[M T]

Who decided it was a good idea to add squash and synchronized swimming?  I know field hockey and fencing have been around for a long time, but almost no colleges on the west coast compete in these sports.

Entering its 37th year of organized competition, the Stanford synchronized swimming team is one of the university’s most successful athletic programs. Stanford has won eight collegiate national titles, including six of the last 12, among its 36 top-five finishes.

So, that's about 1983.  The earliest date at GoStanford.com for field hockey is  1975.  For fencing, 1990.  For squash, 2004.

[M T]

Who decided it was a good idea to add squash and synchronized swimming?  I know field hockey and fencing have been around for a long time, but almost no colleges on the west coast compete in these sports.

Entering its 37th year of organized competition, the Stanford synchronized swimming team is one of the university’s most successful athletic programs. Stanford has won eight collegiate national titles, including six of the last 12, among its 36 top-five finishes.

So, that's about 1983.  The earliest date at GoStanford.com for field hockey is  1975.  For fencing, 1990.  For squash, 2004.

[BigJohn043]

These are all great posts and I commend all the posters for their nuanced and thoughtful takes on these matters. It seems that what many people are identifying, whether they support or oppose cutting these sports in the abstract, is what appears to be the bad faith arguments that the AD has used in justifying the cuts - i.e., that it was just about the money. While I think many would still oppose cutting these sports simply to readjust who is favored in the admissions process, it seems at least some of us would be less upset (and certainly less insulted) if the ADs and the University Admins would just be honest about what they actually trying to achieve, because it seems like almost everyone in this thread agrees the primary motivation has much more to do with admissions and student composition than with saving $$$.

And in that respect, at the risk of butting up to the no politics line, it's striking to me how much this mirrors national political battles over matters like reforming elections laws or altering admissions processes for selective public high schools. In each case, there's a strong suspicion that the "real" reason for the policy change is not the reason being given. Is it just me, or has the rise of bad faith arguments really exploded in the last decade? Is this just the result of cynical political calculuses? The desire to avoid a PR roast? The perceived insulation of decisionmakers from any meaningful accountability? I guess I have long expected the worst from elected politicians but I have generally held Stanford up to a higher standard, and it's really hard not to think they're insulting their alums with the way they've handled this process.

I am not sure I agree with your characterization of "bad faith arguments".  My guess is that the reason that we are doing this NOW is money.  It was probably always a bit of an issue to defend a 35 sport AD.  But as long as the AD is self funding the easier political answer is likely not to make any waves and cut sports.  Once the budget goes into the red and decisions have to be made, we cut 11 sports because it helped with the budget and helped other issues.  I would also guess, but don't know, that the decision was made to cut deep as long as we are cutting.  Cutting 11 sports isn't that much worse than cutting 6 or 7.

[BigJohn043]

These are all great posts and I commend all the posters for their nuanced and thoughtful takes on these matters. It seems that what many people are identifying, whether they support or oppose cutting these sports in the abstract, is what appears to be the bad faith arguments that the AD has used in justifying the cuts - i.e., that it was just about the money. While I think many would still oppose cutting these sports simply to readjust who is favored in the admissions process, it seems at least some of us would be less upset (and certainly less insulted) if the ADs and the University Admins would just be honest about what they actually trying to achieve, because it seems like almost everyone in this thread agrees the primary motivation has much more to do with admissions and student composition than with saving $$$.

And in that respect, at the risk of butting up to the no politics line, it's striking to me how much this mirrors national political battles over matters like reforming elections laws or altering admissions processes for selective public high schools. In each case, there's a strong suspicion that the "real" reason for the policy change is not the reason being given. Is it just me, or has the rise of bad faith arguments really exploded in the last decade? Is this just the result of cynical political calculuses? The desire to avoid a PR roast? The perceived insulation of decisionmakers from any meaningful accountability? I guess I have long expected the worst from elected politicians but I have generally held Stanford up to a higher standard, and it's really hard not to think they're insulting their alums with the way they've handled this process.

I am not sure I agree with your characterization of "bad faith arguments".  My guess is that the reason that we are doing this NOW is money.  It was probably always a bit of an issue to defend a 35 sport AD.  But as long as the AD is self funding the easier political answer is likely not to make any waves and cut sports.  Once the budget goes into the red and decisions have to be made, we cut 11 sports because it helped with the budget and helped other issues.  I would also guess, but don't know, that the decision was made to cut deep as long as we are cutting.  Cutting 11 sports isn't that much worse than cutting 6 or 7.

[old spanish trail]

I understand that field hockey has been around for much longer than 1975. Before Title 9, they played Cal, San Jose State, Davis, UOP, etc. as club teams maybe back as far as the 40's. It's probably the most expensive sport being cut because of # of players and travel expense...and maybe also the oldest.

[old spanish trail]

I understand that field hockey has been around for much longer than 1975. Before Title 9, they played Cal, San Jose State, Davis, UOP, etc. as club teams maybe back as far as the 40's. It's probably the most expensive sport being cut because of # of players and travel expense...and maybe also the oldest.

[M T]

I understand that field hockey has been around for much longer than 1975. Before Title 9, they played Cal, San Jose State, Davis, UOP, etc. as club teams maybe back as far as the 40's. It's probably the most expensive sport being cut because of # of players and travel expense...and maybe also the oldest.

I stand by the 1975 date for what is on the FH site at GoStanford.com.  But it is a PE class in 1929-1930. It is mentioned as a PE activity in 1948 and a coached sport in 1967 in Stanford Magazine's "Fight for Fair Play" and perhaps even earlier in this reference  "Because the Faculty Athletic Committee objects to public intercollegiate matches for women, the [1890s-era] basketball team is virtually disbanded, and competitive sports are confined to tennis and, later, field hockey."

The Fight for Fair Play article is relevant to the current situation as some of it is about the lack of financing for the athletes (who only sometimes had a team) for facilities, equipment, and competition.

[M T]

I understand that field hockey has been around for much longer than 1975. Before Title 9, they played Cal, San Jose State, Davis, UOP, etc. as club teams maybe back as far as the 40's. It's probably the most expensive sport being cut because of # of players and travel expense...and maybe also the oldest.

