Stanford is dropping 11 sports

Stanford is dropping 11 sports - 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: Stanford is dropping 11 sports (/thread-20027.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - newguy - 07-08-2020

the very definition of a gut punch.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - JustAnotherFan - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Farm93 Wrote: If/when Stanford returns to a decade of 4-8, 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 type seasons, a rate aligned to our historic averages, the AD's budget would simply be too bloated.

And that decade is called the 2020s. At least we will be undefeated this fall.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Langdude - 07-08-2020

Thanks for talking me down from the ledge a bit, Terry and Bob. I agree that softball has been competitive recently; I was thinking of the mess from a few years ago. And I agree with the good point that softball is more national than MVB.

I guess I am just a big MVB fan, going back to my undergraduate years with the Blackmans, Dave Goss, Canyon Ceman, Mike Lambert, Mike Hoefer, etc. etc. Such great teams over the years, such great success, and such a big part of the Stanford athletic brand. Just sad.

Even if some donors came up with some money, I am guessing that they cannot save MVB without also bringing back a concomitant women's sport.

-m.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - jonnyss - 07-08-2020

volleyball may not be a major sport nationwide, but it's a major sport in california. perhaps THE california sport (participation team sport, not spectator sport).

to me it's like dartmouth eliminating skiing because it's not a major college sport nationwide.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - 81alum - 07-08-2020

The message indicated that only one other university fielded more teams than Stanford, but it did not say who it was. Does anyone know?

One of the disadvantages of Stanford being a private school is that we fans have no access to the athletics budget. Using the USA Today public database it is possible to know, for example, just how much money 10 of the 12 Pac 12 schools are losing, and why they are losing it. But for schools like Stanford and USC we fans really have no idea. That makes this more of a surprise than if we had been aware that the ICA budget had been underwater for years.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Canalejas - 07-08-2020

There are 48 NCAA men's volleyball programs between divisions I & II, which compete under a single umbrella. And there appear to be enough of them on the west coast for it to make sense for Stanford to have a squad. I'm really sad to see it go.

[Image: 93l3Mo9.png]

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - SamuelMcF - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 12:28 PM)81alum Wrote: The message indicated that only one other university fielded more teams than Stanford, but it did not say who it was. Does anyone know?

Harvard

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Canalejas - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 12:28 PM)81alum Wrote: The message indicated that only one other university fielded more teams than Stanford, but it did not say who it was. Does anyone know?

One of the disadvantages of Stanford being a private school is that we fans have no access to the athletics budget. Using the USA Today public database it is possible to know, for example, just how much money 10 of the 12 Pac 12 schools are losing, and why they are losing it. But for schools like Stanford and USC we fans really have no idea. That makes this more of a surprise than if we had been aware that the ICA budget had been underwater for years.

I believe it's Ohio State. Wikipedia lists them as having 37 varsity sports. Harvard has 42, but as they are non-scholarship I'm not sure we ever compared our numbers to theirs.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - chrisk - 07-08-2020

The letter implies that the long-term sustainability of the athletic department had been under review well before COVID.

For a lot of reasons, it makes a lot more sense to eliminate MVB rather than softball. There are several women's sports being cut, so it is not entirely on men's sports.

(07-08-2020, 12:38 PM)Canalejas Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 12:28 PM)81alum Wrote: The message indicated that only one other university fielded more teams than Stanford, but it did not say who it was. Does anyone know?

One of the disadvantages of Stanford being a private school is that we fans have no access to the athletics budget. Using the USA Today public database it is possible to know, for example, just how much money 10 of the 12 Pac 12 schools are losing, and why they are losing it. But for schools like Stanford and USC we fans really have no idea. That makes this more of a surprise than if we had been aware that the ICA budget had been underwater for years.

I believe it's Ohio State. Wikipedia lists them as having 37 varsity sports. Harvard has 42, but as they are non-scholarship I'm not sure we ever compared our numbers to theirs.

The athletics budget was widely circulated as recently as a few years ago, because I remember seeing it. Are you sure it is no longer available?

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - 82lsju - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Of the group only Men's volleyball is a shock, and I hope it would stay since most those that play the sport are in CA. Hopefully we can have a Cal Baseball style effort to keep it going.

here's the FAQ on the actions

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/08/athletics-faq/

of note

Quote:[b]6. If donors step forward, can any of these sports retain their varsity status?[/b]

The decisions to reduce our sports offerings are final, and any future philanthropic interest in these sports may be directed towards supporting them at the club level, should they establish as a club sport after their 2020-21 varsity campaign.

