[Leftcoast]

I'm not as worked up as some here over the 11 sports.  Some of them are extremely expensive, few West Coast competitors, and sports in which Stanford is unlikely to be a title contender.  

I'd love to see Men's Volleyball, Crew, and Wrestling back and I've attended matches as a fan for these.  I also realize that with football and, as unpopular as it is to mention, Title IX considerations it will be difficult to get these back without some of the women's sports that seem superfluous to me (sailing, squash, field hockey, synch swimming).  I truly don't mind us participating at a club level in those sports.  This isn't intended to denigrate the effort, training, and commitment of the athletes involved - but we can't save every puppy at the pound as my dad once reminded me.

Truthfully, in a mind exercise where Muir was told to trim cost and admissions load was there ANY good way he could have done this and avoided a backlash?  I sincerely doubt it.  Our backlash looks just like Cal's when they dropped varsity sports last decade and several others I've watched from a removed distance.  It's just personal because it's ours.

So, give me Men's volleyball,  and women's Synch Swimming as it's Title IX counterpart and I'll be sad about the others .... and happy when it all blows over.  As it will.

[Leftcoast]

I'm not as worked up as some here over the 11 sports.  Some of them are extremely expensive, few West Coast competitors, and sports in which Stanford is unlikely to be a title contender.  

I'd love to see Men's Volleyball, Crew, and Wrestling back and I've attended matches as a fan for these.  I also realize that with football and, as unpopular as it is to mention, Title IX considerations it will be difficult to get these back without some of the women's sports that seem superfluous to me (sailing, squash, field hockey, synch swimming).  I truly don't mind us participating at a club level in those sports.  This isn't intended to denigrate the effort, training, and commitment of the athletes involved - but we can't save every puppy at the pound as my dad once reminded me.

Truthfully, in a mind exercise where Muir was told to trim cost and admissions load was there ANY good way he could have done this and avoided a backlash?  I sincerely doubt it.  Our backlash looks just like Cal's when they dropped varsity sports last decade and several others I've watched from a removed distance.  It's just personal because it's ours.

So, give me Men's volleyball,  and women's Synch Swimming as it's Title IX counterpart and I'll be sad about the others .... and happy when it all blows over.  As it will.

[donkey687]

I'm not as worked up as some here over the 11 sports.  Some of them are extremely expensive, few West Coast competitors, and sports in which Stanford is unlikely to be a title contender.  

I'd love to see Men's Volleyball, Crew, and Wrestling back and I've attended matches as a fan for these.  I also realize that with football and, as. unpopular as it is to mention, Title IX considerations it will be difficult to get these back without some of the women's sports that seem superfluous to me (sailing, squash, field hockey, synch swimming).  I truly don't mind us participating at a club level in those sports.  This isn't intended to denigrate the effort, training, and commitment of the athletes involved - but we can't save every puppy at the pound as my dad once reminded me.

Truthfully, in a mind exercise where Muir was told to trim cost and admissions load was there ANY good way he could have done this and avoided a backlash?  I sincerely doubt it.  Our backlash looks just like Cal's when they dropped varsity sports last decade and several others I've watched from a removed distance.  It's just personal because it's ours.

So, give me Men's volleyball,  and women's Synch Swimming as it's Title IX counterpart and I'll be sad about the others .... an happy when it all blows over.  As it will.

It does seem like Club Sports funded by alumni donations could be a good home to some of these sports, but the question is whether any club sports should get admissions/recruiting support as the programs are dead without them.  Sports like rowing, fencing and sailing are varsity sports at much of the Ivy League and those Ivies offer admissions support.  Stanford will never have another Olympic level rower, fencer or sailor again if there isn't admissions support as those elite level athletes even if they are A+ students will take the bird in hand Yale or Harvard spot which they need to commit to early rather than roll the dice on Stanford admissions with no support.  No top level coach will come coach Stanford rowing, fencing or sailing if there is no admissions support to effectively recruit against the Ivies.  Thus, the club sport model could work for some of these programs but only with admissions support. It doesn't mean the standards get lowered, but it means the coach needs to get feedback on recruits in a timeframe that is consistent with the Ivy League admissions cycle.  That is a paradigm shift for club sports.  If Stanford cut these sports from varsity status and said we will still support you as a club and we want to have these Olympic caliber scholar athletes on campus, there would be a viable path for club being an option, but instead they rescinded all offers to recruits in those 11 sports and sent them mostly to our academic peers.

