[gailtate]

Not flattering for Stanford. https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/st...427217.php

[gailtate]

Not flattering for Stanford. https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/st...427217.php

[Nan3cy]

He was not the most exciting player on the team, but he always played well, at least in my memory. And he's become a heck of a writer. I will miss MVB a lot -- I didn't know the participation among younger boys' teams was increasing. I assumed that part of the reason for scratching the team was the small number of teams in D1.

[Nan3cy]

He was not the most exciting player on the team, but he always played well, at least in my memory. And he's become a heck of a writer. I will miss MVB a lot -- I didn't know the participation among younger boys' teams was increasing. I assumed that part of the reason for scratching the team was the small number of teams in D1.

[Mick]

I saw a lot of that team.  It was my son's senior year in high school, and the level of volleyball at Stanford that year was ridiculously strong.  Stanford had the best setter and libero (brothers Kawika--Natl Player of the Year and Erik Shoji), an amazing OH (NCAA tourney co-MVB Brad Lawson) and 6,635 fans to watch the finals against Penn State.

Still...Stanford hadn't won a postseason match in thirteen years to that point.

Anyway, this is a more comprehensive read about that magical season:
https://gostanford.com/news/2020/5/5/men...first.aspx

[Mick]

I saw a lot of that team.  It was my son's senior year in high school, and the level of volleyball at Stanford that year was ridiculously strong.  Stanford had the best setter and libero (brothers Kawika--Natl Player of the Year and Erik Shoji), an amazing OH (NCAA tourney co-MVB Brad Lawson) and 6,635 fans to watch the finals against Penn State.

Still...Stanford hadn't won a postseason match in thirteen years to that point.

Anyway, this is a more comprehensive read about that magical season:
https://gostanford.com/news/2020/5/5/men...first.aspx

[cardcrimson]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

[cardcrimson]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

[SamuelMcF]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

I don't know where they're getting 37 from...

https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

I count 43 "Athletics Directors", 3 "Directors of Athletics", 28 "Directors", 17 "Associate Directors", and 46 "Assistant Directors." Looks like you need to stick a 1 in front of that 37.

[SamuelMcF]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

I don't know where they're getting 37 from...

https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

I count 43 "Athletics Directors", 3 "Directors of Athletics", 28 "Directors", 17 "Associate Directors", and 46 "Assistant Directors." Looks like you need to stick a 1 in front of that 37.

[82lsju]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

I don't know where they're getting 37 from...

https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

I count 43 "Athletics Directors", 3 "Directors of Athletics", 28 "Directors", 17 "Associate Directors", and 46 "Assistant Directors." Looks like you need to stick a 1 in front of that 37.

well it looks college athletic departments have the same job title inflation that I've seen in the tech world over the last 35 years.  As an example, when I joined HP in 1987 the company had ~14 vice presidents (and ~60,000 employees).  Over time there were more and more VPs, it started with sales people saying they needed a VP title to help them get access to higher level execs at customers.  Eventually non-sales people wanted the VP title given their jobs had similar responsibilities levels, the number of VPs then exploded.  And now we have many flavors of VPs, in tech you have VP, senior VP, exec VP (the last on seems in most places to be similar to the VP role at HP in 1987).   When I left HP in 2008 there were probably close to 1,000 VPs (and ~120,000 employees), I worked for a VP, she had a group of five people (that would be five individual contributors, not five managers so the entire org was five people).   In my current job there are plenty of titles with the word "manager" in them, heck I even have one, most of these jobs do not manage people (I don't).  There are more directors, senior directors, and vice presidents that you can count.

