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! - Maple Leaf - 05-19-2021
(05-19-2021, 09:16 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(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
factor in the cost of living/working then one can get a better sense of how efficient things are being run.
RE: YES! - 82lsju - 05-19-2021
(05-19-2021, 09:29 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote:(05-19-2021, 09:16 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(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
factor in the cost of living/working then one can get a better sense of how efficient things are being run.
the last "AD annual report" I could find was from 2018-19
https://www.daperdevelopment.com/1dc1c0901035b1e69afc7f86905cd918?source=share-DAPERDevelopment
it showed total inflows of $120.9m, given the earlier talk of a structural deficit the $139m in BC's link seems plausible
RE: YES! - Jamesy - 05-19-2021
(05-19-2021, 09:26 AM)ColoradoTree Wrote: 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.
The field hockey team only had one freshman enroll this year after the cut sport announcement was made.
RE: YES! - fullmetal - 05-19-2021
I think a lot of kids have quit sports and still stayed at Stanford. The attrition in men's rowing was material in that Stanford only contested two events at Pac-12s and will only bring two boats to the national championship. Historically there have generally been three boats (and contrast that with programs like Washington who bring something like eight boats in years where many events are offered).
RE: YES! - donkey687 - 05-19-2021
(05-19-2021, 11:54 AM)Jamesy Wrote:(05-19-2021, 09:26 AM)ColoradoTree Wrote: 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.
The field hockey team only had one freshman enroll this year after the cut sport announcement was made.
I believe MVB also had some no shows and opt-outs post announcement.
RE: YES! - Softball Fan - 05-19-2021
I hope Stanford didn't have any of its assets in Bitcoin.