All the discussion about football generating the revenue that is used to operate the non-revenue sports may not actually be true at Stanford--or it may be true to a lesser extent than we think. And losing USC and UCLA is about to make the "football subsidy" theory work less well. The danger is that football will now require its own subsidy, going forward, similar to what happens at many universities.
Yes, football brings in the big TV contract and more gate receipts than any other sport, by far. But football is also more expensive than any other sport, by far. I'd really like to know the break-even point. Considering coaches salaries, player scholarships, travel, facilities upkeep, etc. I'd guess football at Stanford consumes $10-15 million a year. If we were in the SEC and getting $35 million in TV distributions then it would be easy to say that football subsidizes the other sports. But even in good times in the Pac-12 when we were getting $15-20 million a year, football did only a little better than break even. It was hardly generating the bulk of the funds to run the other sports.
I think Stanford--and John Arillaga--just decided to support the other sports. Private donations and operating funds must have been used to run this massive athletics program, and must have done for years--with some modest help from the football "surplus," however much it was. But the Pac 12's lack of success over the last decade means that the budget hit we will take is less than we might expect--since we have already been forced to fund our extensive athletics program without SEC-sized TV revenues.
Getting to Yvonne's original point, I find myself entirely sympathetic with those sentiments. I am older, arriving on campus the same year Bill Walsh did. To me the traditions of college sports are essential to my enjoyment, and the destructive effects of big money on those traditions has been killing my interest.
I'd really prefer that Stanford figures out a way to compete at the highest level while staying true to its values. However, if it comes to it, the Ivy League is filled with tradition, games that start at reasonable times, and intense (if less talented) competition.
Yes, football brings in the big TV contract and more gate receipts than any other sport, by far. But football is also more expensive than any other sport, by far. I'd really like to know the break-even point. Considering coaches salaries, player scholarships, travel, facilities upkeep, etc. I'd guess football at Stanford consumes $10-15 million a year. If we were in the SEC and getting $35 million in TV distributions then it would be easy to say that football subsidizes the other sports. But even in good times in the Pac-12 when we were getting $15-20 million a year, football did only a little better than break even. It was hardly generating the bulk of the funds to run the other sports.
I think Stanford--and John Arillaga--just decided to support the other sports. Private donations and operating funds must have been used to run this massive athletics program, and must have done for years--with some modest help from the football "surplus," however much it was. But the Pac 12's lack of success over the last decade means that the budget hit we will take is less than we might expect--since we have already been forced to fund our extensive athletics program without SEC-sized TV revenues.
Getting to Yvonne's original point, I find myself entirely sympathetic with those sentiments. I am older, arriving on campus the same year Bill Walsh did. To me the traditions of college sports are essential to my enjoyment, and the destructive effects of big money on those traditions has been killing my interest.
I'd really prefer that Stanford figures out a way to compete at the highest level while staying true to its values. However, if it comes to it, the Ivy League is filled with tradition, games that start at reasonable times, and intense (if less talented) competition.