Really bad publicity - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Really bad publicity (/thread-21749.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Really bad publicity (/thread-21749.html)
RE: Really bad publicity - cardcrimson - 03-25-2021
- "The average salary of an athletic department administrative employee is $209,000"
Wow.
RE: Really bad publicity - oldalum - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 09:08 AM)BostonCard Wrote: The administration above Muir wants a smaller proportion of the student body to be scholarship athletes, and less "privileged" ones at that. If you start with that premise, everything makes a lot more sense. It explains why no amount of fundraising is going to resurrect those sports. It explains why the operating cost savings are de minimis. With the exception of wrestling, it also largely explains why the sports that were cut were chosen.Yes. I think Muir has actually been taking it on the chin for an administration that doesn't want to be transparent about what it's doing and why. As a result, I think Muir is actually more solid in his position.
RE: Really bad publicity - donkey687 - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 09:08 AM)BostonCard Wrote: The administration above Muir wants a smaller proportion of the student body to be scholarship athletes, and less "privileged" ones at that. If you start with that premise, everything makes a lot more sense. It explains why no amount of fundraising is going to resurrect those sports. It explains why the operating cost savings are de minimis. With the exception of wrestling, it also largely explains why the sports that were cut were chosen.
If you really buy the explanation that Muir has been offering, I have a bridge somewhere to sell...
BC
This was driven by Muir and supported by the administration. It was budget driven so resources can be concentrated on the top sports. De-emphasizing the number of athletes on campus is a side benefit for some faculty and administrators. It was not the driver. The reality is that a number of sports were given increased admissions spots fwhen the spots were taken away from the 11. The increase of fall admits for PWO for football is not coincidental. Women's heavyweight rowing has more spots now that lightweight rowing was cut. The reason why Muir has turned down fundraising attempts by these 11 sports is that the athletic department is about to kick off a large fundraising campaign and they did not want to pull donors that would support that campaign into donating to these 11 sports endowment drive. The flaw in that thinking is that that the men's volleyball alum who is ponying up money for the volleyball endowment was not planning on donating to the AD's fundraising push for football, basketball etc. With MTL in his corner, I think Muir will hold onto his job, but this is a sad day for Stanford. Stanford is making decisions and treating sports like Nebraska rather than like our academic peers who have more varsity sports and whose mission for sports is an important part of the overall mission for the school.
RE: Really bad publicity - BostonCard - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 09:18 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:
- "The average salary of an athletic department administrative employee is $209,000"
Wow.
I would be curious what the source of that data was. I think Stanford only discloses the salaries of its top 5 employees. If that number were true, it would be substantially higher than our peer public institutions (whose salaries are a matter of public record). For example, here is the directory of the Athletic department at Cal:
https://calbears.com/staff-directory
And as UC employees, you can easily look up their salaries:
https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/
Picking a couple at random (not all the salaries are available, and the data is a couple of years old):
Senior Associate Athletics Director, Facilities, Events & Capital Projects Josh Hummel: $157,542.00
Associate Director, Athletics Communications | Football, Lacrosse Herbert Benenson: $124,258.00
Director of Development, Leadership Giving, Brian Raney: $121,500.00
Athletic Eligibility Director, Josh Alley: $87,637
One other thing looking at the staff directory at Cal, it looks like bloated AD headcount is not something exclusive to Stanford.
BC
RE: Really bad publicity - Phogge - 03-25-2021
Some cynics have stated that all marriages be limited to ten years. I propose that all athletic directors leave after eight.
RE: Really bad publicity - Goose - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 09:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote: One other thing looking at the staff directory at Cal, it looks like bloated AD headcount is not something exclusive to Stanford.Totally true. The "costs" of the departments nationwide have gone up even faster than the revenue stream has expanded. You can remove the AD constraint here as well. ALL University non-academic headcount has exploded. That is why Stanford will house lots of those functions in new buildings being built in Menlo Park. Do "we" really need these people? IMHO, no, but it is clear others either feel differently or don't care. This, not the won-loss record of men's BB is the reason I do not and will not donate to Stanford in any way. They waste resources prodigiously IMO.
