[jk1926]

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere.  Op-Ed written by a Stanford Grad Glenn Kramon.  Considers what may be the best path forward for Stanford Football in the emerging era of easy transfers, NIL syndicates and big media money.  Sorry if you find it's behind a paywall.  The LAT used to allow access to three or four articles per month without subscription.  Sometimes Yahoo! news or Microsoft news will make it accessible.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...tball-ncaa

p.s.  The piece includes a description of Kramon at the end of the article: Glenn Kramon, a 1975 Graduate of Stanford, is a lecturer of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  If you can't access the LAT piece perhaps you can contact him directly to get a copy.

[jk1926]

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere.  Op-Ed written by a Stanford Grad Glenn Kramon.  Considers what may be the best path forward for Stanford Football in the emerging era of easy transfers, NIL syndicates and big media money.  Sorry if you find it's behind a paywall.  The LAT used to allow access to three or four articles per month without subscription.  Sometimes Yahoo! news or Microsoft news will make it accessible.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...tball-ncaa

p.s.  The piece includes a description of Kramon at the end of the article: Glenn Kramon, a 1975 Graduate of Stanford, is a lecturer of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  If you can't access the LAT piece perhaps you can contact him directly to get a copy.

[jk1926]

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere.  Op-Ed written by a Stanford Grad Glenn Kramon.  Considers what may be the best path forward for Stanford Football in the emerging era of easy transfers, NIL syndicates and big media money.  Sorry if you find it's behind a paywall.  The LAT used to allow access to three or four articles per month without subscription.  Sometimes Yahoo! news or Microsoft news will make it accessible.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...tball-ncaa

p.s.  The piece includes a description of Kramon at the end of the article: Glenn Kramon, a 1975 Graduate of Stanford, is a lecturer of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  If you can't access the LAT piece perhaps you can contact him directly to get a copy.

I found an MSN "reprint" of the Kramon op-ed piece that should be freely accessible:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...r-AA11LLp5

[jk1926]

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere.  Op-Ed written by a Stanford Grad Glenn Kramon.  Considers what may be the best path forward for Stanford Football in the emerging era of easy transfers, NIL syndicates and big media money.  Sorry if you find it's behind a paywall.  The LAT used to allow access to three or four articles per month without subscription.  Sometimes Yahoo! news or Microsoft news will make it accessible.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...tball-ncaa

p.s.  The piece includes a description of Kramon at the end of the article: Glenn Kramon, a 1975 Graduate of Stanford, is a lecturer of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  If you can't access the LAT piece perhaps you can contact him directly to get a copy.

I found an MSN "reprint" of the Kramon op-ed piece that should be freely accessible:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...r-AA11LLp5

[Alvin]

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere.  Op-Ed written by a Stanford Grad Glenn Kramon.  Considers what may be the best path forward for Stanford Football in the emerging era of easy transfers, NIL syndicates and big media money.  Sorry if you find it's behind a paywall.  The LAT used to allow access to three or four articles per month without subscription.  Sometimes Yahoo! news or Microsoft news will make it accessible.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...tball-ncaa

p.s.  The piece includes a description of Kramon at the end of the article: Glenn Kramon, a 1975 Graduate of Stanford, is a lecturer of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  If you can't access the LAT piece perhaps you can contact him directly to get a copy.

The author Kramon's position is that Stanford should downgrade to a lesser conference or division and focus on the non-revenue "olympic" sports if the administration, board and alumni will not support NIL payments to at least the level of other competing programs.  Kramon does not address the bigger problem of changing Stanford's admission standards and transfer policy.  If Stanford wants to compete in today's environment with schools like USC and Notre Dame, then it has to drop its strict admission policy and admit any top recruit and transfer that wants to attend Stanford. 

Stanford's a private school and can choose whatever policy it wants for athletes. UC-Berkeley, considered the top public university, will take anyone. I cringe whenever I hear Stanford's standards compared to Notre Dame's, Duke's, Northwestern's, and Vanderbilt's. They are not anywhere close to Stanford. Notre Dame and Michigan is a better comparison, as is Duke and North Carolina, Northwestern and Illinois, and Vanderbilt and Tennessee. These other so-called academic programs will easily accept 95 to 98 of the top 100 high school recruits. Only 5 of the top 100 can qualify to Stanford, and that's on a good year. Yes, I know, we had great success from 2009-2015, but we all knew it was fleeting and took an amazing coach and workhorse recruiter to change attitudes with Enthusiasm Unknown To Mankind. Harbaugh. Shaw is no Harbaugh, and the program was bound to dip under Harbaugh as well. 

I would also change the transfer policy to admit any top college athlete, who may have been overlooked in high school or developed late, to come to Stanford. With the lower academic standards, liberal transfer policy, and a strong, pro-NIL position, Stanford would contend for the national championship every year. They would easily surpass Alabama as the top football program in the country as every parent wants their kid to attend Stanford.  (The mask and Covid vaccine policy is another serious problem, but I'll hold fire on that one.) For those concerned about how a "dumb jock" could graduate from Stanford, please, Stanford could create easy classes and majors directed to these athletes. 

If Stanford doesn't want to be the best in football (and basketball) like they do in every other endeavor, academic or otherwise, then I agree with the author that Stanford should leave the Pac-12 and big-time football and, instead, compete with the likes of Cal Tech and Redlands...or drop football completely.

