[M T]

Dawn Staley on money & transfers 
https://apnews.com/article/dawn-staley-r...bee10b400b

[M T]

Dawn Staley on money & transfers 
https://apnews.com/article/dawn-staley-r...bee10b400b

[BostonCard]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that 3-4 of our big three juniors and big three frosh were seriously considering hitting the portal.  Who would have the best chance of retaining them:  Kate, Scott Rueck, or Lindy La Rocque?

Interesting question in light of the link from MT quoting Dawn Staley about the portal:

“How much is it going to cost us? That’s the conversation. You’ve got to lead with that,” Staley said as the Gamecocks prepare to face TCU in the Elite Eight of the women’s NCAA Tournament. “Because you don’t really want to waste your time. You either are going to have enough to pay players, or you don’t. And you move on.”

In light of that, I think it would be whichever of them can convince donors to step up and come up with the cash to retain those players.

Also interesting that the TCU coach is bragging about his ability to bring in players through the portal:

“We’ve built our program literally all through the portal, for you guys that haven’t followed us,” Horned Frogs coach Mark Campbell said. “I think we’ve had 18 portal players, six each year. And our program’s come a long ways. There’s a lot of negative you hear about the portal. I think there’s a lot of positive too.”

WBB as we know it is completely different than it was even 5 years ago.

BC

[BostonCard]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that 3-4 of our big three juniors and big three frosh were seriously considering hitting the portal.  Who would have the best chance of retaining them:  Kate, Scott Rueck, or Lindy La Rocque?

Interesting question in light of the link from MT quoting Dawn Staley about the portal:

“How much is it going to cost us? That’s the conversation. You’ve got to lead with that,” Staley said as the Gamecocks prepare to face TCU in the Elite Eight of the women’s NCAA Tournament. “Because you don’t really want to waste your time. You either are going to have enough to pay players, or you don’t. And you move on.”

In light of that, I think it would be whichever of them can convince donors to step up and come up with the cash to retain those players.

Also interesting that the TCU coach is bragging about his ability to bring in players through the portal:

“We’ve built our program literally all through the portal, for you guys that haven’t followed us,” Horned Frogs coach Mark Campbell said. “I think we’ve had 18 portal players, six each year. And our program’s come a long ways. There’s a lot of negative you hear about the portal. I think there’s a lot of positive too.”

WBB as we know it is completely different than it was even 5 years ago.

BC

[BobK]

https://x.com/rystar7_/status/2035766579741495462?s=46

Another three point shooter Starwalt HSer from Oregon. What caught my eye was her Dad so complimentary about Harper Peterson

[BobK]

https://x.com/rystar7_/status/2035766579741495462?s=46

Another three point shooter Starwalt HSer from Oregon. What caught my eye was her Dad so complimentary about Harper Peterson

[PalmTree]

https://x.com/rystar7_/status/2035766579741495462?s=46

Another three point shooter  Starwalt HSer from Oregon. What caught my eye was her Dad so complimentary about Harper Peterson

Any such complement must be buried so deep in X,  I have to commend your ferreting it out :-)

His daughter ('27) looks like a player - would be great if she shows interest, in spite of the dad's obvious Iowa and OSU lean.

[PalmTree]

https://x.com/rystar7_/status/2035766579741495462?s=46

Another three point shooter  Starwalt HSer from Oregon. What caught my eye was her Dad so complimentary about Harper Peterson

Any such complement must be buried so deep in X,  I have to commend your ferreting it out :-)

His daughter ('27) looks like a player - would be great if she shows interest, in spite of the dad's obvious Iowa and OSU lean.

[jonnyss]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

[jonnyss]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

[2006alum]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

I'm not sure I read this the same way - I just think Stanford has ALWAYS been cagier about talking money, and both Tara and Kate always kept their cards close to the vest. Dawn is famous for her "hatching chick" tweets just before she gets new recruit commitments, and she's generally a "keep it real" kind of person with the media. I like that a lot about Dawn, and I've always wished our coaching staff could loosen up a little bit in front of the cameras. BUT: I have no doubt from conversations I've had with folks in the AD that they are having those conversations - openly - behind closed doors. I just think Stanford is not a "real talk" kind of institution - never has been, never will be.

