07-14-2010, 09:52 AM
The report clearly recommends that C.a.l ditch about 6-7 sports to get more in line with the non-Stanford Pac-10 average. Using the Pac-10 norms it becomes pretty easy to find the 5 or so that are likely to be demoted or killed.
M Gym, W Gym, W Lacrosse, W Field Hockey, and Men\'s Crew all seemed destined to be reduced to club level because they are not core Pac-10 sports. And Rugby would seem to be the poster child for the type of sport that more financially disciplined Pac-10 schools have kept off the Varsity list, but I know Rugby will be saved even though the alleged set of donors probably would keep donating if the team was reduced to the club level. Â Reducing Rugby would also help with Title IX compliance.
The full report is rather interesting. Stanford is mentioned by name on 4 occassions. And in each instance C.a.l either can not meet, should not try to meet, or has not met the Stanford standard. Warmed my heart. :)
Another interesting aspect, for me at least, was that UCLA was mentioned only once. UCLA has maintained a much more realistic subsidy level due in part to better financial controls according to panel. Crazy me would think the panel would attempt to compare C.a.l against that apparently better UC AD model more frequently to really drive home that improvements are possible and practical.
M Gym, W Gym, W Lacrosse, W Field Hockey, and Men\'s Crew all seemed destined to be reduced to club level because they are not core Pac-10 sports. And Rugby would seem to be the poster child for the type of sport that more financially disciplined Pac-10 schools have kept off the Varsity list, but I know Rugby will be saved even though the alleged set of donors probably would keep donating if the team was reduced to the club level. Â Reducing Rugby would also help with Title IX compliance.
The full report is rather interesting. Stanford is mentioned by name on 4 occassions. And in each instance C.a.l either can not meet, should not try to meet, or has not met the Stanford standard. Warmed my heart. :)
Another interesting aspect, for me at least, was that UCLA was mentioned only once. UCLA has maintained a much more realistic subsidy level due in part to better financial controls according to panel. Crazy me would think the panel would attempt to compare C.a.l against that apparently better UC AD model more frequently to really drive home that improvements are possible and practical.