[81alum]

Have any of y'all seen or heard anyone from Stanford - such as the President, AD, Shaw, Van DerVeer, or Haase - take a position on the notion Stanford may drop out of major college sports given NIL and paying athlete realities?

It seems to me Stanford isn't going to give up the revenue source being in Pac-12 provides, and some fans are just being pollyanna-ish about the fact they think Stanford is "above it all" and taking some sort of satisfaction at the idea of Stanford taking its ball and going home.

Nope, I have no evidence that anyone in a position of power is publicly discussing this.  But then they have every incentive not to voice these concerns until/unless they decide to make a change.  Just talking about it openly would undermine the existing programs, so they won't until/unless they decide to get out. 

And I do not think it is a forgone conclusion that they will--but if NIL, the disruption of the NCAA, transfer anarchy, etc. continue and worsen it will get harder and harder to keep both the academic standards and athletic competitiveness high.  Stanford won't compromise more than it already has on its academic standards--it is not about to open up a revolving door to transfer students and it won't facilitate million dollar payola (oops, NIL) deals for individual students.  So we will lose competitiveness.  How much and how fast is the question, and will we fall far enough to provoke a pull-out?  I'm thinking 5-10 years, unless ICA undergoes a massive, national reform that resets the whole conversation.

As for losing the revenue stream--my educated guess is that Stanford's ICA program is a significant money loser--that is why they were attempting to cut sports.  All but about 10 universities in the nation that publish their finances lose money on their ICA programs.  Stanford doesn't publish but I can't see a reason for why we would be in the same echelon as the Texas/Alabama/Ohio State/Notre Dame crowd.

[81alum]

Have any of y'all seen or heard anyone from Stanford - such as the President, AD, Shaw, Van DerVeer, or Haase - take a position on the notion Stanford may drop out of major college sports given NIL and paying athlete realities?

It seems to me Stanford isn't going to give up the revenue source being in Pac-12 provides, and some fans are just being pollyanna-ish about the fact they think Stanford is "above it all" and taking some sort of satisfaction at the idea of Stanford taking its ball and going home.

Nope, I have no evidence that anyone in a position of power is publicly discussing this.  But then they have every incentive not to voice these concerns until/unless they decide to make a change.  Just talking about it openly would undermine the existing programs, so they won't until/unless they decide to get out. 

And I do not think it is a forgone conclusion that they will--but if NIL, the disruption of the NCAA, transfer anarchy, etc. continue and worsen it will get harder and harder to keep both the academic standards and athletic competitiveness high.  Stanford won't compromise more than it already has on its academic standards--it is not about to open up a revolving door to transfer students and it won't facilitate million dollar payola (oops, NIL) deals for individual students.  So we will lose competitiveness.  How much and how fast is the question, and will we fall far enough to provoke a pull-out?  I'm thinking 5-10 years, unless ICA undergoes a massive, national reform that resets the whole conversation.

As for losing the revenue stream--my educated guess is that Stanford's ICA program is a significant money loser--that is why they were attempting to cut sports.  All but about 10 universities in the nation that publish their finances lose money on their ICA programs.  Stanford doesn't publish but I can't see a reason for why we would be in the same echelon as the Texas/Alabama/Ohio State/Notre Dame crowd.