[2006alum]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

I'm not sure I read this the same way - I just think Stanford has ALWAYS been cagier about talking money, and both Tara and Kate always kept their cards close to the vest. Dawn is famous for her "hatching chick" tweets just before she gets new recruit commitments, and she's generally a "keep it real" kind of person with the media. I like that a lot about Dawn, and I've always wished our coaching staff could loosen up a little bit in front of the cameras. BUT: I have no doubt from conversations I've had with folks in the AD that they are having those conversations - openly - behind closed doors. I just think Stanford is not a "real talk" kind of institution - never has been, never will be.

[PalmTree]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

[PalmTree]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

[crackpot]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

I'm not sure I read this the same way - I just think Stanford has ALWAYS been cagier about talking money, and both Tara and Kate always kept their cards close to the vest. Dawn is famous for her "hatching chick" tweets just before she gets new recruit commitments, and she's generally a "keep it real" kind of person with the media. I like that a lot about Dawn, and I've always wished our coaching staff could loosen up a little bit in front of the cameras. BUT: I have no doubt from conversations I've had with folks in the AD that they are having those conversations - openly - behind closed doors. I just think Stanford is not a "real talk" kind of institution - never has been, never will be.

I love her for this:

She said all but one of her players has earned a degree and she threatened to put social media pressure on the one who hasn’t.

[crackpot]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

I'm not sure I read this the same way - I just think Stanford has ALWAYS been cagier about talking money, and both Tara and Kate always kept their cards close to the vest. Dawn is famous for her "hatching chick" tweets just before she gets new recruit commitments, and she's generally a "keep it real" kind of person with the media. I like that a lot about Dawn, and I've always wished our coaching staff could loosen up a little bit in front of the cameras. BUT: I have no doubt from conversations I've had with folks in the AD that they are having those conversations - openly - behind closed doors. I just think Stanford is not a "real talk" kind of institution - never has been, never will be.

I love her for this:

She said all but one of her players has earned a degree and she threatened to put social media pressure on the one who hasn’t.

[jonnyss]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

not reassured, thanks. changing a title, like changing facebook's name to meta, doesn't ring my bell. it seems corporate-speak to me. almost every year, my health insurance company takes a new name; yet my premium goes up, not down. i haven't heard tempie say a word about stanford's progress, if any, in nil; and i don't see any hits on google. i do understand that she may be at this very moment be quietly offering $500,000 to a top transfer to fill harper's spot. if so, i will be surprised and delighted as so far the best we have pulled is mas - a good player but not a game-changer. did we offer big bucks to olivia miles, who originally considered stanford, before she transferred to tcu?

my allusion?

Donahue made 23 million at nike per year.  i am guessing he is paid more than muir; i would be happy to be proved wrong.

iirc correctly the coo position for daper is a relatively new addition to the sports budget. stanford is currently advertising for a new coo (ie donahoe's assistant) to replace alden mitchell (cf her instagram selfie of herself apparently engaged in sports betting) at the openly named salary of $460-535

andrew luck's position may or may not pay a lot, but it's an additional high-level administrator. at least andrew seems to be doing something useful for his $.

[jonnyss]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

not reassured, thanks. changing a title, like changing facebook's name to meta, doesn't ring my bell. it seems corporate-speak to me. almost every year, my health insurance company takes a new name; yet my premium goes up, not down. i haven't heard tempie say a word about stanford's progress, if any, in nil; and i don't see any hits on google. i do understand that she may be at this very moment be quietly offering $500,000 to a top transfer to fill harper's spot. if so, i will be surprised and delighted as so far the best we have pulled is mas - a good player but not a game-changer. did we offer big bucks to olivia miles, who originally considered stanford, before she transferred to tcu?

my allusion?

