[M T]

On the theme that Stanford may one day need to reconsider its relationship with football, there's more damning research coming out on the long-term health of former players:

Researchers led by Boston University examined 1,875 men enrolled in an online study by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. They concluded a history of playing football was associated with 61% higher odds of having a Parkinsonism or a Parkinson's diagnosis — and that those who played the sport at a higher level were 2.93 times as likely.

Source: Playing football linked with higher odds of Parkinson's disease

I'm not sure we're quite there yet, but at some point the discordance between everything else Stanford is doing to invest in its students' brains and the toll football takes on them is going to get too stark to continue.

It looks worse than that.  If I read it correctly, the results quoted above were for 729 football players out of the set of 1875 males that played some sport and fit their criteria.  As I understand it, the Odds Ratio was between the two groups (FB / non-FB males), not versus (say) the US average incidence of Parkinson's.

When they further excluded those that did boxing, ice hockey, or soccer, there were 545 FB players out of 1247 men.  The OR for FB players was 1.65 for those that ever played football, and was 1.13 PER SEASON PLAYED (for those that gave the number of seasons played), 2.76 for those that just indicated a "substantial" number of seasons.  For those that played at a higher level of play, OR was 6.68, with a 95% CI from 1.56 to 28.7  (so the above, 2.93 (CI 1.28-6.73) lies within this range).

I always wonder about the accuracy of risk for these studies because they are selecting their sample from people alive today, and miss people who died since they played FB.  The average age was 67.    If you waited 20 years and selected among the living remainder of this set, you might see less Parkinsons.   Those that died previously can't easily be added to either the group with Parkinson's or non-PD group at the age of their death as it is tough to get them to answer survey questions.

The study indicated they adjusted for "age, education, history of diabetes or heart disease, body mass index, history of traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness, and family history of PD."

---

Even here in Boston, you will find people that will cheer for BC even if they didn't go there.  Nobody would cheer for Harvard.  Not even me and I went there.

(emphasis added)

I hadn't previously thought about the value to the university of keeping the community emotionally attached to a university. I went to a university that drew from around the country, but only had a sprinkling of local students.  The surrounding community respected the school but was not in any way emotionally attached to the school.

In retrospect, I can imagine if a few bad events happened in a row, the community could become antagonistic to the school, both by the government and the people. (Sorta how the CardBoard community thinks of USC.)  Thankfully, that hasn't happened.

Community support of athletics, even if bought by giving free tickets for WBB games to Girl Scout troops, etc., has a value beyond future ticket sales.   I presume Stanford must be working hard to get publicity for the athletic teams.  But, IMO, the Bay Area Pro Sports grab all the air time on TV News and almost all the print columns.  I've noticed the SF Chronicle has paid more attention in the past year than the SJMN.  It may not be that much attention, but it is some.

Stanford is not Nebraska, but it helps to have the support of the local communities.  (That support doesn't necessarily require football, but athletics can help.)

[M T]

On the theme that Stanford may one day need to reconsider its relationship with football, there's more damning research coming out on the long-term health of former players:

Researchers led by Boston University examined 1,875 men enrolled in an online study by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. They concluded a history of playing football was associated with 61% higher odds of having a Parkinsonism or a Parkinson's diagnosis — and that those who played the sport at a higher level were 2.93 times as likely.

Source: Playing football linked with higher odds of Parkinson's disease

I'm not sure we're quite there yet, but at some point the discordance between everything else Stanford is doing to invest in its students' brains and the toll football takes on them is going to get too stark to continue.

It looks worse than that.  If I read it correctly, the results quoted above were for 729 football players out of the set of 1875 males that played some sport and fit their criteria.  As I understand it, the Odds Ratio was between the two groups (FB / non-FB males), not versus (say) the US average incidence of Parkinson's.

