[OutsiderFan]

Query whether NIL payments will turn out to be in addition to what boosters/advertisers previously contributed/paid to athletic departments, or whether NIL expenditures will be a partial substitution for such payments. 

Although I dont like whats going on with unregulated NIL, to the extent it results in a partial shift of money to athletes from athletic departments, I like that. Less spending on coaches salaries, staff and luxury locker rooms and a reasonable stipend to the athletes seems like a good answer. 

I would support an NIL that paid Stanford athletes a reasonable sum each year they maintained a 3.0 average, with the bulk contingent on graduating (not that my support would move the needle).  I think an NIL fund that embraced Stanford values could be created.

I dont think this would allow us to compete with the SEC etc, but it would allow us to provide something to those athletes who really value academics. And make clear what our #1 priority is.

By definition what is being spent on thing 1 can't be spent on thing 2, and if more money must be paid to athletes to get more talent, that money is going to go to athletes more than coaches and fancy facilities. I believe we have therefore seen the end of the coach salary escalation era. 

It is foolish to pay a coach $10M per year "to be a great recruiter" when $8M will buy you the better players without all the hassle of traditional recruiting, and the coach can live on $2M per year. So we will see a re-setting of the coaching salary market, not just for Head Coaches, but also assistants, with the players getting a lot of money that used to go to coaches.

The fun is going to start when the boosters want different players than the coaches want, and the boosters control the money.

[OutsiderFan]

Query whether NIL payments will turn out to be in addition to what boosters/advertisers previously contributed/paid to athletic departments, or whether NIL expenditures will be a partial substitution for such payments. 

Although I dont like whats going on with unregulated NIL, to the extent it results in a partial shift of money to athletes from athletic departments, I like that. Less spending on coaches salaries, staff and luxury locker rooms and a reasonable stipend to the athletes seems like a good answer. 

I would support an NIL that paid Stanford athletes a reasonable sum each year they maintained a 3.0 average, with the bulk contingent on graduating (not that my support would move the needle).  I think an NIL fund that embraced Stanford values could be created.

I dont think this would allow us to compete with the SEC etc, but it would allow us to provide something to those athletes who really value academics. And make clear what our #1 priority is.

By definition what is being spent on thing 1 can't be spent on thing 2, and if more money must be paid to athletes to get more talent, that money is going to go to athletes more than coaches and fancy facilities. I believe we have therefore seen the end of the coach salary escalation era. 

It is foolish to pay a coach $10M per year "to be a great recruiter" when $8M will buy you the better players without all the hassle of traditional recruiting, and the coach can live on $2M per year. So we will see a re-setting of the coaching salary market, not just for Head Coaches, but also assistants, with the players getting a lot of money that used to go to coaches.

The fun is going to start when the boosters want different players than the coaches want, and the boosters control the money.