[donkey687]

I'm not as worked up as some here over the 11 sports.  Some of them are extremely expensive, few West Coast competitors, and sports in which Stanford is unlikely to be a title contender.  

I'd love to see Men's Volleyball, Crew, and Wrestling back and I've attended matches as a fan for these.  I also realize that with football and, as. unpopular as it is to mention, Title IX considerations it will be difficult to get these back without some of the women's sports that seem superfluous to me (sailing, squash, field hockey, synch swimming).  I truly don't mind us participating at a club level in those sports.  This isn't intended to denigrate the effort, training, and commitment of the athletes involved - but we can't save every puppy at the pound as my dad once reminded me.

Truthfully, in a mind exercise where Muir was told to trim cost and admissions load was there ANY good way he could have done this and avoided a backlash?  I sincerely doubt it.  Our backlash looks just like Cal's when they dropped varsity sports last decade and several others I've watched from a removed distance.  It's just personal because it's ours.

So, give me Men's volleyball,  and women's Synch Swimming as it's Title IX counterpart and I'll be sad about the others .... an happy when it all blows over.  As it will.

It does seem like Club Sports funded by alumni donations could be a good home to some of these sports, but the question is whether any club sports should get admissions/recruiting support as the programs are dead without them.  Sports like rowing, fencing and sailing are varsity sports at much of the Ivy League and those Ivies offer admissions support.  Stanford will never have another Olympic level rower, fencer or sailor again if there isn't admissions support as those elite level athletes even if they are A+ students will take the bird in hand Yale or Harvard spot which they need to commit to early rather than roll the dice on Stanford admissions with no support.  No top level coach will come coach Stanford rowing, fencing or sailing if there is no admissions support to effectively recruit against the Ivies.  Thus, the club sport model could work for some of these programs but only with admissions support. It doesn't mean the standards get lowered, but it means the coach needs to get feedback on recruits in a timeframe that is consistent with the Ivy League admissions cycle.  That is a paradigm shift for club sports.  If Stanford cut these sports from varsity status and said we will still support you as a club and we want to have these Olympic caliber scholar athletes on campus, there would be a viable path for club being an option, but instead they rescinded all offers to recruits in those 11 sports and sent them mostly to our academic peers.

[Farm93]

I am eager to see if anything changes in the next few weeks.

Saving all 11 almost feels like too much.   Saving them all ignores many trends in D1 sports that are just not favorable long-term for Stanford and the Pac-12.
 
The disparity between the Pac-12 and the SEC/BigTen TV revenue makes it hard to keep up with the Joneses on everything.
The near certainty that either the next TV contract, or the contract after that one, will not be as lucrative has to be a factor.
The potential for fan/alum dollars to be sent directly to athletes or for the semi-pro state of D1 to sour donations will also hurt.
And then on top of all of that the potential that Stanford, like Harvard and a few others, will have sub 4% acceptance rates meaning carving out spots, even if they pay full freight, for the athletes in 36 sports may be just too tough politically in a place with an academically oriented mission statement. 

As I look at the list it is men's volleyball I wish Stanford would save because that sport is so much stronger on the west coast than the others.   MVB uses facilities that other sports already need, so that should be a positive.   For the Title IX offset I understand synch swim is very successful, but the limited number of participating schools is troubling.   If the save MVB group is serious, I can only hope they find the funds to also save at least one women's sport too. 

All of that noted, I have attended men's volleyball events.   The great appeal for my kids was that when they were young they could run all over Maples.   They also thought it was fun to enjoy snacks and toys in multiple loge level seats.   And it was all possible because literally no one was in the stands for a lot of the contests.   