When they further excluded those that did boxing, ice hockey, or soccer, there were 545 FB players out of 1247 men.  The OR for FB players was 1.65 for those that ever played football, and was 1.13 PER SEASON PLAYED (for those that gave the number of seasons played), 2.76 for those that just indicated a "substantial" number of seasons.  For those that played at a higher level of play, OR was 6.68, with a 95% CI from 1.56 to 28.7  (so the above, 2.93 (CI 1.28-6.73) lies within this range).

I always wonder about the accuracy of risk for these studies because they are selecting their sample from people alive today, and miss people who died since they played FB.  The average age was 67.    If you waited 20 years and selected among the living remainder of this set, you might see less Parkinsons.   Those that died previously can't easily be added to either the group with Parkinson's or non-PD group at the age of their death as it is tough to get them to answer survey questions.

The study indicated they adjusted for "age, education, history of diabetes or heart disease, body mass index, history of traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness, and family history of PD."

---

Even here in Boston, you will find people that will cheer for BC even if they didn't go there.  Nobody would cheer for Harvard.  Not even me and I went there.

(emphasis added)

I hadn't previously thought about the value to the university of keeping the community emotionally attached to a university. I went to a university that drew from around the country, but only had a sprinkling of local students.  The surrounding community respected the school but was not in any way emotionally attached to the school.

In retrospect, I can imagine if a few bad events happened in a row, the community could become antagonistic to the school, both by the government and the people. (Sorta how the CardBoard community thinks of USC.)  Thankfully, that hasn't happened.

Community support of athletics, even if bought by giving free tickets for WBB games to Girl Scout troops, etc., has a value beyond future ticket sales.   I presume Stanford must be working hard to get publicity for the athletic teams.  But, IMO, the Bay Area Pro Sports grab all the air time on TV News and almost all the print columns.  I've noticed the SF Chronicle has paid more attention in the past year than the SJMN.  It may not be that much attention, but it is some.

Stanford is not Nebraska, but it helps to have the support of the local communities.  (That support doesn't necessarily require football, but athletics can help.)

[yvonne]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

That's pretty much how I see it. In fact, the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an elite athletic program without Power 5 football money"?"

[yvonne]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

That's pretty much how I see it. In fact, the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an elite athletic program without Power 5 football money"?"

[norcard10]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

That's pretty much how I see it. In fact, the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an elite athletic program without Power 5 football money"?"

It would be so easy.  The men's volleyball and other programs came back due to alumni stepping in. We have rich alumni.  Some typing in this thread have enough to bankroll expenses easily.  It's a matter of if the University will prioritize it too.

[norcard10]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

That's pretty much how I see it. In fact, the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an elite athletic program without Power 5 football money"?"

It would be so easy.  The men's volleyball and other programs came back due to alumni stepping in. We have rich alumni.  Some typing in this thread have enough to bankroll expenses easily.  It's a matter of if the University will prioritize it too.

[dabigv13]

It seems like it should be economically feasible. More of the issue is can we have an elite athletic department while not being in a top conference, which I suppose is TBD.

If football gets axed, probably some of the sports they were trying to cut for ostensibly financial reasons (though likely some degree of admissions diversity/equity logic as well) will indeed then get cut.

[dabigv13]

It seems like it should be economically feasible. More of the issue is can we have an elite athletic department while not being in a top conference, which I suppose is TBD.

If football gets axed, probably some of the sports they were trying to cut for ostensibly financial reasons (though likely some degree of admissions diversity/equity logic as well) will indeed then get cut.

[Spiny_Norman]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

That's pretty much how I see it. In fact, the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an elite athletic program without Power 5 football money"?"

It would be so easy.  The men's volleyball and other programs came back due to alumni stepping in. We have rich alumni.  Some typing in this thread have enough to bankroll expenses easily.  It's a matter of if the University will prioritize it too.

I think you underestimate the challenge of funding elite athletics without Power 5 football media revenue. 

