[Spiny_Norman]

I am trying to figure out how the cuts will translate to $ savings. From what I can tell, the AD is cutting 22 coaching positions and 20 staff positions. The FAQ said that "Athletics will save approximately $8 million annually as a result of these changes." So cutting 42 positions yields $8M annually in savings, does that sound about right?  What other cost savings can we attribute to the cuts? Reduction in travel, recruiting, etc.

What about the ~35 scholarships for the athletes? Are they typically restricted use (i.e., cannot be redirected for operating expenses)? I could not tell from reading the Buck-Cardinal Club report if there were specific donations for scholarships for any of the affected sports.

[Spiny_Norman]

I am trying to figure out how the cuts will translate to $ savings. From what I can tell, the AD is cutting 22 coaching positions and 20 staff positions. The FAQ said that "Athletics will save approximately $8 million annually as a result of these changes." So cutting 42 positions yields $8M annually in savings, does that sound about right?  What other cost savings can we attribute to the cuts? Reduction in travel, recruiting, etc.

What about the ~35 scholarships for the athletes? Are they typically restricted use (i.e., cannot be redirected for operating expenses)? I could not tell from reading the Buck-Cardinal Club report if there were specific donations for scholarships for any of the affected sports.

[82lsju]

I am trying to figure out how the cuts will translate to $ savings. From what I can tell, the AD is cutting 22 coaching positions and 20 staff positions. The FAQ said that "Athletics will save approximately $8 million annually as a result of these changes." So cutting 42 positions yields $8M annually in savings, does that sound about right?  What other cost savings can we attribute to the cuts? Reduction in travel, recruiting, etc.

What about the ~35 scholarships for the athletes? Are they typically restricted use (i.e., cannot be redirected for operating expenses)? I could not tell from reading the Buck-Cardinal Club report if there were specific donations for scholarships for any of the affected sports.

My quick math

Scholarships - 35*$75k = $2.45m (since the AD pays the University for the student) 
Coaches - 22*$100k = $2.2m (is this high/low?)
Staff - 20*$50k = $1.0m (same Q as coaches)
travel - 11*$100k = $1.1m (I'm sure there is a wide range in travel costs/team depending on the sport and where the opponents are)
other - 11*$100k = $1.1m (stuff like equipment, recruiting, game day operations, and other stuff that I'm sure I have not thought of)
total $7.85m

on the scholarships, probably at least some of the 35 are endowed, no idea what's in the endowment agreement, at least two possibilities would be the amount is given back to the donor, the other would be a condition in the agreement about what happens to the money if the sport ends (I would suspect there is some sort of clause to address this in the agreement) which could be giving it back or it reverts to the general AD endowment or who knows what.  Of course if the 35 scholarships are fully endowed and the AD gives the money back then there would not be a savings on the scholarship line above.

[82lsju]

I am trying to figure out how the cuts will translate to $ savings. From what I can tell, the AD is cutting 22 coaching positions and 20 staff positions. The FAQ said that "Athletics will save approximately $8 million annually as a result of these changes." So cutting 42 positions yields $8M annually in savings, does that sound about right?  What other cost savings can we attribute to the cuts? Reduction in travel, recruiting, etc.

What about the ~35 scholarships for the athletes? Are they typically restricted use (i.e., cannot be redirected for operating expenses)? I could not tell from reading the Buck-Cardinal Club report if there were specific donations for scholarships for any of the affected sports.

My quick math

Scholarships - 35*$75k = $2.45m (since the AD pays the University for the student) 
Coaches - 22*$100k = $2.2m (is this high/low?)
Staff - 20*$50k = $1.0m (same Q as coaches)
travel - 11*$100k = $1.1m (I'm sure there is a wide range in travel costs/team depending on the sport and where the opponents are)
other - 11*$100k = $1.1m (stuff like equipment, recruiting, game day operations, and other stuff that I'm sure I have not thought of)
total $7.85m

on the scholarships, probably at least some of the 35 are endowed, no idea what's in the endowment agreement, at least two possibilities would be the amount is given back to the donor, the other would be a condition in the agreement about what happens to the money if the sport ends (I would suspect there is some sort of clause to address this in the agreement) which could be giving it back or it reverts to the general AD endowment or who knows what.  Of course if the 35 scholarships are fully endowed and the AD gives the money back then there would not be a savings on the scholarship line above.

