Rick George sucks at negotiating contracts.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Sir Larry Scott.. (P12 considering buying out Larry Scott)
- Thread starter Manti's woman
- Start date
its 8
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Real Estate in Phoenix, SLC, or Denver has to be cheaper than the Bay Area. Mike Slive's corpse would be a better fit for the Pac 12 commish gig than Larry is.
Stanford is cutting 11 varsity sports (!)
www.nytimes.com
I'm putting it in this thread because while there are obviously bigger factors here, I wonder if Stanford was getting the distribution of an Big XII school or Big1G school if they would have been able to save a few sports.
Stanford Permanently Cuts 11 Sports Amid Coronavirus Pandemic (Published 2020)
The university said in a statement that it faced a $70 million shortfall over the next three years.
I'm putting it in this thread because while there are obviously bigger factors here, I wonder if Stanford was getting the distribution of an Big XII school or Big1G school if they would have been able to save a few sports.
Big 12, no, big 10 yes. They are expecting a 25 million dollar deficit this year and 50 million if football is cancelled. If there was no covid they would have a 12 million dollar deficit and of course that is their choice to run that deficit to get those students to Stanford.Stanford is cutting 11 varsity sports (!)
Stanford Permanently Cuts 11 Sports Amid Coronavirus Pandemic (Published 2020)
The university said in a statement that it faced a $70 million shortfall over the next three years.
I'm putting it in this thread because while there are obviously bigger factors here, I wonder if Stanford was getting the distribution of an Big XII school or Big1G school if they would have been able to save a few sports.
The number of revenue-negative sports with the time and attention needed to manage them has been a huge competitive disadvantage for the Pac-12.
It's bad enough if a Pac-12 school is pulling in 25% less revenue than any school from another P5 conference.
It's so much worse when the resources from that are spread across 30 sports instead of 16.
Pac-12 compounded the problem by making its network about promoting revenue-negative sports equally as the "conference of champions" - thereby compromising its revenues by offering less valuable media content while forcing more of the overall resources onto those revenue-negative sports.
It's bad enough if a Pac-12 school is pulling in 25% less revenue than any school from another P5 conference.
It's so much worse when the resources from that are spread across 30 sports instead of 16.
Pac-12 compounded the problem by making its network about promoting revenue-negative sports equally as the "conference of champions" - thereby compromising its revenues by offering less valuable media content while forcing more of the overall resources onto those revenue-negative sports.
Not only this, the sports Stanford is getting rid of were really just ways for wealthy white kids to skirt admission requirements. Of the sports discontinued--fencing, field hockey, lightweight rowing, men's rowing, co-ed and women's sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men's volleyball and wrestling--do you know how many we competed in at Alamogordo Senior High? Zero.
My son who (humble brag) just graduated from Stanford is friends with two (wealthy, white) students who were admitted to be part of the rowing program--both coxswains. Both attended elite East Coast boarding schools. The Varsity Blues investigation, which implicated Stanford's sailing program was likely another reason for this decision.
So because those particular sports are played overwhelmingly by white kids they hold less value to their participants? Less value overall? I am sure your son's friends would have been extremely disappointed if their sport of choice was slashed while they attended.
Value to participants? I don't what you're talking about. I bet a sailing club would be valuable to the participants who like to sail, rather than to the participants who want to get into Stanford but don't have the grades or test scores.
My point is that rich people have gamed the university admission process. One of the ways they have done so it by getting recruited athletes into a competitive school outside of the normal admission process. I think you can probably figure out whether the population of rowers and fencers in high school programs is representative of the economic (not to mention racial) diversity of the country as a whole. Put another way, should a kid whose parents can afford to send her to a prep school that offers fencing be admitted to Stanford or an Ivy League school when her other (academic) qualifications are not equal to other applicants?
Or, to put it another way, I bet that even a husker could count the number of public high schools in the entire country that offer fencing as a sport.
I don't mind fencing as a sport - it's kind of fun. I like that a few colleges offer it.
The problem, as you note, is that *if preferential treatment is offered to "athletes" in terms of admissions* then having a few admissions slots for "fencing athletes" is de facto holding a few slots open for privileged white kids who wouldn't otherwise be able to earn admission on their own.
