[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.