[Spiny_Norman]

Here is another perspective from someone who has been a senior member of the athletic administration - https://www.insidetrackgarycavalliblog.c...indest-Cut

Summary - the 11 sports were sacrificed to pay for bloat elsewhere in the AD.

[Spiny_Norman]

Here is another perspective from someone who has been a senior member of the athletic administration - https://www.insidetrackgarycavalliblog.c...indest-Cut

Summary - the 11 sports were sacrificed to pay for bloat elsewhere in the AD.

[BobK]

Wasn’t Gary at Stanford 20 years ago?

[BobK]

Wasn’t Gary at Stanford 20 years ago?

[Mick]

Here is another perspective from someone who has been a senior member of the athletic administration - https://www.insidetrackgarycavalliblog.c...indest-Cut

Summary - the 11 sports were sacrificed to pay for bloat elsewhere in the AD.

Holy Hannah, that's an extraordinary amount of bloat.  From three to five to 37 administrators? It's interesting how we've come full circle on the Sears Cup discussion, from football revenue covering the costs of other sports, to expansion of those sports, to contraction of those same sports to cover football bloat. Leviathan must be fed.

[Mick]

Here is another perspective from someone who has been a senior member of the athletic administration - https://www.insidetrackgarycavalliblog.c...indest-Cut

Summary - the 11 sports were sacrificed to pay for bloat elsewhere in the AD.

Holy Hannah, that's an extraordinary amount of bloat.  From three to five to 37 administrators? It's interesting how we've come full circle on the Sears Cup discussion, from football revenue covering the costs of other sports, to expansion of those sports, to contraction of those same sports to cover football bloat. Leviathan must be fed.

[Spiny_Norman]

Here is another perspective from someone who has been a senior member of the athletic administration - https://www.insidetrackgarycavalliblog.c...indest-Cut

Summary - the 11 sports were sacrificed to pay for bloat elsewhere in the AD.

Holy Hannah, that's an extraordinary amount of bloat.  From three to five to 37 administrators?  It's interesting how we've come full circle on the Sears Cup discussion, from football revenue covering the costs of other sports, to expansion of those sports, to contraction of those same sports to cover football bloat.  Leviathan must be fed.

I will add my own observation - how many Development personnel do you think Athletics lists on the Staff Directory? 8, 10 maybe? 17. There are 17 Development employees listed. Seems like a lot to me, especially when you consider that they leverage the Buck/Cardinal regional chairs (who are all volunteers) to do a lot of the relationship development at the local level. But maybe they need more based on the financial shortfall (said with tongue firmly in cheek).

[Spiny_Norman]

Here is another perspective from someone who has been a senior member of the athletic administration - https://www.insidetrackgarycavalliblog.c...indest-Cut

Summary - the 11 sports were sacrificed to pay for bloat elsewhere in the AD.

Holy Hannah, that's an extraordinary amount of bloat.  From three to five to 37 administrators?  It's interesting how we've come full circle on the Sears Cup discussion, from football revenue covering the costs of other sports, to expansion of those sports, to contraction of those same sports to cover football bloat.  Leviathan must be fed.

I will add my own observation - how many Development personnel do you think Athletics lists on the Staff Directory? 8, 10 maybe? 17. There are 17 Development employees listed. Seems like a lot to me, especially when you consider that they leverage the Buck/Cardinal regional chairs (who are all volunteers) to do a lot of the relationship development at the local level. But maybe they need more based on the financial shortfall (said with tongue firmly in cheek).

[BigJohn043]

I am trying to figure out how the cuts will translate to $ savings. From what I can tell, the AD is cutting 22 coaching positions and 20 staff positions. The FAQ said that "Athletics will save approximately $8 million annually as a result of these changes." So cutting 42 positions yields $8M annually in savings, does that sound about right?  What other cost savings can we attribute to the cuts? Reduction in travel, recruiting, etc.