Donahue made 23 million at nike per year.  i am guessing he is paid more than muir; i would be happy to be proved wrong.

iirc correctly the coo position for daper is a relatively new addition to the sports budget. stanford is currently advertising for a new coo (ie donahoe's assistant) to replace alden mitchell (cf her instagram selfie of herself apparently engaged in sports betting) at the openly named salary of $460-535

andrew luck's position may or may not pay a lot, but it's an additional high-level administrator. at least andrew seems to be doing something useful for his $.

[PalmTree]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

not reassured, thanks. changing a title, like changing facebook's name to meta, doesn't ring my bell. it seems corporate-speak to me. almost every year, my health insurance company takes a new name; yet my premium goes up, not down. i haven't heard tempie say a word about stanford's progress, if any, in nil; and i don't see any hits on google. i do understand that she may be at this very moment be quietly offering $500,000 to a top transfer to fill harper's spot. if so, i will be surprised and delighted as so far the best we have pulled is mas - a good player but not a game-changer. did we offer big bucks to olivia miles, who originally considered stanford, before she transferred to tcu?

my allusion?

Donahue made 23 million at nike per year.  i am guessing he is paid more than muir; i would be happy to be proved wrong.

iirc correctly the coo position for daper is a relatively new addition to the sports budget. stanford is currently advertising for a new coo (ie donahoe's assistant) to replace alden mitchell (cf her instagram selfie of herself apparently engaged in sports betting) at the openly named salary of $460-535

andrew luck's position may or may not pay a lot, but it's an additional high-level administrator. at least andrew seems to be doing something useful for his $.

Well - I'll agree we're dealing with little or no information about what's really being done to address these issues/areas or about what any of these folks  - Tempie Brown, the new COO and AL all included - are supposed to be, and are actually, doing to make things "better". I'm curious and appreciate, but don't feel obligated to any explanations of what's under the hood or in depth play-by-plays because AFAIC, it's all still a bunch of moving targets with all the changes in college athletics and resultant DAPER structure/personnel. + as 2006alum noted, that's just not Stanford's communication style. Maybe I have lower expectations communications-wise, but different strokes for different folks.

[PalmTree]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

not reassured, thanks. changing a title, like changing facebook's name to meta, doesn't ring my bell. it seems corporate-speak to me. almost every year, my health insurance company takes a new name; yet my premium goes up, not down. i haven't heard tempie say a word about stanford's progress, if any, in nil; and i don't see any hits on google. i do understand that she may be at this very moment be quietly offering $500,000 to a top transfer to fill harper's spot. if so, i will be surprised and delighted as so far the best we have pulled is mas - a good player but not a game-changer. did we offer big bucks to olivia miles, who originally considered stanford, before she transferred to tcu?

my allusion?

Donahue made 23 million at nike per year.  i am guessing he is paid more than muir; i would be happy to be proved wrong.

iirc correctly the coo position for daper is a relatively new addition to the sports budget. stanford is currently advertising for a new coo (ie donahoe's assistant) to replace alden mitchell (cf her instagram selfie of herself apparently engaged in sports betting) at the openly named salary of $460-535

andrew luck's position may or may not pay a lot, but it's an additional high-level administrator. at least andrew seems to be doing something useful for his $.

Well - I'll agree we're dealing with little or no information about what's really being done to address these issues/areas or about what any of these folks  - Tempie Brown, the new COO and AL all included - are supposed to be, and are actually, doing to make things "better". I'm curious and appreciate, but don't feel obligated to any explanations of what's under the hood or in depth play-by-plays because AFAIC, it's all still a bunch of moving targets with all the changes in college athletics and resultant DAPER structure/personnel. + as 2006alum noted, that's just not Stanford's communication style. Maybe I have lower expectations communications-wise, but different strokes for different folks.

[jonnyss]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

not reassured, thanks. changing a title, like changing facebook's name to meta, doesn't ring my bell. it seems corporate-speak to me. almost every year, my health insurance company takes a new name; yet my premium goes up, not down. i haven't heard tempie say a word about stanford's progress, if any, in nil; and i don't see any hits on google. i do understand that she may be at this very moment be quietly offering $500,000 to a top transfer to fill harper's spot. if so, i will be surprised and delighted as so far the best we have pulled is mas - a good player but not a game-changer. did we offer big bucks to olivia miles, who originally considered stanford, before she transferred to tcu?

my allusion?

