[newguy]

I am not able to read the Ostler article since it's behind a pay wall. But it probably covers similar ground to Ivan Maisel's article in the latest Stanford Magazine - https://stanfordmag.org/contents/throwin...-rule-book

Stanford has a hard decision. The commitment to a broad athletic program that can compete for national championships across multiple sports requires the money that football has provided. Stanford can probably retain that commitment for the most part as a member of the B10. It almost certainly cannot do so as a member of a post-USC and UCLA P10, as an independent, or in FCS. So if the University decides to step back from Big Time Semi-Professional College Football (and all that comes with it, like NIL, transfers, Alston payments, maybe paying players as employees), many sports would be cut to match athletic costs with reduced revenues. Fewer of the ones that remain would be nationally competitive.

I'm not saying this with the intention of telegraphing the obvious answer. There is no obvious answer. The tradeoffs for either route are painful and will displease many loyal and passionate alumni and other stakeholders regardless of the decision that the University makes. But the one thing that seems obvious is that the status quo current environment is unsustainable.

My magazine just arrived an hour ago.  Excellent article.

If it were up to me (which it isn't), then we would stay in the soon-to-be Pac-10 and compete with football teams who might be paying their players.  If we lose, then we lose, but when Coach Shaw retires in a couple decades, we might start winning some more.  

It's like the answer to the question asked by prospective students who haven't done their research:  Should I take the easy class and get an A, or take the hard class and get a B?  
Take the hard class and get an A.

[newguy]

I am not able to read the Ostler article since it's behind a pay wall. But it probably covers similar ground to Ivan Maisel's article in the latest Stanford Magazine - https://stanfordmag.org/contents/throwin...-rule-book

Stanford has a hard decision. The commitment to a broad athletic program that can compete for national championships across multiple sports requires the money that football has provided. Stanford can probably retain that commitment for the most part as a member of the B10. It almost certainly cannot do so as a member of a post-USC and UCLA P10, as an independent, or in FCS. So if the University decides to step back from Big Time Semi-Professional College Football (and all that comes with it, like NIL, transfers, Alston payments, maybe paying players as employees), many sports would be cut to match athletic costs with reduced revenues. Fewer of the ones that remain would be nationally competitive.

I'm not saying this with the intention of telegraphing the obvious answer. There is no obvious answer. The tradeoffs for either route are painful and will displease many loyal and passionate alumni and other stakeholders regardless of the decision that the University makes. But the one thing that seems obvious is that the status quo current environment is unsustainable.

My magazine just arrived an hour ago.  Excellent article.

If it were up to me (which it isn't), then we would stay in the soon-to-be Pac-10 and compete with football teams who might be paying their players.  If we lose, then we lose, but when Coach Shaw retires in a couple decades, we might start winning some more.  

It's like the answer to the question asked by prospective students who haven't done their research:  Should I take the easy class and get an A, or take the hard class and get a B?  
Take the hard class and get an A.