I stand by the 1975 date for what is on the FH site at GoStanford.com.  But it is a PE class in 1929-1930. It is mentioned as a PE activity in 1948 and a coached sport in 1967 in Stanford Magazine's "Fight for Fair Play" and perhaps even earlier in this reference  "Because the Faculty Athletic Committee objects to public intercollegiate matches for women, the [1890s-era] basketball team is virtually disbanded, and competitive sports are confined to tennis and, later, field hockey."

The Fight for Fair Play article is relevant to the current situation as some of it is about the lack of financing for the athletes (who only sometimes had a team) for facilities, equipment, and competition.

[Softball Fan]

Regarding the cost of club sports, when my son was a freshman one of the girls on his dorm floor was on the Stanford women's volleyball club team.  We went to a couple of their games.  They had Stanford jerseys; the rest of their gear was their own personal stuff.  There was no official coach; one of the players organized two practices a week. 

They played local college teams.  I don't know if the University provided transportation or they used their own vehicles for away games.  The way it was handled at that time, the cost was minimal.  Considerably more expense could be put into the team with a hired coach and full uniforms.    Surprisingly the level of play was very good.

[Softball Fan]

Regarding the cost of club sports, when my son was a freshman one of the girls on his dorm floor was on the Stanford women's volleyball club team.  We went to a couple of their games.  They had Stanford jerseys; the rest of their gear was their own personal stuff.  There was no official coach; one of the players organized two practices a week. 

They played local college teams.  I don't know if the University provided transportation or they used their own vehicles for away games.  The way it was handled at that time, the cost was minimal.  Considerably more expense could be put into the team with a hired coach and full uniforms.    Surprisingly the level of play was very good.

[BostonCard]

These are all great posts and I commend all the posters for their nuanced and thoughtful takes on these matters. It seems that what many people are identifying, whether they support or oppose cutting these sports in the abstract, is what appears to be the bad faith arguments that the AD has used in justifying the cuts - i.e., that it was just about the money. While I think many would still oppose cutting these sports simply to readjust who is favored in the admissions process, it seems at least some of us would be less upset (and certainly less insulted) if the ADs and the University Admins would just be honest about what they actually trying to achieve, because it seems like almost everyone in this thread agrees the primary motivation has much more to do with admissions and student composition than with saving $$$.



And in that respect, at the risk of butting up to the no politics line, it's striking to me how much this mirrors national political battles over matters like reforming elections laws or altering admissions processes for selective public high schools. In each case, there's a strong suspicion that the "real" reason for the policy change is not the reason being given. Is it just me, or has the rise of bad faith arguments really exploded in the last decade? Is this just the result of cynical political calculuses? The desire to avoid a PR roast? The perceived insulation of decisionmakers from any meaningful accountability? I guess I have long expected the worst from elected politicians but I have generally held Stanford up to a higher standard, and it's really hard not to think they're insulting their alums with the way they've handled this process.

Given how controversial these things get, I could imagine an uproar being generated if Stanford were cutting sports in order to try to meet D&I goals.

BC

[BostonCard]

These are all great posts and I commend all the posters for their nuanced and thoughtful takes on these matters. It seems that what many people are identifying, whether they support or oppose cutting these sports in the abstract, is what appears to be the bad faith arguments that the AD has used in justifying the cuts - i.e., that it was just about the money. While I think many would still oppose cutting these sports simply to readjust who is favored in the admissions process, it seems at least some of us would be less upset (and certainly less insulted) if the ADs and the University Admins would just be honest about what they actually trying to achieve, because it seems like almost everyone in this thread agrees the primary motivation has much more to do with admissions and student composition than with saving $$$.



And in that respect, at the risk of butting up to the no politics line, it's striking to me how much this mirrors national political battles over matters like reforming elections laws or altering admissions processes for selective public high schools. In each case, there's a strong suspicion that the "real" reason for the policy change is not the reason being given. Is it just me, or has the rise of bad faith arguments really exploded in the last decade? Is this just the result of cynical political calculuses? The desire to avoid a PR roast? The perceived insulation of decisionmakers from any meaningful accountability? I guess I have long expected the worst from elected politicians but I have generally held Stanford up to a higher standard, and it's really hard not to think they're insulting their alums with the way they've handled this process.

Given how controversial these things get, I could imagine an uproar being generated if Stanford were cutting sports in order to try to meet D&I goals.

BC

[dabigv13]

I hope the alumni group asks the BOT straight up if this is at least some of their reasoning, and then ask whether they have considered expanding the class size by the 30 or so students it would take to make up the difference.

I would also ask them if they have analyzed the income and racial mix of the students who are recruited and/or join these programs as walk ons, and how that compares to the student body as a whole.

Make them show their math. I doubt any straight answers would be given, but perhaps the university is going off some assumptions that aren't necessarily true, even if they seem truthy. I bet legacy admits are more white/wealthy than the average recruited athlete in these sports but Stanford probably would like to keep that issue separate.

[dabigv13]

I hope the alumni group asks the BOT straight up if this is at least some of their reasoning, and then ask whether they have considered expanding the class size by the 30 or so students it would take to make up the difference.

I would also ask them if they have analyzed the income and racial mix of the students who are recruited and/or join these programs as walk ons, and how that compares to the student body as a whole.

Make them show their math. I doubt any straight answers would be given, but perhaps the university is going off some assumptions that aren't necessarily true, even if they seem truthy. I bet legacy admits are more white/wealthy than the average recruited athlete in these sports but Stanford probably would like to keep that issue separate.

[chrisk]

I hope the alumni group asks the BOT straight up if this is at least some of their reasoning, and then ask whether they have considered expanding the class size by the 30 or so students it would take to make up the difference.

I would also ask them if they have analyzed the income and racial mix of the students who are recruited and/or join these programs as walk ons, and how that compares to the student body as a whole.

Make them show their math. I doubt any straight answers would be given, but perhaps the university is going off some assumptions that aren't necessarily true, even if they seem truthy. I bet legacy admits are more white/wealthy than the average recruited athlete in these sports but Stanford probably would like to keep that issue separate.

