases. We could adopt them as "our lads". Can't do that if they leave for better NIL money at the drop of a hat.

[jacket3ree]

Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time rewritten every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we?
Could we?

[jacket3ree]

Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time rewritten every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we?
Could we?

[82lsju]

Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time rewritten every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we?
Could we?

of course the year after this cover the football team went 2-9.....

[82lsju]

Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time rewritten every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we?
Could we?

of course the year after this cover the football team went 2-9.....

[paloalto]

Why do schools still go through the charade of using the phrase NIL?  College athletics has gotten directly to a policy of pay for play.   Is the NCAA or other agencies investigating any programs for violating NIL rules?

There is some money made off of selling jerseys with a player's name on in. But that's not where most of the money is being offered as far as I can tell.

[paloalto]

Why do schools still go through the charade of using the phrase NIL?  College athletics has gotten directly to a policy of pay for play.   Is the NCAA or other agencies investigating any programs for violating NIL rules?

There is some money made off of selling jerseys with a player's name on in. But that's not where most of the money is being offered as far as I can tell.

[BostonCard]

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money.

In this you are IMO exactly correct. That is the question we are addressing. Of course, it isn't exactly that simple. There are all kinds of different policies that could be adopted. "Do this but not that" is in many cases an option. This makes the problem more difficult.

I think the economics term here is "revealed preference".  We can all talk about spending other people's money, but at the end of the day someone has to put up the money, and, while some people certainly have, no one has stepped up with ~$30 million a year.  And while the institution is certainly wealthy enough to do it, as far as I can tell the rules still prohibit schools from directly paying athletes (at least until fall 2025 when the settlement comes into effect).  I guess we will see at that point whether the school (or, more likely, donors, via the AD) pony up the ~$20 million that we will be able to "share" with athletes.  It's an awful system, but much less bad than what currently exists.

BC

[BostonCard]

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money.

In this you are IMO exactly correct. That is the question we are addressing. Of course, it isn't exactly that simple. There are all kinds of different policies that could be adopted. "Do this but not that" is in many cases an option. This makes the problem more difficult.

I think the economics term here is "revealed preference".  We can all talk about spending other people's money, but at the end of the day someone has to put up the money, and, while some people certainly have, no one has stepped up with ~$30 million a year.  And while the institution is certainly wealthy enough to do it, as far as I can tell the rules still prohibit schools from directly paying athletes (at least until fall 2025 when the settlement comes into effect).  I guess we will see at that point whether the school (or, more likely, donors, via the AD) pony up the ~$20 million that we will be able to "share" with athletes.  It's an awful system, but much less bad than what currently exists.

BC

[82lsju]

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money.

In this you are IMO exactly correct. That is the question we are addressing. Of course, it isn't exactly that simple. There are all kinds of different policies that could be adopted. "Do this but not that" is in many cases an option. This makes the problem more difficult.

I think the economics term here is "revealed preference".  We can all talk about spending other people's money, but at the end of the day someone has to put up the money, and, while some people certainly have, no one has stepped up with ~$30 million a year.  And while the institution is certainly wealthy enough to do it, as far as I can tell the rules still prohibit schools from directly paying athletes (at least until fall 2025 when the settlement comes into effect).  I guess we will see at that point whether the school (or, more likely, donors, via the AD) pony up the ~$20 million that we will be able to "share" with athletes.  It's an awful system, but much less bad than what currently exists.

BC

one of the expense lines in the 2023-24 AD annual report includes Alston payments

A) Tuition, Room & Board + Alston 22%

[82lsju]

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money.

In this you are IMO exactly correct. That is the question we are addressing. Of course, it isn't exactly that simple. There are all kinds of different policies that could be adopted. "Do this but not that" is in many cases an option. This makes the problem more difficult.