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

Even with the current football money, the University is subsidizing the AD. From the Buck/Cardinal Club report that 82lsju cited, it appears to be a $10M subsidy in 2021-22. I don't know if that happens in perpetuity. I could see Stanford sports shrinking from 36 to 20-25.

[Spiny_Norman]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

That's pretty much how I see it. In fact, the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an elite athletic program without Power 5 football money"?"

It would be so easy.  The men's volleyball and other programs came back due to alumni stepping in. We have rich alumni.  Some typing in this thread have enough to bankroll expenses easily.  It's a matter of if the University will prioritize it too.

I think you underestimate the challenge of funding elite athletics without Power 5 football media revenue. 

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

Even with the current football money, the University is subsidizing the AD. From the Buck/Cardinal Club report that 82lsju cited, it appears to be a $10M subsidy in 2021-22. I don't know if that happens in perpetuity. I could see Stanford sports shrinking from 36 to 20-25.

[norcard10]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

That's pretty much how I see it. In fact, the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an elite athletic program without Power 5 football money"?"

It would be so easy.  The men's volleyball and other programs came back due to alumni stepping in. We have rich alumni.  Some typing in this thread have enough to bankroll expenses easily.  It's a matter of if the University will prioritize it too.

I think you underestimate the challenge of funding elite athletics without Power 5 football media revenue. 

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

Even with the current football money, the University is subsidizing the AD. From the Buck/Cardinal Club report that 82lsju cited, it appears to be a $10M subsidy in 2021-22. I don't know if that happens in perpetuity. I could see Stanford sports shrinking from 36 to 20-25.

And how much of that $20M is actually profit after football related expenses? I doubt much. I still contend if you were to ask alumni of these nonrevenue sports programs to foot the bill, it would happen.

[norcard10]

Yvonne, would it be fair to say that the core of the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an athletic program without Power 5 football money?"

That's pretty much how I see it. In fact, the challenge is "how can Stanford fund and support an elite athletic program without Power 5 football money"?"

It would be so easy.  The men's volleyball and other programs came back due to alumni stepping in. We have rich alumni.  Some typing in this thread have enough to bankroll expenses easily.  It's a matter of if the University will prioritize it too.

I think you underestimate the challenge of funding elite athletics without Power 5 football media revenue. 

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

Even with the current football money, the University is subsidizing the AD. From the Buck/Cardinal Club report that 82lsju cited, it appears to be a $10M subsidy in 2021-22. I don't know if that happens in perpetuity. I could see Stanford sports shrinking from 36 to 20-25.

And how much of that $20M is actually profit after football related expenses? I doubt much. I still contend if you were to ask alumni of these nonrevenue sports programs to foot the bill, it would happen.

[jacket3ree]

In retrospect, I can imagine if a few bad events happened in a row, the community could become antagonistic to the school, both by the government and the people. (Sorta how the CardBoard community thinks of USC.)  Thankfully, that hasn't happened.

Community support of athletics, even if bought by giving free tickets for WBB games to Girl Scout troops, etc., has a value beyond future ticket sales.   I presume Stanford must be working hard to get publicity for the athletic teams.  But, IMO, the Bay Area Pro Sports grab all the air time on TV News and almost all the print columns.  I've noticed the SF Chronicle has paid more attention in the past year than the SJMN.  It may not be that much attention, but it is some.

Stanford is not Nebraska, but it helps to have the support of the local communities.  (That support doesn't necessarily require football, but athletics can help.)

The Cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto and the Counties of San Mateo and (in particular) Santa Clara can be quite antagonistic toward Stanford, as can the local populace. Some of it is probably the rare football traffic inconvenience, but a lot of it is Stanford is a major landowner/developer. I don't see that changing irrespective of which conference hosts Stanford, if a conference hosts Stanford.

Stanford advertises in various media and I've seen street hangers and a building mural as far north as Redwood City on El Camino. People know Stanford is there; they choose not to engage. I was doing some project work this afternoon with a colleague at another firm who is a rabid Bear Backer. In response to all this, we've committed to watching at least two games at Memorial and two games at Stanford, with wives in tow. It will be 3:1 Cal to Stanford ratio in this group, but we're going out in a blaze of something. Traffic, probably.

