[Treebound]

I'm fairly certain that we have seen this poor fan here before under a different alias.   He comes to agitate and mock while pretending to care. 

As BC rightfully pointed out, we are all subsidizing the hapless UC athletic department and will likely bail it out as the debt and the red ink mount.  Your CA tax dollars at work.  I don't mind it to a point as a native Californian, I love our UC system, or at least once did (I have a UC grad degree).  Some of us even helped to donate directly to the cause when the poor souls were about to lose the cal baseball program.   Thankfully Esquer saw the writing on the wall and came back home to the Farm, but that program and others will soon be gone (both at cal and UCLA).   The reality in this new NIL, deficit funding environment, is that it is highly likely that most/all universities will need to make tradeoffs and likely cut sports.   Unfortunately, I fear the clock ticking for some programs at Stanford as well.

[Treebound]

I'm fairly certain that we have seen this poor fan here before under a different alias.   He comes to agitate and mock while pretending to care. 

As BC rightfully pointed out, we are all subsidizing the hapless UC athletic department and will likely bail it out as the debt and the red ink mount.  Your CA tax dollars at work.  I don't mind it to a point as a native Californian, I love our UC system, or at least once did (I have a UC grad degree).  Some of us even helped to donate directly to the cause when the poor souls were about to lose the cal baseball program.   Thankfully Esquer saw the writing on the wall and came back home to the Farm, but that program and others will soon be gone (both at cal and UCLA).   The reality in this new NIL, deficit funding environment, is that it is highly likely that most/all universities will need to make tradeoffs and likely cut sports.   Unfortunately, I fear the clock ticking for some programs at Stanford as well.

[rogpodge]

https://x.com/i/status/2011143956734840881

Greg Roman and Chargers OL coach let go.

https://x.com/i/status/2010844537233572031

[rogpodge]

https://x.com/i/status/2011143956734840881

Greg Roman and Chargers OL coach let go.

https://x.com/i/status/2010844537233572031

[norcard10]

https://x.com/i/status/2011143956734840881

Greg Roman and Chargers OL coach let go.

https://x.com/i/status/2010844537233572031

Saw this a mile away.  He didn't work out for the ravens either. Great at run games. Horrific at passing schemes.

[norcard10]

https://x.com/i/status/2011143956734840881

Greg Roman and Chargers OL coach let go.

https://x.com/i/status/2010844537233572031

Saw this a mile away.  He didn't work out for the ravens either. Great at run games. Horrific at passing schemes.

[Mick]

Saw this a mile away.  He didn't work out for the ravens either.  Great at run games.  Horrific at passing schemes.

I'm sure he could beat a bunch of overmatched ACC defensive coordinators...

[Mick]

Saw this a mile away.  He didn't work out for the ravens either.  Great at run games.  Horrific at passing schemes.

I'm sure he could beat a bunch of overmatched ACC defensive coordinators...

[BostonCard]

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

[BostonCard]

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

[82lsju]

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

given Cal and Stanford are getting a smaller than full share of ACC TV money 

For Stanford and Cal, it will be 30% of a whole ACC share for the next seven years. That number will jump to 70% in Year 8, 75% in Year 9 and then full financial shares in the 10th year, sources said.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...rd-cal-smu

even if you allocate 90% of the media money to football they are both probably losing money on football.

I have a hard time seeing the cost of scholarships (more at Stanford than Cal), football coaches, football staff, travel, equipment, other operating expenses, and the share of AD overhead (which likely scales by number of people (players, coaches, staff) being covered by the media money.  If you add in depreciation of the football facilities it would get even worse

I expect we will never see more than a 30% media share from the ACC as I expect the ACC will no longer exist by year seven (~5 years from now)

[82lsju]

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

given Cal and Stanford are getting a smaller than full share of ACC TV money 

For Stanford and Cal, it will be 30% of a whole ACC share for the next seven years. That number will jump to 70% in Year 8, 75% in Year 9 and then full financial shares in the 10th year, sources said.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...rd-cal-smu

even if you allocate 90% of the media money to football they are both probably losing money on football.

I have a hard time seeing the cost of scholarships (more at Stanford than Cal), football coaches, football staff, travel, equipment, other operating expenses, and the share of AD overhead (which likely scales by number of people (players, coaches, staff) being covered by the media money.  If you add in depreciation of the football facilities it would get even worse

I expect we will never see more than a 30% media share from the ACC as I expect the ACC will no longer exist by year seven (~5 years from now)

[Treebound]

I hope this all implodes sooner than 5 years, Eric.  The cross country travel toll on the basketball and women's volleyball teams is brutal.  The men's hoops team left on Tuesday morning to fly east.  Tough to take classes when you are back in NC most of the week.    As for the conference media rights hit, I believe Stanford and cal made $5m each from the ACC for the 24/25 fiscal year and another $1.9 from the ncaa (maybe not as much for cal).    That's a big drop from what we were making from the Pac12 - thank you traitor trojans.   $C was also the problem when Texas and Oklahoma wanted to join the Pac.  The current model in this funding (or lack thereof) environment is not sustainable.   Time for Swarbuck and Luck to create the NFL minor league and return the other sports to regional models.    There are others making moves on this front as well.

[Treebound]

I hope this all implodes sooner than 5 years, Eric.  The cross country travel toll on the basketball and women's volleyball teams is brutal.  The men's hoops team left on Tuesday morning to fly east.  Tough to take classes when you are back in NC most of the week.    As for the conference media rights hit, I believe Stanford and cal made $5m each from the ACC for the 24/25 fiscal year and another $1.9 from the ncaa (maybe not as much for cal).    That's a big drop from what we were making from the Pac12 - thank you traitor trojans.   $C was also the problem when Texas and Oklahoma wanted to join the Pac.  The current model in this funding (or lack thereof) environment is not sustainable.   Time for Swarbuck and Luck to create the NFL minor league and return the other sports to regional models.    There are others making moves on this front as well.

[calfan]

I hope this all implodes sooner than 5 years, Eric.  The cross country travel toll on the basketball and women's volleyball teams is brutal.  The men's hoops team left on Tuesday morning to fly east.  Tough to take classes when you are back in NC most of the week.    As for the conference media rights hit, I believe Stanford and cal made $5m each from the ACC for the 24/25 fiscal year and another $1.9 from the ncaa (maybe not as much for cal).    That's a big drop from what we were making from the Pac12 - thank you traitor trojans.   $C was also the problem when Texas and Oklahoma wanted to join the Pac.  The current model in this funding (or lack thereof) environment is not sustainable.   Time for Swarbuck and Luck to create the NFL minor league and return the other sports to regional models.    There are others making moves on this front as well.

 Yeah I think this is the endgame as well. Hopefully this current insanity lasts no more than a couple years-- feel bad for the student athletes.

---

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

Right- I should be forthcoming and share that I have seen the last couple years' balance sheets (I think they're public, or at least I thought so? Some Cal fans submitted FOIA requests, I believe but need to look back) and football revenue is significantly green. We actually had a bit of a donor snafu when it was revealed that our department was moving some football revenue to broader AD revenue in order to make the numbers look nicer. I guess dollars are fungible but the donors threw a bit of a fit when they found out. I digress.

Our football program is revenue generating by a significant margin. I think someone else mentioned that the stadium debt should be factored in: I don't agree because a) Central campus has agreed to cover it, this was (largely) a state-mandated expense for the retrofit and more importantly b) it's a fixed cost, the point isn't even that football runs red/green but rather that for every dollar put into the program we expect a positive return (which is the case). It is clear that until we hit some marginal return threshold, we should continue to increase spending because it returns more than we put in. Fixed costs that do not fluctuate with money spent don't make sense to factor in- it's a simple input/output equation and until we hit a level upon which we're no longer returning X% more than we're putting in, it makes sense to fuel the fire. At least in my mind, happy to hear disagreement

Note that this may not be the case for Stanford, I don't know the situation as well. I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. Most schools similarly are ROI positive from football and that's not including the brand / visibility that great football gives you. I know a lot of smart kids who took Stanford over MIT/Ivies during the Harbaugh/Shaw years because they wanted a fun school-spirit experience. So I really do think it's a good investment.

[calfan]

I hope this all implodes sooner than 5 years, Eric.  The cross country travel toll on the basketball and women's volleyball teams is brutal.  The men's hoops team left on Tuesday morning to fly east.  Tough to take classes when you are back in NC most of the week.    As for the conference media rights hit, I believe Stanford and cal made $5m each from the ACC for the 24/25 fiscal year and another $1.9 from the ncaa (maybe not as much for cal).    That's a big drop from what we were making from the Pac12 - thank you traitor trojans.   $C was also the problem when Texas and Oklahoma wanted to join the Pac.  The current model in this funding (or lack thereof) environment is not sustainable.   Time for Swarbuck and Luck to create the NFL minor league and return the other sports to regional models.    There are others making moves on this front as well.

