|
Post by n00b on Aug 23, 2023 13:49:47 GMT -5
Do people really think that a “realistic” approach to get a $25 mil per year media deal would kept Oregon and Washington from leaving for the Big Ten? $25 mil total? Probably not. Pac-12 Networks would have been in addition. I was thinking a revamp for P12Net, with a main channel and a subscription streaming service, similar to BTN/BTN+, with conference and school tiers. Streaming is the future, but they were stuck in the past in a cable-centric paradigm, while cable-TV is collapsing. They needed to be proactive, but everyone was sitting on their hands like dodo's. UW and Oregon are likely taking less than what they might have had, in order to double their money later. Stanford needed to step up and take a leadership role, instead of retreating back onto the Farm in silence. You'd almost think that Stanford thought they'd be the one, like Rapunzel in her tower, to let her hair down to a B1G offer. And they (and Cal?) still might, if ND turns the B1G down flat. In the end, everyone was probably playing a double-game, at least those who thought they had somewhere to go, with their bags packed and stacked at the door, while grinning and shaking Georgy-Porgy's hand while he made his campus tour. Instead of a ringmaster, they'd hired a clown. Streaming might be the future. But it is not the present when it comes to live sports. Everything I've heard about the MLS deal with Apple is that it's pretty good financially, but terrible in terms of exposure and drawing in new fans and viewers. Americans still get ESPN and Fox Sports as a part of their cable package (or whatever you want to call services like Sling). But I think exposure drops a TON if your games are exclusively on Apple and it would've been terrible for recruiting.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 30,542
|
Post by trojansc on Aug 23, 2023 13:56:36 GMT -5
I don't really care about football THAT much, I have one main goal for USC athletics:
The volleyball team MUST make a Sweet 16 this year. It's been since 2017. Mick took a mish-mash team of Big West/WCC/etc transfers paired with Lanier and had them within match point of a Final Four. Since then, USC hasn't done anything better than getting SWEPT in the 2nd round. USC has not won a set in a 2nd round match since 2017. Embarrassing. I stand by canning Mick was NOT the right time/decision. There are other mishaps along the way along with general USC athletic department/administration incompetence though that have contributed to the demise.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Aug 23, 2023 16:33:04 GMT -5
Pretty rich coming from a Washington fan when: 1. Washington (and Oregon) leaving is what actually killed the Pac-12, not USC leaving 2. Washington doesn't have 1/10 of the football prestige that USC has While UW and Oregon may have taken the last few steps, no rational person believes that USC and UCLA didn't start the death march. As for prestige, it depends on how you measure it. Over the last 10 years, Washington has won the Pac twice and SC got it once. If you want to include academics, USC's Academic Progress Rate is #7 out of 12 Pac APRs. And if prestige = football - scandals, check these out USC List or Daily Trojan Pretty rich, huh?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 23, 2023 18:03:59 GMT -5
Pretty rich coming from a Washington fan when: 1. Washington (and Oregon) leaving is what actually killed the Pac-12, not USC leaving 2. Washington doesn't have 1/10 of the football prestige that USC has I also think a lot of Pac-12 schools that are moving to new conferences are going to learn the hard way that other conferences were better at them in football, and they won't do as well when playing opponents that are stronger on average. And USC is best equipped to survive this transition. The conference had been on life support. It was a mercy killing, if anything. No way to tell whether it had simply stopped breathing or was smothered with a pillow. UW is 4-3 against USC since 2009. The hey-day of Trojan football is long past. The B1G wants them (and UCLA) for their #2 national media market, not their recent record: 11-3, 4-8, 5-1, 8-5, 5-7, 11-3.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 23, 2023 19:46:18 GMT -5
