[fullmetal]

A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

That is ridiculous of the university (or the athletic department) to say "not at any price."  If that's true, then I think the administration has to answer for that.

[fullmetal]

A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

That is ridiculous of the university (or the athletic department) to say "not at any price."  If that's true, then I think the administration has to answer for that.

[BigJohn043]

A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

That is ridiculous of the university (or the athletic department) to say "not at any price."  If that's true, then I think the administration has to answer for that.

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be the case.

First, you don't just have to pay for Men's Volleyball.  You also have to pay for the women's sport to go along with it.  Although I guess conceptually that just makes the number bigger.

Second, you have the issue of more admissions breaks.  The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue.

Third, I can imagine a concern that money going towards these sports will take away from other parts of the school.
  
Fourth, they want this done.  Months and months spent fund raising and having people try and fail is not good for the department.

[BigJohn043]

A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

That is ridiculous of the university (or the athletic department) to say "not at any price."  If that's true, then I think the administration has to answer for that.

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be the case.

First, you don't just have to pay for Men's Volleyball.  You also have to pay for the women's sport to go along with it.  Although I guess conceptually that just makes the number bigger.

Second, you have the issue of more admissions breaks.  The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue.

Third, I can imagine a concern that money going towards these sports will take away from other parts of the school.
  
Fourth, they want this done.  Months and months spent fund raising and having people try and fail is not good for the department.

[chrisk]

A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

That is ridiculous of the university (or the athletic department) to say "not at any price."  If that's true, then I think the administration has to answer for that.

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be the case.

First, you don't just have to pay for Men's Volleyball.  You also have to pay for the women's sport to go along with it.  Although I guess conceptually that just makes the number bigger.

Second, you have the issue of more admissions breaks.  The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue.

Third, I can imagine a concern that money going towards these sports will take away from other parts of the school.
  
Fourth, they want this done.  Months and months spent fund raising and having people try and fail is not good for the department.

I think 3 is the most important reason. The university has a much bigger hole in its budget than athletics does. It does not send the right message to direct massive amounts to athletics when academic areas are starving.

[chrisk]

A concerned group started to make progress towards that number, then allegedly, LSJU said (in essence) "not at any price."  Allegedly.

That is ridiculous of the university (or the athletic department) to say "not at any price."  If that's true, then I think the administration has to answer for that.

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be the case.

First, you don't just have to pay for Men's Volleyball.  You also have to pay for the women's sport to go along with it.  Although I guess conceptually that just makes the number bigger.

Second, you have the issue of more admissions breaks.  The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue.

Third, I can imagine a concern that money going towards these sports will take away from other parts of the school.
  
Fourth, they want this done.  Months and months spent fund raising and having people try and fail is not good for the department.

I think 3 is the most important reason. The university has a much bigger hole in its budget than athletics does. It does not send the right message to direct massive amounts to athletics when academic areas are starving.

[82lsju]

how big is the hole?  from the AD

We have calculated that the total incremental funding needed to permanently sustain these 11 sports at a nationally competitive varsity level exceeds $200 million. There are other significant fundraising priorities across the university and within Athletics. In fact, even after recognizing the full expense savings resulting from this decision, closing the remaining Athletics structural deficit and ensuring the continued success of our remaining 25 varsity sports will itself require garnering resources that exceed that amount, and we are fully committed to that endeavor.

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/08/ath...ampaign=an

so the priority is the $200m+ for the rest of the AD not the $200m+ to save the 11 sports

anyone want to step up with a $500m donation?

[82lsju]

how big is the hole?  from the AD

We have calculated that the total incremental funding needed to permanently sustain these 11 sports at a nationally competitive varsity level exceeds $200 million. There are other significant fundraising priorities across the university and within Athletics. In fact, even after recognizing the full expense savings resulting from this decision, closing the remaining Athletics structural deficit and ensuring the continued success of our remaining 25 varsity sports will itself require garnering resources that exceed that amount, and we are fully committed to that endeavor.

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/08/ath...ampaign=an

so the priority is the $200m+ for the rest of the AD not the $200m+ to save the 11 sports

anyone want to step up with a $500m donation?

[chrisk]

The university is budgeting for a $620 million shortfall in revenue for the coming year relative to what had been previously expected. It is withdrawing an extra $150 million from the endowment to help cover the deficit in addition to imposing expense reductions. That is an annual number that dwarfs the $25 million or $50 million deficit the athletic department will rack up.

[chrisk]

The university is budgeting for a $620 million shortfall in revenue for the coming year relative to what had been previously expected. It is withdrawing an extra $150 million from the endowment to help cover the deficit in addition to imposing expense reductions. That is an annual number that dwarfs the $25 million or $50 million deficit the athletic department will rack up.

