|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Jan 3, 2024 22:44:44 GMT -5
if its Harvey JE better lock his back door cause im coming
|
|
|
|
Post by basil on Jan 3, 2024 22:46:55 GMT -5
if its Harvey JE better lock his back door cause im coming how on earth did Hambly fk this up *assuming it is Harvey |
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on Jan 3, 2024 22:47:51 GMT -5
if its Harvey JE better lock his back door cause im coming how on earth did Hambly fk this up He also didn't close the deal with Mullen |
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Jan 3, 2024 22:50:07 GMT -5
if its Harvey JE better lock his back door cause im coming how on earth did Hambly fk this up lol as I said somewhere else I dont think he messed anything up. if its her she probably just saw texas win again and maybe that pulled her. she was never confirmed to have committed to the stanford staff, even from the people who have inside info and know who's 'committed' before they actually get in. she was seen at texas matches late in the season |
|
|
|
Post by bballin on Jan 3, 2024 22:52:42 GMT -5
Jeriit Elliott. Head "POACH" of Texas volleyball. Haha! 😀
...I'm just kidding BTW. 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jan 3, 2024 23:01:00 GMT -5
if its Harvey JE better lock his back door cause im coming Is this a double entendre? |
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Jan 3, 2024 23:02:57 GMT -5
if its Harvey JE better lock his back door cause im coming Is this a double entendre? ok um ew lol |
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on Jan 3, 2024 23:20:37 GMT -5
how on earth did Hambly fk this up lol as I said somewhere else I dont think he messed anything up. if its her she probably just saw texas win again and maybe that pulled her. she was never confirmed to have committed to the stanford staff, even from the people who have inside info and know who's 'committed' before they actually get in. she was seen at texas matches late in the season Maybe I'm just wishcasting as a Texas fan for Director's Cup purposes, but the future of Stanford athletics doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their abaility to remain competitive in all the sports, Volleyball included, as they have in recent history. Personally, I'd be surprised if any big-time recruit in any sport was hitching their wagon to the Cardinal at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jan 3, 2024 23:33:25 GMT -5
lol as I said somewhere else I dont think he messed anything up. if its her she probably just saw texas win again and maybe that pulled her. she was never confirmed to have committed to the stanford staff, even from the people who have inside info and know who's 'committed' before they actually get in. she was seen at texas matches late in the season Maybe I'm just wishcasting as a Texas fan for Director's Cup purposes, but the future of Stanford athletics doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their abaility to remain competitive in all the sports, Volleyball included, as they have in recent history. Personally, I'd be surprised if any big-time recruit in any sport was hitching their wagon to the Cardinal at this point. Who knows. They have to make some hard choices in terms of how important it is for them to maintain their athletic dominance across their sports. They still field more programs than anyone else, and they still field a bunch of teams in sports that do not have that much competition. They've always seen as a critical part of their athletic program a purpose in preparing athletes for the Olympics. But in many sports, bringing in transfers is becoming more and more important, and having at least some semblance of an NIL program is quickly becoming a minimum. I have always admired Stanford's ability to be competitive in a number of sports while not compromising regarding their academic standards or the timing of their admissions process. They've made some allowances for football. They got pretty motivated after everyone left the Pac 12. Getting into the ACC felt like a bit of a Hail Mary that actually connected, but that's not over yet with FSU now filing their lawsuit and naming the additions of Stanford/Cal/SMU as a fundamental part of their case. It's not clear to me what's going to happen to Stanford over the long term. But in the short term they certainly face a lot of challenges regarding their historic Director's Cup hegemony, that's for sure. I didn't realize this until a few months ago while I was reading the Stanford threads, but part of their issue is the number one benefactor for Stanford athletics, John Arrillaga, died not too long ago (01/25/2022 - so two years ago). He played for Stanford basketball. After graduating he got into real estate, and was the number one commercial real estate owner in the Silicon Valley area. Not only was he personally responsible for a number of donations to the athletic department, but he had the drive and gravitas to help bring together other influential Stanford grads and help keep everyone rowing in the same direction. news.stanford.edu/report/2022/01/25/john-arrillaga-longtime-stanford-philanthropist-silicon-valley-real-estate-developer-dies-84/#:~:text=John%20Arrillaga%2C%20%E2%80%9960%2C%20a%20former%20scholarship%20recipient%20who,donors%2C%20died%20on%20Jan.%2024.%20He%20was%2084. Pretty impressive guy by just about any standard. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2024 23:35:33 GMT -5