 Yeah I think this is the endgame as well. Hopefully this current insanity lasts no more than a couple years-- feel bad for the student athletes.

---

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

Right- I should be forthcoming and share that I have seen the last couple years' balance sheets (I think they're public, or at least I thought so? Some Cal fans submitted FOIA requests, I believe but need to look back) and football revenue is significantly green. We actually had a bit of a donor snafu when it was revealed that our department was moving some football revenue to broader AD revenue in order to make the numbers look nicer. I guess dollars are fungible but the donors threw a bit of a fit when they found out. I digress.

Our football program is revenue generating by a significant margin. I think someone else mentioned that the stadium debt should be factored in: I don't agree because a) Central campus has agreed to cover it, this was (largely) a state-mandated expense for the retrofit and more importantly b) it's a fixed cost, the point isn't even that football runs red/green but rather that for every dollar put into the program we expect a positive return (which is the case). It is clear that until we hit some marginal return threshold, we should continue to increase spending because it returns more than we put in. Fixed costs that do not fluctuate with money spent don't make sense to factor in- it's a simple input/output equation and until we hit a level upon which we're no longer returning X% more than we're putting in, it makes sense to fuel the fire. At least in my mind, happy to hear disagreement

Note that this may not be the case for Stanford, I don't know the situation as well. I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. Most schools similarly are ROI positive from football and that's not including the brand / visibility that great football gives you. I know a lot of smart kids who took Stanford over MIT/Ivies during the Harbaugh/Shaw years because they wanted a fun school-spirit experience. So I really do think it's a good investment.

[82lsju]

I hope this all implodes sooner than 5 years, Eric.  The cross country travel toll on the basketball and women's volleyball teams is brutal.  The men's hoops team left on Tuesday morning to fly east.  Tough to take classes when you are back in NC most of the week.    As for the conference media rights hit, I believe Stanford and cal made $5m each from the ACC for the 24/25 fiscal year and another $1.9 from the ncaa (maybe not as much for cal).    That's a big drop from what we were making from the Pac12 - thank you traitor trojans.   $C was also the problem when Texas and Oklahoma wanted to join the Pac.  The current model in this funding (or lack thereof) environment is not sustainable.   Time for Swarbuck and Luck to create the NFL minor league and return the other sports to regional models.    There are others making moves on this front as well.

 Yeah I think this is the endgame as well. Hopefully this current insanity lasts no more than a couple years-- feel bad for the student athletes.

---

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

Right- I should be forthcoming and share that I have seen the last couple years' balance sheets (I think they're public, or at least I thought so? Some Cal fans submitted FOIA requests, I believe but need to look back) and football revenue is significantly green. We actually had a bit of a donor snafu when it was revealed that our department was moving some football revenue to broader AD revenue in order to make the numbers look nicer. I guess dollars are fungible but the donors threw a bit of a fit when they found out. I digress.

Our football program is revenue generating by a significant margin. I think someone else mentioned that the stadium debt should be factored in: I don't agree because a) Central campus has agreed to cover it, this was (largely) a state-mandated expense for the retrofit and more importantly b) it's a fixed cost, the point isn't even that football runs red/green but rather that for every dollar put into the program we expect a positive return (which is the case). It is clear that until we hit some marginal return threshold, we should continue to increase spending because it returns more than we put in. Fixed costs that do not fluctuate with money spent don't make sense to factor in- it's a simple input/output equation and until we hit a level upon which we're no longer returning X% more than we're putting in, it makes sense to fuel the fire. At least in my mind, happy to hear disagreement

Note that this may not be the case for Stanford, I don't know the situation as well. I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. Most schools similarly are ROI positive from football and that's not including the brand / visibility that great football gives you. I know a lot of smart kids who took Stanford over MIT/Ivies during the Harbaugh/Shaw years because they wanted a fun school-spirit experience. So I really do think it's a good investment.

revenue generating is not the same as not losing money....

and the Stanford AD makes its financials available (in aggregate not by sport) in their annual report

the last one available is here (2023-24)

https://gostanford.com/documents/35853ce...da16d1.pdf

[82lsju]

I hope this all implodes sooner than 5 years, Eric.  The cross country travel toll on the basketball and women's volleyball teams is brutal.  The men's hoops team left on Tuesday morning to fly east.  Tough to take classes when you are back in NC most of the week.    As for the conference media rights hit, I believe Stanford and cal made $5m each from the ACC for the 24/25 fiscal year and another $1.9 from the ncaa (maybe not as much for cal).    That's a big drop from what we were making from the Pac12 - thank you traitor trojans.   $C was also the problem when Texas and Oklahoma wanted to join the Pac.  The current model in this funding (or lack thereof) environment is not sustainable.   Time for Swarbuck and Luck to create the NFL minor league and return the other sports to regional models.    There are others making moves on this front as well.

 Yeah I think this is the endgame as well. Hopefully this current insanity lasts no more than a couple years-- feel bad for the student athletes.

---

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

Right- I should be forthcoming and share that I have seen the last couple years' balance sheets (I think they're public, or at least I thought so? Some Cal fans submitted FOIA requests, I believe but need to look back) and football revenue is significantly green. We actually had a bit of a donor snafu when it was revealed that our department was moving some football revenue to broader AD revenue in order to make the numbers look nicer. I guess dollars are fungible but the donors threw a bit of a fit when they found out. I digress.

Our football program is revenue generating by a significant margin. I think someone else mentioned that the stadium debt should be factored in: I don't agree because a) Central campus has agreed to cover it, this was (largely) a state-mandated expense for the retrofit and more importantly b) it's a fixed cost, the point isn't even that football runs red/green but rather that for every dollar put into the program we expect a positive return (which is the case). It is clear that until we hit some marginal return threshold, we should continue to increase spending because it returns more than we put in. Fixed costs that do not fluctuate with money spent don't make sense to factor in- it's a simple input/output equation and until we hit a level upon which we're no longer returning X% more than we're putting in, it makes sense to fuel the fire. At least in my mind, happy to hear disagreement

Note that this may not be the case for Stanford, I don't know the situation as well. I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. Most schools similarly are ROI positive from football and that's not including the brand / visibility that great football gives you. I know a lot of smart kids who took Stanford over MIT/Ivies during the Harbaugh/Shaw years because they wanted a fun school-spirit experience. So I really do think it's a good investment.

revenue generating is not the same as not losing money....

and the Stanford AD makes its financials available (in aggregate not by sport) in their annual report

the last one available is here (2023-24)

https://gostanford.com/documents/35853ce...da16d1.pdf

[BostonCard]

Right- I should be forthcoming and share that I have seen the last couple years' balance sheets (I think they're public, or at least I thought so? Some Cal fans submitted FOIA requests, I believe but need to look back) and football revenue is significantly green. We actually had a bit of a donor snafu when it was revealed that our department was moving some football revenue to broader AD revenue in order to make the numbers look nicer. I guess dollars are fungible but the donors threw a bit of a fit when they found out. I digress.

Our football program is revenue generating by a significant margin. I think someone else mentioned that the stadium debt should be factored in: I don't agree because a) Central campus has agreed to cover it, this was (largely) a state-mandated expense for the retrofit and more importantly b) it's a fixed cost, the point isn't even that football runs red/green but rather that for every dollar put into the program we expect a positive return (which is the case). It is clear that until we hit some marginal return threshold, we should continue to increase spending because it returns more than we put in. Fixed costs that do not fluctuate with money spent don't make sense to factor in- it's a simple input/output equation and until we hit a level upon which we're no longer returning X% more than we're putting in, it makes sense to fuel the fire. At least in my mind, happy to hear disagreement

Note that this may not be the case for Stanford, I don't know the situation as well. I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. Most schools similarly are ROI positive from football and that's not including the brand / visibility that great football gives you. I know a lot of smart kids who took Stanford over MIT/Ivies during the Harbaugh/Shaw years because they wanted a fun school-spirit experience. So I really do think it's a good investment.

Wow, failing to distinguish between marginal net revenue and average net revenue makes the "analysis" even more worthless than it already was.  You discount the cost of the retrofit as a fixed cost (and, true, the University would be on the hook for it even if Cal dropped football tomorrow), but do not discount the fixed revenues, and the bulk of the revenues are also fixed. For example, no matter how much Cal invests in its football team, the broadcast rights will not move a lot (I believe about $15 million, based on getting 30% of the ACC payout, and while there is some variation based on viewership, which might move a little based on how good the team is, the effect is not zero but not transformational*).  Endowment payout (probably a bigger share of revenue for Stanford than Cal) would only increase if spending more money on football got a transformational donation.  But even the $50 million donation Stanford football scored from Bradford Freeman is incremental but not transformative**.  OK, gate revenue surely would move if Stanford were a better team, but a) it only makes up 4% of total revenue, so let's assume 6 - 8% of football revenue and b) it might surprise you to know that the team with the lowest home attendance in the ACC was the conference champion (yes, Duke, with 24,000 fans/game had a lower attendance than Stanford with 28,000).  The other conference championship participant, UVa, was also below the median.  Winning puts more butts in seats, of course, but there are a lot of factors that influence attendance beyond record.

