[Goose]

I agree with my pediatric colleague that Stanford could raise $580 million if it wanted to, and has done so in the past.  They just don't want to do it to save these sports, which means they don't want the sports "saved".


BC

I agree with this line of reasoning. I would add that 1) If Stanford chose to raise 580 million, they would want it all directed at "core" sports and none wasted on "non-essential" activities, and 2) the costs of the non-essential sports are based on the Athletic Department model of "big time college sports", where everything is costly and a "big deal".

Stanford is doing what many large corporations do when times get tough. They are defining what is "necessary" to keep and what activities are not in keeping with how they project their future. It is often true that when an organization grows it loses the ability to do many things that it used to do well. Overheads rise to the point some customer oriented services just can't make money, the margins are too low. Having many different "business models" inside the same organization is just too hard, so get rid of anything that according to management doesn't fit the desired model.
What is seldom done is looking at why overheads are so high and why the selected business model is the right one and why the organization requires a monolithic business model. Those are just regarded as axiomatic. Varsity Blues may have helped focus the issue. Stanford gets a lot of bad press because a sailing coach takes money for his sport improperly. I am sure that the powers that be asked "Who the hell is this guy? Why do we even have a sailing team? Wouldn't it be better if it just went away? Who would even notice?". From a management point of view, if your goal is a big, expensive department that is able to compete in the dollars race everyplace it operates, that approach may make sense. That is what we have, a department that believes excellence in sports is defined as the number of dollars you receive and the number of dollars you spend. It is not defined by the effects it has on student athletes or even students in general, or the public at large. It isn't even defined by athletic success (God forbid, we could all get fired if Men's Basketball doesn't improve). It is defined by size, number of employees, and dollars of revenue. This is a disease that afflicts Stanford in many other areas IMHO.
The AD could continue to have sports like crew, that doesn't cost the university much but probably isn't going to win a national championship any time soon. There is a hard core of people who want to participate and will go to great lengths to do so. However, that doesn't fit the model and distracts from the main goal, so out it must go.

[Goose]

I agree with my pediatric colleague that Stanford could raise $580 million if it wanted to, and has done so in the past.  They just don't want to do it to save these sports, which means they don't want the sports "saved".


BC

I agree with this line of reasoning. I would add that 1) If Stanford chose to raise 580 million, they would want it all directed at "core" sports and none wasted on "non-essential" activities, and 2) the costs of the non-essential sports are based on the Athletic Department model of "big time college sports", where everything is costly and a "big deal".

Stanford is doing what many large corporations do when times get tough. They are defining what is "necessary" to keep and what activities are not in keeping with how they project their future. It is often true that when an organization grows it loses the ability to do many things that it used to do well. Overheads rise to the point some customer oriented services just can't make money, the margins are too low. Having many different "business models" inside the same organization is just too hard, so get rid of anything that according to management doesn't fit the desired model.
What is seldom done is looking at why overheads are so high and why the selected business model is the right one and why the organization requires a monolithic business model. Those are just regarded as axiomatic. Varsity Blues may have helped focus the issue. Stanford gets a lot of bad press because a sailing coach takes money for his sport improperly. I am sure that the powers that be asked "Who the hell is this guy? Why do we even have a sailing team? Wouldn't it be better if it just went away? Who would even notice?". From a management point of view, if your goal is a big, expensive department that is able to compete in the dollars race everyplace it operates, that approach may make sense. That is what we have, a department that believes excellence in sports is defined as the number of dollars you receive and the number of dollars you spend. It is not defined by the effects it has on student athletes or even students in general, or the public at large. It isn't even defined by athletic success (God forbid, we could all get fired if Men's Basketball doesn't improve). It is defined by size, number of employees, and dollars of revenue. This is a disease that afflicts Stanford in many other areas IMHO.
The AD could continue to have sports like crew, that doesn't cost the university much but probably isn't going to win a national championship any time soon. There is a hard core of people who want to participate and will go to great lengths to do so. However, that doesn't fit the model and distracts from the main goal, so out it must go.

[martyup]

Muir would rather save several high paid administrative jobs in his department than a sports team that just produced two Division 1 All-Americans and a National Champion.  Idiocracy.

