Stanford cut 11 of 36 varsity sports!!!!

edub72

Benchwarmer
Jan 17, 2018
350
357
63
Wow, Stanford chopped 11 sports. I think we will see a lot of this happening. Poor kids and coaches
 

mushroomgod_1

All-Big Ten
Apr 9, 2012
4,200
3,662
113
Wow, Stanford chopped 11 sports. I think we will see a lot of this happening. Poor kids and coaches

We only sponsor 22 in total..........the most high profile sport dropped by Stanford is wrestling.

I think we'll drop a few sports.......I would think we could end up dropping some combination of Women's FH, Women's Rowing, Women's and/or Men's Tennis, & Women's and/or Men's Golf. Title 9 will impact, so Men's Tennis & Golf could go bye bye, esp. as neither IU nor the BT as a whole are nationally competitive in either (ok, maybe Illinois in Golf, OSU in Tennis).

Given the lack of HS participation, I think Rowing & FH could go....if so, maybe Men's Golf & Tennis to balance things out for Title 9.

I doubt they'd cut Women or Men's CC, as the Big Ten has always been pretty good in that sport and all or nearly all of the BT teams have both sports (as I recall).

On the Women's side, I'd think Softball, Volleyball. Basketball, Soccer, S & D would be safe.

For the Men, Football, Basketball, Soccer, S & D, Baseball.
 

Frosty83

Senior
Oct 29, 2011
2,693
628
113
Maybe it's a good time to get rid of some things and focus on what's really important. Many of these things are great hobbies for life but not necessarily worth spending thousands of dollars on with no return. Students could have just as much fun playing club tennis or softball or going kayaking at the state park every weekend. And the parents would get to spend some weekends with their kids instead of driving hundreds of miles to watch their kids.
 

Jssanto

Junior
Feb 15, 2019
1,064
902
113
New Orleans
Maybe it's a good time to get rid of some things and focus on what's really important. Many of these things are great hobbies for life but not necessarily worth spending thousands of dollars on with no return. Students could have just as much fun playing club tennis or softball or going kayaking at the state park every weekend. And the parents would get to spend some weekends with their kids instead of driving hundreds of miles to watch their kids.
I understand your point, but doubt the kids that play those sports would agree.
I wonder how much partial scholarship money they would lose.
What would the cut coaches do?
 

Frosty83

Senior
Oct 29, 2011
2,693
628
113
I understand your point, but doubt the kids that play those sports would agree.
I wonder how much partial scholarship money they would lose.
What would the cut coaches do?
I understand there will be some initial disappointment. Most of the students would play intramural or club sports and have just as much or more fun while greatly improving the level of intramural competition. If they have to take a loan to go to school, join the masses. College education isn't cheap and many students every year find ways to make it happen if they really want to. By cutting those sports, I would hope more money is available for great college education. Somewhere along the way college, started to become more like a country club instead of 4 years of educational rigor to prepare you for a career and in doing so the costs became ridiculous. Many are now moving off campus and working full time while taking classes. If students are still looking for a scholarship, try the ROTC. It's an honorable way to serve and get an education!!

As far as the coaches, many like my daughter give private lessons after teaching, or one of her good friends works full time at a soccer club as a coach in Fishers and makes decent money. There are always ways to stay active in the sport if you have a real desire to do so.
 

crazed_hoosier2

Hall of Famer
Mar 28, 2011
11,137
3,182
113
How dumb. Everyone is overreacting over this COVID. I’m over it.
Whether or not we've overreacted to the pandemic (which is now down to a lower-level epidemic status, based on the CDC's latest metrics....deaths keep dropping, which probably means that it's losing some oomph in terms of fatality rate), the money impacts are the money impacts. They're very real and the repercussions are going to be both profound and enduring.

That said, I also think that Covid, for a lot of these sorts of things (including many corporate bankruptcies), were less a cause than the straw-that-broke-the-already-burdened-camel's back. I mean....JC Penney's troubles have been well-documented for years. They probably wouldn't have survived much longer had the economy kept humming as it was. There's no way they were going to survive something like this. And they're not alone.

