[2006alum]

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

Thank you. As usual, you've said it more eloquently than I could. (I think somewhere in the back of my mind I was hoping my original post would flash the "BC Signal," which sure enough, it did! :)

And the one thing I'd add: the reason all pro sports have leagues and associations with salary caps, luxury taxes, and max deals is the recognition that unbridled pay-to-play ruins fair competition and promotes quid pro quo corruption, because over time, the deepest pockets will almost always win (at the expensive of fair competition). Now maybe that's a comfortable notion for alumni of the school whose mascot *should* be the Robber Barons. But it's not one that sits comfortably with me. And when you combine pay-to-play with the fact that our bribe targets are often barely legal adults, with none of the trappings (and legal protections) of professionalization about them, the whole thing just feels seedy and in pursuit of a quick win at all costs.

Sorry, but the ethos of the Stanford I went to raised me to expect better, and I do.

[2006alum]

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

Thank you. As usual, you've said it more eloquently than I could. (I think somewhere in the back of my mind I was hoping my original post would flash the "BC Signal," which sure enough, it did! :)

And the one thing I'd add: the reason all pro sports have leagues and associations with salary caps, luxury taxes, and max deals is the recognition that unbridled pay-to-play ruins fair competition and promotes quid pro quo corruption, because over time, the deepest pockets will almost always win (at the expensive of fair competition). Now maybe that's a comfortable notion for alumni of the school whose mascot *should* be the Robber Barons. But it's not one that sits comfortably with me. And when you combine pay-to-play with the fact that our bribe targets are often barely legal adults, with none of the trappings (and legal protections) of professionalization about them, the whole thing just feels seedy and in pursuit of a quick win at all costs.

Sorry, but the ethos of the Stanford I went to raised me to expect better, and I do.