Where did the number 30 come from? I thought we were talking about 150+?

[chrisk]

I hope the alumni group asks the BOT straight up if this is at least some of their reasoning, and then ask whether they have considered expanding the class size by the 30 or so students it would take to make up the difference.

I would also ask them if they have analyzed the income and racial mix of the students who are recruited and/or join these programs as walk ons, and how that compares to the student body as a whole.

Make them show their math. I doubt any straight answers would be given, but perhaps the university is going off some assumptions that aren't necessarily true, even if they seem truthy. I bet legacy admits are more white/wealthy than the average recruited athlete in these sports but Stanford probably would like to keep that issue separate.

Where did the number 30 come from? I thought we were talking about 150+?

[akiddoc]

The sports that are getting cut are run like the Ivies though. I don't think sailing got scholarships or at least full ones, and the academic breaks are small, I'm certain equivalent to the ones the Ivies give. 

I suspect like many have alluded that this is a way to free up admissions slots that are going to relatively privileged and whiter applicants. OTOH, all the recruited admissions combined for these cuts sports probably is less than what, 50 per year? Probably closer to 30. I'm sure they could increase the class size by that much without a major new building plan approved by PA.

I think it's a shame, as I knew walk ons from the student body in several of these sports (crew and fencing come to mind, none of whom were white fwiw) and went to a couple practices for sailing myself as a freshman (would have been fun but the early morning practices were not compatible with my extreme night owl schedule), something I did in HS but did not get recruited to do at Stanford. Those programs were run on a shoestring budget, and were not necessarily going to win against some of the traditional powerhouses in their sports, but I still think it was a great part of the Stanford experience to have them around. Lot more fat in the Stanford budget to cut than these programs IMHO.

Perhaps not a fashionable opinion now, but in 10 or 15 years or so after football players are getting paid and the inevitable disaster that will be for the sport at Stanford is realized, we will regret not just axing football and keeping these sports around.

I think you are missing the point.  It isn't one thing.  It is almost certainly a combination of money, admissions, diversity, etc.

We don't have an ivy league approach to sports.  We compete in the Pac-12 and the only other private institution in that league (U$C) supports 21 sports.  We were at 35.  I haven't got to every other school in the Pac-12 but UCLA & cal are both also at around 20.

The fact is our AD got bloated.  Who decided it was a good idea to add squash and synchronized swimming?  I know field hockey and fencing have been around for a long time, but almost no colleges on the west coast compete in these sports.

As long as the money was there it was probably easier to not to through the brain damage of trimming sports.  Now we have to pay the piper.

I do think wrestling has a chance.  They have raised the most money as far as I can tell and have a proposal to also start a woman's team which solves the Title-9 issues.

Men's volleyball is the other sport that just feels like something Stanford should do.  I think the problem is that the team really hasn't been very good for most of its history.

Squash and synchronized swimming were probably added to meet Title IX regulations.

[akiddoc]

The sports that are getting cut are run like the Ivies though. I don't think sailing got scholarships or at least full ones, and the academic breaks are small, I'm certain equivalent to the ones the Ivies give. 

I suspect like many have alluded that this is a way to free up admissions slots that are going to relatively privileged and whiter applicants. OTOH, all the recruited admissions combined for these cuts sports probably is less than what, 50 per year? Probably closer to 30. I'm sure they could increase the class size by that much without a major new building plan approved by PA.

I think it's a shame, as I knew walk ons from the student body in several of these sports (crew and fencing come to mind, none of whom were white fwiw) and went to a couple practices for sailing myself as a freshman (would have been fun but the early morning practices were not compatible with my extreme night owl schedule), something I did in HS but did not get recruited to do at Stanford. Those programs were run on a shoestring budget, and were not necessarily going to win against some of the traditional powerhouses in their sports, but I still think it was a great part of the Stanford experience to have them around. Lot more fat in the Stanford budget to cut than these programs IMHO.

Perhaps not a fashionable opinion now, but in 10 or 15 years or so after football players are getting paid and the inevitable disaster that will be for the sport at Stanford is realized, we will regret not just axing football and keeping these sports around.

I think you are missing the point.  It isn't one thing.  It is almost certainly a combination of money, admissions, diversity, etc.

We don't have an ivy league approach to sports.  We compete in the Pac-12 and the only other private institution in that league (U$C) supports 21 sports.  We were at 35.  I haven't got to every other school in the Pac-12 but UCLA & cal are both also at around 20.

The fact is our AD got bloated.  Who decided it was a good idea to add squash and synchronized swimming?  I know field hockey and fencing have been around for a long time, but almost no colleges on the west coast compete in these sports.

As long as the money was there it was probably easier to not to through the brain damage of trimming sports.  Now we have to pay the piper.

I do think wrestling has a chance.  They have raised the most money as far as I can tell and have a proposal to also start a woman's team which solves the Title-9 issues.

Men's volleyball is the other sport that just feels like something Stanford should do.  I think the problem is that the team really hasn't been very good for most of its history.

Squash and synchronized swimming were probably added to meet Title IX regulations.

[dabigv13]

It's a total guess on my part which in hindsight is perhaps too low but not by much. 150 is far too high. 

To check my guesstimate, I just counted the freshmen listed on rosters on Gostanford.com, which obviously will have some year to year variation but will be a rough approximation.

Rowing (mens)- 9
Sailing (coed/w)- 5
Fencing (m/w)- 7
MVB- 4
Field Hockey- 2
Wrestling- 8
Squash- 0
Synchronized Swimming- 2
W Lightweight Rowing- 4

Total of 41. And some of these may be walk ons who were not recruited.

[dabigv13]

It's a total guess on my part which in hindsight is perhaps too low but not by much. 150 is far too high. 

To check my guesstimate, I just counted the freshmen listed on rosters on Gostanford.com, which obviously will have some year to year variation but will be a rough approximation.

Rowing (mens)- 9
Sailing (coed/w)- 5
Fencing (m/w)- 7
MVB- 4
Field Hockey- 2
Wrestling- 8
Squash- 0
Synchronized Swimming- 2
W Lightweight Rowing- 4

Total of 41. And some of these may be walk ons who were not recruited.

