04-08-2021, 04:11 PM
While undoubtedly true (I work in healthcare where "costs" are a joke), and certainly money is fungible, in this particular case it would be harder to engage in clever accounting to make things look worse because we are talking about marginal costs, not costs averaged over the entire budget. Thus, you can't really shift fixed costs to count under the cut sports (or move revenue to other sports). Thus, the AD referred to "total incremental funding" not "total cost".
That being said, there is still room for some discussion. Scholarship funds are considered a "cost", but that is a cost that the AD is paying to the University, probably at the full cost of tuition, room, and board. But unless those scholarships are being replaced with revenue from full freight-paying students, then the University is actually coming out ahead in that transaction, since many non-athletes who come into Stanford are paying a subsidized rate. You'd really have to figure out what the average student winds up contributing to the University in terms of revenue to really calculate the cost of the scholarships.
BC
That being said, there is still room for some discussion. Scholarship funds are considered a "cost", but that is a cost that the AD is paying to the University, probably at the full cost of tuition, room, and board. But unless those scholarships are being replaced with revenue from full freight-paying students, then the University is actually coming out ahead in that transaction, since many non-athletes who come into Stanford are paying a subsidized rate. You'd really have to figure out what the average student winds up contributing to the University in terms of revenue to really calculate the cost of the scholarships.
BC
