[dabigv13]

https://twitter.com/pac12/status/1281747936800411648

On the day they announced the season was proceeding, but only conference games. You have got to be kidding me. The virus certainly has a sense of irony.

[dabigv13]

https://twitter.com/pac12/status/1281747936800411648

On the day they announced the season was proceeding, but only conference games. You have got to be kidding me. The virus certainly has a sense of irony.

[fullmetal]

Oof.  Irony is right.  And I can't think of anything else to really say aside from that I hope he recovers soon and that I wish the Pac-12 had a market-competitive payout for its member schools instead of a bloated/aimless conference network organization.

[fullmetal]

Oof.  Irony is right.  And I can't think of anything else to really say aside from that I hope he recovers soon and that I wish the Pac-12 had a market-competitive payout for its member schools instead of a bloated/aimless conference network organization.

[Farm93]

Can only guess his experience with COVID will serve as a catalyst for the conference to postpone everything.    Too many issues in AZ and SoCal for this conference to play sports and his personal experience could sway those that might be inclined to see a positive test as generally harmless.

The golden era of mega TV deals will likely take a pause for a few years.
It is very hard to imagine ESPN will be dishing out a bunch of money in the next few years given the changes in the economics of the entertainment industry.   COVID will probably accelerate the troubling trends in the entertainment industry.   

It is rarely a good thing to be a weak brand in a soft or declining market segment, and the Pac-12 is definitely a weak brand in college football.

We may not enjoy learning what how the market prices the Pac-12 in the next deal.   My guess is our Stanford AD made some of the recent moves anticipating that some of its major revenue streams will see significant declines this decade.

[Farm93]

Can only guess his experience with COVID will serve as a catalyst for the conference to postpone everything.    Too many issues in AZ and SoCal for this conference to play sports and his personal experience could sway those that might be inclined to see a positive test as generally harmless.

The golden era of mega TV deals will likely take a pause for a few years.
It is very hard to imagine ESPN will be dishing out a bunch of money in the next few years given the changes in the economics of the entertainment industry.   COVID will probably accelerate the troubling trends in the entertainment industry.   

It is rarely a good thing to be a weak brand in a soft or declining market segment, and the Pac-12 is definitely a weak brand in college football.

We may not enjoy learning what how the market prices the Pac-12 in the next deal.   My guess is our Stanford AD made some of the recent moves anticipating that some of its major revenue streams will see significant declines this decade.

[dabigv13]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

[dabigv13]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

[fullmetal]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

[fullmetal]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

[76lsjumb]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

Don't you believe Herm, Chip, or those other coaches are capable of making their own decisions for themselves [or, at a minimum, making their feelings known to Scott or the conference]?

[76lsjumb]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

Don't you believe Herm, Chip, or those other coaches are capable of making their own decisions for themselves [or, at a minimum, making their feelings known to Scott or the conference]?

[teejers1]

Can only guess his experience with COVID will serve as a catalyst for the conference to postpone everything.    Too many issues in AZ and SoCal for this conference to play sports and his personal experience could sway those that might be inclined to see a positive test as generally harmless.

The golden era of mega TV deals will likely take a pause for a few years.
It is very hard to imagine ESPN will be dishing out a bunch of money in the next few years given the changes in the economics of the entertainment industry.   COVID will probably accelerate the troubling trends in the entertainment industry.   

It is rarely a good thing to be a weak brand in a soft or declining market segment, and the Pac-12 is definitely a weak brand in college football.

We may not enjoy learning what how the market prices the Pac-12 in the next deal.   My guess is our Stanford AD made some of the recent moves anticipating that some of its major revenue streams will see significant declines this decade.

1.  As noted previously, Scott may very well get through this swimmingly.  Not sure how that would convince others that 'we must cancel.'

2.  Query:  if no one can attend games in person (or far fewer), do the TV rights become more or less coveted?  If there is only one way to watch the sport you love . . .

[teejers1]

Can only guess his experience with COVID will serve as a catalyst for the conference to postpone everything.    Too many issues in AZ and SoCal for this conference to play sports and his personal experience could sway those that might be inclined to see a positive test as generally harmless.

The golden era of mega TV deals will likely take a pause for a few years.
It is very hard to imagine ESPN will be dishing out a bunch of money in the next few years given the changes in the economics of the entertainment industry.   COVID will probably accelerate the troubling trends in the entertainment industry.   

It is rarely a good thing to be a weak brand in a soft or declining market segment, and the Pac-12 is definitely a weak brand in college football.

We may not enjoy learning what how the market prices the Pac-12 in the next deal.   My guess is our Stanford AD made some of the recent moves anticipating that some of its major revenue streams will see significant declines this decade.

