Big news? On the forgotten 11 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Big news? On the forgotten 11 (/thread-21883.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Big news? On the forgotten 11 (/thread-21883.html)
Big news? On the forgotten 11 - BobK - 04-25-2021
https://twitter.com/keepstanfordwre/status/1386495257429233667?s=21
Hope for the best
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - Langdude - 04-25-2021
Wow. This piece in National Review levels a devastating case against Stanford's decision to cut the sports:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/when-the-faculty-lounge-goes-after-college-sports/
-m.
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - M T - 04-26-2021
Interesting. One could think that this was all a great ploy:
Go through the motions of ending 11 sports.
Wind up with a large infusion of cash and a excuse for the number of admissions reserved for athletes.
Remind me not to play poker with these guys.
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - Mick - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 12:08 AM)M T Wrote: Interesting. One could think that this was all a great ploy:
Go through the motions of ending 11 sports.
Wind up with a large infusion of cash and a excuse for the number of admissions reserved for athletes.
Remind me not to play poker with these guys.
I was just thinking that same thing...It would be very nice to have the Forgotten 11 back in the fold...
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - Goose - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 12:08 AM)M T Wrote: Interesting. One could think that this was all a great ploy:
Go through the motions of ending 11 sports.
Wind up with a large infusion of cash and a excuse for the number of admissions reserved for athletes.
Remind me not to play poker with these guys.
It is even more subtle than that. If there is little or no pushback, go ahead with the plan and save some money (albeit maybe not much). Then you have more admissions flexibility with the remaining sports. You also don't have to administer these annoying "little" sports that can get you in trouble but can't gain you much public acclaim. Perfect plan, little to no downside to the AD.
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - BostonCard - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 05:48 AM)Goose Wrote:(04-26-2021, 12:08 AM)M T Wrote: Interesting. One could think that this was all a great ploy:
Go through the motions of ending 11 sports.
Wind up with a large infusion of cash and a excuse for the number of admissions reserved for athletes.
Remind me not to play poker with these guys.
It is even more subtle than that. If there is little or no pushback, go ahead with the plan and save some money (albeit maybe not much). Then you have more admissions flexibility with the remaining sports. You also don't have to administer these annoying "little" sports that can get you in trouble but can't gain you much public acclaim. Perfect plan, little to no downside to the AD.
What do you mean "admissions flexibility with the remaining sports". Would the absence of the 11 sports that were eliminated make admissions thresholds in other sports lower? I am doubtful.
BC
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - martyup - 04-26-2021
(04-25-2021, 11:08 PM)Langdude Wrote: Wow. This piece in National Review levels a devastating case against Stanford's decision to cut the sports:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/when-the-faculty-lounge-goes-after-college-sports/
-m.
This is especially enlightening:
Quote:The claims about cuts’ being necessary to diversify the student turn out to be bunk too. For a start, athletics have long been recognized as a bridge builder into underserved communities. And many of these teams are already far more diverse than the overall student body. Nearly half of Stanford’s wrestling team, for instance, are either first-generation collegians or from low-income households, compared to just 17 percent in the school overall. The teams Stanford is poised to cut also represent fully half of the Asian student-athletes on campus.
I would rather we call them the "Outcast 11" because they have not and will not be forgotten.
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - donkey687 - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 08:50 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-26-2021, 05:48 AM)Goose Wrote:(04-26-2021, 12:08 AM)M T Wrote: Interesting. One could think that this was all a great ploy:
Go through the motions of ending 11 sports.
Wind up with a large infusion of cash and a excuse for the number of admissions reserved for athletes.
Remind me not to play poker with these guys.
It is even more subtle than that. If there is little or no pushback, go ahead with the plan and save some money (albeit maybe not much). Then you have more admissions flexibility with the remaining sports. You also don't have to administer these annoying "little" sports that can get you in trouble but can't gain you much public acclaim. Perfect plan, little to no downside to the AD.
What do you mean "admissions flexibility with the remaining sports". Would the absence of the 11 sports that were eliminated make admissions thresholds in other sports lower? I am doubtful.
BC
Some of the spots for the 11 cut sports were reallocated to the other 25 sports this year. All recruit offers in the 11 cut sports were rescinded in July. Did you notice the high number of football preferred walk-ons this year? The cut women's lightweight crew team didn't get recruits this year but retained varsity crew team got more spots for example.
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - BostonCard - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 09:30 AM)donkey687 Wrote:(04-26-2021, 08:50 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-26-2021, 05:48 AM)Goose Wrote:(04-26-2021, 12:08 AM)M T Wrote: Interesting. One could think that this was all a great ploy:
Go through the motions of ending 11 sports.
Wind up with a large infusion of cash and a excuse for the number of admissions reserved for athletes.