[82lsju]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

I don't know where they're getting 37 from...

https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

I count 43 "Athletics Directors", 3 "Directors of Athletics", 28 "Directors", 17 "Associate Directors", and 46 "Assistant Directors." Looks like you need to stick a 1 in front of that 37.

well it looks college athletic departments have the same job title inflation that I've seen in the tech world over the last 35 years.  As an example, when I joined HP in 1987 the company had ~14 vice presidents (and ~60,000 employees).  Over time there were more and more VPs, it started with sales people saying they needed a VP title to help them get access to higher level execs at customers.  Eventually non-sales people wanted the VP title given their jobs had similar responsibilities levels, the number of VPs then exploded.  And now we have many flavors of VPs, in tech you have VP, senior VP, exec VP (the last on seems in most places to be similar to the VP role at HP in 1987).   When I left HP in 2008 there were probably close to 1,000 VPs (and ~120,000 employees), I worked for a VP, she had a group of five people (that would be five individual contributors, not five managers so the entire org was five people).   In my current job there are plenty of titles with the word "manager" in them, heck I even have one, most of these jobs do not manage people (I don't).  There are more directors, senior directors, and vice presidents that you can count.

[bbm233]

Reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from Cheers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrwcS4n1kzQ

[bbm233]

Reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from Cheers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrwcS4n1kzQ

[gailtate]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

I don't know where they're getting 37 from...





https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

I count 43 "Athletics Directors", 3 "Directors of Athletics", 28 "Directors", 17 "Associate Directors", and 46 "Assistant Directors." Looks like you need to stick a 1 in front of that 37.

well it looks college athletic departments have the same job title inflation that I've seen in the tech world over the last 35 years.  As an example, when I joined HP in 1987 the company had ~14 vice presidents (and ~60,000 employees).  Over time there were more and more VPs, it started with sales people saying they needed a VP title to help them get access to higher level execs at customers.  Eventually non-sales people wanted the VP title given their jobs had similar responsibilities levels, the number of VPs then exploded.  And now we have many flavors of VPs, in tech you have VP, senior VP, exec VP (the last on seems in most places to be similar to the VP role at HP in 1987).   When I left HP in 2008 there were probably close to 1,000 VPs (and ~120,000 employees), I worked for a VP, she had a group of five people (that would be five individual contributors, not five managers so the entire org was five people).   In my current job there are plenty of titles with the word "manager" in them, heck I even have one, most of these jobs do not manage people (I don't).  There are more directors, senior directors, and vice presidents that you can count.

Like the old joke about banks: 25 employees, 22 of 'em are "vice presidents".

[gailtate]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

I don't know where they're getting 37 from...





https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

I count 43 "Athletics Directors", 3 "Directors of Athletics", 28 "Directors", 17 "Associate Directors", and 46 "Assistant Directors." Looks like you need to stick a 1 in front of that 37.

well it looks college athletic departments have the same job title inflation that I've seen in the tech world over the last 35 years.  As an example, when I joined HP in 1987 the company had ~14 vice presidents (and ~60,000 employees).  Over time there were more and more VPs, it started with sales people saying they needed a VP title to help them get access to higher level execs at customers.  Eventually non-sales people wanted the VP title given their jobs had similar responsibilities levels, the number of VPs then exploded.  And now we have many flavors of VPs, in tech you have VP, senior VP, exec VP (the last on seems in most places to be similar to the VP role at HP in 1987).   When I left HP in 2008 there were probably close to 1,000 VPs (and ~120,000 employees), I worked for a VP, she had a group of five people (that would be five individual contributors, not five managers so the entire org was five people).   In my current job there are plenty of titles with the word "manager" in them, heck I even have one, most of these jobs do not manage people (I don't).  There are more directors, senior directors, and vice presidents that you can count.

Like the old joke about banks: 25 employees, 22 of 'em are "vice presidents".

[Mick]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

I don't know where they're getting 37 from...

https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

I count 43 "Athletics Directors", 3 "Directors of Athletics", 28 "Directors", 17 "Associate Directors", and 46 "Assistant Directors." Looks like you need to stick a 1 in front of that 37.

well it looks college athletic departments have the same job title inflation that I've seen in the tech world over the last 35 years.  As an example, when I joined HP in 1987 the company had ~14 vice presidents (and ~60,000 employees).  Over time there were more and more VPs, it started with sales people saying they needed a VP title to help them get access to higher level execs at customers.  Eventually non-sales people wanted the VP title given their jobs had similar responsibilities levels, the number of VPs then exploded.  And now we have many flavors of VPs, in tech you have VP, senior VP, exec VP (the last on seems in most places to be similar to the VP role at HP in 1987).   When I left HP in 2008 there were probably close to 1,000 VPs (and ~120,000 employees), I worked for a VP, she had a group of five people (that would be five individual contributors, not five managers so the entire org was five people).   In my current job there are plenty of titles with the word "manager" in them, heck I even have one, most of these jobs do not manage people (I don't).  There are more directors, senior directors, and vice presidents that you can count.