What about the ~35 scholarships for the athletes? Are they typically restricted use (i.e., cannot be redirected for operating expenses)? I could not tell from reading the Buck-Cardinal Club report if there were specific donations for scholarships for any of the affected sports.

Hard to disagree with the AD bloat.  OTOH, his shots at Football & Basketball lose him some credibility for me.  Football & Basketball make money.  If we want them to continue to make money we have to invest to be competitive.  All of the other sports lose money.  They and the admin are cost centers....

My quick math

Scholarships - 35*$75k = $2.45m (since the AD pays the University for the student) 
Coaches - 22*$100k = $2.2m (is this high/low?)
Staff - 20*$50k = $1.0m (same Q as coaches)
travel - 11*$100k = $1.1m (I'm sure there is a wide range in travel costs/team depending on the sport and where the opponents are)
other - 11*$100k = $1.1m (stuff like equipment, recruiting, game day operations, and other stuff that I'm sure I have not thought of)
total $7.85m

on the scholarships, probably at least some of the 35 are endowed, no idea what's in the endowment agreement, at least two possibilities would be the amount is given back to the donor, the other would be a condition in the agreement about what happens to the money if the sport ends (I would suspect there is some sort of clause to address this in the agreement) which could be giving it back or it reverts to the general AD endowment or who knows what.  Of course if the 35 scholarships are fully endowed and the AD gives the money back then there would not be a savings on the scholarship line above.

[BigJohn043]

I am trying to figure out how the cuts will translate to $ savings. From what I can tell, the AD is cutting 22 coaching positions and 20 staff positions. The FAQ said that "Athletics will save approximately $8 million annually as a result of these changes." So cutting 42 positions yields $8M annually in savings, does that sound about right?  What other cost savings can we attribute to the cuts? Reduction in travel, recruiting, etc.

What about the ~35 scholarships for the athletes? Are they typically restricted use (i.e., cannot be redirected for operating expenses)? I could not tell from reading the Buck-Cardinal Club report if there were specific donations for scholarships for any of the affected sports.

Hard to disagree with the AD bloat.  OTOH, his shots at Football & Basketball lose him some credibility for me.  Football & Basketball make money.  If we want them to continue to make money we have to invest to be competitive.  All of the other sports lose money.  They and the admin are cost centers....

My quick math

Scholarships - 35*$75k = $2.45m (since the AD pays the University for the student) 
Coaches - 22*$100k = $2.2m (is this high/low?)
Staff - 20*$50k = $1.0m (same Q as coaches)
travel - 11*$100k = $1.1m (I'm sure there is a wide range in travel costs/team depending on the sport and where the opponents are)
other - 11*$100k = $1.1m (stuff like equipment, recruiting, game day operations, and other stuff that I'm sure I have not thought of)
total $7.85m

on the scholarships, probably at least some of the 35 are endowed, no idea what's in the endowment agreement, at least two possibilities would be the amount is given back to the donor, the other would be a condition in the agreement about what happens to the money if the sport ends (I would suspect there is some sort of clause to address this in the agreement) which could be giving it back or it reverts to the general AD endowment or who knows what.  Of course if the 35 scholarships are fully endowed and the AD gives the money back then there would not be a savings on the scholarship line above.

[GK3]

I saw somewhere that the Pac XII distribution to member schools has increased by an average of 8 percent a year since the 2012 - 2013 year.  I think in 2012 our ticket sales for football were up something like 42 percent.  Since then football ticket revenues have probably gone down and in more recently probably down even more.  Now we cut 11 sports but keep all 37 of the various sized athletic directors?  This would seem to make the bloat even worse.
I am of the belief that the Pac XII Conference TV deal has hurt Stanford badly in terms of attendance.  Now days if you want to buy tickets for 3 or 4 people, good seats are quite expensive, then you have the time it takes to get there and get home.  A lot of us just decided that we were already paying for the TV service so we sit and watch at home from the 50 yard line and save money, time and aggravation.  For me it meant no more 12 hour round trip drives, hotels, meals, gas.  So, after more than 20 years as a season ticket owner, I let them go and haven't looked back.

