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.
@JCG posted:So would baseball be a one half helmet sport?
JCG,
"Helmet sport" was the generalized phrase used but not sure specifically what sports were included. By that definition that could include equestrian, wrestling, fencing and water polo but I don't think that was the intention.
What really matters is how many qualifying athletic 'slots" with Likely Letters each Coach could recommend to Admission. For my son's school, baseball was only 5 Ivy Likely Letter recruits and the other recruits had to get in on their own merit...no standard deviation from an incoming Ivy class. What the general public, faculty and students fail to realize is some of these recruits got in on their own (same as normal students) with minimal pull by the Coach. These recruits were bundled in with the rest of the team. I was told there were many more "slots" for football, lacrosse and hockey athletes just because of the size of their teams or the money they brought in. Lacrosse and hockey are huge among Ivys.
JMO.
With most of what I am reading with this thread (type of sports cut and no turning back), this seems to be another use of one of the biggest catchphrases of 2020-- "cancel culture."
@Smitty28 posted: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.
The students are at a higher level, yes absolutely. But what does that have to do with chemistry - the formulas are the same, the math is the same, the conversions are the same. What makes the problem sets any different? The curriculum doesn't change just because of how selective the school is.
This is what bothers me. What makes the homework harder? In a lecture hall, there isn't going to be some enlightening discussion among students. They're being lectured at about Chemistry, not discussing new solutions that would eradicate cancer.
Students in Gen Chem 101 are at the very least taking a very very similar course to Gen Chem 101 at community college or UC Riverside. Tell me how US History is harder at Stanford than it is anywhere else. It's history, it happened it's cut and dry. The only difference is you're trying to write an A paper when the entire class is capable of writing A papers, you have to make your work stand out.
The most difficult part about most of these schools is getting in, after that they're pretty similar. I don't like the idea that the curriculum is better at some schools just because it was hard to get into out of HS. Stanford is a great school and it's better than 99% of colleges in the US. But it's better because of it's facilities, motivated student body, and the weight the degree carries in the professional world. Not because Intro to Chemistry has a sophisticated one of a kind curriculum unavailable to non Stanford students.
@PABaseball posted:The students are at a higher level, yes absolutely. But what does that have to do with chemistry - the formulas are the same, the math is the same, the conversions are the same. What makes the problem sets any different? The curriculum doesn't change just because of how selective the school is.
This is what bothers me. What makes the homework harder? In a lecture hall, there isn't going to be some enlightening discussion among students. They're being lectured at about Chemistry, not discussing new solutions that would eradicate cancer.
Students in Gen Chem 101 are at the very least taking a very very similar course to Gen Chem 101 at community college or UC Riverside. Tell me how US History is harder at Stanford than it is anywhere else. It's history, it happened it's cut and dry. The only difference is you're trying to write an A paper when the entire class is capable of writing A papers, you have to make your work stand out.
The most difficult part about most of these schools is getting in, after that they're pretty similar. I don't like the idea that the curriculum is better at some schools just because it was hard to get into out of HS. Stanford is a great school and it's better than 99% of colleges in the US. But it's better because of it's facilities, motivated student body, and the weight the degree carries in the professional world. Not because Intro to Chemistry has a sophisticated one of a kind curriculum unavailable to non Stanford students.
Isn't that like saying baseball is baseball? I mean what's the difference between the Canes and Team A from Small Town USA? Everything, right?
If it's truly an introductory class, I suppose you could be right, maybe. Myself, and my kids, are all STEM majors and chemistry for engineers is not the same thing. It is very easy to make problem sets difficult or easy, just like making an exam difficult or easy. Plus, most schools grade STEM classes on a curve, so the competition makes the class much more challenging to keep up with and not fail out. This competition, and learning intensity, carries through for 4 years.
My older son went to an Ivy, a STEM major. When he was in high-school, he took one semester of an intro-level science class at our local state university. When he got to college, he took the second semester of it. Then he told us he was re-taking the first semester there. When we pointed out he had already taken it, he said that the Ivy intro course was taught at a much higher level, and he didn't think he would be ready for the upper-level classes in that subject unless he took it again there. Professors assign work that they think their students will be able to do; this also applies to History. More selective schools will have more sophisticated assignments, longer papers, more reading (and more complex reading), more research expected, etc. Then there is also the fact that students learn from, and study with, each other. It makes a big difference when doing group projects.
The comparison with baseball teams at different levels is entirely right. Can you be recruited to a D1 college if you play for a local travel team? Probably, if you have a 92 mph fastball. They still might want to see how you do against high-level competition.
After the other Ivys, the next set of student athletes and their parents who should be concerned about sports cuts are those who attend D3 small liberal arts colleges (LACs). At a typical small LAC with an entering class size of 400-600 students, varsity athletes can easily make up 20-25% of the student body. For example, Williams sponsors 30 varsity teams (https://ephsports.williams.edu/landing/index) and has an entering class of about 550 students. if Williams cut 10 sports, they could probably reduce the number of athletes in each class down to ~15% while freeing up more spots for other non-athlete students who could bring more diversity and/or academic accomplishment to the study body.
Many, if not most, of the small LACs that are not Top 20 academically ranked are already constantly facing financial pressures prior to Covid due to their small endowments, and heavy reliance on tuition (and tuition discounting) to meet their annual net revenues while meeting enrollment targets. Going forward, some of these LACs will be forced to close and many others will need to find areas to cut expenses including sports.
