[PalmTree]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment).  The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost minuscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers;  I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4).  Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Stanford's financial projections have become much more uncertain this year.  I suspect they will proceed cautiously until there is more certainty and there is no guarantee that the certainty will be close to what has been budgeted.  (see dropping the NDNU purchase option).

Also see the hiring freeze for staff positions just announced today:

"We have more work to do on our next budget, and we will learn more in the coming months about the outcomes of the various federal policy proposals. Given the uncertainty, we need to take prudent steps to limit spending and ensure that we have flexibility and resilience.

To better prepare us to meet these challenges, we are implementing a freeze on staff hiring in the university. Critically needed positions may be approved by the cognizant dean, vice president, or vice provost, though these situations should be limited. Similarly, hiring may continue for positions that are fully funded through externally-sponsored research awards; please confirm these hires with the cognizant dean’s office. The freeze does not apply to faculty positions, contingent employees (temporary and casual), or student workers."

This has happened just a handful of times in the past 40 or so years, so pretty major.  Bottom line, guessing PPO and BoT are highly unlikely to sink major $ into an idea with unproven/unsubstantiated positive ROI - think along a the lines of paraphrased version of CJ's quote (thanks, Spiny), "We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything <unwise>."

[PalmTree]

given my perception of the relative desirability of the job I would expect whoever is selected is unlikely to be celebrated here as a "great hire"

That's why I suggested the AD of Duke.

Stanford has cancelled the option to purchase Notre Dame Belmont which reduces some financial pressure but is an indication of a possibly tough financial environment over the next 4 years (lower NIH research and indirect costs, lower Federal scholarship aid, possible new tax on endowment).  The university subsidy for athletics is likely to be part of any cuts.

************************

Hi (and also to BostonCard),

(1). I am not trying to be funny or facetious here

(2). A while back in some other post-thread BostonCard described that (I am paraphrasing here) that "50 million dollars a year" was an almost minuscule percentage of Stanfords overall Operating Budget & Endowments, & that the amount of the 'Athletic Dept budget' was almost not important enough to be listed as a line-item in the Overall Stanford University Budget/Asset Ledgers;  I apologize Boston Card if I am misrepresenting what you may have said in an earlier post ..& please correct me, as I dont mean to.


(3). if this is the case, doesn't it seem like (temporarily) money could be taken from those other vast pools of money/assets (e.g the Endowment or the other vast areas of the Overall Operating Budget's  Assets & Revenue Streams) ...to bolster and Support Stanford Athletics for all its sports for a finite short period of time of a few years ?

(4).  Is this a question of 'there is absolutely no money at Stanford University to support the 36sports' or 'that decision makers & man-made rules are preventing temporarily taking money from some large unused Endowment/Asset pools to fund the Athletic Department and its support of its Sports, & Athletes .....until 'better funding eras emerge'

Stanford's financial projections have become much more uncertain this year.  I suspect they will proceed cautiously until there is more certainty and there is no guarantee that the certainty will be close to what has been budgeted.  (see dropping the NDNU purchase option).

Also see the hiring freeze for staff positions just announced today:

"We have more work to do on our next budget, and we will learn more in the coming months about the outcomes of the various federal policy proposals. Given the uncertainty, we need to take prudent steps to limit spending and ensure that we have flexibility and resilience.

To better prepare us to meet these challenges, we are implementing a freeze on staff hiring in the university. Critically needed positions may be approved by the cognizant dean, vice president, or vice provost, though these situations should be limited. Similarly, hiring may continue for positions that are fully funded through externally-sponsored research awards; please confirm these hires with the cognizant dean’s office. The freeze does not apply to faculty positions, contingent employees (temporary and casual), or student workers."

This has happened just a handful of times in the past 40 or so years, so pretty major.  Bottom line, guessing PPO and BoT are highly unlikely to sink major $ into an idea with unproven/unsubstantiated positive ROI - think along a the lines of paraphrased version of CJ's quote (thanks, Spiny), "We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything <unwise>."