[chrisk]

 Scott said. “… We go through a very rigorous process internally with our members, athletics directors, university CFOs, our presidents and chancellors. We have an audit and finance committee that regularly reviews our expenses, compared to other conferences, vis-a-vis conference operations. Separately we look at the costs of running a TV network, and compare that to information and data that we have with peers that run TV networks.

“What I can say with absolute confidence is: Not only are we comparable with other conferences, in terms of conference operations, but we’re very, very efficient. What we do for the amount of expense to run the TV network compared to peers is admirable.”

This does not seem consistent with Canzano's description of the interaction with the A.Ds. Whom should we believe?
But bottom line, I don't understand the supposed powerlessness of the A.Ds. The university presidents have the power, they are presumably competent administrators, they have a lot on their plates, and one would think they rely heavily on their A.D. for opinions.

How would more money help Stanford's competitiveness? That does not seem to be what is holding Stanford back.
In fact, more money to all schools might put Stanford at a competitive disadvantage.

[chrisk]

 Scott said. “… We go through a very rigorous process internally with our members, athletics directors, university CFOs, our presidents and chancellors. We have an audit and finance committee that regularly reviews our expenses, compared to other conferences, vis-a-vis conference operations. Separately we look at the costs of running a TV network, and compare that to information and data that we have with peers that run TV networks.

“What I can say with absolute confidence is: Not only are we comparable with other conferences, in terms of conference operations, but we’re very, very efficient. What we do for the amount of expense to run the TV network compared to peers is admirable.”

This does not seem consistent with Canzano's description of the interaction with the A.Ds. Whom should we believe?
But bottom line, I don't understand the supposed powerlessness of the A.Ds. The university presidents have the power, they are presumably competent administrators, they have a lot on their plates, and one would think they rely heavily on their A.D. for opinions.

How would more money help Stanford's competitiveness? That does not seem to be what is holding Stanford back.
In fact, more money to all schools might put Stanford at a competitive disadvantage.