I joined BofA in 1984.  80,000 employees.  Senior Vice Presidents, Executive Vice Presidents, Associate Vice Presidents, Assistant Vice Presidents and plain old Vice Presidents.  I did a brief stint as a consumer loan officer when I was a trainee, and one of the EVPs came in to apply for an auto loan.  His compensation was eye-popping...on the low side.  He was one of the top 35 people in an organization of 80,000, and I'm fairly certain he made less than $120k.  Seemed low to me, even at the time.

[Mick]

Fantastic article. 37 athletic directors, 1.5 for every sport? 

Shame on Stanford.

I don't know where they're getting 37 from...

https://gostanford.com/staff-directory

I count 43 "Athletics Directors", 3 "Directors of Athletics", 28 "Directors", 17 "Associate Directors", and 46 "Assistant Directors." Looks like you need to stick a 1 in front of that 37.

well it looks college athletic departments have the same job title inflation that I've seen in the tech world over the last 35 years.  As an example, when I joined HP in 1987 the company had ~14 vice presidents (and ~60,000 employees).  Over time there were more and more VPs, it started with sales people saying they needed a VP title to help them get access to higher level execs at customers.  Eventually non-sales people wanted the VP title given their jobs had similar responsibilities levels, the number of VPs then exploded.  And now we have many flavors of VPs, in tech you have VP, senior VP, exec VP (the last on seems in most places to be similar to the VP role at HP in 1987).   When I left HP in 2008 there were probably close to 1,000 VPs (and ~120,000 employees), I worked for a VP, she had a group of five people (that would be five individual contributors, not five managers so the entire org was five people).   In my current job there are plenty of titles with the word "manager" in them, heck I even have one, most of these jobs do not manage people (I don't).  There are more directors, senior directors, and vice presidents that you can count.

I joined BofA in 1984.  80,000 employees.  Senior Vice Presidents, Executive Vice Presidents, Associate Vice Presidents, Assistant Vice Presidents and plain old Vice Presidents.  I did a brief stint as a consumer loan officer when I was a trainee, and one of the EVPs came in to apply for an auto loan.  His compensation was eye-popping...on the low side.  He was one of the top 35 people in an organization of 80,000, and I'm fairly certain he made less than $120k.  Seemed low to me, even at the time.

[Embo]

well it looks college athletic departments have the same job title inflation that I've seen in the tech world over the last 35 years.  As an example, when I joined HP in 1987 the company had ~14 vice presidents (and ~60,000 employees).  Over time there were more and more VPs, it started with sales people saying they needed a VP title to help them get access to higher level execs at customers.  Eventually non-sales people wanted the VP title given their jobs had similar responsibilities levels, the number of VPs then exploded.  And now we have many flavors of VPs, in tech you have VP, senior VP, exec VP (the last on seems in most places to be similar to the VP role at HP in 1987).   When I left HP in 2008 there were probably close to 1,000 VPs (and ~120,000 employees), I worked for a VP, she had a group of five people (that would be five individual contributors, not five managers so the entire org was five people).   In my current job there are plenty of titles with the word "manager" in them, heck I even have one, most of these jobs do not manage people (I don't).  There are more directors, senior directors, and vice presidents that you can count.