[fullmetal]

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be the case.

First, you don't just have to pay for Men's Volleyball.  You also have to pay for the women's sport to go along with it.  Although I guess conceptually that just makes the number bigger.

Second, you have the issue of more admissions breaks.  The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue.

Third, I can imagine a concern that money going towards these sports will take away from other parts of the school.
  
Fourth, they want this done.  Months and months spent fund raising and having people try and fail is not good for the department.

John, did you compete in a varsity sport at Stanford?  My guess is not.  These answers don't make any sense.

1. Women's vball is already staffed and paid for.  Cutting the men's team didn't mean cutting the whole women's team simultaneously, so it's not like you need to fund an additional WVB team.  Now looking at T9 roster count across all sports is a different issue.  You're going to have to try and bring back some women athletes as well to help, although the MVB team isn't that large.

2. "The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue."  You know, the AD didn't mention secret Skrull invasions or Russian spies infiltrating these teams in his press release either, but I guess I somehow have to believe those are real issues too.  You really shouldn't speculate baselessly.  It's a really bad look.

3. If they're concerned that money will go to support sports in existential danger instead of other parts of the school, then maybe they shouldn't put these sports in existential danger!  I guarantee you that many alumni would not be thinking of donating to their sports right now if the sports weren't in danger of being cut.  We'd probably be thinking of donating to the school.  Additionally, it would be very hard to see this kind of leverage from the academic university applied to athletic department.  Imagine MTL saying to Muir: "Hey, we need more donations for academics.  Cut a few sports so that people stop donating to those sports and start donating to the university."  That is NOT how donations work.  At least, that's not how my donations work.

And I'll be honest, if efforts to save my sport don't pan out, I'm not sure I would donate to the university in the future.  This decision was made secretly and in bad faith with no input or heads up from the AD to anyone in the Stanford community.  In fact, this reinforces the idea that unnamed administrators make numbers-based decisions with no care for the people impacted.  This poisons my emotional ties to the university.

4. Yeah they want this done.  But if Muir is rumored to be leaving for the east coast, then this should definitely not happen as it would be impossible to prove that he cut these sports with an eye toward the long-term benefit of the university as a whole (and not just the AD budget).  Just because the AD wants this done does not mean it's the right, moral, or just thing to do.

[fullmetal]

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be the case.

First, you don't just have to pay for Men's Volleyball.  You also have to pay for the women's sport to go along with it.  Although I guess conceptually that just makes the number bigger.

Second, you have the issue of more admissions breaks.  The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue.

Third, I can imagine a concern that money going towards these sports will take away from other parts of the school.
  
Fourth, they want this done.  Months and months spent fund raising and having people try and fail is not good for the department.

John, did you compete in a varsity sport at Stanford?  My guess is not.  These answers don't make any sense.

1. Women's vball is already staffed and paid for.  Cutting the men's team didn't mean cutting the whole women's team simultaneously, so it's not like you need to fund an additional WVB team.  Now looking at T9 roster count across all sports is a different issue.  You're going to have to try and bring back some women athletes as well to help, although the MVB team isn't that large.

2. "The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue."  You know, the AD didn't mention secret Skrull invasions or Russian spies infiltrating these teams in his press release either, but I guess I somehow have to believe those are real issues too.  You really shouldn't speculate baselessly.  It's a really bad look.

3. If they're concerned that money will go to support sports in existential danger instead of other parts of the school, then maybe they shouldn't put these sports in existential danger!  I guarantee you that many alumni would not be thinking of donating to their sports right now if the sports weren't in danger of being cut.  We'd probably be thinking of donating to the school.  Additionally, it would be very hard to see this kind of leverage from the academic university applied to athletic department.  Imagine MTL saying to Muir: "Hey, we need more donations for academics.  Cut a few sports so that people stop donating to those sports and start donating to the university."  That is NOT how donations work.  At least, that's not how my donations work.

And I'll be honest, if efforts to save my sport don't pan out, I'm not sure I would donate to the university in the future.  This decision was made secretly and in bad faith with no input or heads up from the AD to anyone in the Stanford community.  In fact, this reinforces the idea that unnamed administrators make numbers-based decisions with no care for the people impacted.  This poisons my emotional ties to the university.

4. Yeah they want this done.  But if Muir is rumored to be leaving for the east coast, then this should definitely not happen as it would be impossible to prove that he cut these sports with an eye toward the long-term benefit of the university as a whole (and not just the AD budget).  Just because the AD wants this done does not mean it's the right, moral, or just thing to do.

[Mudhead]

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be the case.