BC
RE: Really bad publicity - chrisk - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 09:08 AM)BostonCard Wrote: The administration above Muir wants a smaller proportion of the student body to be scholarship athletes, and less "privileged" ones at that. If you start with that premise, everything makes a lot more sense. It explains why no amount of fundraising is going to resurrect those sports. It explains why the operating cost savings are de minimis. With the exception of wrestling, it also largely explains why the sports that were cut were chosen.
If you really buy the explanation that Muir has been offering, I have a bridge somewhere to sell...
BC
How much of this is related to the failure to get a new General Use Permit?
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/11/01/stanford-withdraws-general-use-permit-application/
Essentially, Stanford has run out of permitted expansion on campus, and it failed to sell Santa Clara County politicians on its plan for the future. In November 2019, Stanford pulled its application for its GUP which would have covered its expansion over the next 15 years. Without the capacity to add more students and employees, they may be looking to reallocate the existing spots. As noted, they have been moving many employees to Redwood City and Menlo Park.
lex24 - lex24 - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 11:12 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-25-2021, 09:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote: One other thing looking at the staff directory at Cal, it looks like bloated AD headcount is not something exclusive to Stanford.Totally true. The "costs" of the departments nationwide have gone up even faster than the revenue stream has expanded. You can remove the AD constraint here as well. ALL University non-academic headcount has exploded. That is why Stanford will house lots of those functions in new buildings being built in Menlo Park. Do "we" really need these people? IMHO, no, but it is clear others either feel differently or don't care. This, not the won-loss record of men's BB is the reason I do not and will not donate to Stanford in any way. They waste resources prodigiously IMO.
BC
Administrative positions have exploded at Universities nation wide. One of the reasons that tuition has reached stratospheric levels, putting kids (and there parents) in debt. It is a national disgrace. Tuition at Cal in 1980 was about $300 a quarter. 2021 tuition for residents is $14,312.
RE: lex24 - Maple Leaf - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 11:39 AM)lex24 Wrote:In 1968 tuition at the UC campuses was $50 per quarter, and at Foothill JC it was $7 a quarter or $20 for an entire year if you paid up front; the yearly difference made a significant impact in beer sales.(03-25-2021, 11:12 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-25-2021, 09:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote: One other thing looking at the staff directory at Cal, it looks like bloated AD headcount is not something exclusive to Stanford.Totally true. The "costs" of the departments nationwide have gone up even faster than the revenue stream has expanded. You can remove the AD constraint here as well. ALL University non-academic headcount has exploded. That is why Stanford will house lots of those functions in new buildings being built in Menlo Park. Do "we" really need these people? IMHO, no, but it is clear others either feel differently or don't care. This, not the won-loss record of men's BB is the reason I do not and will not donate to Stanford in any way. They waste resources prodigiously IMO.
BC
Administrative positions have exploded at Universities nation wide. One of the reasons that tuition has reached stratospheric levels, putting kids (and there parents) in debt. It is a national disgrace. Tuition at Cal in 1980 was about $300 a quarter. 2021 tuition for residents is $14,312.
RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 11:39 AM)lex24 Wrote:(03-25-2021, 11:12 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-25-2021, 09:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote: One other thing looking at the staff directory at Cal, it looks like bloated AD headcount is not something exclusive to Stanford.Totally true. The "costs" of the departments nationwide have gone up even faster than the revenue stream has expanded. You can remove the AD constraint here as well. ALL University non-academic headcount has exploded. That is why Stanford will house lots of those functions in new buildings being built in Menlo Park. Do "we" really need these people? IMHO, no, but it is clear others either feel differently or don't care. This, not the won-loss record of men's BB is the reason I do not and will not donate to Stanford in any way. They waste resources prodigiously IMO.
BC
Administrative positions have exploded at Universities nation wide. One of the reasons that tuition has reached stratospheric levels, putting kids (and there parents) in debt. It is a national disgrace. Tuition at Cal in 1980 was about $300 a quarter. 2021 tuition for residents is $14,312.
