Ohio U. TF- The Real Story - Behind the Axe

Who's next? Earl Jones?

you want to protest at OU? DON'T RUN CROSS COUNTRY. as wejo points out on the front page, they are keeping cross so they can keep their minimum number of men's sports. they need you to field a team now, they need their 6. just refuse, start a boycott, see how they like it. if they try to add another sport, get them to boycott too.

rixctf wrote:

you want to protest at OU? DON'T RUN CROSS COUNTRY. as wejo points out on the front page, they are keeping cross so they can keep their minimum number of men's sports. they need you to field a team now, they need their 6. just refuse, start a boycott, see how they like it. if they try to add another sport, get them to boycott too.

'

I started a thread which addressed this situation, but got no responses, possibly due to the timing of the thread.

ONe of the most despicable things in our sport are the colleges who eliminate their track programs but continue to sponsor cross country. They obviously don't care about the sport; they just need a low-cost to maintain the mininum number of sports to remain DI.

I not only would like to see athletes not run cross country, but I'd like to see a boycott of the coaching profession to scum-joints like this.

Would the NCAA come down on schools like Ohio if they sponsored XC, but had no runners or couldn't find a coach?

well, then i'm bumping this, because i'm curious what better informed folks think about a possible cross country boycott. it'd be cool if you could get the women to boycott too.

what about xc scholarships - they will still have men's scholarhips aren't they and there are women on scholarships also. can't boycott if you are on scholarship

SW Poppy Queen wrote:

what about xc scholarships - they will still have men's scholarhips aren't they and there are women on scholarships also. can't boycott if you are on scholarship

good point, what about scholarships? how much does men's cross get? are the the cross guys getting a considerable amount, or are they about to become sell outs for a few grand? lots of schools have like 1-2 scholarships for men's cross, and guys end up getting a few grand because it gets split up. is that the case at OU?

and of course, having a team is one thing, but the rules are also something like for cross to stay compliant a the school must field a team in six events. athletes could stay within guidelines to keep a scholarship by showing up to practice and races, but pull up sick/injured at the meet. unions use these informal tactics all the time, but i'm not sure to what success.

also, does the coach have control over the scholarships? meaning, if athletes did show up sick on race day, is it up to the coach to decide if they are putting up their end of the athlete/coach agreement. does the coach control if the scholarship is renewed or not? if it is completely up to the coach, then i say there's nothing wrong with coach looking the other way on this and showing a little solidarity with the team.

SW Poppy Queen wrote:

what about xc scholarships - they will still have men's scholarhips aren't they and there are women on scholarships also. can't boycott if you are on scholarship

What runner who is able to get a D1 scholarship in XC would go to a school where the track team has been cut?? That seems a little odd to me that any runner would consider. Hell, why would anyone attempt to walk on a XC team without a Track team.

(I do know if they are there to get an education..but chances are that is a MAC school is offer a scholarship, there would be other schools offering as well.)

Dauby wrote:

SW Poppy Queen wrote:

what about xc scholarships - they will still have men's scholarhips aren't they and there are women on scholarships also. can't boycott if you are on scholarship

What runner who is able to get a D1 scholarship in XC would go to a school where the track team has been cut?? That seems a little odd to me that any runner would consider. Hell, why would anyone attempt to walk on a XC team without a Track team.

(I do know if they are there to get an education..but chances are that is a MAC school is offer a scholarship, there would be other schools offering as well.)

because they are already there - on scholarship

Dauby wrote:

What runner who is able to get a D1 scholarship in XC would go to a school where the track team has been cut?? That seems a little odd to me that any runner would consider. Hell, why would anyone attempt to walk on a XC team without a Track team.

(I do know if they are there to get an education..but chances are that is a MAC school is offer a scholarship, there would be other schools offering as well.)

another good point. older cross guys on scholarship have a tough decision to make, but guys coming out of high school, younger guys on the team, and non-scholarship runners should maybe walk away from OU and support an OU cross country boycott.

Do the schools like Bowling Green and Toledo that sponsor cross country after having dropped track continue to give scholarships in XC? I doubt very much that they do, but I'm curious. I don't think you have to give scholarships to a sport to sponsor the sport and be recognized by the NCAA.

Dominic Middleton wrote:

Watching what is happening to the MAC is terrible, and all other conferences better watch out.

