[BobK]

I wrote endowed then thought of CI    Really  :)

[BobK]

I wrote endowed then thought of CI    Really  :)

[CowboyIndian]

All finished sorting cattle in Reno. Excellent work, everyone....keeping the barbarians at bay.

[CowboyIndian]

All finished sorting cattle in Reno. Excellent work, everyone....keeping the barbarians at bay.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Stymie - don't a lot of college coach salaries end up being paid by non-university sources? For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors. Is that so different from Hennessy's wealth being funded mostly from outside sponsors who are in part paying for access to the university?

What Farmboy, pefloresjr, and Bobk said - Different pools of funding, so athletic costs do not divert funds from academia. Coaching salaries just like president, professors, staff, etc. salaries are determined by the market. Given Shaw and the coaching staff have accomplished incredible results without sacrificing academic performance, we retain our head coach at a bargain compared to the market price.

Stanford football has helped bring in a generous TV contract and three years of two BCS bowl payouts for the entire conference which awards the revenue equally among all PAC12 schools - in other words they pay for themselves and a whole ton more. Our coaching staff is absolutely worth every penny to our athletic department and our school that values balance and excellence in academics, athletics, and the arts. Achieving balance is easy.....excellence in any of those areas will cost you.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Stymie - don't a lot of college coach salaries end up being paid by non-university sources? For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors. Is that so different from Hennessy's wealth being funded mostly from outside sponsors who are in part paying for access to the university?

What Farmboy, pefloresjr, and Bobk said - Different pools of funding, so athletic costs do not divert funds from academia. Coaching salaries just like president, professors, staff, etc. salaries are determined by the market. Given Shaw and the coaching staff have accomplished incredible results without sacrificing academic performance, we retain our head coach at a bargain compared to the market price.

Stanford football has helped bring in a generous TV contract and three years of two BCS bowl payouts for the entire conference which awards the revenue equally among all PAC12 schools - in other words they pay for themselves and a whole ton more. Our coaching staff is absolutely worth every penny to our athletic department and our school that values balance and excellence in academics, athletics, and the arts. Achieving balance is easy.....excellence in any of those areas will cost you.

[washingtonismoney]

For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors.

Delicious foodstuffs are providing UCB's coaches' salaries? Who knew kebab consumption kept Teddy around?

[washingtonismoney]

For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors.

Delicious foodstuffs are providing UCB's coaches' salaries? Who knew kebab consumption kept Teddy around?

[Rally]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=10204.msg92533#msg92533 date=1405633355] For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors.

Delicious foodstuffs are providing UCB's coaches' salaries? Who knew kebab consumption kept Teddy around?
[/quote]

Donors, washington, not diners,

[Rally]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=10204.msg92533#msg92533 date=1405633355] For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors.

Delicious foodstuffs are providing UCB's coaches' salaries? Who knew kebab consumption kept Teddy around?
[/quote]

Donors, washington, not diners,

[needle]

I don't know, from the outside looking in Harbaugh might have stayed had there not been any decent California and/or West Coast NFL openings.

He would have been continually wooed and basked in that, to be sure, but I think he did want to stay in California. Does anyone else sometimes wonder what his next job is going to be? I *think* it's in the NFL, but who knows...

[needle]

I don't know, from the outside looking in Harbaugh might have stayed had there not been any decent California and/or West Coast NFL openings.

He would have been continually wooed and basked in that, to be sure, but I think he did want to stay in California. Does anyone else sometimes wonder what his next job is going to be? I *think* it's in the NFL, but who knows...

[Rally]

I don't know, from the outside looking in Harbaugh might have stayed had there not been any decent California and/or West Coast NFL openings.

He would have been continually wooed and basked in that, to be sure, but I think he did want to stay in California. Does anyone else sometimes wonder what his next job is going to be? I *think* it's in the NFL, but who knows...

That makes no sense.  He IS in the NFL.

[Rally]

I don't know, from the outside looking in Harbaugh might have stayed had there not been any decent California and/or West Coast NFL openings.

He would have been continually wooed and basked in that, to be sure, but I think he did want to stay in California. Does anyone else sometimes wonder what his next job is going to be? I *think* it's in the NFL, but who knows...

That makes no sense.  He IS in the NFL.