[martyup]

Muir would rather save several high paid administrative jobs in his department than a sports team that just produced two Division 1 All-Americans and a National Champion.  Idiocracy.

[BigJohn043]

A bunch of things can be true at once:
1)  We have a deficit problem in the AD
2)  We have the second largest AD in D1 despite having one of the smallest student bodies
3)  As an elite academic school, admissions breaks are an important resource that the school has to decide how to allocate
4)  We are in a bunch of sports that aren't supported by the NCAA and/or aren't played by most schools and/or we have no record of success in

Cutting 11 sports is an answer to all of these issues.  The sad thing is the cut could have been smaller if it had been done earlier.....

[BigJohn043]

A bunch of things can be true at once:
1)  We have a deficit problem in the AD
2)  We have the second largest AD in D1 despite having one of the smallest student bodies
3)  As an elite academic school, admissions breaks are an important resource that the school has to decide how to allocate
4)  We are in a bunch of sports that aren't supported by the NCAA and/or aren't played by most schools and/or we have no record of success in

Cutting 11 sports is an answer to all of these issues.  The sad thing is the cut could have been smaller if it had been done earlier.....

[Spiny_Norman]

I have been saying for months now and everything the athletic department says is consistent with the simple explanation.



This is about money and concentrating resources in the highest priority sports.

Then why did the Provost say in a meeting with reps from 36 Sports Strong (including Kristina Johnson, Stanford field hockey alum and current president of Ohio State, who understands how higher ed works) that there was more to the decision than just financial considerations?

[Spiny_Norman]

I have been saying for months now and everything the athletic department says is consistent with the simple explanation.



This is about money and concentrating resources in the highest priority sports.

Then why did the Provost say in a meeting with reps from 36 Sports Strong (including Kristina Johnson, Stanford field hockey alum and current president of Ohio State, who understands how higher ed works) that there was more to the decision than just financial considerations?

[needle]

  But in the Ivy League and at other wealthy universities like Stanford, where he believes most athletic benefits to the University are non-pecuniary, Schwarz says cuts have more to do with preferences for who gets into the school. “I don’t think Dartmouth, or Brown, or Stanford needed to cut the sports if they felt they were generating benefits,” he says. It’s more a matter of deciding, for example, whether the university would rather accept 10 robotics enthusiasts or 10 golfers. Sports like golf, skiing, squash, and equestrian (all cut by Brown), which don’t seem to add racial or economic diversity to the student body, are increasingly likely to be dropped.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/...tic-future

+++

FWIW, I do think finances are a major consideration, especially given that we're in a period of uncertainty regarding what compensation for college athletes will look like.

[needle]

  But in the Ivy League and at other wealthy universities like Stanford, where he believes most athletic benefits to the University are non-pecuniary, Schwarz says cuts have more to do with preferences for who gets into the school. “I don’t think Dartmouth, or Brown, or Stanford needed to cut the sports if they felt they were generating benefits,” he says. It’s more a matter of deciding, for example, whether the university would rather accept 10 robotics enthusiasts or 10 golfers. Sports like golf, skiing, squash, and equestrian (all cut by Brown), which don’t seem to add racial or economic diversity to the student body, are increasingly likely to be dropped.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/...tic-future

+++

FWIW, I do think finances are a major consideration, especially given that we're in a period of uncertainty regarding what compensation for college athletes will look like.

[donkey687]

I have been saying for months now and everything the athletic department says is consistent with the simple explanation.



This is about money and concentrating resources in the highest priority sports.

Then why did the Provost say in a meeting with reps from 36 Sports Strong (including Kristina Johnson, Stanford field hockey alum and current president of Ohio State, who understands how higher ed works) that there was more to the decision than just financial considerations?

Not sure why she said that given the Board of Trustees wasn't given other reasons when they were asked to approve the cuts.

[donkey687]

I have been saying for months now and everything the athletic department says is consistent with the simple explanation.



This is about money and concentrating resources in the highest priority sports.

Then why did the Provost say in a meeting with reps from 36 Sports Strong (including Kristina Johnson, Stanford field hockey alum and current president of Ohio State, who understands how higher ed works) that there was more to the decision than just financial considerations?