lol as I said somewhere else I dont think he messed anything up. if its her she probably just saw texas win again and maybe that pulled her. she was never confirmed to have committed to the stanford staff, even from the people who have inside info and know who's 'committed' before they actually get in. she was seen at texas matches late in the season Maybe I'm just wishcasting as a Texas fan for Director's Cup purposes, but the future of Stanford athletics doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their abaility to remain competitive in all the sports, Volleyball included, as they have in recent history. Personally, I'd be surprised if any big-time recruit in any sport was hitching their wagon to the Cardinal at this point. to be honest I don’t pay that much attention to Stanford outside of volleyball so I’ll take your word for it. With that being said maybe the “BOOM” is in reference to Harvey. She’s a freaking stud and I’d love to have her at Texas but if it’s not then so be it. I’m entering my delusional era so I’m gonna trust the process |
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on Jan 3, 2024 23:57:01 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just wishcasting as a Texas fan for Director's Cup purposes, but the future of Stanford athletics doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their abaility to remain competitive in all the sports, Volleyball included, as they have in recent history. Personally, I'd be surprised if any big-time recruit in any sport was hitching their wagon to the Cardinal at this point. Who knows. They have to make some hard choices in terms of how important it is for them to maintain their athletic dominance across their sports. They still field more programs than anyone else, and they still field a bunch of teams in sports that do not have that much competition. They've always seen as a critical part of their athletic program a purpose in preparing athletes for the Olympics. But in many sports, bringing in transfers is becoming more and more important, and having at least some semblance of an NIL program is quickly becoming a minimum. I have always admired Stanford's ability to be competitive in a number of sports while not compromising regarding their academic standards or the timing of their admissions process. They've made some allowances for football. They got pretty motivated after everyone left the Pac 12. Getting into the ACC felt like a bit of a Hail Mary that actually connected, but that's not over yet with FSU now filing their lawsuit and naming the additions of Stanford/Cal/SMU as a fundamental part of their case. It's not clear to me what's going to happen to Stanford over the long term. But in the short term they certainly face a lot of challenges regarding their historic Director's Cup hegemony, that's for sure. I didn't realize this until a few months ago while I was reading the Stanford threads, but part of their issue is the number one benefactor for Stanford athletics, John Arrillaga, died not too long ago (01/25/2022 - so two years ago). He played for Stanford basketball. After graduating he got into real estate, and was the number one commercial real estate owner in the Silicon Valley area. Not only was he personally responsible for a number of donations to the athletic department, but he had the drive and gravitas to help bring together other influential Stanford grads and help keep everyone rowing in the same direction. news.stanford.edu/report/2022/01/25/john-arrillaga-longtime-stanford-philanthropist-silicon-valley-real-estate-developer-dies-84/#:~:text=John%20Arrillaga%2C%20%E2%80%9960%2C%20a%20former%20scholarship%20recipient%20who,donors%2C%20died%20on%20Jan.%2024.%20He%20was%2084. Pretty impressive guy by just about any standard. No. Still way bigger issues than that. Stanford is joining the ACC. The ACC media deal runs through 2036. Starting in 2024, Cal and Stanford will get a 30% share in the first seven years (through the 2030-31 academic year), followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. Now look at this:  (these are base-level payouts before the CFP and extra tournament revenues are factored in) Stanford is about to go from a pac-12 media deal that paid out 37 million to each school in 2022-2023 academic year to a 30% share of an estimated 38 million dollars. That's 11-12 million dollars... a shortfall of 25 million dollars in media revenue. Where the hell does that money come from? What costs do they have to cut to make that budget? How do they retain coaches, players, staff, etc. while they're paring back their budget by 25 million? How do you maintain equal facilities, resources, and support with your competition with