[CornFed]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=10204.msg92533#msg92533 date=1405633355]
Stymie - don't a lot of college coach salaries end up being paid by non-university sources? For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors. Is that so different from Hennessy's wealth being funded mostly from outside sponsors who are in part paying for access to the university?

What Farmboy, pefloresjr, and Bobk said - Different pools of funding, so athletic costs do not divert funds from academia. Coaching salaries just like president, professors, staff, etc. salaries are determined by the market. Given Shaw and the coaching staff have accomplished incredible results without sacrificing academic performance, we retain our head coach at a bargain compared to the market price.

Stanford football has helped bring in a generous TV contract and three years of two BCS bowl payouts for the entire conference which awards the revenue equally among all PAC12 schools - in other words they pay for themselves and a whole ton more. Our coaching staff is absolutely worth every penny to our athletic department and our school that values balance and excellence in academics, athletics, and the arts. Achieving balance is easy.....excellence in any of those areas will cost you.
[/quote]

And beyond the revenue metrics, the football program has become a national beacon of hope for those seeking athletic/academic/personal excellence.  Mr. Hennessey oversees the overall Stanford effort to achieve excellence in a broad variety of fields.  Each field has its own market dynamics which drive compensation levels.  In each of these fields we try to hire the perfect individual to lead our efforts in their respective area.  Mr Shaw is simply an example of our having found precisely the right person and we did so at a demonstrably below-market price.

[CornFed]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=10204.msg92533#msg92533 date=1405633355]
Stymie - don't a lot of college coach salaries end up being paid by non-university sources? For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors. Is that so different from Hennessy's wealth being funded mostly from outside sponsors who are in part paying for access to the university?

What Farmboy, pefloresjr, and Bobk said - Different pools of funding, so athletic costs do not divert funds from academia. Coaching salaries just like president, professors, staff, etc. salaries are determined by the market. Given Shaw and the coaching staff have accomplished incredible results without sacrificing academic performance, we retain our head coach at a bargain compared to the market price.

Stanford football has helped bring in a generous TV contract and three years of two BCS bowl payouts for the entire conference which awards the revenue equally among all PAC12 schools - in other words they pay for themselves and a whole ton more. Our coaching staff is absolutely worth every penny to our athletic department and our school that values balance and excellence in academics, athletics, and the arts. Achieving balance is easy.....excellence in any of those areas will cost you.
[/quote]

And beyond the revenue metrics, the football program has become a national beacon of hope for those seeking athletic/academic/personal excellence.  Mr. Hennessey oversees the overall Stanford effort to achieve excellence in a broad variety of fields.  Each field has its own market dynamics which drive compensation levels.  In each of these fields we try to hire the perfect individual to lead our efforts in their respective area.  Mr Shaw is simply an example of our having found precisely the right person and we did so at a demonstrably below-market price.

[scorecard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10204.msg92562#msg92562 date=1405654569]
[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=10204.msg92533#msg92533 date=1405633355] For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors.

Delicious foodstuffs are providing UCB's coaches' salaries? Who knew kebab consumption kept Teddy around?
[/quote]

Donors, washington, not diners,
[/quote]

Washingtonismoney is referencing doner kebabs, and I will vouch for their deliciousness.

[scorecard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10204.msg92562#msg92562 date=1405654569]
[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=10204.msg92533#msg92533 date=1405633355] For example, at UCB, the fans like to remind us that Tedford's salary mostly came from outside doners and sponsors.

Delicious foodstuffs are providing UCB's coaches' salaries? Who knew kebab consumption kept Teddy around?
[/quote]

Donors, washington, not diners,
[/quote]

Washingtonismoney is referencing doner kebabs, and I will vouch for their deliciousness.

[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92532#msg92532 date=1405632279]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10204.msg92526#msg92526 date=1405629560]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92520#msg92520 date=1405622861]
I am depressed to be reminded that Mr. Shaw and Ms. VanDerveer are paid more by Stanford than Mr. Hennesey. 

Thanks for your trenchant comments, Mrs. CowboyIndian....