In the case of colleges and their athletics, let's face it: most college sports are money-losing endeavors....and thus luxuries that these schools either can no longer, or are no longer willing to, afford....even if they have a $28B endowment.
 

cd_hoosiers

Junior
Sep 19, 2001
1,377
309
83
Collegiate sports provide a significant opportunity for kids that work their tails off. I hope IU cuts none.
 

Bligedy

Hall of Famer
Sep 7, 2001
17,021
1,110
113
We only sponsor 22 in total..........the most high profile sport dropped by Stanford is wrestling.

I think we'll drop a few sports.......I would think we could end up dropping some combination of Women's FH, Women's Rowing, Women's and/or Men's Tennis, & Women's and/or Men's Golf. Title 9 will impact, so Men's Tennis & Golf could go bye bye, esp. as neither IU nor the BT as a whole are nationally competitive in either (ok, maybe Illinois in Golf, OSU in Tennis).

Given the lack of HS participation, I think Rowing & FH could go....if so, maybe Men's Golf & Tennis to balance things out for Title 9.

I doubt they'd cut Women or Men's CC, as the Big Ten has always been pretty good in that sport and all or nearly all of the BT teams have both sports (as I recall).

On the Women's side, I'd think Softball, Volleyball. Basketball, Soccer, S & D would be safe.

For the Men, Football, Basketball, Soccer, S & D, Baseball.
they dropped men’s volleyball which has a National Title and a Runner Up in the last 10 years
 

Frosty83

Senior
Oct 29, 2011
2,693
628
113
they dropped men’s volleyball which has a National Title and a Runner Up in the last 10 years
The honest truth is less than ten thousand people in US could tell you when Stanford last won a VB championship. The world is changing again and like many years ago sports are fun but not life or death. People out of work and worried about their families aren't going to pay $100 to watch a game. And maybe that's a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hatchets7times

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,714
2,760
113
Maybe it's a good time to get rid of some things and focus on what's really important. Many of these things are great hobbies for life but not necessarily worth spending thousands of dollars on with no return. Students could have just as much fun playing club tennis or softball or going kayaking at the state park every weekend. And the parents would get to spend some weekends with their kids instead of driving hundreds of miles to watch their kids.
what's important is relative. i played a division 1 sport. to this day it means more to me than everything but my family. i went on to get three degrees, none of which would have been possible but for the sport. my certificate from playing in the ncaa tournament is the most prominent thing in my office. it's been many, many years and i talk to my teammates daily on a group chat. to some people sports are very important.

if reform is to take place i would hope some of these universities look at the restrictions and how monies within the endowment are earmarked going forward. maybe some changes in that regard would be prudent to accommodate the vagaries of pandemics/riots/international student bans, etc. stanford's endowment is almost 30 billion dollars.

maybe the pool at the rec center doesn't need to look like the pool at the breakers. maybe the arms race for campus improvements needs to be revisited. who knows. i hate seeing sports cut. i know how hard kids work to get to that level.
 
Last edited:

crazed_hoosier2

Hall of Famer
Mar 28, 2011
11,137
3,182
113
Totally disagree! Most are under-reacting, which is why we are spiking.
This thing is real and so are its impacts.
Go Hoosiers!
But don’t you find it interesting that the case rate and the case fatalities are diverging as they are?

Now, obviously deaths are a lagging indicator. So it’s certainly possible that we’ll see fatalities do a similar u-turn in the near future. But I remember something Larry Brilliant said early on in this — which is that viruses change and they typically lose lethality as they do. He was asked about the film Contagion (which he consulted on) and said that was one aspect of it that wasn’t typical.

It seems at least possible that the transmissibility of the virus has grown (or that the spread has picked up pace as we’ve opened up....or both) while the lethality of it has diminished.

I’m seeing more discussion of the “HIT” (Herd Immunity Threshold) of this virus - we’ve always heard that the target was 50-60% infection. But perhaps it’s a lot lower than that. That’s not a universal number for all viruses.
 