[BostonCard]

It's a total guess on my part which in hindsight is perhaps too low but not by much. 150 is far too high. 

To check my guesstimate, I just counted the freshmen listed on rosters on Gostanford.com, which obviously will have some year to year variation but will be a rough approximation.

Rowing (mens)- 9
Sailing (coed/w)- 5
Fencing (m/w)- 7
MVB- 4
Field Hockey- 2
Wrestling- 8
Squash- 0
Synchronized Swimming- 2
W Lightweight Rowing- 4

Total of 41. And some of these may be walk ons who were not recruited.

My understanding is that they make up about 2 - 3% of the student population, since the proportion of students participating in intercollegiate athletics will go down from 12% of the student population to 9%.  On that basis, we are talking about 150 - 200 students.

BC

[BostonCard]

It's a total guess on my part which in hindsight is perhaps too low but not by much. 150 is far too high. 

To check my guesstimate, I just counted the freshmen listed on rosters on Gostanford.com, which obviously will have some year to year variation but will be a rough approximation.

Rowing (mens)- 9
Sailing (coed/w)- 5
Fencing (m/w)- 7
MVB- 4
Field Hockey- 2
Wrestling- 8
Squash- 0
Synchronized Swimming- 2
W Lightweight Rowing- 4

Total of 41. And some of these may be walk ons who were not recruited.

My understanding is that they make up about 2 - 3% of the student population, since the proportion of students participating in intercollegiate athletics will go down from 12% of the student population to 9%.  On that basis, we are talking about 150 - 200 students.

BC

[dabigv13]

I am referring in my post to class size not total number, but 150 to 200 total seems about right. My point being increasing class size by 30 to 40 students would be pretty simple to do and would not require any major building project. This sort of growth has occurred historically as well- 2008-2009 total undergrad population was 6812. By 2014-2015 it was 7018.

My main concern is that axing these "country club" sports seems more to be about reducing the perception of Stanford as a place for privileged students, and I am skeptical that they would be significantly replaced by anything other than other strivers from privileged backgrounds, just ones who don't happen to play high level sports.

[dabigv13]

I am referring in my post to class size not total number, but 150 to 200 total seems about right. My point being increasing class size by 30 to 40 students would be pretty simple to do and would not require any major building project. This sort of growth has occurred historically as well- 2008-2009 total undergrad population was 6812. By 2014-2015 it was 7018.

My main concern is that axing these "country club" sports seems more to be about reducing the perception of Stanford as a place for privileged students, and I am skeptical that they would be significantly replaced by anything other than other strivers from privileged backgrounds, just ones who don't happen to play high level sports.

[Goose]

My main concern is that axing these "country club" sports seems more to be about reducing the perception of Stanford as a place for privileged students, and I am skeptical that they would be significantly replaced by anything other than other strivers from privileged backgrounds, just ones who don't happen to play high level sports.

Trying to reduce the perception that Stanford is a place for privileged students is a fools errand. First of all, it is to a large degree exactly that. One can argue about the exact percentages of students who come from the top of the economic ladder, but it is always going to be much higher than at say Cal State Chico. It is a laudable goal for Stanford University to identify and admit qualified students that are not from that group, but the idea that they are ever going to completely overcome the effects of "rich" people getting a better preparatory education is absurd. Second of all, Stanford WANTS to be perceived as an "elite" university. You don't do that by admitting too many students who are not in the "top" of their classes, and lots of those students are and will always be "better off" than most. Third, Stanford can't give up on "legacy" admissions and donor admissions because they want the heritage loyalty and money that comes with such admissions.
Varsity Blues shows that the coaches were willing to give up spots for "real" athletes for money. Given the few spots these sports actually have such malfeasance should have immediately tanked the sports. Nobody noticed that happening. Substituting one unqualified rich athlete for a qualified rich athlete made no difference. It is improbable that suddenly all these newly "freed up" slots will go to "disadvantaged" students. They will simply reflect the admissions profile of the University, as they do already,

[Goose]

My main concern is that axing these "country club" sports seems more to be about reducing the perception of Stanford as a place for privileged students, and I am skeptical that they would be significantly replaced by anything other than other strivers from privileged backgrounds, just ones who don't happen to play high level sports.

Trying to reduce the perception that Stanford is a place for privileged students is a fools errand. First of all, it is to a large degree exactly that. One can argue about the exact percentages of students who come from the top of the economic ladder, but it is always going to be much higher than at say Cal State Chico. It is a laudable goal for Stanford University to identify and admit qualified students that are not from that group, but the idea that they are ever going to completely overcome the effects of "rich" people getting a better preparatory education is absurd. Second of all, Stanford WANTS to be perceived as an "elite" university. You don't do that by admitting too many students who are not in the "top" of their classes, and lots of those students are and will always be "better off" than most. Third, Stanford can't give up on "legacy" admissions and donor admissions because they want the heritage loyalty and money that comes with such admissions.
Varsity Blues shows that the coaches were willing to give up spots for "real" athletes for money. Given the few spots these sports actually have such malfeasance should have immediately tanked the sports. Nobody noticed that happening. Substituting one unqualified rich athlete for a qualified rich athlete made no difference. It is improbable that suddenly all these newly "freed up" slots will go to "disadvantaged" students. They will simply reflect the admissions profile of the University, as they do already,

[Mick]

Men's volleyball is the other sport that just feels like something Stanford should do.  I think the problem is that the team really hasn't been very good for most of its history.

I suppose it depends on how you define "hasn't been very good."  Near as I can tell, Stanford has (technically) had a men's varsity volleyball team since 1976, though Stanford's site only shows records since 1985, which is, I assume, when they took it seriously.  I played against Stanford in 1981 when they had two terrific players and the rest were essentially club volleyball players.  And Stanford's varsity was mediocre from 1985-1988.

