|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Jan 4, 2024 0:50:41 GMT -5
if its Harvey JE better lock his back door cause im coming you know it is, boomthe noise JE and Andrea will be hearing at the back door |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jan 4, 2024 1:12:45 GMT -5
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. I just don't think the media rights are as big of a deal as this part: "...when you throw in the politics and the direction that school is heading with their adminstration and alumni...." I wouldn't say that's the throw in part. That's THE part. Without football revenue - and Stanford never has and never will generate significant football revenue - they're always going to be at a disadvantage regardless. There has to be a decision by their community to augment the revenue with donations. It's not clear to me that will ever happen, but the resources are there for Stanford in a way they simply aren't for any other university competing at their level in athletics. They have 75 Phil Knights out there in terms of personal resources. Some of whom have that guy's wealth many times over. But no one has their ego attached to the success of the athletic department the way it is with Oregon, or Texas. That's one of the critical differences. That's way more important than media rights, I don't care how many schools have more than they do. And even with media rights, we're entering a phase in college sports that if you don't lower your standards for admission for talented athletes, accept commitments in the same time frame as everyone else, allow programs to go after talented transfers, and compensate them financially with third parties outside of the athletic department framework, it's questionable if you're going to be able to compete regardless of the overall revenue of the athletic department. You and I fundamentally disagree regarding Stanford's foundational issues. You think it's the shortfall in revenue. I believe the shortfall in revenue can be made up in the blink of an eye given the massive amount of resources available in Stanford's alumni network, in a way that's unavailable to any school out there competing at the Division I level. To me it's how much does Stanford actually want to compete at the top level any more given the greater and greater need to field a cognitive dissonance regarding having a massive industry at the heart of the institution that requires more compromises to compete at the level of its peers with every passing year. The conclusion is still the same. They're at a crossroads. Their will to continue down the path they have historically faces greater obstacles than it ever has. But the challenges you cite I think are more possible to overcome than the challenges I cite. |
|
|
|
Post by biodogtexas on Jan 4, 2024 1:27:08 GMT -5
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. I just don't think the media rights are as big of a deal as this part: "...when you throw in the politics and the direction that school is heading with their adminstration and alumni...." I wouldn't say that's the throw in part. That's THE part. Without football revenue - and Stanford never has and never will generate significant football revenue - they're always going to be at a disadvantage regardless. There has to be a decision by their community to augment the revenue with donations. It's not clear to me that will ever happen, but the resources are there for Stanford in a way they simply aren't for any other university competing at their level in athletics. They have 75 Phil Knights out there in terms of personal resources. Some of whom have that guy's wealth many times over. But no one has their ego attached to the success of the athletic department the way it is with Oregon, or Texas. That's one of the critical differences. That's way more important than media rights, I don't care how many schools have more than they do. And even with media rights, we're entering a phase in college sports that if you don't lower your standards for admission for talented athletes, accept commitments in the same time frame as everyone else, allow programs to go after talented transfers, and compensate them financially with third parties outside of the athletic department framework, it's questionable if you're going to be able to compete regardless of the overall revenue of the athletic department. You and I fundamentally disagree regarding Stanford's foundational issues. You think it's the shortfall in revenue. I believe the shortfall in revenue can be made up in the blink of an eye given the massive amount of resources available in Stanford's alumni network, in a way that's unavailable to any school out there competing at the Division I level. To me it's how much does Stanford actually want to compete at the top level any more given the greater and greater need to field a cognitive dissonance regarding having a massive industry at the heart of the institution that requires more compromises to compete at the level of its peers with every passing year. The conclusion is still the same. They're at a crossroads. Their will to continue down the path they have historically faces greater obstacles than it ever has. But the challenges you cite I think are more possible to overcome than the challenges I cite. We're just debating the chicken or the egg. I'm saying that because of that issue you're pointing out, the media rights are even more important, because they don't have that support. You're saying the media rights aren't as important because they have unrealized donor potential. But it's exactly that unrealized potential that makes the media rights even more important. We don't disagree other than that. The media rights can only be ameliorated by donor support. Support they don't have. That's the issue. I don't like to count potential. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jan 4, 2024 1:59:20 GMT -5
