The CardBoard
Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - 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: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate (/thread-21693.html)

Pages: 1 2

Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - 82lsju - 03-12-2021

about half way down this article you'll find a summary of the presentation on Athletics to the faculty senate 


Quote:Challenging athletic environment

The relationship between student-athletes and schools has been irreversibly changed because of the lasting challenges posed by COVID-19, increasing litigation and the difficult economic realities of college athletics, according to a panel presentation also made before the Faculty Senate on Thursday.

Participating in the panel discussion on “Contemporary Issues Facing College Sports” were Jeff Koseff, the William Alden Campbell and Martha Campbell Professor in the School of Engineering and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment; Bernard Muir, athletic director; Patrick Dunkley, deputy athletic director; and Ryan Adesnik, vice president for government affairs.

https://news.stanford.edu/2021/03/12/new-stanford-climate-sustainability-school-designed-achieve-ambitious-goals/?utm_source=Stanford%20Report&utm_campaign=4c92bf3f7f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_03_11_06_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29ce9f751e-4c92bf3f7f-52343633&fbclid=IwAR1eq4LsHTPhFJFd97jw595Sb608hFYQJ1E9n2SMQYGsEbpuR2Rb9xE639g

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - BostonCard - 03-12-2021

Over/under in how much longer Stanford participates in Div. 1 collegiate athletics?

BC

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - burger - 03-12-2021

(03-12-2021, 09:08 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Over/under in how much longer Stanford participates in Div. 1 collegiate athletics?

BC

I guess that's the same answer as how much longer until Congress passes a bill allowing players to be paid.  Sounds like Stanford will shut the whole thing down before they pay athletes a dime.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - winflop - 03-12-2021

(03-12-2021, 09:26 AM)burger Wrote:  
(03-12-2021, 09:08 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Over/under in how much longer Stanford participates in Div. 1 collegiate athletics?

BC

I guess that's the same answer as how much longer until Congress passes a bill allowing players to be paid.  Sounds like Stanford will shut the whole thing down before they pay athletes a dime.

Athletes on full scholarship already get paid more than $70K per year.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - VB Card - 03-12-2021

(03-12-2021, 09:26 AM)burger Wrote:  
(03-12-2021, 09:08 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Over/under in how much longer Stanford participates in Div. 1 collegiate athletics?

BC

I guess that's the same answer as how much longer until Congress passes a bill allowing players to be paid.  Sounds like Stanford will shut the whole thing down before they pay athletes a dime.
 

Athletes will be able to receive money for endorsements but not directly from the universities. Shaw is actually a big proponent of this.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - burger - 03-12-2021

(03-12-2021, 12:06 PM)winflop Wrote:  
(03-12-2021, 09:26 AM)burger Wrote:  
(03-12-2021, 09:08 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Over/under in how much longer Stanford participates in Div. 1 collegiate athletics?

BC

I guess that's the same answer as how much longer until Congress passes a bill allowing players to be paid.  Sounds like Stanford will shut the whole thing down before they pay athletes a dime.

Athletes on full scholarship already get paid more than $70K per year.

Lol...I think you're unaware of how financial aid works at Stanford now.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - winflop - 03-12-2021

(03-12-2021, 01:32 PM)burger Wrote:  
(03-12-2021, 12:06 PM)winflop Wrote:  
(03-12-2021, 09:26 AM)burger Wrote:  
(03-12-2021, 09:08 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Over/under in how much longer Stanford participates in Div. 1 collegiate athletics?

BC

I guess that's the same answer as how much longer until Congress passes a bill allowing players to be paid.  Sounds like Stanford will shut the whole thing down before they pay athletes a dime.

Athletes on full scholarship already get paid more than $70K per year.

Lol...I think you're unaware of how financial aid works at Stanford now.

Maybe, but to me it's pretty simple. If I'm on scholarship I don't pay for tuition room & board. If I'm not on scholarship, I pay $75K per year for those things. So effectively, scholarship athletes are already being paid $75K per year.

I'm pretty sure that if athletes are considered employees in the future, they will get W-2s for the value of their scholarships.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - BobK - 03-12-2021

Your math is correct of course but only for full scholarships. That’s 6 sports the others are partial

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - BostonCard - 03-12-2021

Also, non-athlete students  with family incomes below $75,000 are not expected to pay tuition, room, or board.  So, at least some of those student athletes would have the $75K per year waived even if they weren't students.  Plus, non-athlete students with family incomes under $150,000, get scholarships to cover the tuition portion of their costs (~$55K per year).

BC

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - fullmetal - 03-12-2021

Quote:The cut, he said, gives the university a “fighting chance” to “future proof” Stanford’s financial model for athletics.

You know what could future proof Stanford Athletics' finances?  Not handing out generous compensation increases to a bloated administrative staff and favoring that over the 11 sports.  In the university budget book, previously-negotiated compensation increases is the primary reason given by the athletics department for budget pressure.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - winflop - 03-12-2021

(03-12-2021, 06:35 PM)fullmetal Wrote:  
Quote:The cut, he said, gives the university a “fighting chance” to “future proof” Stanford’s financial model for athletics.