that? And not just for 1 year, but for the rest of the decade. Now compare that to Texas. Texas is joining the SEC... who's media payout is about to jump up to almost double the ACC's. By the end of this decade, Texas is going to be cashing 120 million dollar checks for their media rights in the SEC (at least). Stanford's still going to be cashing a 30% share of a payout less than half the size of Texas'. We're literally talking about Texas possibly generating media revenues 10 times larger than Stanford. Texas may have potentially 100+ million more dollars to spend on sports than Stanford. I know Stanford's got money, but that's a big deficit. And that's just the starting point. So now play out that situation with Stanford paring back their budget, trying to compete with Big 10 and SEC programs outspending them by tens of millions of dollars, at a minimum. How do they retain their coaches and players who may or may not want to deal with all that or have that kind of disadvantage? I know a Stanford education is one of the best recruiting pitches possible, but that's a lot. Then you throw in the politics and the direction that school is heading, and... well... they have a lot of potential issues. The exact same is true for Cal as well. |
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on Jan 4, 2024 0:04:30 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just wishcasting as a Texas fan for Director's Cup purposes, but the future of Stanford athletics doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their abaility to remain competitive in all the sports, Volleyball included, as they have in recent history. Personally, I'd be surprised if any big-time recruit in any sport was hitching their wagon to the Cardinal at this point. Who knows. They have to make some hard choices in terms of how important it is for them to maintain their athletic dominance across their sports. They still field more programs than anyone else, and they still field a bunch of teams in sports that do not have that much competition. They've always seen as a critical part of their athletic program a purpose in preparing athletes for the Olympics. Also, Stanford doesn't field the most programs. They only have 31 official NCAA teams. Ohio State has 32. Some of the Ivy league schools also have 31. |
|
|
|
Post by katn on Jan 4, 2024 0:17:23 GMT -5
if its Harvey JE better lock his back door cause im coming you know it is, boom |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jan 4, 2024 0:23:12 GMT -5
Who knows. They have to make some hard choices in terms of how important it is for them to maintain their athletic dominance across their sports. They still field more programs than anyone else, and they still field a bunch of teams in sports that do not have that much competition. They've always seen as a critical part of their athletic program a purpose in preparing athletes for the Olympics. But in many sports, bringing in transfers is becoming more and more important, and having at least some semblance of an NIL program is quickly becoming a minimum. I have always admired Stanford's ability to be competitive in a number of sports while not compromising regarding their academic standards or the timing of their admissions process. They've made some allowances for football. They got pretty motivated after everyone left the Pac 12. Getting into the ACC felt like a bit of a Hail Mary that actually connected, but that's not over yet with FSU now filing their lawsuit and naming the additions of Stanford/Cal/SMU as a fundamental part of their case. It's not clear to me what's going to happen to Stanford over the long term. But in the short term they certainly face a lot of challenges regarding their historic Director's Cup hegemony, that's for sure. I didn't realize this until a few months ago while I was reading the Stanford threads, but part of their issue is the number one benefactor for Stanford athletics, John Arrillaga, died not too long ago (01/25/2022 - so two years ago). He played for Stanford basketball. After graduating he got into real estate, and was the number one commercial real estate owner in the Silicon Valley area. Not only was he personally responsible for a number of donations to the athletic department, but he had the drive and gravitas to help bring together other influential Stanford grads and help keep everyone rowing in the same direction. news.stanford.edu/report/2022/01/25/john-arrillaga-longtime-stanford-philanthropist-silicon-valley-real-estate-developer-dies-84/#:~:text=John%20Arrillaga%2C%20%E2%80%9960%2C%20a%20former%20scholarship%20recipient%20who,donors%2C%20died%20on%20Jan.%2024.