[terry]

Except, as an example, our sailing team has 12 women and 6 men.

I believe Stanford competes in both women's sailing and co-ed sailing.

[terry]

Except, as an example, our sailing team has 12 women and 6 men.

I believe Stanford competes in both women's sailing and co-ed sailing.

[donkey687]

Except, as an example, our sailing team has 12 women and 6 men.

I believe Stanford competes in both women's sailing and co-ed sailing.

Correct. There is no men's sailing.  Women's sailing by definition is 100% women and co-ed sailing is often 60% women. Given the weight requirements in a two person sailboat, the crew is usually female.  Sailing is a varsity sport at many Ivy league schools but sometimes only for women (i.e. Cornell and Brown). It is a bit of a Title Nine hack that you can make women's sailing a varsity sport and have one coach who also coaches the coed club team.  If volleyball (or wrestling) wants to be saved, they should align with the women's sailing team to counterbalance it. Sailing has a strong alumni base that can support the program and keep it nationally competitive as a club team and Stanford can keep women's sailing as a very cheap way to add 12 women as varsity athletes.  I think it can be done for $250k annually (assuming sailing alums step up and cover part of coaches salary and boat purchases that will be used by coed club team). The Stanford boathouse needs to be maintained for women's crew anyway so there isn't a lot of incremental expense allowing the sailing team to continue to use it.  Women's sailing has had great recruiting classes the last two years. The National Female College Sailor of the Year this year was a Frosh at Stanford. The first time a freshman has won that award.  They are well positioned to win national championships over the next few years.  As far as bang for the buck goes, I don't think the other female sports can get as many female athlete spots counting toward Title 9 for the dollar as sailing can.

[donkey687]

Except, as an example, our sailing team has 12 women and 6 men.

I believe Stanford competes in both women's sailing and co-ed sailing.

Correct. There is no men's sailing.  Women's sailing by definition is 100% women and co-ed sailing is often 60% women. Given the weight requirements in a two person sailboat, the crew is usually female.  Sailing is a varsity sport at many Ivy league schools but sometimes only for women (i.e. Cornell and Brown). It is a bit of a Title Nine hack that you can make women's sailing a varsity sport and have one coach who also coaches the coed club team.  If volleyball (or wrestling) wants to be saved, they should align with the women's sailing team to counterbalance it. Sailing has a strong alumni base that can support the program and keep it nationally competitive as a club team and Stanford can keep women's sailing as a very cheap way to add 12 women as varsity athletes.  I think it can be done for $250k annually (assuming sailing alums step up and cover part of coaches salary and boat purchases that will be used by coed club team). The Stanford boathouse needs to be maintained for women's crew anyway so there isn't a lot of incremental expense allowing the sailing team to continue to use it.  Women's sailing has had great recruiting classes the last two years. The National Female College Sailor of the Year this year was a Frosh at Stanford. The first time a freshman has won that award.  They are well positioned to win national championships over the next few years.  As far as bang for the buck goes, I don't think the other female sports can get as many female athlete spots counting toward Title 9 for the dollar as sailing can.

[fullmetal]

Yeah, the cost of boathouse maintenance can be amortized across the sailing team(s) as well if they're allowed to stay in the boathouse...but so far that's a paper promise more than anything (and that paper is right now a little less than reliable given recent circumstances).  Ditto a potential men's club crew or women's lightweight crew.  It's not guaranteed at all whether club/rec teams would be allowed to inhabit specialized varsity facilities, especially if the varsity women's crew decides they want to expand into more boat bays (sailing currently only occupies one bay, and they have their own dock).

The real problem is that it's vastly harder to recruit top athletes as a club program (without the legitimacy of institutional support and without the draw of scholarship money).  Stanford is expensive.

[fullmetal]

Yeah, the cost of boathouse maintenance can be amortized across the sailing team(s) as well if they're allowed to stay in the boathouse...but so far that's a paper promise more than anything (and that paper is right now a little less than reliable given recent circumstances).  Ditto a potential men's club crew or women's lightweight crew.  It's not guaranteed at all whether club/rec teams would be allowed to inhabit specialized varsity facilities, especially if the varsity women's crew decides they want to expand into more boat bays (sailing currently only occupies one bay, and they have their own dock).

