[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

IIRC, there was a year when Stanford won the Pac-10 (I think that was the number then) in football, men's (and women's, I think) basketball, and baseball. About that time, I was at an alumni event for the part of Stanford I attended. A very prominent faculty member "joked" about how he asked the University President whether he was allowing Stanford to be "turned into a jock school." [I can't swear to it, but I think those were his exact words.] The statement, out of nowhere, indicated to me that this prominent faculty member resented--indeed, was embarrassed by-the then recent success of Stanford athletics. It was clear to me that this faculty member was not really "joking" about what he said to the president.

Like almost all American universities with intercollegiate athletic programs, Stanford has its share of folks who don't like athletics. The question to me is: Who is in charge now? It doesn't seem to me like the ones who are have much devotion to Stanford athletics.

When you (a) claim it is all about the money, (b) state at the same time that you will not reinstate sports even if someone solves the money problem, then © prove you were dead dead serious about (b) by refusing to even consider accepting help from those who solve at least some of the money problems, there is only one logical conclusion: It was NOT about the money.

So what was it about? I don't know for certain and I don't have any proof, but the circumstantial evidence suggests to me that this is about a rise to power by (a) those who resent the prominence of athletics as part of the Stanford community and (b) those who are mad about admissions. With all due respect to those who point out that many schools "lose money" by running intercollegiate athletics programs, Stanford is not comparable to other colleges who use athletics to recruit students who would otherwise go to other schools. Highly selective schools like Stanford are not comparable to regular schools who have to fight and claw for every student they can get. [I have some understanding of these realities from real world experience.] At Stanford, the fight is not over getting more students, it is about who gets the limited spots that are available in a highly competitive environment. If you resent sports, as (unfortunately, imo) a significant percentage of those at Stanford do, you REALLY resent the effect of sports on Stanford admissions. I cannot prove it, though I would relish the challenge to do so if I had the time and the ability to access the information to prove it, but my gut tells me resentment of athletics and their effect on admissions what this is about.

It looks to me like the "anti sports" people are in charge. It has happened before at Stanford. It is possible that, though it will hurt, saner (imo) minds will again take over at some (hopefully not too distant) future point and recognize the value of sports at Stanford. So we MIGHT again bounce back from this. Maybe. Even if we do, this is a self-inflicted wound that is foolish and unnecessary, imo.

What makes Stanford not just special but quite literally unique is the combination of superb academics AND top-notch athletics. Some have one or the other. We are literally the only D-I school that has both. And those in charge are forfeiting what is unique about us.

BTW, from my vantage point, I very much doubt that our AD made these decisions. Decisions like this come from his bosses, not him. Though, again, I cannot prove it, it sure looks to me like he is following marching orders here. Of course, that does not absolve him of responsibility. If he believes in Stanford sports and their importance to the university, why isn't he resigning in protest to protect what he believes in? [I do not say this lightly, as I am well aware from personal experience of how hard a step that is. But if you believe those running a university are taking steps to seriously damage your part of the university and you are not successful in talking them out of doing so, you RESIGN IN PROTEST.]

Those running Stanford do not, obviously, have to care one whit about what I think they are doing to a very special--indeed, unique--institution. But I do not have to like or support what they are doing.

This is a mistake. And I fear t might be just the start.

Those of us who love Stanford sports should do what we can to make sure the University is never again put in the hands of those who resent or fail to support athletics. The Board of Trustees at a place like Stanford has one basic job--selecting the President. The next time they are called upon to do so, our voices need to be heard by them.

[Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card]

IIRC, there was a year when Stanford won the Pac-10 (I think that was the number then) in football, men's (and women's, I think) basketball, and baseball. About that time, I was at an alumni event for the part of Stanford I attended. A very prominent faculty member "joked" about how he asked the University President whether he was allowing Stanford to be "turned into a jock school." [I can't swear to it, but I think those were his exact words.] The statement, out of nowhere, indicated to me that this prominent faculty member resented--indeed, was embarrassed by-the then recent success of Stanford athletics. It was clear to me that this faculty member was not really "joking" about what he said to the president.

Like almost all American universities with intercollegiate athletic programs, Stanford has its share of folks who don't like athletics. The question to me is: Who is in charge now? It doesn't seem to me like the ones who are have much devotion to Stanford athletics.

When you (a) claim it is all about the money, (b) state at the same time that you will not reinstate sports even if someone solves the money problem, then © prove you were dead dead serious about (b) by refusing to even consider accepting help from those who solve at least some of the money problems, there is only one logical conclusion: It was NOT about the money.

So what was it about? I don't know for certain and I don't have any proof, but the circumstantial evidence suggests to me that this is about a rise to power by (a) those who resent the prominence of athletics as part of the Stanford community and (b) those who are mad about admissions. With all due respect to those who point out that many schools "lose money" by running intercollegiate athletics programs, Stanford is not comparable to other colleges who use athletics to recruit students who would otherwise go to other schools. Highly selective schools like Stanford are not comparable to regular schools who have to fight and claw for every student they can get. [I have some understanding of these realities from real world experience.] At Stanford, the fight is not over getting more students, it is about who gets the limited spots that are available in a highly competitive environment. If you resent sports, as (unfortunately, imo) a significant percentage of those at Stanford do, you REALLY resent the effect of sports on Stanford admissions. I cannot prove it, though I would relish the challenge to do so if I had the time and the ability to access the information to prove it, but my gut tells me resentment of athletics and their effect on admissions what this is about.

It looks to me like the "anti sports" people are in charge. It has happened before at Stanford. It is possible that, though it will hurt, saner (imo) minds will again take over at some (hopefully not too distant) future point and recognize the value of sports at Stanford. So we MIGHT again bounce back from this. Maybe. Even if we do, this is a self-inflicted wound that is foolish and unnecessary, imo.

What makes Stanford not just special but quite literally unique is the combination of superb academics AND top-notch athletics. Some have one or the other. We are literally the only D-I school that has both. And those in charge are forfeiting what is unique about us.

BTW, from my vantage point, I very much doubt that our AD made these decisions. Decisions like this come from his bosses, not him. Though, again, I cannot prove it, it sure looks to me like he is following marching orders here. Of course, that does not absolve him of responsibility. If he believes in Stanford sports and their importance to the university, why isn't he resigning in protest to protect what he believes in? [I do not say this lightly, as I am well aware from personal experience of how hard a step that is. But if you believe those running a university are taking steps to seriously damage your part of the university and you are not successful in talking them out of doing so, you RESIGN IN PROTEST.]

Those running Stanford do not, obviously, have to care one whit about what I think they are doing to a very special--indeed, unique--institution. But I do not have to like or support what they are doing.

This is a mistake. And I fear t might be just the start.

Those of us who love Stanford sports should do what we can to make sure the University is never again put in the hands of those who resent or fail to support athletics. The Board of Trustees at a place like Stanford has one basic job--selecting the President. The next time they are called upon to do so, our voices need to be heard by them.