So my fondness for men's volleyball probably hints at the problem for the squad, I fear.

[Farm93]

I am eager to see if anything changes in the next few weeks.

Saving all 11 almost feels like too much.   Saving them all ignores many trends in D1 sports that are just not favorable long-term for Stanford and the Pac-12.
 
The disparity between the Pac-12 and the SEC/BigTen TV revenue makes it hard to keep up with the Joneses on everything.
The near certainty that either the next TV contract, or the contract after that one, will not be as lucrative has to be a factor.
The potential for fan/alum dollars to be sent directly to athletes or for the semi-pro state of D1 to sour donations will also hurt.
And then on top of all of that the potential that Stanford, like Harvard and a few others, will have sub 4% acceptance rates meaning carving out spots, even if they pay full freight, for the athletes in 36 sports may be just too tough politically in a place with an academically oriented mission statement. 

As I look at the list it is men's volleyball I wish Stanford would save because that sport is so much stronger on the west coast than the others.   MVB uses facilities that other sports already need, so that should be a positive.   For the Title IX offset I understand synch swim is very successful, but the limited number of participating schools is troubling.   If the save MVB group is serious, I can only hope they find the funds to also save at least one women's sport too. 

All of that noted, I have attended men's volleyball events.   The great appeal for my kids was that when they were young they could run all over Maples.   They also thought it was fun to enjoy snacks and toys in multiple loge level seats.   And it was all possible because literally no one was in the stands for a lot of the contests.   

So my fondness for men's volleyball probably hints at the problem for the squad, I fear.

[Spiny_Norman]

Graffiti already cleaned up.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/KeepStanfordWRE/status/1386799993575464960[/twitter]

[Spiny_Norman]

Graffiti already cleaned up.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/KeepStanfordWRE/status/1386799993575464960[/twitter]

[BostonCard]

It does seem like Club Sports funded by alumni donations could be a good home to some of these sports, but the question is whether any club sports should get admissions/recruiting support as the programs are dead without them.  Sports like rowing, fencing and sailing are varsity sports at much of the Ivy League and those Ivies offer admissions support.  Stanford will never have another Olympic level rower, fencer or sailor again if there isn't admissions support as those elite level athletes even if they are A+ students will take the bird in hand Yale or Harvard spot which they need to commit to early rather than roll the dice on Stanford admissions with no support.  No top level coach will come coach Stanford rowing, fencing or sailing if there is no admissions support to effectively recruit against the Ivies.  Thus, the club sport model could work for some of these programs but only with admissions support. It doesn't mean the standards get lowered, but it means the coach needs to get feedback on recruits in a timeframe that is consistent with the Ivy League admissions cycle.  That is a paradigm shift for club sports.  If Stanford cut these sports from varsity status and said we will still support you as a club and we want to have these Olympic caliber scholar athletes on campus, there would be a viable path for club being an option, but instead they rescinded all offers to recruits in those 11 sports and sent them mostly to our academic peers.

That's not necessarily true.  When I was at Stanford, I played racquetball (a club sport) and we had the women's three-time high school national champion.

https://www.irttour.com/players/icenogle-elkova/

I hadn't seen this before, but it showed up when I searched her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kF6CA3lXH0

Now, racquetball is more of a west coast thing, so I could imagine that it might not have been a scholarship sport at Ivy League schools.  But Elkova did pick Stanford without a scholarship (or likely any admissions preference) over a number of schools that do offer scholarships.  Ultimately, for sports where there is no path beyond playing collegiate athletics, it might make sense to go to school at Stanford for "30-year decision" reasons.

