Wow. Perennial Sears Cup champ cuts 30% of varsity sports.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
A Google search shows Stanford's endowment was north of $27 billion in 2019. Even if we assume it has taken a financial hit of late, a school with Stanford's reputation and resources doesn't need to cut minor sports programs "to create fiscal stability." I'm not buying the rationale. (I know endowments aren't freely available for all uses. But I don't believe Stanford needs to do this to make ends meet.)
I was under the impression that many schools took hits on their endowments and some unable to recoup. Also schools can't dip into their endowments whenever they wish.
Anyone?
The sports being cut are: men’s and women’s fencing, field hockey, lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men’s volleyball and wrestling. Almost none of these, except wrestling, are sports practiced in a majority, or even a large minority, of high schools across the country.
@TPM posted:I was under the impression that many schools took hits on their endowments and some unable to recoup. Also schools can't dip into their endowments whenever they wish.
Anyone?
The vast majority of Stanford’s endowment is directed toward specific long-term uses, including need-based financial aid for students, and is not available to backfill an ongoing structural budget deficit in a specific department. In addition, while Stanford Athletics benefits from a robust community of generous supporters, their philanthropy simply could not cover the escalating costs of ensuring excellence across the board in our 36-sport model.
- Of the 11 sports being discontinued, six (lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming) are not NCAA-sponsored championship sports.
- All 11 sports being discontinued are sponsored by less than 22% of the more than 350 Division I institutions, and nine (men’s and women’s fencing, lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men’s volleyball) are sponsored by less than 9%.
- There are only two other Division I field hockey programs on the West Coast, and there are no other fencing, lightweight rowing, sailing, squash or synchronized swimming programs on the West Coast.
Brutal. Where do those coaches go?
Weren't the sailing coaches associated with the admissions scandal last year?
@anotherparent posted:Weren't the sailing coaches associated with the admissions scandal last year?
I believe that is correct.
Most (all?) of these are Olympic sports, which is one reason I'm surprised Stanford would cut them.
The announcement says $200M is required to sustain these programs. News reports say the decision is final, even if donors offer to provide that sum. That suggests this is about more than (just) money. The pandemic is creating a financial squeeze, which may provide cover to make some difficult cuts.
@RJM posted:
- Of the 11 sports being discontinued, six (lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming) are not NCAA-sponsored championship sports.
- All 11 sports being discontinued are sponsored by less than 22% of the more than 350 Division I institutions, and nine (men’s and women’s fencing, lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men’s volleyball) are sponsored by less than 9%.
- There are only two other Division I field hockey programs on the West Coast, and there are no other fencing, lightweight rowing, sailing, squash or synchronized swimming programs on the West Coast.
This info is what stood out to me, along with the direction of supporting these sports as club sports where applicable. Just seems to make sense. The exception would be the Olympics angle as Chico pointed out.
@TPM posted:I was under the impression that many schools took hits on their endowments and some unable to recoup. Also schools can't dip into their endowments whenever they wish.
Anyone?
Endowments got crushed when the markets dislocated due to Covid but S&P is down small YTD and the NASDAQ is up nicely so as long as they didn't panic they should be in ok on their equity holdings. Not sure if they took big credit hits but my guess is they stayed the course and are probably not in bad shape relatively speaking. That would be my guess.
Look who Stanford has to play to compete in field hockey. Field Hockey’s hot bed is Pennsylvania. The ACC and Big Ten has used their clout as P5s to corner the talent market. The travel expense alone could have been the decision maker. Four other sports cut have the same geographic issues.
I definitely can see why Stanford might want to make synchronized swimming or sailing club sports (not to pick on those--just for example) . And I even could see them saying "the costs aren't justified for the benefit provided to our students and the institution." But for Stanford to plead poverty seems like a rationalization.
These are upper-class sports, Stanford was giving admissions slots for them, which is what led to the sailing scandal, and then they were having to pay to support them as well. Having them as club sports makes sense; Olympic athletes will find other ways to train.