For the Top 20 academic LACs like Williams, Amherst, etc., their larger endowments and overall desirability will somewhat insulate them from pure financial pressures to cut sports, but they are facing the same institutional pressures that Stanford and the Ivys are facing as to how they want the composition of their study body to look like going forward. As the pressure ramps up to maintain their academic prestige and increase diversity while facing a demographic cliff of smaller graduating high school classes over the next few decades, I predict these high academic LACs will follow the Ivys and also begin cutting down on the number of sports they offer.
One other factor to consider.....sports that get cut are likely to target those viewed as having privilege and are in the patriarchy. Made even easier if they are negative and have many slots associated with them.
Baseball in the Big 10 for example probably travels 8 to 10 times and mostly by air. That's 30+ people traveling for 3 or 4 days at a crack. If every person costs $500 per trip that's at least $15K. That means $200k travel budget or thereabouts. If they have 40 home dates they have to get $5,000 per game. That's 500 people at $10. It ain't happening.
This is tied to the other thread on P5 football.
It is very likely college sports are on the verge of the biggest alterations since the Supreme Court knocked down the NCAA on TV money in the 80's.
I predict less of them and a separation of football and maybe basketball.
@Zoom 2020 posted:Many, if not most, of the small LACs that are not Top 20 academically ranked are already constantly facing financial pressures prior to Covid due to their small endowments, and heavy reliance on tuition (and tuition discounting) to meet their annual net revenues while meeting enrollment targets. Going forward, some of these LACs will be forced to close and many others will need to find areas to cut expenses including sports.
For the Top 20 academic LACs like Williams, Amherst, etc., their larger endowments and overall desirability will somewhat insulate them from pure financial pressures to cut sports, but they are facing the same institutional pressures that Stanford and the Ivys are facing as to how they want the composition of their study body to look like going forward. As the pressure ramps up to maintain their academic prestige and increase diversity while facing a demographic cliff of smaller graduating high school classes over the next few decades, I predict these high academic LACs will follow the Ivys and also begin cutting down on the number of sports they offer.
I think that the pressure on the top 20 LACs might be like Dartmouth, I agree they might cut some sports on the same model. Many others, with fewer applicants, depend on sports to bring in students, so they actually have incentive to keep or expand them.
@Zoom 2020 posted:After the other Ivys, the next set of student athletes and their parents who should be concerned about sports cuts are those who attend D3 small liberal arts colleges (LACs). At a typical small LAC with an entering class size of 400-600 students, varsity athletes can easily make up 20-25% of the student body. For example, Williams sponsors 30 varsity teams (https://ephsports.williams.edu/landing/index) and has an entering class of about 550 students. if Williams cut 10 sports, they could probably reduce the number of athletes in each class down to ~15% while freeing up more spots for other non-athlete students who could bring more diversity and/or academic accomplishment to the study body.
Many, if not most, of the small LACs that are not Top 20 academically ranked are already constantly facing financial pressures prior to Covid due to their small endowments, and heavy reliance on tuition (and tuition discounting) to meet their annual net revenues while meeting enrollment targets. Going forward, some of these LACs will be forced to close and many others will need to find areas to cut expenses including sports.
For the Top 20 academic LACs like Williams, Amherst, etc., their larger endowments and overall desirability will somewhat insulate them from pure financial pressures to cut sports, but they are facing the same institutional pressures that Stanford and the Ivys are facing as to how they want the composition of their study body to look like going forward. As the pressure ramps up to maintain their academic prestige and increase diversity while facing a demographic cliff of smaller graduating high school classes over the next few decades, I predict these high academic LACs will follow the Ivys and also begin cutting down on the number of sports they offer.
I do think this is a very reasoned post and seems like it will head in this direction. However, it makes me honestly ask if these institutions are being authentic in their rationale. They pick a pandemic year that is hurting them financially to decide that they would prefer to allocate admission slots more to non atheletes for academic reasons. I have to think it might be more honest to say we have taken a large financial hit that has made us reevaluate our operating model and have decided to eliminate money losing sports. We now plan to use these admission spots for students that would pay more for an education at our institution. I would be ok with that answer. These high academic institutions are private schools and should do what they think is in the best interest of their school.
The AD at my son’s high school was previously an Assistant Coach at an LAC in the Northeast. It’s not a HA, but it’s pretty well known. He told me that he was expected to recruit a certain number of players to his team each year, not for the benefit of the team but because the school relied on the revenue. So there will definitely be schools with great incentive to keep their sports programs going because that’s how they’ll survive.
Yes, many baseball teams have 50+ players, it's the warning that is given over and over on here. At D3s, everyone pays or is on academic or financial aid; all those golfers and rowers and squash-players are most likely paying full tuition. So I wouldn't be surprised if they use those sports to bring in the full-payers, and then recruit non-athletes who need financial or academic aid. I'm sure each school has its own mix. Stanford, on the other hand, gives scholarships, right?
Be interested if anything similarly will happen with the small HAs (NESCAC's) where almost a third of the student body are varsity athletes. No scholarships involved, but coveted "admission spots" are.
I've got a friends son who coaches college and has to have 60 plus players every year or his salary is cut. Those schools are doomed if they don't play sports. There is a local college that is said to have 80% athletes as students. They will close their doors if there are not athletics this year.
Stanford has reversed course, and is now cutting none of its sports, because of alumni fundraising:
I am both pleased at the power of fundraising and equally disappointed that a wealthy institution like Stanford would cut athletics to save on costs.
@anotherparent posted:Stanford has reversed course, and is now cutting none of its sports, because of alumni fundraising:
Stanford's fundraising is something to behold. The Arrillaga family is one of the elite athletics donors in the entire nation. He's given well over $250m to the school.