The real problem is that it's vastly harder to recruit top athletes as a club program (without the legitimacy of institutional support and without the draw of scholarship money).  Stanford is expensive.

[82lsju]

The real problem is that it's vastly harder to recruit top athletes as a club program (without the legitimacy of institutional support and without the draw of scholarship money).  Stanford is expensive.

from the previous materials is sounds like ~240 student varsity sport spots will be eliminated with 35 scholarships (no doubt spread across more than 35 people) so I'm not sure that for these sports that the scholarship support is all that great (but I could be wrong) compared to the institutional support for other costs and the ability to compete for national championships as a varsity sport

[82lsju]

The real problem is that it's vastly harder to recruit top athletes as a club program (without the legitimacy of institutional support and without the draw of scholarship money).  Stanford is expensive.

from the previous materials is sounds like ~240 student varsity sport spots will be eliminated with 35 scholarships (no doubt spread across more than 35 people) so I'm not sure that for these sports that the scholarship support is all that great (but I could be wrong) compared to the institutional support for other costs and the ability to compete for national championships as a varsity sport

[fullmetal]

Well, the cost of institutional support isn't really being recouped.  For example, even if MVB is eliminated, what is Stanford going to do, sell Burnham Pavilion?  Sure they can get back the cost of coaching salaries and maybe a trainer plus academic liaison between a couple of sports...but that's pennies on the dollar compared to the athletic dept structural deficit.  I'm hearing from one side that this is all budget-driven, and yet the savings isn't that much compared to the long-term effect of closing off these sports for future Stanford students (as well as wounding the legacies of hundreds of alumni/ae).

[fullmetal]

Well, the cost of institutional support isn't really being recouped.  For example, even if MVB is eliminated, what is Stanford going to do, sell Burnham Pavilion?  Sure they can get back the cost of coaching salaries and maybe a trainer plus academic liaison between a couple of sports...but that's pennies on the dollar compared to the athletic dept structural deficit.  I'm hearing from one side that this is all budget-driven, and yet the savings isn't that much compared to the long-term effect of closing off these sports for future Stanford students (as well as wounding the legacies of hundreds of alumni/ae).

[chrisk]

Well, the cost of institutional support isn't really being recouped.  For example, even if MVB is eliminated, what is Stanford going to do, sell Burnham Pavilion?  Sure they can get back the cost of coaching salaries and maybe a trainer plus academic liaison between a couple of sports...but that's pennies on the dollar compared to the athletic dept structural deficit.  I'm hearing from one side that this is all budget-driven, and yet the savings isn't that much compared to the long-term effect of closing off these sports for future Stanford students (as well as wounding the legacies of hundreds of alumni/ae).

If you need to cut $15-$20M/year, and you don't think it makes sense to cut that deeply across the board, the question is where do you start? They are eliminating 11 sports entirely so that the cuts across the surviving sports (however allocated) will be half as deep as if these 11 sports were not eliminated.

You can argue for across the board cuts, but the fact is that Muir, Drell, and MTL decided not to go that route.
Although those 11 sports are very unhappy with the decision, football, basketball and the other 23 remaining sports are probably supportive of the decision, given the alternative.

[chrisk]

Well, the cost of institutional support isn't really being recouped.  For example, even if MVB is eliminated, what is Stanford going to do, sell Burnham Pavilion?  Sure they can get back the cost of coaching salaries and maybe a trainer plus academic liaison between a couple of sports...but that's pennies on the dollar compared to the athletic dept structural deficit.  I'm hearing from one side that this is all budget-driven, and yet the savings isn't that much compared to the long-term effect of closing off these sports for future Stanford students (as well as wounding the legacies of hundreds of alumni/ae).

If you need to cut $15-$20M/year, and you don't think it makes sense to cut that deeply across the board, the question is where do you start? They are eliminating 11 sports entirely so that the cuts across the surviving sports (however allocated) will be half as deep as if these 11 sports were not eliminated.

You can argue for across the board cuts, but the fact is that Muir, Drell, and MTL decided not to go that route.
Although those 11 sports are very unhappy with the decision, football, basketball and the other 23 remaining sports are probably supportive of the decision, given the alternative.

[BobK]

Actually there are a number of existing athletes at Stanford fund raising for several of the cut sports. Especially Men's Volleyball.

