[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.  Very informative.  So I can now respect that many view the Directors' Cup as a symbol of the commitment to and sustained success of Stanford's myriad varsity sports.  Fair enough.

What I think is going unsaid though is the tremendous financial resource advantage Stanford enjoys relative to other schools.  As we all know, the athletic department endowment dwarfs those of other schools (I'm sure my numbers are stale, but I remember reading articles in the last 2-3 years describing the advantage as 10x-20x most other programs' athletic endowments, meaning Stanford has hundreds of millions of dollars more at its disposal).  Unlike other athletic departments that rely overwhelmingly on the revenue sports to support the non-revenue sports, Stanford can sustain athletic programs with endowment returns.  This does not detract in any way from the accomplishments of the student athletes who compete at a world class level and balance that with the academic demands.  They are truly amazing and inspiring.  But, I think it is more than a little disingenuous to look down on schools that focus more on revenue sports and/or can't field 30+ varsity teams without at least acknowledging that Stanford is playing by a different set of rules (from a resource-constraint perspective).

Again, this does not diminish the achievements or success, in my view.  My point is only that I struggle with a romantic notion of Stanford exceptionalism that ignores the financial realities that give us a brobdingnagian competitive advantage (especially if we are not shy about noting the competitive disadvantages we face in admitting student athletes who can handle the academic rigors).  A cynical person (not me, I swear) could fairly say that what is most exceptional about Stanford athletics is the number and magnitude of donations to the university that are earmarked for sports.

Just my two cents.  Welcome your thoughts.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.  Very informative.  So I can now respect that many view the Directors' Cup as a symbol of the commitment to and sustained success of Stanford's myriad varsity sports.  Fair enough.

What I think is going unsaid though is the tremendous financial resource advantage Stanford enjoys relative to other schools.  As we all know, the athletic department endowment dwarfs those of other schools (I'm sure my numbers are stale, but I remember reading articles in the last 2-3 years describing the advantage as 10x-20x most other programs' athletic endowments, meaning Stanford has hundreds of millions of dollars more at its disposal).  Unlike other athletic departments that rely overwhelmingly on the revenue sports to support the non-revenue sports, Stanford can sustain athletic programs with endowment returns.  This does not detract in any way from the accomplishments of the student athletes who compete at a world class level and balance that with the academic demands.  They are truly amazing and inspiring.  But, I think it is more than a little disingenuous to look down on schools that focus more on revenue sports and/or can't field 30+ varsity teams without at least acknowledging that Stanford is playing by a different set of rules (from a resource-constraint perspective).

Again, this does not diminish the achievements or success, in my view.  My point is only that I struggle with a romantic notion of Stanford exceptionalism that ignores the financial realities that give us a brobdingnagian competitive advantage (especially if we are not shy about noting the competitive disadvantages we face in admitting student athletes who can handle the academic rigors).  A cynical person (not me, I swear) could fairly say that what is most exceptional about Stanford athletics is the number and magnitude of donations to the university that are earmarked for sports.

Just my two cents.  Welcome your thoughts.