First, you don't just have to pay for Men's Volleyball.  You also have to pay for the women's sport to go along with it.  Although I guess conceptually that just makes the number bigger.

Second, you have the issue of more admissions breaks.  The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue.

Third, I can imagine a concern that money going towards these sports will take away from other parts of the school.
  
Fourth, they want this done.  Months and months spent fund raising and having people try and fail is not good for the department.

John, did you compete in a varsity sport at Stanford?  My guess is not.  These answers don't make any sense.

1. Women's vball is already staffed and paid for.  Cutting the men's team didn't mean cutting the whole women's team simultaneously, so it's not like you need to fund an additional WVB team.  Now looking at T9 roster count across all sports is a different issue.  You're going to have to try and bring back some women athletes as well to help, although the MVB team isn't that large.

2. "The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue."  You know, the AD didn't mention secret Skrull invasions or Russian spies infiltrating these teams in his press release either, but I guess I somehow have to believe those are real issues too.  You really shouldn't speculate baselessly.  It's a really bad look.

3. If they're concerned that money will go to support sports in existential danger instead of other parts of the school, then maybe they shouldn't put these sports in existential danger!  I guarantee you that many alumni would not be thinking of donating to their sports right now if the sports weren't in danger of being cut.  We'd probably be thinking of donating to the school.  Additionally, it would be very hard to see this kind of leverage from the academic university applied to athletic department.  Imagine MTL saying to Muir: "Hey, we need more donations for academics.  Cut a few sports so that people stop donating to those sports and start donating to the university."  That is NOT how donations work.  At least, that's not how my donations work.

And I'll be honest, if efforts to save my sport don't pan out, I'm not sure I would donate to the university in the future.  This decision was made secretly and in bad faith with no input or heads up from the AD to anyone in the Stanford community.  In fact, this reinforces the idea that unnamed administrators make numbers-based decisions with no care for the people impacted.  This poisons my emotional ties to the university.

4. Yeah they want this done.  But if Muir is rumored to be leaving for the east coast, then this should definitely not happen as it would be impossible to prove that he cut these sports with an eye toward the long-term benefit of the university as a whole (and not just the AD budget).  Just because the AD wants this done does not mean it's the right, moral, or just thing to do.

Hate to sound like Johnny One Note here, but if we don’t have a methodical , data based way of determining when to add or cut a sport, it gets down to personal preferences ... mine vs yours vs hers vs his.  I’m not terribly impressed with my cut at it and I was sort of hoping better minds could come up with one.  Instead , I see a lot off blaming the decision makers and here is what I like. And with respect just sticking to what we have isn’t a strategy.

To be sure there wasn’t as crisp a description of how these sports were chosen as we might like, but Muir did put forward some markers. I hope the entire Stanford community makes cuts to deal wit the emergency at hand..or at least examines and explains why they are keeping X and not Y and why they are not t adding Z. I’m proud of Muir for taking the lead on this, assuming of course that all departments and functions will do like wise.

For this board, though, maybe we can help develop a basis o adding, cutting or keeping sports that isn’t dependent upon personal preference.

[Mudhead]

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be the case.

First, you don't just have to pay for Men's Volleyball.  You also have to pay for the women's sport to go along with it.  Although I guess conceptually that just makes the number bigger.

Second, you have the issue of more admissions breaks.  The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue.

Third, I can imagine a concern that money going towards these sports will take away from other parts of the school.
  
Fourth, they want this done.  Months and months spent fund raising and having people try and fail is not good for the department.

John, did you compete in a varsity sport at Stanford?  My guess is not.  These answers don't make any sense.

1. Women's vball is already staffed and paid for.  Cutting the men's team didn't mean cutting the whole women's team simultaneously, so it's not like you need to fund an additional WVB team.  Now looking at T9 roster count across all sports is a different issue.  You're going to have to try and bring back some women athletes as well to help, although the MVB team isn't that large.

2. "The AD didn't mention that in his press release but I have to believe it is a real issue."  You know, the AD didn't mention secret Skrull invasions or Russian spies infiltrating these teams in his press release either, but I guess I somehow have to believe those are real issues too.  You really shouldn't speculate baselessly.  It's a really bad look.

3. If they're concerned that money will go to support sports in existential danger instead of other parts of the school, then maybe they shouldn't put these sports in existential danger!  I guarantee you that many alumni would not be thinking of donating to their sports right now if the sports weren't in danger of being cut.  We'd probably be thinking of donating to the school.  Additionally, it would be very hard to see this kind of leverage from the academic university applied to athletic department.  Imagine MTL saying to Muir: "Hey, we need more donations for academics.  Cut a few sports so that people stop donating to those sports and start donating to the university."  That is NOT how donations work.  At least, that's not how my donations work.

