Appeal ‘fell on deaf ears’ at Stanford

In July, Dartmouth announced it was eliminating five sports due to budget concerns exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic; last month the school reversed course and restored the sports.

In September, William and Mary announced it was eliminating seven sports due to COVID19 budget concerns; within two months, after pressure from alumni, the decision was reversed.

But those who are working hard to save the 11 teams that Stanford announced in July it will ax due to budget concerns find their pleas falling into a void. The lack of response from the university comes despite compelling evidence the group has collected that shows Stanford’s draconian decision does little to correct its financial dilemma.

“I am shocked at the lack of willingness to really listen and dig in,” said former Cardinal basketball star Jennifer Azzi, a member of “36 Sports Strong,” a group of alumni from all Stanford sports working to overturn the July decision.

“Instead, we were told ‘It’s time to heal.’ ”

Azzi said she and others from “36 Sports Strong” were offered that platitude in a late December meeting with three members of the university’s board of trustees, during which they presented an alternative solution.

“It fell on deaf ears,” said Olympic fencer and Stanford alum Alexander Massialas. “It was really shocking to me.”

The three trustees involved in the meeting were Jeffrey Raikes, Mindy Rogers and Gene Sykes. In response to requests for their point of view on the meeting, the university released this statement:

“The meeting was productive, and the Trustees expressed a desire to stay in contact with the group as Stanford continues to pursue excellence in all the varsity sports it will support moving forward.”

The “36 Sports Strong” members believe their presentation to the trustees showed the flaws in the university’s financial reasoning behind cutting the sports. By Stanford’s own calculations, cutting the 11 sports eventually will save $8 million per year. But the university projects an athletic department deficit of over $33 million this year, eventually becoming a “steadystate” deficit of $11 million a year, even after eliminating the sports.

That “steadystate” deficit relies on optimistic future projections that include, in part, a projected 25% increase in a new Pac12 Networks deal (the current deal expires in 2024). Some believe that is an overly buoyant prediction, given how Pac12 broadcasts have performed in recent years. The calculations also depend on an increase in supporter gifts to the department; but the “36 Sports Strong” group said it already has evidence that many donors are upset with the department’s recent decisions and have scaled back donations. In any event, even by Stanford’s own optimistic calculations, eliminating sports does not solve the department’s deficit issues.

Supporters of the targeted sports say the real issue isn’t spending on individual teams but bloating inside the athletic department. According to their findings, there has been an 84% increase in compensation and benefits between 2012, the last year under former athletic director Bob Bowlsby, and 2020 under athletic director Bernard Muir. Eliminating 11 of the least expensive sports the university offers does little to correct the issue.

“Until they get their expenses in line, the financial situation will only get worse,” Massialas said. “We presented them with a realistic path back to financial solvency.”

In the seven months since Stanford made the shocking announcement, the volunteers working to save the 11 sports have secured more than $40 million in pledges. That is a healthy start toward endowing the sports and, in turn, saving Stanford’s reputation as the “school of champions” and an Olympic incubator. The group is asking that, in addition to reversing its decision, the university allow for a fiveyear “runway” toward making Olympic sports selfsustaining.

“From a development standpoint, it’s pretty shocking what a bunch of volunteers have been able to do,” Massialas said. “And the (trustees) we met with seemed to have no idea that we have done that.”

According to Massialas, the trustees in the meeting disputed the numbers that were presented, even though they were culled from Stanford’s own sources, including posted budgets and information that Muir presented to the athletic department. In developing their presentation, the “36 Sports Strong” group also received guidance from some deeppocketed Stanford alumni and donors, who rank among the titans of Silicon Valley and are intimately familiar with the university’s financial situation, but who prefer to stay in the background.

“When they said, ‘those aren’t our numbers,’ we pointed out that they actually were their numbers,” Massialas said. “But when we asked them to show us their numbers they didn’t respond. Shouldn’t there be transparency?”

Those working to reinstate the sports say they have found transparency and open communication from the university sorely lacking.

“It is so hurtful and bothers me so deeply, because I love Stanford,” said Azzi, who works in development for University of San Francisco. “Presidents and provosts, athletic directors and coaches, they all come and go. The lifelong relationship is between the university and the alumni.

“We are a group of passionate, successful people, who know how to win championships and who want to find a solution. And the university does not appear to care.”

The fact that other schools have reversed similar decisions gives the group hope. At both Dartmouth and William and Mary, alumni brought pressure, threatened legal procedures and raised endowment funds. At William and Mary, athletic director Samantha Huge was forced out as a result of her decision. Huge, who worked with Muir at Delaware, admitted to plagiarizing her statement about cutting sports directly from Stanford’s statement.

Despite the lack of positive response in the meeting with trustees, Massialas does not think their meeting was a waste of time.

“We were able to present information that they clearly didn’t know about,” he said. “I don’t think there’s been enough oversight in the decisionmaking process.

“We’ve seen what has happened at Dartmouth and William and Mary. We hope Stanford will become more receptive to reversing the decision.”