[Mick]

Ann Killion's bias isn't as much pro-student athlete as it is anti-Stanford. Anything that makes Stanford look bad is music to her ears.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall that Glenn Dickey was the same way.  I used to know one of the Giants outfielders who played in the 1960s and 1970s, a very nice man.  His opinion of sportswriters was quite genial; e.g., they had a job and he had a job and he was always cooperative.  The only sportswriter he didn't like was Dickey, who always tried to get him to knock Willie Mays.

BTW, I heard Glenn Dickey on KNBR once (probably Ralph Barbieri) and a caller offered some well-thought-out constructive criticism based on inaccuracies in Dickey's column.  Dickey's reaction?  Well let's just say it was the definition of "can dish it out, but can't take it." finally yelling at Ralph to cut the caller off.

---

Maybe interesting that both the National Review and the SF Chronicle (about as ideologically opposite you can get) penned articles supporting the athletes (Anne Killion's was less an editorial, but it is pretty clear where her sympathies lie).  In some ways, it's not a surprise; Stanford can easily play the bogeyman for both right- and left-leaning outfits.  Plus, a David vs. Golliath story plays well to all audiences.

Either way, though, the strongest arguments for keeping the sports are emotional, not rational, which is why neither article is convincing from a rhetorical point of view.  Which is why I am closer to the position of people like leftcoast and Farm, which is to say somewhat agnostic in this dispute.  Sure, as a former (not very good) high school volleyball player, I don't want to see the sport disappear, and as my mentor is a former wrestler (at Phogge's alma mater), I have developed respect for the sport and believe that it's blue collar ethic benefits Stanford, and I have always like sailing, and I recognize that if men's volleyball and wrestling are kept that a women's sport would also be needed for Title IX purposes.  But special pleading and personal interest aside, I don't have a strong feeling for keeping sports.  I mean, 36 is not some magical inviolable number that represents the platonic ideal of how many varsity sports the University should have.  We don't, for example, have a varsity bowling team (or ice hockey, rifle, or skiing) even though they are NCAA sports.

BC

The older I get, the less interested I am in sports at the periphery, and I suppose I don't really care whether Stanford keeps or drops the 11 sports, outside of men's volleyball.  I still think an extensive athletics program is good for any university, for reasons I've detailed in prior posts.  More to the point, Stanford is really alone at the top, both academically and athletically, and Stanford's extensive athletics program -- in part -- separates it from other schools.  The student that dislikes or doesn't care about athletics -- doesn't really matter.  Students aren't forced to attend games, and an athlete on the Stanford campus is just another person in the student population.  But collectively, it's part of what makes Stanford unique.  I just don't like seeing Stanford voluntarily eliminate that part of which makes it unique.

Incidentally, Stanford had a bowling team at one time.  My grandfather (Stanford, '42) played on it.

[Mick]

Ann Killion's bias isn't as much pro-student athlete as it is anti-Stanford. Anything that makes Stanford look bad is music to her ears.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall that Glenn Dickey was the same way.  I used to know one of the Giants outfielders who played in the 1960s and 1970s, a very nice man.  His opinion of sportswriters was quite genial; e.g., they had a job and he had a job and he was always cooperative.  The only sportswriter he didn't like was Dickey, who always tried to get him to knock Willie Mays.

BTW, I heard Glenn Dickey on KNBR once (probably Ralph Barbieri) and a caller offered some well-thought-out constructive criticism based on inaccuracies in Dickey's column.  Dickey's reaction?  Well let's just say it was the definition of "can dish it out, but can't take it." finally yelling at Ralph to cut the caller off.

---

Maybe interesting that both the National Review and the SF Chronicle (about as ideologically opposite you can get) penned articles supporting the athletes (Anne Killion's was less an editorial, but it is pretty clear where her sympathies lie).  In some ways, it's not a surprise; Stanford can easily play the bogeyman for both right- and left-leaning outfits.  Plus, a David vs. Golliath story plays well to all audiences.

Either way, though, the strongest arguments for keeping the sports are emotional, not rational, which is why neither article is convincing from a rhetorical point of view.  Which is why I am closer to the position of people like leftcoast and Farm, which is to say somewhat agnostic in this dispute.  Sure, as a former (not very good) high school volleyball player, I don't want to see the sport disappear, and as my mentor is a former wrestler (at Phogge's alma mater), I have developed respect for the sport and believe that it's blue collar ethic benefits Stanford, and I have always like sailing, and I recognize that if men's volleyball and wrestling are kept that a women's sport would also be needed for Title IX purposes.  But special pleading and personal interest aside, I don't have a strong feeling for keeping sports.  I mean, 36 is not some magical inviolable number that represents the platonic ideal of how many varsity sports the University should have.  We don't, for example, have a varsity bowling team (or ice hockey, rifle, or skiing) even though they are NCAA sports.

BC

The older I get, the less interested I am in sports at the periphery, and I suppose I don't really care whether Stanford keeps or drops the 11 sports, outside of men's volleyball.  I still think an extensive athletics program is good for any university, for reasons I've detailed in prior posts.  More to the point, Stanford is really alone at the top, both academically and athletically, and Stanford's extensive athletics program -- in part -- separates it from other schools.  The student that dislikes or doesn't care about athletics -- doesn't really matter.  Students aren't forced to attend games, and an athlete on the Stanford campus is just another person in the student population.  But collectively, it's part of what makes Stanford unique.  I just don't like seeing Stanford voluntarily eliminate that part of which makes it unique.

Incidentally, Stanford had a bowling team at one time.  My grandfather (Stanford, '42) played on it.