BC

[BostonCard]

It does seem like Club Sports funded by alumni donations could be a good home to some of these sports, but the question is whether any club sports should get admissions/recruiting support as the programs are dead without them.  Sports like rowing, fencing and sailing are varsity sports at much of the Ivy League and those Ivies offer admissions support.  Stanford will never have another Olympic level rower, fencer or sailor again if there isn't admissions support as those elite level athletes even if they are A+ students will take the bird in hand Yale or Harvard spot which they need to commit to early rather than roll the dice on Stanford admissions with no support.  No top level coach will come coach Stanford rowing, fencing or sailing if there is no admissions support to effectively recruit against the Ivies.  Thus, the club sport model could work for some of these programs but only with admissions support. It doesn't mean the standards get lowered, but it means the coach needs to get feedback on recruits in a timeframe that is consistent with the Ivy League admissions cycle.  That is a paradigm shift for club sports.  If Stanford cut these sports from varsity status and said we will still support you as a club and we want to have these Olympic caliber scholar athletes on campus, there would be a viable path for club being an option, but instead they rescinded all offers to recruits in those 11 sports and sent them mostly to our academic peers.

That's not necessarily true.  When I was at Stanford, I played racquetball (a club sport) and we had the women's three-time high school national champion.

https://www.irttour.com/players/icenogle-elkova/

I hadn't seen this before, but it showed up when I searched her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kF6CA3lXH0

Now, racquetball is more of a west coast thing, so I could imagine that it might not have been a scholarship sport at Ivy League schools.  But Elkova did pick Stanford without a scholarship (or likely any admissions preference) over a number of schools that do offer scholarships.  Ultimately, for sports where there is no path beyond playing collegiate athletics, it might make sense to go to school at Stanford for "30-year decision" reasons.

BC

[winflop]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

[winflop]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

[donkey687]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Give these kids a break. In their eyes, they have had their lives and dreams taken away from them. They either have to give up their sport or their university. They are angry and desperate.  Stanford should be ashamed of what it did and I can argue the ugly press Stanford gets from pictures of the chalk graffiti is deserved.

[donkey687]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Give these kids a break. In their eyes, they have had their lives and dreams taken away from them. They either have to give up their sport or their university. They are angry and desperate.  Stanford should be ashamed of what it did and I can argue the ugly press Stanford gets from pictures of the chalk graffiti is deserved.

[winflop]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Give these kids a break. In their eyes, they have had their lives and dreams taken away from them. They either have to give up their sport or their university. They are angry and desperate.  Stanford should be ashamed of what it did and I can argue the ugly press Stanford gets from pictures of the chalk graffiti is deserved.

Sorry this crosses a line for me. Equally important, I think it's counter-productive. What the press makes of this is immaterial. The only people who matter in this decision are the President and the Board of Trustees. I doubt any of them will look favorably on this.

[winflop]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Give these kids a break. In their eyes, they have had their lives and dreams taken away from them. They either have to give up their sport or their university. They are angry and desperate.  Stanford should be ashamed of what it did and I can argue the ugly press Stanford gets from pictures of the chalk graffiti is deserved.

Sorry this crosses a line for me. Equally important, I think it's counter-productive. What the press makes of this is immaterial. The only people who matter in this decision are the President and the Board of Trustees. I doubt any of them will look favorably on this.

[82lsju]

from the SF Chronicle

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annki...130717.php

[82lsju]

from the SF Chronicle

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annki...130717.php

[Goose]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Winflop, while I totally agree that this was a pointless exercise at best and vandalism at that, even though you are too young to have been there, take a look at pictures of Stanford from 1968-1969. Essentially all the windows will be broken and there will be signs everywhere. The ROTC building was burned to the ground. It is interesting to reflect on what produces vandalism at Stanford today. From anti-war to save men's crew.

[Goose]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Winflop, while I totally agree that this was a pointless exercise at best and vandalism at that, even though you are too young to have been there, take a look at pictures of Stanford from 1968-1969. Essentially all the windows will be broken and there will be signs everywhere. The ROTC building was burned to the ground. It is interesting to reflect on what produces vandalism at Stanford today. From anti-war to save men's crew.

[CTcard]

Wow. This piece in National Review levels a devastating case against Stanford's decision to cut the sports:



https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/w...ge-sports/



-m.