The point is that saying that even if we did buy your analysis that Cal football was in the black (if you exclude stadium debt), it doesn't mean that if you increase spending on Cal football you will increase revenue by more.  Especially in sports, which are by definition a zero sum game, with there is constant pressure on every team to spend more money, but the average record across all teams is by definition .500 and unchangeable. And if everyone ran your analysis and concluded that they could make more money by spending more money, the eventual destination is that everyone has spent more money, on average nobody has improved, and therefore the return on that investment is 0.

The best you can hope for is that your marginal spend was more efficient than the other teams', or that due to some unusual circumstance, you were able to increase your spend at a time when someone else wasn't.  But the advent of the House settlement payout means that pretty much everyone will be spending $20 million more than they used to if they can and again, and as a whole we will be right back where we started.

Look, you are welcome to advocate for more spending because your ego is tied to how well a bunch of 20 year olds move a ball on a football field, or, even better, you are welcome to throw your money at it to realize that vision.  Despite my dismissiveness of it, it was more enjoyable to root for Stanford football a decade ago than it is now, and all else being equal, I would prefer to have a winning football team than a losing one.  But it is ludicrous to pretend that spending more in order to cater to that vanity will actually pay off with a positive return.

BC

* Indiana's viewership about doubled from 2023 (when they went 3-9) to 2025 (when they were undefeated), but was still about half of Ohio State and Michigan's, and Indiana is pretty much the most extreme transformation possible.  Cal could win the ACC and would still be outdrawn by Clemson and Florida State.  Viewership is less elastic than you might think, and it must really chap your hide that from 2020-2024, when Stanford won a total of 16 games, our TV viewership was still 46% higher than Cal's (reference: https://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2025/...st-5-years).

** Stanford's total revenue in 2023/24 was $143 million, of which 24% ($34 million) came from the endowment.  If you assume a 5% payout (and assume that the Bradford Freeman's entire donation made it to the endowment, which it wasn't),  the Freeman donation would generate about $2.5, which increases the payout by 7%, which is not nothing, but makes a small marginal change.  Moreover, what are we going to assume, that Freeman would have made a $100 million donation if Stanford had won 7 games instead of 4?  That there is a whole host of other donors waiting in the wings but for the fact that Stanford had a lousy football team?

[BostonCard]

Right- I should be forthcoming and share that I have seen the last couple years' balance sheets (I think they're public, or at least I thought so? Some Cal fans submitted FOIA requests, I believe but need to look back) and football revenue is significantly green. We actually had a bit of a donor snafu when it was revealed that our department was moving some football revenue to broader AD revenue in order to make the numbers look nicer. I guess dollars are fungible but the donors threw a bit of a fit when they found out. I digress.

Our football program is revenue generating by a significant margin. I think someone else mentioned that the stadium debt should be factored in: I don't agree because a) Central campus has agreed to cover it, this was (largely) a state-mandated expense for the retrofit and more importantly b) it's a fixed cost, the point isn't even that football runs red/green but rather that for every dollar put into the program we expect a positive return (which is the case). It is clear that until we hit some marginal return threshold, we should continue to increase spending because it returns more than we put in. Fixed costs that do not fluctuate with money spent don't make sense to factor in- it's a simple input/output equation and until we hit a level upon which we're no longer returning X% more than we're putting in, it makes sense to fuel the fire. At least in my mind, happy to hear disagreement

Note that this may not be the case for Stanford, I don't know the situation as well. I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. Most schools similarly are ROI positive from football and that's not including the brand / visibility that great football gives you. I know a lot of smart kids who took Stanford over MIT/Ivies during the Harbaugh/Shaw years because they wanted a fun school-spirit experience. So I really do think it's a good investment.

Wow, failing to distinguish between marginal net revenue and average net revenue makes the "analysis" even more worthless than it already was.  You discount the cost of the retrofit as a fixed cost (and, true, the University would be on the hook for it even if Cal dropped football tomorrow), but do not discount the fixed revenues, and the bulk of the revenues are also fixed. For example, no matter how much Cal invests in its football team, the broadcast rights will not move a lot (I believe about $15 million, based on getting 30% of the ACC payout, and while there is some variation based on viewership, which might move a little based on how good the team is, the effect is not zero but not transformational*).  Endowment payout (probably a bigger share of revenue for Stanford than Cal) would only increase if spending more money on football got a transformational donation.  But even the $50 million donation Stanford football scored from Bradford Freeman is incremental but not transformative**.  OK, gate revenue surely would move if Stanford were a better team, but a) it only makes up 4% of total revenue, so let's assume 6 - 8% of football revenue and b) it might surprise you to know that the team with the lowest home attendance in the ACC was the conference champion (yes, Duke, with 24,000 fans/game had a lower attendance than Stanford with 28,000).  The other conference championship participant, UVa, was also below the median.  Winning puts more butts in seats, of course, but there are a lot of factors that influence attendance beyond record.

The point is that saying that even if we did buy your analysis that Cal football was in the black (if you exclude stadium debt), it doesn't mean that if you increase spending on Cal football you will increase revenue by more.  Especially in sports, which are by definition a zero sum game, with there is constant pressure on every team to spend more money, but the average record across all teams is by definition .500 and unchangeable. And if everyone ran your analysis and concluded that they could make more money by spending more money, the eventual destination is that everyone has spent more money, on average nobody has improved, and therefore the return on that investment is 0.

The best you can hope for is that your marginal spend was more efficient than the other teams', or that due to some unusual circumstance, you were able to increase your spend at a time when someone else wasn't.  But the advent of the House settlement payout means that pretty much everyone will be spending $20 million more than they used to if they can and again, and as a whole we will be right back where we started.

Look, you are welcome to advocate for more spending because your ego is tied to how well a bunch of 20 year olds move a ball on a football field, or, even better, you are welcome to throw your money at it to realize that vision.  Despite my dismissiveness of it, it was more enjoyable to root for Stanford football a decade ago than it is now, and all else being equal, I would prefer to have a winning football team than a losing one.  But it is ludicrous to pretend that spending more in order to cater to that vanity will actually pay off with a positive return.

BC

* Indiana's viewership about doubled from 2023 (when they went 3-9) to 2025 (when they were undefeated), but was still about half of Ohio State and Michigan's, and Indiana is pretty much the most extreme transformation possible.  Cal could win the ACC and would still be outdrawn by Clemson and Florida State.  Viewership is less elastic than you might think, and it must really chap your hide that from 2020-2024, when Stanford won a total of 16 games, our TV viewership was still 46% higher than Cal's (reference: https://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2025/...st-5-years).

** Stanford's total revenue in 2023/24 was $143 million, of which 24% ($34 million) came from the endowment.  If you assume a 5% payout (and assume that the Bradford Freeman's entire donation made it to the endowment, which it wasn't),  the Freeman donation would generate about $2.5, which increases the payout by 7%, which is not nothing, but makes a small marginal change.  Moreover, what are we going to assume, that Freeman would have made a $100 million donation if Stanford had won 7 games instead of 4?  That there is a whole host of other donors waiting in the wings but for the fact that Stanford had a lousy football team?

[old spanish trail]

https://x.com/i/status/2011143956734840881

Greg Roman and Chargers OL coach let go.

https://x.com/i/status/2010844537233572031

Saw this a mile away.  He didn't work out for the ravens either.  Great at run games.  Horrific at passing schemes.

Herbert dropped back, and almost always rolled right when 1st option wasn't there, and then threw a 5 yarder or incomplete.

[old spanish trail]

https://x.com/i/status/2011143956734840881

Greg Roman and Chargers OL coach let go.

https://x.com/i/status/2010844537233572031

Saw this a mile away.  He didn't work out for the ravens either.  Great at run games.  Horrific at passing schemes.

Herbert dropped back, and almost always rolled right when 1st option wasn't there, and then threw a 5 yarder or incomplete.

[StanUSwagU]

Right- I should be forthcoming and share that I have seen the last couple years' balance sheets (I think they're public, or at least I thought so? Some Cal fans submitted FOIA requests, I believe but need to look back) and football revenue is significantly green.

Our football program is revenue generating by a significant margin. I think someone else mentioned that the stadium debt should be factored in: I don't agree because a) Central campus has agreed to cover it, this was (largely) a state-mandated expense for the retrofit and more importantly b) it's a fixed cost, the point isn't even that football runs red/green but rather that for every dollar put into the program we expect a positive return (which is the case). It is clear that until we hit some marginal return threshold, we should continue to increase spending because it returns more than we put in. Fixed costs that do not fluctuate with money spent don't make sense to factor in- it's a simple input/output equation and until we hit a level upon which we're no longer returning X% more than we're putting in, it makes sense to fuel the fire. At least in my mind, happy to hear disagreement

Note that this may not be the case for Stanford, I don't know the situation as well. I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. Most schools similarly are ROI positive from football and that's not including the brand / visibility that great football gives you. I know a lot of smart kids who took Stanford over MIT/Ivies during the Harbaugh/Shaw years because they wanted a fun school-spirit experience. So I really do think it's a good investment.