[Alvin]

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere.  Op-Ed written by a Stanford Grad Glenn Kramon.  Considers what may be the best path forward for Stanford Football in the emerging era of easy transfers, NIL syndicates and big media money.  Sorry if you find it's behind a paywall.  The LAT used to allow access to three or four articles per month without subscription.  Sometimes Yahoo! news or Microsoft news will make it accessible.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...tball-ncaa

p.s.  The piece includes a description of Kramon at the end of the article: Glenn Kramon, a 1975 Graduate of Stanford, is a lecturer of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  If you can't access the LAT piece perhaps you can contact him directly to get a copy.

The author Kramon's position is that Stanford should downgrade to a lesser conference or division and focus on the non-revenue "olympic" sports if the administration, board and alumni will not support NIL payments to at least the level of other competing programs.  Kramon does not address the bigger problem of changing Stanford's admission standards and transfer policy.  If Stanford wants to compete in today's environment with schools like USC and Notre Dame, then it has to drop its strict admission policy and admit any top recruit and transfer that wants to attend Stanford. 

Stanford's a private school and can choose whatever policy it wants for athletes. UC-Berkeley, considered the top public university, will take anyone. I cringe whenever I hear Stanford's standards compared to Notre Dame's, Duke's, Northwestern's, and Vanderbilt's. They are not anywhere close to Stanford. Notre Dame and Michigan is a better comparison, as is Duke and North Carolina, Northwestern and Illinois, and Vanderbilt and Tennessee. These other so-called academic programs will easily accept 95 to 98 of the top 100 high school recruits. Only 5 of the top 100 can qualify to Stanford, and that's on a good year. Yes, I know, we had great success from 2009-2015, but we all knew it was fleeting and took an amazing coach and workhorse recruiter to change attitudes with Enthusiasm Unknown To Mankind. Harbaugh. Shaw is no Harbaugh, and the program was bound to dip under Harbaugh as well. 

I would also change the transfer policy to admit any top college athlete, who may have been overlooked in high school or developed late, to come to Stanford. With the lower academic standards, liberal transfer policy, and a strong, pro-NIL position, Stanford would contend for the national championship every year. They would easily surpass Alabama as the top football program in the country as every parent wants their kid to attend Stanford.  (The mask and Covid vaccine policy is another serious problem, but I'll hold fire on that one.) For those concerned about how a "dumb jock" could graduate from Stanford, please, Stanford could create easy classes and majors directed to these athletes. 

If Stanford doesn't want to be the best in football (and basketball) like they do in every other endeavor, academic or otherwise, then I agree with the author that Stanford should leave the Pac-12 and big-time football and, instead, compete with the likes of Cal Tech and Redlands...or drop football completely.

[TrumpCard]

If a newspaper wants to print an op-ed, it can always find someone to write it. The author’s status as an alumnus is not so material as the LA Times’ decision to write this. I might suggest that the LA Times is trying to make amends with U$C after the Pulafito expose and other investigative journalism where the LA Times exposed U$C for what it is. Alternatively, maybe this is a backhanded compliment to U$C that it’s moral and academic standards are sufficiently low to make NIL and transfer policies irrelevant to the university.

[TrumpCard]

If a newspaper wants to print an op-ed, it can always find someone to write it. The author’s status as an alumnus is not so material as the LA Times’ decision to write this. I might suggest that the LA Times is trying to make amends with U$C after the Pulafito expose and other investigative journalism where the LA Times exposed U$C for what it is. Alternatively, maybe this is a backhanded compliment to U$C that it’s moral and academic standards are sufficiently low to make NIL and transfer policies irrelevant to the university.

[MarinCard]

Makes some valid points regarding institutional and alumni willingness to fund championship-caliber football (NIL and Alston money, not to mention facilities improvements, all of which are going to need to increase in the future in order to stay in the big leagues) and admissions standards impeding success in the transfer game, but I find much of it unpersuasive especially in the latter case. 

The existence of programs succeeding through the transfer portal doesn't negate programs succeeding in other ways, at least at this time. Add to it that Stanford also loses very few students (relatively) to the portal - it's not getting drained the way some large programs did (*ahem* Oklahoma) did last year.

The piece also completely ignores the broader arc of Stanford football history - the last 10-12 years of success have been the exception, not the norm. The program not being a dominant force in college football, let alone the Pac-12, is far more in line with our history. Our on-field struggles are more likely incidental to the changes in college football, not an effect caused by them. A classic reversion to the mean. Fan attendance has been a mostly-perennial struggle. There's a reason we're the only P5 program to shrink their stadium in a renovation earlier this century.

One last nit: he calls the playoff the "BCS" championship, which doesn't instill much faith he's paying close attention to the sport.

[MarinCard]

Makes some valid points regarding institutional and alumni willingness to fund championship-caliber football (NIL and Alston money, not to mention facilities improvements, all of which are going to need to increase in the future in order to stay in the big leagues) and admissions standards impeding success in the transfer game, but I find much of it unpersuasive especially in the latter case. 

The existence of programs succeeding through the transfer portal doesn't negate programs succeeding in other ways, at least at this time. Add to it that Stanford also loses very few students (relatively) to the portal - it's not getting drained the way some large programs did (*ahem* Oklahoma) did last year.

The piece also completely ignores the broader arc of Stanford football history - the last 10-12 years of success have been the exception, not the norm. The program not being a dominant force in college football, let alone the Pac-12, is far more in line with our history. Our on-field struggles are more likely incidental to the changes in college football, not an effect caused by them. A classic reversion to the mean. Fan attendance has been a mostly-perennial struggle. There's a reason we're the only P5 program to shrink their stadium in a renovation earlier this century.

One last nit: he calls the playoff the "BCS" championship, which doesn't instill much faith he's paying close attention to the sport.

