[BigJohn043]

These are all great posts and I commend all the posters for their nuanced and thoughtful takes on these matters. It seems that what many people are identifying, whether they support or oppose cutting these sports in the abstract, is what appears to be the bad faith arguments that the AD has used in justifying the cuts - i.e., that it was just about the money. While I think many would still oppose cutting these sports simply to readjust who is favored in the admissions process, it seems at least some of us would be less upset (and certainly less insulted) if the ADs and the University Admins would just be honest about what they actually trying to achieve, because it seems like almost everyone in this thread agrees the primary motivation has much more to do with admissions and student composition than with saving $$$.

And in that respect, at the risk of butting up to the no politics line, it's striking to me how much this mirrors national political battles over matters like reforming elections laws or altering admissions processes for selective public high schools. In each case, there's a strong suspicion that the "real" reason for the policy change is not the reason being given. Is it just me, or has the rise of bad faith arguments really exploded in the last decade? Is this just the result of cynical political calculuses? The desire to avoid a PR roast? The perceived insulation of decisionmakers from any meaningful accountability? I guess I have long expected the worst from elected politicians but I have generally held Stanford up to a higher standard, and it's really hard not to think they're insulting their alums with the way they've handled this process.

I am not sure I agree with your characterization of "bad faith arguments".  My guess is that the reason that we are doing this NOW is money.  It was probably always a bit of an issue to defend a 35 sport AD.  But as long as the AD is self funding the easier political answer is likely not to make any waves and cut sports.  Once the budget goes into the red and decisions have to be made, we cut 11 sports because it helped with the budget and helped other issues.  I would also guess, but don't know, that the decision was made to cut deep as long as we are cutting.  Cutting 11 sports isn't that much worse than cutting 6 or 7.

[BigJohn043]

These are all great posts and I commend all the posters for their nuanced and thoughtful takes on these matters. It seems that what many people are identifying, whether they support or oppose cutting these sports in the abstract, is what appears to be the bad faith arguments that the AD has used in justifying the cuts - i.e., that it was just about the money. While I think many would still oppose cutting these sports simply to readjust who is favored in the admissions process, it seems at least some of us would be less upset (and certainly less insulted) if the ADs and the University Admins would just be honest about what they actually trying to achieve, because it seems like almost everyone in this thread agrees the primary motivation has much more to do with admissions and student composition than with saving $$$.

And in that respect, at the risk of butting up to the no politics line, it's striking to me how much this mirrors national political battles over matters like reforming elections laws or altering admissions processes for selective public high schools. In each case, there's a strong suspicion that the "real" reason for the policy change is not the reason being given. Is it just me, or has the rise of bad faith arguments really exploded in the last decade? Is this just the result of cynical political calculuses? The desire to avoid a PR roast? The perceived insulation of decisionmakers from any meaningful accountability? I guess I have long expected the worst from elected politicians but I have generally held Stanford up to a higher standard, and it's really hard not to think they're insulting their alums with the way they've handled this process.

I am not sure I agree with your characterization of "bad faith arguments".  My guess is that the reason that we are doing this NOW is money.  It was probably always a bit of an issue to defend a 35 sport AD.  But as long as the AD is self funding the easier political answer is likely not to make any waves and cut sports.  Once the budget goes into the red and decisions have to be made, we cut 11 sports because it helped with the budget and helped other issues.  I would also guess, but don't know, that the decision was made to cut deep as long as we are cutting.  Cutting 11 sports isn't that much worse than cutting 6 or 7.