[GK3]

I saw somewhere that the Pac XII distribution to member schools has increased by an average of 8 percent a year since the 2012 - 2013 year.  I think in 2012 our ticket sales for football were up something like 42 percent.  Since then football ticket revenues have probably gone down and in more recently probably down even more.  Now we cut 11 sports but keep all 37 of the various sized athletic directors?  This would seem to make the bloat even worse.
I am of the belief that the Pac XII Conference TV deal has hurt Stanford badly in terms of attendance.  Now days if you want to buy tickets for 3 or 4 people, good seats are quite expensive, then you have the time it takes to get there and get home.  A lot of us just decided that we were already paying for the TV service so we sit and watch at home from the 50 yard line and save money, time and aggravation.  For me it meant no more 12 hour round trip drives, hotels, meals, gas.  So, after more than 20 years as a season ticket owner, I let them go and haven't looked back.

[82lsju]

I will add my own observation - how many Development personnel do you think Athletics lists on the Staff Directory? 8, 10 maybe? 17. There are 17 Development employees listed. Seems like a lot to me, especially when you consider that they leverage the Buck/Cardinal regional chairs (who are all volunteers) to do a lot of the relationship development at the local level. But maybe they need more based on the financial shortfall (said with tongue firmly in cheek).

from the 2018-19 AD annual report

donors (and I'm sure there is some overlap in the groups)

- alumni 4,359
- friends 1,620
- parents 404
total 6,383

I'll assume that like most donor groups ~20% really "count" and get assigned a development person so that's ~1,280 which is only ~75/development employee....seems kind of bloated to me.....

and in addition to the leverage with the Buck/Cardinal regional chairs for the really big donors I'm sure the University development office gets very involved.....

[82lsju]

I will add my own observation - how many Development personnel do you think Athletics lists on the Staff Directory? 8, 10 maybe? 17. There are 17 Development employees listed. Seems like a lot to me, especially when you consider that they leverage the Buck/Cardinal regional chairs (who are all volunteers) to do a lot of the relationship development at the local level. But maybe they need more based on the financial shortfall (said with tongue firmly in cheek).

from the 2018-19 AD annual report

donors (and I'm sure there is some overlap in the groups)

- alumni 4,359
- friends 1,620
- parents 404
total 6,383

I'll assume that like most donor groups ~20% really "count" and get assigned a development person so that's ~1,280 which is only ~75/development employee....seems kind of bloated to me.....

and in addition to the leverage with the Buck/Cardinal regional chairs for the really big donors I'm sure the University development office gets very involved.....

[winflop]

Tried to take some time to digest this. Also listened to Troy Clardy's awesome TreeCast. He was spot on about this being the darkest day in Stanford Athletics in decades.

But ultimately who is responsible for Stanford getting into this situation?
1. COVID-19. This doesn't get exacerbated without the virus.
2. Larry Scott. If the Pac-12 Network and TV contracts delivered the revenue that was projected, this entire problem goes away.
3. Bernard Muir. Two reasons:
      a. He should have seen the revenue shortfalls coming and stopped growth or cut back on administrative costs. While this article https://www.insidetrackgarycavalliblog.c...indest-Cut tries to compare previous eras which I don't find relevant, the point about administrative growth/bloat is well-taken.
      b. MBB. Not getting rid of Dawkins quickly cause damage both in the fan base and also left Haase with a nearly empty cupboard that he's had to rebuild. Results should have been better last season which is why jury's still out, but meanwhile Maples remains a hollow shell of its former self for MBB (not WBB) after more than a decade. That's on Muir

[winflop]

Tried to take some time to digest this. Also listened to Troy Clardy's awesome TreeCast. He was spot on about this being the darkest day in Stanford Athletics in decades.