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

[jacket3ree]

In retrospect, I can imagine if a few bad events happened in a row, the community could become antagonistic to the school, both by the government and the people. (Sorta how the CardBoard community thinks of USC.)  Thankfully, that hasn't happened.

Community support of athletics, even if bought by giving free tickets for WBB games to Girl Scout troops, etc., has a value beyond future ticket sales.   I presume Stanford must be working hard to get publicity for the athletic teams.  But, IMO, the Bay Area Pro Sports grab all the air time on TV News and almost all the print columns.  I've noticed the SF Chronicle has paid more attention in the past year than the SJMN.  It may not be that much attention, but it is some.

Stanford is not Nebraska, but it helps to have the support of the local communities.  (That support doesn't necessarily require football, but athletics can help.)

The Cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto and the Counties of San Mateo and (in particular) Santa Clara can be quite antagonistic toward Stanford, as can the local populace. Some of it is probably the rare football traffic inconvenience, but a lot of it is Stanford is a major landowner/developer. I don't see that changing irrespective of which conference hosts Stanford, if a conference hosts Stanford.

Stanford advertises in various media and I've seen street hangers and a building mural as far north as Redwood City on El Camino. People know Stanford is there; they choose not to engage. I was doing some project work this afternoon with a colleague at another firm who is a rabid Bear Backer. In response to all this, we've committed to watching at least two games at Memorial and two games at Stanford, with wives in tow. It will be 3:1 Cal to Stanford ratio in this group, but we're going out in a blaze of something. Traffic, probably.

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

[M T]

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

[M T]

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

[chrisk]

Stanford could probably find a way to backfill $20-30M but accepting a minimal payout from the Big 10 or ACC is not likely to end well. Let's see how well UW and Oregon manage the transition.

[chrisk]

Stanford could probably find a way to backfill $20-30M but accepting a minimal payout from the Big 10 or ACC is not likely to end well. Let's see how well UW and Oregon manage the transition.

[2006alum]

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

As usual, MT, thanks for your refreshing (and thorough) perspective. I wondered about the same - sure, football brings in a lot of money, but it sure does cost a lot. For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. And of course, to a lesser degree, all of the Ivies have deprioritized football as a revenue generator but still seem to be able to juice their alumni donations on an annual basis.

To me, the pertinent question is not its fiscal impact but its cultural: what does it mean for a university to go from the Alma Mater of Jim Plunkett, John Elway, and Andrew Luck to not seeking to be a "football school" at all?

I'm not sure I'm especially well equipped to answer, as my time at Stanford we were the first class in half a century not to win a big game, didn't have a winning season even once, went 1-11 the year after I graduated, and didn't even get to do the Wacky Walk in the stadium as it was being renovated during the spring of our graduation year. So for me, football was a non-entity (and all the more so because our men's Bball team was really good back then, so all my energy was devoted to Sixth Man). But I suspect others have had different experiences in their time on the Farm.

[2006alum]

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

As usual, MT, thanks for your refreshing (and thorough) perspective. I wondered about the same - sure, football brings in a lot of money, but it sure does cost a lot. For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. And of course, to a lesser degree, all of the Ivies have deprioritized football as a revenue generator but still seem to be able to juice their alumni donations on an annual basis.

To me, the pertinent question is not its fiscal impact but its cultural: what does it mean for a university to go from the Alma Mater of Jim Plunkett, John Elway, and Andrew Luck to not seeking to be a "football school" at all?

I'm not sure I'm especially well equipped to answer, as my time at Stanford we were the first class in half a century not to win a big game, didn't have a winning season even once, went 1-11 the year after I graduated, and didn't even get to do the Wacky Walk in the stadium as it was being renovated during the spring of our graduation year. So for me, football was a non-entity (and all the more so because our men's Bball team was really good back then, so all my energy was devoted to Sixth Man). But I suspect others have had different experiences in their time on the Farm.