Donahue made 23 million at nike per year.  i am guessing he is paid more than muir; i would be happy to be proved wrong.

iirc correctly the coo position for daper is a relatively new addition to the sports budget. stanford is currently advertising for a new coo (ie donahoe's assistant) to replace alden mitchell (cf her instagram selfie of herself apparently engaged in sports betting) at the openly named salary of $460-535

andrew luck's position may or may not pay a lot, but it's an additional high-level administrator. at least andrew seems to be doing something useful for his $.

Well - I'll agree we're dealing with little or no information about what's really being done to address these issues/areas or about what any of these folks  - Tempie Brown, the new COO and AL all included - are supposed to be, and are actually, doing to make things "better". I'm curious and appreciate, but don't feel obligated to any explanations of what's under the hood or in depth play-by-plays because AFAIC, it's all still a bunch of moving targets with all the changes in college athletics and resultant DAPER structure/personnel. + as 2006alum noted, that's just not Stanford's communication style. Maybe I have lower expectations communications-wise, but different strokes for different folks.

yes and no. we do have the data that stanford loses top transfers out and is thus far unsuccessful in getting top transfers in. 

we don't have the details of whether this has anything to do with $ offered compared to other schools, but isn't it natural to wonder? i think it's commonly accepted that it was true for nijaree canady

if we got as many top transfers in as we lost, then, sure, we needn't care about the details.

[jonnyss]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

not reassured, thanks. changing a title, like changing facebook's name to meta, doesn't ring my bell. it seems corporate-speak to me. almost every year, my health insurance company takes a new name; yet my premium goes up, not down. i haven't heard tempie say a word about stanford's progress, if any, in nil; and i don't see any hits on google. i do understand that she may be at this very moment be quietly offering $500,000 to a top transfer to fill harper's spot. if so, i will be surprised and delighted as so far the best we have pulled is mas - a good player but not a game-changer. did we offer big bucks to olivia miles, who originally considered stanford, before she transferred to tcu?

my allusion?

Donahue made 23 million at nike per year.  i am guessing he is paid more than muir; i would be happy to be proved wrong.

iirc correctly the coo position for daper is a relatively new addition to the sports budget. stanford is currently advertising for a new coo (ie donahoe's assistant) to replace alden mitchell (cf her instagram selfie of herself apparently engaged in sports betting) at the openly named salary of $460-535

andrew luck's position may or may not pay a lot, but it's an additional high-level administrator. at least andrew seems to be doing something useful for his $.

Well - I'll agree we're dealing with little or no information about what's really being done to address these issues/areas or about what any of these folks  - Tempie Brown, the new COO and AL all included - are supposed to be, and are actually, doing to make things "better". I'm curious and appreciate, but don't feel obligated to any explanations of what's under the hood or in depth play-by-plays because AFAIC, it's all still a bunch of moving targets with all the changes in college athletics and resultant DAPER structure/personnel. + as 2006alum noted, that's just not Stanford's communication style. Maybe I have lower expectations communications-wise, but different strokes for different folks.

yes and no. we do have the data that stanford loses top transfers out and is thus far unsuccessful in getting top transfers in. 

we don't have the details of whether this has anything to do with $ offered compared to other schools, but isn't it natural to wonder? i think it's commonly accepted that it was true for nijaree canady

if we got as many top transfers in as we lost, then, sure, we needn't care about the details.

[BostonCard]

1775000604[/url]']
yes and no. we do have the data that stanford loses top transfers out and is thus far unsuccessful in getting top transfers in. 

we don't have the details of whether this has anything to do with $ offered compared to other schools, but isn't it natural to wonder? i think it's commonly accepted that it was true for nijaree canady

if we got as many top transfers in as we lost, then, sure, we needn't care about the details.

