08-08-2025, 01:31 PM
About 30 layoffs in AD, according to report
08-09-2025, 06:46 AM
(08-08-2025, 01:31 PM)chrisk Wrote: https://www.footballscoop.com/2025/08/07...department" "that contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 to a home game" Really?
(08-08-2025, 01:31 PM)chrisk Wrote: https://www.footballscoop.com/2025/08/07...department" "that contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 to a home game" Really?
08-09-2025, 06:52 AM
"The school has fired two different coaches during that time: David Shaw, after his program slipped from perennial conference-title contenders and his replacement, Troy Taylor, for allegations of a hostile workplace."
Shaw was not fired.
Shaw was not fired.
"The school has fired two different coaches during that time: David Shaw, after his program slipped from perennial conference-title contenders and his replacement, Troy Taylor, for allegations of a hostile workplace."
Shaw was not fired.
Shaw was not fired.
(08-09-2025, 06:46 AM)DrSnoFat Wrote:(08-08-2025, 01:31 PM)chrisk Wrote: https://www.footballscoop.com/2025/08/07...department" "that contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 to a home game" Really?
last season the largest announced attendance (which is tickets sold not actual attendees) were TCU and VT with just over 36K, the other home games ranged from 19K-23K, for the last several games I would guess the actual attendance was <10K (and I was there, although I had previously assumed the shady side (where we sit) sold more seats but looking at the available single game seats this season I'm not sure that's true for season tickets, but they may sell more shady side seats to visiting team fans)
https://gostanford.com/sports/football/s...eason/2024
in 2023 Big Game shows as a sellout, the next largest announced crowd was 38K for Arizona (38K), the used to be reliable for selling ticketd ND game was 30K
https://gostanford.com/sports/football/s...eason/2023
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(08-09-2025, 06:46 AM)DrSnoFat Wrote:(08-08-2025, 01:31 PM)chrisk Wrote: https://www.footballscoop.com/2025/08/07...department" "that contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 to a home game" Really?
last season the largest announced attendance (which is tickets sold not actual attendees) were TCU and VT with just over 36K, the other home games ranged from 19K-23K, for the last several games I would guess the actual attendance was <10K (and I was there, although I had previously assumed the shady side (where we sit) sold more seats but looking at the available single game seats this season I'm not sure that's true for season tickets, but they may sell more shady side seats to visiting team fans)
https://gostanford.com/sports/football/s...eason/2024
in 2023 Big Game shows as a sellout, the next largest announced crowd was 38K for Arizona (38K), the used to be reliable for selling ticketd ND game was 30K
https://gostanford.com/sports/football/s...eason/2023
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
08-09-2025, 11:39 AM
Quote:”In total, 363 layoffs occurred.”
I’m pretty sure that if I had crafted that sentence for a writing class at Stanford I would have been rightfully skewered for it. The layoffs just sort of happened, as if it were an act of God?
BC
Quote:”In total, 363 layoffs occurred.”
I’m pretty sure that if I had crafted that sentence for a writing class at Stanford I would have been rightfully skewered for it. The layoffs just sort of happened, as if it were an act of God?
BC
08-09-2025, 11:41 AM
10% of the cuts in the AD seems odd, unless they're way over-staffed. Thought much of the reduction was due to decrease federal funding for research, etc. I'd be surprised if those 30 were doing much in the way of research for the feds. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
10% of the cuts in the AD seems odd, unless they're way over-staffed. Thought much of the reduction was due to decrease federal funding for research, etc. I'd be surprised if those 30 were doing much in the way of research for the feds. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
08-09-2025, 11:51 AM
Stanford's core purpose is research and education. Athletics is a luxury supported by the university, and it is right and proper that they cut from the AD if the university needs funds to support research and education. Would rather the whole AD gets cut apart from what is supported by direct endowments before a single research assistant or graduate student is let go.
Stanford's core purpose is research and education. Athletics is a luxury supported by the university, and it is right and proper that they cut from the AD if the university needs funds to support research and education. Would rather the whole AD gets cut apart from what is supported by direct endowments before a single research assistant or graduate student is let go.
08-09-2025, 11:58 AM
Yes, much of the anticipated budgetary reductions are due to reductions in federal research funding, but federal research dollars are not the only source of funding for academic research, and by cutting staffing in the Athletics department, it is able to redirect those dollars to lower the impact of federal funding cutbacks.
Moreover, the athletics department itself is looking at a souring financial picture, between the demise of the PAC-12, reduced payouts from the ACC, increased travel expenses, and now the House settlement payments, it was inevitable that cutbacks would need to happen. It is better that these be on the administrative staff than cutting sports, but I have a feeling that this is not the end of the road. In fact, I expect that Stanford will have to cut sports.
BC
Moreover, the athletics department itself is looking at a souring financial picture, between the demise of the PAC-12, reduced payouts from the ACC, increased travel expenses, and now the House settlement payments, it was inevitable that cutbacks would need to happen. It is better that these be on the administrative staff than cutting sports, but I have a feeling that this is not the end of the road. In fact, I expect that Stanford will have to cut sports.