There is something special to being a VP.  Here's one throwaway scene that's awesome.  Raised lettering, pale nimbus, tasteful thickness indeed.
Business cards

[Embo]

well it looks college athletic departments have the same job title inflation that I've seen in the tech world over the last 35 years.  As an example, when I joined HP in 1987 the company had ~14 vice presidents (and ~60,000 employees).  Over time there were more and more VPs, it started with sales people saying they needed a VP title to help them get access to higher level execs at customers.  Eventually non-sales people wanted the VP title given their jobs had similar responsibilities levels, the number of VPs then exploded.  And now we have many flavors of VPs, in tech you have VP, senior VP, exec VP (the last on seems in most places to be similar to the VP role at HP in 1987).   When I left HP in 2008 there were probably close to 1,000 VPs (and ~120,000 employees), I worked for a VP, she had a group of five people (that would be five individual contributors, not five managers so the entire org was five people).   In my current job there are plenty of titles with the word "manager" in them, heck I even have one, most of these jobs do not manage people (I don't).  There are more directors, senior directors, and vice presidents that you can count.

There is something special to being a VP.  Here's one throwaway scene that's awesome.  Raised lettering, pale nimbus, tasteful thickness indeed.
Business cards

[BigJohn043]

If you go on the Stanford website it lists 227 people as staff in the athletic department before you get to the staff for the various teams.  That seems like an awful lot.  So I thought I would compare it.  Cal has 225 listed on their website.  And they don't have either a golf course (11 people) or "Recreation & Wellness" (28 people).  The breakdown is below.  We may be bloated but we seem to have a staff that is similar to other Pac-12 schools.  I briefly went to the USC website and they have a long list as well.  I didn't count.

So you can not like our AD bloat but it seems no worse than our direct competitors.

The other issues with raising money for the mens volleyball team is you also need to raise money for a women's sport to remain title 9 compliant.  So just saving volleyball doesn't work.

I am also amused by quotes saying they didn't ask for input from the team on the decision.  As if they needed to ask the team what their opinion was of dis-continuing their sport.

The other sad truth is our mens volleyball program has generally been pretty poor over the years.  We had a couple of good runs but struggled to be competitive in a sport with only 4 other power 5 programs....

[BigJohn043]

If you go on the Stanford website it lists 227 people as staff in the athletic department before you get to the staff for the various teams.  That seems like an awful lot.  So I thought I would compare it.  Cal has 225 listed on their website.  And they don't have either a golf course (11 people) or "Recreation & Wellness" (28 people).  The breakdown is below.  We may be bloated but we seem to have a staff that is similar to other Pac-12 schools.  I briefly went to the USC website and they have a long list as well.  I didn't count.

So you can not like our AD bloat but it seems no worse than our direct competitors.

The other issues with raising money for the mens volleyball team is you also need to raise money for a women's sport to remain title 9 compliant.  So just saving volleyball doesn't work.

I am also amused by quotes saying they didn't ask for input from the team on the decision.  As if they needed to ask the team what their opinion was of dis-continuing their sport.

The other sad truth is our mens volleyball program has generally been pretty poor over the years.  We had a couple of good runs but struggled to be competitive in a sport with only 4 other power 5 programs....

[Mick]

The other sad truth is our mens volleyball program has generally been pretty poor over the years.  We had a couple of good runs but struggled to be competitive in a sport with only 4 other power 5 programs....

I'd have to agree, and there's a reason for that.

I was at the Junior Olympics with the top 70 club teams in the country during my son's senior year in high school, and I was looking over Coach Kosty's shoulder.  He had the top 50 players on his clipboard and four were highlighted.  I asked him if those were the four players he really wanted.  He replied that those were the only four who could get into Stanford.  And that was the year Stanford won the NCAA championship.

[Mick]

The other sad truth is our mens volleyball program has generally been pretty poor over the years.  We had a couple of good runs but struggled to be competitive in a sport with only 4 other power 5 programs....

I'd have to agree, and there's a reason for that.

I was at the Junior Olympics with the top 70 club teams in the country during my son's senior year in high school, and I was looking over Coach Kosty's shoulder.  He had the top 50 players on his clipboard and four were highlighted.  I asked him if those were the four players he really wanted.  He replied that those were the only four who could get into Stanford.  And that was the year Stanford won the NCAA championship.

[BobK]

Oh John please note that as of last The site at go Stanford had not been updated for the layoffs

[BobK]

Oh John please note that as of last The site at go Stanford had not been updated for the layoffs