[SkiBum80]

For those that think Stanford donors should pay $1M for any player, go ahead and donate it, unless you're wanting to pay with someone else's money.

For the argument about selling tickets, in 2024, softball season tickets started at $175.  $1M is more than 5700 season tickets.  For the Super Regionals at home, the crowd was under 1500 per game.

For the argument against comparing $1M to 17 full-ride scholarships, what do you not understand about money?  Whether you count it in dollars, gold bars, or Stanford scholarships, they are just different units of value that are fungible.  Or 980 years of monthly $85 hair stylings.

For the argument of why not do both, I'm sorry to point out that we live in a finite world.  If a donor has $10M he was thinking of donating to Stanford University but decides to give $1M to Lifetime Cardinal, most likely the $10M gets decreased, maybe by $1.3M.  If you have only $500 burning a hole in your pocket, and you choose to give it or some portion of it to some athlete, most likely you won't give as much to Stanford University as you would have otherwise.  Lifetime Cardinal is a competitor to Stanford University for discretionary dollars.

I wish it was the case that each dollar donated to Stanford University directly contributed to a cure for cancer or world peace.  Nope, some will get spent on asphalt or janitor closets or all the other things that makes the University run.  But overall, Stanford trains the leaders of tomorrow to help the world in significant ways.  I don't believe that even a MVP in the Super Bowl can match the value of any of many, many different Stanford graduates.

Yes, each of us spends money on our vanities, whether they be lattes or hair salons or NIL merchandise.  There is a benefit from feeling good from such expenditures.   But $1M is a lot of vanity.


Welcome to the dotNIL boom when value is out of whack.

I could see your point if there were a fixed finite pool of funds that could go to LSJU or LC and they competed against each other for their share of the zero sum pie.
But I think the pool is more fluid than finite.
And can grow or shrink as a whole depending on how Stanford is doing, academically and athletically, how donors are doing financially, and how likely they feel any of their donations are being put to good use.
Some folks or foundations are committed to, by choice, policy or law, to contribute only to a 501 like LSJU. 
And those folks are not likely to divert any funds to LC.
And some of what they contribute is probably predecided, like perhaps a certain percent of what the foundation earns that year goes to LSJU.
And some may be discretionary year by year or even reevaluated more often than annually.
For others the LC is a new and different way to contribute towards supporting Stanford athletes directly that was never possible (legally) and still isn't possible through the athletics dept.
So far as my understanding, currently LC is a unique way to compensate somewhat all the SU athletes of 3 teams, and perhaps some of the top athletes of other teams.
As long as athletics remains one of the missions of LSJU, which is another discussion in itself, but assuming it remains a mission, I think the athletics mission includes striving for excellence. 
In this era, including an NIL offer to pretty much all athletes in the most spectator heavy and revenue generating sports is needed to attract top talented athletes.
And seems like this is extending into other sports as well especially for anyone of top national talent.
So I see LC as a new, needed, supplement to the school's scholarship offer, that used to be sufficient, but no longer is so.
Bottom line is I'm guessing the LC is attracting new contributions that would not otherwise be made to LSJU, and LC is not generally taking away from contributions to LSJU, as LC is a new and unique way to support athletes that wasn't possible previously.
This guess is based on life experience and not firsthand knowledge like those actually processing contributions.
Though I'm guessing that those with more firsthand knowledge would be hard pressed to comment much based on confidentiality requirements.

[SkiBum80]

For those that think Stanford donors should pay $1M for any player, go ahead and donate it, unless you're wanting to pay with someone else's money.

For the argument about selling tickets, in 2024, softball season tickets started at $175.  $1M is more than 5700 season tickets.  For the Super Regionals at home, the crowd was under 1500 per game.

For the argument against comparing $1M to 17 full-ride scholarships, what do you not understand about money?  Whether you count it in dollars, gold bars, or Stanford scholarships, they are just different units of value that are fungible.  Or 980 years of monthly $85 hair stylings.

For the argument of why not do both, I'm sorry to point out that we live in a finite world.  If a donor has $10M he was thinking of donating to Stanford University but decides to give $1M to Lifetime Cardinal, most likely the $10M gets decreased, maybe by $1.3M.  If you have only $500 burning a hole in your pocket, and you choose to give it or some portion of it to some athlete, most likely you won't give as much to Stanford University as you would have otherwise.  Lifetime Cardinal is a competitor to Stanford University for discretionary dollars.

I wish it was the case that each dollar donated to Stanford University directly contributed to a cure for cancer or world peace.  Nope, some will get spent on asphalt or janitor closets or all the other things that makes the University run.  But overall, Stanford trains the leaders of tomorrow to help the world in significant ways.  I don't believe that even a MVP in the Super Bowl can match the value of any of many, many different Stanford graduates.

Yes, each of us spends money on our vanities, whether they be lattes or hair salons or NIL merchandise.  There is a benefit from feeling good from such expenditures.   But $1M is a lot of vanity.


Welcome to the dotNIL boom when value is out of whack.

I could see your point if there were a fixed finite pool of funds that could go to LSJU or LC and they competed against each other for their share of the zero sum pie.
But I think the pool is more fluid than finite.
And can grow or shrink as a whole depending on how Stanford is doing, academically and athletically, how donors are doing financially, and how likely they feel any of their donations are being put to good use.
Some folks or foundations are committed to, by choice, policy or law, to contribute only to a 501 like LSJU. 
And those folks are not likely to divert any funds to LC.
And some of what they contribute is probably predecided, like perhaps a certain percent of what the foundation earns that year goes to LSJU.
And some may be discretionary year by year or even reevaluated more often than annually.
For others the LC is a new and different way to contribute towards supporting Stanford athletes directly that was never possible (legally) and still isn't possible through the athletics dept.
So far as my understanding, currently LC is a unique way to compensate somewhat all the SU athletes of 3 teams, and perhaps some of the top athletes of other teams.
As long as athletics remains one of the missions of LSJU, which is another discussion in itself, but assuming it remains a mission, I think the athletics mission includes striving for excellence. 
In this era, including an NIL offer to pretty much all athletes in the most spectator heavy and revenue generating sports is needed to attract top talented athletes.
And seems like this is extending into other sports as well especially for anyone of top national talent.
So I see LC as a new, needed, supplement to the school's scholarship offer, that used to be sufficient, but no longer is so.
Bottom line is I'm guessing the LC is attracting new contributions that would not otherwise be made to LSJU, and LC is not generally taking away from contributions to LSJU, as LC is a new and unique way to support athletes that wasn't possible previously.
This guess is based on life experience and not firsthand knowledge like those actually processing contributions.
Though I'm guessing that those with more firsthand knowledge would be hard pressed to comment much based on confidentiality requirements.