While Stanford Athletics has many tremendously generous donors, their support simply could not cover the escalating costs of ensuring excellence across the board in our 36-sport model.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - thunder_chik - 07-08-2020

Very sad to receive the email this morning, but it brought back some pleasant memories of sailing on Searsville reservoir and Lake Lagunita in the mid-1970s.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Canalejas - 07-08-2020

Some more maps showing the national participation in the sports cut by Stanford:

Men's Fencing (competition is across all NCAA divisions):

[Image: lRJsPiQ.png]

Women's Fencing (competition is across all NCAA divisions):

[Image: RqhvRKu.png]

In both cases the only other school on the west coast was UC San Diego. With their recent move up to Division I for all sports, I wonder if they'll hang on to their fencing program.

Field Hockey (Division I):

[Image: iJrf0VB.png]

With Pacific dropping the sport a few years ago, our west coast foursome was down to 3. Will Berkeley and Davis be able to hold on?

Wrestling (Division I):

[Image: 11IZjZ3.png]

Doesn't seem to be too sparsely populated out west.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - OutsiderFan - 07-08-2020

It's definitely national news when Stanford cuts 11 sports. That said, it seems to me 36 is kind of an excessive amount to have, especially when so many of them are massive money losers. Not that money should be the top priority, but there certainly must be some balance between losing money and providing more scholarship opportunities.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Spiny_Norman - 07-08-2020

I have not seen anyone bring up or ask about the P12 Network. How much of the structural deficit in the Athletics budget was a result of less net revenue from the P12 Network than originally estimated? The SEC has been distributing ~$45M per school in tv money. The Big 10, ~$50M per school. The P12, ~$33M.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Canalejas - 07-08-2020

As for the non-NCAA sports:

Synchronized Swimming is just one out of four varsity programs, with the others being in Texas, Ohio, and Massachusetts.

Squash is one of 31 women's varsity programs, with all the rest being located on the east coast.

Sailing is one of 34 varsity programs, with only Cal Maritime, Hawai'i, and Tulane being outside the east coast.

Men's Rowing is one of over 70 varsity programs, with decent representation on the west coast.

Women's Lightweight Rowing competed against only 6 other schools last year, but that number apparently fluctuates a bit. The Cardinal had won something like 9 championships in the last decade.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - BobK - 07-08-2020

Why are some here against softball. Stanford made the NCAAs last season. Stanford charges admission. I’m a season ticket holder.

Why?

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - cardcrimson - 07-08-2020

Surprised it wasn't more due to our meager $27.7 billion endowment.

Sheesh. It could fund the $25 million AD budget shortfall for a thousand years.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Farm93 - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 12:22 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Farm93 Wrote: If/when Stanford returns to a decade of 4-8, 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 type seasons, a rate aligned to our historic averages, the AD's budget would simply be too bloated.

And that decade is called the 2020s. At least we will be undefeated this fall.

That's likely true. The CTE thing is really driving away smart parents with smart kids. If Stanford is still playing football in 2040 I will be amazed.

I am sure you meant Coach Shaw's winning ability, but really a school cutting sports will probably not be able to pay the going rate for a top 20 level replacement. And if we have that money why did that group let MVB fail. :(

The Pac-12 Network displayed the 1991 Big Game yesterday. I was such a sucker for memory lane given the alternate programming. One thing caught my eye as I watched our future Stanford Hall of Fame and future Rose Bowl Hall of Fame coach named David Shaw make a great catch.
Long Beach State and Cal State Fullerton scores flashed up on the screen. I really had no idea they played football, and certainly was shocked to see their scores making the national in game scoreboard.

COVID, the COVID economy and CTE are probably going to give us a whole new crop of schools to drop out of football. If/when Stanford really has a decade with 4 win seasons, I suspect that could be the end of the road unless football can reduce CTE issues.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - 76lsjumb - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 10:46 AM)teejers1 Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 10:38 AM)Mick Wrote: I'm devastated. While I recognize financial reality, it saddens me beyond belief that Stanford can't support all of those supports. It's a genuine shame. But we don't sell enough football or MVB tickets, so something had to go.

20 national championships. 27 Olympic medals.

So they're keeping softball and eliminating men's volleyball. Makes all the sense in the world.

Mick, you know it's not acceptable to criticize Shaw and his boring/underperforming offense ==> unmet potential and lagging ticket sales/revenue for the AD. We all "know" he is the best football coach since . . . like ever!

Fortunately, he doesn't command a big salar . . . um . . . never mind.

And in fairness, men's basketball ticket sales haven't been good, either (though I suspect the trend line on that is up while for football it continues down).

Still ticked off about that Fiesta Bowl FG attempt, I see... :-)

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - BostonCard - 07-08-2020

What I find most sad about this is that it betrays the ideal that Stanford is into intercollegiate athletics because excellence is an end in itself, and that the University takes the idea that funding for athletics is like funding for the humanities. The University ought to do so, not because the funding makes economic sense, but because it is part of what makes Stanford "Stanford". What we are left with is athletics as a business decision, ever more dependent on the revenue sports to keep the whole venture going, and thus ever more beholden to taking steps to maximize revenue rather instead of maximizing students' welfare.

It is a very sad day.

BC