I think the problem with this assessment is that it is an asymmetric process due to admissions requirement.  It is clear that we have lost multiple top proven players across multiple sports to other schools for more lucrative offers, including Canady (softball), Iriafen (WBB), Bailey (football), Stojakovic (MBB, who subsequently transferred again), and others. The limited portal window combined with requirements for admissions mean that the stars have to align even before we can make an NIL offer to an inbound transfer, so I think we have generally attracted much lower profile inbound players than the ones who have departed.  I think MAS might have been the highest profile inbound transfer that we have had.

But let’s say, hypothetically, that we did mange to eliminate the barriers to inbound transfers.  There’s still the issue of where we get the money.  The athletics department is already a money hole.  The University, which subsidizes the shortfall, had to cut a large chunk of the budget and dozens of jobs last year.  We have many rich alums, but really only Bradford Freeman who has stepped up to try to provide the cash for House settlement and NIL deals.  We need tens of millions of dollars each and every year just to be competitive.  Here’s an estimate (I can’t vouch for the accuracy, but it was the best I found online) for NIL spending for each of the Sweet Sixteen men’s basketball teams.

https://x.com/mikefrank152027/status/203...51129?s=61

(Basically $6 - 12 million).  

Here’s football NIL spending (same source):
https://x.com/mikefrank152027/status/201...78298?s=61
(Basically $20 - 30 million)

Women’s basketball is probably not quite as expensive, but I would expect that amongst the best teams, it is in the low single digit millions. In the immortal words of Cuba Gooding Jr.:

“Show me the money”

https://share.google/s84ro6azSUwWC7Juy

BC

[BostonCard]

1775000604[/url]']
yes and no. we do have the data that stanford loses top transfers out and is thus far unsuccessful in getting top transfers in. 

we don't have the details of whether this has anything to do with $ offered compared to other schools, but isn't it natural to wonder? i think it's commonly accepted that it was true for nijaree canady

if we got as many top transfers in as we lost, then, sure, we needn't care about the details.

I think the problem with this assessment is that it is an asymmetric process due to admissions requirement.  It is clear that we have lost multiple top proven players across multiple sports to other schools for more lucrative offers, including Canady (softball), Iriafen (WBB), Bailey (football), Stojakovic (MBB, who subsequently transferred again), and others. The limited portal window combined with requirements for admissions mean that the stars have to align even before we can make an NIL offer to an inbound transfer, so I think we have generally attracted much lower profile inbound players than the ones who have departed.  I think MAS might have been the highest profile inbound transfer that we have had.

But let’s say, hypothetically, that we did mange to eliminate the barriers to inbound transfers.  There’s still the issue of where we get the money.  The athletics department is already a money hole.  The University, which subsidizes the shortfall, had to cut a large chunk of the budget and dozens of jobs last year.  We have many rich alums, but really only Bradford Freeman who has stepped up to try to provide the cash for House settlement and NIL deals.  We need tens of millions of dollars each and every year just to be competitive.  Here’s an estimate (I can’t vouch for the accuracy, but it was the best I found online) for NIL spending for each of the Sweet Sixteen men’s basketball teams.

https://x.com/mikefrank152027/status/203...51129?s=61

(Basically $6 - 12 million).  

Here’s football NIL spending (same source):
https://x.com/mikefrank152027/status/201...78298?s=61
(Basically $20 - 30 million)

Women’s basketball is probably not quite as expensive, but I would expect that amongst the best teams, it is in the low single digit millions. In the immortal words of Cuba Gooding Jr.:

“Show me the money”

https://share.google/s84ro6azSUwWC7Juy

BC

[jonnyss]

i offered, above, that we appear to be trying to solve the problem of not enough $ to attract top athletes by hiring very fancy (and likely expensive) administrators. am i wrong in my guess that john Donahue is highly paid? we know that his coo is being offered 500k.

[jonnyss]

i offered, above, that we appear to be trying to solve the problem of not enough $ to attract top athletes by hiring very fancy (and likely expensive) administrators. am i wrong in my guess that john Donahue is highly paid? we know that his coo is being offered 500k.

