[fullmetal]

I don't think the answer is ever "expansion for the sake of expansion."  But I do think that each sport has created its own space in the student body and has been elevated to varsity status because the Athletic Dept thinks Stanford is capable of excellence in that sport and that Stanford should have representation among other universities in that sport.  Adding sports should be a very, very careful process; cutting sports should be nearly anathema.  

Not all sports have numerous scholarships.  I think that number is determined by alumni endowment/support and capped by athletic dept NCAA numbers.

I like your criteria, even if I am loathe to see sports as either resource generators or consumers.  Sports at Stanford shape the student-athlete experience.  They build people.  They provide intangible lessons in the human experience that you can't get in a research lab, student body government, or fine arts club.  You can't put a price on this even if you can put a price on the infrastructure around it.  And at the varsity level, being able to represent the university in competition with and against future Olympians and world champions is an experience you can't get anywhere else.

As for the question of how many sports the Athletic Dept should sponsor, I would say: the ones that it currently does.  There were decisions made over the last couple of decades that have led to this structural deficit, and I honestly think that without a full budget reckoning, it's unethical to place the burden of those decisions on these 11 sports without being able to tie the deficit to these sports.  There are favored children in the department, and while I understand such priorities, cutting several sports to preserve incremental increases in spending in other sports is foul play.

Yes, these are unprecedented times, and yes things are going to get tough.  But in light of a potential suspension of all athletic competitions in the next school year (that's what I'm thinking), surely costs will be greatly reduced and the department should suffer that deficit in order to preserve the quality experience that Stanford provides to its student-athletes.

Or suspend all sports.  Or some sports.  But cutting sports from varsity sponsorship is a deep, deep wound that erodes the purpose and premium of the Stanford athletics brand.  It sours the emotional ties that so many program alumni and their friends have to the university.  The lack of discussion before the announcement was tantamount to betrayal for some.  

Stanford is full of smart people and smart alumni.  There did not seem to be an effort to get clever or creative here, and the result was a hack job to amputate business units in the red instead of reassessing a garden in the shadow of a blight.

[fullmetal]

I don't think the answer is ever "expansion for the sake of expansion."  But I do think that each sport has created its own space in the student body and has been elevated to varsity status because the Athletic Dept thinks Stanford is capable of excellence in that sport and that Stanford should have representation among other universities in that sport.  Adding sports should be a very, very careful process; cutting sports should be nearly anathema.  

Not all sports have numerous scholarships.  I think that number is determined by alumni endowment/support and capped by athletic dept NCAA numbers.

I like your criteria, even if I am loathe to see sports as either resource generators or consumers.  Sports at Stanford shape the student-athlete experience.  They build people.  They provide intangible lessons in the human experience that you can't get in a research lab, student body government, or fine arts club.  You can't put a price on this even if you can put a price on the infrastructure around it.  And at the varsity level, being able to represent the university in competition with and against future Olympians and world champions is an experience you can't get anywhere else.

As for the question of how many sports the Athletic Dept should sponsor, I would say: the ones that it currently does.  There were decisions made over the last couple of decades that have led to this structural deficit, and I honestly think that without a full budget reckoning, it's unethical to place the burden of those decisions on these 11 sports without being able to tie the deficit to these sports.  There are favored children in the department, and while I understand such priorities, cutting several sports to preserve incremental increases in spending in other sports is foul play.

Yes, these are unprecedented times, and yes things are going to get tough.  But in light of a potential suspension of all athletic competitions in the next school year (that's what I'm thinking), surely costs will be greatly reduced and the department should suffer that deficit in order to preserve the quality experience that Stanford provides to its student-athletes.

Or suspend all sports.  Or some sports.  But cutting sports from varsity sponsorship is a deep, deep wound that erodes the purpose and premium of the Stanford athletics brand.  It sours the emotional ties that so many program alumni and their friends have to the university.  The lack of discussion before the announcement was tantamount to betrayal for some.  

Stanford is full of smart people and smart alumni.  There did not seem to be an effort to get clever or creative here, and the result was a hack job to amputate business units in the red instead of reassessing a garden in the shadow of a blight.