@anotherparent posted:These are upper-class sports, Stanford was giving admissions slots for them, which is what led to the sailing scandal, and then they were having to pay to support them as well. Having them as club sports makes sense; Olympic athletes will find other ways to train.
If a kid can get into Stanford to row, sail or fence chances are he can get into an Ivy to row, sail or fence.
If Cal has any of the eleven sports with the same issues just so they could maintain the rivalry with Stanford the only thing left is the betting pool on the timing of Cal’s announcement.
Back in June, Brown cut the following sports, moving them to club: men's and women’s fencing, men's and women’s golf, women’s skiing, men's and women’s squash, women’s equestrian, and men’s track, field, and cross country.
Stanford MVB is a perennial powerhouse and is surrounded by a lot of over powerhouses on the west coast. I'm surprised at its inclusion on this list
List of college teams cut due to COVID ...
I can’t imagine being a SA in that situation at Stanford. Having to choose between your sport vs staying a a very prestigious university. So sad.
I'm beginning to think cynically that some of these budgetary decisions were considered previously (like the Milb league contraction). Covid19 gives school officials an easy reason to give for program cuts.
My take: read between the lines. While everything in Stanford’s press release is factual with respect to finances, the ultimate reason for cutting these particular sports is to free up more spaces for other institutionally desired students such as 1st gen, URM, low income, and even academic stars. With a fixed class size of roughly 1750 students per year, each spot is highly coveted and competition for these spots a zero sum game. By eliminating these mostly country club sports, Stanford can give about 60 more spots in its entering class to other students that Stanford is under pressure to admit or would prefer to admit than varsity athletes of sports that are of marginal interest and overwhelming comprised of kids from wealthy backgrounds. None of the sports being cut are those that would disproportionately affect URM students.
In my opinion, the real catalyst for these changes isn’t COVID or strained finances but the admissions scandal that exposed how elite colleges give preferential treatment to wealthy kids who play niche sports. I expect that the Ivy League schools will follow Stanford (and Brown’s) lead and get rid of these country club sports to create more room for other students that are a higher priority in the current climate. That’s why Stanford said these cuts are permanent, because it could find some rich donors to finance these sports but Stanford wants to permanently free up these spots for more deserving students.
Speaking of Stanford, did they hold their baseball camps this summer? My son attended the Stanford camp 3 times and it was really helpful in his recruiting process last summer. Showball and Headfirst are also great, but we thought Stanford was the best of the high academic showcases. Would be a shame if they had to cancel it this summer.
@RJM posted:
- Of the 11 sports being discontinued, six (lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming) are not NCAA-sponsored championship sports.
- All 11 sports being discontinued are sponsored by less than 22% of the more than 350 Division I institutions, and nine (men’s and women’s fencing, lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men’s volleyball) are sponsored by less than 9%.
- There are only two other Division I field hockey programs on the West Coast, and there are no other fencing, lightweight rowing, sailing, squash or synchronized swimming programs on the West Coast.
All the sports that the wealthy use to fraudulently get access to Stanford for their sons and daughters.
@Zoom 2020 posted:Speaking of Stanford, did they hold their baseball camps this summer? My son attended the Stanford camp 3 times and it was really helpful in his recruiting process last summer. Showball and Headfirst are also great, but we thought Stanford was the best of the high academic showcases. Would be a shame if they had to cancel it this summer.
They were cancelled.
@Zoom 2020 posted:My take: read between the lines. While everything in Stanford’s press release is factual with respect to finances, the ultimate reason for cutting these particular sports is to free up more spaces for other institutionally desired students such as 1st gen, URM, low income, and even academic stars. With a fixed class size of roughly 1750 students per year, each spot is highly coveted and competition for these spots a zero sum game. By eliminating these mostly country club sports, Stanford can give about 60 more spots in its entering class to other students that Stanford is under pressure to admit or would prefer to admit than varsity athletes of sports that are of marginal interest and overwhelming comprised of kids from wealthy backgrounds. None of the sports being cut are those that would disproportionately affect URM students.
