[BostonCard]

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".

Sure you can. You can do it any way you want if you don't give out the details of what the numbers mean and where they came from. You can take any fixed cost and ascribe whatever percentage you chose to each sport. Unless somebody knows that you did that, they have to assume you aren't "cheating". However, since you don't give out that kind of information, anything is possible. "Marginal Costs" are what the AD says they are. Honest? No. Easy to do? Yes, because you don't get audited.

Unless you are suggesting that Stanford is outright lying, the only percentage of a fixed cost you can ascribe is 0% because by definition, fixed costs are not included in calculations of marginal or incremental costs.

BC

---

From a common sense perspective about human nature, would an Athletic Director voluntarily propose slashing a number of sports?  Most heads of bureaucracies want to increase the size of their empire.  A smaller organization means less power and in the future possibly a corresponding cut in salary.

I heard a fourth-hand rumor some time ago there are admissions officers who don't like Olympic sports athletes from well-off families getting admitted to Stanford.  The story I heard they would prefer to give those positions to students from disadvantaged and challenged backgrounds.   I have doubts about the rumor and only bring it up to ask the question; Could there be forces at Stanford outside the athletic department who were advocating for the university going away from being a sports school?  After a decision was made the AD would have no choice other than to jump on board or resign.

PA, I have heard the same (and it is not just admissions officers; there has always been a tension between people in the school's administration who relish our athletic achievements and those who tolerate it).  I don't know whether it is "a reason", "the main reason" or "the only reason", but I am pretty sure that there are some people outside of the athletics department who want some additional flexibility in shaping the class that they can get from cutting the proportion of recruited athletes from about 12% of each entering class to about 9%, and who generally feel that athletics are at best a distraction from the core mission of the University.  The Varsity Blues scandal gave ammunition to those forces (whether fair or not), as it became clear that some privileged families were using athletics as a vehicle to gain admission to Stanford, even if it wasn't unearned.

BC

[BostonCard]

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".

Sure you can. You can do it any way you want if you don't give out the details of what the numbers mean and where they came from. You can take any fixed cost and ascribe whatever percentage you chose to each sport. Unless somebody knows that you did that, they have to assume you aren't "cheating". However, since you don't give out that kind of information, anything is possible. "Marginal Costs" are what the AD says they are. Honest? No. Easy to do? Yes, because you don't get audited.

Unless you are suggesting that Stanford is outright lying, the only percentage of a fixed cost you can ascribe is 0% because by definition, fixed costs are not included in calculations of marginal or incremental costs.

BC

---

From a common sense perspective about human nature, would an Athletic Director voluntarily propose slashing a number of sports?  Most heads of bureaucracies want to increase the size of their empire.  A smaller organization means less power and in the future possibly a corresponding cut in salary.

I heard a fourth-hand rumor some time ago there are admissions officers who don't like Olympic sports athletes from well-off families getting admitted to Stanford.  The story I heard they would prefer to give those positions to students from disadvantaged and challenged backgrounds.   I have doubts about the rumor and only bring it up to ask the question; Could there be forces at Stanford outside the athletic department who were advocating for the university going away from being a sports school?  After a decision was made the AD would have no choice other than to jump on board or resign.

PA, I have heard the same (and it is not just admissions officers; there has always been a tension between people in the school's administration who relish our athletic achievements and those who tolerate it).  I don't know whether it is "a reason", "the main reason" or "the only reason", but I am pretty sure that there are some people outside of the athletics department who want some additional flexibility in shaping the class that they can get from cutting the proportion of recruited athletes from about 12% of each entering class to about 9%, and who generally feel that athletics are at best a distraction from the core mission of the University.  The Varsity Blues scandal gave ammunition to those forces (whether fair or not), as it became clear that some privileged families were using athletics as a vehicle to gain admission to Stanford, even if it wasn't unearned.

BC