I think the economics term here is "revealed preference".  We can all talk about spending other people's money, but at the end of the day someone has to put up the money, and, while some people certainly have, no one has stepped up with ~$30 million a year.  And while the institution is certainly wealthy enough to do it, as far as I can tell the rules still prohibit schools from directly paying athletes (at least until fall 2025 when the settlement comes into effect).  I guess we will see at that point whether the school (or, more likely, donors, via the AD) pony up the ~$20 million that we will be able to "share" with athletes.  It's an awful system, but much less bad than what currently exists.

BC

one of the expense lines in the 2023-24 AD annual report includes Alston payments

A) Tuition, Room & Board + Alston 22%

[martyup]

Now that AL has hired SF, before long we're gonna make ND our bitch.  Swag on that!

[martyup]

Now that AL has hired SF, before long we're gonna make ND our bitch.  Swag on that!

[jacket3ree]

of course the year after this cover the football team went 2-9.....

Pride comes before a fall....

[jacket3ree]

of course the year after this cover the football team went 2-9.....

Pride comes before a fall....

[StanUSwagU]

I did a horrible job of making my simple point, which is that Stanford has money if it wants to spend it. I think. I did volunteer fundraising the Centennial Campaign long ago, but became somewhat disillusioned because no matter how much we raised, it was never enough. We made cold calls I hated making and a lot of the pushback was "Stanford doesn't need my money; check out the endowment."  How do you counter that? We were instructed that the endowment couldn't be spent, so make sure to get donations that can be spent. Unrestricted gifts were the best gifts.  Wait, what?  Why have a bunch of money that can never be spent?  Well, money makes money and we can spend that.  Ok, that makes sense.

I said the size of a university's endowment is more indicative of the school's wealth than its annual budget and I'll stand by that. I know they can't just use 0.01 percent of the endowment to buy (or rent really) a proven top-flight quarterback (that is what we learn from Notre Dame by the way), but part of that massive endowment is for athletics. We don't have head coaches, we have the Mr. and Mrs. Thurston Howell III Director of Synchronized Equestrian Water Wrestling. Two percent of the annual budget goes to athletics. Does anyone know the size of the athletic endowment? That is harder to find online than is the size of the overall endowment. There is no reason for it to be proportional, but if it were, it would be on the order of 3/4 of a billion dollars. Interest on that could fund someone capable of not turfing passes to end Big Games, couldn't it?

I reacted to the poor, poor, pitiful Stanford vibe that is creeping into these parts.  If I've misread that, I apologize, but Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.) 

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money. Maybe we don't need a stable of McLarens. My S2K gets me up to Alice's just as well and as fast without leaving Woodside Road pavement and we all wave to each other since they only made 100,000 or so of them. Sure my 17-year old version at the time only cost $16k out the door (low miles!) and no one heading in for breakfast is saying 'wow, a Honda!' but it gets the job done. But not free, and I don't spend a lot of time driving windy roads wondering how that money would be doing in an index fund instead.

It is easy to spend other people's money. I'm guilty of that, but it is my right as a 'merican to whine on a sports board when the scholarships I prefer to support are 529 funds for my own grandchildren.  (Honestly, I'm probably giving more to Navy Sprint Football these days than Tech or Stanford and my kid commissioned nine years ago.)

These same discussions are everywhere. 'Why are we building a new athletic center or these buildings when we should be funneling money directly into a better linebacking corps?' I don't have answers, but StanUSwag is asking a salient question. Why is Notre Dame so far ahead of us now? Yes, more of their identity is tied up in football than is Stanford, but once fairly equally competitive programs are headed in different directions. There is always short-term variance but Stanford's current four-year streak of terrible is the longest since Teevens through Harbaugh's third year (7 years). Wait, forget it. Stanford does this all the time. Let's see if they can pull out of the tailspin. That said, Notre Dame reacted for more quickly and aggressively to the changed environment than did flat-footed Stanford. I get that the NIL and Portal aren't compatible with how Stanford wants to operate, but it has no choice. Adapt or die.  Not to keep on harping on Muir, but he just wasn't made for these times. I'll simmer my whining down for a couple more years and see if they can get the nose up before ground zero.

