[BostonCard]

Taking the second part first: while I see the logic behind that reasoning, I wonder if there are any specific lines that have led you to that conclusion

Two reasons.  One is that they said so.  From their FAQ:

Stanford’s more than 850 varsity student-athletes today represent 12% of our undergraduate population, a far higher percentage than exists at nearly all of our peer institutions.

After the cuts, that percentage will be 9%.

The second is that their own actions betray their stated reason (financial).  The same FAQ notes the reason that they cut the sports is financial, but that doesn't jibe with the statement that the decision is final and that Stanford will not accept endowing those sports. If it were just about the money, then it would have been easy to reverse the decision if the money could be found (if the $40 million in this thread is correct, then that would cover 1/5 of the total needed, enough to resurrect at least two sports, and that is with the University sabotaging attempts to keep the sports).  The fact that the University is refusing to consider an endowment for the sports means it's not about the money.  Of course, the University could prove me wrong by accepting the money and reversing at least some of the cuts.

So, if it is not about the money, it is about the influence.

BC

[BostonCard]

Taking the second part first: while I see the logic behind that reasoning, I wonder if there are any specific lines that have led you to that conclusion

Two reasons.  One is that they said so.  From their FAQ:

Stanford’s more than 850 varsity student-athletes today represent 12% of our undergraduate population, a far higher percentage than exists at nearly all of our peer institutions.

After the cuts, that percentage will be 9%.

The second is that their own actions betray their stated reason (financial).  The same FAQ notes the reason that they cut the sports is financial, but that doesn't jibe with the statement that the decision is final and that Stanford will not accept endowing those sports. If it were just about the money, then it would have been easy to reverse the decision if the money could be found (if the $40 million in this thread is correct, then that would cover 1/5 of the total needed, enough to resurrect at least two sports, and that is with the University sabotaging attempts to keep the sports).  The fact that the University is refusing to consider an endowment for the sports means it's not about the money.  Of course, the University could prove me wrong by accepting the money and reversing at least some of the cuts.

So, if it is not about the money, it is about the influence.

BC