[Sunnysideup]

I don't think the pressing issue dropping power conference football is with the money (yes, it would be a challenge, but it's feasible for Stanford, with its boosters and non-athletics endowment). I think the issue is the impact on other sports (in terms of recruiting, which results in decreased competitiveness, which results in decreased success, which feeds back into less successful recruiting, and so on) from being in a non-major conference. I think swimming, tennis, and golf would survive, but the others could tank. The issue then with football is that football is the piece that gets Stanford into the power conference, since football is the sport that is driving conference realignment.

Which, as noted on the excellent Wall Street Journal podcast on the demise of the Pac-12, is ridiculous, because football is the easiest college sport to schedule and the least demanding theoretically on players re: scheduling (6 home games, 6 away games, 1x a week).

---

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. 

UChicago and Emory are D-III.

Swarthmore (also D-III) dropped football in the early 2000s, too.

Does Stanford want to go D-III?

[Sunnysideup]

I don't think the pressing issue dropping power conference football is with the money (yes, it would be a challenge, but it's feasible for Stanford, with its boosters and non-athletics endowment). I think the issue is the impact on other sports (in terms of recruiting, which results in decreased competitiveness, which results in decreased success, which feeds back into less successful recruiting, and so on) from being in a non-major conference. I think swimming, tennis, and golf would survive, but the others could tank. The issue then with football is that football is the piece that gets Stanford into the power conference, since football is the sport that is driving conference realignment.

Which, as noted on the excellent Wall Street Journal podcast on the demise of the Pac-12, is ridiculous, because football is the easiest college sport to schedule and the least demanding theoretically on players re: scheduling (6 home games, 6 away games, 1x a week).

---

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. 

UChicago and Emory are D-III.

Swarthmore (also D-III) dropped football in the early 2000s, too.

Does Stanford want to go D-III?

[cardcrimson]

UChicago and Emory are D-III.

Swarthmore (also D-III) dropped football in the early 2000s, too.

Does Stanford want to go D-III?

What about Slippery Rock?

[cardcrimson]

UChicago and Emory are D-III.

Swarthmore (also D-III) dropped football in the early 2000s, too.

Does Stanford want to go D-III?

What about Slippery Rock?

[chrisk]

I don't think the pressing issue dropping power conference football is with the money (yes, it would be a challenge, but it's feasible for Stanford, with its boosters and non-athletics endowment). I think the issue is the impact on other sports (in terms of recruiting, which results in decreased competitiveness, which results in decreased success, which feeds back into less successful recruiting, and so on) from being in a non-major conference. I think swimming, tennis, and golf would survive, but the others could tank. The issue then with football is that football is the piece that gets Stanford into the power conference, since football is the sport that is driving conference realignment.

Which, as noted on the excellent Wall Street Journal podcast on the demise of the Pac-12, is ridiculous, because football is the easiest college sport to schedule and the least demanding theoretically on players re: scheduling (6 home games, 6 away games, 1x a week).

---

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. 

UChicago and Emory are D-III.

Swarthmore (also D-III) dropped football in the early 2000s, too.

Does Stanford want to go D-III?

In the short to intermediate term, that is not a consideration. Stanford at worst next year would be a D-I independent or a member of a Group of 5 conference. There are talks about rebuilding the Pac-xx and some diehards have not given up hope of a Big 10 or ACC slot. Over the following five years or so, they will be plenty of pressures on the overall D-1, FBS and playoff structures, including cost cutting by the media companies. Over that period, Stanford can develop resilience and evaluate opportunities to participate at the highest appropriate level.

If a Super Conference of 20-24 schools evolves, that is not likely to be a good fit for Stanford. Stanford would likely be a good fit for the top level West Coast conference that evolves from the next wave of restructuring.