I think you mean all other non-BCS D1 conferences. Even rather cruddy programs at places like K-State, Mississippi State, Northwestern, Washington State, and Duke (nothing against those specific programs, just to use an example from each conference: Big 12, SEC, Big 10, Pac-10, ACC) will survive for the most part thanks to the bowl money and (for the larger part) NCAA tourney money that is comparatively lacking in conferences like the MAC, Big Sky, SoCon, A-10, and other relatively small-scale conferences in D1. Oregon State is a glaring void among BCS conference schools as far as having lost men's t&f and xc, but that happened at a point when bowl money and NCAA tourney money was not flowing nearly as freely as it is now. I'd doubt that OSU would cut those programs if they still existed, and have little doubt that OSU will be the next athletic department to add men's t&f and xc to their roster of varsity sports. St. John's is a special case and maybe with the expansion of the Big East the coffers will be full enough again soon for them to add men's t&f and xc again. It seems to me that at least one other Big East program is missing men's t&f/xc, but it's escaping me at the moment.

"...And folks, the bill for Division I-A sports is now immense and will only get bigger in the future. To give you an idea of the real costs, we can take for an example the case of the University of Wisconsin, a Division I-A school. In a recent story in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “A Look at the Future Bottom Line of Big-Time Sports,” Welch Suggs says “there is one certainty for administrators of big-time sports programs: If you want to compete at the highest level [that’s clearly the aspiration of the Gottfried brothers], it’s going to cost you a lot of money” (11/12/99). Suggs bases this assertion on two reports on the finances of the athletic department at the University of Wisconsin. One report, a state audit, raised concerns about the department’s debts and another report, the department’s own annual budget, predicts that budget will grow from $39.6-million in 1999-2000 to $50.5-million in 2004-05. Of course football has been taking the lion’s share, but it’s also the engine driving the growth of other sports at Wisconsin. With the success of football and the comeback of basketball and ice hockey, Wisconsin has now built three major competition venues, along with practice facilities and academic-support centers. The biggest of these is the $76-million Kohl Center (Ibid.).

The problem is, however, that even though ticket revenues and other income sources have risen, they still haven’t been enough to cover the athletic department’s loss of $1.1-million last year. That department also lost $286,700 on the trip to the Rose Bowl, despite receiving $1.1-million in conference payouts from the game. In addition, “the 75-year-old football stadium needs major renovations to meet building-code requirements, and its seating areas, concourses, and concession stands need upgrading. The total cost of that work is estimated at $40-million.” “Other building projects include a new natatorium ($11.5-million), the second phase of improving a track-and-soccer complex ($5-million), and a new boathouse for the rowing teams ($3-million). In all, the construction projects are expected to cost $59.5- million ” (Ibid.). And Wisconsin is not the only university facing huge sports cost; “Wisconsin’s rivals in the Big Ten will be facing similar pressures on their budgets in coming years ” (Ibid.)....\"

\"...Doing the same analysis with a lower profile conference such as the Mid-American shows even a much more serious imbalance between income and expenses. Table 3 reveals that all 11 schools loose money in football (average = $947, 445), and men’s (average=$220,484) and women’s basketball (average=$327,966). As well, the average deficit for all other men’s sports was $777,591, and for all other women\'s sports was $996,454. As a conglomerate these institutions had an average athletic deficit of $3,269,940, with a range of $2,903,143 for Western Michigan to $4,210,706 for Kent State. Consequently, unlike the higher profile ACC where football and men\'s basketball can pay for other athletic programs, Mid-Atlantic Conference Athletic Programs do not generate sufficient income in any sports to offset costs in other areas....\"

"...Even winning schools, however, lose vast amounts of money on their athletic departments. One of Sperber’s targets is the myth that big-time sports can be cash cows for a university if they field winners. Not so. The NCAA admits in its regular financial reports that most college athletics departments lose money, but the author notes that, “because of the accounting tricks used by almost all athletic departments, the NCAA reports are only partially accurate, and the actual annual deficit numbers are much higher than the NCAA and member schools admit publicly.” Accounting tricks? Nothing so tricky really—they simply allocate many costs that should be attributed to sports to the general university budget. Prof. Andrew Zimbalist made the same point in his book Unpaid Professionals last year. For example, a claimed surplus of $1.78 million by the University of Massachusetts basketball team in 1997 turned into a loss of more than $1 million once an array of expenses ranging from videotape to advertising were properly allocated.

