[GK3]

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??

Your point is well taken.  The NIL/Portal issue has really made the old "40 year" decision argument pretty weak. I am NOT in favor of Stanford giving any significant break to athletes, I think they have always gotten a little break, but they have all be capable of doing the work.  We have obviously eased up on accepting transfers as compared to the past, but as you say, how many are there who have adequate academic chops?  The ACC has a number of very good academic institutions.  Four are in the top 20 and 6 in the top 30.  Duke, Notre Dame and Vanderbilt join Stanford and Cal in the top 20.  My guess is that we are a distant last in willingness to accept athletic transfers.  
Notre Dame lost a number players at the end of last year, Cal took at least two of them.  Did we make any effort to take any?  Was it even possible?
Duke lost 7 from its basketball team, we got one of those.  Was Jaylen to only one of that group who could get into Stanford?

I think many of our teams can do very well in the current environment IF we are allowed really use the Portal and our teams are competitive enough to be attractive.  I think the route to rebuilding may lie more in the Portal than in who we get out of high school, at least in football.

It used to be that the coaches only needed to worry about who they could get in as Freshmen, now they have to still deal with that, but they have to have a "transfer" list and figure out how to legally mine that, if we can.

I think if you are a coach at Stanford your life is much more difficult than it used to be.

[GK3]

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??

Your point is well taken.  The NIL/Portal issue has really made the old "40 year" decision argument pretty weak. I am NOT in favor of Stanford giving any significant break to athletes, I think they have always gotten a little break, but they have all be capable of doing the work.  We have obviously eased up on accepting transfers as compared to the past, but as you say, how many are there who have adequate academic chops?  The ACC has a number of very good academic institutions.  Four are in the top 20 and 6 in the top 30.  Duke, Notre Dame and Vanderbilt join Stanford and Cal in the top 20.  My guess is that we are a distant last in willingness to accept athletic transfers.  
Notre Dame lost a number players at the end of last year, Cal took at least two of them.  Did we make any effort to take any?  Was it even possible?
Duke lost 7 from its basketball team, we got one of those.  Was Jaylen to only one of that group who could get into Stanford?

I think many of our teams can do very well in the current environment IF we are allowed really use the Portal and our teams are competitive enough to be attractive.  I think the route to rebuilding may lie more in the Portal than in who we get out of high school, at least in football.

It used to be that the coaches only needed to worry about who they could get in as Freshmen, now they have to still deal with that, but they have to have a "transfer" list and figure out how to legally mine that, if we can.

I think if you are a coach at Stanford your life is much more difficult than it used to be.