In my opinion, the real catalyst for these changes isn’t COVID or strained finances but the admissions scandal that exposed how elite colleges give preferential treatment to wealthy kids who play niche sports. I expect that the Ivy League schools will follow Stanford (and Brown’s) lead and get rid of these country club sports to create more room for other students that are a higher priority in the current climate. That’s why Stanford said these cuts are permanent, because it could find some rich donors to finance these sports but Stanford wants to permanently free up these spots for more deserving students.
Excellent point about the freeing up of spots...though you lost me at "more deserving". The college I attended had plenty of country club sports and those athletes were typically well above the median in academics.
First of all some of the above is not true
Wrestling is not a rich person's sport. Nor is men's volleyball which has been a perennial powerhouse at Stanford.
These teams are going to (potentially) compete in the 20-21 seasons but will be cancelled after that. Students KEEP their scholarships despite the cancellations for their tenure.
21% of Stanford's 28 billion endowment or so is unrestricted.
Stanford women's lightweight rowing won 9 of 10 national championships in the past decade. The men's rowing team has a storied history dating to 1905 & is currently endowed by the Farwell family.
So there is more going on here. The admission scandal and desire to get rid of these sports?
@RJM posted:Look who Stanford has to play to compete in field hockey. Field Hockey’s hot bed is Pennsylvania. The ACC and Big Ten has used their clout as P5s to corner the talent market. The travel expense alone could have been the decision maker. Four other sports cut have the same geographic issues.
To reinforce your point about field hockey. They (along with UC - Berkeley and UC - Davis) were "associate members" of the America East conference in that sport. The first time I saw "America East Champions" associated with Stanford field hockey, I did a double take!
I imagine it could be a combination of both. I also think over time there will be a push for other schools to follow Stanford’s lead. There is definitely an attitude attached to athletes at some of these schools that isn’t particularly healthy from a students point of view. For example, last year I approached an admissions officer at an Ivy League school and asked him about admission and he kind of rolled his eyes and said that there is a separate committee within admissions that deal with the athletes so he couldn’t help me. I’ve also discussed this bias with a friend who taught for years at another Ivy League school and he said the athletes tend to struggle. I don’t know if they really struggle or if there is just a perception among the professors that they shouldn’t be there to begin with. If there is a bias, I’m sure it’s not universal among the faculty but it appears to exist.
As for Stanford, my son attended school with one of the kids who will be affected by this. His family is not wealthy. However, this kid is highly projected to make the U.S. Olympic team which is why he went to Stanford. I imagine he’ll stay, but I know this has to be disappointing for him.
@Prepster posted:To reinforce your point about field hockey. They (along with UC - Berkeley and UC - Davis) were "associate members" of the America East conference in that sport. The first time I saw "America East Champions" associated with Stanford field hockey, I did a double take!
America East Is a mediocre field hockey conference. So a college accustomed to being in a P5 and competing travels across country to play a mediocre level of field hockey. There probably isn’t the level of high school field hockey to recruit too players.
When my daughter was young our preteen town travel field hockey team (PA) had three players end up on the Olympic team.
@BackstopMom posted:I imagine it could be a combination of both. I also think over time there will be a push for other schools to follow Stanford’s lead. There is definitely an attitude attached to athletes at some of these schools that isn’t particularly healthy from a students point of view. For example, last year I approached an admissions officer at an Ivy League school and asked him about admission and he kind of rolled his eyes and said that there is a separate committee within admissions that deal with the athletes so he couldn’t help me. I’ve also discussed this bias with a friend who taught for years at another Ivy League school and he said the athletes tend to struggle. I don’t know if they really struggle or if there is just a perception among the professors that they shouldn’t be there to begin with. If there is a bias, I’m sure it’s not universal among the faculty but it appears to exist.
As for Stanford, my son attended school with one of the kids who will be affected by this. His family is not wealthy. However, this kid is highly projected to make the U.S. Olympic team which is why he went to Stanford. I imagine he’ll stay, but I know this has to be disappointing for him.
Three of my cousins attended Ivys. Two said getting in was the hardest part. The third got accepted to Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Stanford. The academics weren’t that hard. One was pre med at Harvard. He ran indoor and outdoor track. One got a BA/MA in intellectual history. Another got a degree in drama at Yale.