But Stanford has a strong history.  Stanford won national championships in 1997 and 2010, they were runners-up in 1989, 1992 and 2014.  They made the post-season league tournament (Top 4 of 10+ teams) in 20 of 27 seasons.  Stanford has placed 12 players on the U. S. Olympic team, 27 players on the U. S. National team, 20 first team All Americans (and 32 overall All Americans, but none since Brian Cook in 2014).  Three Coach of the Year awards, two National Player of the Year awards, three NCAA tournament MVPs.

Candidly, they haven't been very good over the past few years.  And they don't have the track record of either of the tennis teams.  But I'd say they're still pretty good.

---

It's a total guess on my part which in hindsight is perhaps too low but not by much. 150 is far too high. 

To check my guesstimate, I just counted the freshmen listed on rosters on Gostanford.com, which obviously will have some year to year variation but will be a rough approximation.

Rowing (mens)- 9
Sailing (coed/w)- 5
Fencing (m/w)- 7
MVB- 4
Field Hockey- 2
Wrestling- 8
Squash- 0
Synchronized Swimming- 2
W Lightweight Rowing- 4

Total of 41. And some of these may be walk ons who were not recruited.

My understanding is that they make up about 2 - 3% of the student population, since the proportion of students participating in intercollegiate athletics will go down from 12% of the student population to 9%.  On that basis, we are talking about 150 - 200 students.

BC

I think the two of you are talking about two separate things.  BC is referring to the roster totals, Big seems to be referring solely to single year recruits (BTW, volleyball's number is 5, and the year my son was recruited it was 7).

---

I wonder about that.  I also wonder if eliminating sports will reduce either the number of applicants or the yield.

Except for the very narrow slice of applicant that is applying to the school specifically to get a scholarship in that sport, it will be a rounding error in terms of number of applicants.  Other than fencers, nobody is applying to Stanford because it has a good fencing team.

In terms of yield, I think it depends on how exactly the University calculated yield, but it will probably have a negligible effect.  We are talking about 3% of the student population each year, so the yield for those people would have to be dramatically different than the rest of the school for it to make a difference.

I get that, but that's not quite what I was getting at.  Right now, Stanford (35 men's and women's sports teams, I count women's crew and lightweight crew as the same) is the only university that competes at an elite level both academically and athletically.  Arguably, Northwestern (19 sports) and Duke (21 sports) are the closest challengers, maybe Vandy (15 teams).  If Stanford decides to sprint down the slippery slope on the way to eliminating D1 sports in favor of D3 or club sports, that will have a material effect on Stanford's brand.  At that point, Stanford may be equated with Chicago, CalTech, MIT, and others.  I think there are people who apply to Stanford, in part because of that California-healthy, D1 part of the brand and not just athletes.  

I think that's true for yield as well.  Athletics is a minor factor in the calculus of whether a 17 year old intends to attend a specific university, but it isn't a non-factor.  I suspect that Stanford's Goliath of an athletic program factors into both yield percentage and number of applications.  Eliminate sports, and its overall brand is reduced, I suspect. 

I don't have much evidence, but I thought Douglas Chung's study on athletic success and applications was notable.  He noted that Georgetown's applications skyrocketed by 45% as their men's basketball team had success between 1983 and 1986.  Within two years after Doug Flutie, Boston College's applications went up by 30%.  Northwestern's applications went up 30% after they won the Big Ten in football.

I do think it would be interesting to review Stanford's increases in application numbers during the past 30 years and compare it to application numbers. Did apps stagnate during Teevens/Harris and increase dramatically during late Harbaugh/early Shaw? I don't have the time, but if anyone else wants to take a stab at it...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingk...f981976e96

[Mick]

Men's volleyball is the other sport that just feels like something Stanford should do.  I think the problem is that the team really hasn't been very good for most of its history.

I suppose it depends on how you define "hasn't been very good."  Near as I can tell, Stanford has (technically) had a men's varsity volleyball team since 1976, though Stanford's site only shows records since 1985, which is, I assume, when they took it seriously.  I played against Stanford in 1981 when they had two terrific players and the rest were essentially club volleyball players.  And Stanford's varsity was mediocre from 1985-1988.

But Stanford has a strong history.  Stanford won national championships in 1997 and 2010, they were runners-up in 1989, 1992 and 2014.  They made the post-season league tournament (Top 4 of 10+ teams) in 20 of 27 seasons.  Stanford has placed 12 players on the U. S. Olympic team, 27 players on the U. S. National team, 20 first team All Americans (and 32 overall All Americans, but none since Brian Cook in 2014).  Three Coach of the Year awards, two National Player of the Year awards, three NCAA tournament MVPs.

Candidly, they haven't been very good over the past few years.  And they don't have the track record of either of the tennis teams.  But I'd say they're still pretty good.

---

It's a total guess on my part which in hindsight is perhaps too low but not by much. 150 is far too high. 

To check my guesstimate, I just counted the freshmen listed on rosters on Gostanford.com, which obviously will have some year to year variation but will be a rough approximation.

Rowing (mens)- 9
Sailing (coed/w)- 5
Fencing (m/w)- 7
MVB- 4
Field Hockey- 2
Wrestling- 8
Squash- 0
Synchronized Swimming- 2
W Lightweight Rowing- 4

Total of 41. And some of these may be walk ons who were not recruited.

My understanding is that they make up about 2 - 3% of the student population, since the proportion of students participating in intercollegiate athletics will go down from 12% of the student population to 9%.  On that basis, we are talking about 150 - 200 students.

BC

I think the two of you are talking about two separate things.  BC is referring to the roster totals, Big seems to be referring solely to single year recruits (BTW, volleyball's number is 5, and the year my son was recruited it was 7).

---

I wonder about that.  I also wonder if eliminating sports will reduce either the number of applicants or the yield.

Except for the very narrow slice of applicant that is applying to the school specifically to get a scholarship in that sport, it will be a rounding error in terms of number of applicants.  Other than fencers, nobody is applying to Stanford because it has a good fencing team.

In terms of yield, I think it depends on how exactly the University calculated yield, but it will probably have a negligible effect.  We are talking about 3% of the student population each year, so the yield for those people would have to be dramatically different than the rest of the school for it to make a difference.