1.  As noted previously, Scott may very well get through this swimmingly.  Not sure how that would convince others that 'we must cancel.'

2.  Query:  if no one can attend games in person (or far fewer), do the TV rights become more or less coveted?  If there is only one way to watch the sport you love . . .

[fullmetal]

TV rights are even more valuable right now.  At-home entertainment is a hot market.

[fullmetal]

TV rights are even more valuable right now.  At-home entertainment is a hot market.

[OutsiderFan]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

I’ve read two stories this week about people even younger than Larry Scott and probably in better shape, being reduced to barely being able to walk for 2-3 weeks, and basically being on death’s door.

[OutsiderFan]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

I’ve read two stories this week about people even younger than Larry Scott and probably in better shape, being reduced to barely being able to walk for 2-3 weeks, and basically being on death’s door.

[Mick]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

I’ve read two stories this week about people even younger than Larry Scott and probably in better shape, being reduced to barely being able to walk for 2-3 weeks, and basically being on death’s door.

It's hard for me to draw inferences based on anecdotes.  So in the spirit of driving policy, here's one: I have a 62 year old marketing director, in terrible shape, with co-morbidities, and she fully beat COVID in eight days.  Next anecdote, please.

Or, alternatively, and I know this is a wild approach, we could pay attention to population-wide statistics versus anecdotes.  Just a thought.

[Mick]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

I’ve read two stories this week about people even younger than Larry Scott and probably in better shape, being reduced to barely being able to walk for 2-3 weeks, and basically being on death’s door.

It's hard for me to draw inferences based on anecdotes.  So in the spirit of driving policy, here's one: I have a 62 year old marketing director, in terrible shape, with co-morbidities, and she fully beat COVID in eight days.  Next anecdote, please.

Or, alternatively, and I know this is a wild approach, we could pay attention to population-wide statistics versus anecdotes.  Just a thought.

[lex24]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

I’ve read two stories this week about people even younger than Larry Scott and probably in better shape, being reduced to barely being able to walk for 2-3 weeks, and basically being on death’s door.

It's hard for me to draw inferences based on anecdotes.  So in the spirit of driving policy, here's one: I have a 62 year old marketing director, in terrible shape, with co-morbidities, and she fully beat COVID in eight days.  Next anecdote, please.

Or, alternatively, and I know this is a wild approach, we could pay attention to population-wide statistics versus anecdotes.  Just a thought.

Let me be more blunt - anecdotes are useless.  And, btw, bad sh-t happens every day to people of all ages that have nothing to do with this virus.

So Mick, I think your suggestion is a pretty darn good one.

[lex24]

He's a trim 55 year old, wealthy, white guy. His odds of a benign course are good. Hopefully his personal experience doesn't color his response for the whole conference. Herm Edwards is 66. Chip Kelly ain't skinny. Some coaches are certainly at risk.

I’ve read two stories this week about people even younger than Larry Scott and probably in better shape, being reduced to barely being able to walk for 2-3 weeks, and basically being on death’s door.

It's hard for me to draw inferences based on anecdotes.  So in the spirit of driving policy, here's one: I have a 62 year old marketing director, in terrible shape, with co-morbidities, and she fully beat COVID in eight days.  Next anecdote, please.

Or, alternatively, and I know this is a wild approach, we could pay attention to population-wide statistics versus anecdotes.  Just a thought.

Let me be more blunt - anecdotes are useless.  And, btw, bad sh-t happens every day to people of all ages that have nothing to do with this virus.

So Mick, I think your suggestion is a pretty darn good one.

[BostonCard]

Come on, they are not anecdotes.  It's "artisanal data".

Anecdotes are useful for reminding us that unusual things sometimes do actually come to pass.  But if you are looking for the most likely outcomes, then you should look at population statistics.

BC

[BostonCard]

Come on, they are not anecdotes.  It's "artisanal data".

Anecdotes are useful for reminding us that unusual things sometimes do actually come to pass.  But if you are looking for the most likely outcomes, then you should look at population statistics.

BC

[oregontim]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

[oregontim]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

[Nan3cy]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

At least they're honoring the scholarships if the affected students stay at Stanford. I can think of a few schools that might not do that...

[Nan3cy]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

At least they're honoring the scholarships if the affected students stay at Stanford. I can think of a few schools that might not do that...

[Mick]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

I believe the timing was right to eliminate those sports to help further the diversity aims of the University.

[Mick]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

I believe the timing was right to eliminate those sports to help further the diversity aims of the University.

[fullmetal]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

I believe the timing was right to eliminate those sports to help further the diversity aims of the University.