My husband and a cousin graduated from Ivy League schools and I think they’d agree. When my son was going through the recruiting process, we visited a baseball player who graduated from his high school years before. He told him that everyone on the team passes with a “gentleman’s B.” He said the hockey players generally had a C average because they were the rebels at the school. I don’t think it’s the actual difficulty of these schools that’s the issue, it’s more the attitude of some of the professors and admissions people that doesn’t seem so great for the athletes.
On a separate note, my son just told me that his friend who plays on the Stanford Men’s Volleyball team is starting a petition to try to save it. As discussed earlier, I don’t think they’re changing their minds. I feel really sorry for all those kids.
@BackstopMom posted:…………………………………………………..
I’ve also discussed this bias with a friend who taught for years at another Ivy League school and he said the athletes tend to struggle. I don’t know if they really struggle or if there is just a perception among the professors that they shouldn’t be there to begin with. If there is a bias, I’m sure it’s not universal among the faculty but it appears to exist.
As for Stanford, my son attended school with one of the kids who will be affected by this. His family is not wealthy. However, this kid is highly projected to make the U.S. Olympic team which is why he went to Stanford. I imagine he’ll stay, but I know this has to be disappointing for him.
Absolutely exists from my son's viewpoint. There definitely was a bias among professors (and lots of regular students) that they shouldn't be there. They are not given the benefit of the doubt like regular students that they should be attending an Ivy. My son tried his best to hide (not disclose) the fact that he was on the baseball team among some professors. Also a there is an additional perception bias among the various sports themselves (ie helmet sports and non-helmet sports) as being more worthy of admission....hockey vs tennis or lacrosse vs cross-country.
JMO.
Regarding bias at these schools - it definitely exists for many, especially at the elite universities where "he only got in because he's an athlete" gets tossed around quite a bit.
But it doesn't matter. What many students and faculty fail to recognize is the application process is based on how much value does this student bring to the university. The majority of the time it is good grades, test scores, and recommendations. Other times the lesser credentials can be made up in the form of a sport which helps provide a brand for the school. The brand provides school spirit, young fans who grow up and want to go to school at these places, and donors who contribute to the science labs, libraries, etc that the rest of the student population gets to use. So when a regular student complains that Johnny QB had a 2.4 in HS, well yes but he puts 80k asses in seats on Saturday nights, you don't.
Prestige is largely based on acceptance rate. Chem 101 is hard at Stanford and community college, the difference is the type of student you'll find in each classroom. There is no secret class or book at these elite schools that allow them to educate their students better than a random public might. Any bias is coming from snobs, upset they they have to deal with all these dumb jocks and not scholars.
Next up: Dartmouth
Dartmouth's statement makes clear this is not just about money: "with 35 varsity teams and the smallest enrollment within the Ivy League, athletic recruitment at Dartmouth has begun to impact our ability to achieve the right balance between applicants who are accomplished in athletics and applicants who excel in other pursuits."
At least Dartmouth is more direct and transparent than Stanford about the real reasons for the cuts it is making:
"To better balance the makeup of incoming undergraduate classes and help ease a budget deficit made worse by the pandemic, Dartmouth today announced changes to its varsity athletics program.
The changes, which will eliminate five varsity athletic teams and a number of staff positions, will give Dartmouth more flexibility in admissions, reducing the number of recruited athletes in incoming classes by 10 %."
The text in bold is the real driver for the cuts, to enable the admissions office to free up more precious spots for other students that it deems more deserving than mostly wealthy (and white) students who play niche sports that most people don't care about except the students and parents whose sports are affected. Covid and strained budgets are just a convenient excuse for cutting these sports now, the real impetus is these schools were tremendously embarrassed (rightfully so) by the admissions scandal where fake athletes took advantage of a back door entrance thru admissions and they want to serve a broader subset of students in today's climate of social justice. That's why these cuts will be permanent because it is the precious slots that are a scarce resource, not the money these schools could easily raise to continue these niche sports if they really wanted to do so.
