Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. (/thread-25423.html)

---

RE: Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. - BostonCard - 01-27-2025

(01-27-2025, 01:25 PM)82lsju Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 12:27 PM)M T Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 12:15 PM)Giants Wrote:  Of course, that would require a substantial subsidy because without a football program at the premier level of the game, the finances would take a significant hit.

substantial subsidy {> | = | <} significant hit   ???

so looking at the 2023-24 AD annual report shows total expenses/revenue of $147m including the current subsidy of ~$49m (which includes more than varsity sports)

if football went away let's assume we lose the following revenues

95% of the broadcast revenue or ~$20m
100% of football ticket sales or ~$6m
75% of corp partnerships or ~$4m
75% of NCAA/conference rev or ~$2m
50% of expendable gifts or ~$10m

so around ~$42m in lost rev

I'm assuming that all the football scholarships and football coaches pay are covered by part of the endowment payout and not counting that part of the endowment payout as either football rev or expense.  I think the former is probably close to correct, the later is probably not as I don't think all the coaching positions are endowed.

for other expenses I SWAG that football is 25% of sports operating budgets (~$6m) and 25% of facilities and operations (~$6m), I'm assuming these don't change much, for the former it would go down some for either Div 2 or no football, for the later it might go down a little but the stadium would still need to be maintained unless they tear it down.

the 2023-24 reported University support was ~$49m, previous annual reports had line items that talked to things like PE and other programs for students, faculty, and staff that were paid to the AD by the University, those seemed to be ~$10m range so "varsity sports support" was maybe ~$39m

so if football was discontinued the AD would have to get funding of ~$80m/year (of which they got $39m (taking out ~$10m for PE etc.) in 2023-24) or about $40m more than last year

They might (or might not) have to give back some of the endowment that was given for things like the endowed football scholarships and coaching positions but that would likely not impact other sports much if at all

Analysis is missing about $20 mm in House payments moving forward.

BC

---

RE: Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. - TrumpCard - 01-27-2025

(01-26-2025, 11:19 AM)82lsju Wrote:  

(01-26-2025, 11:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Did I miss it, or did the article not identify the “clear and identifiable problem”?

BC

I did not see either the "clear and identifiable problem" or "the fix"....but they are both probably top secret/need to know....

The clear and identifiable problem is that Andrew Luck was not yet hired.  We fixed the problem.

---

RE: Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. - 82lsju - 01-27-2025

(01-27-2025, 04:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 01:25 PM)82lsju Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 12:27 PM)M T Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 12:15 PM)Giants Wrote:  Of course, that would require a substantial subsidy because without a football program at the premier level of the game, the finances would take a significant hit.

substantial subsidy {> | = | <} significant hit   ???

so looking at the 2023-24 AD annual report shows total expenses/revenue of $147m including the current subsidy of ~$49m (which includes more than varsity sports)

if football went away let's assume we lose the following revenues

95% of the broadcast revenue or ~$20m
100% of football ticket sales or ~$6m
75% of corp partnerships or ~$4m
75% of NCAA/conference rev or ~$2m
50% of expendable gifts or ~$10m

so around ~$42m in lost rev

I'm assuming that all the football scholarships and football coaches pay are covered by part of the endowment payout and not counting that part of the endowment payout as either football rev or expense.  I think the former is probably close to correct, the later is probably not as I don't think all the coaching positions are endowed.

for other expenses I SWAG that football is 25% of sports operating budgets (~$6m) and 25% of facilities and operations (~$6m), I'm assuming these don't change much, for the former it would go down some for either Div 2 or no football, for the later it might go down a little but the stadium would still need to be maintained unless they tear it down.

the 2023-24 reported University support was ~$49m, previous annual reports had line items that talked to things like PE and other programs for students, faculty, and staff that were paid to the AD by the University, those seemed to be ~$10m range so "varsity sports support" was maybe ~$39m

so if football was discontinued the AD would have to get funding of ~$80m/year (of which they got $39m (taking out ~$10m for PE etc.) in 2023-24) or about $40m more than last year

They might (or might not) have to give back some of the endowment that was given for things like the endowed football scholarships and coaching positions but that would likely not impact other sports much if at all

Analysis is missing about $20 mm in House payments moving forward.

BC

yes, but won't we be paying that whether or not we have a football team ?

---

RE: Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. - M T - 01-27-2025

Thanks for putting some numbers up.  It leaves me with some questions, mostly dealing with the change in conference and all that entails.

2023-2024 is before the year of record-breaking travel ($$) for a number of sports.  
I also seem to remember that for the next several years, we're getting less TV rights than in 2023-2024.

Basketball offers no more than 5% of TV revenue to Stanford?  
Then there is the payout to the conference for the men & now the women for the NCAA basketball tournament.  I don't know if the ACC distributes that equally to all schools, and especially to new schools.  (Did we lose our claims to the PAC-12 money earned while we were part of it & also have no rights to ACC money earned when we were not part of it?)

BC's comment about the House payouts brings to mind an interesting question.  If football is dropped, then more of that money would be available to strengthen other sports, such as basketball, relative to other schools.   Not a good plan if you're one of the top FB schools, but may be advantageous if you're not.

One savings that would be hard to quantify, but might be significant, is the potential future cost of class-action suits by players/survivors for CTE and such.

---

RE: Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. - 82lsju - 01-27-2025

(01-27-2025, 05:06 PM)M T Wrote:  Thanks for putting some numbers up.  It leaves me with some questions, mostly dealing with the change in conference and all that entails.

2023-2024 is before the year of record-breaking travel ($$) for a number of sports.  
I also seem to remember that for the next several years, we're getting less TV rights than in 2023-2024.