[akiddoc]

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere.  Op-Ed written by a Stanford Grad Glenn Kramon.  Considers what may be the best path forward for Stanford Football in the emerging era of easy transfers, NIL syndicates and big media money.  Sorry if you find it's behind a paywall.  The LAT used to allow access to three or four articles per month without subscription.  Sometimes Yahoo! news or Microsoft news will make it accessible.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...tball-ncaa

p.s.  The piece includes a description of Kramon at the end of the article: Glenn Kramon, a 1975 Graduate of Stanford, is a lecturer of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  If you can't access the LAT piece perhaps you can contact him directly to get a copy.

The author Kramon's position is that Stanford should downgrade to a lesser conference or division and focus on the non-revenue "olympic" sports if the administration, board and alumni will not support NIL payments to at least the level of other competing programs.  Kramon does not address the bigger problem of changing Stanford's admission standards and transfer policy.  If Stanford wants to compete in today's environment with schools like USC and Notre Dame, then it has to drop its strict admission policy and admit any top recruit and transfer that wants to attend Stanford. 

Stanford's a private school and can choose whatever policy it wants for athletes. UC-Berkeley, considered the top public university, will take anyone. I cringe whenever I hear Stanford's standards compared to Notre Dame's, Duke's, Northwestern's, and Vanderbilt's. They are not anywhere close to Stanford. Notre Dame and Michigan is a better comparison, as is Duke and North Carolina, Northwestern and Illinois, and Vanderbilt and Tennessee. These other so-called academic programs will easily accept 95 to 98 of the top 100 high school recruits. Only 5 of the top 100 can qualify to Stanford, and that's on a good year. Yes, I know, we had great success from 2009-2015, but we all knew it was fleeting and took an amazing coach and workhorse recruiter to change attitudes with Enthusiasm Unknown To Mankind. Harbaugh. Shaw is no Harbaugh, and the program was bound to dip under Harbaugh as well. 

I would also change the transfer policy to admit any top college athlete, who may have been overlooked in high school or developed late, to come to Stanford. With the lower academic standards, liberal transfer policy, and a strong, pro-NIL position, Stanford would contend for the national championship every year. They would easily surpass Alabama as the top football program in the country as every parent wants their kid to attend Stanford.  (The mask and Covid vaccine policy is another serious problem, but I'll hold fire on that one.) For those concerned about how a "dumb jock" could graduate from Stanford, please, Stanford could create easy classes and majors directed to these athletes. 

If Stanford doesn't want to be the best in football (and basketball) like they do in every other endeavor, academic or otherwise, then I agree with the author that Stanford should leave the Pac-12 and big-time football and, instead, compete with the likes of Cal Tech and Redlands...or drop football completely.

Stanford has never done those things and never will. There are enough good players with good grades to make Stanford a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time.

[akiddoc]

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere.  Op-Ed written by a Stanford Grad Glenn Kramon.  Considers what may be the best path forward for Stanford Football in the emerging era of easy transfers, NIL syndicates and big media money.  Sorry if you find it's behind a paywall.  The LAT used to allow access to three or four articles per month without subscription.  Sometimes Yahoo! news or Microsoft news will make it accessible.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...tball-ncaa

p.s.  The piece includes a description of Kramon at the end of the article: Glenn Kramon, a 1975 Graduate of Stanford, is a lecturer of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  If you can't access the LAT piece perhaps you can contact him directly to get a copy.

The author Kramon's position is that Stanford should downgrade to a lesser conference or division and focus on the non-revenue "olympic" sports if the administration, board and alumni will not support NIL payments to at least the level of other competing programs.  Kramon does not address the bigger problem of changing Stanford's admission standards and transfer policy.  If Stanford wants to compete in today's environment with schools like USC and Notre Dame, then it has to drop its strict admission policy and admit any top recruit and transfer that wants to attend Stanford. 

Stanford's a private school and can choose whatever policy it wants for athletes. UC-Berkeley, considered the top public university, will take anyone. I cringe whenever I hear Stanford's standards compared to Notre Dame's, Duke's, Northwestern's, and Vanderbilt's. They are not anywhere close to Stanford. Notre Dame and Michigan is a better comparison, as is Duke and North Carolina, Northwestern and Illinois, and Vanderbilt and Tennessee. These other so-called academic programs will easily accept 95 to 98 of the top 100 high school recruits. Only 5 of the top 100 can qualify to Stanford, and that's on a good year. Yes, I know, we had great success from 2009-2015, but we all knew it was fleeting and took an amazing coach and workhorse recruiter to change attitudes with Enthusiasm Unknown To Mankind. Harbaugh. Shaw is no Harbaugh, and the program was bound to dip under Harbaugh as well. 

I would also change the transfer policy to admit any top college athlete, who may have been overlooked in high school or developed late, to come to Stanford. With the lower academic standards, liberal transfer policy, and a strong, pro-NIL position, Stanford would contend for the national championship every year. They would easily surpass Alabama as the top football program in the country as every parent wants their kid to attend Stanford.  (The mask and Covid vaccine policy is another serious problem, but I'll hold fire on that one.) For those concerned about how a "dumb jock" could graduate from Stanford, please, Stanford could create easy classes and majors directed to these athletes. 

If Stanford doesn't want to be the best in football (and basketball) like they do in every other endeavor, academic or otherwise, then I agree with the author that Stanford should leave the Pac-12 and big-time football and, instead, compete with the likes of Cal Tech and Redlands...or drop football completely.

Stanford has never done those things and never will. There are enough good players with good grades to make Stanford a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time.

[81alum]

Shaw is right that we will live and die by our current standards.   

We will not relax academic standards any more than we already have.  We got as much as we are going to get when Mamlet was ousted--which I think had more to do with our football resurgence even than Harbaugh did.  Mamlet really did hold our football players to the same academic standards as everyone else--and it nearly destroyed the program--though Walt and Buddy take the blame.  The University has made as many academic concessions to football as it ever will. 