Wow, failing to distinguish between marginal net revenue and average net revenue makes the "analysis" even more worthless than it already was.  You discount the cost of the retrofit as a fixed cost (and, true, the University would be on the hook for it even if Cal dropped football tomorrow), but do not discount the fixed revenues, and the bulk of the revenues are also fixed. For example, no matter how much Cal invests in its football team, the broadcast rights will not move a lot (I believe about $15 million, based on getting 30% of the ACC payout, and while there is some variation based on viewership, which might move a little based on how good the team is, the effect is not zero but not transformational*).  Endowment payout (probably a bigger share of revenue for Stanford than Cal) would only increase if spending more money on football got a transformational donation.  But even the $50 million donation Stanford football scored from Bradford Freeman is incremental but not transformative**.  OK, gate revenue surely would move if Stanford were a better team, but a) it only makes up 4% of total revenue, so let's assume 6 - 8% of football revenue and b) it might surprise you to know that the team with the lowest home attendance in the ACC was the conference champion (yes, Duke, with 24,000 fans/game had a lower attendance than Stanford with 28,000).  The other conference championship participant, UVa, was also below the median.  Winning puts more butts in seats, of course, but there are a lot of factors that influence attendance beyond record.

The point is that saying that even if we did buy your analysis that Cal football was in the black (if you exclude stadium debt), it doesn't mean that if you increase spending on Cal football you will increase revenue by more.  Especially in sports, which are by definition a zero sum game, with there is constant pressure on every team to spend more money, but the average record across all teams is by definition .500 and unchangeable. And if everyone ran your analysis and concluded that they could make more money by spending more money, the eventual destination is that everyone has spent more money, on average nobody has improved, and therefore the return on that investment is 0.

The best you can hope for is that your marginal spend was more efficient than the other teams', or that due to some unusual circumstance, you were able to increase your spend at a time when someone else wasn't.  But the advent of the House settlement payout means that pretty much everyone will be spending $20 million more than they used to if they can and again, and as a whole we will be right back where we started.

Look, you are welcome to advocate for more spending because your ego is tied to how well a bunch of 20 year olds move a ball on a football field, or, even better, you are welcome to throw your money at it to realize that vision.  Despite my dismissiveness of it, it was more enjoyable to root for Stanford football a decade ago than it is now, and all else being equal, I would prefer to have a winning football team than a losing one.  But it is ludicrous to pretend that spending more in order to cater to that vanity will actually pay off with a positive return.

BC

* Indiana's viewership about doubled from 2023 (when they went 3-9) to 2025 (when they were undefeated), but was still about half of Ohio State and Michigan's, and Indiana is pretty much the most extreme transformation possible.  Cal could win the ACC and would still be outdrawn by Clemson and Florida State.  Viewership is less elastic than you might think, and it must really chap your hide that from 2020-2024, when Stanford won a total of 16 games, our TV viewership was still 46% higher than Cal's (reference: https://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2025/...st-5-years).

** Stanford's total revenue in 2023/24 was $143 million, of which 24% ($34 million) came from the endowment.  If you assume a 5% payout (and assume that the Bradford Freeman's entire donation made it to the endowment, which it wasn't),  the Freeman donation would generate about $2.5, which increases the payout by 7%, which is not nothing, but makes a small marginal change.  Moreover, what are we going to assume, that Freeman would have made a $100 million donation if Stanford had won 7 games instead of 4?  That there is a whole host of other donors waiting in the wings but for the fact that Stanford had a lousy football team?

**********************
BC,Calfan,

Enjoyed reading both your posts on Football, valid points on both sides, ..so you inspired me to reply.

I wrote this very quickly late at night, so the thoughts are raw & not fully fleshed out, but hopefully you get the gist.

Let me add a hypothetical that might change the analysis and maybe unify your 2 perspectives::

I have stated on this board, and have felt for almost 2.5 decades, that Stanford MUST enlarge & diversify its undergraduate enrollment; Enlarge it by 2500 undergrads total, 625 per class (frosh, soph, jun, senior), and DIVERSIFY it to be less 'specialized & nerdy' [A little more like Duke & NotreDame's, Cal's GeorgiaTech's, UCLA's, Wisconsin's undegraduate classes as far as being less nerdy & more sports-loving....I can see BC and Goose, gnashing their teeth, but IMO Duke and NotreDame, Cal, GeorgiaTech students are 'high caliber people, we at Stanford do not have 'higher ethics or morals or academic-ethics-standards' than Duke or ND, GeorgiaTach or these others in that list ...just look at all our Academic Scandals of the last decade, that hopefully i dont have to air out here]

Had this been done 25years ago (yes i know this would have required getting the okay from Santa Clara county to build more on Stanford/County land, but lets assume this had been done)

That would mean a substantially larger Alumni base & FanBase out and about ( spouses of Alums, siblings of Alums, kids of Alums, etc ) almost exponential, when you consider the multiplicative & orthogonal 6 degrees of separation between these 'extra Alums; over the last 20 years & who they have as relatives and significant others, etc

Just maybe if we had this Larger undergraduate base for the last 25 years (that was less nerdy and more diverse), maybe 1 or 2 of these Alums or Significant others or Relatives of these Alums, would be 'someone Financially Successful (e.g half billionaire); ... who 'Loved Sports' like a T Boone Pickens (OklahomaState) or a Mark Cuban (Indiana) or the Guy from TexasTech, and then they would be happy to Donate to Stanford Football & Stanford Sports.

Yes, my model is hypothetical (no guarantee), but hopefully one can understand the underlying concept here:

THE LARGER & MORE DIVERSE YOUR UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES ARE over a 25year span, (its all about volume & numbers), your university has a 'slightly better chance; of having 1 or 2 of these Diverse Undergraduates, go on to become Massively Financially Successful & A CollegeFootballFan, who would then Donate like a MarkCuban or TBoonePickens.

Then (to unify BC & Calfans positions), Stanford could:

• BC's point: Have that 1 or 2 'Rich Half Billionaire' Football Fanatic Alums, who would want to 'Donate' to StanfordFootball, without doing the tradeoff of the AcademicSide and the AD
• CalFans point: Have the ability to 'Go All In' on Funding to Produce a 'Competitive Top 25 Football Program (like a NotreDame)
*************
And yes, BC, I am fully aware there is little to no data to support a CORRELATION or GUARANTEE between a 'LARGER More Diverse Undergraduate & Alumni Base' & '1 or 2 of those Alums or Alum's significant others or relatives becoming a 'Half Billionaire College Football Loving Alum' who wants to donate to their alma-maters AD or Football Program, ...but just with the 'Law of Larger Numbers' ..to me this gives us a better chance. And it seems like we have come to this idea of Enlarging the Undergraduate Class now (albeit about 20 years tardy IMO).

[StanUSwagU]

Right- I should be forthcoming and share that I have seen the last couple years' balance sheets (I think they're public, or at least I thought so? Some Cal fans submitted FOIA requests, I believe but need to look back) and football revenue is significantly green.

Our football program is revenue generating by a significant margin. I think someone else mentioned that the stadium debt should be factored in: I don't agree because a) Central campus has agreed to cover it, this was (largely) a state-mandated expense for the retrofit and more importantly b) it's a fixed cost, the point isn't even that football runs red/green but rather that for every dollar put into the program we expect a positive return (which is the case). It is clear that until we hit some marginal return threshold, we should continue to increase spending because it returns more than we put in. Fixed costs that do not fluctuate with money spent don't make sense to factor in- it's a simple input/output equation and until we hit a level upon which we're no longer returning X% more than we're putting in, it makes sense to fuel the fire. At least in my mind, happy to hear disagreement

Note that this may not be the case for Stanford, I don't know the situation as well. I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. Most schools similarly are ROI positive from football and that's not including the brand / visibility that great football gives you. I know a lot of smart kids who took Stanford over MIT/Ivies during the Harbaugh/Shaw years because they wanted a fun school-spirit experience. So I really do think it's a good investment.

