[M T]

If Stanford chose to cut football because of injuries to student-athletes and the unknown liabilities for concussion-type injuries, I would support that, even though its financial impact would be great.   From my understanding of the sports cut, Stanford can't say they are protecting the students' health.

I think of D2 and D3 schools that support athletic programs with no or little financial income from any sport.  My undergraduate school offers 16 sports and none make money.  True, there are no scholarships & no students are admitted for their athletic abilities.  The school is no powerhouse at any sport, but the school supports the teams.  No trips to Australia or Japan,  no weeks of hotel stay in expensive hotels near campus, no expensive gyms or stadiums.

But as an athlete, I did enjoy my sports.  When I earned a chance to go to Nationals, I got the opportunity.

I can believe that Varsity Blues helped focus attention on the role of a university as a sports farm club.  If 12% of your admissions are for spots reserved for athletes, then the true academic admissions rate is actually almost 12% lower (down from, say, 5% to 4.4%).   Teams might be viewed in terms of their numbers of admissions reserved just for their athletes.

My belief is that football has the biggest impact on reduction of academic admissions rate because of the number of admissions reserved for its scholarships (and more?).  But this sacred cow won't be cut.  The financial reasons (which is much larger than its bottom-line figures each year, due to alumni gifts) are too great.

[M T]

If Stanford chose to cut football because of injuries to student-athletes and the unknown liabilities for concussion-type injuries, I would support that, even though its financial impact would be great.   From my understanding of the sports cut, Stanford can't say they are protecting the students' health.

I think of D2 and D3 schools that support athletic programs with no or little financial income from any sport.  My undergraduate school offers 16 sports and none make money.  True, there are no scholarships & no students are admitted for their athletic abilities.  The school is no powerhouse at any sport, but the school supports the teams.  No trips to Australia or Japan,  no weeks of hotel stay in expensive hotels near campus, no expensive gyms or stadiums.

But as an athlete, I did enjoy my sports.  When I earned a chance to go to Nationals, I got the opportunity.

I can believe that Varsity Blues helped focus attention on the role of a university as a sports farm club.  If 12% of your admissions are for spots reserved for athletes, then the true academic admissions rate is actually almost 12% lower (down from, say, 5% to 4.4%).   Teams might be viewed in terms of their numbers of admissions reserved just for their athletes.

My belief is that football has the biggest impact on reduction of academic admissions rate because of the number of admissions reserved for its scholarships (and more?).  But this sacred cow won't be cut.  The financial reasons (which is much larger than its bottom-line figures each year, due to alumni gifts) are too great.