|
Post by slxpress on Apr 23, 2024 1:40:47 GMT -5
Oregon has a decent sized group of professionals dedicated to financially supporting the Oregon NIL program. I think it’s naive to believe Oregon has anything remotely close to the stature in athletics they do without Phil Knight’s influence. He’s certainly a driving force behind them having an active NIL. But once he passes they’ll still have an active NIL. His loss is going to be felt more on the capital improvements side of the budget and the massive annual donations required to keep Oregon’s annual revenue commensurate with the other big boys. Autzen Stadium simply doesn’t produce enough revenue. They can’t expand the stadium because they can’t fill the seats. They need more premium seating with suites and private club seating, but that’s gping to take awhile. In any case, their NIL program is more robust than one guy. More than anything else Oregon has a culture where athletics is recognized as vitally important to the brand overall, and the community is on board with that. It takes significantly more resources to build state of the art facilities than it does to collect $10 to $20 million per year for a significant NIL collective budget. I feel like Oregon is pretty judicious with their NIL money overall. But they’re definitely on the generous side for football. They want to win. Take out Phil Knight and I'd bet good money that Oregon's overall collective athletic donor class is behind Washingtons. But that's neither here nor there, I don't actually care, but I DO think you touched on a very important topic, which is what happens when the old guard of college boosters start dying. Unless they leave part of their estate directly to the athletic departments/collectives, MANY programs will have a new problem to contend with - convincing millennials to care about college sports enough to give these programs and recruiting pools tons of money. This is purely anecdotal, but I think a lot of schools are going to see reduced revenue streams when this happens. Honestly, reduced interest in college sports on the west coast feels like it was an important contributor to the break up of the Pac 12. Not the most important contributor. I feel like that was mismanagement. But a contributor nonetheless. All I know is that in Texas overall sports involvement and sports interest seems to be increasing at every level. A&M in particular looks stronger every year in terms of fundraising and booster support, with a massive increase in enrollment to ensure a growing alumni base. I know Knight has told Oregon athletics what they can expect from his estate, but what that number is and whether it actually plays out that way I don't know. I know they're expecting a substantial number, though. But I'm most interested in what Stanford is going to do in the near and far future. I just don't see their current model holding up competitively, so it's interesting to me to see what choices they make as an institution. A big choice was to land in the ACC when the Big 10 wasn't available. That preserves a bit of an academic peer group in their conference mates. More so than a Big 12 affiliation would have done. But it creates a lot of problems. And I don't see that as a long term conference affiliation since I feel like the ACC is not long for this world.
|
|
|
Post by tristen on Apr 25, 2024 22:22:04 GMT -5
Take out Phil Knight and I'd bet good money that Oregon's overall collective athletic donor class is behind Washingtons. But that's neither here nor there, I don't actually care, but I DO think you touched on a very important topic, which is what happens when the old guard of college boosters start dying. Unless they leave part of their estate directly to the athletic departments/collectives, MANY programs will have a new problem to contend with - convincing millennials to care about college sports enough to give these programs and recruiting pools tons of money. This is purely anecdotal, but I think a lot of schools are going to see reduced revenue streams when this happens. Honestly, reduced interest in college sports on the west coast feels like it was an important contributor to the break up of the Pac 12. Not the most important contributor. I feel like that was mismanagement. But a contributor nonetheless. All I know is that in Texas overall sports involvement and sports interest seems to be increasing at every level. A&M in particular looks stronger every year in terms of fundraising and booster support, with a massive increase in enrollment to ensure a growing alumni base. I know Knight has told Oregon athletics what they can expect from his estate, but what that number is and whether it actually plays out that way I don't know. I know they're expecting a substantial number, though. But I'm most interested in what Stanford is going to do in the near and far future. I just don't see their current model holding up competitively, so it's interesting to me to see what choices they make as an institution. A big choice was to land in the ACC when the Big 10 wasn't available. That preserves a bit of an academic peer group in their conference mates. More so than a Big 12 affiliation would have done. But it creates a lot of problems. And I don't see that as a long term conference affiliation since I feel like the ACC is not long for this world. I dont think college sports and sports in general has ever been really big or important in Cali like other parts of the country…its more like something to watch casually on the weekends woth friends or family…that being said Stanford and UC sports program are gona do just fine…
