Stanford Cutting 11 of its 36 Varsity Sports

C0l0rado wrote:

There's a huge misperception that all D1 football and basket ball programs are moneymakers for their schools. They're not -- the costs are enormous. There are some really big winners (Texas) and a ton of others that barely break even, or that lose money every year.

They do generate a lot of revenue; the issues, as you allude to, is the spending side. Athletic departments have to find a way to spend the money because it would look bad if they are sitting on huge surpluses while the academic sides often struggle. Also, if they do not build the $250 million dollar performance center then they have to figure another argument for not paying the athletes. (For the record, I am against paying the athletes, but am pro NIL rights).

The athletics side is a non-profit and as such has to be careful of how much money it has on hand as its legally required to put profits toward its mission.

If the athletic dept were like a pro franchise then it could build up surpluses, but it also would be taxed and donations would not be a tax benefit (although I think that is less of a reason for people to donate especially to an booster fund).

The huge growth on the student affair side especially in the diversity and inclusion areas is amazing. I was a student affairs administrator (low level for the most part) at 2 universities and a director level at a junior college and cannot believe the growth. There was a deep dive done a few years back on staff salaries at the U of Michigan. The article is online and should be pretty easy to find. Lots of people making 6 figures---way better than most tenured faculty and I am not convinced of the return they offer.

D!ickHeadStoleMyHandle!! wrote:

Show me an entire economy based on discretionary personal spending and I'll show you an economy headed for collapse.

Like ours, right now.

Luv2Run wrote:

Show me an economy not based on consumer spending.

Nice mott and bailey there.

So we should only spend money on necessities. Please feel free to dictate what others can spend money on.

Discretionary spending employees millions of people. If I buy a ski boat, then I am helping to employ the makers of the boat, the suppliers to the makers, the sales folks, the mechanic who will eventually work on said boat plus the dock where I dock it.

Eating out? Employees millions as we are learning now.

Want to try again?

agip wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

Want to bet? I say none will be back by December 31, 2022.

they'll be back if alumni can get full funding for the sports. Rowing is famous for raising huge amounts of money - I could easily see them raising many millions of dollars as an endowment for the team.

That still leaves Title 9 atrocities for Stanford to deal with, but I'm sure right now many calls are being made to set up alumni funding.

So you went from "they" meaning more than one if not all down to one specific one.

OMG, no more co-ed left handed indoor badminton season? How will I ever prep for the Co-ed left-handed outdoor badminton season?

Plus now when I'm at Tucker, and Ainsley's dinner party I won't be able to regale them with tales of my days on Stanford's co-ed left-handed indoor badminton championship team of '22.

GOCO wrote:

agip wrote:

I'm hoping that a division 3 format is developed...with local competitions alone, zero or fewer athletic scholarships, far fewer seats reserved for athletes, less pressure, less money required.

I mean football and basketball will always be some kind of different sport than the rest, but for all the others. Just scale them back. Sport teams really, really don't need to fly to competitions. Sure, it will hurt Nebraska and North Dakota. Sorry. Go somewhere else to school if sports are that important.

Agree with the first part an D3 or limited scholarship model should be fine for most sports, or even subsidized clubs.

I think your last part is pretty arrogant and your consideration of geography appears to be fairly limited. Pretty much any school in the USA lower 48 is within a day (8 hr van or bus ride) of dozens of other schools.

This. You won’t see any D3 schools cutting sports for the reasons listed in the article.

Stanford has a massive endowment, if it can’t be used for a rainy day like 2020 what is the point. That money is just piling up for no real reason.

Ahead of the Curve wrote:

OMG, no more co-ed left handed indoor badminton season? How will I ever prep for the Co-ed left-handed outdoor badminton season?

Plus now when I'm at Tucker, and Ainsley's dinner party I won't be able to regale them with tales of my days on Stanford's co-ed left-handed indoor badminton championship team of '22.

