[Vandelay]

It depends.  What is the “value” of a CWS appearance and a chance to a national title in softball.  I doubt that the softball team is making more than $1 MM in increased revenue compared to the alternative, so strictly speaking, it was probably a negative financial return compared to the alternative where the benefactor just gives the AD the $1 million.

BC

Value to whom?   (Am I wrong when I believe the $1M did not come from Texas Tech University or any department of that organization?)
  The ego-based donor that pays real dollars for play-NIL that wants to see a team do well?   
   A company selling gloves & softballs that pays for actual NIL.
  The person(s) or company whose name is on the school's field or other associated equipment?
  The person who would have otherwise left the money to care for their pet?

I was just evaluating this in a strictly dollar and cents fashion (as in, TT softball probably did not get $1 million more in revenue than the cost of the player), and noted that I was comparing it to the counterfactual where the “benefactor just gives the AD the $1 million”.  Obviously, the decision to pay Canady the NIL money wasn’t done to improve the Texas Tech’s AD financial picture, it was done to secure a top tier softball team.  So, by virtue of the fact that he paid it, it was worth it to the donor, and it is not up to me to pass judgment.

However, I object to the “Whatever Texas Tech is paying NiJaree Canady, they got a bargain.”  I note, as I always do, that any of us, if we had the money and wanted to, could have donated enough to lifetime cardinal to ensure that Canady stayed at Stanford; none of us did.  I sure as hell wouldn’t take out a second mortgage on my house to donate a million to keep Canady, so to me, $1 million to add a national title in softball is definitely not “a bargain”.  For the rest of you in this thread, I wonder how much you would have put up in an auction to keep Canady.  If it is substantially above $1 million, then yes, you can say that TT got a bargain.  Otherwise, you really can’t; all you can do is marvel that there are people out there that the ego of being associated with a top tier softball program is worth $1 million.  I never took more than intro Economics, but I believe the term for this is “revealed preference”.

BC

I find it rather amusing that you dismiss the motivations of John and Tracy Sellers (the Texas Tech boosters who ponied up for Canady's $1M NIL) as "ego driven".  You don't know them.  You don't know anything about them.  I wish Stanford had a John and Tracy Sellers supporting our athletes.

[Vandelay]

It depends.  What is the “value” of a CWS appearance and a chance to a national title in softball.  I doubt that the softball team is making more than $1 MM in increased revenue compared to the alternative, so strictly speaking, it was probably a negative financial return compared to the alternative where the benefactor just gives the AD the $1 million.

BC

Value to whom?   (Am I wrong when I believe the $1M did not come from Texas Tech University or any department of that organization?)
  The ego-based donor that pays real dollars for play-NIL that wants to see a team do well?   
   A company selling gloves & softballs that pays for actual NIL.
  The person(s) or company whose name is on the school's field or other associated equipment?
  The person who would have otherwise left the money to care for their pet?

I was just evaluating this in a strictly dollar and cents fashion (as in, TT softball probably did not get $1 million more in revenue than the cost of the player), and noted that I was comparing it to the counterfactual where the “benefactor just gives the AD the $1 million”.  Obviously, the decision to pay Canady the NIL money wasn’t done to improve the Texas Tech’s AD financial picture, it was done to secure a top tier softball team.  So, by virtue of the fact that he paid it, it was worth it to the donor, and it is not up to me to pass judgment.

However, I object to the “Whatever Texas Tech is paying NiJaree Canady, they got a bargain.”  I note, as I always do, that any of us, if we had the money and wanted to, could have donated enough to lifetime cardinal to ensure that Canady stayed at Stanford; none of us did.  I sure as hell wouldn’t take out a second mortgage on my house to donate a million to keep Canady, so to me, $1 million to add a national title in softball is definitely not “a bargain”.  For the rest of you in this thread, I wonder how much you would have put up in an auction to keep Canady.  If it is substantially above $1 million, then yes, you can say that TT got a bargain.  Otherwise, you really can’t; all you can do is marvel that there are people out there that the ego of being associated with a top tier softball program is worth $1 million.  I never took more than intro Economics, but I believe the term for this is “revealed preference”.

BC

I find it rather amusing that you dismiss the motivations of John and Tracy Sellers (the Texas Tech boosters who ponied up for Canady's $1M NIL) as "ego driven".  You don't know them.  You don't know anything about them.  I wish Stanford had a John and Tracy Sellers supporting our athletes.