And I'll be honest, if efforts to save my sport don't pan out, I'm not sure I would donate to the university in the future.  This decision was made secretly and in bad faith with no input or heads up from the AD to anyone in the Stanford community.  In fact, this reinforces the idea that unnamed administrators make numbers-based decisions with no care for the people impacted.  This poisons my emotional ties to the university.

4. Yeah they want this done.  But if Muir is rumored to be leaving for the east coast, then this should definitely not happen as it would be impossible to prove that he cut these sports with an eye toward the long-term benefit of the university as a whole (and not just the AD budget).  Just because the AD wants this done does not mean it's the right, moral, or just thing to do.

Hate to sound like Johnny One Note here, but if we don’t have a methodical , data based way of determining when to add or cut a sport, it gets down to personal preferences ... mine vs yours vs hers vs his.  I’m not terribly impressed with my cut at it and I was sort of hoping better minds could come up with one.  Instead , I see a lot off blaming the decision makers and here is what I like. And with respect just sticking to what we have isn’t a strategy.

To be sure there wasn’t as crisp a description of how these sports were chosen as we might like, but Muir did put forward some markers. I hope the entire Stanford community makes cuts to deal wit the emergency at hand..or at least examines and explains why they are keeping X and not Y and why they are not t adding Z. I’m proud of Muir for taking the lead on this, assuming of course that all departments and functions will do like wise.

For this board, though, maybe we can help develop a basis o adding, cutting or keeping sports that isn’t dependent upon personal preference.

[fullmetal]

how big is the hole?  from the AD

We have calculated that the total incremental funding needed to permanently sustain these 11 sports at a nationally competitive varsity level exceeds $200 million. There are other significant fundraising priorities across the university and within Athletics. In fact, even after recognizing the full expense savings resulting from this decision, closing the remaining Athletics structural deficit and ensuring the continued success of our remaining 25 varsity sports will itself require garnering resources that exceed that amount, and we are fully committed to that endeavor.

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/08/ath...ampaign=an

so the priority is the $200m+ for the rest of the AD not the $200m+ to save the 11 sports

anyone want to step up with a $500m donation?

So I read that as $200+ million is required to endow all costs of the 11 sports in perpetuity.  That's a little shady of the AD to be throwing that number out there as if it meant something other than "perfect solution right now."

And "...will require garnering resources that exceed that amount" probably means the full expense savings realized by cutting 11 sports, not the $200+ mil perpetual endowment.  I don't think the structural deficit is anywhere near $200 mil (I'm pretty sure it's an order of magnitude lower).

I'm not sure why the AD didn't come out with a wideband "save our sports" campaign instead.  But hey, if money isn't the real issue here, I wish they would tell us what is.  Also, sports were suspended in wartime; certain sports could have been suspended during a pandemic instead of being cut.  With the likelihood of no competition looming, that seems like a kinder compromise rather than terminating an athletic legacy tied to the university.

---

Hate to sound like Johnny One Note here, but if we don’t have a methodical , data based way of determining when to add or cut a sport, it gets down to personal preferences ... mine vs yours vs hers vs his.

If Muir gave us a data-based method, I would have respected this decision much more than I do right now.  But absent numbers from the AD other than those related to "it's not popular enough," it really does sound like the AD played favorites in choosing who got cut, esp because there some surviving sports who are less successful than a nine-time national champion women's lightweight rowing team.

What's really telling is the AD saying that no amount of philanthropy can bring back any of these sports.  Would the AD really decline to sponsor a sport that was fully endowed if it wasn't popular or an NCAA sport?  What does that say about Stanford as an leader in athletics?  We supported women's sports before they were popular or before they were sponsored by the NCAA.  Have we decided to change that part of the Stanford DNA and decided to let adversity turn us into one of the herd?

Personally, I'd like to follow the D3 philosophy and make sure athletics benefits more of the student body at large.  (I do like to see our teams win too.  It's not always a zero-sum game.)

Prioritize sports that take walk-ons.  Prioritize sports that have a good budget dollar to athlete ratio.  Prioritize sports that run lean and don't have high overall costs.  Prioritize sports that offer intro classes to the student body.  Create a student body impact metric for each sport--how much does a Pac-12 football championship every four years affect the average student versus having a beginning/intermediate/advanced fencing course series taught at Roble available to the general student body?

In the end, I think it came down to money even though they'll say it wasn't about money, and they tried to choose the smallest or least influential voices to affect.

