Jack, he's pretty crafty.
Once the pressure is exerted by multiple groups (as happened at Brown and others) the Board usually finds T&F cuts unpalatable.
The “open letter” announcing the cuts is linked below and is a good read. It speaks exhaustively about the financial pressures arising from their super-sized athletics program.
Bummer to see Clemson make these cuts: heart goes out to the athletes, their coaches, the recruits and the program alumni. I infer from your concluding question that you suspect many additional schools will have to adjust their athletic programs and agree with that.
Stanford admits around 1700 students per year and has an acceptance rate under 5%. An acceptance to Stanford's freshmen class is extremely coveted, and they don't have a large number of them to play with. Stanford didn't want to commit so many preferred admissions slots to sports that skew upper middle class and white. The common belief is this a more significant consideration than "financial pressure."
The “open letter” was candid and thorough, detailing the super-sized nature of Stanford’s program, how narrowly competed many of the eliminated sports are, the logistical challenges of being a west coast competitor in many sports and the substantial financial shortfalls.
Your interpretation may have factored in, but it’s a reach to say it’s more important than the financial considerations. If Stanford can’t afford to continue operating the super-sized program or no longer wants to prioritize it for massive subsidies, then all other considerations become secondary in comparison.