Not sure why she said that given the Board of Trustees wasn't given other reasons when they were asked to approve the cuts.

[Mick]

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.

I wonder about that.  I also wonder if eliminating sports will reduce either the number of applicants or the yield.

[Mick]

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.

I wonder about that.  I also wonder if eliminating sports will reduce either the number of applicants or the yield.

[Goose]

A bunch of things can be true at once:
<snip>

2)  We have the second largest AD in D1 despite having one of the smallest student bodies

If this is true (and I assume it is), that is the real issue. We are a "small" university in terms of number of students. Ohio State, Michigan,  etc. dwarf us, yet they have smaller ADs. They aren't chopped liver. Why in the world is this so? That is the point that needs exploring.

[Goose]

A bunch of things can be true at once:
<snip>

2)  We have the second largest AD in D1 despite having one of the smallest student bodies

If this is true (and I assume it is), that is the real issue. We are a "small" university in terms of number of students. Ohio State, Michigan,  etc. dwarf us, yet they have smaller ADs. They aren't chopped liver. Why in the world is this so? That is the point that needs exploring.

[BobK]

How many of these schools have drs and rec under their domain.

[BobK]

How many of these schools have drs and rec under their domain.

[BostonCard]

I wonder about that.  I also wonder if eliminating sports will reduce either the number of applicants or the yield.

Except for the very narrow slice of applicant that is applying to the school specifically to get a scholarship in that sport, it will be a rounding error in terms of number of applicants.  Other than fencers, nobody is applying to Stanford because it has a good fencing team.

In terms of yield, I think it depends on how exactly the University calculated yield, but it will probably have a negligible effect.  We are talking about 3% of the student population each year, so the yield for those people would have to be dramatically different than the rest of the school for it to make a difference.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wonder about that.  I also wonder if eliminating sports will reduce either the number of applicants or the yield.

Except for the very narrow slice of applicant that is applying to the school specifically to get a scholarship in that sport, it will be a rounding error in terms of number of applicants.  Other than fencers, nobody is applying to Stanford because it has a good fencing team.

In terms of yield, I think it depends on how exactly the University calculated yield, but it will probably have a negligible effect.  We are talking about 3% of the student population each year, so the yield for those people would have to be dramatically different than the rest of the school for it to make a difference.

BC

[winflop]

I have been saying for months now and everything the athletic department says is consistent with the simple explanation.



This is about money and concentrating resources in the highest priority sports.

Then why did the Provost say in a meeting with reps from 36 Sports Strong (including Kristina Johnson, Stanford field hockey alum and current president of Ohio State, who understands how higher ed works) that there was more to the decision than just financial considerations?

That's easy to answer. Drell knew that the "financial considerations" answer wasn't going to stand up to the level of scrutiny being applied, so a vague reference to other considerations makes it easy for them to continue to hide the ball.

[winflop]

I have been saying for months now and everything the athletic department says is consistent with the simple explanation.



This is about money and concentrating resources in the highest priority sports.

Then why did the Provost say in a meeting with reps from 36 Sports Strong (including Kristina Johnson, Stanford field hockey alum and current president of Ohio State, who understands how higher ed works) that there was more to the decision than just financial considerations?

That's easy to answer. Drell knew that the "financial considerations" answer wasn't going to stand up to the level of scrutiny being applied, so a vague reference to other considerations makes it easy for them to continue to hide the ball.

[akiddoc]

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.

I wonder about that.  I also wonder if eliminating sports will reduce either the number of applicants or the yield.

Stanford has made it clear that they are still very interested in admitting the children of donors in order to keep the money flowing. No way all those spots are going to disadvantaged students.

[akiddoc]

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.

I wonder about that.  I also wonder if eliminating sports will reduce either the number of applicants or the yield.

Stanford has made it clear that they are still very interested in admitting the children of donors in order to keep the money flowing. No way all those spots are going to disadvantaged students.