Wow, failing to distinguish between marginal net revenue and average net revenue makes the "analysis" even more worthless than it already was.  You discount the cost of the retrofit as a fixed cost (and, true, the University would be on the hook for it even if Cal dropped football tomorrow), but do not discount the fixed revenues, and the bulk of the revenues are also fixed. For example, no matter how much Cal invests in its football team, the broadcast rights will not move a lot (I believe about $15 million, based on getting 30% of the ACC payout, and while there is some variation based on viewership, which might move a little based on how good the team is, the effect is not zero but not transformational*).  Endowment payout (probably a bigger share of revenue for Stanford than Cal) would only increase if spending more money on football got a transformational donation.  But even the $50 million donation Stanford football scored from Bradford Freeman is incremental but not transformative**.  OK, gate revenue surely would move if Stanford were a better team, but a) it only makes up 4% of total revenue, so let's assume 6 - 8% of football revenue and b) it might surprise you to know that the team with the lowest home attendance in the ACC was the conference champion (yes, Duke, with 24,000 fans/game had a lower attendance than Stanford with 28,000).  The other conference championship participant, UVa, was also below the median.  Winning puts more butts in seats, of course, but there are a lot of factors that influence attendance beyond record.

The point is that saying that even if we did buy your analysis that Cal football was in the black (if you exclude stadium debt), it doesn't mean that if you increase spending on Cal football you will increase revenue by more.  Especially in sports, which are by definition a zero sum game, with there is constant pressure on every team to spend more money, but the average record across all teams is by definition .500 and unchangeable. And if everyone ran your analysis and concluded that they could make more money by spending more money, the eventual destination is that everyone has spent more money, on average nobody has improved, and therefore the return on that investment is 0.

The best you can hope for is that your marginal spend was more efficient than the other teams', or that due to some unusual circumstance, you were able to increase your spend at a time when someone else wasn't.  But the advent of the House settlement payout means that pretty much everyone will be spending $20 million more than they used to if they can and again, and as a whole we will be right back where we started.

Look, you are welcome to advocate for more spending because your ego is tied to how well a bunch of 20 year olds move a ball on a football field, or, even better, you are welcome to throw your money at it to realize that vision.  Despite my dismissiveness of it, it was more enjoyable to root for Stanford football a decade ago than it is now, and all else being equal, I would prefer to have a winning football team than a losing one.  But it is ludicrous to pretend that spending more in order to cater to that vanity will actually pay off with a positive return.

BC

* Indiana's viewership about doubled from 2023 (when they went 3-9) to 2025 (when they were undefeated), but was still about half of Ohio State and Michigan's, and Indiana is pretty much the most extreme transformation possible.  Cal could win the ACC and would still be outdrawn by Clemson and Florida State.  Viewership is less elastic than you might think, and it must really chap your hide that from 2020-2024, when Stanford won a total of 16 games, our TV viewership was still 46% higher than Cal's (reference: https://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2025/...st-5-years).

** Stanford's total revenue in 2023/24 was $143 million, of which 24% ($34 million) came from the endowment.  If you assume a 5% payout (and assume that the Bradford Freeman's entire donation made it to the endowment, which it wasn't),  the Freeman donation would generate about $2.5, which increases the payout by 7%, which is not nothing, but makes a small marginal change.  Moreover, what are we going to assume, that Freeman would have made a $100 million donation if Stanford had won 7 games instead of 4?  That there is a whole host of other donors waiting in the wings but for the fact that Stanford had a lousy football team?

**********************
BC,Calfan,

Enjoyed reading both your posts on Football, valid points on both sides, ..so you inspired me to reply.

I wrote this very quickly late at night, so the thoughts are raw & not fully fleshed out, but hopefully you get the gist.

Let me add a hypothetical that might change the analysis and maybe unify your 2 perspectives::

I have stated on this board, and have felt for almost 2.5 decades, that Stanford MUST enlarge & diversify its undergraduate enrollment; Enlarge it by 2500 undergrads total, 625 per class (frosh, soph, jun, senior), and DIVERSIFY it to be less 'specialized & nerdy' [A little more like Duke & NotreDame's, Cal's GeorgiaTech's, UCLA's, Wisconsin's undegraduate classes as far as being less nerdy & more sports-loving....I can see BC and Goose, gnashing their teeth, but IMO Duke and NotreDame, Cal, GeorgiaTech students are 'high caliber people, we at Stanford do not have 'higher ethics or morals or academic-ethics-standards' than Duke or ND, GeorgiaTach or these others in that list ...just look at all our Academic Scandals of the last decade, that hopefully i dont have to air out here]

Had this been done 25years ago (yes i know this would have required getting the okay from Santa Clara county to build more on Stanford/County land, but lets assume this had been done)

That would mean a substantially larger Alumni base & FanBase out and about ( spouses of Alums, siblings of Alums, kids of Alums, etc ) almost exponential, when you consider the multiplicative & orthogonal 6 degrees of separation between these 'extra Alums; over the last 20 years & who they have as relatives and significant others, etc

Just maybe if we had this Larger undergraduate base for the last 25 years (that was less nerdy and more diverse), maybe 1 or 2 of these Alums or Significant others or Relatives of these Alums, would be 'someone Financially Successful (e.g half billionaire); ... who 'Loved Sports' like a T Boone Pickens (OklahomaState) or a Mark Cuban (Indiana) or the Guy from TexasTech, and then they would be happy to Donate to Stanford Football & Stanford Sports.

Yes, my model is hypothetical (no guarantee), but hopefully one can understand the underlying concept here:

THE LARGER & MORE DIVERSE YOUR UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES ARE over a 25year span, (its all about volume & numbers), your university has a 'slightly better chance; of having 1 or 2 of these Diverse Undergraduates, go on to become Massively Financially Successful & A CollegeFootballFan, who would then Donate like a MarkCuban or TBoonePickens.

Then (to unify BC & Calfans positions), Stanford could:

• BC's point: Have that 1 or 2 'Rich Half Billionaire' Football Fanatic Alums, who would want to 'Donate' to StanfordFootball, without doing the tradeoff of the AcademicSide and the AD
• CalFans point: Have the ability to 'Go All In' on Funding to Produce a 'Competitive Top 25 Football Program (like a NotreDame)
*************
And yes, BC, I am fully aware there is little to no data to support a CORRELATION or GUARANTEE between a 'LARGER More Diverse Undergraduate & Alumni Base' & '1 or 2 of those Alums or Alum's significant others or relatives becoming a 'Half Billionaire College Football Loving Alum' who wants to donate to their alma-maters AD or Football Program, ...but just with the 'Law of Larger Numbers' ..to me this gives us a better chance. And it seems like we have come to this idea of Enlarging the Undergraduate Class now (albeit about 20 years tardy IMO).

[calfan]

Thanks to both BC and StanUSwagU for the posts! 

BC- I read your post (avoiding quoting bc of length) and largely concur with one major disagreement on "zero sum". Yes, definitionally win-loss records are zero sum but attendance, revenue, viewership is not. Quality gameday experience, marketing, fun talent/players etc result in increase ticket sales and TV viewership even if win-loss records marginally improve. Point taken on these items being relatively inconsequential towards revenue. Yet, these two items have both been explicitly called out as criteria for the next round of realignment (our GM Ron Rivera has noted these two as areas of explicit callout in his donor addresses for our chances at making it into the B1G/superconference/whatever exists after the next shuffle). Not to mention, there's a brobdingnagian benefit to attracting awesome high school students who are weighing the Farm vs MIT, Ivies, etc. Tldr; I agree with most of your premise but simply don't believe either Cal nor Stanford have hit the level of spend efficiency where it doesn't make sense yet. Thanks for the reply though

StanUSwagU, I think you raise an interesting point on widening the scope of the Stanford class. I will bring up an interesting note/question for the folks here which is: do you believe the classes of today are "nerdier" or less nerdy than 10, 20, 30 years ago? I use nerdy as a proxy for caring about sports / school spirit -- I know there's likely much better terms but I assume the meaning is conveyed. I'm just curious if Stanford classes have shown an aptitude for the big-time football in years & decades past. Would be curious to learn. I do think you all would benefit from a wider class range, particularly since such a large portion of your undergrad classes are athlete-admissions (and of course smart too...)

[calfan]

Thanks to both BC and StanUSwagU for the posts! 

BC- I read your post (avoiding quoting bc of length) and largely concur with one major disagreement on "zero sum". Yes, definitionally win-loss records are zero sum but attendance, revenue, viewership is not. Quality gameday experience, marketing, fun talent/players etc result in increase ticket sales and TV viewership even if win-loss records marginally improve. Point taken on these items being relatively inconsequential towards revenue. Yet, these two items have both been explicitly called out as criteria for the next round of realignment (our GM Ron Rivera has noted these two as areas of explicit callout in his donor addresses for our chances at making it into the B1G/superconference/whatever exists after the next shuffle). Not to mention, there's a brobdingnagian benefit to attracting awesome high school students who are weighing the Farm vs MIT, Ivies, etc. Tldr; I agree with most of your premise but simply don't believe either Cal nor Stanford have hit the level of spend efficiency where it doesn't make sense yet. Thanks for the reply though

StanUSwagU, I think you raise an interesting point on widening the scope of the Stanford class. I will bring up an interesting note/question for the folks here which is: do you believe the classes of today are "nerdier" or less nerdy than 10, 20, 30 years ago? I use nerdy as a proxy for caring about sports / school spirit -- I know there's likely much better terms but I assume the meaning is conveyed. I'm just curious if Stanford classes have shown an aptitude for the big-time football in years & decades past. Would be curious to learn. I do think you all would benefit from a wider class range, particularly since such a large portion of your undergrad classes are athlete-admissions (and of course smart too...)

