[d4cohn]

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).

Let's just say that I am glad that Andrew Luck played at Stanford when he did.  An Andrew Luck who was the exact same talent on the field but played at Stanford because we scrounged a 7-digit paycheck for him would not hold the same special place in my heart, as the one who forwent an opportunity to go pro as the number one pick in the draft after his junior season in order to graduate and play one more season at Stanford.

For me, this isn't about the sport (football versus softball), and I can't really hold it against any athlete who is offered those amounts for their talents.  I just don't think Stanford should be playing those games, and for me, it's not worth the cost (more in terms of values than in terms of nominal $$$) to pursue D1 national championships in sports where that will take offering 6 and 7 figure NIL deals.  To me, it is just anathema to what Stanford ought to stand for.

BC

I think we agree on wanting athletes who are committed to being Stanford athletes for reasons beyond simply NIL deals even if we ultimately reach different conclusions on whether to pay the NIL deals nor not. For me at least, couldn't I have made the argument about pursuing D1 national championships in sports, but substitute coaches salaries for NIL deals? We have paid out 7 figure deals to David Shaw (and to coaches with far less success than him at Stanford like Haase).

[d4cohn]

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).

Let's just say that I am glad that Andrew Luck played at Stanford when he did.  An Andrew Luck who was the exact same talent on the field but played at Stanford because we scrounged a 7-digit paycheck for him would not hold the same special place in my heart, as the one who forwent an opportunity to go pro as the number one pick in the draft after his junior season in order to graduate and play one more season at Stanford.

For me, this isn't about the sport (football versus softball), and I can't really hold it against any athlete who is offered those amounts for their talents.  I just don't think Stanford should be playing those games, and for me, it's not worth the cost (more in terms of values than in terms of nominal $$$) to pursue D1 national championships in sports where that will take offering 6 and 7 figure NIL deals.  To me, it is just anathema to what Stanford ought to stand for.

BC

I think we agree on wanting athletes who are committed to being Stanford athletes for reasons beyond simply NIL deals even if we ultimately reach different conclusions on whether to pay the NIL deals nor not. For me at least, couldn't I have made the argument about pursuing D1 national championships in sports, but substitute coaches salaries for NIL deals? We have paid out 7 figure deals to David Shaw (and to coaches with far less success than him at Stanford like Haase).