[fullmetal]

how big is the hole?  from the AD

We have calculated that the total incremental funding needed to permanently sustain these 11 sports at a nationally competitive varsity level exceeds $200 million. There are other significant fundraising priorities across the university and within Athletics. In fact, even after recognizing the full expense savings resulting from this decision, closing the remaining Athletics structural deficit and ensuring the continued success of our remaining 25 varsity sports will itself require garnering resources that exceed that amount, and we are fully committed to that endeavor.

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/08/ath...ampaign=an

so the priority is the $200m+ for the rest of the AD not the $200m+ to save the 11 sports

anyone want to step up with a $500m donation?

So I read that as $200+ million is required to endow all costs of the 11 sports in perpetuity.  That's a little shady of the AD to be throwing that number out there as if it meant something other than "perfect solution right now."

And "...will require garnering resources that exceed that amount" probably means the full expense savings realized by cutting 11 sports, not the $200+ mil perpetual endowment.  I don't think the structural deficit is anywhere near $200 mil (I'm pretty sure it's an order of magnitude lower).

I'm not sure why the AD didn't come out with a wideband "save our sports" campaign instead.  But hey, if money isn't the real issue here, I wish they would tell us what is.  Also, sports were suspended in wartime; certain sports could have been suspended during a pandemic instead of being cut.  With the likelihood of no competition looming, that seems like a kinder compromise rather than terminating an athletic legacy tied to the university.

---

Hate to sound like Johnny One Note here, but if we don’t have a methodical , data based way of determining when to add or cut a sport, it gets down to personal preferences ... mine vs yours vs hers vs his.

If Muir gave us a data-based method, I would have respected this decision much more than I do right now.  But absent numbers from the AD other than those related to "it's not popular enough," it really does sound like the AD played favorites in choosing who got cut, esp because there some surviving sports who are less successful than a nine-time national champion women's lightweight rowing team.

What's really telling is the AD saying that no amount of philanthropy can bring back any of these sports.  Would the AD really decline to sponsor a sport that was fully endowed if it wasn't popular or an NCAA sport?  What does that say about Stanford as an leader in athletics?  We supported women's sports before they were popular or before they were sponsored by the NCAA.  Have we decided to change that part of the Stanford DNA and decided to let adversity turn us into one of the herd?

Personally, I'd like to follow the D3 philosophy and make sure athletics benefits more of the student body at large.  (I do like to see our teams win too.  It's not always a zero-sum game.)

Prioritize sports that take walk-ons.  Prioritize sports that have a good budget dollar to athlete ratio.  Prioritize sports that run lean and don't have high overall costs.  Prioritize sports that offer intro classes to the student body.  Create a student body impact metric for each sport--how much does a Pac-12 football championship every four years affect the average student versus having a beginning/intermediate/advanced fencing course series taught at Roble available to the general student body?

In the end, I think it came down to money even though they'll say it wasn't about money, and they tried to choose the smallest or least influential voices to affect.

[82lsju]

And "...will require garnering resources that exceed that amount" probably means the full expense savings realized by cutting 11 sports, not the $200+ mil perpetual endowment.  I don't think the structural deficit is anywhere near $200 mil (I'm pretty sure it's an order of magnitude lower).

but if you want an endowment to cover the structural deficit (assuming you can't or won't eliminate it) you need ~20x that amount (assuming a 5% payout) so if the structural deficit is ~$10m you need ~$200m added to the endowment to cover it.

[82lsju]

And "...will require garnering resources that exceed that amount" probably means the full expense savings realized by cutting 11 sports, not the $200+ mil perpetual endowment.  I don't think the structural deficit is anywhere near $200 mil (I'm pretty sure it's an order of magnitude lower).

but if you want an endowment to cover the structural deficit (assuming you can't or won't eliminate it) you need ~20x that amount (assuming a 5% payout) so if the structural deficit is ~$10m you need ~$200m added to the endowment to cover it.

[BigJohn043]

Hate to sound like Johnny One Note here, but if we don’t have a methodical , data based way of determining when to add or cut a sport, it gets down to personal preferences ... mine vs yours vs hers vs his.  I’m not terribly impressed with my cut at it and I was sort of hoping better minds could come up with one.  Instead , I see a lot off blaming the decision makers and here is what I like. And with respect just sticking to what we have isn’t a strategy.

To be sure there wasn’t as crisp a description of how these sports were chosen as we might like, but Muir did put forward some markers. I hope the entire Stanford community makes cuts to deal wit the emergency at hand..or at least examines and explains why they are keeping X and not Y and why they are not t adding Z. I’m proud of Muir for taking the lead on this, assuming of course that all departments and functions will do like wise.

For this board, though, maybe we can help develop a basis o adding, cutting or keeping sports that isn’t dependent upon personal preference.