[StanUSwagU]

Thanks to both BC and StanUSwagU for the posts! 

BC- I read your post (avoiding quoting bc of length) and largely concur with one major disagreement on "zero sum". Yes, definitionally win-loss records are zero sum but attendance, revenue, viewership is not. Quality gameday experience, marketing, fun talent/players etc result in increase ticket sales and TV viewership even if win-loss records marginally improve. Point taken on these items being relatively inconsequential towards revenue. Yet, these two items have both been explicitly called out as criteria for the next round of realignment (our GM Ron Rivera has noted these two as areas of explicit callout in his donor addresses for our chances at making it into the B1G/superconference/whatever exists after the next shuffle). Not to mention, there's a brobdingnagian benefit to attracting awesome high school students who are weighing the Farm vs MIT, Ivies, etc. Tldr; I agree with most of your premise but simply don't believe either Cal nor Stanford have hit the level of spend efficiency where it doesn't make sense yet. Thanks for the reply though

StanUSwagU, I think you raise an interesting point on widening the scope of the Stanford class. I will bring up an interesting note/question for the folks here which is: do you believe the classes of today are "nerdier" or less nerdy than 10, 20, 30 years ago? I use nerdy as a proxy for caring about sports / school spirit -- I know there's likely much better terms but I assume the meaning is conveyed. I'm just curious if Stanford classes have shown an aptitude for the big-time football in years & decades past. Would be curious to learn. I do think you all would benefit from a wider class range, particularly since such a large portion of your undergrad classes are athlete-admissions (and of course smart too...)

Hi CalFan,

Thanks for the post.

In my opinion, (and I do not mean to denigrate 'nerds') these last 20 years of undergrad students have gotten more 'nerdier' [And for me nerdier is sort of like your definition, you gave above], I would make it more concrete by saying I think we are more nerdier than before (ie care less about Football and Mens Basketball than say NotreDame, Duke, GeorgiaTech, or UCLA ....whose Undergrads & Alums, & Donors would have a conniption if the Football Team went 3 years with Losing Records or if the Mens Basketball Team went 3 years without a NCAA Berth).

I dont have empirical data to prove this, but that is my opinion, from (a) seeing the dwindling passion/demand for Top25 Football & perennial NCAA berths for the Mens Basketball Team & (b) because i think the percentage of applicants admitted to Undergrad has gone down to some extremely very low right-tiered 3% of applicants [just doing the math, if 25 years ago Stanford admitted 6% of applicants, and now they only admit 3% of applicants (assuming its the rightmost tiered 3% of students relative to normal-distributions of their SAT score/GPA/APClasses profile)[ ...then my hunch is we are getting 'more SAT/GPA/APclass nerds' than before as a percentage & fewer of the 'more well rounded sports loving Smart students (ie NotreDame Duke , Cal, UCLA type students)


Increasing the Undergrad class size by 2500, would hopefully diversify or broaden the 'demographic profile'; We would still have the 'non-sports interested nerds', but there would then be a few more sports loving undergrads from States like Texas who turned out to be 'T Boone Pickens' 'Mark Cubans' & 'Jerry Jones' ...ie.. 'Smart, But Passionate Football & Basketball Loving Undergrads & Alums', etc (if you catch my drift.)


It is just my opinion, but having a 'slightly broader demographic' for the Undergrad School, benefits everyone (Leave 'excessively narrow, nerdy demographics for Stanford Grad Schools); And increasing the Undergrad Enrollment by 2500 students would allow for this [Yes, I know its a hurdle for Stanford to do this, due to the fact this would require building more dorms on campus & the wrangling with Santa Clara County over Land Use, but I really think we Stanford need to pursue that/ Sort that out, with more Boldness & Urgency ! ]



Curious questions I have (maybe someone on this board knows the approximate numbers):

Over the Last 15years of undergrads admitted & attending Stanford:

(1) What percentage & nominal number were (a) born in the USA and (b) grew up entirely in 'HighSchool Football Loving States' like Texas, & the SEC states, and Ohio and Pennsylvania ?

(2) What percentage & nominal number (separate from our Varsity Football players) played 'High School Football' ?

(3) What percentage & nominal number (separate from our Varsity Mens Basketball players) played 'High School Mens Basketball' ?

(4) And how do the numbers for (1), (2), & (3) compare to the undergraduate demographics of NotreDame, GeorgiaTech, Duke, and UCLA ?

[StanUSwagU]

Thanks to both BC and StanUSwagU for the posts! 

BC- I read your post (avoiding quoting bc of length) and largely concur with one major disagreement on "zero sum". Yes, definitionally win-loss records are zero sum but attendance, revenue, viewership is not. Quality gameday experience, marketing, fun talent/players etc result in increase ticket sales and TV viewership even if win-loss records marginally improve. Point taken on these items being relatively inconsequential towards revenue. Yet, these two items have both been explicitly called out as criteria for the next round of realignment (our GM Ron Rivera has noted these two as areas of explicit callout in his donor addresses for our chances at making it into the B1G/superconference/whatever exists after the next shuffle). Not to mention, there's a brobdingnagian benefit to attracting awesome high school students who are weighing the Farm vs MIT, Ivies, etc. Tldr; I agree with most of your premise but simply don't believe either Cal nor Stanford have hit the level of spend efficiency where it doesn't make sense yet. Thanks for the reply though

StanUSwagU, I think you raise an interesting point on widening the scope of the Stanford class. I will bring up an interesting note/question for the folks here which is: do you believe the classes of today are "nerdier" or less nerdy than 10, 20, 30 years ago? I use nerdy as a proxy for caring about sports / school spirit -- I know there's likely much better terms but I assume the meaning is conveyed. I'm just curious if Stanford classes have shown an aptitude for the big-time football in years & decades past. Would be curious to learn. I do think you all would benefit from a wider class range, particularly since such a large portion of your undergrad classes are athlete-admissions (and of course smart too...)

Hi CalFan,

Thanks for the post.

In my opinion, (and I do not mean to denigrate 'nerds') these last 20 years of undergrad students have gotten more 'nerdier' [And for me nerdier is sort of like your definition, you gave above], I would make it more concrete by saying I think we are more nerdier than before (ie care less about Football and Mens Basketball than say NotreDame, Duke, GeorgiaTech, or UCLA ....whose Undergrads & Alums, & Donors would have a conniption if the Football Team went 3 years with Losing Records or if the Mens Basketball Team went 3 years without a NCAA Berth).

I dont have empirical data to prove this, but that is my opinion, from (a) seeing the dwindling passion/demand for Top25 Football & perennial NCAA berths for the Mens Basketball Team & (b) because i think the percentage of applicants admitted to Undergrad has gone down to some extremely very low right-tiered 3% of applicants [just doing the math, if 25 years ago Stanford admitted 6% of applicants, and now they only admit 3% of applicants (assuming its the rightmost tiered 3% of students relative to normal-distributions of their SAT score/GPA/APClasses profile)[ ...then my hunch is we are getting 'more SAT/GPA/APclass nerds' than before as a percentage & fewer of the 'more well rounded sports loving Smart students (ie NotreDame Duke , Cal, UCLA type students)


Increasing the Undergrad class size by 2500, would hopefully diversify or broaden the 'demographic profile'; We would still have the 'non-sports interested nerds', but there would then be a few more sports loving undergrads from States like Texas who turned out to be 'T Boone Pickens' 'Mark Cubans' & 'Jerry Jones' ...ie.. 'Smart, But Passionate Football & Basketball Loving Undergrads & Alums', etc (if you catch my drift.)


It is just my opinion, but having a 'slightly broader demographic' for the Undergrad School, benefits everyone (Leave 'excessively narrow, nerdy demographics for Stanford Grad Schools); And increasing the Undergrad Enrollment by 2500 students would allow for this [Yes, I know its a hurdle for Stanford to do this, due to the fact this would require building more dorms on campus & the wrangling with Santa Clara County over Land Use, but I really think we Stanford need to pursue that/ Sort that out, with more Boldness & Urgency ! ]



Curious questions I have (maybe someone on this board knows the approximate numbers):

Over the Last 15years of undergrads admitted & attending Stanford:

(1) What percentage & nominal number were (a) born in the USA and (b) grew up entirely in 'HighSchool Football Loving States' like Texas, & the SEC states, and Ohio and Pennsylvania ?

(2) What percentage & nominal number (separate from our Varsity Football players) played 'High School Football' ?