Furthermore, accepting more transfer students would itself be an academic concession, and Stanford won't do that.  Graduates from Stanford need, on the whole, to have four years of a Stanford education or else the meaning of the name Stanford on a diploma is correspondingly weakened.  Stanford has only admitted as many transfers as are required to fill the slots of the handful of students who drop out or stop out.  Giving football players a pass on this would just be too big a departure from Stanford's longstanding policy.

As for NIL consortiums and other ways to legally bribe players--I similarly think that won't happen.  Most Stanford alums care more about comparing us with other elite academic institutions, not against football powerhouses.  When we seek to attract the best and brightest faculty, the top graduate students, and the most accomplished undergraduates--they are more apt to be turned off if Stanford develops a reputation for that kind of legalized corruption and may be inclined to go to the Ivies instead.  There is a reason why the other monied R1 Div I university in California is nowhere close to Stanford's level of excellence.  I know faculty who would never be caught dead at USC, for no other reason than the association with their corrupt athletics.  Stanford will always choose to be more like the Ivies, not more like USC.

So we don't have a lot of options.  But here is what I think.  If Stanford cannot be good at football while upholding its integrity and academic standards, then college football is no longer something I am interested in watching.  I'd rather watch the pros than this caricature of the amateur ideal.  I'm still hoping against hope that Stanford finds a way to pull it off.

[81alum]

Shaw is right that we will live and die by our current standards.   

We will not relax academic standards any more than we already have.  We got as much as we are going to get when Mamlet was ousted--which I think had more to do with our football resurgence even than Harbaugh did.  Mamlet really did hold our football players to the same academic standards as everyone else--and it nearly destroyed the program--though Walt and Buddy take the blame.  The University has made as many academic concessions to football as it ever will. 

Furthermore, accepting more transfer students would itself be an academic concession, and Stanford won't do that.  Graduates from Stanford need, on the whole, to have four years of a Stanford education or else the meaning of the name Stanford on a diploma is correspondingly weakened.  Stanford has only admitted as many transfers as are required to fill the slots of the handful of students who drop out or stop out.  Giving football players a pass on this would just be too big a departure from Stanford's longstanding policy.

As for NIL consortiums and other ways to legally bribe players--I similarly think that won't happen.  Most Stanford alums care more about comparing us with other elite academic institutions, not against football powerhouses.  When we seek to attract the best and brightest faculty, the top graduate students, and the most accomplished undergraduates--they are more apt to be turned off if Stanford develops a reputation for that kind of legalized corruption and may be inclined to go to the Ivies instead.  There is a reason why the other monied R1 Div I university in California is nowhere close to Stanford's level of excellence.  I know faculty who would never be caught dead at USC, for no other reason than the association with their corrupt athletics.  Stanford will always choose to be more like the Ivies, not more like USC.

So we don't have a lot of options.  But here is what I think.  If Stanford cannot be good at football while upholding its integrity and academic standards, then college football is no longer something I am interested in watching.  I'd rather watch the pros than this caricature of the amateur ideal.  I'm still hoping against hope that Stanford finds a way to pull it off.

[Giants]

Makes some valid points regarding institutional and alumni willingness to fund championship-caliber football (NIL and Alston money, not to mention facilities improvements, all of which are going to need to increase in the future in order to stay in the big leagues) and admissions standards impeding success in the transfer game, but I find much of it unpersuasive especially in the latter case. 

The existence of programs succeeding through the transfer portal doesn't negate programs succeeding in other ways, at least at this time. Add to it that Stanford also loses very few students (relatively) to the portal - it's not getting drained the way some large programs did (*ahem* Oklahoma) did last year.

The piece also completely ignores the broader arc of Stanford football history - the last 10-12 years of success have been the exception, not the norm. The program not being a dominant force in college football, let alone the Pac-12, is far more in line with our history. Our on-field struggles are more likely incidental to the changes in college football, not an effect caused by them. A classic reversion to the mean. Fan attendance has been a mostly-perennial struggle. There's a reason we're the only P5 program to shrink their stadium in a renovation earlier this century.

One last nit: he calls the playoff the "BCS" championship, which doesn't instill much faith he's paying close attention to the sport.

Just for the record, the capacity of Memorial Stadium in Berkeley was reduced from roughly 72K to 62K when they renovated their stadium in 2012.

I think that says a lot about the interest in college football in the Bay Area……..

[Giants]

Makes some valid points regarding institutional and alumni willingness to fund championship-caliber football (NIL and Alston money, not to mention facilities improvements, all of which are going to need to increase in the future in order to stay in the big leagues) and admissions standards impeding success in the transfer game, but I find much of it unpersuasive especially in the latter case. 

The existence of programs succeeding through the transfer portal doesn't negate programs succeeding in other ways, at least at this time. Add to it that Stanford also loses very few students (relatively) to the portal - it's not getting drained the way some large programs did (*ahem* Oklahoma) did last year.

The piece also completely ignores the broader arc of Stanford football history - the last 10-12 years of success have been the exception, not the norm. The program not being a dominant force in college football, let alone the Pac-12, is far more in line with our history. Our on-field struggles are more likely incidental to the changes in college football, not an effect caused by them. A classic reversion to the mean. Fan attendance has been a mostly-perennial struggle. There's a reason we're the only P5 program to shrink their stadium in a renovation earlier this century.

One last nit: he calls the playoff the "BCS" championship, which doesn't instill much faith he's paying close attention to the sport.

Just for the record, the capacity of Memorial Stadium in Berkeley was reduced from roughly 72K to 62K when they renovated their stadium in 2012.