[BobK]

Actually there are a number of existing athletes at Stanford fund raising for several of the cut sports. Especially Men's Volleyball.

[fullmetal]

If it's a money issue, the 11 sports deserve a chance to raise funds.  Clearly not "all avenues have been exhausted" if the AD did not inform alumni.  And that also means the lack of transparency and accountability within the athletic department is highly troubling.

If it's not a money issue, then we have bigger issues, as this move seems to go against everything Stanford Athletics stands for.

[fullmetal]

If it's a money issue, the 11 sports deserve a chance to raise funds.  Clearly not "all avenues have been exhausted" if the AD did not inform alumni.  And that also means the lack of transparency and accountability within the athletic department is highly troubling.

If it's not a money issue, then we have bigger issues, as this move seems to go against everything Stanford Athletics stands for.

[donkey687]

If it's a money issue, the 11 sports deserve a chance to raise funds.  Clearly not "all avenues have been exhausted" if the AD did not inform alumni.  And that also means the lack of transparency and accountability within the athletic department is highly troubling.

If it's not a money issue, then we have bigger issues, as this move seems to go against everything Stanford Athletics stands for.

It is a money issue and a priority issue.  Stanford considers the large donors to be a fixed pool of money and every $ that those large donors donate to the lower priority 11 cut sports is less money to be donated to the University and Athletic Department's higher priority sports and other activities. Thus, the strategic decision by Muir and the University to not give the 11 sports a chance to fundraise their way out of it. It is highly troubling to me, because it does seem counter to the mission of the University which revolves around providing opportunities for people.  We are talking about almost 4% of the undergrad population.  Think of those people in your freshman dorm that participated in those 11 sports. Those people may not have been at Stanford if this decision were made back when we atteneded. Sure they are replaced by other people but we are talking about student athletes who are some of the best in their field and even Olympic caliber and Stanford is now saying we don't provide an opportunity for you any longer. Go elsewhere.

[donkey687]

If it's a money issue, the 11 sports deserve a chance to raise funds.  Clearly not "all avenues have been exhausted" if the AD did not inform alumni.  And that also means the lack of transparency and accountability within the athletic department is highly troubling.

If it's not a money issue, then we have bigger issues, as this move seems to go against everything Stanford Athletics stands for.

It is a money issue and a priority issue.  Stanford considers the large donors to be a fixed pool of money and every $ that those large donors donate to the lower priority 11 cut sports is less money to be donated to the University and Athletic Department's higher priority sports and other activities. Thus, the strategic decision by Muir and the University to not give the 11 sports a chance to fundraise their way out of it. It is highly troubling to me, because it does seem counter to the mission of the University which revolves around providing opportunities for people.  We are talking about almost 4% of the undergrad population.  Think of those people in your freshman dorm that participated in those 11 sports. Those people may not have been at Stanford if this decision were made back when we atteneded. Sure they are replaced by other people but we are talking about student athletes who are some of the best in their field and even Olympic caliber and Stanford is now saying we don't provide an opportunity for you any longer. Go elsewhere.

[Softball Fan]

I enjoy watching sports as much as the next guy and I understand this is a sports message board.  Having said that I don't have much of a problem with the sports being cut.  The students who will attend Stanford in place of the athletes will go on to accomplish great things in other fields.  Also I don't believe the University's charter states the mission of the school is to fund 34 sports.

[Softball Fan]

I enjoy watching sports as much as the next guy and I understand this is a sports message board.  Having said that I don't have much of a problem with the sports being cut.  The students who will attend Stanford in place of the athletes will go on to accomplish great things in other fields.  Also I don't believe the University's charter states the mission of the school is to fund 34 sports.

[donkey687]

I enjoy watching sports as much as the next guy and I understand this is a sports message board.  Having said that I don't have much of a problem with the sports being cut.  The students who will attend Stanford in place of the athletes will go on to accomplish great things in other fields.  Also I don't believe the University's charter states the mission of the school is to fund 34 sports.

I think it is a shame that if you are an Olympic caliber fencer, synchro swimmer, rower or sailor that Stanford doesn't provide an opportunity for you. We can lose those kids to the Ivy league and other places and they will be alright but it is a shame that Stanford chooses to no longer give that opportunity to talented individuals after having a long tradition of doing so especially when funds could have been raised to keep those dreams alive.