(3) What percentage & nominal number (separate from our Varsity Mens Basketball players) played 'High School Mens Basketball' ?

(4) And how do the numbers for (1), (2), & (3) compare to the undergraduate demographics of NotreDame, GeorgiaTech, Duke, and UCLA ?

[SkiBum80]

I offer this thought:  The main reason to support our football team is not for football.
It is for the overall school exposure, and for the benefit of most all other of our sports teams.
Because in reality you need to be in a power conference if you hope and expect to field a wide range of nationally relevant, nationally visible, and nationally competitive sports teams in both mens and womens sports.
And the single most important consideration in being invited/allowed into a power conference is having a serious D1 football team.
That's not fair, but that is Life. Historically, and Currently. 
Yes the travel of ACC games is a big burden.
Blame USC and UCLA for that.
The only other alternative at the time, for most of our sports teams, was a future of nationally irrelevant regional games, with no exposure, where over time the interest towards Stanford of top athlete recruits and top coaches wanes, and before you know it, even the prospect or remote hope of a national title has faded to impossibility.
I believe the two biggest things that got us into the ACC were: having a serious D1 football team, even if not a recently successful one, and the very successful diplomacy and politicking by Condoleeza Rice and company.
It is quite possible that college sports will see another disruptive realignment in the future.
And that the ACC and our membership in it doesn't continue as-is for even a decade.
However, joining the ACC was the only possible alternative at the time to keep Stanford sports, most all of them, with a realistic potential to remain nationally visible, nationally competitive, and in contention and consideration to be included in whatever might come next.

[SkiBum80]

I offer this thought:  The main reason to support our football team is not for football.
It is for the overall school exposure, and for the benefit of most all other of our sports teams.
Because in reality you need to be in a power conference if you hope and expect to field a wide range of nationally relevant, nationally visible, and nationally competitive sports teams in both mens and womens sports.
And the single most important consideration in being invited/allowed into a power conference is having a serious D1 football team.
That's not fair, but that is Life. Historically, and Currently. 
Yes the travel of ACC games is a big burden.
Blame USC and UCLA for that.
The only other alternative at the time, for most of our sports teams, was a future of nationally irrelevant regional games, with no exposure, where over time the interest towards Stanford of top athlete recruits and top coaches wanes, and before you know it, even the prospect or remote hope of a national title has faded to impossibility.
I believe the two biggest things that got us into the ACC were: having a serious D1 football team, even if not a recently successful one, and the very successful diplomacy and politicking by Condoleeza Rice and company.
It is quite possible that college sports will see another disruptive realignment in the future.
And that the ACC and our membership in it doesn't continue as-is for even a decade.
However, joining the ACC was the only possible alternative at the time to keep Stanford sports, most all of them, with a realistic potential to remain nationally visible, nationally competitive, and in contention and consideration to be included in whatever might come next.

[StanUSwagU]

I offer this thought:  The main reason to support our football team is not for football.
It is for the overall school exposure, and for the benefit of most all other of our sports teams.
Because in reality you need to be in a power conference if you hope and expect to field a wide range of nationally relevant, nationally visible, and nationally competitive sports teams in both mens and womens sports.
And the single most important consideration in being invited/allowed into a power conference is having a serious D1 football team.
That's not fair, but that is Life. Historically, and Currently. 
Yes the travel of ACC games is a big burden.
Blame USC and UCLA for that.
The only other alternative at the time, for most of our sports teams, was a future of nationally irrelevant regional games, with no exposure, where over time the interest towards Stanford of top athlete recruits and top coaches wanes, and before you know it, even the prospect or remote hope of a national title has faded to impossibility.
I believe the two biggest things that got us into the ACC were: having a serious D1 football team, even if not a recently successful one, and the very successful diplomacy and politicking by Condoleeza Rice and company.
It is quite possible that college sports will see another disruptive realignment in the future.
And that the ACC and our membership in it doesn't continue as-is for even a decade.
However, joining the ACC was the only possible alternative at the time to keep Stanford sports, most all of them, with a realistic potential to remain nationally visible, nationally competitive, and in contention and consideration to be included in whatever might come next.

SkiBum,

I 100% agree with everything you say above relating to the importance to the AthleticDept & other sports, to have a 'Top20 Football Team' as the anchor or FrontPorch.

I do think we all can & should rally & support Stanford Football, irrespective of the program's importance to the other sports ..because Stanford Football men are 'stellar human beings' & because the sport of College Football (like no other) brings people from all walks of life together, and can bring 'Non-Stanford People' of different socio-economic backgrounds from the larger BayArea (who love spending Saturday Afternoons at College Football campuses) ..together with Stanford People, so as to 'cross pollinate the 2 tribes 'Stanford People' and 'Non Stanford People' en large masse. Whereas a more niche sport like womens field hockey or mens water-polo (important as they are) would not do that.

[StanUSwagU]

I offer this thought:  The main reason to support our football team is not for football.
It is for the overall school exposure, and for the benefit of most all other of our sports teams.
Because in reality you need to be in a power conference if you hope and expect to field a wide range of nationally relevant, nationally visible, and nationally competitive sports teams in both mens and womens sports.
And the single most important consideration in being invited/allowed into a power conference is having a serious D1 football team.
That's not fair, but that is Life. Historically, and Currently. 
Yes the travel of ACC games is a big burden.
Blame USC and UCLA for that.
The only other alternative at the time, for most of our sports teams, was a future of nationally irrelevant regional games, with no exposure, where over time the interest towards Stanford of top athlete recruits and top coaches wanes, and before you know it, even the prospect or remote hope of a national title has faded to impossibility.
I believe the two biggest things that got us into the ACC were: having a serious D1 football team, even if not a recently successful one, and the very successful diplomacy and politicking by Condoleeza Rice and company.
It is quite possible that college sports will see another disruptive realignment in the future.
And that the ACC and our membership in it doesn't continue as-is for even a decade.
However, joining the ACC was the only possible alternative at the time to keep Stanford sports, most all of them, with a realistic potential to remain nationally visible, nationally competitive, and in contention and consideration to be included in whatever might come next.

SkiBum,

I 100% agree with everything you say above relating to the importance to the AthleticDept & other sports, to have a 'Top20 Football Team' as the anchor or FrontPorch.

I do think we all can & should rally & support Stanford Football, irrespective of the program's importance to the other sports ..because Stanford Football men are 'stellar human beings' & because the sport of College Football (like no other) brings people from all walks of life together, and can bring 'Non-Stanford People' of different socio-economic backgrounds from the larger BayArea (who love spending Saturday Afternoons at College Football campuses) ..together with Stanford People, so as to 'cross pollinate the 2 tribes 'Stanford People' and 'Non Stanford People' en large masse. Whereas a more niche sport like womens field hockey or mens water-polo (important as they are) would not do that.

[Giants]

“Blame USC and UCLA for that”

This is a comment that I find highly questionable.

In an alternate universe, insert Stanford and Cal for the southern California schools.  Would we bemoan the destruction of the Pac12 by blaming ourselves?

Of course not, we would relish the idea of being a member of the best conference in the country (Big Ten) and cry crocodile tears for our neighbors to the south.

In other words, I do not think USC or UCLA merit blame.  Rather they should be congratulated for their foresight re: the direction college football was taking and got involved early to ensure a soft landing.

Quite frankly, I wish Stanford and Cal would have gotten in line in front of USC and UCLA.  The Big Ten would have been a great upgrade.

[Giants]

“Blame USC and UCLA for that”

This is a comment that I find highly questionable.

In an alternate universe, insert Stanford and Cal for the southern California schools.  Would we bemoan the destruction of the Pac12 by blaming ourselves?

Of course not, we would relish the idea of being a member of the best conference in the country (Big Ten) and cry crocodile tears for our neighbors to the south.

In other words, I do not think USC or UCLA merit blame.  Rather they should be congratulated for their foresight re: the direction college football was taking and got involved early to ensure a soft landing.

Quite frankly, I wish Stanford and Cal would have gotten in line in front of USC and UCLA.  The Big Ten would have been a great upgrade.

[Treebound]

Great insights in this thread.
A few points:

1) Undergrad Population:  The university has wanted to increase the undergraduate population for some time.  The challenges with the GUP, Joe Simitian, Santa Clara AND San Mateo counties have been the problem. Simitian is retiring and Levin and team are doing things thoughtfully to take another swing at getting a new GUP passed.  It's going to take time and I don't see a path to +2500 in the near term.   Hennessy stated the dealing with the GUP was the most challenging/painful issue of his tenure.
 