I think that says a lot about the interest in college football in the Bay Area……..

[d4cohn]

The author Kramon's position is that Stanford should downgrade to a lesser conference or division and focus on the non-revenue "olympic" sports if the administration, board and alumni will not support NIL payments to at least the level of other competing programs. 

The thing is football and basketball money, along with NIL, is boosting the "Olympic" sports too (and the NIL deals in these sports that are growing rapidly in viewership/interest will only continue to grow). So I think the idea that Stanford can de-emphasize football and remain competitive at a DI national championship level beyond maybe a sport or two here or there is unfounded. The example I would use is Harvard: Harvard has 42 programs, the most in the country. Aside from regional sports like squash and other sports like crew, Harvard is not competing for national championships in most sports. It has even been over 20 years since Harvard won a hockey national championship. 

If Stanford dropped to Div II or Div III, sure, we would probably win national championships. But it would be sad to go from a (current) streak of almost 50 years with at least one national championship at the Div I level to competing for D2 or D3 titles.

[d4cohn]

The author Kramon's position is that Stanford should downgrade to a lesser conference or division and focus on the non-revenue "olympic" sports if the administration, board and alumni will not support NIL payments to at least the level of other competing programs. 

The thing is football and basketball money, along with NIL, is boosting the "Olympic" sports too (and the NIL deals in these sports that are growing rapidly in viewership/interest will only continue to grow). So I think the idea that Stanford can de-emphasize football and remain competitive at a DI national championship level beyond maybe a sport or two here or there is unfounded. The example I would use is Harvard: Harvard has 42 programs, the most in the country. Aside from regional sports like squash and other sports like crew, Harvard is not competing for national championships in most sports. It has even been over 20 years since Harvard won a hockey national championship. 

If Stanford dropped to Div II or Div III, sure, we would probably win national championships. But it would be sad to go from a (current) streak of almost 50 years with at least one national championship at the Div I level to competing for D2 or D3 titles.

[Alvin]

"Stanford has never done those things and never will. There are enough good players with good grades to make Stanford a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time."
[/quote]

How about making an actual argument instead of an assertion?  And think about what you just said: "a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time"? I would fire you in a heartbeat if you told me that was the goal of your [fill in program, department, college, etc.]...to be pretty good. 

Besides, I'll bet not long ago Stanford never offered online courses, filed for patents, licensed inventions for commercialization, or allowed multi-national fast-food chains on campus. Times are changing.

[Alvin]

"Stanford has never done those things and never will. There are enough good players with good grades to make Stanford a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time."
[/quote]

How about making an actual argument instead of an assertion?  And think about what you just said: "a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time"? I would fire you in a heartbeat if you told me that was the goal of your [fill in program, department, college, etc.]...to be pretty good. 

Besides, I'll bet not long ago Stanford never offered online courses, filed for patents, licensed inventions for commercialization, or allowed multi-national fast-food chains on campus. Times are changing.

[Phogge]

Argument: Stanford won’t change its standards to remain competitive in the new order of college football.

Possible outcome: Stanford becomes a consistent bottom dweller by continuing major college football solely to collect its share of TV revenue to support the Olympic and country club sports.

Possible outcome: Stanford becomes a member of the Big 10 (12,14,16,18,20) solely to share in the wealth and is annihilated regularly on the fields of Champaign Urbana, Ann Arbor, Columbus and East Lansing. Gigantic TV revenue allows the Stanford Olympic and country club sports to prosper. Big Whatever enjoys the prestige of a Top Ten academic institution along with the athletic prestige said institution’s plethora of national championships brings to the table. Also the league’s member schools have a new patsy on their schedule.

Probable outcome: Consistent double digit loss seasons and decline of season ticket numbers to a 3,500/7,500 spread make the decision to drop football or drop into NCAA D2 easy.

[Phogge]

Argument: Stanford won’t change its standards to remain competitive in the new order of college football.

Possible outcome: Stanford becomes a consistent bottom dweller by continuing major college football solely to collect its share of TV revenue to support the Olympic and country club sports.

Possible outcome: Stanford becomes a member of the Big 10 (12,14,16,18,20) solely to share in the wealth and is annihilated regularly on the fields of Champaign Urbana, Ann Arbor, Columbus and East Lansing. Gigantic TV revenue allows the Stanford Olympic and country club sports to prosper. Big Whatever enjoys the prestige of a Top Ten academic institution along with the athletic prestige said institution’s plethora of national championships brings to the table. Also the league’s member schools have a new patsy on their schedule.

Probable outcome: Consistent double digit loss seasons and decline of season ticket numbers to a 3,500/7,500 spread make the decision to drop football or drop into NCAA D2 easy.

[BostonCard]

"Stanford has never done those things and never will. There are enough good players with good grades to make Stanford a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time."

How about making an actual argument instead of an assertion?  And think about what you just said: "a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time"? I would fire you in a heartbeat if you told me that was the goal of your [fill in program, department, college, etc.]...to be pretty good. 

Besides, I'll bet not long ago Stanford never offered online courses, filed for patents, licensed inventions for commercialization, or allowed multi-national fast-food chains on campus. Times are changing.

Most of things you cite are either in service of the academic mission or at least irrelevant to it. Many of the things involved in fielding a competitive big money athletic team (Especially football) is at cross currents with the academic mission, and that’s the problem.

BC

[BostonCard]

"Stanford has never done those things and never will. There are enough good players with good grades to make Stanford a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time."

How about making an actual argument instead of an assertion?  And think about what you just said: "a pretty good team some of the time, but not all of the time"? I would fire you in a heartbeat if you told me that was the goal of your [fill in program, department, college, etc.]...to be pretty good. 