But ultimately who is responsible for Stanford getting into this situation?
1. COVID-19. This doesn't get exacerbated without the virus.
2. Larry Scott. If the Pac-12 Network and TV contracts delivered the revenue that was projected, this entire problem goes away.
3. Bernard Muir. Two reasons:
      a. He should have seen the revenue shortfalls coming and stopped growth or cut back on administrative costs. While this article https://www.insidetrackgarycavalliblog.c...indest-Cut tries to compare previous eras which I don't find relevant, the point about administrative growth/bloat is well-taken.
      b. MBB. Not getting rid of Dawkins quickly cause damage both in the fan base and also left Haase with a nearly empty cupboard that he's had to rebuild. Results should have been better last season which is why jury's still out, but meanwhile Maples remains a hollow shell of its former self for MBB (not WBB) after more than a decade. That's on Muir

[fullmetal]

Mr. Cavalli's essay is spot on, as is winflop's analysis.  I also agree with 82lsju's numbers.  Muir's cuts are antithetical to the core mission of Stanford Athletics, and he needs to solve the budget gap by other means.  (I mean, every other university is going to have to suffer budget cuts, so what makes him think he needs to cut 11 sports to maintain/increase the competitiveness of the other 25?  And not all other 25 are even competitive right now.)

[fullmetal]

Mr. Cavalli's essay is spot on, as is winflop's analysis.  I also agree with 82lsju's numbers.  Muir's cuts are antithetical to the core mission of Stanford Athletics, and he needs to solve the budget gap by other means.  (I mean, every other university is going to have to suffer budget cuts, so what makes him think he needs to cut 11 sports to maintain/increase the competitiveness of the other 25?  And not all other 25 are even competitive right now.)

[BobK]

I think mr Cavelli is way off
But don’t care enough anymore.

We added many women’s sports. We build great facilities that have to be maintained

If those who care now and are grads should have pointed this out strongly before now after the fact.

[BobK]

I think mr Cavelli is way off
But don’t care enough anymore.

We added many women’s sports. We build great facilities that have to be maintained

If those who care now and are grads should have pointed this out strongly before now after the fact.

[fullmetal]

Bobk, if I'm wrong about supporting the Cavelli blog post, please share your perspective.  You have a lot more experience than most of us.

[fullmetal]

Bobk, if I'm wrong about supporting the Cavelli blog post, please share your perspective.  You have a lot more experience than most of us.

[BostonCard]

Well, for one, among the many associate athletic directors is one Mike Eubanks.  Yes, he nominally counts as one of the overbloated members of the athletics department, even though functionally he is the recruiting director for football and only football.  Lots of positions like that.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, for one, among the many associate athletic directors is one Mike Eubanks.  Yes, he nominally counts as one of the overbloated members of the athletics department, even though functionally he is the recruiting director for football and only football.  Lots of positions like that.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

I think mr Cavelli is way off

But don’t care enough anymore.



We added many women’s sports.  We build great facilities that have to be maintained



If those who care now and are grads should have pointed this out strongly before now after the fact.

To do a fair compare-and-contrast I would like to know the size of the department when Cavalli was there - revenue and teams. Muir leads a $120M business. There is definitely a need for more management/levels of the organization to manage a $120M business vs. say a $25-30M business.

The Development staff (14 of whom are assistant director or higher) seems large, but we can make a better assessment comparing to peer schools. I counted 14 Trojan Fund staff at USC which is in the ball park compared to Stanford. Maybe it's not as out-of-whack as first thought.

Cavalli does touch on what seems to be real culprit - the athletic arms race across the country. Would he prefer that Stanford choose not to be in it? Try to compete at the highest level without the staff, resources and facilities that peer schools have? I sure would love to discuss with him over a proper refreshment.

[Spiny_Norman]

I think mr Cavelli is way off

But don’t care enough anymore.



We added many women’s sports.  We build great facilities that have to be maintained



If those who care now and are grads should have pointed this out strongly before now after the fact.

To do a fair compare-and-contrast I would like to know the size of the department when Cavalli was there - revenue and teams. Muir leads a $120M business. There is definitely a need for more management/levels of the organization to manage a $120M business vs. say a $25-30M business.