[donkey687]

I enjoy watching sports as much as the next guy and I understand this is a sports message board.  Having said that I don't have much of a problem with the sports being cut.  The students who will attend Stanford in place of the athletes will go on to accomplish great things in other fields.  Also I don't believe the University's charter states the mission of the school is to fund 34 sports.

I think it is a shame that if you are an Olympic caliber fencer, synchro swimmer, rower or sailor that Stanford doesn't provide an opportunity for you. We can lose those kids to the Ivy league and other places and they will be alright but it is a shame that Stanford chooses to no longer give that opportunity to talented individuals after having a long tradition of doing so especially when funds could have been raised to keep those dreams alive.

[fullmetal]

The athletics mission statement, for any who are interested:
https://gostanford.com/sports/2013/4/17/208445349.aspx

[fullmetal]

The athletics mission statement, for any who are interested:
https://gostanford.com/sports/2013/4/17/208445349.aspx

[BigJohn043]

I enjoy watching sports as much as the next guy and I understand this is a sports message board.  Having said that I don't have much of a problem with the sports being cut.  The students who will attend Stanford in place of the athletes will go on to accomplish great things in other fields.  Also I don't believe the University's charter states the mission of the school is to fund 34 sports.

I think it is a shame that if you are an Olympic caliber fencer, synchro swimmer, rower or sailor that Stanford doesn't provide an opportunity for you. We can lose those kids to the Ivy league and other places and they will be alright but it is a shame that Stanford chooses to no longer give that opportunity to talented individuals after having a long tradition of doing so especially when funds could have been raised to keep those dreams alive.

I guess it is also a shame if you are a world class ice hockey player, rhythmic gymnast, equestrian competitor or ultimate Frisbee player.  Heck, ESPN puts collegiate cornhole & bass fishing on TV.  Why not give scholarships in that?

[BigJohn043]

I enjoy watching sports as much as the next guy and I understand this is a sports message board.  Having said that I don't have much of a problem with the sports being cut.  The students who will attend Stanford in place of the athletes will go on to accomplish great things in other fields.  Also I don't believe the University's charter states the mission of the school is to fund 34 sports.

I think it is a shame that if you are an Olympic caliber fencer, synchro swimmer, rower or sailor that Stanford doesn't provide an opportunity for you. We can lose those kids to the Ivy league and other places and they will be alright but it is a shame that Stanford chooses to no longer give that opportunity to talented individuals after having a long tradition of doing so especially when funds could have been raised to keep those dreams alive.

I guess it is also a shame if you are a world class ice hockey player, rhythmic gymnast, equestrian competitor or ultimate Frisbee player.  Heck, ESPN puts collegiate cornhole & bass fishing on TV.  Why not give scholarships in that?

[Softball Fan]

I enjoy watching sports as much as the next guy and I understand this is a sports message board.  Having said that I don't have much of a problem with the sports being cut.  The students who will attend Stanford in place of the athletes will go on to accomplish great things in other fields.  Also I don't believe the University's charter states the mission of the school is to fund 34 sports.

I think it is a shame that if you are an Olympic caliber fencer, synchro swimmer, rower or sailor that Stanford doesn't provide an opportunity for you. We can lose those kids to the Ivy league and other places and they will be alright but it is a shame that Stanford chooses to no longer give that opportunity to talented individuals after having a long tradition of doing so especially when funds could have been raised to keep those dreams alive.

I guess it is also a shame if you are a world class ice hockey player, rhythmic gymnast, equestrian competitor or ultimate Frisbee player.  Heck, ESPN puts collegiate cornhole & bass fishing on TV.  Why not give scholarships in that?

That is along my lines of thinking although I was thinking about other sports.  We are looking at this topic at a snapshot in time.  Forty years ago would everyone be saying it is important to the school's mission to add a dozen more sports.

[Softball Fan]

I enjoy watching sports as much as the next guy and I understand this is a sports message board.  Having said that I don't have much of a problem with the sports being cut.  The students who will attend Stanford in place of the athletes will go on to accomplish great things in other fields.  Also I don't believe the University's charter states the mission of the school is to fund 34 sports.

