[Row80Critic]

Some data points for discussion about the impact of money on program success. 

Since The Athletic published its estimated roster budgets for the Power 4 conference teams and actual games have been played, they now can analyze in-season results. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interac...s-tracker/

Results as of October 10
When there is a gap between the opponents' budgets of >$20M, the team with the larger budget has a 13-4 record
$15-20M - 13-4
$10-15M - 10-1
$5-10M - 19-17 

Stanford is 0-2 in games against teams with similar budgets (i.e., <$5M difference) - Duke and Wake Forest (notably both played on the road). Remaining games in this category are Cal and SMU.

Stanford is 1-0 vs. teams with a budget difference of $5-10M - Georgia Tech. Remaining games in this category - NC State, Louisville, Virginia Tech.

So Stanford plays 8 games this season against Power 4 teams with a similar or slightly larger budget. It will be favored in none of those games. 

I'll echo what others have said in this thread. I don't think the money is Stanford's biggest problem. The program just has to get better in every aspect across the board. Recruiting, coaching, playing, training. Everything.

Stanford has several big problems when it comes to football, so putting your finger on the biggest one is tough. That said, studies have found a statistically significant correlation between player payroll and winning. Lots of people win the lottery with one ticket, but that doesn't disprove the statistical reality that the more tickets you buy, the better your odds. Money can't guarantee a top-10 team, but it can certainly improve your chances.

And since you mention recruiting, coaching, playing, and training, I'd argue that money can directly improve the first two, which in turn should improve the last two.

Then, of course, there's the transfer portal, where Stanford insists on treating football ability as unworthy of serious consideration. It's hard enough competing with schools willing to spend more money. It's virtually impossible when you're also unwilling to admit the vast majority of good players, unless they happen to come from Yale or Harvard.

[Row80Critic]

Some data points for discussion about the impact of money on program success. 

Since The Athletic published its estimated roster budgets for the Power 4 conference teams and actual games have been played, they now can analyze in-season results. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/interac...s-tracker/

Results as of October 10
When there is a gap between the opponents' budgets of >$20M, the team with the larger budget has a 13-4 record
$15-20M - 13-4
$10-15M - 10-1
$5-10M - 19-17 

Stanford is 0-2 in games against teams with similar budgets (i.e., <$5M difference) - Duke and Wake Forest (notably both played on the road). Remaining games in this category are Cal and SMU.

Stanford is 1-0 vs. teams with a budget difference of $5-10M - Georgia Tech. Remaining games in this category - NC State, Louisville, Virginia Tech.

So Stanford plays 8 games this season against Power 4 teams with a similar or slightly larger budget. It will be favored in none of those games. 

I'll echo what others have said in this thread. I don't think the money is Stanford's biggest problem. The program just has to get better in every aspect across the board. Recruiting, coaching, playing, training. Everything.

Stanford has several big problems when it comes to football, so putting your finger on the biggest one is tough. That said, studies have found a statistically significant correlation between player payroll and winning. Lots of people win the lottery with one ticket, but that doesn't disprove the statistical reality that the more tickets you buy, the better your odds. Money can't guarantee a top-10 team, but it can certainly improve your chances.

And since you mention recruiting, coaching, playing, and training, I'd argue that money can directly improve the first two, which in turn should improve the last two.

Then, of course, there's the transfer portal, where Stanford insists on treating football ability as unworthy of serious consideration. It's hard enough competing with schools willing to spend more money. It's virtually impossible when you're also unwilling to admit the vast majority of good players, unless they happen to come from Yale or Harvard.