Anybody who knows anything about the real world knows that oor Prez. has significant outside income. Good for him, IMHO, but it is irrelevant to the point of my comment.  More importantly, are we sliding down a slippery slope to being a University which rewards bread and circuses more than thought and intelligence.  I hope not but I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

Stymie

[/quote]I'm comfortable with Stanford rewarding academics, athletics, and the arts.  I don't think those rewards show skewed priorities if they are in the normal range of the market for those services/products.  I would be concerned if funding for athletics or the arts drained funds from the core academic mission, but I don't see any evidence of that.  Your question is a fair question to ask but is not so important that it can't be subject to a little friendly teasing.  ;)
[/quote]

Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie

[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92532#msg92532 date=1405632279]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10204.msg92526#msg92526 date=1405629560]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92520#msg92520 date=1405622861]
I am depressed to be reminded that Mr. Shaw and Ms. VanDerveer are paid more by Stanford than Mr. Hennesey. 

Thanks for your trenchant comments, Mrs. CowboyIndian....

Anybody who knows anything about the real world knows that oor Prez. has significant outside income. Good for him, IMHO, but it is irrelevant to the point of my comment.  More importantly, are we sliding down a slippery slope to being a University which rewards bread and circuses more than thought and intelligence.  I hope not but I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

Stymie

[/quote]I'm comfortable with Stanford rewarding academics, athletics, and the arts.  I don't think those rewards show skewed priorities if they are in the normal range of the market for those services/products.  I would be concerned if funding for athletics or the arts drained funds from the core academic mission, but I don't see any evidence of that.  Your question is a fair question to ask but is not so important that it can't be subject to a little friendly teasing.  ;)
[/quote]

Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie

[81alum]

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie

Stymie, I for one share your general concerns about misplaced priorities.  That is why I find myself able to feel pretty good about supporting Stanford athletics even though I would be unable to do so at nearly any other institution of higher education--including the one I work at today.

The vast majority of the 340 Division I schools do in fact subsidize athletics programs by drawing upon general support dollars.  At a few dozen of them the "revenue sports" like football, men's basketball, and women's basketball may bring in enough money to pay for themselves, but certainly not enough money to pay for the rest of the ICA programs.  At quite a few of those 340 schools the revenue sports do not even pay for themselves.  By "pay for themselves" I mean that TV money, gate receipts, and philanthropy needs to cover  all the expenses of travel, athletic scholarships, coaches salaries, facilities, etc.  It rarely happens.

Where does the difference come from?  At my place of work, the athletics program consumes about 10% of the entire university budget and it still runs a deficit of several million dollars a year.  Just the annual deficit alone would be enough to pay for 300 classes a year.  This at a place where a chronic shortage of space in classes delays the graduation of many students.  Allocating scarce resources to a program that is largely (but not entirely) entertainment when you cannot provide basic classes for the student body is indeed a case of tragically misplaced priorities.

Stanford is one of the few programs where one can say unequivocally that is not true.  One can make the cultural argument--as you suggest--that athletics should not be elevated over other cultural achievements like classical music.  I'm willing to have that discussion.  But at least at Stanford--even if one were to concede that athletics is nothing more than a frill--we have the knowledge that it does not detract from the core mission or anything else that the University does.

Where this leaves me is with a stronger reason than ever to cheer for Stanford athletics--knowing that Stanford alone seems to have its priorities straight.  Call it smug superiority if you like, but when we beat other schools, I not only revel in our athletic superiority, I also derive pleasure from knowing that my program did it while keeping high admissions standards for our athletes and not sacrificing the well being of our other students--something that few of our opponents can claim.

[81alum]

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie

Stymie, I for one share your general concerns about misplaced priorities.  That is why I find myself able to feel pretty good about supporting Stanford athletics even though I would be unable to do so at nearly any other institution of higher education--including the one I work at today.

The vast majority of the 340 Division I schools do in fact subsidize athletics programs by drawing upon general support dollars.  At a few dozen of them the "revenue sports" like football, men's basketball, and women's basketball may bring in enough money to pay for themselves, but certainly not enough money to pay for the rest of the ICA programs.  At quite a few of those 340 schools the revenue sports do not even pay for themselves.  By "pay for themselves" I mean that TV money, gate receipts, and philanthropy needs to cover  all the expenses of travel, athletic scholarships, coaches salaries, facilities, etc.  It rarely happens.

Where does the difference come from?  At my place of work, the athletics program consumes about 10% of the entire university budget and it still runs a deficit of several million dollars a year.  Just the annual deficit alone would be enough to pay for 300 classes a year.  This at a place where a chronic shortage of space in classes delays the graduation of many students.  Allocating scarce resources to a program that is largely (but not entirely) entertainment when you cannot provide basic classes for the student body is indeed a case of tragically misplaced priorities.