Frosty83

Senior
Oct 29, 2011
2,693
628
113
what's important is relative. i played a division 1 sport. to this day it means more to me than everything but my family. i went on to get three degrees, none of which would have been possible but for the sport. my certificate from playing in the ncaa tournament is the most prominent thing in my office. it's been many, many years and i talk to my teammates daily on a group chat. to some people sports are very important.

if reform is to take place i would hope some of these universities look at the restrictions and how monies within the endowment are earmarked going forward. maybe some changes in that regard would be prudent to accommodate the vagaries of pandemics/riots/international student bans, etc. stanford's endowment is almost 30 billion dollars.

maybe the pool at the rec center doesn't need to look like the pool at the breakers. maybe the arms race for campus improvements needs to be revisited. who knows. i hate seeing sports cut. i know how hard kids work to get to that level.
Well said and I agree with your statement that it's relative to the individual. I have no problem with sports, but the excessive amounts of money we pour into it isn't what makes the camaraderie and memories. My memories cannot compare to yours but I still treasure those memories playing with the kids in the neighborhood making up our own tournaments just as much as you treasure yours.
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,714
2,760
113
Well said and I agree with your statement that it's relative to the individual. I have no problem with sports, but the excessive amounts of money we pour into it isn't what makes the camaraderie and memories. My memories cannot compare to yours but I still treasure those memories playing with the kids in the neighborhood making up our own tournaments just as much as you treasure yours.
Agreed on all fronts
 

Bligedy

Hall of Famer
Sep 7, 2001
17,021
1,110
113
The honest truth is less than ten thousand people in US could tell you when Stanford last won a VB championship. The world is changing again and like many years ago sports are fun but not life or death. People out of work and worried about their families aren't going to pay $100 to watch a game. And maybe that's a good thing.
Sports mean different things to different people. You decide for you and we can decide for us.
 

darkhawk returns

All-Big Ten
Nov 7, 2006
3,818
771
113
Sure, if it didn't affect scholorships. This is exactly why we shouldn't have the "pay the athletes" argument. Student athletes are what should be important in the NCAA.

Maybe it's a good time to get rid of some things and focus on what's really important. Many of these things are great hobbies for life but not necessarily worth spending thousands of dollars on with no return. Students could have just as much fun playing club tennis or softball or going kayaking at the state park every weekend. And the parents would get to spend some weekends with their kids instead of driving hundreds of miles to watch their kids.
 

darkhawk returns

All-Big Ten
Nov 7, 2006
3,818
771
113
How many Stanford volleyball players have gone on to go to the medical profession? How many needed that scholorship to pay for school? I don't have the answer, but the NCAA is supposed to be about being a student first....

The honest truth is less than ten thousand people in US could tell you when Stanford last won a VB championship. The world is changing again and like many years ago sports are fun but not life or death. People out of work and worried about their families aren't going to pay $100 to watch a game. And maybe that's a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

ams66

Benchwarmer
Dec 30, 2016
279
263
63
Maybe it's a good time to get rid of some things and focus on what's really important. Many of these things are great hobbies for life but not necessarily worth spending thousands of dollars on with no return. Students could have just as much fun playing club tennis or softball or going kayaking at the state park every weekend. And the parents would get to spend some weekends with their kids instead of driving hundreds of miles to watch their kids.
If you spent the time and put in the work and had the love of the sport enough to make the cut in a D1 (or even D2 or D3 school) for the tennis or softball or rowing team, it's more than a hobby and I don't think a pickup game at the rec center or outing at the park is really going to seem like a satisfying alternative.

If the university needs to cut, I'd rather see them cut into the utterly bloated administrative staff and maybe hold off on new monuments to themselves for a few years.
 

jacksback

Sophomore
Feb 5, 2003
819
253
63
I understand your point, but doubt the kids that play those sports would agree.
I wonder how much partial scholarship money they would lose.
What would the cut coaches do?

College is supposed to be all about the students so it's sad to see any sport being cut. Maybe these major universities should cut some of the bloated administration that have contributed significantly to the increase of college tuition while adding little to the experience. I don't know the numbers for fact but I've head that IU has twice as many employees as it did 30 years ago and it sure doesn't have twice as many students. (and I'm talking about the university as a whole and not just the athletic department)
 

minneman

Senior
Nov 1, 2001
2,276
1,598
113
But don’t you find it interesting that the case rate and the case fatalities are diverging as they are?