Besides, I'll bet not long ago Stanford never offered online courses, filed for patents, licensed inventions for commercialization, or allowed multi-national fast-food chains on campus. Times are changing.

Most of things you cite are either in service of the academic mission or at least irrelevant to it. Many of the things involved in fielding a competitive big money athletic team (Especially football) is at cross currents with the academic mission, and that’s the problem.

BC

[chrisk]

Can somebody anylyze Stanford athletics financial numbers to determine how much football is currently subsidizing other sports?

Given the bloated cost of the football program and the limitations of Pac-12 revenue distributions, contributions may be more significant in supporting the non-revenue sports than football. Given the prowess of the Stanford fund-raising machine, it is not out of the question that Stanford could continue Olympic sports at a high level without the football contribution.

[chrisk]

Can somebody anylyze Stanford athletics financial numbers to determine how much football is currently subsidizing other sports?

Given the bloated cost of the football program and the limitations of Pac-12 revenue distributions, contributions may be more significant in supporting the non-revenue sports than football. Given the prowess of the Stanford fund-raising machine, it is not out of the question that Stanford could continue Olympic sports at a high level without the football contribution.

[winflop]

Can somebody anylyze Stanford athletics financial numbers to determine how much football is currently subsidizing other sports?

Given the bloated cost of the football program and the limitations of Pac-12 revenue distributions, contributions may be more significant in supporting the non-revenue sports than football.  Given the prowess of the Stanford fund-raising machine, it is not out of the question that Stanford could continue Olympic sports at a high level without the football contribution.

I don't have the numbers but I'd be surprised if football is profitable. Same for men's basketball. I'd guess that women's basketball is the only sport that pays for itself these days.

[winflop]

Can somebody anylyze Stanford athletics financial numbers to determine how much football is currently subsidizing other sports?

Given the bloated cost of the football program and the limitations of Pac-12 revenue distributions, contributions may be more significant in supporting the non-revenue sports than football.  Given the prowess of the Stanford fund-raising machine, it is not out of the question that Stanford could continue Olympic sports at a high level without the football contribution.

I don't have the numbers but I'd be surprised if football is profitable. Same for men's basketball. I'd guess that women's basketball is the only sport that pays for itself these days.

[Snorlax94]

Can somebody anylyze Stanford athletics financial numbers to determine how much football is currently subsidizing other sports?

Given the bloated cost of the football program and the limitations of Pac-12 revenue distributions, contributions may be more significant in supporting the non-revenue sports than football.  Given the prowess of the Stanford fund-raising machine, it is not out of the question that Stanford could continue Olympic sports at a high level without the football contribution.

I don't have the numbers but I'd be surprised if football is profitable. Same for men's basketball. I'd guess that women's basketball is the only sport that pays for itself these days.

In fact it is THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Football makes all the profit, which pays for all the other sports.

Women’s basketball is the most money-losing sport — which I do not mind at all.

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/...fe/sports/

[Snorlax94]

Can somebody anylyze Stanford athletics financial numbers to determine how much football is currently subsidizing other sports?

Given the bloated cost of the football program and the limitations of Pac-12 revenue distributions, contributions may be more significant in supporting the non-revenue sports than football.  Given the prowess of the Stanford fund-raising machine, it is not out of the question that Stanford could continue Olympic sports at a high level without the football contribution.

I don't have the numbers but I'd be surprised if football is profitable. Same for men's basketball. I'd guess that women's basketball is the only sport that pays for itself these days.

In fact it is THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Football makes all the profit, which pays for all the other sports.

Women’s basketball is the most money-losing sport — which I do not mind at all.

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/...fe/sports/

[M T]

I don't buy that those numbers are the real story.

First of all, avoid the middle man and go to the source of the numbers (2020-2021 school year).  For instance, the middle man site gives the number of athletes as  "There are 995 athletes who take part in at least one sport at the school, 503 men and 492 women" but the source indicates 395 men and 371 women.

The NCAA indicates scholarships cover tuition, fees, room, board, and course-related books.
Stanford undergrad tuition is north of $56,000 while room & meals is about $16,000, and books are another $1000.

If Stanford uses the full allotment of athletic scholarships in their fielded sports, there would be about 180.9 scholarships for men and 175 for women. (I may well be wrong on this. Does Stanford use the full allotment in T&F, for instance?)
(180.9 + 175) * ($56,000 + $16,000 + $1000) = $25,980,700

I suspect the athletic room & board actual cost is more expensive than the average student's $16,000 cost.  It seems many of the fall sports athletes have to have room & board for maybe a month before school starts for other students.  

The "Academically Related Student Aid" totals about $1M more than my estimate of direct scholarship expenses.
Do you think $1M covers the extra costs for tutoring and associated building rental, and what-have-you?

This source covers the salary of only 1 head coach and 10 assistant coaches for football staff expenses.
GoStanford.com adds 6 analysts, senior associate athletics director, associate athletics directory, assistant athletics directory, associate director, 2 assistant directors, administrative associate, Kissick Family Director of football, assistant director of football, 3 sports performance coaches, 3 team physicians, director of training plus 5 trainers, etc, etc, for a total of 51 staff.

Do 40 of these people incur no expense for football?   Their cost is not included in this accounting.  I expect the other sports have more staff than listed as well.

The accounting doesn't include facility expenses (gyms, locker rooms, practice field, playing field) or depreciation either. (It does covers game-day expenses).  I don't see things like advertising expenses in the accounting.  No equipment (jersey, shoes, exercise equipment, etc.) costs.  No costs for outside consultants or analysts or their products (software, etc.).  No costs for recruitment (travel, etc).