Stanford is one of the few programs where one can say unequivocally that is not true.  One can make the cultural argument--as you suggest--that athletics should not be elevated over other cultural achievements like classical music.  I'm willing to have that discussion.  But at least at Stanford--even if one were to concede that athletics is nothing more than a frill--we have the knowledge that it does not detract from the core mission or anything else that the University does.

Where this leaves me is with a stronger reason than ever to cheer for Stanford athletics--knowing that Stanford alone seems to have its priorities straight.  Call it smug superiority if you like, but when we beat other schools, I not only revel in our athletic superiority, I also derive pleasure from knowing that my program did it while keeping high admissions standards for our athletes and not sacrificing the well being of our other students--something that few of our opponents can claim.

[CTcard]

Stymie, I for one share your general concerns about misplaced priorities.  That is why I find myself able to feel pretty good about supporting Stanford athletics even though I would be unable to do so at nearly any other institution of higher education--including the one I work at today.

This is a well thought out and reasoned post. I even think I agree with it.

However, there are a few niggling worries kicking around in my head.

But at least at Stanford--even if one were to concede that athletics is nothing more than a frill--we have the knowledge that it does not detract from the core mission or anything else that the University does.

At Stanford the emphasis on sports does have an impact on many things the university does. For example, Stanford claims it gives 300 athletic scholarships (I didn't count) and has about 900 students on their intercollegiate athletic teams. That's around 4.5% and 13% of the undergraduate population - a significant amount and it has an impact on the nature of the place. Now, I think that is all for the good as those who are both good athletes and good students are likely good citizens of the university, but it certainly is a bigger impact on the university and far larger numbers than are seen of these legendary world-class oboists.

Stymie, I for one share your general concerns about misplaced priorities.  That is why I find myself able to feel pretty good about supporting Stanford athletics even though I would be unable to do so at nearly any other institution of higher education--including the one I work at today.

(And mine by the way.)

This is the real crux of the issue. Like everyone here, I have been convinced that for the most part Stanford itself walks the line in an acceptable even positive manner. However, it does not seem that Stanford's success is spurring others to improve - it's mostly ignored, possibly on the margins spurring others to be annoyed by Stanford and diving further into the cesspool to beat us. So, is it possible that by merely taking part Stanford is contributing to the continuation of the mess?


In the end I do NOT come down that way - I guess as is obvious by my presence on Stanford sports message boards. But I do worry about what sports have done to universities in this country generally, about the possibility of trouble at my alma mater, and I am sensitive to the possibility of my own hypocrisy.

[CTcard]

Stymie, I for one share your general concerns about misplaced priorities.  That is why I find myself able to feel pretty good about supporting Stanford athletics even though I would be unable to do so at nearly any other institution of higher education--including the one I work at today.

This is a well thought out and reasoned post. I even think I agree with it.

However, there are a few niggling worries kicking around in my head.

But at least at Stanford--even if one were to concede that athletics is nothing more than a frill--we have the knowledge that it does not detract from the core mission or anything else that the University does.

At Stanford the emphasis on sports does have an impact on many things the university does. For example, Stanford claims it gives 300 athletic scholarships (I didn't count) and has about 900 students on their intercollegiate athletic teams. That's around 4.5% and 13% of the undergraduate population - a significant amount and it has an impact on the nature of the place. Now, I think that is all for the good as those who are both good athletes and good students are likely good citizens of the university, but it certainly is a bigger impact on the university and far larger numbers than are seen of these legendary world-class oboists.

Stymie, I for one share your general concerns about misplaced priorities.  That is why I find myself able to feel pretty good about supporting Stanford athletics even though I would be unable to do so at nearly any other institution of higher education--including the one I work at today.

(And mine by the way.)

This is the real crux of the issue. Like everyone here, I have been convinced that for the most part Stanford itself walks the line in an acceptable even positive manner. However, it does not seem that Stanford's success is spurring others to improve - it's mostly ignored, possibly on the margins spurring others to be annoyed by Stanford and diving further into the cesspool to beat us. So, is it possible that by merely taking part Stanford is contributing to the continuation of the mess?