%20He%20was%2084. Pretty impressive guy by just about any standard. No. Still way bigger issues than that. Stanford is joining the ACC. The ACC media deal runs through 2036. Starting in 2024, Cal and Stanford will get a 30% share in the first seven years (through the 2030-31 academic year), followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. Now look at this: (these are base-level payouts before the CFP and extra tournament revenues are factored in) Stanford is about to go from a pac-12 media deal that paid out 37 million to each school in 2022-2023 academic year to a 30% share of an estimated 38 million dollars. That's 11-12 million dollars... a shortfall of 25 million dollars in media revenue. Where the hell does that money come from? What costs do they have to cut to make that budget? How do they retain coaches, players, staff, etc. while they're paring back their budget by 25 million? How do you maintain equal facilities, resources, and support with your competition with that? And not just for 1 year, but for the rest of the decade. Now compare that to Texas. Texas is joining the SEC... who's media payout is about to jump up to almost double the ACC's. By the end of this decade, Texas is going to be cashing 120 million dollar checks for their media rights in the SEC (at least). Stanford's still going to be cashing a 30% share of a payout less than half the size of Texas'. We're literally talking about Texas possibly generating media revenues 10 times larger than Stanford. Texas may have potentially 100+ million more dollars to spend on sports than Stanford. I know Stanford's got money, but that's a big deficit. And that's just the starting point. So now play out that situation with Stanford paring back their budget, trying to compete with Big 10 and SEC programs outspending them by tens of millions of dollars, at a minimum. How do they retain their coaches and players who may or may not want to deal with all that or have that kind of disadvantage? I know a Stanford education is one of the best recruiting pitches possible, but that's a lot. Then you throw in the politics and the direction that school is heading, and... well... they have a lot of potential issues. But Stanford has always been behind Texas in terms of athletic department revenue. The latest figures I found with a quick 30 second google search show Texas at $239 million and Stanford at $133 million. That's before we start figuring in the increased media figures you're citing. There's also a good chance an increasingly competitive football team brings in even more revenue than it currently is, especially if it's making deep playoff runs and/or winning championships. There's also still some growth available in basketball, especially men's basketball, if they can compete at a higher level. Donations have been separated from the general Longhorn Foundation for priority tickets to Moody, so they're requiring a separate donation. I also believe there's growth potential in women's basketball, too. That said, there's no shortage of Stanford alumni money. I know we like to brag about how wealthy UT alumni are, and for a public research institute there's no question that's true. But Stanford dwarfs Texas...like DWARFS...in pretty much any measurable category. They've just never shown much interest as a group to fund Stanford athletics. That's why Arrillaga was so important. Not only was he willing to invest his own money, but he could galvanize others to do so as well. But just saying they've never done it, is not the same as saying they can't do it. If that's the direction just a few key critical Stanford alumni want to go in, they can make up that shortfall in a heartbeat. I don't think the difference in ACC versus SEC media deal is as critical as you do. I believe Stanford needs to choose as an overall community and institution that succeeding at the highest level in collegiate sports remains important to them and then galvanize around that goal. I question whether that's the direction they go in. They have managed to stay true to their mission as a university in the ways other universities that compete at that level have not. I question how long they can do both. That's a more fundamental question in my opinion that the delta in media rights revenue, regardless of how large that difference is. And I do want to acknowledge you're bringing up an important point. I just don't think it's the most important point at the heart of what will prevent Stanford from continuing to compete at their current level in terms of the Director's Cup. |
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on Jan 4, 2024 0:47:40 GMT -5
No. Still way bigger issues than that. Stanford is joining the ACC. The ACC media deal runs through 2036. Starting in 2024, Cal and Stanford will get a 30% share in the first seven years (through the 2030-31 academic year), followed by 70% in year eight and 75% in year nine before getting the full amount. Now look at this: (these are base-level payouts before the CFP and extra tournament revenues are factored in) Stanford is about to go from a pac-12 media deal that paid out 37 million to each school in 2022-2023 academic year to a 30% share of an estimated 38 million dollars. That's 11-12 million dollars... a shortfall of 25 million dollars in media revenue. Where the hell does that money come from? What costs do they have to cut to make that budget? How do they retain coaches, players, staff, etc. while they're paring back their budget by 25 million? How do you maintain equal facilities, resources, and