back in the 1980's and the friend is livid about this change, because some years ago, field hockey alums approached Stanford about endowing the program and Stanford told them, "No need - we've got it covered."
but this move seems to be mostly unrelated to money. Stanford's freshmen class only has 1700 slots, and it seems that they just don't want to commit admissions slots to these sports. Among other reasons, the demographics of these sports skews white and upper middle class, and that's not a group they want to be giving preferential admission to.
Stanford's press release is linked. It struck me as thorough and candid. Here are a few excerpts:
2nd paragraph -- "Stanford currently offers more varsity sports than nearly every other D1 university .... providing 36 varsity teams with the level of support they deserve has become a serious and growing financial challenge."
3rd paragraph -- "We now face the reality that significant change is needed to create fiscal stability for Stanford Athletics."
7th paragraph -- "We felt it was imperative to confront the financial challenge before it worsened .... and to exhaust all alternatives before making profound changes in our programs."
9th paragraph -- "The decision to discontinue these 11 varsity sports programs comes down primarily to finances and competitive excellence."
10th paragraph -- "The financial model supporting 36 varsity sports is not sustainable. The average D1 program sponsors 18 varsity sports. In fact, only one university at the D1 FBS level sponsored more varsity sports than Stanford prior to this change, and that institution does so with a significantly larger budget. Many of our peers at the P5 level are supported by budgets that are much larger than ours while operating far fewer sports. Stanford's more than 850 varsity student-athletes today represent 12% of our undergraduate population, a far higher percentage than exists at nearly all of our peer institutions."
16th paragraph -- "While painful, the discontinuation of these 11 sports at the varsity level and the associated reductions in our support staff will create a path for Stanford Athletics to return to fiscal stability while maintaining gender equity and competitiveness."
The release then delineates 10 criteria that were used for evaluating which sports to discontinue. The first listed criterion is sponsorship at the D1 level. The release cites the following sponsorship statistics:
1. Six of the 11 discontinued sports are not NCAA-sponsored championships;
2. All 11 are sponsored by less than 22% of the 350+ D1 schools;
3. Nine of the 11 are sponsored by less than 9% of D1 schools (so ~30 or fewer competitors);
4. Eight of the 11 feature a total of four west coast D1 competitors: two for field hockey, one for the squash programs and none for the other five sports.
The release makes the incremental points that permanently sustaining the 11 discontinued programs would cost more than $200 million and that ensuring success of the 25 retained programs will require an even larger amount. Stanford professes full commitment to fund-raising for the amount required for the retained programs.
Stanford's narrative is an excellent read for anybody with an interest in college athletics and the sustainability of the operating model, COVID or otherwise.
Here are a few miscellaneous observations: Ohio State is the unnamed FBS peer with more sponsored sports and a much larger budget. The release implies that Stanford does not broadly regard the Ivies as a peer in athletics. Stanford's re-sized athletic program will now much more closely approximate ND's in size. And, lastly, Stanford seems uninterested in tolerating mediocrity, or "having a program just to have a program," though, by financial necessity, it may have greater flexibility on this desire for major revenue sports like football and men's basketball.
in this case, there is also extra consternation because the AD's daughter apparently plays on a team whose sport was *not* cancelled. Perhaps a coincidence, but at the very least, the optics aren't good.
Complicating this even more is the fact that I *think* the parents were hoping their daughter would be able to play in one of the sports are Stanford that got axed.
All in all, my wife's friend is hacked off about the whole thing.
What does it cost to fully “endow” a program like Stanford field hockey? My guess would be $20-30 million, maybe even $30-40 million, assuming a 5% draw.
Coaches, global recruiting, probably several scholarships, probably substantial non-scholarship aid, extensive travel, insurance, facilities costs, equipment, medical costs, eventual facilities upgrades — some of these are very material costs. Some might be regarded as pre-existing sunk costs, but most clearly aren’t. D1 field hockey rosters include heavy representation from countries — the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, others — where it’s basically unthinkable to spend $75k per year attending college, as the local cost is a minor fraction of the elite US private cost. (Sadly, field hockey has long been on a declining trajectory in the US, losing ground versus soccer and lacrosse.)
Small bit of trivia: the past five years, Stanford has competed in field hockey in America East, which is the conference that Vermont, UNH and Maine compete in. Stanford was one of four California schools in America East’s field hockey configuration, but now it and Pacific have dropped the sport. Field hockey is very heavily an east-of-the-Mississippi sport, so Stanford would have to make several transcontinental trips per season to fill out a schedule.
Another question is the extent to which alumni/ae willingness to endow should be allowed to bind an institution to retaining programs it may eventually decide it no longer wants to retain. Stanford is nationally-competitive in most of the sports it just cut. In many of these sports, they don’t really recruit; rather, in the immortal words of Al Maguire, they “select.” However, are they really remaining nationally competitive — defending national champion in at least one sport they just cut — with rosters filled with kids with 1450+ on the SAT? Doubtful.
Not commenting on Stanford specifically, but Rick Singer’s infamous “side door” was fairly conclusive that athletic recruiting isn’t just an access edge, or “hook.” It’s also a qualifications edge. Field hockey and otherwise, how many admissions slots is Stanford, probably the most difficult admissions ticket in the US (sub-5% acceptance and probably sub-2% for candidates without a “hook”), supposed to carve out for sports?
While college athletic programs have become unsustainably bloated, the cuts are obviously soul-crushing for the impacted athletes, incoming recruits, soon-to-sign recruits, coaches and program alumni. Very sad and unfortunate, even from a distance. Everybody impacted should be upset about having “their” program cut. No matter how robust the rationale underpinning the decision, your wife’s friend is certainly justifiably peeved.
I wasn't aware until now they had nuked the program in 2019, so yes, Stanford was the only D1 program west of the Mississippi, if I am not misaken.
My wife played D3. And one of my daughters was a good player, too, though more D3-caliber than D1. At the end of the day, she decided she would rather spend life under the Golden Dome sans varsity field hockey than, for example, at a NESCAC school that does play.
For awhile, I had hoped that Savvy Jack would initiate a program at ND, as about half the ACC fields a team, as does a majority of the B1G. But rolling out new programs doesn’t seem a sensible conversation these days.
There are still a few other programs west of the Mississippi: SLU scrapes it, Iowa has a strong program, and both Berkeley and UC-Davis are, to my knowledge, still waving the California flag in America East. I thought Denver also had a program, probably because my daughter had attended a camp there, but it seems that they do not.