[ColoradoTree]

Sorry if this point has been made elsewhere here or in a different thread (I know it's been a long battle and debate, here and offline), but synchronized swimming has always stood out to me as an athletic outlier at Stanford. That was true when I first realized we had a varsity synchro team when I was a student, and it's true now. 

There are five varsity synchro programs in the country--us, Ohio State, Incarnate Word, Texas Woman's University, and Wheaton College (the one in MA, which I hadn't heard of before, not the one in IL, which I had). Five. And only one a school we'd consider an athletic peer. I know someone posted earlier that our synchro program has been one of the most successful in the country, but jiminy cricket, with only four other varsity programs, we'd darn well better be one of the most successful programs. 

I love the Olympics, and I think that in Olympic sports, we have something of a patriotic obligation to fund a sport that is a good pipeline for developing Olympians, since we don't have the sorts of national academies that a lot of other countries use. So, I'm happy to listen to non-monetary reasons for keeping a sport that get to something that I consider a public good. But the specific case for synchro doesn't strike me as very strong. The US didn't qualify for the Olympics in 2016, and I just looked at the senior national team roster and didn't see a Stanford athlete on there. 

To be candid, I always sort of figured synchro was a varsity sport at Stanford as a way to make Title IX numbers work. The U.S. Collegiate Championships are at Stanford this weekend, and only two other schools--Ohio State and Incarnate Word--will join us. What kind of a national championship is that? And even then, if the Stanford program were even a moderate contributor to Olympic success, I'd be on board. But it doesn't appear to be, at least not currently.  

I'm very sympathetic to the arguments for keeping most of the other sports. (I feel the biggest pangs for men's volleyball, wrestling, fencing, and rowing.) Synchro just strikes me as a different case.

[ColoradoTree]

Sorry if this point has been made elsewhere here or in a different thread (I know it's been a long battle and debate, here and offline), but synchronized swimming has always stood out to me as an athletic outlier at Stanford. That was true when I first realized we had a varsity synchro team when I was a student, and it's true now. 

There are five varsity synchro programs in the country--us, Ohio State, Incarnate Word, Texas Woman's University, and Wheaton College (the one in MA, which I hadn't heard of before, not the one in IL, which I had). Five. And only one a school we'd consider an athletic peer. I know someone posted earlier that our synchro program has been one of the most successful in the country, but jiminy cricket, with only four other varsity programs, we'd darn well better be one of the most successful programs. 

I love the Olympics, and I think that in Olympic sports, we have something of a patriotic obligation to fund a sport that is a good pipeline for developing Olympians, since we don't have the sorts of national academies that a lot of other countries use. So, I'm happy to listen to non-monetary reasons for keeping a sport that get to something that I consider a public good. But the specific case for synchro doesn't strike me as very strong. The US didn't qualify for the Olympics in 2016, and I just looked at the senior national team roster and didn't see a Stanford athlete on there. 

To be candid, I always sort of figured synchro was a varsity sport at Stanford as a way to make Title IX numbers work. The U.S. Collegiate Championships are at Stanford this weekend, and only two other schools--Ohio State and Incarnate Word--will join us. What kind of a national championship is that? And even then, if the Stanford program were even a moderate contributor to Olympic success, I'd be on board. But it doesn't appear to be, at least not currently.  

I'm very sympathetic to the arguments for keeping most of the other sports. (I feel the biggest pangs for men's volleyball, wrestling, fencing, and rowing.) Synchro just strikes me as a different case.

[BobK]

The Stanford Olympians for you  :)

  1996
Heather Pease (Gold)

  2000
Bridget Finn
Heather Olson
Gail Emery (Coach)

  2004
Erin Dobratz (Bronze)
Sara Lowe (Bronze)
Courtenay Stewart - Canada

  2012
Mariya Koroleva

[BobK]

The Stanford Olympians for you  :)

  1996
Heather Pease (Gold)

  2000
Bridget Finn
Heather Olson
Gail Emery (Coach)

  2004
Erin Dobratz (Bronze)
Sara Lowe (Bronze)
Courtenay Stewart - Canada

  2012
Mariya Koroleva

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks, Bob! So, some history of Olympic representation, with a Gold 25 years ago, our last medalists 15 years ago, and just one Olympian in the last few Olympics (looks like Koroleva made it again in 2016 as part of a pair, even though the US team as a whole didn't qualify). 

