Endowment, per School

Rice isn’t P4…bad comparison

Stanford has great athletes in multiple sports…Rice does not

Merely being P4 won’t be enough without either “a” or “b,” endowment notwithstanding.

So far, just like Rice, Stanford has “none of the above.”

And wake me up when Stanford has high level P4 athletes in either football or men’s basketball, the only sports that matter from a money/conference realignment/fan/TV perspective.

They haven’t for several years now.

No men’s basketball tourney in a decade, four straight losing basketball seasons, no conference football title since 2015, no winning football team and four wins or less in that sport for the last six years.

Truly Ricearoni level.

In the NIL and transfer portal era…Stanford simply hasn’t proven capable of competing successfully in the only two sports that matter.

Stanford only has to win the ACC to make the playoff.

SMU did it in their FIRST year!

Winning the ACC, or Big 12, is not a monumental task…they are both very mediocre football conferences…hence the huge divide between them and the P2

1 Like

Again, SMU has sugar daddies, and as such, they could conceivably win the ACC.

Stanford doesn’t, or at least, not yet, so for now, they can’t. Endowment notwithstanding.

The ACC is indeed mediocre, more so than the Big 12 based upon their seedings, lack of a bye, and thrashings in last year’s playoff.

But the fact that Stanford went 2-6 in THAT conference should tell you just how ricearoni-ish Stanford truly is these days.

Unless and until a sugar daddy comparable to the SMU’s oil barons comes along for Stanford, Stanford will NOT significantly improve in football or men’s basketball. They’ll remain an NIL loser until then. Look for more losing seasons in football and men’s basketball from Stanford unless and until that changes, with an ACC title, even in basketball in a conference with only one currently ranked team, a pipe dream.

As it relates to money, Kiffen said yesterday, “I am going to stop recruiting and just start bidding”

The ACC got two schools IN…we only got one.

So, they got twice as many schools in

The Big 12 was so bad last year that UH, as horrible as we were, was actually in contention with 3 weeks to go…Ouch!

And the ACC so bad that it got the two lowest seeds, no byes, and got thrashed.

The Big 12 champ was good enough to get a bye and play respectably.

The ACC’s second best team lost at home to the Big 12’s third best.

Sorry, but you are probably the ONLY guy here that considers the ACC to be better than the Big 12 in either football or men’s basketball currently, and that speaks volumes.

And Stanford was bad even by ACC standards. In recent years, they haven’t just been losing, but have been losing to FCS and G5 opponents.

Very ricearoni-ish. Don’t look for that to change without a sugar daddy, regardless of endowment.

Yes…isn’t that YOUR whole argument that the ACC has MANY P2 worthy value schools which is why they will be raided?

Well…those P2 worthy brands are STILL in the ACC!

You can’t even stick to your own argument…lol

The P2 worthy brands in the ACC are P2 are worthy based upon their BRAND SIZE (which is mostly based on attendance and fan following)…NOT based upon their recent success. I think everyone except you understands that much.

FSU wasn’t any good this season, but their attendance and brand size still make them possibly P2 worthy; hence their lawsuit. Clemson, the same, even if they hadn’t been good this season, and as it turns out, they were pretty good. UNC, probably the third largest brand in the ACC, and by far the biggest basketball brand based on attendance (average over 20K per game), even if both their football and basketball programs are underperforming this year.

SMU? Doesn’t have the attendance or fan following; that’s why they are playing in the ACC for no shares. Too small a brand. Fortunately, they do have sugar daddies and can still be pretty good in football via NIL, regardless of their endowment or brand size. Zero chance to move up though, given their small brand size.

Stanford? Miniscule football and basketball attendance. Small brand only worth 1/4 shares in the ACC. No hope of moving up given that. And with no sugar daddies, little chance to be good in football or men’s basketball UNLESS and UNTIL that changes. Endowment doesn’t affect any of that.

Great point. Again why would Stanford hire Oliver Luck?
He checks multiple boxes.
National name
Family connection to Stanford
Successful college and pro career
YOUNG he relates to students
Knowledge
Oliver Luck clearly has a mission.

We can certainly understand why he was hired.

But that won’t turn Stanford football or men’s basketball around UNLESS and UNTIL Stanford gets a sugar daddy for NIL.

Hasn’t happened yet, though anything is possible in the future.

That all great, but guess what?

UNLESS and UNTIL their alumni are sufficiently fanatical enough about football and men’s basketball to adequately fund those NIL initiatives, don’t look for Stanford to be an NIL power anytime soon, regardless of their endowment.

Based on the Stanford grads I’ve met, I would not be optimistic about that.

That likely won’t change, as I said, UNLESS and UNTIL Stanford gets a sugar daddy.

Yes, LAW…hiring Luck was a step in that direction.

Winning the ACC or Big 12 is NOT like winning the SEC or B1G TEN

But it’s still WELL out of reach for Stanford without some SIGNIFICANT NIL improvement.

And that isn’t coming, for reasons already stated above, as I said, UNLESS and UNTIL Stanford gets a sugar daddy.

Hasn’t happened yet, though anything is possible in the future.

We agree. Just pointing out why I think others believe what they believe.

BTW - you never know, things can change. 50 years ago U of Miami was a private university more similar to Emory than Duke. It paid little to no mind to sports. In fact, even in the 1980’s when it was becoming a football power, a lot of old Miami profs wanted to cancel the football program (thought it was low brow and embarrassing). Luckily the school president understood the power of college athletics to expand and grow a schools reputation and by extension its academic prestige.

I thought about your post and how it ends with:
“That is how democracy works”
I appreciate that you wrote that. Do you think that is how democracy worked when utamafia locked out all other public universities than atm or future public universities from getting access to the PUF? That was and is clearly the opposite. utamafia purposely made it nearly impossible for others to have access. That is surely not how democracy works. Again JLCoog I do appreciate your post and this is surely not only about U of H.