The Development staff (14 of whom are assistant director or higher) seems large, but we can make a better assessment comparing to peer schools. I counted 14 Trojan Fund staff at USC which is in the ball park compared to Stanford. Maybe it's not as out-of-whack as first thought.

Cavalli does touch on what seems to be real culprit - the athletic arms race across the country. Would he prefer that Stanford choose not to be in it? Try to compete at the highest level without the staff, resources and facilities that peer schools have? I sure would love to discuss with him over a proper refreshment.

[82lsju]

I think mr Cavelli is way off
But don’t care enough anymore.

We added many women’s sports.  We build great facilities that have to be maintained

If those who care now and are grads should have pointed this out strongly before now after the fact.

I'm not sure he's way off, but his comments apply to the University as a whole as well

- significant upgrades in facilities, I graduated in '82 and the new chemical engineering building (opened ~5 years ago) is so much better than the old one, I'm sure it enables much better work, it is also more expensive and probably part of the "engineering school arms race", would the department be "better off" in the old building....no, would the old building make it harder to recruit faculty and grad students...yes.  The facilities arms race seems to be mostly in athletics and the sciences as I'm not sure the english dept (or many "fuzzy studies" departments) have seen a similar ramp in cost of facilities/infrastructure/OPEX

- organizational inefficiency/bloat, this pretty much happens in all orgs over time, and I'm sure it has happened in the AD, the University at large, and even the chemical engineering dept.  It is easy for this to happen when times are good and money flows freely, in downtimes not so much.  

If the good times go on long enough when there is a retrenchment the cuts are harsh, at least they have been where I have worked, and that's what I think we're seeing now in the AD.  The good times were not going to last forever and "management" needed to plan for when they were not, of course management may not have really be in for the long run given the average time in place for management so planning for a "rainy day" might not have be popular path to follow.......

[82lsju]

I think mr Cavelli is way off
But don’t care enough anymore.

We added many women’s sports.  We build great facilities that have to be maintained

If those who care now and are grads should have pointed this out strongly before now after the fact.

I'm not sure he's way off, but his comments apply to the University as a whole as well

- significant upgrades in facilities, I graduated in '82 and the new chemical engineering building (opened ~5 years ago) is so much better than the old one, I'm sure it enables much better work, it is also more expensive and probably part of the "engineering school arms race", would the department be "better off" in the old building....no, would the old building make it harder to recruit faculty and grad students...yes.  The facilities arms race seems to be mostly in athletics and the sciences as I'm not sure the english dept (or many "fuzzy studies" departments) have seen a similar ramp in cost of facilities/infrastructure/OPEX

- organizational inefficiency/bloat, this pretty much happens in all orgs over time, and I'm sure it has happened in the AD, the University at large, and even the chemical engineering dept.  It is easy for this to happen when times are good and money flows freely, in downtimes not so much.  

If the good times go on long enough when there is a retrenchment the cuts are harsh, at least they have been where I have worked, and that's what I think we're seeing now in the AD.  The good times were not going to last forever and "management" needed to plan for when they were not, of course management may not have really be in for the long run given the average time in place for management so planning for a "rainy day" might not have be popular path to follow.......

[GK3]

If anyone is interested, the list of personnel involved in the Athletic Department is here: https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

There are a LOT of people and I am wondering who, besides those involved solely in a lost sport are going to get the axe.  You can't continue to need all the people except the coaches and support staff for each sport in the cut.  There are/were for example a good number of people involved in academic support for the athletes in various sports.  Now you don't have 11 sports so the people who provided academic counseling for those athletes have no one to talk to although most are involved with multiple sports.  Many businesses adversely affected by Covid 19 are paring back not only their lower level employees, but are making cuts in the Executive Suites.  Outside of the individual coaches, I don't see anyone losing their job at the upper levels.  So I am wondering did I miss the announcement of further retrenchments that caused higher salaried personnel to lose their job.
I survived a few cutbacks, early retirement programs and had the unpleasant job of having to tell friends their position no longer existed.  I don't see that happening at Stanford.  Did I miss something?