[BigJohn043]

A bunch of things can be true at once:
<snip>

2)  We have the second largest AD in D1 despite having one of the smallest student bodies

If this is true (and I assume it is), that is the real issue. We are a "small" university in terms of number of students. Ohio State, Michigan,  etc. dwarf us, yet they have smaller ADs. They aren't chopped liver. Why in the world is this so? That is the point that needs exploring.

At 35 sports the only other D1 program of that size is Ohio State.  Most major programs have something in the mid to low 20s or about what we are going to cut to.

I will say that Ivies and some D3 schools like MIT have large 30+ sport programs.  But they don't give scholarships.  And the academic breaks at least at the Ivies are fairly different from what we do.

[BigJohn043]

A bunch of things can be true at once:
<snip>

2)  We have the second largest AD in D1 despite having one of the smallest student bodies

If this is true (and I assume it is), that is the real issue. We are a "small" university in terms of number of students. Ohio State, Michigan,  etc. dwarf us, yet they have smaller ADs. They aren't chopped liver. Why in the world is this so? That is the point that needs exploring.

At 35 sports the only other D1 program of that size is Ohio State.  Most major programs have something in the mid to low 20s or about what we are going to cut to.

I will say that Ivies and some D3 schools like MIT have large 30+ sport programs.  But they don't give scholarships.  And the academic breaks at least at the Ivies are fairly different from what we do.

[dabigv13]

The sports that are getting cut are run like the Ivies though. I don't think sailing got scholarships or at least full ones, and the academic breaks are small, I'm certain equivalent to the ones the Ivies give. 

I suspect like many have alluded that this is a way to free up admissions slots that are going to relatively privileged and whiter applicants. OTOH, all the recruited admissions combined for these cuts sports probably is less than what, 50 per year? Probably closer to 30. I'm sure they could increase the class size by that much without a major new building plan approved by PA.

I think it's a shame, as I knew walk ons from the student body in several of these sports (crew and fencing come to mind, none of whom were white fwiw) and went to a couple practices for sailing myself as a freshman (would have been fun but the early morning practices were not compatible with my extreme night owl schedule), something I did in HS but did not get recruited to do at Stanford. Those programs were run on a shoestring budget, and were not necessarily going to win against some of the traditional powerhouses in their sports, but I still think it was a great part of the Stanford experience to have them around. Lot more fat in the Stanford budget to cut than these programs IMHO.

Perhaps not a fashionable opinion now, but in 10 or 15 years or so after football players are getting paid and the inevitable disaster that will be for the sport at Stanford is realized, we will regret not just axing football and keeping these sports around.

[dabigv13]

The sports that are getting cut are run like the Ivies though. I don't think sailing got scholarships or at least full ones, and the academic breaks are small, I'm certain equivalent to the ones the Ivies give. 

I suspect like many have alluded that this is a way to free up admissions slots that are going to relatively privileged and whiter applicants. OTOH, all the recruited admissions combined for these cuts sports probably is less than what, 50 per year? Probably closer to 30. I'm sure they could increase the class size by that much without a major new building plan approved by PA.

I think it's a shame, as I knew walk ons from the student body in several of these sports (crew and fencing come to mind, none of whom were white fwiw) and went to a couple practices for sailing myself as a freshman (would have been fun but the early morning practices were not compatible with my extreme night owl schedule), something I did in HS but did not get recruited to do at Stanford. Those programs were run on a shoestring budget, and were not necessarily going to win against some of the traditional powerhouses in their sports, but I still think it was a great part of the Stanford experience to have them around. Lot more fat in the Stanford budget to cut than these programs IMHO.

Perhaps not a fashionable opinion now, but in 10 or 15 years or so after football players are getting paid and the inevitable disaster that will be for the sport at Stanford is realized, we will regret not just axing football and keeping these sports around.

[Farm93]

The sports that are getting cut are run like the Ivies though. I don't think sailing got scholarships or at least full ones, and the academic breaks are small, I'm certain equivalent to the ones the Ivies give. 

I suspect like many have alluded that this is a way to free up admissions slots that are going to relatively privileged and whiter applicants. OTOH, all the recruited admissions combined for these cuts sports probably is less than what, 50 per year? Probably closer to 30. I'm sure they could increase the class size by that much without a major new building plan approved by PA.

