Started By
Message
Well, surprise. Stanford is pretty smart.
Posted on 7/8/20 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 7/8/20 at 10:11 pm
They probably didn’t HAVE to do what they did, but they used the cover of Covid to axe programs bleeding money from their AD, multiple coaches and support staff that don’t pay for themselves and were able to do it without receiving any backlash. Hell, they’re getting sympathy.
Pretty slick iyam
Pretty slick iyam
6
Posted on 7/9/20 at 12:18 am to JesusQuintana
I absolutely agree and the radical feminists are not saying anything I’ve heard about the loss of the female sports either. Covid appears to be Title 9 proof?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 12:21 am to moester75
Wasnt it an equal amount of men and womens sports?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:38 am to JesusQuintana
quote:
and were able to do it without receiving any backlash
Why would they get any backlash?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 2:33 am to RD Dawg
quote:
Why would they get any backlash?
You’re not at all surprised that Stanford pretty much just cut dead weight from their athletic department and not any heat at all has been thrown their way?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 3:42 am to moester75
quote:
You’re not at all surprised that Stanford pretty much just cut dead weight from their athletic department and not any heat at all has been thrown their way
Under the current circumstances? Of course
not. They have a projected $70 million deficit over the next 3 years.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 6:40 am to JesusQuintana
It is not a surprise in the least. A lot of schools are pouring money down the drain when it comes to their athletics. Folks have been saying for quite some time that this was unsustainable. Well all it took was a pandemic hanging over our heads for all those chickens to come home to roost.
A lot of schools, including some major ones, are going to have to quietly axe some of their non-revenue sports.
A lot of schools, including some major ones, are going to have to quietly axe some of their non-revenue sports.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 7:13 am to RD Dawg
quote:
They have a projected $70 million deficit over the next 3 years.
Haha, that’s a good one. Losing money on programs has not been a silencer in the past.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 7:52 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
Haha, that’s a good one. Losing money on programs has not been a silencer in the past.
$25 million in a year? What was the last program to do that?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 8:03 am to JesusQuintana
Pretty brilliant, use the pandemic to your fiscal advantage.
And being that they are a pac10 school, no one would notice anyway.
And being that they are a pac10 school, no one would notice anyway.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 8:15 am to RD Dawg
quote:
They have a projected $70 million deficit over the next 3 years.
No doubt in my mind that a lot of departments run tight by having to fund non-revenue programs.
That being said, the cynical side of me also thinks about the amount of shared money from conferences, television contracts, apparel deals, etc. and believes that some of these huge Power Five deficits could be a bit of creative accounting.
You know how those big movies sometimes bring in millions of dollars and yet they claim to never make a profit, or even lose money?
I've just got to think that the on-paper figures are worse than the real numbers, or a lot these programs would have been defunded years ago.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 8:20 am to RD Dawg
Money lost does not stop the justice warriors of our country. That is the point. If something quells the voices then that is a surprise.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 8:32 am to paperwasp
quote:
You know how those big movies sometimes bring in millions of dollars and yet they claim to never make a profit, or even lose money?
IDK about other athletic departments but the UGA AD has to pay the school the full cost of tuition,books etc for every schololorship athlete. It's not like the old days with the "extra desk" policy.(zero sum gain for every athlete on scholarship) I'm assuming this is pretty clear cut across the board and most athletic depts have way too many employees
and many have been getting by on the narrowist of margins.
quote:
I've just got to think that the on-paper figures are worse than the real numbers, or a lot these programs would have been defunded years ago
I've never seen or heard of losses and projections this bad.
Who knows if they're cooking the books and
Stanford is a private institution so they really don't have to be transparent.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 8:39 am to JesusQuintana
How many of those sports were NCAA sanctioned sports?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 8:40 am to RD Dawg
True, I'm just basing that cyncism on gut feeling and nothing else.
Could be 100% legit, which is sort of scary for the majority of non-P5 programs, especially.
Could be 100% legit, which is sort of scary for the majority of non-P5 programs, especially.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 8:42 am to CBP3110
quote:
How many of those sports were NCAA sanctioned sports?
quote:
NCAA DI members have now cut 56 sports - the most in 14 yrs (66 in 2006).
By sport
Tennis 15
Glf 5
Swim 5
Track 4
Fencng 4
BSB 3
Sqsh 3
Rowng: 3
Soccer: 2
XC 2
Sailing: 2
Wrestling: 2
Six sports at 1: Vball, Skiing, SBall, LaX, Eqstrian, FHockey
By gender
Men 33
Women 22
Coed 1
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:26 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
Money lost does not stop the justice warriors of our country. That is the point. If something quells the voices then that is a surprise
It's pretty black & white but obviously not enough to ditch title IX. THAT would be the tipping point.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:32 am to paperwasp
quote:
No doubt in my mind that a lot of departments run tight by having to fund non-revenue programs.
That being said, the cynical side of me also thinks about the amount of shared money from conferences, television contracts, apparel deals, etc. and believes that some of these huge Power Five deficits could be a bit of creative accounting.
You know how those big movies sometimes bring in millions of dollars and yet they claim to never make a profit, or even lose money?
I've just got to think that the on-paper figures are worse than the real numbers, or a lot these programs would have been defunded years ago.
You asked
I delivered
Creative Accounting Explained
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:55 am to PeeJayScammedGT
These athletic administrators are getting ready for a massive shortfall when the boosters don't re-up for donations because they don't want to watch protesters play football, or any other sport. Ain't nobody paying $20k for a skybox to watch people tear down statues.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 10:02 am to PeeJayScammedGT
quote:
You asked
I delivered
Creative Accounting Explained
Great article.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News