In the end I do NOT come down that way - I guess as is obvious by my presence on Stanford sports message boards. But I do worry about what sports have done to universities in this country generally, about the possibility of trouble at my alma mater, and I am sensitive to the possibility of my own hypocrisy.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie

I will concede that our desire for excellence in the arts is not as prominent as they are for academics or athletics. We do not treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes equally but that, too, is market driven. Musicians, sculptors, painters, dancers, actors, etc. do not elevate the Stanford brand and provide revenue that can match those of athletes. This is true at professional levels - the entire symphony circuit probably could not come close to rivaling the revenue generated by one professional NFL or NBA team. The market decides what and how much it wants to consume. The biggest difference between the two at a collegiate level is one can major in music or art or performing arts but one cannot major in football. The extracurricular time commitment for an athlete further differentiates the two thus the athletic scholarship seems absolutely justified.

I do not believe it is about machismo either. Anyone who has spent any amount of time on this board knows we love our women's teams! Further, our football team brought the hastag "NerdNation" to the forefront on national TV after the win against Oregon to symbolize the dedication towards academic excellence. They didn't come in wearing caps that said "Jocks with Cocks".

Perhaps one day the university may be willing to compete with Julliard and Oberlin for elite musicians, but I do not think they are willing to pay the costs of attracting both instructor and student talent from the academic budget given the return in doing so at this time. I was a professional musican my entire time at Stanford and the music department during the 1990s did not have the instruction I felt would have expanded my capabilities beyond some of composition courses. The very few students I knew that were part of a formal group like the symphony, wind ensemble, or jazz ensemble did not dedicate time to music half as much as athletes train for their sport. Most Stanford musicians know that the chances of making a profitable career in music is razor thin and even if they are successful would need to supplement their earnings through continual private lessons, workshops, or do what most do and become teachers in a formal school. Consequently, the arts on campus are considered more like a hobby instead of a serious, focused pursuit. We have some great A Capella groups, a decent symphony and jazz ensemble, a commitment to social dance and ballet, and decent theater production but none of them are going to completely stun you into thinking their performance is near the top level of their art. To that point, I love the LSJUMB for what they are: Stanford fans who are out to entertain (or annoy opponents) while having as much fun as possible for themselves, but I almost cannot bare b.e.a.r to listen to them with a discerning musician's ear. I know they wouldn't have it any other way.  ;)

[PrinceLightfoot]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie

I will concede that our desire for excellence in the arts is not as prominent as they are for academics or athletics. We do not treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes equally but that, too, is market driven. Musicians, sculptors, painters, dancers, actors, etc. do not elevate the Stanford brand and provide revenue that can match those of athletes. This is true at professional levels - the entire symphony circuit probably could not come close to rivaling the revenue generated by one professional NFL or NBA team. The market decides what and how much it wants to consume. The biggest difference between the two at a collegiate level is one can major in music or art or performing arts but one cannot major in football. The extracurricular time commitment for an athlete further differentiates the two thus the athletic scholarship seems absolutely justified.

I do not believe it is about machismo either. Anyone who has spent any amount of time on this board knows we love our women's teams! Further, our football team brought the hastag "NerdNation" to the forefront on national TV after the win against Oregon to symbolize the dedication towards academic excellence. They didn't come in wearing caps that said "Jocks with Cocks".

Perhaps one day the university may be willing to compete with Julliard and Oberlin for elite musicians, but I do not think they are willing to pay the costs of attracting both instructor and student talent from the academic budget given the return in doing so at this time. I was a professional musican my entire time at Stanford and the music department during the 1990s did not have the instruction I felt would have expanded my capabilities beyond some of composition courses. The very few students I knew that were part of a formal group like the symphony, wind ensemble, or jazz ensemble did not dedicate time to music half as much as athletes train for their sport. Most Stanford musicians know that the chances of making a profitable career in music is razor thin and even if they are successful would need to supplement their earnings through continual private lessons, workshops, or do what most do and become teachers in a formal school. Consequently, the arts on campus are considered more like a hobby instead of a serious, focused pursuit. We have some great A Capella groups, a decent symphony and jazz ensemble, a commitment to social dance and ballet, and decent theater production but none of them are going to completely stun you into thinking their performance is near the top level of their art. To that point, I love the LSJUMB for what they are: Stanford fans who are out to entertain (or annoy opponents) while having as much fun as possible for themselves, but I almost cannot bare b.e.a.r to listen to them with a discerning musician's ear. I know they wouldn't have it any other way.  ;)

[CTcard]

To that point, I love the LSJUMB for what they are: Stanford fans who are out to entertain (or annoy opponents) while having as much fun as possible for themselves, but I almost cannot bare to listen to them 

I disagree, it seems to me that being naked is the appropriate state to listen to the LSJUMB.