I'm sure there's a lot more to the finances that I haven't come up with. (Legal representation...)

In my opinion, these numbers may have a perhaps somewhat accurate view of revenues for the sports and an understated amount of costs.

The fact that revenues equal expenses in this accounting makes the whole thing smell like a batch of freshly cooked numbers.
I have to wonder who signs off on this statement.

[M T]

I don't buy that those numbers are the real story.

First of all, avoid the middle man and go to the source of the numbers (2020-2021 school year).  For instance, the middle man site gives the number of athletes as  "There are 995 athletes who take part in at least one sport at the school, 503 men and 492 women" but the source indicates 395 men and 371 women.

The NCAA indicates scholarships cover tuition, fees, room, board, and course-related books.
Stanford undergrad tuition is north of $56,000 while room & meals is about $16,000, and books are another $1000.

If Stanford uses the full allotment of athletic scholarships in their fielded sports, there would be about 180.9 scholarships for men and 175 for women. (I may well be wrong on this. Does Stanford use the full allotment in T&F, for instance?)
(180.9 + 175) * ($56,000 + $16,000 + $1000) = $25,980,700

I suspect the athletic room & board actual cost is more expensive than the average student's $16,000 cost.  It seems many of the fall sports athletes have to have room & board for maybe a month before school starts for other students.  

The "Academically Related Student Aid" totals about $1M more than my estimate of direct scholarship expenses.
Do you think $1M covers the extra costs for tutoring and associated building rental, and what-have-you?

This source covers the salary of only 1 head coach and 10 assistant coaches for football staff expenses.
GoStanford.com adds 6 analysts, senior associate athletics director, associate athletics directory, assistant athletics directory, associate director, 2 assistant directors, administrative associate, Kissick Family Director of football, assistant director of football, 3 sports performance coaches, 3 team physicians, director of training plus 5 trainers, etc, etc, for a total of 51 staff.

Do 40 of these people incur no expense for football?   Their cost is not included in this accounting.  I expect the other sports have more staff than listed as well.

The accounting doesn't include facility expenses (gyms, locker rooms, practice field, playing field) or depreciation either. (It does covers game-day expenses).  I don't see things like advertising expenses in the accounting.  No equipment (jersey, shoes, exercise equipment, etc.) costs.  No costs for outside consultants or analysts or their products (software, etc.).  No costs for recruitment (travel, etc).

I'm sure there's a lot more to the finances that I haven't come up with. (Legal representation...)

In my opinion, these numbers may have a perhaps somewhat accurate view of revenues for the sports and an understated amount of costs.

The fact that revenues equal expenses in this accounting makes the whole thing smell like a batch of freshly cooked numbers.
I have to wonder who signs off on this statement.

[81alum]

I spent about 20 years closely following the athletics budget of a different university.  That university claimed that its losing football program was needed to generate revenues to support the other sports.  When we dug into the numbers, it turned out that their football program, year in and year out, lost money or barely broke even.  However, all the other sports were much bigger money losers, necessitating subsidy from the university's general funds.

We also looked into some comparable (public) universities to compare with the university we were studying.  Football was indeed, undeniably, the most important revenue source in ICA at each university, but this did not usually mean it was subsidizing the other sports.  The most typical situation was that football barely paid for itself--but at least it was not a drain on the university.  All the other sports had to be paid for via other means.

Complicating matters is fundraising.  The Advancement people at our subject university always claimed that most of the donors were football fanatics and would not give money to the university if football were dropped.   They claimed therefore that providing a football program was essential for raising money not just for football but for many other athletic and academic purposes.  We were never able to verify that.  I suspect that it is true for a small but dwindling number of donors who came of age in a different era, and will become less and less true over time.

Whether any of this is relevant to Stanford's situation is a guess.  I did learn, however, to be skeptical about the perennial argument that football subsidizes other sports.  At our subject university there was considerable manipulation of the data to make that appear true.  (For example, the salaries of Advancement officers who raised money for football being paid outside the ICA division, the maintenance and upkeep of football facilities being moved into physical plant and not counted under athletics, ICA pooling many expenses between the various sports even when football was the exclusive beneficiary of them, etc.)

[81alum]

I spent about 20 years closely following the athletics budget of a different university.  That university claimed that its losing football program was needed to generate revenues to support the other sports.  When we dug into the numbers, it turned out that their football program, year in and year out, lost money or barely broke even.  However, all the other sports were much bigger money losers, necessitating subsidy from the university's general funds.

We also looked into some comparable (public) universities to compare with the university we were studying.  Football was indeed, undeniably, the most important revenue source in ICA at each university, but this did not usually mean it was subsidizing the other sports.  The most typical situation was that football barely paid for itself--but at least it was not a drain on the university.  All the other sports had to be paid for via other means.

Complicating matters is fundraising.  The Advancement people at our subject university always claimed that most of the donors were football fanatics and would not give money to the university if football were dropped.   They claimed therefore that providing a football program was essential for raising money not just for football but for many other athletic and academic purposes.  We were never able to verify that.  I suspect that it is true for a small but dwindling number of donors who came of age in a different era, and will become less and less true over time.

Whether any of this is relevant to Stanford's situation is a guess.  I did learn, however, to be skeptical about the perennial argument that football subsidizes other sports.  At our subject university there was considerable manipulation of the data to make that appear true.  (For example, the salaries of Advancement officers who raised money for football being paid outside the ICA division, the maintenance and upkeep of football facilities being moved into physical plant and not counted under athletics, ICA pooling many expenses between the various sports even when football was the exclusive beneficiary of them, etc.)

[CTcard]

I don't buy that those numbers are the real story.