Now, obviously deaths are a lagging indicator. So it’s certainly possible that we’ll see fatalities do a similar u-turn in the near future. But I remember something Larry Brilliant said early on in this — which is that viruses change and they typically lose lethality as they do. He was asked about the film Contagion (which he consulted on) and said that was one aspect of it that wasn’t typical.

It seems at least possible that the transmissibility of the virus has grown (or that the spread has picked up pace as we’ve opened up....or both) while the lethality of it has diminished.

I’m seeing more discussion of the “HIT” (Herd Immunity Threshold) of this virus - we’ve always heard that the target was 50-60% infection. But perhaps it’s a lot lower than that. That’s not a universal number for all viruses.
There are several reasons why they are diverging right now. A few of the factors are who are getting infected (younger people now) and slightly better treatment methods. And, as you say, it has changed where it is now more infectious but doesn't make people sicker. Is it now less lethal as you propose? Time will tell but the experts haven't said that is the case. It is important to note that there is a large lag between contracting the disease and death, around 4-6 weeks. So this is likely the largest factor. There is a 2 week lag from contraction to showing symptoms. Then another lag from that time to hospitalization (I'm not sure of the time frame, probably 1-2 weeks). After that another lag before death. Hospitalizations in AZ (where I live) and FL are both up. I don't know about other places where spikes are occurring but they're probably going up, too. I bet in those places the deaths will start to increase in a few weeks.

Another problem is looking at the data wrong. If one looks at too large of an area, the numbers can be hidden. For instance, the deaths in NY which were the primary driving force in the early number of deaths are falling. Deaths in states that actually have it under control are falling. These can mask the effect COVID is having on deaths in areas that are experiencing spikes because the overall deaths may still be falling while those areas are increasing.

Time will tell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUgradman
Sep 11, 2004
2,823
770
113
Now, obviously deaths are a lagging indicator. So it’s certainly possible that we’ll see fatalities do a similar u-turn in the near future. But I remember something Larry Brilliant said early on in this — which is that viruses change and they typically lose lethality as they do. He was asked about the film Contagion (which he consulted on) and said that was one aspect of it that wasn’t typical.
Hopefully we’ve learned some about treating it which would lower deaths If that has happened, but I don’t see figures on impairment,possibly lifetime impairment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: minneman

mushroomgod_1

All-Big Ten
Apr 9, 2012
4,200
3,662
113
The honest truth is less than ten thousand people in US could tell you when Stanford last won a VB championship. The world is changing again and like many years ago sports are fun but not life or death. People out of work and worried about their families aren't going to pay $100 to watch a game. And maybe that's a good thing.

Men's volleyball (and Men's gymnastics) is a victim of Title 9. It would probably be a big-time sport these days, but instead we have women's field hockey and rowing. Title 9 is not fair to males as implemented, but nobody cares.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lifetimebooler1

mushroomgod_1

All-Big Ten
Apr 9, 2012
4,200
3,662
113
College is supposed to be all about the students so it's sad to see any sport being cut. Maybe these major universities should cut some of the bloated administration that have contributed significantly to the increase of college tuition while adding little to the experience. I don't know the numbers for fact but I've head that IU has twice as many employees as it did 30 years ago and it sure doesn't have twice as many students. (and I'm talking about the university as a whole and not just the athletic department)

I'd be very interested in seeing the employment #s.

Having been involved as either a student or as a parent at three different state institutions, I'd say 'good luck' to anyone trying to reform them. Lots of sacred cows.

As far as enrollments go.....IU-Bton 1989: 34863 2019: 43260; IU entire system: 1989: 83809 2019: 93578
 

oldcougar77

All-Big Ten
Apr 21, 2004
4,330
4,618
113
Men's volleyball (and Men's gymnastics) is a victim of Title 9. It would probably be a big-time sport these days, but instead we have women's field hockey and rowing. Title 9 is not fair to males as implemented, but nobody cares.
Correct. Unfortunately the courts have decreed that the total # of male and female scholarships must be equal with no allowance for football, which has no female counterpart. Consequently, softball gets more scholarships than baseball, womens tennis and golf get more than mens tennis and golf, etc. It's a perverted (in my opinion) system. It's also why sports like field hockey and women's rowing are so prominent, because they are inexpensive to offer. With most women's sports at most places, it's all about manageable loss.