Hopefully Luck has great success. Many other schools have "GMs" or "personnel" people in to manage where the money is spent to properly build a team in what is now an unfettered market. I am not aware, however, of any program that put a GM in over the head coach. Wow. That is NFL. (Not always, but certainly one model). Either a bold, bold move on Levin's part or a passive aggressive move vis a vis Muir. If he's that bad, just relieve him of duties, don't take football away and hope he (Muir) goes away. Taylor can't have but one more season to show something. Is Luck hiring the next coach?  The one thing I wasn't happy hearing from Luck, although it is fairly obligatory, is that he was on Taylor's hiring committee (no committees moving forward!) and that he has the team on the 'right track'. The right track to where? I've seen no evidence that the track runs anywhere other than Crapville. He didn't need to say anything other than they are evaluating all aspects of the program.

Yes, it is all very hard and only half the teams win on any given day.  I need to see they are trying. With other's money for the most part. :)  I can't even afford, like, the holder.

---

Hey 82, Georgia Tech is a vastly different place than when you and I were there.  Total makeover.  Check out the Fall 2024 enrollment numbers:

20,592 undergraduate (61% in-state; 61% STEM)
32,771 graduate students (probably at least 5x the number than when I was there)

53,363 total enrolled. Holy Hell!

Granted, many of these, particularly the graduate students, are virtual (online) and not jamming Bobby Dodd. But maybe all those virtual students are why Tech was the most watched ACC team this year. Or maybe that was because they were in a bunch of marquee games without TV competition. Yeah, one of those two.

Their "Big Bet No. 2" to double the annual number of degrees granted. Only a matter of time before WORLD DOMINATION, which really means beating UGA more than three times in a quarter century.

Big Bet #1 is to "be a national leader in outcomes and value for all students."  I hear keeping tuition reasonable in that, but we'll see. Big Bet No. 3 is to "double the scale and amplify the impact of [our] research." Hey, at least that is someone measurable and they were smart enough to stop with a three-bet.

**************

Jacket3ree,

My same sentiments; Well articulated.

[StanUSwagU]

I did a horrible job of making my simple point, which is that Stanford has money if it wants to spend it. I think. I did volunteer fundraising the Centennial Campaign long ago, but became somewhat disillusioned because no matter how much we raised, it was never enough. We made cold calls I hated making and a lot of the pushback was "Stanford doesn't need my money; check out the endowment."  How do you counter that? We were instructed that the endowment couldn't be spent, so make sure to get donations that can be spent. Unrestricted gifts were the best gifts.  Wait, what?  Why have a bunch of money that can never be spent?  Well, money makes money and we can spend that.  Ok, that makes sense.

I said the size of a university's endowment is more indicative of the school's wealth than its annual budget and I'll stand by that. I know they can't just use 0.01 percent of the endowment to buy (or rent really) a proven top-flight quarterback (that is what we learn from Notre Dame by the way), but part of that massive endowment is for athletics. We don't have head coaches, we have the Mr. and Mrs. Thurston Howell III Director of Synchronized Equestrian Water Wrestling. Two percent of the annual budget goes to athletics. Does anyone know the size of the athletic endowment? That is harder to find online than is the size of the overall endowment. There is no reason for it to be proportional, but if it were, it would be on the order of 3/4 of a billion dollars. Interest on that could fund someone capable of not turfing passes to end Big Games, couldn't it?

I reacted to the poor, poor, pitiful Stanford vibe that is creeping into these parts.  If I've misread that, I apologize, but Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.) 

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money. Maybe we don't need a stable of McLarens. My S2K gets me up to Alice's just as well and as fast without leaving Woodside Road pavement and we all wave to each other since they only made 100,000 or so of them. Sure my 17-year old version at the time only cost $16k out the door (low miles!) and no one heading in for breakfast is saying 'wow, a Honda!' but it gets the job done. But not free, and I don't spend a lot of time driving windy roads wondering how that money would be doing in an index fund instead.

It is easy to spend other people's money. I'm guilty of that, but it is my right as a 'merican to whine on a sports board when the scholarships I prefer to support are 529 funds for my own grandchildren.  (Honestly, I'm probably giving more to Navy Sprint Football these days than Tech or Stanford and my kid commissioned nine years ago.)