[In keeping with another current thread.]

[CTcard]

To that point, I love the LSJUMB for what they are: Stanford fans who are out to entertain (or annoy opponents) while having as much fun as possible for themselves, but I almost cannot bare to listen to them 

I disagree, it seems to me that being naked is the appropriate state to listen to the LSJUMB.

[In keeping with another current thread.]

[PrinceLightfoot]

I disagree, it seems to me that being naked is the appropriate state to listen to the LSJUMB.

[In keeping with another current thread.]

Well done!!!  :D

[PrinceLightfoot]

I disagree, it seems to me that being naked is the appropriate state to listen to the LSJUMB.

[In keeping with another current thread.]

Well done!!!  :D

[CowboyIndian]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10204.msg92593#msg92593 date=1405709540]
To that point, I love the LSJUMB for what they are: Stanford fans who are out to entertain (or annoy opponents) while having as much fun as possible for themselves, but I almost cannot bare to listen to them 

I disagree, it seems to me that being naked is the appropriate state to listen to the LSJUMB.

[In keeping with another current thread.]
[/quote]

I figured he was just avoiding the board software.

[CowboyIndian]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=10204.msg92593#msg92593 date=1405709540]
To that point, I love the LSJUMB for what they are: Stanford fans who are out to entertain (or annoy opponents) while having as much fun as possible for themselves, but I almost cannot bare to listen to them 

I disagree, it seems to me that being naked is the appropriate state to listen to the LSJUMB.

[In keeping with another current thread.]
[/quote]

I figured he was just avoiding the board software.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=pefloresjr link=topic=10204.msg92537#msg92537 date=1405636271]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92532#msg92532 date=1405632279]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10204.msg92526#msg92526 date=1405629560]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92520#msg92520 date=1405622861]
I am depressed to be reminded that Mr. Shaw and Ms. VanDerveer are paid more by Stanford than Mr. Hennesey. 

Thanks for your trenchant comments, Mrs. CowboyIndian....

Anybody who knows anything about the real world knows that oor Prez. has significant outside income. Good for him, IMHO, but it is irrelevant to the point of my comment.  More importantly, are we sliding down a slippery slope to being a University which rewards bread and circuses more than thought and intelligence.  I hope not but I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

Stymie

[/quote]I'm comfortable with Stanford rewarding academics, athletics, and the arts.  I don't think those rewards show skewed priorities if they are in the normal range of the market for those services/products.  I would be concerned if funding for athletics or the arts drained funds from the core academic mission, but I don't see any evidence of that.  Your question is a fair question to ask but is not so important that it can't be subject to a little friendly teasing.  ;)
[/quote]

Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie
[/quote]

I think the world treats athletes and non-athletes differently, and specifically the United States. We have historically developed traditions in this country of making collegiate athletics centerpieces of the athletic world. It is a very uniquely American thing.  In Europe, for example, there are no college football (soccer) teams that are a springboard of sorts for national and professional teams. I think if our traditions had evolved to make collegiate arts centers cultural centerpieces then you would see the equivalent emphasis from a monetary perspective on attracting top talent.  But college symphony isn't a "thing" the way college football is, and aspiring artists don't necessarily go to college, and you don't see large collegiate art shows.  That's not to say that watching the Stanford Symphony orchestra play Chopin: Piano Concerto No. 1 in E minor and Mendelssohn: Symphony No. 3 in A minor “Scottish” on November 8 and 9 in the brand new and beautiful Bing Concert Hall wouldn't be a delightful way to spend an evening.  But it isn't nearly the event that, say, Stanford - Utah game a week later will be, and it won't attract the audience.

But still, the beautiful and brand spanking new Bing Auditorium, and the under construction McMurty arts building http://arts.stanford.edu/new-building-ne...t-history/ are proof that Stanford, at least, takes the arts seriously.  We do have a world class sculpture collection, and the Bing concert hall is quite impressive.  But the way the art and music world has developed is very different from the way that collegiate athletics has developed, so I don't think it is appropriate to try to make apples-to-apples comparisons of the two.