Wouldn't your assumption on these kids otherwise not being admitted apply to ALL university sports? Football, basketball, etc. ?
Wrestling and men’s volleyball are the two sports that were cut that I think are more mainstream, but that’s not really the point, IMO. The losers in this won’t be football and basketball. Not just at Stanford, but everywhere. At CU, this could impact our ski teams. Think about it: high cost, low revenue sport that doesn’t have a PAC 12 affiliation. Bad combo.
No. You can be poor AF and compete in high school football, basketball, baseball, soccer, track, cross country, golf, tennis, and girls' volleyball almost anywhere in this country. Opportunities for poor or even middle class kids to learn to fence or sail competitively are rare.
Edit: of course my point applies to all athletes (and other activities--musicians, actors, etc.) who are admitted outside the regular admission window. I have less of a problem when those activities are not so directly tied to wealth.
Last edited:
Actually those opportunities are pretty good, but they pay like ****. Good, sold work though. Many farm kids are great fencers, put up a few myself growing up.
It may comes as a surprise to you, but there’s actually not a whole lot of white kids on the Stanford fencing team, https://gostanford.com/sports/fencing/roster .
Still, feel free to tell these kids you’re glad their team is now defunct.
It would not surprise me in the least if CU Ski became a club sport (taking us down to 15 varsity sports) and then we got back to the required 16 with Women's Triathlon, which is cheap and can be part of the T&F/CC pool of scholarships for athletes who often compete across those sports.
There are a max of 5 equivalent scholarships for women and 4.5 for men. Of the 15 women 4 are international students, 5 private school kids and 6 public school kids.
Only 2 of the 14 men are international students, 5 are private school, the rest appear to be public.
I think the point being is none of these kids were limited by financial considerations were the scholarship made the difference in attending or not attending college. Yes it is a lost opportunity for some, but could easily drop to club level, like at most universities.
Wow, really good call. I'm sure those Asian kids really added to the diversity at . . . Stanford.
I wonder why you didn't link to the rowing roster? Or women's field hockey?
Do you have a factual dispute with what I posted? Do you want to make the case that athletes that participate in rowing, field hockey, fencing, et al. do not come predominately from financially well-off families. If so, please continue, but your silly posts that I should feel bad becasue one more lane of privilege for the wealthy is finally being narrowed are weak AF.
Last edited:
You brought up fencing and also put forth that they are all "rich white kids". That's not at all the case.Wow, really good call. I'm sure those Asian kids really added to the diversity at . . . Stanford.
I wonder why you didn't link to the rowing roster? Or women's field hockey?
Do you have a factual dispute with what I posted. Do you want to make the case that athletes that participate in rowing, field hockey, fencing, et al. do not come predominately from financially well-off families. If so, please continue, but your silly posts that I should feel bad becasue one more lane of privilege for the wealthy is finally being narrowed are weak AF.
I'm not here to review each roster with you. My point of posting in response is that you seem to believe it's ok for certain groups to lose their collegiate sport. Actually not just ok, but you seemed pretty happy about it. My take is, rich or poor, black or white, it sucks for these kids. Period. I don't know why we need to separate the kids into groups and rank who deserves it and who doesn't. Seems pretty ****ty.
It's true, I don't think providing additional admissions to elite universities to the sons and daughters of mostly wealthy families is in society's interest. In my view, most of the sports Stanford just ended did just that. So, yes, I'm happy that the future students whose parents could send them to a private school with a crew or field hockey team will not be admitted to an elite university because of their privilege.
I say this because I'm well aware of the privileged background of most of those that attend elite universities--the legacies; the privileged douchebags like Kushner and Trump who donate millions so their sub-par children can claim an elite education; and even my own children who, though earning their admissions through what passes for a meritocracy (grades and test scores), had access to private education only available to very few Americans. In the face of that sort of inequality, I'm hard pressed to see anything good about creating more space for the scions of wealth.
As for the sports themselves, I doubt club fencing, sailing, and rowing is so much less competitive than the varsity version of these sports. It's not like the athletes are on scholarship either way.