[PalmTree]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

not reassured, thanks. changing a title, like changing facebook's name to meta, doesn't ring my bell. it seems corporate-speak to me. almost every year, my health insurance company takes a new name; yet my premium goes up, not down. i haven't heard tempie say a word about stanford's progress, if any, in nil; and i don't see any hits on google. i do understand that she may be at this very moment be quietly offering $500,000 to a top transfer to fill harper's spot. if so, i will be surprised and delighted as so far the best we have pulled is mas - a good player but not a game-changer. did we offer big bucks to olivia miles, who originally considered stanford, before she transferred to tcu?

my allusion?

Donahue made 23 million at nike per year.  i am guessing he is paid more than muir; i would be happy to be proved wrong.

iirc correctly the coo position for daper is a relatively new addition to the sports budget. stanford is currently advertising for a new coo (ie donahoe's assistant) to replace alden mitchell (cf her instagram selfie of herself apparently engaged in sports betting) at the openly named salary of $460-535

andrew luck's position may or may not pay a lot, but it's an additional high-level administrator. at least andrew seems to be doing something useful for his $.

Well - I'll agree we're dealing with little or no information about what's really being done to address these issues/areas or about what any of these folks  - Tempie Brown, the new COO and AL all included - are supposed to be, and are actually, doing to make things "better". I'm curious and appreciate, but don't feel obligated to any explanations of what's under the hood or in depth play-by-plays because AFAIC, it's all still a bunch of moving targets with all the changes in college athletics and resultant DAPER structure/personnel. + as 2006alum noted, that's just not Stanford's communication style. Maybe I have lower expectations communications-wise, but different strokes for different folks.

yes and no. we do have the data that stanford loses top transfers out and is thus far unsuccessful in getting top transfers in. 

we don't have the details of whether this has anything to do with $ offered compared to other schools, but isn't it natural to wonder? i think it's commonly accepted that it was true for nijaree canady

if we got as many top transfers in as we lost, then, sure, we needn't care about the details.

Agree that we can care about the details, but not that we, as fans, need to know (all) the details, in particular, how much we  offer a target.  College sports is basically now just a big business and best management practice dictates keeping info in the hands of those who really need to know.  If the details come out, fine - if not, fine and, as Dawn Staley said, just move on.

[PalmTree]

to me it's not a good sign that stanford wbb doesn't talk openly about $ and the portal - maybe not the exact $ but at least, like dawn staley as in your link, that it's in our wbb recruiting calculations. 

to me it's not a good sign that instead stanford talks about the big bucks administrators it's bringing in.

Announcing Tempie Brown's new GM role seemed to cover your first concern to some extent, maybe not as much as you'd like, but it did signal acknowledgement of a need for more focused efforts. Maybe the press needs to be creative in pushing coaches more to get some added perspectives or insights?

Not quite sure what you're alluding to in your second paragraph.

not reassured, thanks. changing a title, like changing facebook's name to meta, doesn't ring my bell. it seems corporate-speak to me. almost every year, my health insurance company takes a new name; yet my premium goes up, not down. i haven't heard tempie say a word about stanford's progress, if any, in nil; and i don't see any hits on google. i do understand that she may be at this very moment be quietly offering $500,000 to a top transfer to fill harper's spot. if so, i will be surprised and delighted as so far the best we have pulled is mas - a good player but not a game-changer. did we offer big bucks to olivia miles, who originally considered stanford, before she transferred to tcu?

my allusion?

Donahue made 23 million at nike per year.  i am guessing he is paid more than muir; i would be happy to be proved wrong.

iirc correctly the coo position for daper is a relatively new addition to the sports budget. stanford is currently advertising for a new coo (ie donahoe's assistant) to replace alden mitchell (cf her instagram selfie of herself apparently engaged in sports betting) at the openly named salary of $460-535

andrew luck's position may or may not pay a lot, but it's an additional high-level administrator. at least andrew seems to be doing something useful for his $.