The press release set out the criteria pretty clearly:

• 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
  

Six of the 11 sports that were cut were not NCAA sponsored.  We cut all of the non-sponsored sports.  So that was clearly the first cut.

You then have two sports with very few NCAA teams, very little HS participation, almost no teams on the west coast and Stanford has almost no real history of success.  They fail on almost every category.  Those are women's field hockey, men's fencing and women's fencing.

At this point title 9 comes in.  You need to cut two more sports and they have to be men's.

Here are the candidates:
Gymanstics - 15 Teams - very limited west coast - won national title in last season
Volleyball - 23 Teams - west coast centric - 6-11 in last season - 2010 last championship - 2014 last final four
Water Polo - 22 Teams - west coast centric - won national title in last season
Wrestling  -  79 Teams - limited west coast - best NCAA finish ever was 11th in 2011

My guess is that Wrestling was the easier of the two cuts and it was going to be hard to cut gymnastics or water polo given we are defending national champs.

So I think the criteria is pretty clear.  I think men's volleyball is a good fit for Stanford but we need to add another women's sport.  Before this cut there was only one NCAA sponsored women's sport we didn't have: Bowling.  Thats right, Bowling.

There are currently some "emerging" sports for women that the NCAA is sponsoring:
Acrobatics & Tumbling
Equestrian - that should really help diversity
Rugby
Triathlon
Wrestling

My bet for some time down the road is on Triathlon....

[BigJohn043]

Hate to sound like Johnny One Note here, but if we don’t have a methodical , data based way of determining when to add or cut a sport, it gets down to personal preferences ... mine vs yours vs hers vs his.  I’m not terribly impressed with my cut at it and I was sort of hoping better minds could come up with one.  Instead , I see a lot off blaming the decision makers and here is what I like. And with respect just sticking to what we have isn’t a strategy.

To be sure there wasn’t as crisp a description of how these sports were chosen as we might like, but Muir did put forward some markers. I hope the entire Stanford community makes cuts to deal wit the emergency at hand..or at least examines and explains why they are keeping X and not Y and why they are not t adding Z. I’m proud of Muir for taking the lead on this, assuming of course that all departments and functions will do like wise.

For this board, though, maybe we can help develop a basis o adding, cutting or keeping sports that isn’t dependent upon personal preference.

The press release set out the criteria pretty clearly:

• 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
  

Six of the 11 sports that were cut were not NCAA sponsored.  We cut all of the non-sponsored sports.  So that was clearly the first cut.

You then have two sports with very few NCAA teams, very little HS participation, almost no teams on the west coast and Stanford has almost no real history of success.  They fail on almost every category.  Those are women's field hockey, men's fencing and women's fencing.

At this point title 9 comes in.  You need to cut two more sports and they have to be men's.

Here are the candidates:
Gymanstics - 15 Teams - very limited west coast - won national title in last season
Volleyball - 23 Teams - west coast centric - 6-11 in last season - 2010 last championship - 2014 last final four
Water Polo - 22 Teams - west coast centric - won national title in last season
Wrestling  -  79 Teams - limited west coast - best NCAA finish ever was 11th in 2011

My guess is that Wrestling was the easier of the two cuts and it was going to be hard to cut gymnastics or water polo given we are defending national champs.

So I think the criteria is pretty clear.  I think men's volleyball is a good fit for Stanford but we need to add another women's sport.  Before this cut there was only one NCAA sponsored women's sport we didn't have: Bowling.  Thats right, Bowling.

There are currently some "emerging" sports for women that the NCAA is sponsoring:
Acrobatics & Tumbling
Equestrian - that should really help diversity
Rugby
Triathlon
Wrestling

My bet for some time down the road is on Triathlon....

[2006alum]

The university is budgeting for a $620 million shortfall in revenue for the coming year relative to what had been previously expected.  It is withdrawing an extra $150 million from the endowment to help cover the deficit in addition to imposing expense reductions.  That is an annual number that dwarfs the $25 million or $50 million deficit the athletic department will rack up.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much of this revenue deficit is the result of increased expenses (i.e., extra sanitation measures and efforts to distribute dining hall food, etc., in a safe way) versus decreased revenue (i.e., reduced distributions from TV and media rights deals, possible loss of all football attendance revenue, less tuition from fewer enrolled students, fewer anticipated federal grants, etc.)

If Stanford really does plan on having all students pay full tuition for the ordinary three quarters, and but halves the number housed on campus, I am struggling to see how the revenue deficit could be so severe unless they think football ain't happening and are planning accordingly. And frankly, if they are operating on that assumption from a budgeting perspective, that alone is newsworthy.

Can someone help me out here on what I'm struggling to understand re: the deficit?