Remind me not to play poker with these guys.
It is even more subtle than that. If there is little or no pushback, go ahead with the plan and save some money (albeit maybe not much). Then you have more admissions flexibility with the remaining sports. You also don't have to administer these annoying "little" sports that can get you in trouble but can't gain you much public acclaim. Perfect plan, little to no downside to the AD.
What do you mean "admissions flexibility with the remaining sports". Would the absence of the 11 sports that were eliminated make admissions thresholds in other sports lower? I am doubtful.
BC
Some of the spots for the 11 cut sports were reallocated to the other 25 sports this year. All recruit offers in the 11 cut sports were rescinded in July. Did you notice the high number of football preferred walk-ons this year? The cut women's lightweight crew team didn't get recruits this year but retained varsity crew team got more spots for example.
The football PFO program has always been robust, and it didn't seem any bigger this year than in past years. I haven't quantified it, so if there are numbers that suggest that we got more preferred walk-ons this year than in the past, that would be evidence that the spots got reallocated, but I don't think that's the case. It also doesn't make much sense; while it is always really nice when a preferred walk-on gets a scholarship and winds up being a contributor, those cases are relatively few and far between, and don't make much of a difference in the ultimate record of the football team.
That may be different in some other sports, where there is a limit of scholarships so non-scholarship player will play more of a role. Even then, though, the difference makers will be on a full or partial scholarship, so you are really talking about athletes on the margins.
BC
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - SamuelMcF - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 10:03 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-26-2021, 09:30 AM)donkey687 Wrote:(04-26-2021, 08:50 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-26-2021, 05:48 AM)Goose Wrote:(04-26-2021, 12:08 AM)M T Wrote: Interesting. One could think that this was all a great ploy:
Go through the motions of ending 11 sports.
Wind up with a large infusion of cash and a excuse for the number of admissions reserved for athletes.
Remind me not to play poker with these guys.
It is even more subtle than that. If there is little or no pushback, go ahead with the plan and save some money (albeit maybe not much). Then you have more admissions flexibility with the remaining sports. You also don't have to administer these annoying "little" sports that can get you in trouble but can't gain you much public acclaim. Perfect plan, little to no downside to the AD.
What do you mean "admissions flexibility with the remaining sports". Would the absence of the 11 sports that were eliminated make admissions thresholds in other sports lower? I am doubtful.
BC
Some of the spots for the 11 cut sports were reallocated to the other 25 sports this year. All recruit offers in the 11 cut sports were rescinded in July. Did you notice the high number of football preferred walk-ons this year? The cut women's lightweight crew team didn't get recruits this year but retained varsity crew team got more spots for example.
The football PFO program has always been robust, and it didn't seem any bigger this year than in past years. I haven't quantified it, so if there are numbers that suggest that we got more preferred walk-ons this year than in the past, that would be evidence that the spots got reallocated, but I don't think that's the case. It also doesn't make much sense; while it is always really nice when a preferred walk-on gets a scholarship and winds up being a contributor, those cases are relatively few and far between, and don't make much of a difference in the ultimate record of the football team.
That may be different in some other sports, where there is a limit of scholarships so non-scholarship player will play more of a role. Even then, though, the difference makers will be on a full or partial scholarship, so you are really talking about athletes on the margins.
BC
No significant difference in football PWO numbers. Has been in the 7-9 range for years. 9 this year, 9 last year.
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - Goose - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 08:50 AM)BostonCard Wrote: What do you mean "admissions flexibility with the remaining sports". Would the absence of the 11 sports that were eliminated make admissions thresholds in other sports lower? I am doubtful.It probably wouldn't drop the minimum qualifications but it might increase the number of athletes that could be admitted to play the "revenue" sports without skewing the "metrics" that may be used to ensure there aren't "too many athletes". If even a quarter of the "slots" occupied by the athletes in the sports that were cut went toward adding players in the "revenue" sports, that could be regarded as a plus by all concerned. More PWOs could be brought on board and if they panned out, great.
BC
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - BostonCard - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 01:11 PM)Goose Wrote:(04-26-2021, 08:50 AM)BostonCard Wrote: What do you mean "admissions flexibility with the remaining sports". Would the absence of the 11 sports that were eliminated make admissions thresholds in other sports lower? I am doubtful.It probably wouldn't drop the minimum qualifications but it might increase the number of athletes that could be admitted to play the "revenue" sports without skewing the "metrics" that may be used to ensure there aren't "too many athletes". If even a quarter of the "slots" occupied by the athletes in the sports that were cut went toward adding players in the "revenue" sports, that could be regarded as a plus by all concerned. More PWOs could be brought on board and if they panned out, great.