Even big winners can be big losers. Sperber points to the University of Wisconsin’s football team, winners of the Rose Bowl in 1999 and 2000. For its 1999 appearance, the university was paid $1.8 million. However, the expenses of the trip to Pasadena were $2.1 million. How could a trip for a football team cost so much? For starters, the UW traveling party came to 832 people, many of them university officials and their spouses. Then, everyone stayed in a top-notch Beverly Hills hotel and ate and drank in style. A corporate travel planner is quoted as saying that the trip could have been done for one fifth of the cost, but athletic departments are not concerned with economy. All that high-class treatment of the officials will pay off in future support..."

"Do the schools like Bowling Green and Toledo that sponsor cross country after having dropped track continue to give scholarships in XC? I doubt very much that they do, but I'm curious. I don't think you have to give scholarships to a sport to sponsor the sport and be recognized by the NCAA."

I do believe that BG, Toledo, and other schools that sponsor XC but not track do give out a limited amount of scholarships. However, it is definitely a losing battle as it is unlikely that any quality runners will ever go to a school that doesn't have track.

On the men's side in the MAC, it is strictly going to be two races -those with track teams and those without (the haves and have nots). Really, really unfortunate!

Just passing on an updated version of what I posted which was sent to me by another high school coach in Ohio.

Track & Field coaches, athletes and friends

Please get involved to SAVE TRACK & FIELD

Ohio University is the latest to drop its Men's Track and Field program. Ohio University joins Bowling Green, Toledo, Ball State, Western Michigan, Marshall and West Virginia who all dropped track and field in the last few years. Ohio will now offer only 16 sports - the minimum required to remain a Division I-A program

{ Men (6 sports remain) - Baseball, Basketball, Cross Country, Football, Golf and Wrestling}

{ Women (10 sports offered) - Basketball, Cross Country, Golf, Indoor T&F, Outdoor T&F, Soccer, Softball, Swimming & Diving, and Volleyball }

With Title IX issues at hand, track, nationwide, has been a target. The NCAA counts indoor and outdoor as separate seasons. With 55 men on its T&F roster Ohio University can easily eliminate 110 male athletes in order to achieve gender equity.

While it must be granted that Ohio University's new AD (on the job for 18 months) was saddled with a negative cash flow, and a title IX compliance problem, his choice in sports to be dropped can be called into question. Especially when schools like Wright State University, an NCAA DI program in Fairborn, Ohio, is adding men's track & field.

First: - There are 728 boys' high school track and field teams in Ohio according to the Ohio High School Athletic Association. Of the twelve boys Championships the OHSAA sponsors, track and field has the third most schools sponsoring a team. Only basketball and baseball have more high schools represented in OHSAA than track and field. With the popularity of high school track and field one wonders why this sport is being cut.

Second - Track & Field is one of the oldest sports at Ohio University. Its fine tradition started in the early 1900's.

Third - Track and Field teams are very diverse and provide unique opportunities for minority students. A few years ago an African American trustee at a "State University" spoke out loudly about not dropping track and field, as it was one of the main sports that had a large number of African-Americans and minority students on the team. He pointed out how this school's overall African-American and minority student population was low. He stressed to his fellow trustees that it would be a bad policy to reduce the opportunity for minorities. This university kept track and field. Perhaps Ohio University's trustee's need to be reminded of this by all the important African-American politicians and business people in Ohio.

Fourth - What good distance runner will be attracted to a school that only offers cross country. Just look at the programs in the first paragraph. None of the have a respectable men's cross country program. This is the primary reason that Wright State, finally seeing the light, has added men's track.

Five - Limited by the NCAA to only a few scholarships for men in T&F anyway, compared to women's T&F and other male sports, most of these athletes pay (tuition, etc) to be on the team. So relatively little money is saved as coaching staffs are largely shared between the men's and women's programs.

Six - Track & Field is the oldest sport known to mankind. There are more countries participating in track and field in the Olympics than any other Olympic sport.

Seven - Running is a lifetime sport and we need to do more to get/keep people in Ohio and the U.S.A. fit and healthy

What can YOU do?

1) Write the universities Presidents, Athletic Directors and Trustees members to voice your concern. This is especially important if:

a) you graduated from the university,

b) recommend students to go to the university, or

c) you or your business donate money to the university.