Will you be wearing a bow-tie at this dinner party? What will you do with your sons Connor and Anderson or will they be at lacrosse practice?

Ahead of the Curve wrote:

OMG, no more co-ed left handed indoor badminton season? How will I ever prep for the Co-ed left-handed outdoor badminton season?

Plus now when I'm at Tucker, and Ainsley's dinner party I won't be able to regale them with tales of my days on Stanford's co-ed left-handed indoor badminton championship team of '22.

From the article:

The 11 sports that will be discontinued are men's and women's fencing, field hockey, lightweight rowing, men's rowing, co-ed and women's sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men's volleyball and wrestling.

Not sure what your point is about " co-ed left handed indoor badminton" is, are you saying fencing or wrestling aren't "real" sports? There are very talented kids putting a lot of time and effort into these and I absolutely guarantee they would make you look like a total jackass if you tried any of them. Most posters here are runners as am I but you don't have to knock other sports to make yourself feel big. It is brutal that with billions in endowments they can't find some money to cover these. They are a huge part of the student experience. I ran track and XC in university and can't imagine not having that outlet.

I've enjoyed your podcast lately and particularly your insights into Title IX and cutting/keeping specific sports. Can i request an interview with a member of one of these cut teams to hear how it was justified to them, but also their thoughts on why Track remains a superior sport to their fringe athletic endeavours?

Cheers

PresidentTrump wrote:

From the article:

The 11 sports that will be discontinued are men's and women's fencing, field hockey, lightweight rowing, men's rowing, co-ed and women's sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men's volleyball and wrestling.

Not sure what your point is about " co-ed left handed indoor badminton" is, are you saying fencing or wrestling aren't "real" sports? There are very talented kids putting a lot of time and effort into these and I absolutely guarantee they would make you look like a total jackass if you tried any of them. Most posters here are runners as am I but you don't have to knock other sports to make yourself feel big. It is brutal that with billions in endowments they can't find some money to cover these. They are a huge part of the student experience. I ran track and XC in university and can't imagine not having that outlet.

Yeah, I'm sure fencing is tough, but it's also a niche sport contested at a very small number of colleges/universities. Stanford isn't obligated to keep every sport forever to keep from hurting anyone's feelings.

And when they want to ditch XC & Track are you going to keep that perspective?

It's a fact that keeping kids engaged and busy outside of academics keeps them in school. It should be alarming to anyone who understands the value of varsity sports that they are cutting 11 sports, regardless of how popular they are.

With a $27.7 billion endowment, the notion that a deficit in the low tens of millions of dollars was dire is absolutely false. My sense is that, from the list of sports, they are culling many of the least diverse teams, and that with the savings they'll be better able to keep football and basketball going with the absence of big crowds this year. The fact that they're cutting them after 2020-2021 means that they may not even have any remaining covid reason, other than a decline in gifts and gov't grants that will probably happen next year. Universities do spend far too much on athletics, which are not part of their core mission, but the general effect of athletics outside the money sports is a positive one.

When they say it's nota bout the money (Brown), it's about the money.

When they say it's about the money (Stanford), it's not about the money.

This isn't about money. Stanford could easily find the way to fund these teams. They just don't think they should be letting in three rowers instead of 3 HS valedictorians with a 1590 on their SAT.

I do think the excessses of college sports is vast.

At some point, you need to draw a line in the sand. The below criteria for removal makes sense with the exception of "Potential expense savings". I don't think any of the cut activities were breaking the bank. That being said, as a former D-1 student-athlete (track) the sports being cut should be considered a "Club" sport and not NCAA sanctioned. It's somewhat insulting to compare highly competitive sports of which the majority of the country participates in with "Light Weight Sailing"....What is that? These are "Hobby" sports at best with the exception of wrestling and volleyball which seem to have falling victim to participation numbers. To allow a member of the Light Weight Sailing team to claim to be a D-1 athlete is a joke.