|
|
|
Post by huskervolleyfan14 on Apr 27, 2024 15:23:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Apr 27, 2024 15:40:24 GMT -5
1.03 kps with a .253 HP last year and 0.94 blocks per set
Ok then.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 27, 2024 15:56:27 GMT -5
Oregon has a decent sized group of professionals dedicated to financially supporting the Oregon NIL program. I think it’s naive to believe Oregon has anything remotely close to the stature in athletics they do without Phil Knight’s influence. He’s certainly a driving force behind them having an active NIL. But once he passes they’ll still have an active NIL. His loss is going to be felt more on the capital improvements side of the budget and the massive annual donations required to keep Oregon’s annual revenue commensurate with the other big boys. Autzen Stadium simply doesn’t produce enough revenue. They can’t expand the stadium because they can’t fill the seats. They need more premium seating with suites and private club seating, but that’s gping to take awhile. In any case, their NIL program is more robust than one guy. More than anything else Oregon has a culture where athletics is recognized as vitally important to the brand overall, and the community is on board with that. It takes significantly more resources to build state of the art facilities than it does to collect $10 to $20 million per year for a significant NIL collective budget. I feel like Oregon is pretty judicious with their NIL money overall. But they’re definitely on the generous side for football. They want to win. Take out Phil Knight and I'd bet good money that Oregon's overall collective athletic donor class is behind Washingtons. But that's neither here nor there, I don't actually care, but I DO think you touched on a very important topic, which is what happens when the old guard of college boosters start dying. Unless they leave part of their estate directly to the athletic departments/collectives, MANY programs will have a new problem to contend with - convincing millennials to care about college sports enough to give these programs and recruiting pools tons of money. This is purely anecdotal, but I think a lot of schools are going to see reduced revenue streams when this happens. Phil Knight's testamentary trust for Oregon athletics is gigantic. Husky fans hoping it'll dry up once he passes are going to be sorely disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by huskersoftroy on Apr 27, 2024 16:54:55 GMT -5
Go Charity! Kudos to Hambly for seeing the whole athlete! Even if she doesn’t see the court much, she’s a great player to have in your program and Stanford’s lucky to have her!
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Apr 27, 2024 20:38:35 GMT -5
Ok, a little bit of depth.
|
|
|
Post by paloalto on Apr 27, 2024 23:31:18 GMT -5
This might have been discussed and I didn't see it. I noticed Kelly Belardi is not on the 2024 roster. Hambly was high on her freshman year describing Belardi as a "baller". Last season she got little playing time. My guess is she decided to focus on beach volleyball where she is doing well. It's tough to play two sports and get all your schoolwork done.
Also thanks huskervolleyfan14 for the post about Charity McDowell. Stanford needs all the depth we can get at MB.
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Apr 28, 2024 13:37:08 GMT -5
so is this a Gates situation or is Stanford doing transfers now?
|
|
|
Post by bobbk on Apr 28, 2024 14:18:49 GMT -5
Yes grad school Stanford. Has 8-9 transfers this year. Rare for WVB
|
|
|
Post by hipsterfilth on Apr 28, 2024 14:58:57 GMT -5
1.03 kps with a .253 HP last year and 0.94 blocks per set Ok then. I’d think the 4.0 undergrad GPA from a top 15 school had more to do with it. Those don’t grow on ~* trees. I’ll see myself out now.
|
|
|
Post by acea on Apr 28, 2024 15:03:32 GMT -5
1.03 kps with a .253 HP last year and 0.94 blocks per set Ok then. you don’t need to gloat about getting Blackwell 🙄
|
|
|
Post by surfvolleypolojock77 on Apr 29, 2024 21:44:49 GMT -5
Is Kelly Belardi coming back to the indoor team or sticking with only beach?
|
|
|
Post by paloalto on Apr 29, 2024 21:51:29 GMT -5
I have no inside info but there would be no reason to take Belardi off the indoor roster if she was going to play indoors again.
|
|
|
Post by vbfan4ever on Apr 30, 2024 9:41:02 GMT -5
Last season Belardi was the back up setter. This year have incoming freshman to be back up setter. Allows Belardi to focus on beach.
|
|