Ohio University contact information:

President - Dr. Roderick J. McDavis, 108 Cutler Hall, Athens, Ohio 45701 740)593-1804

Director of Athletics - Kirby Hocutt, (740) 593-0982;

athletics@ohio.edu

Board of Trustees:

R. Gregory Browning, Chairman, Capital Partners, President, 37 W. Broad Street, Suite 970, Columbus, OH 43215: (614) 224- 0999

Daniel DeLawder, Vice-Chairman, Park National Bank, 50 North Third Street,Newark, OH 43055 (740) 349-3746

Norman "Ned" E. Dewire, 228 Glen Village Court, Powell, OH 43065-9677 (614) 325-0250

Gene T. Harris, Columbus Education Center, 270 E. State Street, Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 365-5888

C. Robert Kidder. 3Stone Advisors LLC, 191 W. Nationwide Blvd., #600, Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 246-2445

M. Marnette Perry, Kroger Company, 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 762-4225

Larry L. Schey, Larry Schey Chevrolet, 750 East State Street, Athens, OH 45701 (740) 593-6671

C. David Snyder, ATTEVO, 1940 E. 6th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 928-2800

2) Write a letter to your Ohio congress/senate members and voice your concern. Go to this

site -

http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/Representatives.jsp

and type in your zip code to

find your representative -

3) Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and voice your concern.

4) Pass this information on to as many friends as possible and ask them to do the same

Is that before or after they have doped up on The Clear and The Cream? Come on, everyone knows Mount Unions reputation as a drug cheating team.

rixctf wrote:

you want to protest at OU? DON'T RUN CROSS COUNTRY. as wejo points out on the front page, they are keeping cross so they can keep their minimum number of men's sports. they need you to field a team now, they need their 6. just refuse, start a boycott, see how they like it. if they try to add another sport, get them to boycott too.

Won't happen. The school and athletic department won't care if you and others refuse to run, they'll find others who are willing to take the opportunity.

freaking scabs. but seriously, will they really find replacements that easily? i guess if they can convince the student body that the football team is worth having, they could get a couple of d-bags to go out and run cross for the sake of the football team. but then the cross guys could picket races and football practice. here in hawaii, football practice gets a lot of airtime, a picket would easily make the news.maybe teams on the cutting block should hire a consultant, or go talk to the longshoremen or something. maybe we should start an "olympic sports" union to protect them from football and basketball. the national intercollegiate olympic sports union. NIOSU. well, we should work on the name.

Futile Exercise wrote:

rixctf wrote:

you want to protest at OU? DON'T RUN CROSS COUNTRY. as wejo points out on the front page, they are keeping cross so they can keep their minimum number of men's sports. they need you to field a team now, they need their 6. just refuse, start a boycott, see how they like it. if they try to add another sport, get them to boycott too.

Won't happen. The school and athletic department won't care if you and others refuse to run, they'll find others who are willing to take the opportunity.

Are there runners who would take a scholarship over paying for their schooling?

Yeah, because the school would just allow picketers to get down to the field and march around, right?

Yeah, because college runners have so much money to contribute towards union dues.

Dumbass.

How Idiotic wrote:

Are there runners who would take a scholarship over paying for their schooling?

Yeah, because the school would just allow picketers to get down to the field and march around, right?

Yeah, because college runners have so much money to contribute towards union dues.

Dumbass.

all right toughguy, first of all, let's take it easy with the "dumbass" stuff. i don't want to turn this into a pissing contest. i'm just waxing on some ideas here.

regarding your points in order:

first point: all scabs have a cost/benefit analysis to do when considering whether or not to cross picket lines. this case would be no different. how much in scholarships could they be giving the cross team? i'd be surprised if it were above 3 for the whole team, but i'm not sure. it's worth finding out. you have a good point if they acutally have 5 scholarships to give out, but if they don't, then they would have to lure in scabs with partial scholarships or somehow get a walkon scab. the walkons in that scenario would have to be a whole new type of a-hole that i've never encountered.

second point: nowadays, schools are pretty liberal towards peaceful demonstrators. it's not going to be kent state all over again. i'm not saying they have to try to take the field, just march near the gate. teacher unions go on strike all the time, and hold legal demonstrations on or near campus.

third point: well, maybe it doesn't have to be a union with dues, but an interest group that can lobby as an organization is more powerful than a few emails going out from a single author. instead of frantically trying to drum up support after the a.d. tells you you're cut, you could go into that meeting already having the support. also, the organization doesn't have to be limited to just current athletes, it could also include, or atleast seek donations from alumni. it seems that track alums at OU, among other schools, have no team to send an annual check to. maybe the effort of the organization would be not to picket and boycott, but to advertise and lobby.

congress is already looking into the dealings of the ncaa, and if i'm not mistaken, it's non-profit status, and the tax exemptions donors get to claim. maybe now is a great time to form a national coalition for olympic sports, as investment in big football is squeezing out other sports, and congress is questioning the if the ncaa is actually operating in the best interest of students or running a billion dollar business.