[chrisk]

I don't think the pressing issue dropping power conference football is with the money (yes, it would be a challenge, but it's feasible for Stanford, with its boosters and non-athletics endowment). I think the issue is the impact on other sports (in terms of recruiting, which results in decreased competitiveness, which results in decreased success, which feeds back into less successful recruiting, and so on) from being in a non-major conference. I think swimming, tennis, and golf would survive, but the others could tank. The issue then with football is that football is the piece that gets Stanford into the power conference, since football is the sport that is driving conference realignment.

Which, as noted on the excellent Wall Street Journal podcast on the demise of the Pac-12, is ridiculous, because football is the easiest college sport to schedule and the least demanding theoretically on players re: scheduling (6 home games, 6 away games, 1x a week).

---

Stanford would be looking to replace $20M or more in Power 5 media revenue each year. That would require an extra endowment (above what Athletics already has) of ~$500M. Seems like a tall order.

$20M is about 0.24% of Stanford's operating budget, and a 1.8% of Stanford's student support, and 0.055% of the endowment.

If football were shutdown completely, there would be other revenue that would be lost (ticket sales, parking, concessions).

What money would not be spent if football were shutdown completely?  The current head coach has 3 named titles.  Maybe the money earmarked for his salary couldn't be spent elsewhere; maybe it goes back to the entity that endowed it or maybe not.

I don't know what the coaching salaries are this year, but it was reported the previous head coach got about $7M in base salary, plus bonuses.  Then there's 24 other staff (coaches, analysts, ...) and 19 support staff.  I presume they get salary and benefits.
What is it, 85 scholarships per year?  At $62,000 each (what need-based aid is valued at), that's $5.27M.
Something over 100 on the team, to feed (partially offset by the amount of the $62,000 that is to cover meals) and provide equipment for, to transport to games, and to house for games and pre-school-year workouts.

That's a lot of operating expenses for football.

A big unknown to me is how it would impact donors.

For effect on alumni, we should look to UChicago and Emory, two schools that famously disavowed their football teams. 

UChicago and Emory are D-III.

Swarthmore (also D-III) dropped football in the early 2000s, too.

Does Stanford want to go D-III?

In the short to intermediate term, that is not a consideration. Stanford at worst next year would be a D-I independent or a member of a Group of 5 conference. There are talks about rebuilding the Pac-xx and some diehards have not given up hope of a Big 10 or ACC slot. Over the following five years or so, they will be plenty of pressures on the overall D-1, FBS and playoff structures, including cost cutting by the media companies. Over that period, Stanford can develop resilience and evaluate opportunities to participate at the highest appropriate level.

If a Super Conference of 20-24 schools evolves, that is not likely to be a good fit for Stanford. Stanford would likely be a good fit for the top level West Coast conference that evolves from the next wave of restructuring.

[Mick]

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

FWLIW, my brother and I attended a game at the Big House (UMich vs. Oregon State -- he's a Beaver), and we were decked out in Beaver gear. The UMich fans couldn't have been more nice and more welcoming at the dozen or so tailgates that we attended. They did, however, assure me that the gameday experience would have been much, much worse in either Columbus or East Lansing...

[Mick]

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

FWLIW, my brother and I attended a game at the Big House (UMich vs. Oregon State -- he's a Beaver), and we were decked out in Beaver gear. The UMich fans couldn't have been more nice and more welcoming at the dozen or so tailgates that we attended. They did, however, assure me that the gameday experience would have been much, much worse in either Columbus or East Lansing...

[qwerty49]

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

FWLIW, my brother and I attended a game at the Big House (UMich vs. Oregon State -- he's a Beaver), and we were decked out in Beaver gear. The UMich fans couldn't have been more nice and more welcoming at the dozen or so tailgates that we attended. They did, however, assure me that the gameday experience would have been much, much worse in either Columbus or East Lansing...