BC
Yes, much of the anticipated budgetary reductions are due to reductions in federal research funding, but federal research dollars are not the only source of funding for academic research, and by cutting staffing in the Athletics department, it is able to redirect those dollars to lower the impact of federal funding cutbacks.
Moreover, the athletics department itself is looking at a souring financial picture, between the demise of the PAC-12, reduced payouts from the ACC, increased travel expenses, and now the House settlement payments, it was inevitable that cutbacks would need to happen. It is better that these be on the administrative staff than cutting sports, but I have a feeling that this is not the end of the road. In fact, I expect that Stanford will have to cut sports.
BC
Moreover, the athletics department itself is looking at a souring financial picture, between the demise of the PAC-12, reduced payouts from the ACC, increased travel expenses, and now the House settlement payments, it was inevitable that cutbacks would need to happen. It is better that these be on the administrative staff than cutting sports, but I have a feeling that this is not the end of the road. In fact, I expect that Stanford will have to cut sports.
BC
(08-09-2025, 06:46 AM)DrSnoFat Wrote:(08-08-2025, 01:31 PM)chrisk Wrote: https://www.footballscoop.com/2025/08/07...department" "that contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 to a home game" Really?
Obviously incorrect, even if you exclude the old Stadium. Stanford during the Luck era sold out. I think the author meant since 2022, but it's a poorly written article.
2010 against USC had 51,607.
https://gostanford.com/news/2010/10/9/st...me-expires
(08-09-2025, 06:46 AM)DrSnoFat Wrote:(08-08-2025, 01:31 PM)chrisk Wrote: https://www.footballscoop.com/2025/08/07...department" "that contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 to a home game" Really?
Obviously incorrect, even if you exclude the old Stadium. Stanford during the Luck era sold out. I think the author meant since 2022, but it's a poorly written article.
2010 against USC had 51,607.
https://gostanford.com/news/2010/10/9/st...me-expires
08-09-2025, 03:42 PM
(08-09-2025, 12:01 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:Exactly!(08-09-2025, 06:46 AM)DrSnoFat Wrote:(08-08-2025, 01:31 PM)chrisk Wrote: https://www.footballscoop.com/2025/08/07...department" "that contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 to a home game" Really?
Obviously incorrect, even if you exclude the old Stadium. Stanford during the Luck era sold out. I think the author meant since 2022, but it's a poorly written article.
2010 against USC had 51,607.
https://gostanford.com/news/2010/10/9/st...me-expires
(08-09-2025, 12:01 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:Exactly!(08-09-2025, 06:46 AM)DrSnoFat Wrote:(08-08-2025, 01:31 PM)chrisk Wrote: https://www.footballscoop.com/2025/08/07...department" "that contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 to a home game" Really?
Obviously incorrect, even if you exclude the old Stadium. Stanford during the Luck era sold out. I think the author meant since 2022, but it's a poorly written article.
2010 against USC had 51,607.
https://gostanford.com/news/2010/10/9/st...me-expires
08-09-2025, 05:20 PM
And just as afunny aside, while trying to look up figures for my post above, ChatGPT tried to tell me the 3OT win over SC in 2011 was a sellout at Stanford Stadium. I was at that game in the Coliseum, can't fool me AI!
08-11-2025, 07:07 AM
(08-09-2025, 11:41 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: 10% of the cuts in the AD seems odd, unless they're way over-staffed. Thought much of the reduction was due to decrease federal funding for research, etc. I'd be surprised if those 30 were doing much in the way of research for the feds. . . .
Well if the University cut the subsidy to the AD by 10% as part of overall cost cutting that could lead to AD layoffs.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(08-09-2025, 11:41 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: 10% of the cuts in the AD seems odd, unless they're way over-staffed. Thought much of the reduction was due to decrease federal funding for research, etc. I'd be surprised if those 30 were doing much in the way of research for the feds. . . .
Well if the University cut the subsidy to the AD by 10% as part of overall cost cutting that could lead to AD layoffs.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
08-11-2025, 09:34 AM
(08-11-2025, 07:07 AM)82lsju Wrote:(08-09-2025, 11:41 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: 10% of the cuts in the AD seems odd, unless they're way over-staffed. Thought much of the reduction was due to decrease federal funding for research, etc. I'd be surprised if those 30 were doing much in the way of research for the feds. . . .
Well if the University cut the subsidy to the AD by 10% as part of overall cost cutting that could lead to AD layoffs.
Also, the overall cuts were in general funds support to schools and admin units, and general funds aren't necessarily used to support research-related expenses
(08-11-2025, 07:07 AM)82lsju Wrote:(08-09-2025, 11:41 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: 10% of the cuts in the AD seems odd, unless they're way over-staffed. Thought much of the reduction was due to decrease federal funding for research, etc. I'd be surprised if those 30 were doing much in the way of research for the feds. . . .
Well if the University cut the subsidy to the AD by 10% as part of overall cost cutting that could lead to AD layoffs.
Also, the overall cuts were in general funds support to schools and admin units, and general funds aren't necessarily used to support research-related expenses
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »