Instead of $250k/yr, why don’t we offer incoming recruits $1m* paid out 5% each consecutive year the player is enrolled at Stanford with the remaining 75-85% paid out upon graduation.
Players get paid still, less disruption vs transferring multiple times in search of best one-year deal, and predictability that the ~half who, definitionally, underperform their recruiting profiles don’t get run off.
University gets to claim moral high ground - we’re making sense of this new chaotic system and incenting graduation. Huge PR advantage if we’re first to offer this and brand along lines of 40-year decision.
Collective gets predictability. YoY expenses will be smoother as roster sizes are relatively constant, vs dependent on if we happen to sign/retain a few stars in a given cycle.
Program gets lock-in, as at 50k/50k/50k/850k, average contract value is 250k entering, but 318k for last 3 yrs, 450k for last 2 years and 850k for last year. So if State U wants to poach a breakout player, they’re going to have to pay 125-300+% of our average rate. And they’d get to develop their players in their system over years, which should lead to better performance vs schools with more turnover. Finally, offering $1m is easily understandable and should help with recruiting vs one-year NIL schools.
Seems like a win-win for everyone. What am I missing?
*(No idea of going rates, just chose a round number.)
Players get paid still, less disruption vs transferring multiple times in search of best one-year deal, and predictability that the ~half who, definitionally, underperform their recruiting profiles don’t get run off.
University gets to claim moral high ground - we’re making sense of this new chaotic system and incenting graduation. Huge PR advantage if we’re first to offer this and brand along lines of 40-year decision.
Collective gets predictability. YoY expenses will be smoother as roster sizes are relatively constant, vs dependent on if we happen to sign/retain a few stars in a given cycle.
Program gets lock-in, as at 50k/50k/50k/850k, average contract value is 250k entering, but 318k for last 3 yrs, 450k for last 2 years and 850k for last year. So if State U wants to poach a breakout player, they’re going to have to pay 125-300+% of our average rate. And they’d get to develop their players in their system over years, which should lead to better performance vs schools with more turnover. Finally, offering $1m is easily understandable and should help with recruiting vs one-year NIL schools.
Seems like a win-win for everyone. What am I missing?
*(No idea of going rates, just chose a round number.)
