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.