[2006alum]

The university is budgeting for a $620 million shortfall in revenue for the coming year relative to what had been previously expected.  It is withdrawing an extra $150 million from the endowment to help cover the deficit in addition to imposing expense reductions.  That is an annual number that dwarfs the $25 million or $50 million deficit the athletic department will rack up.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much of this revenue deficit is the result of increased expenses (i.e., extra sanitation measures and efforts to distribute dining hall food, etc., in a safe way) versus decreased revenue (i.e., reduced distributions from TV and media rights deals, possible loss of all football attendance revenue, less tuition from fewer enrolled students, fewer anticipated federal grants, etc.)

If Stanford really does plan on having all students pay full tuition for the ordinary three quarters, and but halves the number housed on campus, I am struggling to see how the revenue deficit could be so severe unless they think football ain't happening and are planning accordingly. And frankly, if they are operating on that assumption from a budgeting perspective, that alone is newsworthy.

Can someone help me out here on what I'm struggling to understand re: the deficit?

[oldalum]

Can someone help me out here on what I'm struggling to understand re: the deficit?

some ideas:
half the housing revenue is one shortfall.
A-V expense of putting most classes online
maybe smaller class sizes for in-person classes may mean more sections/teachers.
PPE for faculty/staff/students
frequent Covid-19 testing for faculty/staff/students
costs associated with the necessary isolations and quarantines generated by frequent testing

[oldalum]

Can someone help me out here on what I'm struggling to understand re: the deficit?

some ideas:
half the housing revenue is one shortfall.
A-V expense of putting most classes online
maybe smaller class sizes for in-person classes may mean more sections/teachers.
PPE for faculty/staff/students
frequent Covid-19 testing for faculty/staff/students
costs associated with the necessary isolations and quarantines generated by frequent testing

[fullmetal]

The NCAA also sponsors skiing, rifle, and ice hockey in addition to bowling, as mentioned, as sports where women can compete for NCAA-sanctioned championships.

The core question is whether the AD is actually making these cuts for financial reasons or not, and the fact that they are trying to dissuade donors from saving these sports says that it's not just a money issue -- but we know it's all about the money (and secondarily, the egos of the decision-makers involved).

The non-monetary reasons they're giving for the cuts don't hold up.  Stanford is a leader in the collegiate athletics world, and cutting sports to "increase the competitiveness of the other sports" as well as to realize cost savings is extremely short-sighted and does not comport with its mission statement.

[fullmetal]

The NCAA also sponsors skiing, rifle, and ice hockey in addition to bowling, as mentioned, as sports where women can compete for NCAA-sanctioned championships.

The core question is whether the AD is actually making these cuts for financial reasons or not, and the fact that they are trying to dissuade donors from saving these sports says that it's not just a money issue -- but we know it's all about the money (and secondarily, the egos of the decision-makers involved).

The non-monetary reasons they're giving for the cuts don't hold up.  Stanford is a leader in the collegiate athletics world, and cutting sports to "increase the competitiveness of the other sports" as well as to realize cost savings is extremely short-sighted and does not comport with its mission statement.

[BigJohn043]

The NCAA also sponsors skiing, rifle, and ice hockey in addition to bowling, as mentioned, as sports where women can compete for NCAA-sanctioned championships.

The core question is whether the AD is actually making these cuts for financial reasons or not, and the fact that they are trying to dissuade donors from saving these sports says that it's not just a money issue -- but we know it's all about the money (and secondarily, the egos of the decision-makers involved).

The non-monetary reasons they're giving for the cuts don't hold up.  Stanford is a leader in the collegiate athletics world, and cutting sports to "increase the competitiveness of the other sports" as well as to realize cost savings is extremely short-sighted and does not comport with its mission statement.

Good catch.  I missed ice hockey.  Not exactly a sport we are going to add in the near future.

Skiing and rifle are co-ed so they wouldn't help our Title 9 issues.

I am not sure how saying we should focus on sports that are at least big enough for the NCAA to sponsor them is extremely short-sighted or does not comport with the mission.  I am also not sure why we should sponsor sports that are very small and that we have no history of success in.  It is at least reasonable to argue that we should focus our resources on areas we can be successful.

[BigJohn043]

The NCAA also sponsors skiing, rifle, and ice hockey in addition to bowling, as mentioned, as sports where women can compete for NCAA-sanctioned championships.

The core question is whether the AD is actually making these cuts for financial reasons or not, and the fact that they are trying to dissuade donors from saving these sports says that it's not just a money issue -- but we know it's all about the money (and secondarily, the egos of the decision-makers involved).

The non-monetary reasons they're giving for the cuts don't hold up.  Stanford is a leader in the collegiate athletics world, and cutting sports to "increase the competitiveness of the other sports" as well as to realize cost savings is extremely short-sighted and does not comport with its mission statement.

