YES! - 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: YES! (/thread-21956.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: YES! (/thread-21956.html)
RE: YES! - PVTree - 05-18-2021
I hope this decision is permanent and not a strategy to step back and, in a couple of years, start eliminating sports one by one so there is not as much pushback as there is when cutting 11 at a time.
RE: YES! - BobK - 05-18-2021
Why Muir. In the theory that hey employee the president and provost say do this. Ah more lawsuits
RE: YES! - 82lsju - 05-18-2021
(05-18-2021, 12:21 PM)BobK Wrote: Why Muir. In the theory that hey employee the president and provost say do this. Ah more lawsuits
from the statement on gostanford, this sounds like the support a manager or head coach gets just before being fired
Quote:"I want to acknowledge Bernard Muir and his executive team for their leadership," Tessier-Lavigne said. "Bernard has been a staunch advocate for all student-athletes at every stage, both when we collectively faced the wrenching decision to discontinue sports, and as we have worked to construct this new path as circumstances changed for better. We look forward with him to a bright future for Stanford Athletics."
RE: YES! - Farm93 - 05-18-2021
(05-18-2021, 11:56 AM)donkey687 Wrote:(05-18-2021, 11:46 AM)paloalto Wrote: Since I don't subscribe to the Chronicle I will add this link.
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2021/05/18/stanford-to-reinstate-all-11-discontinued-varsity-sports/
I'm still not clear what the real reason was for cutting the sports and the reason to reverse the decision. If it was only about budget I would like to see an official statement from the decision maker that budget was the concern and why now it isn't.
Given the outstanding litigation on why and when the decision was made, you aren't going to hear much about any details on that topic in an official statement. However, it is clear that 2 things changed dramatically.
1) A lot more people (and influential ones at that) cared a lot more about these sports than Stanford realized
2) The University's financial outlook today is a lot brighter than it was 10 months ago
Agree with all of that.
Just can't help but wonder if the sports will be cut again if...
Interest rates and/or inflation and/or geopolitical instabilities drive down asset values.
RE: YES! - martyup - 05-18-2021
I still think they should add womens' bowling.
RE: YES! - needle - 05-18-2021
I think this is a good day to be a Stanford sports fan.
My best guess is that 36 Sports Strong won this face-off mostly because they were persistent and united, which ultimately led to significant numbers of big (and medium) donors using their influence to push for the reinstatement.
Perhaps a wild card was the natty won by Stanford wrestler Shane Griffith, which brought a lot of visibility to the issue. I was actually pretty furious at the very tepid congrats-sort-of offered by the Stanford Athletics social media account; wonder if this was a moment when others decided that the university was clearly in the wrong.
RE: YES! - Spiny_Norman - 05-18-2021
This video from last August of wrestling alumni encouraging the current team is even more powerful now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6916pZ9v1U
RE: YES! - winflop - 05-18-2021
(05-18-2021, 10:11 AM)Lorcan Wrote: I wonder what that means for student athletes who have already made plans to be somewhere else next year.
All in all, good news, I think.
My understanding is that none of the 240 athletes had yet completed transfer paperwork so they all apparently still have a spot if they want it. The only coach who has hit the road is the wrestling coach.
I think it's about time we had a new athletic director. By my count this is at least his fourth strike - men's basketball, varsity blues, and financial mismanagement being the previous three. I'm sure there are others too, but those three stick out like a sore thumb
RE: YES! - fullmetal - 05-18-2021
New commish was actually a rower at Boston University back in his day :)
RE: YES! - donkey687 - 05-18-2021
(05-18-2021, 04:11 PM)winflop Wrote:(05-18-2021, 10:11 AM)Lorcan Wrote: I wonder what that means for student athletes who have already made plans to be somewhere else next year.
All in all, good news, I think.
My understanding is that none of the 240 athletes had yet completed transfer paperwork so they all apparently still have a spot if they want it. The only coach who has hit the road is the wrestling coach.
I think it's about time we had a new athletic director. By my count this is at least his fourth strike - men's basketball, varsity blues, and financial mismanagement being the previous three. I'm sure there are others too, but those three stick out like a sore thumb
A number of sports had a fair amount of attrition. Some left before the season started and of course there will be no incoming frosh in the fall for any of these sports so these teams will all be less competitive for the next four years, but they will live to fight another day. Presidents and Athletic Directors will come and go, but these sports will still be around for a long time. I don't see any administrator attempting this move again and many of these sports will be permanently endowed in the next few years following fundraising efforts.
