MARYLAND MENS XC AND TRACK CUT

The sad thing from that report is that it appears the motive behind cutting those teams is to boost ratios. They won't save much money at all, but they want to cut the number of athletes so their $ per athlete number looks better. This report was definitely written by an analyst and not someone of the real world.

Welcome to club guys.

youre right its 10 mils obv.

right. plus i like the part about the projected expenditures staying exactly the same for the next 6 years. Also where does the new revenue come from next year? I guess they are talking about the reseat of basketball giving new money? Of course when they go 10-18 this year that will happen- like someone else said how did the luxury boxes sell at byrd stadium.

I can't believe people got paid to write this report. It is garbage. There's no analysis of why these are the 8 teams that need to be cut, nor how much money will be saved by cutting them. It's just a throwaway line about not being able to support athletes to the utmost. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from a mediocre business student who wrote up a report the night before it was due.

This is disappointing.

I have two daughters that will be college age in 10-12 years. They may run track, who knows.

I was already thinking of UMD College Park as our main choice.

If they are getting rid of the men's track teams I do not feel good about the support for the women's teams. Or the commitment to the school in general. There is value in a track team even if it does not mean revenue.

I have to consider other schools above them now.

I am also wondering about their fuzzy math.

They are trying to increase their dollars per athlete.

Track is counted as three teams, but that is one person.

And track athletes do not cost much, not $67K per athlete and not $67K per athlete times three seasons.

They still have to maintain the facilities which is the main cost of track and the other sports they may cut.

Someone came up with this plan to get a raise, not to help the school.

go terps wrote:

kaitainen wrote:

how much did they spend to expand byrd stadium before realizing there was far from sufficient demand to justify it?

$40 million. the skyboxes are laughing on the track that lies in their shadow

There was an article in the Post this summer about how the athletic department had nearly bankrupted itself building Byrd and Comcast. Plus, the unspoken elephant in the room, a fully funded football program (82 scholarships?).

Also, many fewer athletic department make money than you think:

toro wrote:

Track is counted as three teams, but that is one person.

And track athletes do not cost much, not $67K per athlete and not $67K per athlete times three seasons.

They still have to maintain the facilities which is the main cost of track and the other sports they may cut.

Someone came up with this plan to get a raise, not to help the school.

This.

What page of the report are you getting the $67k per athlete number from?

Track Athletes should not get scholarships at all. They bring in about 0 dollars to athletic departments. Make it where everyone runs track for sponsorship, or they run for fun. At least someone would be getting paid.

It's the amount per athlete, there's a couple charts on it in the report

Maryland's track and XC teams bring in no money. If they were a business they'd have to close their doors. They shouldn't get bailed out by the football team anymore, if they can't bring in their own revenue they need to go.

Here's a good place to start if you want data for Maryland or any other school and the expenditures for sports. The data are self-reported to maintain compliance with federal law.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

Click 'Get data for one institution' and search for Maryland.

You can also get aggregate data (e.g. for the entire ACC).

This might be one reason that the athletic department is losing money:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/marylands-stadium-was-empty-for-boston-college/2011/10/31/gIQAxuaGZM_blog.html

The point is that maryland's track and xc programs are not a business they are supposed to be part of the educational experience of students are paying quite a bit of money to go to the school!

The football team lost over 1.5 million dollars last year according to Maryland's own report. Talk about a business that should be closed!!!!

Wow, take a look at the information in that link. Track is by FAR the cheapest per athlete, at 1350 per. Compare to football at $11500 per athlete. The total cost of all men's track (which I assume includes XC) is 101,000. Swimming is more expensive per athlete, but only costs 91,000 for men. So in short, UM has decided to solve their problems by... cutting the cheapest programs!

The only way to stop this from happening that has worked at other schools that almost had sports cut (Berkeley, Brown) has been for the alumni and parents to say something and to raise money. If you've ever wanted to give back to Maryland Track, now is definitely the time.

^^This. Just like at Delaware- this is not about saving money- its about the appearance of saving money.

Also the mens team is not fully funded for scholarships- i think they have like 4-6 for everyone to divide.

The other thing i love which is what i started to blabber about when i messed up on the 10 million thing and got distracted- why is that chart terp 06 posted not trustworthy? Its what someone else said about 3 posts ago- these numbers are often Self-reported! So what programs are they going to pad the numbers of?? hmmm.

Also i forget if i said on here or on fb- another accounting shady move is putting all the student fees(7+ million) into the non program affiliated category when the whole point of those fees is to support the sports. If you divide those up (even by player so that football gets more) then the "other" sports lose much less money. The fees support the sports but they arent counted as supporting the sports.

They should file a title IX grievance like delaware did which i will put on the fb group. At least it brings attention to that and got them to the federal mediation.

Also as per usual lacrosse is screwing things up. Why do they need 55 men on the lacrosse team when they get by with 35 women. Are the men not as good as the women? Do you really want those extra 20 lacrosse players on campus who see no time in the games for 4 years and basically contribute to the daily BAC of the team rather than the winnning percentage or GPA. A minor but annoying problem for the title IX enthusiasts.

I don't know about this whole concept of running a school like a business.

For one, it's not a business.

College fees have grown at some pretty fast rates in recent years.

For years and years colleges had reasonable rates and fielded many athletic programs that didn't produce revenue.

And public schools receive public assistance.

How can they all of the sudden charge historically high tuition rates and not be able to fund the cheapest and most traditional of sports?

Offering multiple programs adds value to the school.

Building an aquatic center doesn't add a profit producing item but it adds value to the school.

New buildings go up all of the time. They don't charge admission for those.

Cutting programs gives a quick pick up to a bottom line for a period but immediaitely produces less value for the students and future students who have a choice of schools.

And proposing this when their football team is having a terrible year with a new coach and their legendary basketball coach had to be replaced just makes it look like the school is going down hill.

former terp 06 wrote:

3) Fundraising Dept/Alumni. UMD Alumni giving rates have been low for a long time. Alumni dont give and and the school doesn't do a good job of asking for $.

This.

I went to College Park for two years after transferring in. I have never received one call, letter, or anything asking me for donations.

My college that I left hounds me with phone calls every 6 months for money. I letters 3 times a year.

Maryland just doesn't fundraise.