Some of the sports cut added to the university's diversity.  And if you're trying to wave indirectly at the hiring of the diversity specialists, those hires were made at the academic university and not the athletic department.  A headcount increase of +10 would not affect any budget enough to warrant cutting 11 varsity sports and their legacies.

[fullmetal]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

I believe the timing was right to eliminate those sports to help further the diversity aims of the University.

Some of the sports cut added to the university's diversity.  And if you're trying to wave indirectly at the hiring of the diversity specialists, those hires were made at the academic university and not the athletic department.  A headcount increase of +10 would not affect any budget enough to warrant cutting 11 varsity sports and their legacies.

[chrisk]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

But the administration claims they were running a deficit prior to COVID. Their position is they it is a structural problem, not a cyclical problem and that none of the many alternatives they considered to increase revenues were feasible even in normal times. Since football, basketball, and media are the main sources of revenue, other than philanthropy, I think they made a sober assessment of future of increases in those sources relative to the growth rate of expenditures.

[chrisk]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

But the administration claims they were running a deficit prior to COVID. Their position is they it is a structural problem, not a cyclical problem and that none of the many alternatives they considered to increase revenues were feasible even in normal times. Since football, basketball, and media are the main sources of revenue, other than philanthropy, I think they made a sober assessment of future of increases in those sources relative to the growth rate of expenditures.

[Mick]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

I believe the timing was right to eliminate those sports to help further the diversity aims of the University.

Some of the sports cut added to the university's diversity.  And if you're trying to wave indirectly at the hiring of the diversity specialists, those hires were made at the academic university and not the athletic department.  A headcount increase of +10 would not affect any budget enough to warrant cutting 11 varsity sports and their legacies.

Stanford's 2020 undergraduate profile lists 6,994 students, just 32% of whom identify as white. Curious to know which of these sports (crew, sailing, fencing, wrestling, men's volleyball, field hockey, synchronized swimming, squash) have fewer than 32% white athletes.

The New York Times stated that in an interview with Stanford "Stanford said there were 10 factors that were considered in determining which sports to drop, including gender equity and diversity, financial savings, and fan interest."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/sport...-cuts.html

[Mick]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

I believe the timing was right to eliminate those sports to help further the diversity aims of the University.

Some of the sports cut added to the university's diversity.  And if you're trying to wave indirectly at the hiring of the diversity specialists, those hires were made at the academic university and not the athletic department.  A headcount increase of +10 would not affect any budget enough to warrant cutting 11 varsity sports and their legacies.

Stanford's 2020 undergraduate profile lists 6,994 students, just 32% of whom identify as white. Curious to know which of these sports (crew, sailing, fencing, wrestling, men's volleyball, field hockey, synchronized swimming, squash) have fewer than 32% white athletes.

The New York Times stated that in an interview with Stanford "Stanford said there were 10 factors that were considered in determining which sports to drop, including gender equity and diversity, financial savings, and fan interest."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/sport...-cuts.html

[Snorlax94]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

I believe the timing was right to eliminate those sports to help further the diversity aims of the University.

Some of the sports cut added to the university's diversity.  And if you're trying to wave indirectly at the hiring of the diversity specialists, those hires were made at the academic university and not the athletic department.  A headcount increase of +10 would not affect any budget enough to warrant cutting 11 varsity sports and their legacies.

Stanford's 2020 undergraduate profile lists 6,994 students, just 32% of whom identify as white. Curious to know which of these sports (crew, sailing, fencing, wrestling, men's volleyball, field hockey, synchronized swimming, squash) have fewer than 32% white athletes.

The New York Times stated that in an interview with Stanford "Stanford said there were 10 factors that were considered in determining which sports to drop, including gender equity and diversity, financial savings, and fan interest."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/sport...-cuts.html

That’s out of 10 factors, and you have to factor in gender because of Title IX. It makes sense the university would take diversity into account among a list of many factors, and it can mean many things, besides being part of some sinister anti-white New World Order. I don't think they kept football and basketball just because those sports have a lot of African Americans.

Sports like sailing may not be accessible to the vast many of Americans -- both due to cost and the fact that not everyone lives next to an ocean. A friend of mine grew up in NY and was a fencer at Stanford and before I met him, growing up in the suburbs in the Midwest, I didn't even know fencing was a college sport.

For the most part, the list, though sad, made sense to me. Stanford tended to keep sports that made a lot of money, had a lot of fans, was broadcast on TV, was a high-profile Olympic sport, and/or was a sport Stanford had a lot of success in. The two strongest candidates I thought for keeping were field hockey, because from the people I know it seems like a sport that inspires a lot of young women, and wrestling, which is a prominent Olympic sport.

