10-05-2026, 11:44 AM
I hate to point out that the financial numbers for players quoted by most are last year's figures, or at best this year's projections.
The football player prices are as sure to climb as 1970s MLB salaries after free agency emerged.
The key for all schools going forward....passion based donations from a school's most elite alums.
Stanford has many alums with the required net worth, but most of them are not so blindly passionate to DAPER that they would give 8 or 9 figures away to 18 year-olds that might spend 4 or 5 months on campus before going somewhere else.
FWIW - Stanford would need to outspend the averages to win BTW.
Stanford needs to pay more because it lacks the fanbase for legit NIL opportunities.
Stanford needs to pay more because it lacks the fanbase to create the game day environment the top athletes crave.
Stanford needs to pay more because CA has a rather pricey income tax rate.
At some point soon, the University is going to start crunching some numbers....
Why spend $100+ million a year on football players each year that MIGHT then finish in the top 15 in a very, very good year.
Even in the best of years the event revenue (ticket sales & tv revenue) would certainly be a small fraction of what is needed for that new, and rapidly growing cost.
If the math only works, and in some years, if the school is finding $50-100+ million in donations for player salaries every year, might it be better to just ask our passionate donors to direct their funds to other pursuits?
The TV money is nice to get, but unlike in the past, it likely will not be sufficient to support football because of the player roster costs. And if that TV money is not really covering that cost to participate in that sport, would it be possible to just not participate in that sport?
Imagine a business scenario, since at this point college sports is absolutely like a business.
If someone told you that (insert novel sport) is now super important, but to win the university needs to spend $100+ million each year to get a $50-70 million slice of a conference revenue stream. Then that person explained that I REALLY want that $70 million in revenue because it is a lot of money.
How long would it take you to ask? But why spend $100+ million to get that $70 million? How much of that $100 million could you get if you just asked for the money and used it for something else? Remember- If the key is to find a few so blindly loyal to Stanford that they will give Stanford $100+ million, does the university actually need to give almost all of that money away to a bunch of ~20 year-olds playing a game?
I loved watching college football in the over the last 40+ years, but that sport I loved is long gone.
I guess I am thankful if Stanford finds some alums willing to bankroll the effort for now, but this feels pretty unsustainable.
The football player prices are as sure to climb as 1970s MLB salaries after free agency emerged.
The key for all schools going forward....passion based donations from a school's most elite alums.
Stanford has many alums with the required net worth, but most of them are not so blindly passionate to DAPER that they would give 8 or 9 figures away to 18 year-olds that might spend 4 or 5 months on campus before going somewhere else.
FWIW - Stanford would need to outspend the averages to win BTW.
Stanford needs to pay more because it lacks the fanbase for legit NIL opportunities.
Stanford needs to pay more because it lacks the fanbase to create the game day environment the top athletes crave.
Stanford needs to pay more because CA has a rather pricey income tax rate.
At some point soon, the University is going to start crunching some numbers....
Why spend $100+ million a year on football players each year that MIGHT then finish in the top 15 in a very, very good year.
Even in the best of years the event revenue (ticket sales & tv revenue) would certainly be a small fraction of what is needed for that new, and rapidly growing cost.
If the math only works, and in some years, if the school is finding $50-100+ million in donations for player salaries every year, might it be better to just ask our passionate donors to direct their funds to other pursuits?
The TV money is nice to get, but unlike in the past, it likely will not be sufficient to support football because of the player roster costs. And if that TV money is not really covering that cost to participate in that sport, would it be possible to just not participate in that sport?
Imagine a business scenario, since at this point college sports is absolutely like a business.
If someone told you that (insert novel sport) is now super important, but to win the university needs to spend $100+ million each year to get a $50-70 million slice of a conference revenue stream. Then that person explained that I REALLY want that $70 million in revenue because it is a lot of money.
How long would it take you to ask? But why spend $100+ million to get that $70 million? How much of that $100 million could you get if you just asked for the money and used it for something else? Remember- If the key is to find a few so blindly loyal to Stanford that they will give Stanford $100+ million, does the university actually need to give almost all of that money away to a bunch of ~20 year-olds playing a game?
I loved watching college football in the over the last 40+ years, but that sport I loved is long gone.
I guess I am thankful if Stanford finds some alums willing to bankroll the effort for now, but this feels pretty unsustainable.