RE: YES! - 82 Card - 05-18-2021
(05-18-2021, 12:36 PM)martyup Wrote: I still think they should add womens' bowling.
The bowling alley was ripped out soon after I graduated.
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/3-do-overs-from-stanford-history
RE: YES! - 82lsju - 05-18-2021
(05-18-2021, 04:56 PM)donkey687 Wrote: My understanding is that none of the 240 athletes had yet completed transfer paperwork so they all apparently still have a spot if they want it. The only coach who has hit the road is the wrestling coach.
from the FAQ
Quote:[b]3. What will happen to student-athletes who already transferred to other institutions?[/b]
None of the more than 240 student-athletes on these 11 teams has finalized a transfer to another institution. Our hope is that student-athletes who had begun to explore the possibility of transferring will choose to complete their undergraduate degree and varsity athletics career at Stanford.
[b]4. What will happen to coaches who already left Stanford?[/b]
As previously announced, Stanford will honor all existing coach contracts. Only one coach from the 11 sports has departed Stanford thus far. In accordance with longstanding practice and policy, Stanford will not comment publicly on the details of future decisions related to coach contracts.
RE: YES! - chrisk - 05-18-2021
The administration has a plausible rationale for its reversal in the strong bounce back and continued increase in the value of the endowment.
When they were evaluating this move over a year ago, they had fears of facing a situation worse than the Financial Crisis.
RE: YES! - akiddoc - 05-18-2021
Stanford cited “changed circumstances including newly galvanized philanthropic interest”
Makes me wonder if a really big donor or two stepped up with really big money.
RE: YES! - Treebound - 05-18-2021
Winflop,
I'm curious as to your "Financial Mismanagement" claim? Coaching salaries, specifically for Football and basketball have skyrocketed. It's an arms race, as you know and we are at a disadvantage versus the other Power5 thanks to the tv contract. Cost of living in this area is the highest in the country. By the numbers, Stanford tends to run a very conservative budget when you look at the comps from the Pac12, Northwestern, ND and others in our peer group. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Muir here, just curious as to your comment.
RE: YES! - Madera86 - 05-18-2021
Well Hallelujah!
And take that, Bernard!
RE: YES! - fullmetal - 05-19-2021
(05-18-2021, 09:27 PM)akiddoc Wrote: Stanford cited “changed circumstances including newly galvanized philanthropic interest”
Makes me wonder if a really big donor or two stepped up with really big money.
If that's the case, then the AD's failure to engage donors/alumni prior to the original decision was just incompetence.
RE: YES! - gailtate - 05-19-2021
So is Bernie coming back, too? If so, how and why?
RE: YES! - BostonCard - 05-19-2021
(05-18-2021, 09:27 PM)Treebound Wrote: Winflop,
I'm curious as to your "Financial Mismanagement" claim? Coaching salaries, specifically for Football and basketball have skyrocketed. It's an arms race, as you know and we are at a disadvantage versus the other Power5 thanks to the tv contract. Cost of living in this area is the highest in the country. By the numbers, Stanford tends to run a very conservative budget when you look at the comps from the Pac12, Northwestern, ND and others in our peer group. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Muir here, just curious as to your comment.
People look at the directory in the athletic department and see a lot of names and assume it must represent bloat. As with any administrative entity, there's surely some fat there. However, to my knowledge, no one has done an analysis of how Stanford University's athletics budget compares to other peer schools. Here's a list of 2018/19 finances for public universities:
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but here's one account of Stanford's athletics:
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/stanford-university/student-life/sports/
139 million would put Stanford in the top-20 in terms of expenses, and the more than any other Pac-12 school (excepting USC, which as a private university is not reported). As is often noted, we do have more sports than most other schools, so whether that represents bloat or not I guess is in the eye of the beholder.
BC
RE: YES! - ColoradoTree - 05-19-2021
donkey, you and others have said there has been attrition among current rosters, but can someone shed some light on that topic for me? I see the university saying that no one has finalized a transfer to another institution, and I'm having trouble squaring that with your statement that people left before this school year. I also recognize that recruiting in these sports was devastated, but when you say folks left, do you mean that kids on some of the teams have quit the sport but stayed at Stanford, or simply left Stanford without formally transferring to another school? Or is it presumptive or expected attrition--i.e., if the sports had stayed cut, they would have transferred? In other words, who left and when?
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding--I just want to get my arms around precisely what effects the decision to cut and then to reverse the cuts had.