[Goose]

One important constraint of "How much will it cost?" for Stanford to "buy" a good football team is admissions. That is IMO even more a limiting factor than money. The coaches would still have to find on average 11 four star (or better) athletes every year that want to do the work and can be admitted to Stanford. IMO that won't be even remotely possible. If you are a four star athlete set to make millions a year wherever you go why would you chose to take the risk that if you bust your ass and take a bunch of AP classes you MIGHT be admissible to Stanford? After that you get to work hard to remain eligible. Attracting such players was difficult enough when there wasn't "set for life" money available. Now that there is, it won't happen, period. You don't (appear to) need a "40 year decision" under those circumstances.

The alternative would be to change admission standards to align with "everybody else". Anything less still leaves Stanford at a disadvantage. Today it is a substantial disadvantage. IMO changing that would challenge the core premises of the University and I would oppose it. What I think probably matters exactly zero but there are are plenty of faculty that think the same way. That does matter and ensures Stanford will always be operating at a disadvantage with respect to the vast majority of other Universities. It comes with the territory.

It must also be stated that as Jerry Jones proves year over year in Dallas no matter how much money you spend you cannot reliably "buy" a championship team. This is even more true of younger players like college athletes. Lots of "can't miss" prospects do "miss". That means that year over year 11 four star "prospects" aren't enough. You probably need 18-19 as "insurance", but which ones??

[Goose]

One important constraint of "How much will it cost?" for Stanford to "buy" a good football team is admissions. That is IMO even more a limiting factor than money. The coaches would still have to find on average 11 four star (or better) athletes every year that want to do the work and can be admitted to Stanford. IMO that won't be even remotely possible. If you are a four star athlete set to make millions a year wherever you go why would you chose to take the risk that if you bust your ass and take a bunch of AP classes you MIGHT be admissible to Stanford? After that you get to work hard to remain eligible. Attracting such players was difficult enough when there wasn't "set for life" money available. Now that there is, it won't happen, period. You don't (appear to) need a "40 year decision" under those circumstances.

The alternative would be to change admission standards to align with "everybody else". Anything less still leaves Stanford at a disadvantage. Today it is a substantial disadvantage. IMO changing that would challenge the core premises of the University and I would oppose it. What I think probably matters exactly zero but there are are plenty of faculty that think the same way. That does matter and ensures Stanford will always be operating at a disadvantage with respect to the vast majority of other Universities. It comes with the territory.

It must also be stated that as Jerry Jones proves year over year in Dallas no matter how much money you spend you cannot reliably "buy" a championship team. This is even more true of younger players like college athletes. Lots of "can't miss" prospects do "miss". That means that year over year 11 four star "prospects" aren't enough. You probably need 18-19 as "insurance", but which ones??