[Mudhead]

Question:  anyone have any thoughts as to how you determine the number of scholarship sports Stanford ( or anyone else) should have? How do you determine which ones?   We all have our opinions with regard to the cut 11, but how many should we have and which ones.

I’m not a brobdingnagian fan of any of the cut 11 so the cuts cause me no great angst but personal preference seems like a pretty poor way to choose .  If I were AD, a genuinely frightening thought, I think I’d try and have an objective screen once a few hurdles were met . In my lexicon, if you don’t get over the hurdles, it’s a non starter. If you do , you rank  the “hurdlers” with your screens

My hurdles might be 1. Can Stanford be excellent at the sport? 2. Does the sport bring something to Stanford it doesn’t have or is required to have? Ex: Women’s lacrosse helps with Title IX and reaches a mid Atlantic audience of applicants .  I’m guessing here; no interest in or knowledge of Women’s lacrosse. 

My screen might be 1.how much interest is there in the Stanford student body and the Stanford fan community? 2, Will the sport be a NET revenue generator or resource eater. ( most will be “ eaters” but by how much? 4. Can you raise incremental funds for the sport from the donor base and does it expand the donor base vs slicing the existing resource pie a little thinner?

I’m assuming a limited resource base here, even at Stanford. I’m begging the question “How big should the Athletics budget be because I am  too biased; I would probably put too much in the budget.

But seriously , does anyone have a good way of determining how many and which sports should remain in the program?

[Mudhead]

Question:  anyone have any thoughts as to how you determine the number of scholarship sports Stanford ( or anyone else) should have? How do you determine which ones?   We all have our opinions with regard to the cut 11, but how many should we have and which ones.

I’m not a brobdingnagian fan of any of the cut 11 so the cuts cause me no great angst but personal preference seems like a pretty poor way to choose .  If I were AD, a genuinely frightening thought, I think I’d try and have an objective screen once a few hurdles were met . In my lexicon, if you don’t get over the hurdles, it’s a non starter. If you do , you rank  the “hurdlers” with your screens

My hurdles might be 1. Can Stanford be excellent at the sport? 2. Does the sport bring something to Stanford it doesn’t have or is required to have? Ex: Women’s lacrosse helps with Title IX and reaches a mid Atlantic audience of applicants .  I’m guessing here; no interest in or knowledge of Women’s lacrosse. 

My screen might be 1.how much interest is there in the Stanford student body and the Stanford fan community? 2, Will the sport be a NET revenue generator or resource eater. ( most will be “ eaters” but by how much? 4. Can you raise incremental funds for the sport from the donor base and does it expand the donor base vs slicing the existing resource pie a little thinner?

I’m assuming a limited resource base here, even at Stanford. I’m begging the question “How big should the Athletics budget be because I am  too biased; I would probably put too much in the budget.

But seriously , does anyone have a good way of determining how many and which sports should remain in the program?