$25 mil total? Probably not. Pac-12 Networks would have been in addition. I was thinking a revamp for P12Net, with a main channel and a subscription streaming service, similar to BTN/BTN+, with conference and school tiers. Streaming is the future, but they were stuck in the past in a cable-centric paradigm, while cable-TV is collapsing. They needed to be proactive, but everyone was sitting on their hands like dodo's. UW and Oregon are likely taking less than what they might have had, in order to double their money later. Stanford needed to step up and take a leadership role, instead of retreating back onto the Farm in silence. You'd almost think that Stanford thought they'd be the one, like Rapunzel in her tower, to let her hair down to a B1G offer. And they (and Cal?) still might, if ND turns the B1G down flat. In the end, everyone was probably playing a double-game, at least those who thought they had somewhere to go, with their bags packed and stacked at the door, while grinning and shaking Georgy-Porgy's hand while he made his campus tour. Instead of a ringmaster, they'd hired a clown. Streaming might be the future. But it is not the present when it comes to live sports. Everything I've heard about the MLS deal with Apple is that it's pretty good financially, but terrible in terms of exposure and drawing in new fans and viewers. Americans still get ESPN and Fox Sports as a part of their cable package (or whatever you want to call services like Sling). But I think exposure drops a TON if your games are exclusively on Apple and it would've been terrible for recruiting. I was suggesting a hybrid cable/streaming model, similar to BTN/BTN+. Sling, Vidgo, and Fubo are streaming services that carry Pac-12 Networks. I get Pac-12 Networks through an app on my Roku TV: Sling Orange ($40) + its Sports Extra ($11).
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 23, 2023 21:28:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gladys Kravitz on Aug 23, 2023 21:40:02 GMT -5
Stanford respects it's athletes and the travel burden placed on them will be enormous. They arethinking long and hard before they do this. They have a 36.2 billion endowment which could carry their teams for a couple of seasons as a independent and wait for things to settle down before they join any conference.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Aug 23, 2023 22:09:18 GMT -5
Stanford respects it's athletes and the travel burden placed on them will be enormous. They arethinking long and hard before they do this. They have a 36.2 billion endowment which could carry their teams for a couple of seasons as a independent and wait for things to settle down before they join any conference. Having a massive endowment does not mean it's discretionary in spending. Donations of this type generally have very specific uses. A $5 mil donation to Computer Science does not help athletics. They have few paying fans in the revenue sports and ranked 10 out of 12 in attendance SI.comYou may recall that a few years ago, Stanford unsuccessfully tried to drop 11 sports programs because of finances (or lack of). Doubtful things have dramatically improved Sports Illustrated
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Aug 23, 2023 22:21:18 GMT -5
Stanford respects it's athletes and the travel burden placed on them will be enormous. They arethinking long and hard before they do this. They have a 36.2 billion endowment which could carry their teams for a couple of seasons as a independent and wait for things to settle down before they join any conference. Stanford respects its athletes? Hayley Hodson
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Aug 23, 2023 22:58:53 GMT -5
Stanford respects it's athletes and the travel burden placed on them will be enormous. They arethinking long and hard before they do this. They have a 36.2 billion endowment which could carry their teams for a couple of seasons as a independent and wait for things to settle down before they join any conference. Having a massive endowment does not mean it's discretionary in spending. Donations of this type generally have very specific uses. A $5 mil donation to Computer Science does not help athletics. They have few paying fans in the revenue sports and ranked 10 out of 12 in attendance SI.comYou may recall that a few years ago, Stanford unsuccessfully tried to drop 11 sports programs because of finances (or lack of). Doubtful things have dramatically improved Sports IllustratedAgree with this. Stanford's massive endowment is not going to be spent on any athletics.
|
|
|
Post by kashi on Aug 23, 2023 23:31:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Riviera Minestrone on Aug 23, 2023 23:42:32 GMT -5
FYI: Mike Silver is the top sports editor at the SF Chronicle. I would say he has numerous connections and sources.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 23, 2023 23:57:51 GMT -5
Here's a fairly brief explanation of Stanford's endowment and why very little of it can be used for sports:
The endowment is not a monolith. It’s actually a whole bunch of little endowments. The vast majority of the endowment is restricted—meaning it’s made up of assets that can only be used for the purpose for which they were contributed.
