[FarEastStanfan]

Sagehen,

I share your concerns about college sports in general -- at least the revenue sports -- and how my feelings toward college sports are likely to change as we move forward.  I could see a wealthy booster paying $50K to each of 20 recruits per year in lieu of, say, a donation toward facilities.  Putting aside tax benefit considerations, if a T. Boone Pickens type decided to spend such money on a historically low-performing football school (e.g., Illinois), thereby vaulting them into the top ten, that $1,000,000 stands to be of much greater value to the school than a new weight room, via television appearances and the leverage it would have on other alumni donations.   Heretofore college football has been a financial arms race, but advantages that the major football schools have from a strictly financial standpoint have been able to be somewhat offset by other attributes that a Stanford or Cal have that Alabama and Clemson do not.  As you point out, Sagehen, the current situation exacerbates the gulf.

And at a much lower cost, similar tilting of a school's competitive advantage in a lesser sport can be achieved.  Laird Q. Cagan gave what must have been a substantial donation to have the soccer field at Stanford named after him.  Imagine an alumnus of another school who lives and dies with the team's performance.   $100K used ostensibly for NIL purposes could help secure the top five recruits every year.  Skip the yacht; take on the role of "owner" of your alma mater's soccer team.   Heck, if parents are willing to give $500K to the sailing team to get their kid into a school, there is plenty of disposable income for vanity projects like this.

Of course, those from other schools would argue that someone like me is merely unhappy that the changes afoot stand to take away Stanford's inherent advantage with it's 27B endowment.  And they probably aren't wrong.

If the concern is that deep-pocketed donors will pony up money to bring in top recruits, does anyone have more deep-pocketed donors than Stanford? I don't know the details if such direct donations to players are even really possible under the new rules, but if they are, and Stanford really wants to compete on this level, I'm sure it will find a way. The ethics of going this route, at any school? That's another issue altogether.

[FarEastStanfan]

Sagehen,

I share your concerns about college sports in general -- at least the revenue sports -- and how my feelings toward college sports are likely to change as we move forward.  I could see a wealthy booster paying $50K to each of 20 recruits per year in lieu of, say, a donation toward facilities.  Putting aside tax benefit considerations, if a T. Boone Pickens type decided to spend such money on a historically low-performing football school (e.g., Illinois), thereby vaulting them into the top ten, that $1,000,000 stands to be of much greater value to the school than a new weight room, via television appearances and the leverage it would have on other alumni donations.   Heretofore college football has been a financial arms race, but advantages that the major football schools have from a strictly financial standpoint have been able to be somewhat offset by other attributes that a Stanford or Cal have that Alabama and Clemson do not.  As you point out, Sagehen, the current situation exacerbates the gulf.

And at a much lower cost, similar tilting of a school's competitive advantage in a lesser sport can be achieved.  Laird Q. Cagan gave what must have been a substantial donation to have the soccer field at Stanford named after him.  Imagine an alumnus of another school who lives and dies with the team's performance.   $100K used ostensibly for NIL purposes could help secure the top five recruits every year.  Skip the yacht; take on the role of "owner" of your alma mater's soccer team.   Heck, if parents are willing to give $500K to the sailing team to get their kid into a school, there is plenty of disposable income for vanity projects like this.

Of course, those from other schools would argue that someone like me is merely unhappy that the changes afoot stand to take away Stanford's inherent advantage with it's 27B endowment.  And they probably aren't wrong.

If the concern is that deep-pocketed donors will pony up money to bring in top recruits, does anyone have more deep-pocketed donors than Stanford? I don't know the details if such direct donations to players are even really possible under the new rules, but if they are, and Stanford really wants to compete on this level, I'm sure it will find a way. The ethics of going this route, at any school? That's another issue altogether.