Well - I'll agree we're dealing with little or no information about what's really being done to address these issues/areas or about what any of these folks  - Tempie Brown, the new COO and AL all included - are supposed to be, and are actually, doing to make things "better". I'm curious and appreciate, but don't feel obligated to any explanations of what's under the hood or in depth play-by-plays because AFAIC, it's all still a bunch of moving targets with all the changes in college athletics and resultant DAPER structure/personnel. + as 2006alum noted, that's just not Stanford's communication style. Maybe I have lower expectations communications-wise, but different strokes for different folks.

yes and no. we do have the data that stanford loses top transfers out and is thus far unsuccessful in getting top transfers in. 

we don't have the details of whether this has anything to do with $ offered compared to other schools, but isn't it natural to wonder? i think it's commonly accepted that it was true for nijaree canady

if we got as many top transfers in as we lost, then, sure, we needn't care about the details.

Agree that we can care about the details, but not that we, as fans, need to know (all) the details, in particular, how much we  offer a target.  College sports is basically now just a big business and best management practice dictates keeping info in the hands of those who really need to know.  If the details come out, fine - if not, fine and, as Dawn Staley said, just move on.

[BobK]

Actually there was a meeting several weeks for big donors. Not me but friends. I’m not going to pass on anything but we are looking at the portal when it opens and I’m sure those who have declared.

[BobK]

Actually there was a meeting several weeks for big donors. Not me but friends. I’m not going to pass on anything but we are looking at the portal when it opens and I’m sure those who have declared.

[jonnyss]

Actually there was a meeting several weeks for big donors. Not me but friends. I’m not going to pass on anything but we are looking at the portal when it opens and I’m sure those who have declared.

excellent!

[jonnyss]

Actually there was a meeting several weeks for big donors. Not me but friends. I’m not going to pass on anything but we are looking at the portal when it opens and I’m sure those who have declared.

excellent!

[BostonCard]

Actually there was a meeting several weeks for big donors. Not me but friends. I’m not going to pass on anything but we are looking at the portal when it opens and I’m sure those who have declared.

Not going to lie, but I have mixed feelings about all this.  The part of me that prefers to support winning teams rather than losing teams is happy, but as the old saying goes, we’ve already agreed on what we are; it is just a negotiation on price.

My bottom line is that people can do whatever they want with their own money, and if it is paying talented 20-year-olds to put a ball in a hoop who am I to really object.

BC

[BostonCard]

Actually there was a meeting several weeks for big donors. Not me but friends. I’m not going to pass on anything but we are looking at the portal when it opens and I’m sure those who have declared.

Not going to lie, but I have mixed feelings about all this.  The part of me that prefers to support winning teams rather than losing teams is happy, but as the old saying goes, we’ve already agreed on what we are; it is just a negotiation on price.

My bottom line is that people can do whatever they want with their own money, and if it is paying talented 20-year-olds to put a ball in a hoop who am I to really object.

BC

[PalmTree]

i offered, above, that we appear to be trying to solve the problem of not enough $ to attract top athletes by hiring very fancy (and likely expensive) administrators. am i wrong in my guess that john Donahue is highly paid? we know that his coo is being offered 500k.

If Donahoe's total comp package is one of the the top 20 or so largest at Stanford, the amount will be reported in the university's Form 990 filing which should be released in ~August.  

There may be comparative data of other D1/FBS AD compensation available but they're subscription-based. I think USA Today maintains a database of AD and coach salaries and AthleticDirectorU (ADU) used to conduct pretty useful comp surveys with person-specfic comp data for FBS ADs but the last one I can find is from 2021 (though Muir was listed but without comp info).

[PalmTree]

i offered, above, that we appear to be trying to solve the problem of not enough $ to attract top athletes by hiring very fancy (and likely expensive) administrators. am i wrong in my guess that john Donahue is highly paid? we know that his coo is being offered 500k.

If Donahoe's total comp package is one of the the top 20 or so largest at Stanford, the amount will be reported in the university's Form 990 filing which should be released in ~August.  

There may be comparative data of other D1/FBS AD compensation available but they're subscription-based. I think USA Today maintains a database of AD and coach salaries and AthleticDirectorU (ADU) used to conduct pretty useful comp surveys with person-specfic comp data for FBS ADs but the last one I can find is from 2021 (though Muir was listed but without comp info).