I get that, but that's not quite what I was getting at.  Right now, Stanford (35 men's and women's sports teams, I count women's crew and lightweight crew as the same) is the only university that competes at an elite level both academically and athletically.  Arguably, Northwestern (19 sports) and Duke (21 sports) are the closest challengers, maybe Vandy (15 teams).  If Stanford decides to sprint down the slippery slope on the way to eliminating D1 sports in favor of D3 or club sports, that will have a material effect on Stanford's brand.  At that point, Stanford may be equated with Chicago, CalTech, MIT, and others.  I think there are people who apply to Stanford, in part because of that California-healthy, D1 part of the brand and not just athletes.  

I think that's true for yield as well.  Athletics is a minor factor in the calculus of whether a 17 year old intends to attend a specific university, but it isn't a non-factor.  I suspect that Stanford's Goliath of an athletic program factors into both yield percentage and number of applications.  Eliminate sports, and its overall brand is reduced, I suspect. 

I don't have much evidence, but I thought Douglas Chung's study on athletic success and applications was notable.  He noted that Georgetown's applications skyrocketed by 45% as their men's basketball team had success between 1983 and 1986.  Within two years after Doug Flutie, Boston College's applications went up by 30%.  Northwestern's applications went up 30% after they won the Big Ten in football.

I do think it would be interesting to review Stanford's increases in application numbers during the past 30 years and compare it to application numbers. Did apps stagnate during Teevens/Harris and increase dramatically during late Harbaugh/early Shaw? I don't have the time, but if anyone else wants to take a stab at it...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingk...f981976e96

[Mick]

I will say that Ivies and some D3 schools like MIT have large 30+ sport programs.  But they don't give scholarships.  And the academic breaks at least at the Ivies are fairly different from what we do.

You can say that again.  My take on the Ivies is that their test score/gpa breaks outside of football and basketball aren't particularly significant.  I know that the year my son was recruited (over a decade ago), the lowest SAT among the frosh in his sport at Princeton was 2220 and the lowest SAT among Stanford's frosh was 1880.  But it has to be that way, because the Ivies don't take sports as seriously.  The Ivies think substantial sports programs are important to their overall brand, and their athletes have had notable success, they tend to donate more than non-athletes as alums, they add to the overall college atmosphere but the Ivies don't want the compromises that an elite, serious D1 program requires.  

I had an interesting conversation in 2009 with an associate athletic director at the Stanford of the East, in which she stated that the school collectively decided to increase their admissions of well-rounded (versus "well-lopsided") applicants in around 2006, in part because a campus composed chiefly of well-lopsided individuals wasn't a particularly pleasant place.  Ivy athletes aren't typically CTOs or Nobel prize winners, but they can turn out like Bill Campbell, Bill Hewlett, Gerald Ford or Chief Justice White.  Incidentally, the current president of Stanford has noted in the past that he participated in an Olympic sport in college, though I don't know which one.

[Mick]

I will say that Ivies and some D3 schools like MIT have large 30+ sport programs.  But they don't give scholarships.  And the academic breaks at least at the Ivies are fairly different from what we do.

You can say that again.  My take on the Ivies is that their test score/gpa breaks outside of football and basketball aren't particularly significant.  I know that the year my son was recruited (over a decade ago), the lowest SAT among the frosh in his sport at Princeton was 2220 and the lowest SAT among Stanford's frosh was 1880.  But it has to be that way, because the Ivies don't take sports as seriously.  The Ivies think substantial sports programs are important to their overall brand, and their athletes have had notable success, they tend to donate more than non-athletes as alums, they add to the overall college atmosphere but the Ivies don't want the compromises that an elite, serious D1 program requires.  

I had an interesting conversation in 2009 with an associate athletic director at the Stanford of the East, in which she stated that the school collectively decided to increase their admissions of well-rounded (versus "well-lopsided") applicants in around 2006, in part because a campus composed chiefly of well-lopsided individuals wasn't a particularly pleasant place.  Ivy athletes aren't typically CTOs or Nobel prize winners, but they can turn out like Bill Campbell, Bill Hewlett, Gerald Ford or Chief Justice White.  Incidentally, the current president of Stanford has noted in the past that he participated in an Olympic sport in college, though I don't know which one.

[Softball Fan]

On the topic of how some students view sports, my son was not a sports person.  I can't recall whether I posted this story previously on Cardboard or not.  My son was a Teaching Assistant for a class with Andrew Luck in it.  At the time all students were required to sign the top of their tests.  My son was correcting tests and some guy offered him a sum of money for Luck's test (with Luck's signature). 

My son thought it was strange.  When he told me about it, he had no idea who Andrew Luck was.  I know that's impossible to believe.  Football wasn't his thing and he never paid any attention to it.

[Softball Fan]

On the topic of how some students view sports, my son was not a sports person.  I can't recall whether I posted this story previously on Cardboard or not.  My son was a Teaching Assistant for a class with Andrew Luck in it.  At the time all students were required to sign the top of their tests.  My son was correcting tests and some guy offered him a sum of money for Luck's test (with Luck's signature). 

My son thought it was strange.  When he told me about it, he had no idea who Andrew Luck was.  I know that's impossible to believe.  Football wasn't his thing and he never paid any attention to it.

[Goose]

I think it is important to realize that there is no "right answer" to the question "Should sport X exist at Stanford?". If all sports were removed from Stanford, it would still exist and be just fine as a University. It also can be argued that if there are people who want to participate then having sports at at least the intramural or club level is probably unavoidable, as people will form teams even if the University doesn't participate. When one gets into the area of Stanford University supporting teams financially with resources obtained for that purpose we enter a different argument space. When we add any form of admissions preference to sports participation the space changes yet again. These discussions are complex and lead in general to no completely accepted policy. Some sports we spend money on and recruit people who otherwise may not get in. Other sports we spend a little money and almost no preference on. Some sports we don't have at all. Lots of room for discussion here.