Your point is well taken, and I agree with it, but I wouldn't focus on public institutions which have suffered the double whammies of increased costs and decreased support from the state. There is also the separate fact that increase in tuition are partly offset by increases in aid. Especially at a place like Stanford, where tuition has now been waived for families making less than $100,000, the net effect is increasing price discrimination, where tuition is going up much faster for the wealthy than for families with less means. The problem, unfortunately, is that the upper middle class is getting the squeeze here; families making, say $180,000, which is wealthy enough not to qualify for tuition waivers, but for whom a $80,000 price tag is still almost half of their income.
BC
RE: Really bad publicity - old spanish trail - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 09:27 AM)donkey687 Wrote:(03-25-2021, 09:08 AM)BostonCard Wrote: The administration above Muir wants a smaller proportion of the student body to be scholarship athletes, and less "privileged" ones at that. If you start with that premise, everything makes a lot more sense. It explains why no amount of fundraising is going to resurrect those sports. It explains why the operating cost savings are de minimis. With the exception of wrestling, it also largely explains why the sports that were cut were chosen.
If you really buy the explanation that Muir has been offering, I have a bridge somewhere to sell...
BC
This was driven by Muir and supported by the administration. It was budget driven so resources can be concentrated on the top sports. De-emphasizing the number of athletes on campus is a side benefit for some faculty and administrators. It was not the driver. The reality is that a number of sports were given increased admissions spots fwhen the spots were taken away from the 11. The increase of fall admits for PWO for football is not coincidental. Women's heavyweight rowing has more spots now that lightweight rowing was cut. The reason why Muir has turned down fundraising attempts by these 11 sports is that the athletic department is about to kick off a large fundraising campaign and they did not want to pull donors that would support that campaign into donating to these 11 sports endowment drive. The flaw in that thinking is that that the men's volleyball alum who is ponying up money for the volleyball endowment was not planning on donating to the AD's fundraising push for football, basketball etc. With MTL in his corner, I think Muir will hold onto his job, but this is a sad day for Stanford. Stanford is making decisions and treating sports like Nebraska rather than like our academic peers who have more varsity sports and whose mission for sports is an important part of the overall mission for the school.
Donkey, I think Boston Card's info/analysis is the driver here. I suspect Muir is ok with it because he is a big sport guy. Your info that other sports will gain new participants is interesting, but the numbers cant begin to approach those lost by the 11 sports. Do you have "inside" info?
I don't, but do know one named supporter of one of the saved sports who thinks the situation is a disaster, fwiw.
lex24 - lex24 - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 12:05 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-25-2021, 11:39 AM)lex24 Wrote:(03-25-2021, 11:12 AM)Goose Wrote:(03-25-2021, 09:37 AM)BostonCard Wrote: One other thing looking at the staff directory at Cal, it looks like bloated AD headcount is not something exclusive to Stanford.Totally true. The "costs" of the departments nationwide have gone up even faster than the revenue stream has expanded. You can remove the AD constraint here as well. ALL University non-academic headcount has exploded. That is why Stanford will house lots of those functions in new buildings being built in Menlo Park. Do "we" really need these people? IMHO, no, but it is clear others either feel differently or don't care. This, not the won-loss record of men's BB is the reason I do not and will not donate to Stanford in any way. They waste resources prodigiously IMO.
BC
Administrative positions have exploded at Universities nation wide. One of the reasons that tuition has reached stratospheric levels, putting kids (and there parents) in debt. It is a national disgrace. Tuition at Cal in 1980 was about $300 a quarter. 2021 tuition for residents is $14,312.
Your point is well taken, and I agree with it, but I wouldn't focus on public institutions which have suffered the double whammies of increased costs and decreased support from the state. There is also the separate fact that increase in tuition are partly offset by increases in aid. Especially at a place like Stanford, where tuition has now been waived for families making less than $100,000, the net effect is increasing price discrimination, where tuition is going up much faster for the wealthy than for families with less means. The problem, unfortunately, is that the upper middle class is getting the squeeze here; families making, say $180,000, which is wealthy enough not to qualify for tuition waivers, but for whom a $80,000 price tag is still almost half of their income.