BC
The issue is that this will have a negligible effect on the revenue sports. As Sam mentioned, football had 9 PWO's last year. Had we increased it by 66% and recruited 15 PWO's, the median number of games played by PWO's 10 - 15 would have been 0. It's even lower in basketball, where the rotation is probably at most 10 players, and the sum total of minutes played by PWO's (let alone any extra) is probably in the single digits.
BC
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - donkey687 - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 12:32 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(04-26-2021, 10:03 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-26-2021, 09:30 AM)donkey687 Wrote:(04-26-2021, 08:50 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-26-2021, 05:48 AM)Goose Wrote: It is even more subtle than that. If there is little or no pushback, go ahead with the plan and save some money (albeit maybe not much). Then you have more admissions flexibility with the remaining sports. You also don't have to administer these annoying "little" sports that can get you in trouble but can't gain you much public acclaim. Perfect plan, little to no downside to the AD.
What do you mean "admissions flexibility with the remaining sports". Would the absence of the 11 sports that were eliminated make admissions thresholds in other sports lower? I am doubtful.
BC
Some of the spots for the 11 cut sports were reallocated to the other 25 sports this year. All recruit offers in the 11 cut sports were rescinded in July. Did you notice the high number of football preferred walk-ons this year? The cut women's lightweight crew team didn't get recruits this year but retained varsity crew team got more spots for example.
The football PFO program has always been robust, and it didn't seem any bigger this year than in past years. I haven't quantified it, so if there are numbers that suggest that we got more preferred walk-ons this year than in the past, that would be evidence that the spots got reallocated, but I don't think that's the case. It also doesn't make much sense; while it is always really nice when a preferred walk-on gets a scholarship and winds up being a contributor, those cases are relatively few and far between, and don't make much of a difference in the ultimate record of the football team.
That may be different in some other sports, where there is a limit of scholarships so non-scholarship player will play more of a role. Even then, though, the difference makers will be on a full or partial scholarship, so you are really talking about athletes on the margins.
BC
No significant difference in football PWO numbers. Has been in the 7-9 range for years. 9 this year, 9 last year.
I count 10 this year which I believe is a record and there could be more coming (Aristotle, Katona, Jackson, McFadden, Amsler, Kasemervisz, Gibson, Reeder, Stockwell, Kenney). I think the average is closer to 7. Bernard told the other 25 coaches in a meeting that cutting the other 11 sports is good for them as it will bring them more resources. As I have said before, it isn't a bad strategy for Muir to focus resources on the highest priority places, but it just isn't very Stanford like to treat so many student athletes and alumni that way.
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - BostonCard - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 01:50 PM)donkey687 Wrote: Bernard told the other 25 coaches in a meeting that cutting the other 11 sports is good for them as it will bring them more resources. As I have said before, it isn't a bad strategy for Muir to focus resources on the highest priority places, but it just isn't very Stanford like to treat so many student athletes and alumni that way.
Muir is tailoring his message to his audience. To the coaches of the other 25 programs, he emphasizes additional resources for them. To the BoT he emphasizes the cost savings. To the administration he emphasizes the effect on the D&I initiatives.
You are right that it isn't very Stanford-like to treat so many student athletes that way.
I am still not convinced that this was Muir's doing, though. Indeed, I take the mixed messages as evidence, since the real truth is probably one that he cannot say "I have to cut sports because I was told to cut sports".
BC
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - Mick - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 01:50 PM)donkey687 Wrote: Bernard told the other 25 coaches in a meeting that cutting the other 11 sports is good for them as it will bring them more resources.
"I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you."
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - BostonCard - 04-26-2021
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordSports/status/1386779128678866948?s=20[/tweet]
The forgotten 11 refuse to be cut.
BC
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - Mick - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 01:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I am still not convinced that this was Muir's doing, though. Indeed, I take the mixed messages as evidence, since the real truth is probably one that he cannot say "I have to cut sports because I was told to cut sports".
BC
We've all been told, at one time or another, to support unpopular policies. I'd be interested in the real reasons that Stanford cut these 11 sports.
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - 82lsju - 04-26-2021
(04-26-2021, 02:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordSports/status/1386779128678866948?s=20[/tweet]
The forgotten 11 refuse to be cut.
BC
for those who do not click though and read the comments
Quote:A Daily reporter confirmed, the substance sprayed is washable chalk and athletes from Stanford's rowing teams who were not involved have shown up with water and buckets to clean the building.
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - winflop - 04-26-2021
Washable or not, it's vandalism and it's unacceptable. Bravo to the rowers who showed up to clean it!
RE: Big news? On the forgotten 11 - BostonCard - 04-26-2021
Thanks lsju! I hadn't seen the second tweet when I posted, but here is the reply from keep Stanford wrestlin:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/KeepStanfordWRE/status/1386784907452579844?s=20[/tweet]
BC