Against the backdrop of just five schools having it as a varsity program (apparently Texas Woman's University's varsity program starts this fall, so that number is currently four and will be four again when Stanford drops), is that level of Olympic involvement enough to justify retaining synchro as a varsity sport? 

As I understand it, the cost is fairly minimal (no scholarships for synchro, I don't think), and it seems a prime candidate for a "just let us fund it" approach by synchro alums if the administration would allow that route. But it's hard to get past how limited the collegiate competition is.

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks, Bob! So, some history of Olympic representation, with a Gold 25 years ago, our last medalists 15 years ago, and just one Olympian in the last few Olympics (looks like Koroleva made it again in 2016 as part of a pair, even though the US team as a whole didn't qualify). 

Against the backdrop of just five schools having it as a varsity program (apparently Texas Woman's University's varsity program starts this fall, so that number is currently four and will be four again when Stanford drops), is that level of Olympic involvement enough to justify retaining synchro as a varsity sport? 

As I understand it, the cost is fairly minimal (no scholarships for synchro, I don't think), and it seems a prime candidate for a "just let us fund it" approach by synchro alums if the administration would allow that route. But it's hard to get past how limited the collegiate competition is.

[donkey687]

Wrestling gets the most PR and sympathy.  Volleyball raised the most money. Thus, you would think those two sports would be the most likely to be saved but you have to save a lot of female sports and Title IX slots to offset those two.  Field Hockey is the most prominent women's sport being cut, but it is also a more expensive one. Synchro is a lower cost sport but also doesn't have the deepest alumni pool to pull from for donations. Sailing can raise money and is very Title IX friendly with the women counting for both Coed and Women's team but has stigma of Varsity Blues.  Lots of considerations.  It will be interesting to see what happens.  Gene Sykes as a Stanford board member who is on the athletics sub-committee is in a tough spot. He was in charge of LA's Olympic bid. He is under some heat to resign from his Olympic position given his involvement in the decision to cut all these Olympic sports at Stanford. That can't feel great to him. I would think he would embrace a viable solution if there is one to save these sports.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/alumni/cont...iger-sykes

[donkey687]

Wrestling gets the most PR and sympathy.  Volleyball raised the most money. Thus, you would think those two sports would be the most likely to be saved but you have to save a lot of female sports and Title IX slots to offset those two.  Field Hockey is the most prominent women's sport being cut, but it is also a more expensive one. Synchro is a lower cost sport but also doesn't have the deepest alumni pool to pull from for donations. Sailing can raise money and is very Title IX friendly with the women counting for both Coed and Women's team but has stigma of Varsity Blues.  Lots of considerations.  It will be interesting to see what happens.  Gene Sykes as a Stanford board member who is on the athletics sub-committee is in a tough spot. He was in charge of LA's Olympic bid. He is under some heat to resign from his Olympic position given his involvement in the decision to cut all these Olympic sports at Stanford. That can't feel great to him. I would think he would embrace a viable solution if there is one to save these sports.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/alumni/cont...iger-sykes

[martyup]

Just let women wrestle with the men.  Title 9 problem solved.  :•)

[martyup]

Just let women wrestle with the men.  Title 9 problem solved.  :•)

[cardcrimson]

When the effort hits Swimswan, you know they're gaining traction:

https://swimswam.com/optimism-on-stanfor.../#comments

[cardcrimson]

When the effort hits Swimswan, you know they're gaining traction:

https://swimswam.com/optimism-on-stanfor.../#comments

[winflop]

I've decided to join the ranks of alumni who are no longer donating to the Athletic Department. I stopped donating to the University many years ago. My issues are not as much with the decision as to how Muir and Prell have handled it. Their story has morphed and become more vague and nebulous as their initial assertions that this was purely a financial decision have been challenged and been shown to not quite add up, combined with the 36 Sports Strong group's fundraising.

The tipping point for me was when the University's response was that they would have to raise $200 million. That is preposterous and disingenuous. It's misleading at best.

The University should be finding a way to partner with 36 Sports Strong rather than stand in staunch opposition to their efforts.

[winflop]

I've decided to join the ranks of alumni who are no longer donating to the Athletic Department. I stopped donating to the University many years ago. My issues are not as much with the decision as to how Muir and Prell have handled it. Their story has morphed and become more vague and nebulous as their initial assertions that this was purely a financial decision have been challenged and been shown to not quite add up, combined with the 36 Sports Strong group's fundraising.

The tipping point for me was when the University's response was that they would have to raise $200 million. That is preposterous and disingenuous. It's misleading at best.

