[Sunnysideup]

I don't think the pressing issue dropping power conference football is with the money (yes, it would be a challenge, but it's feasible for Stanford, with its boosters and non-athletics endowment). I think the issue is the impact on other sports (in terms of recruiting, which results in decreased competitiveness, which results in decreased success, which feeds back into less successful recruiting, and so on) from being in a non-major conference. I think swimming, tennis, and golf would survive, but the others could tank. The issue then with football is that football is the piece that gets Stanford into the power conference, since football is the sport that is driving conference realignment.

Which, as noted on the excellent Wall Street Journal podcast on the demise of the Pac-12, is ridiculous, because football is the easiest college sport to schedule and the least demanding theoretically on players re: scheduling (6 home games, 6 away games, 1x a week).

---

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. 

UChicago and Emory are D-III.

Swarthmore (also D-III) dropped football in the early 2000s, too.

Does Stanford want to go D-III?

[Sunnysideup]

I don't think the pressing issue dropping power conference football is with the money (yes, it would be a challenge, but it's feasible for Stanford, with its boosters and non-athletics endowment). I think the issue is the impact on other sports (in terms of recruiting, which results in decreased competitiveness, which results in decreased success, which feeds back into less successful recruiting, and so on) from being in a non-major conference. I think swimming, tennis, and golf would survive, but the others could tank. The issue then with football is that football is the piece that gets Stanford into the power conference, since football is the sport that is driving conference realignment.

Which, as noted on the excellent Wall Street Journal podcast on the demise of the Pac-12, is ridiculous, because football is the easiest college sport to schedule and the least demanding theoretically on players re: scheduling (6 home games, 6 away games, 1x a week).

---

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. 

UChicago and Emory are D-III.

Swarthmore (also D-III) dropped football in the early 2000s, too.

Does Stanford want to go D-III?