support with your competition with that? And not just for 1 year, but for the rest of the decade. Now compare that to Texas. Texas is joining the SEC... who's media payout is about to jump up to almost double the ACC's. By the end of this decade, Texas is going to be cashing 120 million dollar checks for their media rights in the SEC (at least). Stanford's still going to be cashing a 30% share of a payout less than half the size of Texas'. We're literally talking about Texas possibly generating media revenues 10 times larger than Stanford. Texas may have potentially 100+ million more dollars to spend on sports than Stanford. I know Stanford's got money, but that's a big deficit. And that's just the starting point. So now play out that situation with Stanford paring back their budget, trying to compete with Big 10 and SEC programs outspending them by tens of millions of dollars, at a minimum. How do they retain their coaches and players who may or may not want to deal with all that or have that kind of disadvantage? I know a Stanford education is one of the best recruiting pitches possible, but that's a lot. Then you throw in the politics and the direction that school is heading, and... well... they have a lot of potential issues. But Stanford has always been behind Texas in terms of athletic department revenue. The latest figures I found with a quick 30 second google search show Texas at $239 million and Stanford at $133 million. That's before we start figuring in the increased media figures you're citing. There's also a good chance an increasingly competitive football team brings in even more revenue than it currently is, especially if it's making deep playoff runs and/or winning championships. There's also still some growth available in basketball, especially men's basketball, if they can compete at a higher level. Donations have been separated from the general Longhorn Foundation for priority tickets to Moody, so they're requiring a separate donation. I also believe there's growth potential in women's basketball, too. That said, there's no shortage of Stanford alumni money. I know we like to brag about how wealthy UT alumni are, and for a public research institute there's no question that's true. But Stanford dwarfs Texas...like DWARFS...in pretty much any measurable category. They've just never shown much interest as a group to fund Stanford athletics. That's why Arrillaga was so important. Not only was he willing to invest his own money, but he could galvanize others to do so as well. But just saying they've never done it, is not the same as saying they can't do it. If that's the direction just a few key critical Stanford alumni want to go in, they can make up that shortfall in a heartbeat. I don't think the difference in ACC versus SEC media deal is as critical as you do. I believe Stanford needs to choose as an overall community and institution that succeeding at the highest level in collegiate sports remains important to them and then galvanize around that goal. I question whether that's the direction they go in. They have managed to stay true to their mission as a university in the ways other universities that compete at that level have not. I question how long they can do both. That's a more fundamental question in my opinion that the delta in media rights revenue, regardless of how large that difference is. And I do want to acknowledge you're bringing up an important point. I just don't think it's the most important point at the heart of what will prevent Stanford from continuing to compete at their current level in terms of the Director's Cup. I brought up the comparison to Texas because that's the most relevent to us. But it's not about Stanford vs Texas. It's about Stanford vs their in-state rivals, USC and UCLA, who are about to get Big 10 money, just like Texas is about to get SEC money. It's about Stanford vs. their regional rivals, Washington and Oregon now with big 10 money. It's about Stanford vs Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Minnesota with Big 10 money. It's about Stanford vs Northwestern and Indiana and Michigan State and Rutgers and Maryland. It's about Stanford vs. Missouri and Mississippi State and Vanderbilt and South Carolina. It's not about Stanford vs. Texas. It's about the 40 other teams whose media rights payout exceeds Stanford's total gross revenue on their own. It's one thing when Texas has 200 million more dollars than you. It's entirely another thing when Iowa and Mississippi State have 100 million more than you. That's the world their going to try to compete in. As for their donors, alumni, and endowment... There's a reason their revenue sports, Football and Men's Basketball, are irrelevant, even though their education is as good of a recruiting tool as there is. But a huge deficit to 1/3 of the FBS is a huge deficit. It's a lot of money. And as I also said, when you throw in the politics and the direction that school is heading with their adminstration and alumni... they have massive issues to overcome. I never said they can't. But the challenge is immense. |
|