[82lsju]

M

i offered, above, that we appear to be trying to solve the problem of not enough $ to attract top athletes by hiring very fancy (and likely expensive) administrators. am i wrong in my guess that john Donahue is highly paid? we know that his coo is being offered 500k.

If Donahoe's total comp package is one of the the top 20 or so largest at Stanford, the amount will be reported in the university's Form 990 filing which should be released in ~August.  

There may be comparative data of other D1/FBS AD compensation available but they're subscription-based. I think USA Today maintains a database of AD and coach salaries and AthleticDirectorU (ADU) used to conduct pretty useful comp surveys with person-specfic comp data for FBS ADs but the last one I can find is from 2021 (though Muir was listed but without comp info).

The next 990 will be for the year ending 8/31/2025 so he won’t be in it.  And he only would be if he was in the top five for pay or a “key employee” which the AD has not been previously.  Muir’s exit package might be if it is big enough, same for Troy Taylor, Taylor was in the most recent 990 as one of the top five who was not either a key employee or officer

[82lsju]

M

i offered, above, that we appear to be trying to solve the problem of not enough $ to attract top athletes by hiring very fancy (and likely expensive) administrators. am i wrong in my guess that john Donahue is highly paid? we know that his coo is being offered 500k.

If Donahoe's total comp package is one of the the top 20 or so largest at Stanford, the amount will be reported in the university's Form 990 filing which should be released in ~August.  

There may be comparative data of other D1/FBS AD compensation available but they're subscription-based. I think USA Today maintains a database of AD and coach salaries and AthleticDirectorU (ADU) used to conduct pretty useful comp surveys with person-specfic comp data for FBS ADs but the last one I can find is from 2021 (though Muir was listed but without comp info).

The next 990 will be for the year ending 8/31/2025 so he won’t be in it.  And he only would be if he was in the top five for pay or a “key employee” which the AD has not been previously.  Muir’s exit package might be if it is big enough, same for Troy Taylor, Taylor was in the most recent 990 as one of the top five who was not either a key employee or officer

[PalmTree]

i offered, above, that we appear to be trying to solve the problem of not enough $ to attract top athletes by hiring very fancy (and likely expensive) administrators. am i wrong in my guess that john Donahue is highly paid? we know that his coo is being offered 500k.

If Donahoe's total comp package is one of the the top 20 or so largest at Stanford, the amount will be reported in the university's Form 990 filing which should be released in ~August.  

There may be comparative data of other D1/FBS AD compensation available but they're subscription-based. I think USA Today maintains a database of AD and coach salaries and AthleticDirectorU (ADU) used to conduct pretty useful comp surveys with person-specfic comp data for FBS ADs but the last one I can find is from 2021 (though Muir was listed but without comp info).

The next 990 will be for the year ending 8/31/2025 so he won’t be in it.  And he only would be if he was in the top five for pay or a “key employee” which the AD has not been previously.  Muir’s exit package might be if it is big enough, same for Troy Taylor, Taylor was in the most recent 990 as one of the top five who was not either a key employee or director

Thanks for catching that, Eric!

[PalmTree]

i offered, above, that we appear to be trying to solve the problem of not enough $ to attract top athletes by hiring very fancy (and likely expensive) administrators. am i wrong in my guess that john Donahue is highly paid? we know that his coo is being offered 500k.

If Donahoe's total comp package is one of the the top 20 or so largest at Stanford, the amount will be reported in the university's Form 990 filing which should be released in ~August.  

There may be comparative data of other D1/FBS AD compensation available but they're subscription-based. I think USA Today maintains a database of AD and coach salaries and AthleticDirectorU (ADU) used to conduct pretty useful comp surveys with person-specfic comp data for FBS ADs but the last one I can find is from 2021 (though Muir was listed but without comp info).

The next 990 will be for the year ending 8/31/2025 so he won’t be in it.  And he only would be if he was in the top five for pay or a “key employee” which the AD has not been previously.  Muir’s exit package might be if it is big enough, same for Troy Taylor, Taylor was in the most recent 990 as one of the top five who was not either a key employee or director

Thanks for catching that, Eric!