This is especially enlightening:

The claims about cuts’ being necessary to diversify the student turn out to be bunk too. For a start, athletics have long been recognized as a bridge builder into underserved communities. And many of these teams are already far more diverse than the overall student body. Nearly half of Stanford’s wrestling team, for instance, are either first-generation collegians or from low-income households, compared to just 17 percent in the school overall. The teams Stanford is poised to cut also represent fully half of the Asian student-athletes on campus.

Speaking purely of this article in terms of persuasive writing, I don't think it makes much of a case at all against Stanford. Very little in the article is specific to Stanford. Mainly two items: the $4 million per year claimed savings vs. raising $30 million and the diversity of the wrestling team.

The money argument is clearly the strongest one here, but the author could have done a much better job on the issue. Stanford has repeatedly made public statements that this is a cost saving exercise so it is on point. The author could have stressed the point much better, given background on the origin of the numbers quoted, the likelihood they are real, and the rest of the case for how one can get $4 million per year from a $30 million endowment.

The diversity bit is weak. Firstly, while it is an issue floating around the ether, Stanford has not made that case. While I am not sure that I believe this wasn't an issue on the mind of several people involved, it's hard to claim this is a bogus argument Stanford made when Stanford didn't make that argument. Secondly, if 11 teams are being cut but only one can be singled out as contributing to diversity that's probably an issue for the other 10. And the one he chose, while it may do a good job bringing economic diversity, is overwhelmingly white.

Finally, the author raises the issue that sports builds camaraderie and other good stuff. All true, but that doesn't say anything about just what fraction of a student body should be recruited athletes. Stanford isn't proposing eliminating intercollegiate athletics, just changing the number. Where Stanford, or any university, should end up on this scale is unaddressed.

[CTcard]

Wow. This piece in National Review levels a devastating case against Stanford's decision to cut the sports:



https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/w...ge-sports/



-m.

This is especially enlightening:

The claims about cuts’ being necessary to diversify the student turn out to be bunk too. For a start, athletics have long been recognized as a bridge builder into underserved communities. And many of these teams are already far more diverse than the overall student body. Nearly half of Stanford’s wrestling team, for instance, are either first-generation collegians or from low-income households, compared to just 17 percent in the school overall. The teams Stanford is poised to cut also represent fully half of the Asian student-athletes on campus.

Speaking purely of this article in terms of persuasive writing, I don't think it makes much of a case at all against Stanford. Very little in the article is specific to Stanford. Mainly two items: the $4 million per year claimed savings vs. raising $30 million and the diversity of the wrestling team.

The money argument is clearly the strongest one here, but the author could have done a much better job on the issue. Stanford has repeatedly made public statements that this is a cost saving exercise so it is on point. The author could have stressed the point much better, given background on the origin of the numbers quoted, the likelihood they are real, and the rest of the case for how one can get $4 million per year from a $30 million endowment.

The diversity bit is weak. Firstly, while it is an issue floating around the ether, Stanford has not made that case. While I am not sure that I believe this wasn't an issue on the mind of several people involved, it's hard to claim this is a bogus argument Stanford made when Stanford didn't make that argument. Secondly, if 11 teams are being cut but only one can be singled out as contributing to diversity that's probably an issue for the other 10. And the one he chose, while it may do a good job bringing economic diversity, is overwhelmingly white.

Finally, the author raises the issue that sports builds camaraderie and other good stuff. All true, but that doesn't say anything about just what fraction of a student body should be recruited athletes. Stanford isn't proposing eliminating intercollegiate athletics, just changing the number. Where Stanford, or any university, should end up on this scale is unaddressed.

[fullmetal]

Interesting.  One could think that this was all a great ploy:
  Go through the motions of ending 11 sports. 
  Wind up with a large infusion of cash and a excuse for the number of admissions reserved for athletes.

Remind me not to play poker with these guys.

Except that you lost a whole cadre of '21 recruits, plus no recruiting efforts for the '22 or '23 class.  You could bring the sports back, but they'd be way behind the ball.

Still, I'd take it.