2) Nerd Nation - I have an undergrad at Stanford now and my others also went there.  Yes, it is "nerdier," but I think some of that is a) the rise of the Silicon Valley/Tech over the last 30+ years and Stanford's strong ties to it as well as b) the overall ratcheting/competitiveness of the college admissions process - it's brutal and I feel for these kids.   CS has now become the largest major at Stanford.  That said, there is still a core group of students who are real fans and go to games, despite the current challenges of football and basketball.  That was me back in the mid/late 80's, when it wasn't hard to get a court seat in Maples for a hoops game vs UofA, UNC (Jordan) or UCLA.  We get a bunch of these kids to our tailgates and they are just as enthusiastic as we were.

3) Numbers - After BC's excellent post, I just reread some of my notes for FY24/25:  Broadcast contribution was $10M, Conference was $5M and NCAA was $1.9, so your $15M is right on.  Overall Operating Rev was $140.7.  Here's to the just announced BTS concerts adding to these numbers!

4) Giving:  Yes, it would be wonderful to have a "Mark Cuban" throw money at the problem and that's what Shayne and Co will try to do following on Brad's $50M gift, but that's going to take time. I expect to hear of more donations soon.  Hennessy was able to get Phil to donate $400M for the Knight-Hennessy Scholars program, so there are worthy and competing priorities across the University for those types of BIG donations.

[Treebound]

Great insights in this thread.
A few points:

1) Undergrad Population:  The university has wanted to increase the undergraduate population for some time.  The challenges with the GUP, Joe Simitian, Santa Clara AND San Mateo counties have been the problem. Simitian is retiring and Levin and team are doing things thoughtfully to take another swing at getting a new GUP passed.  It's going to take time and I don't see a path to +2500 in the near term.   Hennessy stated the dealing with the GUP was the most challenging/painful issue of his tenure.
 
2) Nerd Nation - I have an undergrad at Stanford now and my others also went there.  Yes, it is "nerdier," but I think some of that is a) the rise of the Silicon Valley/Tech over the last 30+ years and Stanford's strong ties to it as well as b) the overall ratcheting/competitiveness of the college admissions process - it's brutal and I feel for these kids.   CS has now become the largest major at Stanford.  That said, there is still a core group of students who are real fans and go to games, despite the current challenges of football and basketball.  That was me back in the mid/late 80's, when it wasn't hard to get a court seat in Maples for a hoops game vs UofA, UNC (Jordan) or UCLA.  We get a bunch of these kids to our tailgates and they are just as enthusiastic as we were.

3) Numbers - After BC's excellent post, I just reread some of my notes for FY24/25:  Broadcast contribution was $10M, Conference was $5M and NCAA was $1.9, so your $15M is right on.  Overall Operating Rev was $140.7.  Here's to the just announced BTS concerts adding to these numbers!

4) Giving:  Yes, it would be wonderful to have a "Mark Cuban" throw money at the problem and that's what Shayne and Co will try to do following on Brad's $50M gift, but that's going to take time. I expect to hear of more donations soon.  Hennessy was able to get Phil to donate $400M for the Knight-Hennessy Scholars program, so there are worthy and competing priorities across the University for those types of BIG donations.

[StanUSwagU]

Great insights in this thread.
A few points:

1) Undergrad Population:  The university has wanted to increase the undergraduate population for some time.  The challenges with the GUP, Joe Simitian, Santa Clara AND San Mateo counties have been the problem. Simitian is retiring and Levin and team are doing things thoughtfully to take another swing at getting a new GUP passed.  It's going to take time and I don't see a path to +2500 in the near term.   Hennessy stated the dealing with the GUP was the most challenging/painful issue of his tenure.
 
2) Nerd Nation - I have an undergrad at Stanford now and my others also went there.  Yes, it is "nerdier," but I think some of that is a) the rise of the Silicon Valley/Tech over the last 30+ years and Stanford's strong ties to it as well as b) the overall ratcheting/competitiveness of the college admissions process - it's brutal and I feel for these kids.   CS has now become the largest major at Stanford.  That said, there is still a core group of students who are real fans and go to games, despite the current challenges of football and basketball.  That was me back in the mid/late 80's, when it wasn't hard to get a court seat in Maples for a hoops game vs UofA, UNC (Jordan) or UCLA.  We get a bunch of these kids to our tailgates and they are just as enthusiastic as we were.

3) Numbers - After BC's excellent post, I just reread some of my notes for FY24/25:  Broadcast contribution was $10M, Conference was $5M and NCAA was $1.9, so your $15M is right on.  Overall Operating Rev was $140.7.  Here's to the just announced BTS concerts adding to these numbers!

4) Giving:  Yes, it would be wonderful to have a "Mark Cuban" throw money at the problem and that's what Shayne and Co will try to do following on Brad's $50M gift, but that's going to take time. I expect to hear of more donations soon.  Hennessy was able to get Phil to donate $400M for the Knight-Hennessy Scholars program, so there are worthy and competing priorities across the University for those types of BIG donations.

TreeBound,

Thanks for the info.

[StanUSwagU]

Great insights in this thread.
A few points:

1) Undergrad Population:  The university has wanted to increase the undergraduate population for some time.  The challenges with the GUP, Joe Simitian, Santa Clara AND San Mateo counties have been the problem. Simitian is retiring and Levin and team are doing things thoughtfully to take another swing at getting a new GUP passed.  It's going to take time and I don't see a path to +2500 in the near term.   Hennessy stated the dealing with the GUP was the most challenging/painful issue of his tenure.
 
2) Nerd Nation - I have an undergrad at Stanford now and my others also went there.  Yes, it is "nerdier," but I think some of that is a) the rise of the Silicon Valley/Tech over the last 30+ years and Stanford's strong ties to it as well as b) the overall ratcheting/competitiveness of the college admissions process - it's brutal and I feel for these kids.   CS has now become the largest major at Stanford.  That said, there is still a core group of students who are real fans and go to games, despite the current challenges of football and basketball.  That was me back in the mid/late 80's, when it wasn't hard to get a court seat in Maples for a hoops game vs UofA, UNC (Jordan) or UCLA.  We get a bunch of these kids to our tailgates and they are just as enthusiastic as we were.

3) Numbers - After BC's excellent post, I just reread some of my notes for FY24/25:  Broadcast contribution was $10M, Conference was $5M and NCAA was $1.9, so your $15M is right on.  Overall Operating Rev was $140.7.  Here's to the just announced BTS concerts adding to these numbers!

4) Giving:  Yes, it would be wonderful to have a "Mark Cuban" throw money at the problem and that's what Shayne and Co will try to do following on Brad's $50M gift, but that's going to take time. I expect to hear of more donations soon.  Hennessy was able to get Phil to donate $400M for the Knight-Hennessy Scholars program, so there are worthy and competing priorities across the University for those types of BIG donations.

TreeBound,

Thanks for the info.

[Treebound]

“Blame USC and UCLA for that”

This is a comment that I find highly questionable.

In an alternate universe, insert Stanford and Cal for the southern California schools.  Would we bemoan the destruction of the Pac12 by blaming ourselves?

Of course not, we would relish the idea of being a member of the best conference in the country (Big Ten) and cry crocodile tears for our neighbors to the south.

In other words, I do not think USC or UCLA merit blame.  Rather they should be congratulated for their foresight re: the direction college football was taking and got involved early to ensure a soft landing.

Quite frankly, I wish Stanford and Cal would have gotten in line in front of USC and UCLA.  The Big Ten would have been a great upgrade.

Giants, 
u$c and UCLA were the main reason that Texas and Oklahoma were not allowed to join the Pac12, when they were very interested in coming over.  I have heard it was because the LA schools liked being the center/power of the Pac universe and didn't want the added competition.  Had those two schools joined the Pac, I think it would be a very different Power 4 today and our student athletes would not be making all of these challenging cross country trips.  I think it's fair to put blame on them for that shortsighted view and I also blame the commissioner and Muir for not pushing harder.  Would love to know more about those negotiations from those that were "in the room where it happened."

[Treebound]

“Blame USC and UCLA for that”

This is a comment that I find highly questionable.

In an alternate universe, insert Stanford and Cal for the southern California schools.  Would we bemoan the destruction of the Pac12 by blaming ourselves?

Of course not, we would relish the idea of being a member of the best conference in the country (Big Ten) and cry crocodile tears for our neighbors to the south.

In other words, I do not think USC or UCLA merit blame.  Rather they should be congratulated for their foresight re: the direction college football was taking and got involved early to ensure a soft landing.

Quite frankly, I wish Stanford and Cal would have gotten in line in front of USC and UCLA.  The Big Ten would have been a great upgrade.

Giants, 
u$c and UCLA were the main reason that Texas and Oklahoma were not allowed to join the Pac12, when they were very interested in coming over.  I have heard it was because the LA schools liked being the center/power of the Pac universe and didn't want the added competition.  Had those two schools joined the Pac, I think it would be a very different Power 4 today and our student athletes would not be making all of these challenging cross country trips.  I think it's fair to put blame on them for that shortsighted view and I also blame the commissioner and Muir for not pushing harder.  Would love to know more about those negotiations from those that were "in the room where it happened."