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

So Men's Track is a right, an entitlment?

If I'm an AD I'm keeping the minimum number of sports the NCAA requires, putting most of my money towards basketball, the other in football, everyone else is on a shoestring- subsistance living budget. I don't see any reason to do it otherwise.

Look at ARK, they've won a jillion SEC crowns and regularly compete in nationals, and if the football teasm doesn't do well the AD, Frank Broyles will get booted. Nobody will defend him by saying "We won X# of track championships.." Nobody cares about track, except for a small number of us.

Now this is a question I've alwaysed questioned. Since XC runners count towards two different sports when it comes to the NCAA, why isn't there an NCAA championship? That way you pay for 1 runner and you would satisfy 3 sports, indoor, outdoor, and XC.

english, please.

Jizzmo wrote:

So Men's Track is a right, an entitlment?

If I'm an AD I'm keeping the minimum number of sports the NCAA requires, putting most of my money towards basketball, the other in football, everyone else is on a shoestring- subsistance living budget. I don't see any reason to do it otherwise.

I could see why you'd do this if you were the AD at Arkansas (who you mentioned), Texas, Michigan, tOSU, USC, etc. However, why on earth would you want to pump money in to football at a MAC school? To compare football programs in the MAC w/ major conferences is apples and oranges. For the MAC schools, it doesn't increase enrollment (that I've seen), it unequivocally doesn't increase alumni donations, and it doesn't help fund other sports because it loses money itself. All it does is provide an event for 20,000 people on weekends who are affiliated w/ OU. Is that worth the VAST financial resources it costs to keep this program at the D1 level?

Jizzmo wrote:

I could see why you'd do this if you were the AD at Arkansas (who you mentioned), Texas, Michigan, tOSU, USC, etc. However, why on earth would you want to pump money in to football at a MAC school? To compare football programs in the MAC w/ major conferences is apples and oranges. For the MAC schools, it doesn't increase enrollment (that I've seen), it unequivocally doesn't increase alumni donations, and it doesn't help fund other sports because it loses money itself. All it does is provide an event for 20,000 people on weekends who are affiliated w/ OU. Is that worth the VAST financial resources it costs to keep this program at the D1 level?

I could not have written it any better myself. The whole pumping money into football like there is no tomorrow flies against the philosophy of the MAC. Truth be told, the MAC really has no business being 1-A in football. They really should all be 1-AA so that they could be competitive in a national championship scenario and wouldn't be saddled with the same scholarship minimums for football. The presidents should step in and stop the lunacy before all of the Olympic sports are extinct in a once great conference for mid major sports.

"All it does is provide an event for 20,000 people on weekends who are affiliated w/ OU."

Short answer: Yes.

You see football is a very popular game. It's entertaining, it leads to other social events, bonfires, homecoming, cheerleaders, pep rallys, etc.. I've said it before. You kill the XC program and 14 kids are hurt, you kill the f'ball team and you kill the soul of the school.

Look at what your wrote: 20,000 people! You could have a national championship track team for 10 yrs in a row and never attract that kinda crowd.

The general public cares about football. Having a f'ball team, even a bad one, gives a school a sense of dignity. A school w/o football, especially a small one, starts to have a Devry Tech school feel about it.

Update from -

http://bringingbackohiotrack.blogspot.com

As of 2/12 the teams are still cut, but support has swelled immensely. President McDavis and AD Hocutt have met with numerous students, alumni, and parents about this issue. Members of Student Senate have met with Ohio's U.S. Senators in Washington, D.C. Matt from RunOhio wrote an excellent letter to the editor in the Columbus Dispatch.

http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2007/02/10/20070210-A13-02.html

Donors are getting involved, other OU administrators are getting involved, former coaches and athletic department employees are as well, and Student Senate is kicking butt.

We couldn't have asked for more support.

Aside from continued pressure and complaints, we really need to lay out a strategy for halting the process to eliminate the teams and to come up with alternative strategies.

Even if the Board of Trustees fails to bring this issue up at their meeting this Thursday-Friday, we still have a chance. Unfortunately, for every day that passes by, an increasing amount of prospective athletes decide against OU and current athletes are transferring out of OU.... This means that action is urgent!

Please email

President, Dr. Roderick McDavis-

mcdavis@ohio.edu

Alan Geiger, Assistant to the President, Secretary to the Board of Trustees

geigera@ohio.edu

and the two student trustees, Micah -

mm162503@ohio.edu

and Lydia

lg420404@ohio.edu

Good Luck!