Let’s start with the biggest category: restricted gifts. “The endowment” includes more than 7,000 gifts that were made at different times for different purposes. For example, a benefactor might donate funds to cover a public-interest law professor’s salary and benefits in perpetuity. That’s part of the endowment. So are a lot of undergraduate scholarships, graduate fellowships and research funds. Together, they total 52 percent of the endowment. And some of them are pretty detailed. . . .
that’s a little more than half of the endowment pie. The other slices are smaller and a bit more complicated. The smallest one (4 percent of total endowment) is made up of specially managed venture and investment funds, each set up to support a school or unit—Graduate School of Business; Stanford Earth; the Department of Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation; and so forth. Then there are three groups of “funds functioning as endowment” (FFE): donor-restricted FFE (6 percent of the total endowment); department-controlled FFE (10 percent of the total); and unrestricted, centrally controlled FFE (another 10 percent). Donor-restricted FFE and department-controlled FFE operate similarly to restricted gifts—their payout is not fungible. So, for example, if a donor-restricted endowment fund to purchase phonograph records generates payout that is reinvested as FFE, the payout from that FFE cannot later be used to purchase musical instruments. Or if the geophysics department converts a large expendable gift to FFE, that payout can’t later be deployed on behalf of the philosophy department.
Which brings us to the unrestricted, centrally controlled FFE. This 10 percent slice provides valuable discretionary income to the university. About two-thirds of its payout flows to general funds that the provost allocates to everything from academic departments to libraries to financial aid to facilities. The remaining one-third is allocated by the president for strategic initiatives, such as the university’s long-range vision.
Oh, and don’t forget those Stanford lands that make up 18 percent of the endowment. They can’t be sold, but they can be leased. . . . the net annual rent the university collects [from longterm leases] —$93 million in 2018–19—is unrestricted endowment payout that flows into general funds. . . . Prior-year investment returns on the expendable funds pool of zero to 5.5 percent flow to the university’s general funds. Anything above 5.5 percent is added to a pair of funds called the buffers.
Stanford's best hope is to have a few big donors (and many small ones) step up to cover the gap. It's less likely since Arrillaga died, both bc of his personal donations and him reaching out to others, but it seems like Jerry Yang and others are trying to do that now.
ETA: Some of the endowment is earmarked for sports. Stanford encourages donors to endow coaches so, e.g., Kevin Hambly and Alex Dunphy's coaching positions are endowed. Other gifts are for specific sports scholarships or the athletic department in general. It definitely helps pay for good coaches.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 24, 2023 0:14:01 GMT -5
Having a massive endowment does not mean it's discretionary in spending. Donations of this type generally have very specific uses. A $5 mil donation to Computer Science does not help athletics. They have few paying fans in the revenue sports and ranked 10 out of 12 in attendance SI.comYou may recall that a few years ago, Stanford unsuccessfully tried to drop 11 sports programs because of finances (or lack of). Doubtful things have dramatically improved Sports IllustratedAgree with this. Stanford's massive endowment is not going to be spent on any athletics. It doesn't need to be. If someone donates $5 million to Computer Science, that is $5 million less they have to invest from other sources, that are then available for other things. It is not very hard to be creative and find the money when you are sitting on that size of endowment, regardless of how much of it is earmarked.
|
|
|
Post by Riviera Minestrone on Aug 24, 2023 0:27:00 GMT -5
Agree with this. Stanford's massive endowment is not going to be spent on any athletics. It doesn't need to be. If someone donates $5 million to Computer Science, that is $5 million less they have to invest from other sources, that are then available for other things. It is not very hard to be creative and find the money when you are sitting on that size of endowment, regardless of how much of it is earmarked. The buzz I have gleaned from SU's SID, where I have an old teammate on staff, is sort of a combination of aspects of what you stated here intertwined with baytree 's report. Wiggle-room is being sought out to address the immediate effects and consequences of this seismic shift. AD's office is "humping" hard!
|
|