The University should be finding a way to partner with 36 Sports Strong rather than stand in staunch opposition to their efforts.

[Treefence]

Anybody else notice that the front page of our athletics site shows the men's gymnastics team celebrating the championship, wearing "36 Sports Strong" shirts?  Maybe it means nothing, but it's hard to imagine they couldn't have gotten a shot without those pages, maybe one of Brody Malone on his last routine.

[Treefence]

Anybody else notice that the front page of our athletics site shows the men's gymnastics team celebrating the championship, wearing "36 Sports Strong" shirts?  Maybe it means nothing, but it's hard to imagine they couldn't have gotten a shot without those pages, maybe one of Brody Malone on his last routine.

[BigJohn043]

Sorry if this point has been made elsewhere here or in a different thread (I know it's been a long battle and debate, here and offline), but synchronized swimming has always stood out to me as an athletic outlier at Stanford. That was true when I first realized we had a varsity synchro team when I was a student, and it's true now. 

There are five varsity synchro programs in the country--us, Ohio State, Incarnate Word, Texas Woman's University, and Wheaton College (the one in MA, which I hadn't heard of before, not the one in IL, which I had). Five. And only one a school we'd consider an athletic peer. I know someone posted earlier that our synchro program has been one of the most successful in the country, but jiminy cricket, with only four other varsity programs, we'd darn well better be one of the most successful programs. 

I love the Olympics, and I think that in Olympic sports, we have something of a patriotic obligation to fund a sport that is a good pipeline for developing Olympians, since we don't have the sorts of national academies that a lot of other countries use. So, I'm happy to listen to non-monetary reasons for keeping a sport that get to something that I consider a public good. But the specific case for synchro doesn't strike me as very strong. The US didn't qualify for the Olympics in 2016, and I just looked at the senior national team roster and didn't see a Stanford athlete on there. 

To be candid, I always sort of figured synchro was a varsity sport at Stanford as a way to make Title IX numbers work. The U.S. Collegiate Championships are at Stanford this weekend, and only two other schools--Ohio State and Incarnate Word--will join us. What kind of a national championship is that? And even then, if the Stanford program were even a moderate contributor to Olympic success, I'd be on board. But it doesn't appear to be, at least not currently.  

I'm very sympathetic to the arguments for keeping most of the other sports. (I feel the biggest pangs for men's volleyball, wrestling, fencing, and rowing.) Synchro just strikes me as a different case.

Since 1983, only twice has a school won the syncro title other than OSU or Stanford.  We could be a dominant football power as well.  We just have to get every other school in the country to drop football other than cal.....

[BigJohn043]

Sorry if this point has been made elsewhere here or in a different thread (I know it's been a long battle and debate, here and offline), but synchronized swimming has always stood out to me as an athletic outlier at Stanford. That was true when I first realized we had a varsity synchro team when I was a student, and it's true now. 

There are five varsity synchro programs in the country--us, Ohio State, Incarnate Word, Texas Woman's University, and Wheaton College (the one in MA, which I hadn't heard of before, not the one in IL, which I had). Five. And only one a school we'd consider an athletic peer. I know someone posted earlier that our synchro program has been one of the most successful in the country, but jiminy cricket, with only four other varsity programs, we'd darn well better be one of the most successful programs. 

I love the Olympics, and I think that in Olympic sports, we have something of a patriotic obligation to fund a sport that is a good pipeline for developing Olympians, since we don't have the sorts of national academies that a lot of other countries use. So, I'm happy to listen to non-monetary reasons for keeping a sport that get to something that I consider a public good. But the specific case for synchro doesn't strike me as very strong. The US didn't qualify for the Olympics in 2016, and I just looked at the senior national team roster and didn't see a Stanford athlete on there. 

To be candid, I always sort of figured synchro was a varsity sport at Stanford as a way to make Title IX numbers work. The U.S. Collegiate Championships are at Stanford this weekend, and only two other schools--Ohio State and Incarnate Word--will join us. What kind of a national championship is that? And even then, if the Stanford program were even a moderate contributor to Olympic success, I'd be on board. But it doesn't appear to be, at least not currently.  

I'm very sympathetic to the arguments for keeping most of the other sports. (I feel the biggest pangs for men's volleyball, wrestling, fencing, and rowing.) Synchro just strikes me as a different case.

Since 1983, only twice has a school won the syncro title other than OSU or Stanford.  We could be a dominant football power as well.  We just have to get every other school in the country to drop football other than cal.....