Basketball offers no more than 5% of TV revenue to Stanford?  
Then there is the payout to the conference for the men & now the women for the NCAA basketball tournament.  I don't know if the ACC distributes that equally to all schools, and especially to new schools.  (Did we lose our claims to the PAC-12 money earned while we were part of it & also have no rights to ACC money earned when we were not part of it?)

BC's comment about the House payouts brings to mind an interesting question.  If football is dropped, then more of that money would be available to strengthen other sports, such as basketball, relative to other schools.   Not a good plan if you're one of the top FB schools, but may be advantageous if you're not.

One savings that would be hard to quantify, but might be significant, is the potential future cost of class-action suits by players/survivors for CTE and such.

I was taking a SWAG and on things like the broadcast rev being almost all football maybe giving football too much credit but I was trying to be generous to football, if it is 50% decrease that line to ~$10m, if 75% decrease it to $15m

Yes, i would expect broadcast revenue to drop since we are getting a less than full share from the ACC for I think seven years

On the NCAA BB tournament I doubt we'll get the residual due the Pac-12 since it appears to be a going concern.  I don't know what the ACC does.  In 2023-24 the Conference/NCAA revenue line was 2% of the total so ~$3m, I assume this is the BB tournaments and CFP payout but could be wrong

---

RE: Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. - Giants - 01-27-2025

(01-27-2025, 04:31 PM)82lsju Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 04:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 01:25 PM)82lsju Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 12:27 PM)M T Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 12:15 PM)Giants Wrote:  Of course, that would require a substantial subsidy because without a football program at the premier level of the game, the finances would take a significant hit.

substantial subsidy {> | = | <} significant hit   ???

so looking at the 2023-24 AD annual report shows total expenses/revenue of $147m including the current subsidy of ~$49m (which includes more than varsity sports)

if football went away let's assume we lose the following revenues

95% of the broadcast revenue or ~$20m
100% of football ticket sales or ~$6m
75% of corp partnerships or ~$4m
75% of NCAA/conference rev or ~$2m
50% of expendable gifts or ~$10m

so around ~$42m in lost rev

I'm assuming that all the football scholarships and football coaches pay are covered by part of the endowment payout and not counting that part of the endowment payout as either football rev or expense.  I think the former is probably close to correct, the later is probably not as I don't think all the coaching positions are endowed.

for other expenses I SWAG that football is 25% of sports operating budgets (~$6m) and 25% of facilities and operations (~$6m), I'm assuming these don't change much, for the former it would go down some for either Div 2 or no football, for the later it might go down a little but the stadium would still need to be maintained unless they tear it down.

the 2023-24 reported University support was ~$49m, previous annual reports had line items that talked to things like PE and other programs for students, faculty, and staff that were paid to the AD by the University, those seemed to be ~$10m range so "varsity sports support" was maybe ~$39m

so if football was discontinued the AD would have to get funding of ~$80m/year (of which they got $39m (taking out ~$10m for PE etc.) in 2023-24) or about $40m more than last year

They might (or might not) have to give back some of the endowment that was given for things like the endowed football scholarships and coaching positions but that would likely not impact other sports much if at all

Analysis is missing about $20 mm in House payments moving forward.

BC

yes, but won't we be paying that whether or not we have a football team ?

Yes.

---

RE: Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. - 82lsju - 02-12-2025

interview with Andrew Luck

Quote:Stanford GM Andrew Luck looks to bring back winning football to The Farm

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/stanford-gm-andrew-luck-looks-to-bring-back-winning-football-to-the-farm

---

RE: Andrew Luck says Stanford football has a ‘clear and identifiable problem'. - chrisk - 02-12-2025

(01-27-2025, 06:49 PM)Giants Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 04:31 PM)82lsju Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 04:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 01:25 PM)82lsju Wrote:  

(01-27-2025, 12:27 PM)M T Wrote:  substantial subsidy {> | = | <} significant hit   ???

so looking at the 2023-24 AD annual report shows total expenses/revenue of $147m including the current subsidy of ~$49m (which includes more than varsity sports)

if football went away let's assume we lose the following revenues

95% of the broadcast revenue or ~$20m
100% of football ticket sales or ~$6m
75% of corp partnerships or ~$4m
75% of NCAA/conference rev or ~$2m
50% of expendable gifts or ~$10m

so around ~$42m in lost rev

I'm assuming that all the football scholarships and football coaches pay are covered by part of the endowment payout and not counting that part of the endowment payout as either football rev or expense.  I think the former is probably close to correct, the later is probably not as I don't think all the coaching positions are endowed.

for other expenses I SWAG that football is 25% of sports operating budgets (~$6m) and 25% of facilities and operations (~$6m), I'm assuming these don't change much, for the former it would go down some for either Div 2 or no football, for the later it might go down a little but the stadium would still need to be maintained unless they tear it down.

the 2023-24 reported University support was ~$49m, previous annual reports had line items that talked to things like PE and other programs for students, faculty, and staff that were paid to the AD by the University, those seemed to be ~$10m range so "varsity sports support" was maybe ~$39m

so if football was discontinued the AD would have to get funding of ~$80m/year (of which they got $39m (taking out ~$10m for PE etc.) in 2023-24) or about $40m more than last year

They might (or might not) have to give back some of the endowment that was given for things like the endowed football scholarships and coaching positions but that would likely not impact other sports much if at all

Analysis is missing about $20 mm in House payments moving forward.

BC

yes, but won't we be paying that whether or not we have a football team ?

Yes.

$20M is a cap not a minimum. Most schools will be directing 75% to football. If you take away football, $5M would be a competitive amount.

---