So it is OK to lump them in with the "rich white kids" and "privileged duchebags?". It always amazes me how people so openly dismiss recognizing Asians as being a minority simply because they are the one minority group that has, as a whole, succeeded where other minorities haven't. They have had to deal with all the same issues other minorities have.Wow, really good call. I'm sure those Asian kids really added to the diversity at . . . Stanford.
why skiing? given CU's perennial status as national champ contender, it seems to me like skiing would be one of the last to go on the chopping block
Damn, I really hit a nerve with some of you. To be clear, my post about "privileged douchebags" referred specifically to wealthy parents who buy their children admission to elite universities. I even specifically noted Trump and Kushner.
As for "rich white kids," that is simply an accurate description of the majority of students at elite universities.
Finally, my initial point was about wealth, not race. Wealthy people of any race can pay for their kids to go to a school that offers the athletic programs that feed the squash, crew, and fencing teams of elite universities. My post about the racial makeup of the Stanford student body was only in response to a poster who elided my point about wealth into one about race.
I understand your point, you are using these sports as a symbol of what is wrong with elite universities. The reality is that with or without these sports, the elite universities are going to have the same general student body. While I am sure there is some abuse of these sports as a way to get otherwise unqualified students into elite schools, I would bet that most of these kids are truly passionate and accomplished in these sports, no matter how elitist the sports may seem to most people. I see a bunch of kids participating and being recognized for being accomplished in a sport. For that reason I don't see Stanford dropping the sports as something to cheer about as some small measure of social justice.
Um, millions of African American slaves and their descendants would like a word.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm aware of several who quit the sport after a couple of years (but stayed at the elite university).
Also, there are a lot of truly passionate athletes that play club, not varsity, sports. I knew a few who played club hockey at CU and some who played club rugby at DU. They practiced hard and traveled to tournaments and had a great time--was their experience worse because the school wasn't paying for their coaches and expenses? I don't think so.
A few reasons: one, it’s expensive; two, it doesn’t generate any revenue; three, it’s not a sanctioned PAC 12 sport. I agree it’s a legacy sport at CU and we have done extremely well in it over the years. That has kept it from being eliminated before now. In the current economic climate, I can easily see a scenario where skiing is eliminated. I don’t like it, but it wouldn’t surprise me, given the state of things.
I agree. I just don't think demonizing the kids that participate in those sports is the best argument to make for getting rid of them as intercollegiate sports.
Is there any need for these to be scholarship granting sports and not just high level club sports. Equivalency sports cost money. They take away from other sports that are more accessible to every high school student in the country. I have no doubt that some of these students are passionate and very good at their sport, but I don't see the need to fund them at the varsity level or grant special admissions for them. I would rather that scholarship money be reallocated to other equivalency sports that enjoy a broader, nationwide, participation.
Here is a list of all equivalency sports:
Men's
Baseball.........................................11.7
Cross Country/Track and Field .....12.6
Fencing............................................4.5
Golf..................................................4.5
Gymnastics......................................6.3
Lacrosse........................................12.6
Rifle.................................................3.6
Skiing ..............................................6.3
Soccer.............................................9.9
Swimming and Diving.....................9.9
Tennis.............................................4.5
Volleyball........................................4.5
Water Polo.....................................4.5
Wrestling .......................................9.9
Women's
Bowling ...........................................5
Cross Country/Track and Field......18
Equestrian ....................................15
Fencing...........................................5
Field Hockey ................................12
Golf.................................................6
Lacrosse.......................................12
Rowing .........................................20
Rugby...........................................12
Skiing ............................................7
Soccer..........................................14
Softball ........................................12
Swimming and Diving..................14
Triathlon........................................6.5
Water Polo....................................8
Headcount sports are Football (85) and Basketball (13) on the men's side and Basketball (15), Volleyball (12), Gymnastics (12), and Tennis (8) on the Women's side.
I would rather see more resources shifted CC/TF and Soccer than having Equestrian or Fencing (for example) as varsity sports. Many of these sports are what I think of as legacy sports, the sports that were prevalent on the east coast at the Ivy's and others. Most of these sports would see just as much participation if they were club level, but without the expense to the athletic department.