I think it's a shame, as I knew walk ons from the student body in several of these sports (crew and fencing come to mind, none of whom were white fwiw) and went to a couple practices for sailing myself as a freshman, something I did in HS but did not get recruited to do at Stanford. Those programs were run on a shoestring budget, and were not necessarily going to win against some of the traditional powerhouses in their sports, but I still think it was a great part of the Stanford experience to have them around. Lot more fat in the Stanford budget to cut than these programs IMHO.

Perhaps not a fashionable opinion now, but in 10 or 15 years or so after football players are getting paid and the inevitable disaster that will be for the sport at Stanford is realized, we will regret not just axing football and keeping these sports around.

I am confident everyone that participates in these sports loves the experience and will have a very hard time imagining a future Stanford without their sport.

And yet, most highly selective universities in the USA have been under pressure to do a lot more to admit those outside of the 1%.
The line that they are doing the most they can do rings really hollow when dozens of spots are reserved for people that almost have to be from families in the 1% in today's economy.

Few if any of the students from families in even the 5%-10% income range will be able to competitively sail, row or fence. Therefore each of those sports are potential PR problems that could even serve as catalysts to generate legislative challenges to the entire university in the future.

How hard is an institution really working to expand opportunities beyond 1%ers if it still reserves several slots that are almost exclusively available to those with the ample financial resources to learn expensive sports and/or use gift related back and side doors linked to those teams?   

The catch remains that even explaining why you are cutting those sports is a PR problem.    So while the meeting with impacted parties is a very important step, I am highly confident the BoT will not want to save the 1% sports in question that add very little to the campus culture or overall alumni engagement. 

I can imagine a world where wrestling or men's volleyball could be saved, but if the real issues are the PR related issues best not mentioned then sailing and fencing will be cut ASAP and there will be no looking back even if football and major D1 sports were removed from the mix.

FWIW - I believe the University will cut these sports even if major donors threaten to stop supporting Stanford for some period of time.   I am confident the BoT would have direct discussions with those types of individuals to help them understand the complete cost benefit analysis.

[Farm93]

The sports that are getting cut are run like the Ivies though. I don't think sailing got scholarships or at least full ones, and the academic breaks are small, I'm certain equivalent to the ones the Ivies give. 

I suspect like many have alluded that this is a way to free up admissions slots that are going to relatively privileged and whiter applicants. OTOH, all the recruited admissions combined for these cuts sports probably is less than what, 50 per year? Probably closer to 30. I'm sure they could increase the class size by that much without a major new building plan approved by PA.

I think it's a shame, as I knew walk ons from the student body in several of these sports (crew and fencing come to mind, none of whom were white fwiw) and went to a couple practices for sailing myself as a freshman, something I did in HS but did not get recruited to do at Stanford. Those programs were run on a shoestring budget, and were not necessarily going to win against some of the traditional powerhouses in their sports, but I still think it was a great part of the Stanford experience to have them around. Lot more fat in the Stanford budget to cut than these programs IMHO.

Perhaps not a fashionable opinion now, but in 10 or 15 years or so after football players are getting paid and the inevitable disaster that will be for the sport at Stanford is realized, we will regret not just axing football and keeping these sports around.

I am confident everyone that participates in these sports loves the experience and will have a very hard time imagining a future Stanford without their sport.

And yet, most highly selective universities in the USA have been under pressure to do a lot more to admit those outside of the 1%.
The line that they are doing the most they can do rings really hollow when dozens of spots are reserved for people that almost have to be from families in the 1% in today's economy.

Few if any of the students from families in even the 5%-10% income range will be able to competitively sail, row or fence. Therefore each of those sports are potential PR problems that could even serve as catalysts to generate legislative challenges to the entire university in the future.

How hard is an institution really working to expand opportunities beyond 1%ers if it still reserves several slots that are almost exclusively available to those with the ample financial resources to learn expensive sports and/or use gift related back and side doors linked to those teams?   

The catch remains that even explaining why you are cutting those sports is a PR problem.    So while the meeting with impacted parties is a very important step, I am highly confident the BoT will not want to save the 1% sports in question that add very little to the campus culture or overall alumni engagement. 

