[McKenwood]

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.

I agree that the status quo is unsustainable. Football in particular has gotten away from any tenable student-athlete model. The sport brings in millions for a university that goes all in but ultimately there will be some employer-employee relationship based on revenue sharing. Then add in the unknowns about CTE and you have a really toxic brew. A move to the Big10 would result in a bottom tier football team and ridiculous travel schedules for every other team.

So I would suggest Stanford drop football or move down to UC Davis's league and refuse to compete semi-pro teams with college names on their jerseys. MBB might fall into this category but I like the fact that good players who aren't interested in a university education have solid alternaitves so maybe MBB can continue to have a more traditional approach .

For all the other teams, I would suggest Stanford reallocate a sufficient amount of its endowment to fund the teams at the highest level. This means scholarships, coaching salaries, training facilities, travel budgets and support would be top of any college teams, even those with SEC football TV money.

Stanford would retain a singular characteristic that differentiates it from other academically oriented universities namely a broadbased, highly successful athletic program. It would remove the necessity of football covering much of the cost of running such a program.

The decision isn't that hard but right now Stanford doesn't have the leadership either in the AD or at the executive level. The fact that Muir still has a job indicates real weakness in Stanford's governance. This will play out in a messy way over the next 3-5 years with Stanford being behind on every major change.

[McKenwood]

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.

I agree that the status quo is unsustainable. Football in particular has gotten away from any tenable student-athlete model. The sport brings in millions for a university that goes all in but ultimately there will be some employer-employee relationship based on revenue sharing. Then add in the unknowns about CTE and you have a really toxic brew. A move to the Big10 would result in a bottom tier football team and ridiculous travel schedules for every other team.

So I would suggest Stanford drop football or move down to UC Davis's league and refuse to compete semi-pro teams with college names on their jerseys. MBB might fall into this category but I like the fact that good players who aren't interested in a university education have solid alternaitves so maybe MBB can continue to have a more traditional approach .

For all the other teams, I would suggest Stanford reallocate a sufficient amount of its endowment to fund the teams at the highest level. This means scholarships, coaching salaries, training facilities, travel budgets and support would be top of any college teams, even those with SEC football TV money.

Stanford would retain a singular characteristic that differentiates it from other academically oriented universities namely a broadbased, highly successful athletic program. It would remove the necessity of football covering much of the cost of running such a program.

The decision isn't that hard but right now Stanford doesn't have the leadership either in the AD or at the executive level. The fact that Muir still has a job indicates real weakness in Stanford's governance. This will play out in a messy way over the next 3-5 years with Stanford being behind on every major change.