First of all, avoid the middle man and go to the source of the numbers (2020-2021 school year). 

I don't see anything on the collegefactual site that says where they are getting their numbers. Maybe I just missed it. 
The Dept of Education site seems a good bet. Some of the numbers on the collegefactual site seem close enough to numbers on th DoE site that I could imagine they are simply from a different year. Some are so different that it's hard to see there could be a connection. 

While the DoE site has more info than most places do that discuss athletic department funding, the information is very incomplete. While it lists 11 coaches salaries for football, it never explicitly says that other support salaries are not included in the costs for football. 
In addition, as this report appears to be mandated by the feds there are probably at least some rules on the accounting practices, there are plenty of reasons to believe those aren't very strict. 

Some of the tasks for that DoE report appear fundamentally impossible. It appears that all revenues are assigned to a specific sport, but that isn't really possible. As an example, I don't believe that the Pac 12 network pays out per sport. Even if it did that would be an artificial exercise. I don't believe there is any way to determine how much network revenue is due to each individual sport it covers. 

However, the biggest reason to believe that some details of the DoE report are unreliable is that on the Revenues and Expenses page football, mens basketball, womens basketball, all other mens sports, all other womens sports, and coed sports each INDIVIDUALLY have exactly identical expenses and revenues. That's so striking that I wonder if it is a typo. 

That also makes me wonder where the collegefactual site gets their individual sport revenue and loss numbers. Anyone know?

[CTcard]

I don't buy that those numbers are the real story.

First of all, avoid the middle man and go to the source of the numbers (2020-2021 school year). 

I don't see anything on the collegefactual site that says where they are getting their numbers. Maybe I just missed it. 
The Dept of Education site seems a good bet. Some of the numbers on the collegefactual site seem close enough to numbers on th DoE site that I could imagine they are simply from a different year. Some are so different that it's hard to see there could be a connection. 

While the DoE site has more info than most places do that discuss athletic department funding, the information is very incomplete. While it lists 11 coaches salaries for football, it never explicitly says that other support salaries are not included in the costs for football. 
In addition, as this report appears to be mandated by the feds there are probably at least some rules on the accounting practices, there are plenty of reasons to believe those aren't very strict. 

Some of the tasks for that DoE report appear fundamentally impossible. It appears that all revenues are assigned to a specific sport, but that isn't really possible. As an example, I don't believe that the Pac 12 network pays out per sport. Even if it did that would be an artificial exercise. I don't believe there is any way to determine how much network revenue is due to each individual sport it covers. 

However, the biggest reason to believe that some details of the DoE report are unreliable is that on the Revenues and Expenses page football, mens basketball, womens basketball, all other mens sports, all other womens sports, and coed sports each INDIVIDUALLY have exactly identical expenses and revenues. That's so striking that I wonder if it is a typo. 

That also makes me wonder where the collegefactual site gets their individual sport revenue and loss numbers. Anyone know?

[Mick]

If Stanford doesn't want to be the best in football (and basketball) like they do in every other endeavor, academic or otherwise, then I agree with the author that Stanford should leave the Pac-12 and big-time football and, instead, compete with the likes of Cal Tech and Redlands...or drop football completely.

100% agree. As much as I have loved Stanford football over the past 50 years, I prefer the drop football entirely option. I doubt there will be a meaningful reduction in applications, in any event.

[Mick]

If Stanford doesn't want to be the best in football (and basketball) like they do in every other endeavor, academic or otherwise, then I agree with the author that Stanford should leave the Pac-12 and big-time football and, instead, compete with the likes of Cal Tech and Redlands...or drop football completely.

100% agree. As much as I have loved Stanford football over the past 50 years, I prefer the drop football entirely option. I doubt there will be a meaningful reduction in applications, in any event.

[cardcrimson]

If Stanford doesn't want to be the best in football (and basketball) like they do in every other endeavor, academic or otherwise, then I agree with the author that Stanford should leave the Pac-12 and big-time football and, instead, compete with the likes of Cal Tech and Redlands...or drop football completely.

100% agree. As much as I have loved Stanford football over the past 50 years, I prefer the drop football entirely option. I doubt there will be a meaningful reduction in applications, in any event.

Some of my best memories on the Farm revolved around Stanford football. Pre-game tailgaters with beer and bloody marys. Sitting on the sunny side with girls in bikini tops. Dragging a pony keg into the stadium, with an okay from security. Listening to Arthur P Barnes' National Anthem. Watching Elway and Margerum; Nelson, too. Trying to understand the halftime show. The cannon. Enjoying the occasional victory post game band performance. Driving to LA to watch us play in So Cal. Following the band through the streets of San Francisco before Big Game and so many more. . . .

Would hate to see it go away.

[cardcrimson]

If Stanford doesn't want to be the best in football (and basketball) like they do in every other endeavor, academic or otherwise, then I agree with the author that Stanford should leave the Pac-12 and big-time football and, instead, compete with the likes of Cal Tech and Redlands...or drop football completely.

100% agree. As much as I have loved Stanford football over the past 50 years, I prefer the drop football entirely option. I doubt there will be a meaningful reduction in applications, in any event.

Some of my best memories on the Farm revolved around Stanford football. Pre-game tailgaters with beer and bloody marys. Sitting on the sunny side with girls in bikini tops. Dragging a pony keg into the stadium, with an okay from security. Listening to Arthur P Barnes' National Anthem. Watching Elway and Margerum; Nelson, too. Trying to understand the halftime show. The cannon. Enjoying the occasional victory post game band performance. Driving to LA to watch us play in So Cal. Following the band through the streets of San Francisco before Big Game and so many more. . . .

Would hate to see it go away.