I can imagine a world where wrestling or men's volleyball could be saved, but if the real issues are the PR related issues best not mentioned then sailing and fencing will be cut ASAP and there will be no looking back even if football and major D1 sports were removed from the mix.

FWIW - I believe the University will cut these sports even if major donors threaten to stop supporting Stanford for some period of time.   I am confident the BoT would have direct discussions with those types of individuals to help them understand the complete cost benefit analysis.

[dabigv13]

So as you state, and I agree, that cutting these sports is an exercise in PR (opening up a couple dozen spots that maybe, potentially, would go to to less white/wealthy students is not solving any societal problems) which itself creates it's own PR problems.

This is why the whole exercise seems stupid and misguided. Running a university to please some op-ed writers is not a very good way to run a university.

And FWIW, the greater risk to accessibility for underrepresented minorities at elite schools is the present SCOTUS, not the Stanford sailing team, but that's probably getting too close to politics to get into here.

[dabigv13]

So as you state, and I agree, that cutting these sports is an exercise in PR (opening up a couple dozen spots that maybe, potentially, would go to to less white/wealthy students is not solving any societal problems) which itself creates it's own PR problems.

This is why the whole exercise seems stupid and misguided. Running a university to please some op-ed writers is not a very good way to run a university.

And FWIW, the greater risk to accessibility for underrepresented minorities at elite schools is the present SCOTUS, not the Stanford sailing team, but that's probably getting too close to politics to get into here.

[BigJohn043]

The sports that are getting cut are run like the Ivies though. I don't think sailing got scholarships or at least full ones, and the academic breaks are small, I'm certain equivalent to the ones the Ivies give. 

I suspect like many have alluded that this is a way to free up admissions slots that are going to relatively privileged and whiter applicants. OTOH, all the recruited admissions combined for these cuts sports probably is less than what, 50 per year? Probably closer to 30. I'm sure they could increase the class size by that much without a major new building plan approved by PA.

I think it's a shame, as I knew walk ons from the student body in several of these sports (crew and fencing come to mind, none of whom were white fwiw) and went to a couple practices for sailing myself as a freshman (would have been fun but the early morning practices were not compatible with my extreme night owl schedule), something I did in HS but did not get recruited to do at Stanford. Those programs were run on a shoestring budget, and were not necessarily going to win against some of the traditional powerhouses in their sports, but I still think it was a great part of the Stanford experience to have them around. Lot more fat in the Stanford budget to cut than these programs IMHO.

Perhaps not a fashionable opinion now, but in 10 or 15 years or so after football players are getting paid and the inevitable disaster that will be for the sport at Stanford is realized, we will regret not just axing football and keeping these sports around.

I think you are missing the point.  It isn't one thing.  It is almost certainly a combination of money, admissions, diversity, etc.

We don't have an ivy league approach to sports.  We compete in the Pac-12 and the only other private institution in that league (U$C) supports 21 sports.  We were at 35.  I haven't got to every other school in the Pac-12 but UCLA & cal are both also at around 20.

The fact is our AD got bloated.  Who decided it was a good idea to add squash and synchronized swimming?  I know field hockey and fencing have been around for a long time, but almost no colleges on the west coast compete in these sports.

As long as the money was there it was probably easier to not to through the brain damage of trimming sports.  Now we have to pay the piper.

I do think wrestling has a chance.  They have raised the most money as far as I can tell and have a proposal to also start a woman's team which solves the Title-9 issues.

Men's volleyball is the other sport that just feels like something Stanford should do.  I think the problem is that the team really hasn't been very good for most of its history.

[BigJohn043]

The sports that are getting cut are run like the Ivies though. I don't think sailing got scholarships or at least full ones, and the academic breaks are small, I'm certain equivalent to the ones the Ivies give. 

I suspect like many have alluded that this is a way to free up admissions slots that are going to relatively privileged and whiter applicants. OTOH, all the recruited admissions combined for these cuts sports probably is less than what, 50 per year? Probably closer to 30. I'm sure they could increase the class size by that much without a major new building plan approved by PA.