OTOH, there are things that football and basketball could be doing to cut expenses. For instance, cutting travel for non-conference contests. The early-season tournaments in tropical locations could be trimmed. By doing this you would also save the losses of your women's teams playing in similar locales (another Title IX mandate). Playing pre-conference games against in-state or surrounding state schools would save as well. This used to be common in the days before the athletic arms races.

As for making cuts in other areas, it isn't that simple. These are separate pools of money funded by separate mechanisms and sources, especially at public institutions where tax dollars can be used for some expenses and not for others. Not to mention endowments and gifts that have specific designations. It isn't just a giant pool of money in a lump sum to be used at the discretion of the administration. Not that other areas aren't bloated or inefficient, just that education finance is a complex animal with lots of legal restrictions.
 

mushroomgod_1

All-Big Ten
Apr 9, 2012
4,200
3,662
113
If not for Title IX we’d have a lot fewer Olympic medals, in case that matters to you.

I think Title 9 #s should reflect the actual %s of HS athletes who are boys v. girls....that would be actual equal opportunity. Right now 52% of boys play, 44% of girls at least one sport. Total male participants are around 4.3M, total female 3.0M for all sports. That includes students who play more than 1 sport....probably more males do that than females.....About 1M boys play football, so that accounts for the biggest part of the difference.

Because football sch #s are so high, to artificially even things out you end up with the silliness of a state public school like IU offering female students schs for sports like water polo and rowing, where there is not even any HS participation in those sports in the state of Indiana.
 

Jssanto

Junior
Feb 15, 2019
1,064
902
113
New Orleans
College is supposed to be all about the students so it's sad to see any sport being cut. Maybe these major universities should cut some of the bloated administration that have contributed significantly to the increase of college tuition while adding little to the experience. I don't know the numbers for fact but I've head that IU has twice as many employees as it did 30 years ago and it sure doesn't have twice as many students. (and I'm talking about the university as a whole and not just the athletic department)
I agree completely with the bloated academic payrolls. Everyone want an assistant.
 

oldcougar77

All-Big Ten
Apr 21, 2004
4,330
4,618
113
If not for Title IX we’d have a lot fewer Olympic medals, in case that matters to you.
Please don't misinterpret my position. I'm an unabashed supporter of Title IX. As a high school athlete in the late 1970's I witnessed firsthand the disparities in the things I was provided and the advantages I had compared to my sister, who was a couple of grades behind me. She had to endure the shittiest practice times and facilities, games played and travel exclusively on school nights, inferior and secondhand equipment, etc.

I on the other hand had furnished practice gear and shoes, meals provided after weekend road games, optimum practice times in the competition gym. My parents and the parents of other female athletes actually had to retain a lawyer and serve notice to the school board in order to force the sexist AD to pay for physicals for the girls.

So no, I'm not insensitive. I just think that the interpretation of the scholarship limits by the courts is wrong. If I were in charge, the equivalent sports (mens golf, tennis, track, xc, etc vs. womens; baseball vs. softball) would have the same scholly #s, football would have 50 exempt with the remainder offset by womens sports of high interest.

I'm not at all for dropping sports, in fact I wish we would add a few. I would hope any university would look deeply for other ways to cut to preserve opportunities for athletes.
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,714
2,760
113
Please don't misinterpret my position. I'm an unabashed supporter of Title IX. As a high school athlete in the late 1970's I witnessed firsthand the disparities in the things I was provided and the advantages I had compared to my sister, who was a couple of grades behind me. She had to endure the shittiest practice times and facilities, games played and travel exclusively on school nights, inferior and secondhand equipment, etc.

I on the other hand had furnished practice gear and shoes, meals provided after weekend road games, optimum practice times in the competition gym. My parents and the parents of other female athletes actually had to retain a lawyer and serve notice to the school board in order to force the sexist AD to pay for physicals for the girls.

So no, I'm not insensitive. I just think that the interpretation of the scholarship limits by the courts is wrong. If I were in charge, the equivalent sports (mens golf, tennis, track, xc, etc vs. womens; baseball vs. softball) would have the same scholly #s, football would have 50 exempt with the remainder offset by womens sports of high interest.