To specifically answer your question: 1) Football teams are an almost strictly US phenomenon; orchestras exist worldwide, and most major cities have one.  2) There are specialized schools where musicians go to learn performance; as much as we might think of Alabama as a football school with some academics attached, there are entire schools, like Julliard, that are devoted exclusively to teaching music, which doesn't really exist for collegiate athletics.  Moreover, many musicians don't go to college; in major athletics, only baseball (and to some extent hockey) do players go straight from high school to a career in professional leagues (this also happens in some of the other individual sports).

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=pefloresjr link=topic=10204.msg92537#msg92537 date=1405636271]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92532#msg92532 date=1405632279]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=10204.msg92526#msg92526 date=1405629560]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=10204.msg92520#msg92520 date=1405622861]
I am depressed to be reminded that Mr. Shaw and Ms. VanDerveer are paid more by Stanford than Mr. Hennesey. 

Thanks for your trenchant comments, Mrs. CowboyIndian....

Anybody who knows anything about the real world knows that oor Prez. has significant outside income. Good for him, IMHO, but it is irrelevant to the point of my comment.  More importantly, are we sliding down a slippery slope to being a University which rewards bread and circuses more than thought and intelligence.  I hope not but I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

Stymie

[/quote]I'm comfortable with Stanford rewarding academics, athletics, and the arts.  I don't think those rewards show skewed priorities if they are in the normal range of the market for those services/products.  I would be concerned if funding for athletics or the arts drained funds from the core academic mission, but I don't see any evidence of that.  Your question is a fair question to ask but is not so important that it can't be subject to a little friendly teasing.  ;)
[/quote]

Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]

Thanks Pete F.

I agree that friendly teasing is fine, so let me tease the Bama-alumni-wannabees on this site (insert simnley face here)....

Doiung some research I was delighted to hear that Stanford now has an endow(n)ed Chair for its conductor of our Symphony Orchestra (Mr. Jindong Cai).  This information makes me slightly less depressed than yesterday, but I wonder about what he is being paid and how many of his oboe players are on a full ride?  Given that The Stanford Symphony Orchestra (founded 1891) preceeds The Stanford Football team (founded 1892), why do we not have a world-class symphony orchestra (probably barely if even so in the top-1000 world wide, if you include professional orchestras) when we do have a world-class football team (possibly in the top-50, if you include NFL teams)?

Do we really treat elite athletes and elite non-athletes (with similar qualifications in their avocation) equally?  I doubt it, and believe that it's less about market factors and more about machismo (and/or feminismo).  If not, why are we not paying the going rate $2-3+ million/year to get a world-class Conductor for our Orchestra?

Stymie
[/quote]

I think the world treats athletes and non-athletes differently, and specifically the United States. We have historically developed traditions in this country of making collegiate athletics centerpieces of the athletic world. It is a very uniquely American thing.  In Europe, for example, there are no college football (soccer) teams that are a springboard of sorts for national and professional teams. I think if our traditions had evolved to make collegiate arts centers cultural centerpieces then you would see the equivalent emphasis from a monetary perspective on attracting top talent.  But college symphony isn't a "thing" the way college football is, and aspiring artists don't necessarily go to college, and you don't see large collegiate art shows.  That's not to say that watching the Stanford Symphony orchestra play Chopin: Piano Concerto No. 1 in E minor and Mendelssohn: Symphony No. 3 in A minor “Scottish” on November 8 and 9 in the brand new and beautiful Bing Concert Hall wouldn't be a delightful way to spend an evening.  But it isn't nearly the event that, say, Stanford - Utah game a week later will be, and it won't attract the audience.

But still, the beautiful and brand spanking new Bing Auditorium, and the under construction McMurty arts building http://arts.stanford.edu/new-building-ne...t-history/ are proof that Stanford, at least, takes the arts seriously.  We do have a world class sculpture collection, and the Bing concert hall is quite impressive.  But the way the art and music world has developed is very different from the way that collegiate athletics has developed, so I don't think it is appropriate to try to make apples-to-apples comparisons of the two.

To specifically answer your question: 1) Football teams are an almost strictly US phenomenon; orchestras exist worldwide, and most major cities have one.  2) There are specialized schools where musicians go to learn performance; as much as we might think of Alabama as a football school with some academics attached, there are entire schools, like Julliard, that are devoted exclusively to teaching music, which doesn't really exist for collegiate athletics.  Moreover, many musicians don't go to college; in major athletics, only baseball (and to some extent hockey) do players go straight from high school to a career in professional leagues (this also happens in some of the other individual sports).

BC