I think it's a shame, as I knew walk ons from the student body in several of these sports (crew and fencing come to mind, none of whom were white fwiw) and went to a couple practices for sailing myself as a freshman (would have been fun but the early morning practices were not compatible with my extreme night owl schedule), something I did in HS but did not get recruited to do at Stanford. Those programs were run on a shoestring budget, and were not necessarily going to win against some of the traditional powerhouses in their sports, but I still think it was a great part of the Stanford experience to have them around. Lot more fat in the Stanford budget to cut than these programs IMHO.

Perhaps not a fashionable opinion now, but in 10 or 15 years or so after football players are getting paid and the inevitable disaster that will be for the sport at Stanford is realized, we will regret not just axing football and keeping these sports around.

I think you are missing the point.  It isn't one thing.  It is almost certainly a combination of money, admissions, diversity, etc.

We don't have an ivy league approach to sports.  We compete in the Pac-12 and the only other private institution in that league (U$C) supports 21 sports.  We were at 35.  I haven't got to every other school in the Pac-12 but UCLA & cal are both also at around 20.

The fact is our AD got bloated.  Who decided it was a good idea to add squash and synchronized swimming?  I know field hockey and fencing have been around for a long time, but almost no colleges on the west coast compete in these sports.

As long as the money was there it was probably easier to not to through the brain damage of trimming sports.  Now we have to pay the piper.

I do think wrestling has a chance.  They have raised the most money as far as I can tell and have a proposal to also start a woman's team which solves the Title-9 issues.

Men's volleyball is the other sport that just feels like something Stanford should do.  I think the problem is that the team really hasn't been very good for most of its history.

[Goose]

FWIW - I believe the University will cut these sports even if major donors threaten to stop supporting Stanford for some period of time.   I am confident the BoT would have direct discussions with those types of individuals to help them understand the complete cost benefit analysis.

You could be correct. Unfortunately it sounds a bit like a visit from Sal and Vito, not the BoT. If there are good reasons to make this change there is no reason they shouldn't be fully public. If the BoT things the reasons shouldn't be public, they are not good reasons. Period.

[Goose]

FWIW - I believe the University will cut these sports even if major donors threaten to stop supporting Stanford for some period of time.   I am confident the BoT would have direct discussions with those types of individuals to help them understand the complete cost benefit analysis.

You could be correct. Unfortunately it sounds a bit like a visit from Sal and Vito, not the BoT. If there are good reasons to make this change there is no reason they shouldn't be fully public. If the BoT things the reasons shouldn't be public, they are not good reasons. Period.

[2006alum]

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.

[2006alum]

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.

[Goose]

How many of these schools have drs and rec under their domain.

BobK, I think this is a good point. If an athletic department is willing to cut sports that have been at Stanford virtually forever because they are not likely to win NCAA championships, how do they feel about club sports or intramural sports? At one time the difference between football and rugby at Stanford wasn't all that large. Many guys played both. That is long in the past. It made sense to have one department back then, but it probably doesn't now. NCAA revenue sports are a whole different ballgame. As you point out, most universities have recognized that and split the functions.
At Stanford, I can tell you the intramural budget isn't near what the football budget is. I also am pretty sure lots of the fixed costs are spread around in ways that don't reflect the marginal benefits to the intramural and PE programs. These functions should be divided to ensure that doesn't happen. The situation as it is is ripe for abuse. It also means that some part of the department is "important" politically and the other parts aren't.

[Goose]

How many of these schools have drs and rec under their domain.

BobK, I think this is a good point. If an athletic department is willing to cut sports that have been at Stanford virtually forever because they are not likely to win NCAA championships, how do they feel about club sports or intramural sports? At one time the difference between football and rugby at Stanford wasn't all that large. Many guys played both. That is long in the past. It made sense to have one department back then, but it probably doesn't now. NCAA revenue sports are a whole different ballgame. As you point out, most universities have recognized that and split the functions.
At Stanford, I can tell you the intramural budget isn't near what the football budget is. I also am pretty sure lots of the fixed costs are spread around in ways that don't reflect the marginal benefits to the intramural and PE programs. These functions should be divided to ensure that doesn't happen. The situation as it is is ripe for abuse. It also means that some part of the department is "important" politically and the other parts aren't.