I just don't think the media rights are as big of a deal as this part: "...when you throw in the politics and the direction that school is heading with their adminstration and alumni...." I wouldn't say that's the throw in part. That's THE part. Without football revenue - and Stanford never has and never will generate significant football revenue - they're always going to be at a disadvantage regardless. There has to be a decision by their community to augment the revenue with donations. It's not clear to me that will ever happen, but the resources are there for Stanford in a way they simply aren't for any other university competing at their level in athletics. They have 75 Phil Knights out there in terms of personal resources. Some of whom have that guy's wealth many times over. But no one has their ego attached to the success of the athletic department the way it is with Oregon, or Texas. That's one of the critical differences. That's way more important than media rights, I don't care how many schools have more than they do. And even with media rights, we're entering a phase in college sports that if you don't lower your standards for admission for talented athletes, accept commitments in the same time frame as everyone else, allow programs to go after talented transfers, and compensate them financially with third parties outside of the athletic department framework, it's questionable if you're going to be able to compete regardless of the overall revenue of the athletic department. You and I fundamentally disagree regarding Stanford's foundational issues. You think it's the shortfall in revenue. I believe the shortfall in revenue can be made up in the blink of an eye given the massive amount of resources available in Stanford's alumni network, in a way that's unavailable to any school out there competing at the Division I level. To me it's how much does Stanford actually want to compete at the top level any more given the greater and greater need to field a cognitive dissonance regarding having a massive industry at the heart of the institution that requires more compromises to compete at the level of its peers with every passing year. The conclusion is still the same. They're at a crossroads. Their will to continue down the path they have historically faces greater obstacles than it ever has. But the challenges you cite I think are more possible to overcome than the challenges I cite. We're just debating the chicken or the egg. I'm saying that because of that issue you're pointing out, the media rights are even more important, because they don't have that support. You're saying the media rights aren't as important because they have unrealized donor potential. But it's exactly that unrealized potential that makes the media rights even more important. We don't disagree other than that. The media rights can only be ameliorated by donor support. Support they don't have. That's the issue. I don't like to count potential. Well...kind of. I'm also saying they have to make compromises regarding what kind of athletic program they want to run within their academic institution in ways they haven't previously, even if they get the donor support to make up the shortfall. It's my belief those compromises are even unlikelier than finding donors to make up the shortfall. For other schools that wouldn't be the case. Most schools in Div I long ago made those compromises gladly and now simply go farther down that path, some in a more robust manner than others. I wouldn't classify it as chicken and the egg. They're two separate issues. One is a funding issue. The other is compromising the integrity of the university in specific ways in order to field a more competitive athletic department. They both have a fundamental source. An unconvincing amount of will necessary to compete in this day and age. But just because one part is figured out doesn't mean the other part will be. It's my opinion the funding part is the lesser difficulty. That wouldn't be true for any other school in the country, but it is for Stanford. To you it's the more important one. There's no real reason to try to make up the shortfall in revenue if they're not willing to make compromises in other areas. JMO. But if they are willing to make compromises, then that's a signal to people who want to invest in Stanford athletics for egotistical purposes, that there can be a return on their investment. It's hard for me to see that happening. I'm just impressed they managed to get into the ACC. |
|
|
|
Post by liberosetter101 on Jan 4, 2024 10:07:36 GMT -5
It doesn’t make sense to me for her to go to Texas with Ames, Bunton and Singletary all waiting in line to start.
|
|
|
|
Post by hookem1 on Jan 4, 2024 10:16:39 GMT -5
It doesn’t make sense to me for her to go to Texas with Ames, Bunton and Singletary all waiting in line to start. MBU! But Stanford also took two middles in the 2024 class right? So in the two classes ahead of her that’s just a one player difference in number of middles. And maybe Stanford has other targets at middle for 2025. Texas only has maybe 1 other target really |
|
|
|
Post by eotexas5 on Jan 4, 2024 10:16:41 GMT -5
are we still nameless on last night's boom?! Harvey follows Andrea soooooo me thinks it's her but me also knows that we're not done with the portal...
|
|
|
|
Post by katn on Jan 4, 2024 11:32:08 GMT -5
are we still nameless on last night's boom?! Harvey follows Andrea soooooo me thinks it's her but me also knows that we're not done with the portal... bountiful 👀 |
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on Jan 4, 2024 11:39:52 GMT -5
the noise JE and Andrea will be hearing at the back door At this point it's just easier if you enter the Portal and become a Texas fan. You're always hanging out in our forum anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by VBallLife on Jan 4, 2024 11:51:16 GMT -5
It doesn’t make sense to me for her to go to Texas with Ames, Bunton and Singletary all waiting in line to start. MBU! But Stanford also took two middles in the 2024 class right? So in the two classes ahead of her that’s just a one player difference in number of middles. And maybe Stanford has other targets at middle for 2025. Texas only has maybe 1 other target really Harvey would play regardless if they took two middles in 24 |
|
|
|
Post by hookem1 on Jan 4, 2024 11:56:14 GMT -5
MBU! But Stanford also took two middles in the 2024 class right? So in the two classes ahead of her that’s just a one player difference in number of middles. And maybe Stanford has other targets at middle for 2025. Texas only has maybe 1 other target really Harvey would play regardless if they took two middles in 24 I don’t disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by vbwatchman on Jan 4, 2024 12:22:45 GMT -5
MBU! But Stanford also took two middles in the 2024 class right? So in the two classes ahead of her that’s just a one player difference in number of middles. And maybe Stanford has other targets at middle for 2025. Texas only has maybe 1 other target really Harvey would play regardless if they took two middles in 24 Harvey is playing wherever she is going. |
|
|
|
Post by katn on Jan 4, 2024 12:26:09 GMT -5
Harvey would play regardless if they took two middles in 24 Harvey is playing wherever she is going. we know where she's going 🤘 country...we will get the announcement soon |
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Jan 4, 2024 12:27:05 GMT -5
the noise JE and Andrea will be hearing at the back door At this point it's just easier if you enter the Portal and become a Texas fan. You're always hanging out in our forum anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by USC✌🏼 on Jan 4, 2024 12:40:22 GMT -5
|
|