Good catch.  I missed ice hockey.  Not exactly a sport we are going to add in the near future.

Skiing and rifle are co-ed so they wouldn't help our Title 9 issues.

I am not sure how saying we should focus on sports that are at least big enough for the NCAA to sponsor them is extremely short-sighted or does not comport with the mission.  I am also not sure why we should sponsor sports that are very small and that we have no history of success in.  It is at least reasonable to argue that we should focus our resources on areas we can be successful.

[BobK]

I don’t know about right now but ice hockey has been a club sport at Stanford for at least 15 years

[BobK]

I don’t know about right now but ice hockey has been a club sport at Stanford for at least 15 years

[chrisk]

Can someone help me out here on what I'm struggling to understand re: the deficit?

some ideas:
half the housing revenue is one shortfall.
A-V expense of putting most classes online
maybe smaller class sizes for in-person classes may mean more sections/teachers.
PPE for faculty/staff/students
frequent Covid-19 testing for faculty/staff/students
costs associated with the necessary isolations and quarantines generated by frequent testing

You can add smaller endowment and reduction in annual philanthropic giving.

[chrisk]

Can someone help me out here on what I'm struggling to understand re: the deficit?

some ideas:
half the housing revenue is one shortfall.
A-V expense of putting most classes online
maybe smaller class sizes for in-person classes may mean more sections/teachers.
PPE for faculty/staff/students
frequent Covid-19 testing for faculty/staff/students
costs associated with the necessary isolations and quarantines generated by frequent testing

You can add smaller endowment and reduction in annual philanthropic giving.

[fullmetal]

I would love to see the athletic department budget and track where the increases in spending are going.

Dormmate of mine was a goalie for the club ice hockey team.  They drove to San Jose for practices!

The co-ed nature of the co-ed championship sports doesn't matter for Title IX.  If you're providing a woman athlete a chance to compete (roster spot), it counts toward Title IX equity.

[fullmetal]

I would love to see the athletic department budget and track where the increases in spending are going.

Dormmate of mine was a goalie for the club ice hockey team.  They drove to San Jose for practices!

The co-ed nature of the co-ed championship sports doesn't matter for Title IX.  If you're providing a woman athlete a chance to compete (roster spot), it counts toward Title IX equity.

[BigJohn043]

I would love to see the athletic department budget and track where the increases in spending are going.

Dormmate of mine was a goalie for the club ice hockey team.  They drove to San Jose for practices!

The co-ed nature of the co-ed championship sports doesn't matter for Title IX.  If you're providing a woman athlete a chance to compete (roster spot), it counts toward Title IX equity.

I get that.  But adding a co-ed sport doesn't help you add another mens sport.  It just keeps you equal.

[BigJohn043]

I would love to see the athletic department budget and track where the increases in spending are going.

Dormmate of mine was a goalie for the club ice hockey team.  They drove to San Jose for practices!

The co-ed nature of the co-ed championship sports doesn't matter for Title IX.  If you're providing a woman athlete a chance to compete (roster spot), it counts toward Title IX equity.

I get that.  But adding a co-ed sport doesn't help you add another mens sport.  It just keeps you equal.

[fullmetal]

Title IX equality is determined by three prongs.  One is relative balance of athletic opportunities provided to women.  This is not measured by "# of sports" but by actual roster spots.  If your co-ed sailing team has eight women and five men, that's a net win toward Title IX compliance.

[fullmetal]

Title IX equality is determined by three prongs.  One is relative balance of athletic opportunities provided to women.  This is not measured by "# of sports" but by actual roster spots.  If your co-ed sailing team has eight women and five men, that's a net win toward Title IX compliance.

[BigJohn043]

Title IX equality is determined by three prongs.  One is relative balance of athletic opportunities provided to women.  This is not measured by "# of sports" but by actual roster spots.  If your co-ed sailing team has eight women and five men, that's a net win toward Title IX compliance.

Except, as an example, our sailing team has 12 women and 6 men.
Colorado's ski team has 14 women and 11 men.
Kentucky's rifle team has 5 women and 6 men.

Maybe we pick up one roster spot if we do rifle?

[BigJohn043]

Title IX equality is determined by three prongs.  One is relative balance of athletic opportunities provided to women.  This is not measured by "# of sports" but by actual roster spots.  If your co-ed sailing team has eight women and five men, that's a net win toward Title IX compliance.

Except, as an example, our sailing team has 12 women and 6 men.
Colorado's ski team has 14 women and 11 men.
Kentucky's rifle team has 5 women and 6 men.

Maybe we pick up one roster spot if we do rifle?