I'm not at all for dropping sports, in fact I wish we would add a few. I would hope any university would look deeply for other ways to cut to preserve opportunities for athletes.
it's an interesting topic. most folks don't realize just how few scholarships are out there. men's d1 soccer usually carry 22-24 guys on a roster. they get 9 scholarship. baseball only has 11 scholarships for an even bigger roster.
 

Frosty83

Senior
Oct 29, 2011
2,693
628
113
If you spent the time and put in the work and had the love of the sport enough to make the cut in a D1 (or even D2 or D3 school) for the tennis or softball or rowing team, it's more than a hobby and I don't think a pickup game at the rec center or outing at the park is really going to seem like a satisfying alternative.

If the university needs to cut, I'd rather see them cut into the utterly bloated administrative staff and maybe hold off on new monuments to themselves for a few years.
I certainly understand your feeling on this and you probably have been personally involved in some way by the time and commitment that many athletes and their families make. I also agree that cuts will need to be made across the board. No doubt it's a tremendous letdown for the athletes, and I have a nephew and two nieces who missed their college season of baseball or softball this past year. I'm just pointing out that there are many opportunities to still play outside of college at many different levels. While I enjoy playing at the park at my age, my daughter still participates in leagues and tournaments through out the summer. There are plenty of opportunities depending on what level you want to play that do not have to be through a college. My nephew and niece would have many opportunities to play (barring covid 19) if they did not play in play in college.
 

cryano

All-Big Ten
Apr 19, 2005
4,427
2,744
113
Meanwhile...Archie rakes in $3.5M+ per year...

Coaches pay is absurd. Coaches are paid in a way to fund generational wealth. There is no reason they should be paid at these rates. CEO of major companies and national chains aren’t paid at that level...but to manage 13 kids playing a sport (plus 5 assistants etc).

Could a coach really live much differently in Bloomington if they ‘only’ made $300k-$1M per year?

This isnt really a knock on Archie/IU...but more on coaching salaries.
The $2.5M or so each year could fund a hell of a lot of scholarships or athletic teams budgets.
 

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
3,714
2,760
113
Meanwhile...Archie rakes in $3.5M+ per year...

Coaches pay is absurd. Coaches are paid in a way to fund generational wealth. There is no reason they should be paid at these rates. CEO of major companies and national chains aren’t paid at that level...but to manage 13 kids playing a sport (plus 5 assistants etc).

Could a coach really live much differently in Bloomington if they ‘only’ made $300k-$1M per year?

This isnt really a knock on Archie/IU...but more on coaching salaries.
The $2.5M or so each year could fund a hell of a lot of scholarships or athletic teams budgets.
yeah it's a shame but that's the market. football and basketball are really all that matter. just by way of background to your point an entire division 1 soccer team's budget averages about $900,000.
 

minneman

Senior
Nov 1, 2001
2,276
1,598
113
Meanwhile...Archie rakes in $3.5M+ per year...

Coaches pay is absurd. Coaches are paid in a way to fund generational wealth. There is no reason they should be paid at these rates. CEO of major companies and national chains aren’t paid at that level...but to manage 13 kids playing a sport (plus 5 assistants etc).

Could a coach really live much differently in Bloomington if they ‘only’ made $300k-$1M per year?

This isnt really a knock on Archie/IU...but more on coaching salaries.
The $2.5M or so each year could fund a hell of a lot of scholarships or athletic teams budgets.
I agree that coaches' salaries are ridiculous. This is a product of all the money coming in to athletic departments of P5 schools. Since most of them are a part of universities, they have to spend that money one way or another to remain non-profit. They can't claim a profit and they can't pay players. So facilities, salaries, and money to the university are the only way they can spend it.

You'll see that coaching salaries have exploded since the major conferences started their own TV networks. What's ridiculous is that the expense of these salaries is part of the reason the schools say they can't afford more compensation for the athletes.

https://www.athleticdirectoru.com/a...college-athletics-and-the-non-profit-paradox/

BTW, if you think that CEO of major companies and national chains don't make the same or more than college coaches, you're not paying attention. They do, with many making way more.