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 - fullmetal - 07-23-2020

(07-23-2020, 11:15 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Terrific piece by Garrett Werner about the MVB program and what it meant to him - https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/stanford-volleyball-national-champion-budget-cuts-15427217.php

Wow this hits hard:

Quote:Right now, the challenge Stanford student-athletes face comes from its own administration. Administrators claim to have exhausted all options, without discussing them with the volleyball community. Since a small group of administrators made this decision behind closed doors, already more than 33,000 people have signed a petition to reinstate the program. Alumni have launched a $15 million+ campaign to raise an endowment to support a sustainable, thriving program. The University has said it does not care, that no matter the amount of money raised, they do not want a men’s volleyball program anymore.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - BACardinal - 07-29-2020

I'm not sure if this has been asked on this thread but has anyone heard of any student athletes transferring to another school because of their respective sport being cancelled? It would be interesting to see if some athletes decide to finish their degree at Stanford as opposed to transferring right away. Also, in terms of olympic sports maybe some might decide to end their collegiate career, stay to finish their Stanford degree, and train.

Also, if an athlete does decide to stay at Stanford to finish their degree would they have access to athletic facilities in the years to come after the sport being cancelled?

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - BobK - 07-29-2020

I did read about a wrestler in the portal.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Phogge - 07-29-2020

That damn portal again. Trivia: What was the name of the late 60's TV show that had a time portal? Who were the stars?

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - PalmTree - 07-29-2020

(07-29-2020, 03:29 PM)Phogge Wrote: That damn portal again. Trivia: What was the name of the late 60's TV show that had a time portal? Who were the stars?

I just remember it was the Time Tunnel - haven't a clue about the actors - two guys, dark hair, falling through the portal is all I remember. We used to watch it every Sunday evening down at my aunt's place on the Kona coast, preceded by the Disney show and followed by the Carol Burnett show - good times!

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - Phogge - 07-29-2020

Got it!

The two biggest stars were James Darren, a teen singing heartthrob who had a bit part in "The Longest Day" and Lee Ann Meriwether who was an ex Miss America and who grew up in San Francisco. The one episode guest stars run the panoply of Sixties Tv with some future stars like Robert Duvall thrown in.

RE: Stanford is dropping 11 sports - PalmTree - 07-29-2020

(07-29-2020, 03:48 PM)Phogge Wrote: Got it!

The two biggest stars were James Darren, a teen singing heartthrob who had a bit part in "The Longest Day" and Lee Ann Meriwether who was an ex Miss America and who grew up in San Francisco. The one episode guest stars run the panoply of Sixties Tv with some future stars like Robert Duvall thrown in.

OK - bonus questions - what was another 60's show about time travel, only difference being it was mainly set in one destination/age, and what's the connection to the Professor and Mary-Ann?

RE: Richard@agnich.com - Mick - 09-19-2020

(07-09-2020, 01:49 PM)Mudhead Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 07:55 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The Stanford statement about why cutting sports makes sense, comes off as “taking its ball and going home” when it can’t get the outcome it wants.

What about San Jose State? I’ve argued for years SJS should drop football because it has no chance to win at a high level. Then I read SJS supporters say having the team creates a certain esteem regardless of the fact they may never win.

Now here’s Stanford saying it will only compete in these sports if it can get another $200 million because it isn’t going to play unless it is funded to be a national championship contender in each sport OT plays. Meanwhile, SJS plays football in Tuscaloosa knowing it has zero chance to win.

Would you guys accept uncompetitive Stanford teams in exchange for having more of them? Or would you prefer only to pay top dollar for fewer sports capable of competing for national championships?

I think your question tees up the issue quite well. I come out differently than I think you do however. Stanford should not accept anything short of excellence in any thing it does. Excellence is what Stanford should be about.I don’t want a third rate Physics program or to be second rate in the arts. The world doesn’t need “average” graduate programs.

Obviously, you don’t measure over one year and you have to give programs a chance to improve. But in the end a program at Stanford has to be excellent.

I applaud Muir for recognizing that in the real world where even Stanford has finite resources , you have to apply the resources where you can succeed .. and you cannot in fact do it all. I have no way of second guessing his decisions but I’ll accept his competence unless given evidence to the contrary.

The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most. Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities. Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

RE: Richard@agnich.com - cardcrimson - 09-19-2020

(09-19-2020, 02:42 PM)Mick Wrote: The $8m per year, which is part of a deficit , frees Stanford to invest the money where it feels it is needed most. Based on The President’s recent message, one of those needs is for 20 new professorial billets and large scale sensitivity training to combat the racism that has infected Stanford. It helps to accept these cuts if they can be seen as enabling other priorities. Again, I think we have to trust Stanford leadership to makes those resource allocation decisions.

I note that President Eisgruber of Princeton noted the (presumably) same systemic racism at Princeton, and now the Department of Justice is investigating Princeton's racism. I imagine that, as an admittedly racist institution, Princeton's Federal funding may be at risk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/princeton-racism-federal-investigation.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/17/education-department-investigates-princeton-for-systemic-racism-417454
https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2020-09-18/education-department-investigates-princeton-after-university-admits-to-systemic-racism

I wonder if Stanford is similarly at risk?
[/quote]

Gotta chuckle when an organization gets caught openly admitting their current and former systemic racism, when for years they've been collecting federal cash claiming the exact opposite. Whoops.

Hum, sensitivity training for a bloated staff versus men's volleyball, fencing, co-ed sailing, etc. Shameful. . . .