[d4cohn]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

With some experts saying that bidding for Canady could reach as high as $1 million, Stanford finds itself in negotiations that could forever alter non-revenue sports. One source with knowledge of the talks would not disclose specific figures but said Stanford’s NIL collective, Lifetime Cardinal, was “giving their all” to retain the nation’s top returning player.

It's absolutely wild to me how quickly we've all embraced pay to play. I find myself thinking of the other ways we could spend $1m than to buy a slightly better chance at a national championship in a second-tier sport.

I know this wasn't the main point of your comment, but as a general principle, every sport we offer is a "first-tier" sport to someone (e.g. the athletes, coaches, families of athletes and coaches etc.). You could make your point by focusing on the earnings, revenue, ratings etc. generated in a sport like football vs. softball without using the term 'second-tier sport'.

---

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

Because Stanford's mission is "Stanford was founded almost 150 years ago on a bedrock of societal purpose. Our mission is to contribute to the world by educating students for lives of leadership and contribution with integrity; advancing fundamental knowledge and cultivating creativity; leading in pioneering research for effective clinical therapies; and accelerating solutions and amplifying their impact."

https://www.stanford.edu/about/

Now, that is not incompatible with athletics, and if you scroll down to the "community" section, athletics (and the 36 varsity sports Stanford sponsors) is mentioned, but $1 mm or whatever is a lot of money to be spent on a single person whose contribution is, at best, tangential to Stanford's mission. $1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  I get that those who are contributing to "lifetime Cardinal" are doing so to further athletic glory, but if that's your jam, I suggest a donation to the US Olympic committee.

I personally think that in the long run, high dollar NIL deals actually work against the University's mission.

BC

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

As far as my opinion on the matter, do I hope Canady stays at Stanford? Of course. Would this still impact my opinion on her? To be honest, yes to a degree because 1) maybe I am old-fashioned or naive or both, but I don't like how this (NIL) raise is effectively being negotiated (e.g. in the media).

I also don't think it really takes 6 weeks to have a sense of the (NIL) market in terms of what NIL organizations by different schools' alums will offer. Will this, on the other hand, allow her to maximize her NIL deal(s)? It appears to be yes, if that article is to be believed. My opinion has always been I want athletes to compensated fairly (i.e. $0 for NIL is inherently unfair IMO). On the other hand, at some point, there are other important factors to consider (professionally or now in NIL) such as fit, opportunity for success etc.

Having said all of that, I do think Stanford's alumni NIL organizations could have been a lot more proactive in supporting NiJaree for her significant contributions to our AD (i.e. if NiJaree had to enter the transfer portal for that to be realized, I think Stanford's alumni NIL organizations could have done a lot better (by NiJaree) there).

[d4cohn]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...566500.php

This is a great article with some insight and dollar figures. Lifetime Cardinal is doing work. Wouldn’t that be something if Canady stayed.

With some experts saying that bidding for Canady could reach as high as $1 million, Stanford finds itself in negotiations that could forever alter non-revenue sports. One source with knowledge of the talks would not disclose specific figures but said Stanford’s NIL collective, Lifetime Cardinal, was “giving their all” to retain the nation’s top returning player.

It's absolutely wild to me how quickly we've all embraced pay to play. I find myself thinking of the other ways we could spend $1m than to buy a slightly better chance at a national championship in a second-tier sport.

I know this wasn't the main point of your comment, but as a general principle, every sport we offer is a "first-tier" sport to someone (e.g. the athletes, coaches, families of athletes and coaches etc.). You could make your point by focusing on the earnings, revenue, ratings etc. generated in a sport like football vs. softball without using the term 'second-tier sport'.

---

The folks contributing to Lifetime Cardinal have done so specifically intending their funds to go towards supporting National top caliber athletes and teams to represent Stanford. Those that contribute towards academic related endowments are doing their intent as well. Why can’t both co-exist and flourish?

Because Stanford's mission is "Stanford was founded almost 150 years ago on a bedrock of societal purpose. Our mission is to contribute to the world by educating students for lives of leadership and contribution with integrity; advancing fundamental knowledge and cultivating creativity; leading in pioneering research for effective clinical therapies; and accelerating solutions and amplifying their impact."

https://www.stanford.edu/about/

Now, that is not incompatible with athletics, and if you scroll down to the "community" section, athletics (and the 36 varsity sports Stanford sponsors) is mentioned, but $1 mm or whatever is a lot of money to be spent on a single person whose contribution is, at best, tangential to Stanford's mission. $1 mm could pay full freight tuition ($58K) for 17 students.  I get that those who are contributing to "lifetime Cardinal" are doing so to further athletic glory, but if that's your jam, I suggest a donation to the US Olympic committee.

I personally think that in the long run, high dollar NIL deals actually work against the University's mission.

BC

A hypothetical: if Andrew Luck was looking to transfer, would you think $1 million could support 17 other football players on the team? Again, I understand football generates more revenue and earnings than softball, but at the end of the day, I feel the argument for some would be "yes, because we want a winning football team" rather than any argument about earnings/dollars/ratings back to the AD (because Stanford football, particularly when we don't sell out our stadium, is not Ohio State or Alabama in terms of profit generator for the AD).

As far as my opinion on the matter, do I hope Canady stays at Stanford? Of course. Would this still impact my opinion on her? To be honest, yes to a degree because 1) maybe I am old-fashioned or naive or both, but I don't like how this (NIL) raise is effectively being negotiated (e.g. in the media).

I also don't think it really takes 6 weeks to have a sense of the (NIL) market in terms of what NIL organizations by different schools' alums will offer. Will this, on the other hand, allow her to maximize her NIL deal(s)? It appears to be yes, if that article is to be believed. My opinion has always been I want athletes to compensated fairly (i.e. $0 for NIL is inherently unfair IMO). On the other hand, at some point, there are other important factors to consider (professionally or now in NIL) such as fit, opportunity for success etc.

Having said all of that, I do think Stanford's alumni NIL organizations could have been a lot more proactive in supporting NiJaree for her significant contributions to our AD (i.e. if NiJaree had to enter the transfer portal for that to be realized, I think Stanford's alumni NIL organizations could have done a lot better (by NiJaree) there).