I thought the Domer fans in South Bend were extremely friendly and courteous.  

Several posters here have commented about the walk past Kal's fraternity row to their stadium, as an opposite example.

[qwerty49]

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

FWLIW, my brother and I attended a game at the Big House (UMich vs. Oregon State -- he's a Beaver), and we were decked out in Beaver gear. The UMich fans couldn't have been more nice and more welcoming at the dozen or so tailgates that we attended. They did, however, assure me that the gameday experience would have been much, much worse in either Columbus or East Lansing...

I thought the Domer fans in South Bend were extremely friendly and courteous.  

Several posters here have commented about the walk past Kal's fraternity row to their stadium, as an opposite example.

[cardcrimson]

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

FWLIW, my brother and I attended a game at the Big House (UMich vs. Oregon State -- he's a Beaver), and we were decked out in Beaver gear. The UMich fans couldn't have been more nice and more welcoming at the dozen or so tailgates that we attended. They did, however, assure me that the gameday experience would have been much, much worse in either Columbus or East Lansing...

I thought the Domer fans in South Bend were extremely friendly and courteous.  

Several posters here have commented about the walk past Kal's fraternity row to their stadium, as an opposite example.

Not so sure about Domer fans. Back in the 90s was sitting with a friend in his in-laws seats (big donor area). We blew them out, and I was threatened, multiple times for cheering every time we scored or stopped them. Lovely experience right there in front of Touchdown Jesus.

[cardcrimson]

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

FWLIW, my brother and I attended a game at the Big House (UMich vs. Oregon State -- he's a Beaver), and we were decked out in Beaver gear. The UMich fans couldn't have been more nice and more welcoming at the dozen or so tailgates that we attended. They did, however, assure me that the gameday experience would have been much, much worse in either Columbus or East Lansing...

I thought the Domer fans in South Bend were extremely friendly and courteous.  

Several posters here have commented about the walk past Kal's fraternity row to their stadium, as an opposite example.

Not so sure about Domer fans. Back in the 90s was sitting with a friend in his in-laws seats (big donor area). We blew them out, and I was threatened, multiple times for cheering every time we scored or stopped them. Lovely experience right there in front of Touchdown Jesus.

[Mick]

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

FWLIW, my brother and I attended a game at the Big House (UMich vs. Oregon State -- he's a Beaver), and we were decked out in Beaver gear. The UMich fans couldn't have been more nice and more welcoming at the dozen or so tailgates that we attended. They did, however, assure me that the gameday experience would have been much, much worse in either Columbus or East Lansing...

I thought the Domer fans in South Bend were extremely friendly and courteous.  

Several posters here have commented about the walk past Kal's fraternity row to their stadium, as an opposite example.

A loud, obnoxious, drunken Cal fan (but I repeat myself) yelled obscenities in the face of my 12 year old son, who happened to be wearing a Stanford shirt. This was at a street fair in our local downtown.

[Mick]

Stanford is not Nebraska. One of my staff is a long-time Husker fan. Loves college football. Sent his daughter to Oregon and turned into an obnoxious Duck fan.  If I threatened him with watching a game on the Farm or losing employment, he'd choose the latter.  Long ago he went to a Stanford game and said everyone there including the PA announcer made sure he knew he didn't belong there.

FWLIW, my brother and I attended a game at the Big House (UMich vs. Oregon State -- he's a Beaver), and we were decked out in Beaver gear. The UMich fans couldn't have been more nice and more welcoming at the dozen or so tailgates that we attended. They did, however, assure me that the gameday experience would have been much, much worse in either Columbus or East Lansing...

I thought the Domer fans in South Bend were extremely friendly and courteous.  

Several posters here have commented about the walk past Kal's fraternity row to their stadium, as an opposite example.

A loud, obnoxious, drunken Cal fan (but I repeat myself) yelled obscenities in the face of my 12 year old son, who happened to be wearing a Stanford shirt. This was at a street fair in our local downtown.