I, for one, completely support these cuts in country club sports but that's easy for me to say as a baseball Dad. Thankfully, baseball (and football, basketball, soccer) is regarded as a "real" sport 
.
@Zoom 2020 posted:At least Dartmouth is more direct and transparent than Stanford about the real reasons for the cuts it is making:
"To better balance the makeup of incoming undergraduate classes and help ease a budget deficit made worse by the pandemic, Dartmouth today announced changes to its varsity athletics program.
The changes, which will eliminate five varsity athletic teams and a number of staff positions, will give Dartmouth more flexibility in admissions, reducing the number of recruited athletes in incoming classes by 10 %."
The text in bold is the real driver for the cuts, to enable the admissions office to free up more precious spots for other students that it deems more deserving than mostly wealthy (and white) students who play niche sports that most people don't care about except the students and parents whose sports are affected. Covid and strained budgets are just a convenient excuse for cutting these sports now, the real impetus is these schools were tremendously embarrassed (rightfully so) by the admissions scandal where fake athletes took advantage of a back door entrance thru admissions and they want to serve a broader subset of students in today's climate of social justice. That's why these cuts will be permanent because it is the precious slots that are a scarce resource, not the money these schools could easily raise to continue these niche sports if they really wanted to do so.
I, for one, completely support these cuts in country club sports but that's easy for me to say as a baseball Dad. Thankfully, baseball (and football, basketball, soccer) is regarded as a "real" sport
My very good friend swam for Dartmouth many years ago (early 90's). He says they cut swimming 10 years ago but wealthy swimming alum raised a ton of dough to save it. Based on the reasons given this time Alumni money can't save it. Seems these cuts are here to stay.
Here's what Stanford says about the permanence of their cuts in a FAQ posting. By eliminating these sports, the % of varsity athletes comprising future classes will drop to 9% of the study body which frees up spots for other students that Stanford desires to admit. I predict all the Ivys will follow Stanford, Dartmouth, and Brown in cutting sports to make more room for non-athletes. Some upset alumni and parents will offer to donate to pay for these cut sports but (lack of) money is not the reason they are being cut in the first place.
6. If donors step forward, can any of these sports retain their varsity status?
The decisions to reduce our sports offerings are final, and any future philanthropic interest in these sports may be directed towards supporting them at the club level, should they establish as a club sport after their 2020-21 varsity campaign.
While Stanford Athletics has many tremendously generous donors, their support simply could not cover the escalating costs of ensuring excellence across the board in our 36-sport model.
7. What does this decision say about the stability and future prospects of Stanford Athletics?
We remain steadfastly committed to excellence in varsity athletics and, in fact, Stanford will continue to maintain one of the highest student-athlete to undergraduate student body ratios in the nation, with nearly 9% of the undergraduate student body continuing to participate in varsity athletics beyond the 2020-21 academic year.
We are confident that these changes will position Stanford Athletics, and our remaining 25 varsity programs, for sustained excellence and leadership in athletics, academics, and education through sport.
@fenwaysouth posted:Absolutely exists from my son's viewpoint. There definitely was a bias among professors (and lots of regular students) that they shouldn't be there. They are not given the benefit of the doubt like regular students that they should be attending an Ivy. My son tried his best to hide (not disclose) the fact that he was on the baseball team among some professors. Also a there is an additional perception bias among the various sports themselves (ie helmet sports and non-helmet sports) as being more worthy of admission....hockey vs tennis or lacrosse vs cross-country.
JMO
So would baseball be a one half helmet sport?
@PABaseball posted:Prestige is largely based on acceptance rate. Chem 101 is hard at Stanford and community college, the difference is the type of student you'll find in each classroom. There is no secret class or book at these elite schools that allow them to educate their students better than a random public might. Any bias is coming from snobs, upset they they have to deal with all these dumb jocks and not scholars.
I hear this from time to time and don't know where this belief comes from. There is a tremendous difference in the quality at Stanford (and similar HA schools) vs a community college (or many lower tiered 4-year schools). The competition is much more fierce, the difficulty of the problem sets are night and day, the level of discussion, etc. They are teaching at a higher level because the students are at a higher level and can handle it.