[GK3]

If anyone is interested, the list of personnel involved in the Athletic Department is here: https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

There are a LOT of people and I am wondering who, besides those involved solely in a lost sport are going to get the axe.  You can't continue to need all the people except the coaches and support staff for each sport in the cut.  There are/were for example a good number of people involved in academic support for the athletes in various sports.  Now you don't have 11 sports so the people who provided academic counseling for those athletes have no one to talk to although most are involved with multiple sports.  Many businesses adversely affected by Covid 19 are paring back not only their lower level employees, but are making cuts in the Executive Suites.  Outside of the individual coaches, I don't see anyone losing their job at the upper levels.  So I am wondering did I miss the announcement of further retrenchments that caused higher salaried personnel to lose their job.
I survived a few cutbacks, early retirement programs and had the unpleasant job of having to tell friends their position no longer existed.  I don't see that happening at Stanford.  Did I miss something?

[Phogge]

Bobbbbbb... Gary was SID until ‘80. Bob Rose for a couple of years, the Steve Rac and Vazquez. Migdol next. I think Harballs dumped Migdol. Somewtime Jim Young took over. If you have no sports then you can start dumping personnel in SID and other offices. I think that a bunch of schools will drop football permanently. Put a roof over Stanford Stadium and build many research labs.

[Phogge]

Bobbbbbb... Gary was SID until ‘80. Bob Rose for a couple of years, the Steve Rac and Vazquez. Migdol next. I think Harballs dumped Migdol. Somewtime Jim Young took over. If you have no sports then you can start dumping personnel in SID and other offices. I think that a bunch of schools will drop football permanently. Put a roof over Stanford Stadium and build many research labs.

[BobK]

40 years ago for Gary. Since then many women’s sports. Many newer facilities to maintain and upgrade. Back when I was a boy Stanford had less sports. So what?

One Head SID you named caused termendous turnover year after year. Bob V might have been for a short time. Good guy

[BobK]

40 years ago for Gary. Since then many women’s sports. Many newer facilities to maintain and upgrade. Back when I was a boy Stanford had less sports. So what?

One Head SID you named caused termendous turnover year after year. Bob V might have been for a short time. Good guy

[Phogge]

Rose was there for two years. Still have a relationship with him. He went on to head the USFL media dept., the Giants and A's and Cal. Retired to South Carolina. Best I ever worked with. Bob V longtime assistant, yes a good guy. Cavallis dad ran a Stanford sports shop in the basement of the old building. Used to go there just to talk. Really good guy.

The university PR staff was first rate for decades. If you had a story be it "60 Minutes" or a quick need for a campus shot or background support the personnel was extremely helpful. Byers, Hubbard, Bob Lamar, Spiros and Murf all pros. Something happened with Hennessy. He instructed the staff not to allow any campus scenics shot and provided a short, poorly shot, in house B-Roll. No close parking access for vans and grip trucks. Almost like they didn't want us around although virtually all stories put Stanford in a great light. I finally turned down two jobs because I didn't need the aggravation. At least Harvard says no up front. Sorry for the vent. Cal's current department very professional.

[Phogge]

Rose was there for two years. Still have a relationship with him. He went on to head the USFL media dept., the Giants and A's and Cal. Retired to South Carolina. Best I ever worked with. Bob V longtime assistant, yes a good guy. Cavallis dad ran a Stanford sports shop in the basement of the old building. Used to go there just to talk. Really good guy.

The university PR staff was first rate for decades. If you had a story be it "60 Minutes" or a quick need for a campus shot or background support the personnel was extremely helpful. Byers, Hubbard, Bob Lamar, Spiros and Murf all pros. Something happened with Hennessy. He instructed the staff not to allow any campus scenics shot and provided a short, poorly shot, in house B-Roll. No close parking access for vans and grip trucks. Almost like they didn't want us around although virtually all stories put Stanford in a great light. I finally turned down two jobs because I didn't need the aggravation. At least Harvard says no up front. Sorry for the vent. Cal's current department very professional.