These same discussions are everywhere. 'Why are we building a new athletic center or these buildings when we should be funneling money directly into a better linebacking corps?' I don't have answers, but StanUSwag is asking a salient question. Why is Notre Dame so far ahead of us now? Yes, more of their identity is tied up in football than is Stanford, but once fairly equally competitive programs are headed in different directions. There is always short-term variance but Stanford's current four-year streak of terrible is the longest since Teevens through Harbaugh's third year (7 years). Wait, forget it. Stanford does this all the time. Let's see if they can pull out of the tailspin. That said, Notre Dame reacted for more quickly and aggressively to the changed environment than did flat-footed Stanford. I get that the NIL and Portal aren't compatible with how Stanford wants to operate, but it has no choice. Adapt or die.  Not to keep on harping on Muir, but he just wasn't made for these times. I'll simmer my whining down for a couple more years and see if they can get the nose up before ground zero.

Hopefully Luck has great success. Many other schools have "GMs" or "personnel" people in to manage where the money is spent to properly build a team in what is now an unfettered market. I am not aware, however, of any program that put a GM in over the head coach. Wow. That is NFL. (Not always, but certainly one model). Either a bold, bold move on Levin's part or a passive aggressive move vis a vis Muir. If he's that bad, just relieve him of duties, don't take football away and hope he (Muir) goes away. Taylor can't have but one more season to show something. Is Luck hiring the next coach?  The one thing I wasn't happy hearing from Luck, although it is fairly obligatory, is that he was on Taylor's hiring committee (no committees moving forward!) and that he has the team on the 'right track'. The right track to where? I've seen no evidence that the track runs anywhere other than Crapville. He didn't need to say anything other than they are evaluating all aspects of the program.

Yes, it is all very hard and only half the teams win on any given day.  I need to see they are trying. With other's money for the most part. :)  I can't even afford, like, the holder.

---

Hey 82, Georgia Tech is a vastly different place than when you and I were there.  Total makeover.  Check out the Fall 2024 enrollment numbers:

20,592 undergraduate (61% in-state; 61% STEM)
32,771 graduate students (probably at least 5x the number than when I was there)

53,363 total enrolled. Holy Hell!

Granted, many of these, particularly the graduate students, are virtual (online) and not jamming Bobby Dodd. But maybe all those virtual students are why Tech was the most watched ACC team this year. Or maybe that was because they were in a bunch of marquee games without TV competition. Yeah, one of those two.

Their "Big Bet No. 2" to double the annual number of degrees granted. Only a matter of time before WORLD DOMINATION, which really means beating UGA more than three times in a quarter century.

Big Bet #1 is to "be a national leader in outcomes and value for all students."  I hear keeping tuition reasonable in that, but we'll see. Big Bet No. 3 is to "double the scale and amplify the impact of [our] research." Hey, at least that is someone measurable and they were smart enough to stop with a three-bet.

**************

Jacket3ree,

My same sentiments; Well articulated.

[BostonCard]

one of the expense lines in the 2023-24 AD annual report includes Alston payments

A) Tuition, Room & Board + Alston 22%

Alston payments are not direct payments to athletes; they allow "education-related payments".  The 2025 settlement is essentially revenue sharing and allows schools to pay athletes up to about $20 million. 

BC

[BostonCard]

one of the expense lines in the 2023-24 AD annual report includes Alston payments

A) Tuition, Room & Board + Alston 22%

Alston payments are not direct payments to athletes; they allow "education-related payments".  The 2025 settlement is essentially revenue sharing and allows schools to pay athletes up to about $20 million. 

BC

[fullmetal]

Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.)

I think the truth of the matter is that the AD has a lot of money, and there might not be enough accountability as to how it's spent for what ROI.

[fullmetal]

Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.)

I think the truth of the matter is that the AD has a lot of money, and there might not be enough accountability as to how it's spent for what ROI.