You know what could future proof Stanford Athletics' finances?  Not handing out generous compensation increases to a bloated administrative staff and favoring that over the 11 sports.  In the university budget book, previously-negotiated compensation increases is the primary reason given by the athletics department for budget pressure.

Ding ding. Also, adjusting budgets to actual revenue not bloated unreliable projections of TV contract revenue with a shrinking footprint. Growth in the department should have stopped 3 years ago when P12N revenues started to significantly diverge from projections.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - BostonCard - 03-13-2021

Maybe we can be known as the "Stanford Cardinal presented by Salesforce".

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/spartans/2021/03/12/michigan-state-basketball-rocket-mortgage-sponsorship/4665634001/

I'm guessing we will be out of the collegiate athletics rat race if that becomes the standard.

BC

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - 81alum - 03-13-2021

I am feeling like a dinosaur.  Stanford is pretty much the only university left that has tried to maintain very high academic standards, keep up the amateur athletics ideal (which was the whole reason athletics was introduced to American universities in the first place--an odd arrangement if you ask any European), and a high level of athletic achievement.  The whole direction American collegiate sports are going threaten the Stanford model in particular, and I worry that Stanford will have no other choice but to follow the Ivy League.

This makes Stanford's decision to cut all of those non-revenue sports all the more tragic.  It is only a handful of sports that is driving the conversion to the increasingly commercialized "amateur" sport environment.  But all the sports we cut were NOT among them.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - Phogge - 03-13-2021

There is something to be said for a conference that doesn’t get into the warfare over football playoffs and national championships. Stanford would still get some very good players on academic scholies and would be playing for fun. Play at a D2 level and take buses and trains to games. Schedule some D3’s to fill out the slate. Play 10 games at high school stadiums and lease Stanford Stadium to SpaceX.

Few around here weren’t alive when Baseball expanded and inaugurated playoffs. The regular season never again was as exciting as a pennant race when only one team survived. Bigger at times isn’t better.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - martyup - 03-13-2021

It doesn't bother me if that's what it takes to let the kids play.  I'd rather it be the "Stanford University Wrestling Team presented by Apple" than no team at all.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - Treebound - 03-13-2021

Sponsorships at Stanford are a likely avenue to revenue/support going forward.  It has been frowned upon by some in the past, but as the deficit has grown, I think some greater level of sponsorship will emerge and I'm fine with that.  It's been the standard at most other schools and perhaps it helps us grow our local/community reach as local and even national sponsors bring more people into the ticketed venues and events.  They would have more of a vested interest in the success of the athletes, sports and the venues they sponsor.  I think the AD would try to do it tastefully versus the "Chico's Bail Bonds" approach (name that movie and the lead actor!).

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - martyup - 03-13-2021

Hey! You got a problem with Chico?

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2F8...f=1&nofb=1]

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - Goose - 03-13-2021

(03-13-2021, 08:26 AM)martyup Wrote:  It doesn't bother me if that's what it takes to let the kids play.  I'd rather it be the "Stanford University Wrestling Team presented by Apple" than no team at all.

It bothers me quite a bit. If the "team" is "presented by", whose team is it, Stanford's or Apple's? Who controls it, Apple or Stanford? I think that is a big problem. It also means that the players are flogging for a product or company that they didn't chose and may not even support. Even if they did, the company may change mid-season if there are "commercial" reasons to do so. They may be flogging for Samsung next year, or next week. We tell the players "It is the name on the front of your jersey, not the name on the back that matters". What if the name on the front is a hybrid of Stanford and Apple?

I also continue to believe that this model is unsustainable because it doesn't actually sell enough product. Companies will eventually figure out that supporting University sports is in general ineffective in boosting sales and quit doing it, particularly for Olympic sports. Re-balancing the costs with the desire to compete is necessary. Selling sponsorships for teams the players love and the public has never heard of just isn't going to work.

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - BobK - 03-13-2021

Washington State thinks it’s ok

https://apnews.com/article/college-football-washington-state-cougars-football-football-washington-coronavirus-pandemic-69fa58e100c446d69c34c865f60bb434?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP_Top25

RE: Athletics presentation fo Faculty Senate - PVTree - 03-13-2021

(03-13-2021, 09:35 AM)Treebound Wrote:  Sponsorships at Stanford are a likely avenue to revenue/support going forward.  It has been frowned upon by some in the past, but as the deficit has grown, I think some greater level of sponsorship will emerge and I'm fine with that.  It's been the standard at most other schools and perhaps it helps us grow our local/community reach as local and even national sponsors bring more people into the ticketed venues and events.  They would have more of a vested interest in the success of the athletes, sports and the venues they sponsor.  I think the AD would try to do it tastefully versus the "Chico's Bail Bonds" approach (name that movie and the lead actor!).

Bad News Bears / Walter Matthau (Tatum O'Neal)