However, if we start talking about dropping or keeping a given sport because of the perceived value by the general public of the people who play that sport we are entering a fantasyland IMHO. The general public doesn't know or care if Stanford has a sailing team or a wrestling team (as many people have lamented over the years). The fact that a certain demographic may or may not gain admission advantage there is equally irrelevant to most people. There is enough fuel for discussion without going into these weeds. If the AD and the BoT seriously are looking at this area as definitive they are well off the track IMHO. The other controversies are quite enough. This argument is a red herring.

[Goose]

I think it is important to realize that there is no "right answer" to the question "Should sport X exist at Stanford?". If all sports were removed from Stanford, it would still exist and be just fine as a University. It also can be argued that if there are people who want to participate then having sports at at least the intramural or club level is probably unavoidable, as people will form teams even if the University doesn't participate. When one gets into the area of Stanford University supporting teams financially with resources obtained for that purpose we enter a different argument space. When we add any form of admissions preference to sports participation the space changes yet again. These discussions are complex and lead in general to no completely accepted policy. Some sports we spend money on and recruit people who otherwise may not get in. Other sports we spend a little money and almost no preference on. Some sports we don't have at all. Lots of room for discussion here.

However, if we start talking about dropping or keeping a given sport because of the perceived value by the general public of the people who play that sport we are entering a fantasyland IMHO. The general public doesn't know or care if Stanford has a sailing team or a wrestling team (as many people have lamented over the years). The fact that a certain demographic may or may not gain admission advantage there is equally irrelevant to most people. There is enough fuel for discussion without going into these weeds. If the AD and the BoT seriously are looking at this area as definitive they are well off the track IMHO. The other controversies are quite enough. This argument is a red herring.

[82lsju]

so I was thinking about the AD's desire to raise $380m for the endowment.

in the last AD "annual report" (2018-19) I could find

https://www.daperdevelopment.com/1dc1c09...evelopment

they showed an endowment payout of $34.7m which implies an endowment of ~$700m, so if they are trying to add $380m that's a large increase.  If successful that would increase the endowment payout to ~$50m/year

The same report also shows ~6,400 donors to the AD that year, I would assume these are the primary target for the $380m.

Of those 6,400 most are probably like me, relatively small donors, I'd guess the really big donors are no more that 1% of this group and that they would supply almost all of the $380m.  If they all (1% or 64 people) covered the $380m that would be ~$6m/donor.  Are there 64 people willing to make that kind of donation to the AD endowment?  Sure a few people could step up with $50m donations but if they don't find a few whales to step up at that level I think the $380m may be challenging to reach.

Yes Stanford has had successful $1b+ fund raising efforts in the past, but those had a much larger donor base to tap draw from and had a sexier sales pitch than "we need to cover out shortfall", yes they will spin it up as "we need to step up to be funding our sports at the level required to be competitive", but will that sell?  It will be interesting to see if the AD is successful.

It will also be interesting to see to what happens to annual donations.  

In the linked report above those B/C donations were $10m (so the equivalent of the payout of an additional $200m endowment (at 5% payout)), 39% of that $10m was for "priority seat contributions".  

It will be interesting how much the $10m annual donation level changes as a result of the cutting of the 11 sports, I know I plan to give less but I'm a small donor so they won't miss my few hundred dollars a year less...but I did tell the B/C person who emailed me thanking me for my last donation of my plans and why, she thanked me for the input...

ADD

So I went looking for B/C annual donations to the AD, here's what I found, note that some years they have some other buckets for donations beyond B/C 

2018-19 $10m (link above)
2017-18 ??
2016-17 ??
2015-16 $10m  https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf
2014-15 $12m  https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf
2013-14 $12m  https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf
2012-13 $10m  https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf
2011-12 $9m    https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

looking at this info it looks like priority seat donations did not really increase overall B/C giving (of course maybe it would have decreased without the priority seat donations)

total AD rev went from $91m in 2011-12 to $121m in 2018-19, a CAGR of 4%

[82lsju]

so I was thinking about the AD's desire to raise $380m for the endowment.

in the last AD "annual report" (2018-19) I could find

https://www.daperdevelopment.com/1dc1c09...evelopment

they showed an endowment payout of $34.7m which implies an endowment of ~$700m, so if they are trying to add $380m that's a large increase.  If successful that would increase the endowment payout to ~$50m/year

The same report also shows ~6,400 donors to the AD that year, I would assume these are the primary target for the $380m.

Of those 6,400 most are probably like me, relatively small donors, I'd guess the really big donors are no more that 1% of this group and that they would supply almost all of the $380m.  If they all (1% or 64 people) covered the $380m that would be ~$6m/donor.  Are there 64 people willing to make that kind of donation to the AD endowment?  Sure a few people could step up with $50m donations but if they don't find a few whales to step up at that level I think the $380m may be challenging to reach.

Yes Stanford has had successful $1b+ fund raising efforts in the past, but those had a much larger donor base to tap draw from and had a sexier sales pitch than "we need to cover out shortfall", yes they will spin it up as "we need to step up to be funding our sports at the level required to be competitive", but will that sell?  It will be interesting to see if the AD is successful.

It will also be interesting to see to what happens to annual donations.  

In the linked report above those B/C donations were $10m (so the equivalent of the payout of an additional $200m endowment (at 5% payout)), 39% of that $10m was for "priority seat contributions".  

It will be interesting how much the $10m annual donation level changes as a result of the cutting of the 11 sports, I know I plan to give less but I'm a small donor so they won't miss my few hundred dollars a year less...but I did tell the B/C person who emailed me thanking me for my last donation of my plans and why, she thanked me for the input...

ADD

So I went looking for B/C annual donations to the AD, here's what I found, note that some years they have some other buckets for donations beyond B/C 

2018-19 $10m (link above)
2017-18 ??
2016-17 ??
2015-16 $10m  https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf
2014-15 $12m  https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf
2013-14 $12m  https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf
2012-13 $10m  https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf
2011-12 $9m    https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...report.pdf

looking at this info it looks like priority seat donations did not really increase overall B/C giving (of course maybe it would have decreased without the priority seat donations)

total AD rev went from $91m in 2011-12 to $121m in 2018-19, a CAGR of 4%

[BigJohn043]

Men's volleyball is the other sport that just feels like something Stanford should do.  I think the problem is that the team really hasn't been very good for most of its history.