-Sponsorship of the sport at the NCAA Division I level

-National youth and postgraduate participation in the sport

-Local and national fan interest in the sport

-Potential expense savings from the elimination of the sport

-Incremental investments required to keep or put the sport in a position to achieve competitive ---Excellence on the national level

-History of the sport at Stanford

-Prospects for future success of the sport at Stanford

-Impact on gender equity and Title IX compliance

-Impact on the diversity of our student-athlete population

-Impact on the student-athlete experience across all sports, now and in the future

Join a club, pay a fee, and have fun. But don't claim to be a D-1 NCAA athlete.

"Go Run One"

rojo wrote:

When they say it's nota bout the money (Brown), it's about the money.

When they say it's about the money (Stanford), it's not about the money.

This isn't about money. Stanford could easily find the way to fund these teams. They just don't think they should be letting in three rowers instead of 3 HS valedictorians with a 1590 on their SAT.

I do think the excessses of college sports is vast.

The valedictorians with a 1590 SAT are getting in so no worries about them.

Varsity sports build character and give you something extra to talk about in job interviews!

Dartmouth just eliminated swimming, diving, golf, men’s lightweight rowing.

D!ickHeadStoleMyHandle! wrote:

The entire university system in the US has been teetering for years now. Millions and millions of former students saddled with billions in debt. Asking kids and their families to pony up 30K-90K PER YEAR for an undergraduate education? GTFO! How has it even gotten this far?

Give me a break. No one's "asking kids and families to pony up 30k-90k PER YEAR." Everyone's making their own decisions. Go to a community college or a cheap state school or (gasp) don't go to college at all. None of these decisions will kill you.

Right you are, and our economy based on that discretionary personal spending highlighted by you is, again for emphasis, COLLAPSING. What don't you get about that? All it takes is a hiccup, making people pull back on what they don't need to buy for a small number of months, and the great American economy falls apart. That's what happens when an entire economy is based on things like eating out, buying gadgets and apps, going to the movies and leisure. Your ski boat makes the perfect example. The entire chain of people depending on income from something as ridiculous as water skiing are all screwed in this hiccup. Oh, and all of those people are wage slaves to begin with, with no healthcare, no security, no backup, so a few weeks after the chairs get filled the entire economy begins to fail. Our economy, including the bloated, overstuffed university system, is weak and based on economic marshmallow. There is no substance to it.

Luv2Run wrote:

D!ickHeadStoleMyHandle!! wrote:

Show me an entire economy based on discretionary personal spending and I'll show you an economy headed for collapse.

Like ours, right now.

Nice mott and bailey there.

So we should only spend money on necessities. Please feel free to dictate what others can spend money on.

Discretionary spending employees millions of people. If I buy a ski boat, then I am helping to employ the makers of the boat, the suppliers to the makers, the sales folks, the mechanic who will eventually work on said boat plus the dock where I dock it.

Eating out? Employees millions as we are learning now.

Want to try again?

None of those decision will kill Richie Rich. Perhaps that's you. Talk to a 23 year old who cannot truly start an adult life because they are: -saddled with 50K-100K in school loan debt; -hired with minimal benefits, low salary, no security; -cannot fathom home ownership for many years because of the hole they have started in; -are now wage slaves beholden to Mr. Corporate BigBucks to make it; -one small hiccup away from being financially phukked for life. That is the common tale of university graduates in the US. Sure, the .5%ers are living the gilded life. The rest of us, screwed. If you fail to see and acknowledge that you are simply a huge part of the structural problem.

u kidding bro? wrote:

D!ickHeadStoleMyHandle! wrote:

The entire university system in the US has been teetering for years now. Millions and millions of former students saddled with billions in debt. Asking kids and their families to pony up 30K-90K PER YEAR for an undergraduate education? GTFO! How has it even gotten this far?

Give me a break. No one's "asking kids and families to pony up 30k-90k PER YEAR." Everyone's making their own decisions. Go to a community college or a cheap state school or (gasp) don't go to college at all. None of these decisions will kill you.