I think it is a shame that if you are an Olympic caliber fencer, synchro swimmer, rower or sailor that Stanford doesn't provide an opportunity for you. We can lose those kids to the Ivy league and other places and they will be alright but it is a shame that Stanford chooses to no longer give that opportunity to talented individuals after having a long tradition of doing so especially when funds could have been raised to keep those dreams alive.

I guess it is also a shame if you are a world class ice hockey player, rhythmic gymnast, equestrian competitor or ultimate Frisbee player.  Heck, ESPN puts collegiate cornhole & bass fishing on TV.  Why not give scholarships in that?

That is along my lines of thinking although I was thinking about other sports.  We are looking at this topic at a snapshot in time.  Forty years ago would everyone be saying it is important to the school's mission to add a dozen more sports.

[donkey687]

I guess it is also a shame if you are a world class ice hockey player, rhythmic gymnast, equestrian competitor or ultimate Frisbee player.  Heck, ESPN puts collegiate cornhole & bass fishing on TV.  Why not give scholarships in that?

That is along my lines of thinking although I was thinking about other sports.  We are looking at this topic at a snapshot in time.  Forty years ago would everyone be saying it is important to the school's mission to add a dozen more sports.

C'mon guys. There is a difference between taking away a sport that has long been established at Stanford and has dozens of people on campus who came to Stanford for that reason versus not offering something that hasn't ever existed at Stanford.  Many of those cut sports didn't have scholarships so it isn't about scholarships.  Should Stanford cut its music program? Drama?  Using the criteria that the Athletic Department laid out, I am not sure that music would score well.  Are we world class in music or drama? Let's cut those programs and keep more $ in engineering so we can maintain our strength in engineering.

[donkey687]

I guess it is also a shame if you are a world class ice hockey player, rhythmic gymnast, equestrian competitor or ultimate Frisbee player.  Heck, ESPN puts collegiate cornhole & bass fishing on TV.  Why not give scholarships in that?

That is along my lines of thinking although I was thinking about other sports.  We are looking at this topic at a snapshot in time.  Forty years ago would everyone be saying it is important to the school's mission to add a dozen more sports.

C'mon guys. There is a difference between taking away a sport that has long been established at Stanford and has dozens of people on campus who came to Stanford for that reason versus not offering something that hasn't ever existed at Stanford.  Many of those cut sports didn't have scholarships so it isn't about scholarships.  Should Stanford cut its music program? Drama?  Using the criteria that the Athletic Department laid out, I am not sure that music would score well.  Are we world class in music or drama? Let's cut those programs and keep more $ in engineering so we can maintain our strength in engineering.

[mbdude]

https://www.telegram.com/news/20200719/n...eld-hockey

Interesting that she would be allowed to keep Stanford scholarship for 4 years even with sport being dropped

[mbdude]

https://www.telegram.com/news/20200719/n...eld-hockey

Interesting that she would be allowed to keep Stanford scholarship for 4 years even with sport being dropped

[BobK]

I think the writer was assuming the 4 years on scholarship

[BobK]

I think the writer was assuming the 4 years on scholarship

[82lsju]

https://www.telegram.com/news/20200719/n...eld-hockey

Interesting that she would be allowed to keep Stanford scholarship for 4 years  even with sport being dropped

in the original announcement

We will honor all existing athletics scholarship commitments to the student-athletes throughout their undergraduate experiences at Stanford, and we hope they choose to remain on The Farm and earn their Stanford degrees. 

so if she does have an athletic scholarship it sounds like it will be honored

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/08/athletics/

[82lsju]

https://www.telegram.com/news/20200719/n...eld-hockey

Interesting that she would be allowed to keep Stanford scholarship for 4 years  even with sport being dropped

in the original announcement

We will honor all existing athletics scholarship commitments to the student-athletes throughout their undergraduate experiences at Stanford, and we hope they choose to remain on The Farm and earn their Stanford degrees. 

so if she does have an athletic scholarship it sounds like it will be honored

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/07/08/athletics/

[BobK]

Field hockey is partial scholie not that someone could get a full.

[BobK]

Field hockey is partial scholie not that someone could get a full.

[Spiny_Norman]

Terrific piece by Garrett Werner about the MVB program and what it meant to him - https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/st...427217.php

[Spiny_Norman]

Terrific piece by Garrett Werner about the MVB program and what it meant to him - https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/st...427217.php