The continuing bleak outlook for Pac-12 revenues probably played a role. The failures of the Pac-12 network probably played a role (not as much $$ and exposure for smaller sports as hoped for). The admissions scandal probably played a role (drawing attention to how some of the more expensive, less accessible sports which can lead to a "side door"). And the pandemic and fiscal calamity clearly played a role.

[Snorlax94]

I wish the Stanford AD had considered suspending programs rather than axing them entirely, but that's another conversation.

I'm with you on that one. If there is some institutional reason for cutting down on these non-mainstream sports, I wish they'd just suspended them now and left a final announcement for later. The timing with the pandemic is unfortunate. As an alum, I was proud of Stanford offering kids intercollegiate competition in these other sports.

I believe the timing was right to eliminate those sports to help further the diversity aims of the University.

Some of the sports cut added to the university's diversity.  And if you're trying to wave indirectly at the hiring of the diversity specialists, those hires were made at the academic university and not the athletic department.  A headcount increase of +10 would not affect any budget enough to warrant cutting 11 varsity sports and their legacies.

Stanford's 2020 undergraduate profile lists 6,994 students, just 32% of whom identify as white. Curious to know which of these sports (crew, sailing, fencing, wrestling, men's volleyball, field hockey, synchronized swimming, squash) have fewer than 32% white athletes.

The New York Times stated that in an interview with Stanford "Stanford said there were 10 factors that were considered in determining which sports to drop, including gender equity and diversity, financial savings, and fan interest."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/sport...-cuts.html

That’s out of 10 factors, and you have to factor in gender because of Title IX. It makes sense the university would take diversity into account among a list of many factors, and it can mean many things, besides being part of some sinister anti-white New World Order. I don't think they kept football and basketball just because those sports have a lot of African Americans.

Sports like sailing may not be accessible to the vast many of Americans -- both due to cost and the fact that not everyone lives next to an ocean. A friend of mine grew up in NY and was a fencer at Stanford and before I met him, growing up in the suburbs in the Midwest, I didn't even know fencing was a college sport.

For the most part, the list, though sad, made sense to me. Stanford tended to keep sports that made a lot of money, had a lot of fans, was broadcast on TV, was a high-profile Olympic sport, and/or was a sport Stanford had a lot of success in. The two strongest candidates I thought for keeping were field hockey, because from the people I know it seems like a sport that inspires a lot of young women, and wrestling, which is a prominent Olympic sport.

The continuing bleak outlook for Pac-12 revenues probably played a role. The failures of the Pac-12 network probably played a role (not as much $$ and exposure for smaller sports as hoped for). The admissions scandal probably played a role (drawing attention to how some of the more expensive, less accessible sports which can lead to a "side door"). And the pandemic and fiscal calamity clearly played a role.

[fullmetal]

Mick, your yardstick for diversity is misplaced.  The student body racial demographic alone is not the only metric for diversity, and if that's all you can see, again, we're done here.  Furthermore, I don't think the remaining 20+ sports that were retained pass your "fewer than 32% white athletes" standard, by which maybe you think that Stanford should drop the whole athletic department.  I'm not holding Stanford to that logic, and neither should you.

And as mentioned, there were ten factors given in total.  There's no reason to decide the ninth factor listed out of ten is some secretly overriding element.  This is not a virtue signalling play from Stanford, and even if it was, it's wrong-headed because some of those programs are diverse relative to the sports themselves nationally -- and that's important.  Stanford is a standard-bearer for women's sports, and it is generally considered a leader in athletic and academic excellence.  High school BIPOC athletes come to Stanford to get away from the staid east coast culture; Stanford is on the west coast and progressive.  We should be the place where minority athletes come to study and compete.

But anyway, I don't think you particularly care for the sports eliminated, right?  In which case, why does it matter to you why the sports were cut?

[fullmetal]

Mick, your yardstick for diversity is misplaced.  The student body racial demographic alone is not the only metric for diversity, and if that's all you can see, again, we're done here.  Furthermore, I don't think the remaining 20+ sports that were retained pass your "fewer than 32% white athletes" standard, by which maybe you think that Stanford should drop the whole athletic department.  I'm not holding Stanford to that logic, and neither should you.

And as mentioned, there were ten factors given in total.  There's no reason to decide the ninth factor listed out of ten is some secretly overriding element.  This is not a virtue signalling play from Stanford, and even if it was, it's wrong-headed because some of those programs are diverse relative to the sports themselves nationally -- and that's important.  Stanford is a standard-bearer for women's sports, and it is generally considered a leader in athletic and academic excellence.  High school BIPOC athletes come to Stanford to get away from the staid east coast culture; Stanford is on the west coast and progressive.  We should be the place where minority athletes come to study and compete.

But anyway, I don't think you particularly care for the sports eliminated, right?  In which case, why does it matter to you why the sports were cut?