Jizzmo wrote:

A school w/o football, especially a small one, starts to have a Devry Tech school feel about it.

Well, I think students at Cal Tech, NYU, St. Johns, Providence, Chicago, Williams, Amherst, Reed, etc, etc, etc might take issue with that statement, but I think I get what you're driving at and you do have something of a point.

However, if they're sinking millions in to football for an experience, they could still get it at the 1-AA level like a previous poster suggested, pump less in to football and still get decent crowds. Shoot, they'd actually have a shot at a Natl Championship with that move.

Jizzmo wrote:

A school w/o football, especially a small one, starts to have a Devry Tech school feel about it.

non-bcs schools looking to ride a team into the national spotlight should shoestring football and make love to basketball. it's cheaper, has a great pool of player/coach talent, is very popular nationally/internationally, and it's easier to be a cinderella as lots of small schools get invited to the big dance every year.

i see what your saying, but don't you agree that a good basketball team would keep the devryity off campus?

If you read my original post I said #1 I would put my $$ in basketball. It is much more lucrative and easy for a smaller school to succeed than football. Fball would be my #2, and if the choice is to cut XC &track or fball- there is not choice. I send the run geeks on their way.

Also on another topic regarding foreign recruites I said that if you think it's easy for an AD to cut XC & track with US kids, just have 3 out of 5 of your top guys come from a foreign country. It makes it 1000x easier to cut.

jizzmo wrote:

If you read my original post I said #1 I would put my $$ in basketball. It is much more lucrative and easy for a smaller school to succeed than football. Fball would be my #2, and if the choice is to cut XC &track or fball- there is not choice. I send the run geeks on their way.

Also on another topic regarding foreign recruites I said that if you think it's easy for an AD to cut XC & track with US kids, just have 3 out of 5 of your top guys come from a foreign country. It makes it 1000x easier to cut.

sorry, i didn't see that post. okay, so what if you had a good basketball team. then let's say the other men's sports choice isn't between cutting football versus cutting track, but between having an expensive and weak football team and 4 shoesting men's sports, versus having no football team and 6-7 well-funded men's sports. what would you do and why?

Final push to contact OU officials!!!

Article on the front page of the Akron Beacon Journal Sports page -

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/16686738.htm#recent_comm

.

www.runohio.com

Jizzmo wrote:

So Men's Track is a right, an entitlment?

If I'm an AD I'm keeping the minimum number of sports the NCAA requires, putting most of my money towards basketball, the other in football, everyone else is on a shoestring- subsistance living budget. I don't see any reason to do it otherwise.

By your logic, why do we even have college sports at all? And why do we require the athletes to actually be enrolled at the institution? If the point is to entertain the university community while drumming up (mostly financial) support, couldn't they just hire a bunch of ringers instead?

Or maybe, just maybe, scholastic sports exist for some other reason. Perhaps to add to the educational experience. Or is that a luxury only the biggest and wealthiest schools can afford?

jsquire wrote:

Jizzmo wrote:

So Men's Track is a right, an entitlment?

If I'm an AD I'm keeping the minimum number of sports the NCAA requires, putting most of my money towards basketball, the other in football, everyone else is on a shoestring- subsistance living budget. I don't see any reason to do it otherwise.

By your logic, why do we even have college sports at all? And why do we require the athletes to actually be enrolled at the institution? If the point is to entertain the university community while drumming up (mostly financial) support, couldn't they just hire a bunch of ringers instead?

Or maybe, just maybe, scholastic sports exist for some other reason. Perhaps to add to the educational experience. Or is that a luxury only the biggest and wealthiest schools can afford?

Dude that is already happening. If you think those guys playing basketball and football at FL, Ohio State, etc.. are living the life of regular college students and they just happen to be good at athletes, you are living in a state of denial. They are the minor leagues for the NFl and NBA. At least baseball pays their developmental league players. The NBA and NF get off scott free.

I think we are finding out that sports ARE an expense that only the more wealthy schools can afford.

Final day to contact officials before the Board of Trustees meet -

Your support is greatly appreciated!!

bump

Ohio University Board of Trustees upcoming meetings -

February 15 and 16, 2007 (Chillicothe Campus)

April 19 and 20, 2007

June 28 and 29, 2007

Bump