[Goose]

If I've misread that, I apologize, but Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.)

No, Stanford is NOT an "athletic behemoth". As you proceed to point out, it is a financial behemoth. The two are not at all the same. That is in some large measure what we are discussing here IMO. Stanford has lots of financial resources that could be directed towards the athletic program. Stanford also probably has the ability to raise even more money (above and beyond what it already has) that could also be so directed. Since that has yet to happen Stanford is still in large measure what it was throughout its history. We are operating in large measure according to the values that existed before the big money TV deals and certainly before NIL and the transfer portal became major factors in college athletics.

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money.

In this you are IMO exactly correct. That is the question we are addressing. Of course, it isn't exactly that simple. There are all kinds of different policies that could be adopted. "Do this but not that" is in many cases an option. This makes the problem more difficult.

<snip>
That said, Notre Dame reacted for more quickly and aggressively to the changed environment than did flat-footed Stanford. I get that the NIL and Portal aren't compatible with how Stanford wants to operate, but it has no choice. Adapt or die.

I am pretty sure nobody believes that doing nothing at all is even an option. Stanford will adapt in many ways. We already have, starting with allowing freshmen to start in winter quarter several years ago. A baby step, but a step. You are correct that Stanford preferred the "old" system where the playing field was kept reasonably level by NCAA rules and it was possible to be reasonably competitive without becoming an "athletic behemoth". That goes directly to BC's question. Stanford did absolutely feel that we did a "better than average" job of competing at the highest level of athletics while maintaining our academic standards and not "compromising our values". One might dispute the degree to which that was even true, but that was the position Stanford espoused. The "40 year decision" and all that was real. Yes, the fans were a chardonnay drinking group that were experts at the golf clap, but that was OK. It "worked" then. It doesn't now. Actually, I must say I have always seen much more red wine than chardonnay, but maybe it is the company I keep.

I could be mistaken, but IMO Stanford is never going to adopt an "all in" approach to athletics, where winning at all costs is admissible. One reason for this is that as we have seen being "all in" doesn't guarantee winning. Buying a championship in almost any sport is hard. At Stanford it also risks alienating lots of the people who we really want to be "fans". It may be there is no way to reconcile the many points of view well enough to maintain a reasonable presence in college athletics.  I hope that isn't the case, but I for one can't justify paying a softball pitcher a million dollars to play for Stanford. One may ask "Why does it matter if it isn't your million dollars?".  Good question. The answer is mostly that amateur athletics has always had some aura of virtue about it. You can easily support and respect somebody who represents your organization (in this case your University) for "the love of the game". It is still possible to do so if they get their education paid for by so doing. That too is arguably laudable.

Doing it for a million dollars is just fine, but I can't find any intrinsic moral or social virtue in that. It is a job. I don't care about it or those who do it. I am not going out of my way to support those who do it. It may compete for my entertainment dollar but it will receive no affection or respect, as it did previously. Just my opinion. Yes, it can be true that the amateur athletes we rooted for "back in the day" were not always "good people". But we could remain ignorant of that in most cases. We could adopt them as "our lads". Can't do that if they leave for better NIL money at the drop of a hat.

[Goose]

If I've misread that, I apologize, but Stanford is an athletic behemoth not some small school stuck out in the middle of nowhere punching above its weight. It is a massive enterprise in the heart of Silicon Valley. There's money despite the development office's protestations otherwise. I think there is plenty of money to support $30 million a year in player payments if that's what it takes. (If someone can show that Stanford is really endowment rich, but cash poor, I'll listen.)

No, Stanford is NOT an "athletic behemoth". As you proceed to point out, it is a financial behemoth. The two are not at all the same. That is in some large measure what we are discussing here IMO. Stanford has lots of financial resources that could be directed towards the athletic program. Stanford also probably has the ability to raise even more money (above and beyond what it already has) that could also be so directed. Since that has yet to happen Stanford is still in large measure what it was throughout its history. We are operating in large measure according to the values that existed before the big money TV deals and certainly before NIL and the transfer portal became major factors in college athletics.

The correct question, as BC posits, is whether $30 million in player payments is a worthy use of money.

In this you are IMO exactly correct. That is the question we are addressing. Of course, it isn't exactly that simple. There are all kinds of different policies that could be adopted. "Do this but not that" is in many cases an option. This makes the problem more difficult.

<snip>
That said, Notre Dame reacted for more quickly and aggressively to the changed environment than did flat-footed Stanford. I get that the NIL and Portal aren't compatible with how Stanford wants to operate, but it has no choice. Adapt or die.

I am pretty sure nobody believes that doing nothing at all is even an option. Stanford will adapt in many ways. We already have, starting with allowing freshmen to start in winter quarter several years ago. A baby step, but a step. You are correct that Stanford preferred the "old" system where the playing field was kept reasonably level by NCAA rules and it was possible to be reasonably competitive without becoming an "athletic behemoth". That goes directly to BC's question. Stanford did absolutely feel that we did a "better than average" job of competing at the highest level of athletics while maintaining our academic standards and not "compromising our values". One might dispute the degree to which that was even true, but that was the position Stanford espoused. The "40 year decision" and all that was real. Yes, the fans were a chardonnay drinking group that were experts at the golf clap, but that was OK. It "worked" then. It doesn't now. Actually, I must say I have always seen much more red wine than chardonnay, but maybe it is the company I keep.

I could be mistaken, but IMO Stanford is never going to adopt an "all in" approach to athletics, where winning at all costs is admissible. One reason for this is that as we have seen being "all in" doesn't guarantee winning. Buying a championship in almost any sport is hard. At Stanford it also risks alienating lots of the people who we really want to be "fans". It may be there is no way to reconcile the many points of view well enough to maintain a reasonable presence in college athletics.  I hope that isn't the case, but I for one can't justify paying a softball pitcher a million dollars to play for Stanford. One may ask "Why does it matter if it isn't your million dollars?".  Good question. The answer is mostly that amateur athletics has always had some aura of virtue about it. You can easily support and respect somebody who represents your organization (in this case your University) for "the love of the game". It is still possible to do so if they get their education paid for by so doing. That too is arguably laudable.

Doing it for a million dollars is just fine, but I can't find any intrinsic moral or social virtue in that. It is a job. I don't care about it or those who do it. I am not going out of my way to support those who do it. It may compete for my entertainment dollar but it will receive no affection or respect, as it did previously. Just my opinion. Yes, it can be true that the amateur athletes we rooted for "back in the day" were not always "good people". But we could remain ignorant of that in most cases. We could adopt them as "our lads". Can't do that if they leave for better NIL money at the drop of a hat.