BC
I only mentioned Cal as it was my experience. I’ll be paying loans I obtained for my kids education for a long time. I’d do it again in a heartbeat. But it shouldn’t be the case. Things need to change. I’ll stop as I suspect I’m approaching the political arena.
RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 12:52 PM)lex24 Wrote: I only mentioned Cal as it was my experience. I’ll be paying loans I obtained for my kids education for a long time. I’d do it again in a heartbeat. But it shouldn’t be the case. Things need to change. I’ll stop as I suspect I’m approaching the political arena
Understood, and I agree with your point and we can leave it at that.
BC
RE: Really bad publicity - donkey687 - 03-25-2021
I am close to the situation but my info is second hand. My understanding is that the board was pitched this as financial and not admissions related. Bernard pitched coaches of the remaining 25 teams that they should support this as it means more resources for them. This is pretty simple to me. Bernard wants to be as strong as possible in the major sports and viewed the other sports as a distraction and a resource drain. He thinks we need to be absolutely the best at everything we do which means keeping up with Ohio State and others for facilities and coaches and amenities in every remaining sport. It is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. It just isn't very Stanford like.
RE: Really bad publicity - 82lsju - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 04:47 PM)donkey687 Wrote: I am close to the situation but my info is second hand. My understanding is that the board was pitched this as financial and not admissions related. Bernard pitched coaches of the remaining 25 teams that they should support this as it means more resources for them. This is pretty simple to me. Bernard wants to be as strong as possible in the major sports and viewed the other sports as a distraction and a resource drain. He thinks we need to be absolutely the best at everything we do which means keeping up with Ohio State and others for facilities and coaches and amenities in every remaining sport. It is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. It just isn't very Stanford like.
we'll see how the financials work in the future, I'm a small annual donor ($1000) and got a call from the B/C club thanking me for my donation, I told them that in the future it was likely to be a lot smaller, yes ~80% of the donations come from ~20% of the donors, but if the 80% of smaller donors like me give 90% less...
RE: Really bad publicity - cardcrimson - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 04:47 PM)donkey687 Wrote: It is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. It just isn't very Stanford like.
Sums it up perfectly.
RE: Really bad publicity - Phogge - 03-25-2021
Geez annual salary average around $200,000. That's the weekly average for most of you guys I guess.
RE: Really bad publicity - BostonCard - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 06:06 PM)Phogge Wrote: Geez annual salary average around $200,000. That's the weekly average for most of you guys I guess.
I'm suspicious of that number. Stanford doesn't disclose salaries, except for the top 5, and no source is given for that number. An average salary of that magnitude would far exceed the average salary across the bay, for which salaries are a matter of open record. In fact, $200,000 would exceed the salary of every Cal AD employee, except the coaches and athletic directors.
BC
RE: Really bad publicity - old spanish trail - 03-25-2021
(03-25-2021, 04:47 PM)donkey687 Wrote: I am close to the situation but my info is second hand. My understanding is that the board was pitched this as financial and not admissions related. Bernard pitched coaches of the remaining 25 teams that they should support this as it means more resources for them. This is pretty simple to me. Bernard wants to be as strong as possible in the major sports and viewed the other sports as a distraction and a resource drain. He thinks we need to be absolutely the best at everything we do which means keeping up with Ohio State and others for facilities and coaches and amenities in every remaining sport. It is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. It just isn't very Stanford like.
Thanks, Donkey. You are closer than I, and I'll have to ride with that unless other info comes to light. And, yes, it isn't very Stanford like. I'll have to think a bit re further donations, estate planning, etc.
RE: Really bad publicity - BostonCard - 03-26-2021
[tweet]https://twitter.com/pac12/status/1375540978170261507?s=21[/tweet]
Stanford wrestling sweeps the PAC-12 awards. Glad to see them go out on top.
BC