[fullmetal]

Interesting.  One could think that this was all a great ploy:
  Go through the motions of ending 11 sports. 
  Wind up with a large infusion of cash and a excuse for the number of admissions reserved for athletes.

Remind me not to play poker with these guys.

Except that you lost a whole cadre of '21 recruits, plus no recruiting efforts for the '22 or '23 class.  You could bring the sports back, but they'd be way behind the ball.

Still, I'd take it.

[Jamesy]

I wonder if bringing back just the NCAA sports is an option. Wrestling, MVB, field hockey. Are any of the other NCAA? May have to add women's wrestling to balance Title IX obligations.

ETA: Men's and women's fencing is also NCAA. Shouldn't affect title IX balancing.

[Jamesy]

I wonder if bringing back just the NCAA sports is an option. Wrestling, MVB, field hockey. Are any of the other NCAA? May have to add women's wrestling to balance Title IX obligations.

ETA: Men's and women's fencing is also NCAA. Shouldn't affect title IX balancing.

[76lsjumb]

Wow. This piece in National Review levels a devastating case against Stanford's decision to cut the sports:



https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/w...ge-sports/



-m.

This is especially enlightening:

The claims about cuts’ being necessary to diversify the student turn out to be bunk too. For a start, athletics have long been recognized as a bridge builder into underserved communities. And many of these teams are already far more diverse than the overall student body. Nearly half of Stanford’s wrestling team, for instance, are either first-generation collegians or from low-income households, compared to just 17 percent in the school overall. The teams Stanford is poised to cut also represent fully half of the Asian student-athletes on campus.

Speaking purely of this article in terms of persuasive writing, I don't think it makes much of a case at all against Stanford. Very little in the article is specific to Stanford. Mainly two items: the $4 million per year claimed savings vs. raising $30 million and the diversity of the wrestling team.

The money argument is clearly the strongest one here, but the author could have done a much better job on the issue. Stanford has repeatedly made public statements that this is a cost saving exercise so it is on point. The author could have stressed the point much better, given background on the origin of the numbers quoted, the likelihood they are real, and the rest of the case for how one can get $4 million per year from a $30 million endowment.

The diversity bit is weak. Firstly, while it is an issue floating around the ether, Stanford has not made that case. While I am not sure that I believe this wasn't an issue on the mind of several people involved, it's hard to claim this is a bogus argument Stanford made when Stanford didn't make that argument. Secondly, if 11 teams are being cut but only one can be singled out as contributing to diversity that's probably an issue for the other 10. And the one he chose, while it may do a good job bringing economic diversity, is overwhelmingly white.

Finally, the author raises the issue that sports builds camaraderie and other good stuff. All true, but that doesn't say anything about just what fraction of a student body should be recruited athletes. Stanford isn't proposing eliminating intercollegiate athletics, just changing the number. Where Stanford, or any university, should end up on this scale is unaddressed.

Of course, if the exact same article had appeared in The Atlantic, or Vox, or The NY Times, it would be Pulitzer-worthy.  I chuckled when I saw that NR had a piece in support of the athletes, because I halfway expected that to cause the Board to change it’s position and support the Administration... :-)

[76lsjumb]

Wow. This piece in National Review levels a devastating case against Stanford's decision to cut the sports:



https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/w...ge-sports/



-m.

This is especially enlightening:

The claims about cuts’ being necessary to diversify the student turn out to be bunk too. For a start, athletics have long been recognized as a bridge builder into underserved communities. And many of these teams are already far more diverse than the overall student body. Nearly half of Stanford’s wrestling team, for instance, are either first-generation collegians or from low-income households, compared to just 17 percent in the school overall. The teams Stanford is poised to cut also represent fully half of the Asian student-athletes on campus.

Speaking purely of this article in terms of persuasive writing, I don't think it makes much of a case at all against Stanford. Very little in the article is specific to Stanford. Mainly two items: the $4 million per year claimed savings vs. raising $30 million and the diversity of the wrestling team.