I suppose it depends on how you define "hasn't been very good."  Near as I can tell, Stanford has (technically) had a men's varsity volleyball team since 1976, though Stanford's site only shows records since 1985, which is, I assume, when they took it seriously.  I played against Stanford in 1981 when they had two terrific players and the rest were essentially club volleyball players.  And Stanford's varsity was mediocre from 1985-1988.

But Stanford has a strong history.  Stanford won national championships in 1997 and 2010, they were runners-up in 1989, 1992 and 2014.  They made the post-season league tournament (Top 4 of 10+ teams) in 20 of 27 seasons.  Stanford has placed 12 players on the U. S. Olympic team, 27 players on the U. S. National team, 20 first team All Americans (and 32 overall All Americans, but none since Brian Cook in 2014).  Three Coach of the Year awards, two National Player of the Year awards, three NCAA tournament MVPs.

Candidly, they haven't been very good over the past few years.  And they don't have the track record of either of the tennis teams.  But I'd say they're still pretty good.

I played mens volleyball growing up.  Went to most of the mens games during my time at Stanford.

Mens volleyball is a sport that only has 23 D1 competitors.  It is so small that they combine D1 with the 25 D2 members for their championship.  Although I don't believe a D2 school has ever won the championship.

Our history is mixed at best.  A couple of periods of strength with an awful lot of mediocrity.  Here is the last 20 years:
2020 Season (6-11, 2-4/6th MPSF)
2019 Season (15-11, 6-6/4th MPSF)
2018 Season (6-20, 3-9/t6th MPSF)
2017 Season (13-13, 8-10/t6th MPSF)
2016 Season (19-6, 17-5/t2nd MPSF)
2015 Season (10-19, 7-15/t9th MPSF)
2014 Season (24-9, 17-7/3rd MPSF)
2013 Season (15-13, 12-12/t-6th MPSF)
2012 Season (22-7, 17-5/t-2nd MPSF)
2011 Season (19-9, 15-7/3rd MPSF)
2010 Season (24-6, 16-6/1st MPSF) NCAA Champions
2009 Season (21-11, 14-8/4th MPSF)
2008 Season (17-11, 12-10/t-4th MPSF)
2007 Season (3-25, 2-20/11th MPSF)
2006 Season (4-24, 2-20/11th MPSF)
2005 Season (11-15, 10-12/8th MPSF)
2004 Season (9-18, 6-16/10th MPSF)
2003 Season (17-12, 14-8/4th MPSF)
2002 Season (17-9, 15-7/5th MPSF)
2001 Season (14-9, 10-7/t-3rd MPSF Pacific Division)
2000 Season (10-13, 9-10/4th MPSF Pacific Divsion)

[BigJohn043]

Men's volleyball is the other sport that just feels like something Stanford should do.  I think the problem is that the team really hasn't been very good for most of its history.

I suppose it depends on how you define "hasn't been very good."  Near as I can tell, Stanford has (technically) had a men's varsity volleyball team since 1976, though Stanford's site only shows records since 1985, which is, I assume, when they took it seriously.  I played against Stanford in 1981 when they had two terrific players and the rest were essentially club volleyball players.  And Stanford's varsity was mediocre from 1985-1988.

But Stanford has a strong history.  Stanford won national championships in 1997 and 2010, they were runners-up in 1989, 1992 and 2014.  They made the post-season league tournament (Top 4 of 10+ teams) in 20 of 27 seasons.  Stanford has placed 12 players on the U. S. Olympic team, 27 players on the U. S. National team, 20 first team All Americans (and 32 overall All Americans, but none since Brian Cook in 2014).  Three Coach of the Year awards, two National Player of the Year awards, three NCAA tournament MVPs.

Candidly, they haven't been very good over the past few years.  And they don't have the track record of either of the tennis teams.  But I'd say they're still pretty good.

I played mens volleyball growing up.  Went to most of the mens games during my time at Stanford.

Mens volleyball is a sport that only has 23 D1 competitors.  It is so small that they combine D1 with the 25 D2 members for their championship.  Although I don't believe a D2 school has ever won the championship.

Our history is mixed at best.  A couple of periods of strength with an awful lot of mediocrity.  Here is the last 20 years:
2020 Season (6-11, 2-4/6th MPSF)
2019 Season (15-11, 6-6/4th MPSF)
2018 Season (6-20, 3-9/t6th MPSF)
2017 Season (13-13, 8-10/t6th MPSF)
2016 Season (19-6, 17-5/t2nd MPSF)
2015 Season (10-19, 7-15/t9th MPSF)
2014 Season (24-9, 17-7/3rd MPSF)
2013 Season (15-13, 12-12/t-6th MPSF)
2012 Season (22-7, 17-5/t-2nd MPSF)
2011 Season (19-9, 15-7/3rd MPSF)
2010 Season (24-6, 16-6/1st MPSF) NCAA Champions
2009 Season (21-11, 14-8/4th MPSF)
2008 Season (17-11, 12-10/t-4th MPSF)
2007 Season (3-25, 2-20/11th MPSF)
2006 Season (4-24, 2-20/11th MPSF)
2005 Season (11-15, 10-12/8th MPSF)
2004 Season (9-18, 6-16/10th MPSF)
2003 Season (17-12, 14-8/4th MPSF)
2002 Season (17-9, 15-7/5th MPSF)
2001 Season (14-9, 10-7/t-3rd MPSF Pacific Division)
2000 Season (10-13, 9-10/4th MPSF Pacific Divsion)

[Mick]

I think it is important to realize that there is no "right answer" to the question "Should sport X exist at Stanford?". If all sports were removed from Stanford, it would still exist and be just fine as a University. 

Completely agree, particularly in the sense that I know my wife's reaction when she asks me my opinion of an outfit and I reply "just fine."

[Mick]

I think it is important to realize that there is no "right answer" to the question "Should sport X exist at Stanford?". If all sports were removed from Stanford, it would still exist and be just fine as a University. 

Completely agree, particularly in the sense that I know my wife's reaction when she asks me my opinion of an outfit and I reply "just fine."