The money argument is clearly the strongest one here, but the author could have done a much better job on the issue. Stanford has repeatedly made public statements that this is a cost saving exercise so it is on point. The author could have stressed the point much better, given background on the origin of the numbers quoted, the likelihood they are real, and the rest of the case for how one can get $4 million per year from a $30 million endowment.

The diversity bit is weak. Firstly, while it is an issue floating around the ether, Stanford has not made that case. While I am not sure that I believe this wasn't an issue on the mind of several people involved, it's hard to claim this is a bogus argument Stanford made when Stanford didn't make that argument. Secondly, if 11 teams are being cut but only one can be singled out as contributing to diversity that's probably an issue for the other 10. And the one he chose, while it may do a good job bringing economic diversity, is overwhelmingly white.

Finally, the author raises the issue that sports builds camaraderie and other good stuff. All true, but that doesn't say anything about just what fraction of a student body should be recruited athletes. Stanford isn't proposing eliminating intercollegiate athletics, just changing the number. Where Stanford, or any university, should end up on this scale is unaddressed.

Of course, if the exact same article had appeared in The Atlantic, or Vox, or The NY Times, it would be Pulitzer-worthy.  I chuckled when I saw that NR had a piece in support of the athletes, because I halfway expected that to cause the Board to change it’s position and support the Administration... :-)

[martyup]

from the SF Chronicle

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annki...130717.php

The once-coveted Stanford logo and name is now something to be hidden. The list of accessories for a Stanford athlete has grown: Mouthguard. Socks. Black duct tape. Broken heart.

[martyup]

from the SF Chronicle

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annki...130717.php

The once-coveted Stanford logo and name is now something to be hidden. The list of accessories for a Stanford athlete has grown: Mouthguard. Socks. Black duct tape. Broken heart.

[winflop]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Winflop, while I totally agree that this was a pointless exercise at best and vandalism at that, even though you are too young to have been there, take a look at pictures of Stanford from 1968-1969. Essentially all the windows will be broken and there will be signs everywhere. The ROTC building was burned to the ground. It is interesting to reflect on what produces vandalism at Stanford today. From anti-war to save men's crew.

I think that while that might legally still be vandalism, sounds more like rioting.

[winflop]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Winflop, while I totally agree that this was a pointless exercise at best and vandalism at that, even though you are too young to have been there, take a look at pictures of Stanford from 1968-1969. Essentially all the windows will be broken and there will be signs everywhere. The ROTC building was burned to the ground. It is interesting to reflect on what produces vandalism at Stanford today. From anti-war to save men's crew.

I think that while that might legally still be vandalism, sounds more like rioting.

[Mick]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Winflop, while I totally agree that this was a pointless exercise at best and vandalism at that, even though you are too young to have been there, take a look at pictures of Stanford from 1968-1969. Essentially all the windows will be broken and there will be signs everywhere. The ROTC building was burned to the ground. It is interesting to reflect on what produces vandalism at Stanford today. From anti-war to save men's crew.

I think that while that might legally still be vandalism, sounds more like rioting.

At least it was mostly peaceful...

[Mick]

I honestly don't care if they came back to clean up building 10, or that they used washable chalk. It's vandalism, it's immature, and it's unacceptable. I also worry that it will be counter-productive toward their goals (which I enthusiastically support).

There should be consequences.

Winflop, while I totally agree that this was a pointless exercise at best and vandalism at that, even though you are too young to have been there, take a look at pictures of Stanford from 1968-1969. Essentially all the windows will be broken and there will be signs everywhere. The ROTC building was burned to the ground. It is interesting to reflect on what produces vandalism at Stanford today. From anti-war to save men's crew.

I think that while that might legally still be vandalism, sounds more like rioting.

At least it was mostly peaceful...

[Phogge]

Covering Cal protests could get you clubbed and tear gassed. Stanford protests were a lot of sitting in the sun and napping in a camper.

[Phogge]

Covering Cal protests could get you clubbed and tear gassed. Stanford protests were a lot of sitting in the sun and napping in a camper.

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[winflop]

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

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.

[winflop]

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

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.