Maryland drops XC/track, but can find $50 MILLION to leave ACC

Look at the schools that the Big Ten considers, and those they they do not. Maryland and Rutgers are both pretty decent schools (the ACC does pretty well in that regard). UNC might be another Big Ten candidate if the ACC gets into deeper trouble.

In addition, at Maryland they have been in a basketball-heavy league --- and are going into one that right now has the ACC out-ranked. That will probably make the move more acceptable to the fans and alums.

It amazes me that anyone could think this is bad for Maryland.

A: No more trying to recruit & compete against idiot farms Florida State, Clemson & Virginia Tech where anyone can get in.

B: Are you kidding? The per year money in the Big Ten dwarfs the ACC.the fact they had to cut 7 sports tells you how bad it was.

C: if football is the reason, then it's a pretty good one. They can't fill their stadium because their schedule sucks. Home games against William & Mary, UConn, Wake Forest, NC State, Georgia Tech and FSU? Seriously, who wants to see that? Now if you have Ohio State, Wisconsin & Penn State coming to town, and what about crossovers with Michigan & Nebraska? Yeah, attendance will go up.

D: The Big Ten has the countries best basketball now a days, in case you didn't know.

I'm bored with this argument.

As a former Terrapin athlete, I honestly think you all are giving to much credit to Maryland's administrative and financial acumen. I will reiterate what I have said during the first round of Maryland athletic department discussions on Letsrun. I simply do not trust that the university and its athletic department will be in any better position with this purported revenue windfall than they ever have been. I could just see a short term fix, followed by a return to the old mismanagement ways we have seen for decades.

I played soccer back in the 80s for Maryland, and was friends with guys like Mark Coogan from cross country and track, and Jon Perry, of decathlon and hunger strike fame.

Our athletic department's ineptitude dates back to our days. It all started with the the whole Len Bias tragedy and Lefty Driesell saga. Lefty was a legend, a guy who started the whole college basketball tradition of Midnight Madness. But the athletic department had let him do whatever he wanted, especially on the academic side, and the handling of Lenny's death was the final straw. Never mind the next chapter and choice of Bob Wade to replace Lefty, and Wade's recruiting violations.

Then shortly after came the resignation of Bobby Ross, who left because of failed promises for stadium renovations and a tightening of academic exemptions for football players, both of which went in favor of the next coach in line. Ross won ACC championships, bowl games, and recruited great QBs like Boomer Esiason. Guess what happened after Maryland ran him out of town? He promptly won a national championship with Georgia Tech. Oops! And maryland expanded it's football stadium as he was doing so.

These scenarios date back 30 years, and since then we have had unfunded, exorbitant expansion of athletic facilities, the still inexplicable buyout of the Fridge, who at least had some winning years, and was actually named ACC Coach of the Year as he was fired, and as his freshman quarterback Danny O'Brien was named the first Terrapin ever ACC Rookie of the Year. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Then we came to the most recent non-revenue sports cuts. With all the financial issues, and after buying out the Fridge's contract, instead of reigning in their idiocy on the basketball and football side of the house, they cut sports that had nothing to do with Maryland's underlying problems.

I agree with Rojo, the mission of a university is not the same as a corporation. When you cut sports, uproot the ACC tradition, and leave some of your most successful sports in a quandary (lacrosse, soccer), you are saying that only the allure of money matters, not the lives of your student athlete.

If this truly is the best decision the athletic department has ever made, as some imply, it would be a first. I hope they can get their act together and reinstate men's cross and remove the "temporary" status from men's track, but I'll believe it when I see it happen. After all, I have seen too many embarrassments to have unbridled faith in a permanent outcome.

rojo wrote:

I don't care if this ends up saving Maryland's track team. I still think all of these moves are embarrassing for places of supposed higher learning.

blah blah blah

Ultimately, there is a reason why everyone's cable bill is $100 per month.

So your argument is that Maryland should not make the switch because of your cable bill? For a guy who runs a business, you sure are stupid about business. Why should your cable bill factor into a business's decision making?

malmo wrote:

I'm not implying anything. Maryland was dropping the track team last spring, then was given a reprieve. Although purely speculation on my part, I'm thinking that the reprieve was in anticipation of a move like this.

The logic is simple. Big Ten = more money to share. More money = ability to support more non-revenue sports.

I'm not sure that your explanation that "...ACC would have...higher standards...to non-revenues..." holds water. Explain?

They are keeping the team because they rose more than enough money to fund for another year. The funding requirements were so ridiculous 8 years of funding has to be done by the spring for them to stay.

Terps,Great post.

Legally, they and any business can do whatever they want. And I see why they are doing it.

I'm just saying I think this country needs to teach values at some level - not just follow the money. And they are a university.

As for the cable bill, the reason why all of these coaches make bank is basically everyone in Baltimore/DC who gets cable will be paying $13 a year to watch (Well that's just covering costs - I assume the cable company wants to make a profit so like $16) whether they give a crap about MD or not. It's a brilliant business model as most people don't care about their program - but if one game is on that you want to watch, then you want it..... That's assuming they end up on the basic tier. If they end up on the deluxe sports tier like universal, then it all goes out the window.

But someone please hold them to what the AD said today:

On a side point relating to that, I totally give the AD Kevin Anderson props for actually meeting with the coaches and players in person when the cuts were announced last year (it wasn't his idea to cut them but someone else's) as shown here:

rojo wrote:

Ultimately, there is a reason why everyone's cable bill is $100 per month. Because everyone is paying $5 to watch ESPN per month.

The Big Ten network gets about $1.10 per month in markets according to SI's andy staples:

.

This is EXACTLY the problem I have with what has been going on the last few years.

I consider what networks like the big ten and espn have done to be extortion or at least coercion. They acquired the rights to these sporting events that used to be on ad based broadcast tv and held them hostage until the cable companies agreed to exhorbitant fees because of the outrage of fans that would no longer get to watch their team that they had been able to watch for years. By getting on the "standard" package of channels, they get a set amount every month even from the approximately 90-95% of people that have no interest in watching it.

Would you consider that a "tax" or just always winning the lottery every month?

Now, after 20+ years of watching "my" team on "free" tv, that is no longer an option and the only way I could see them now is to pay for cable or satellite. In my area now, the "standard" package is around $70.

I ejected a couple years ago and do not miss it at all.

I am going to bring up an interesting topic. This is a quote from the SI article a previous poster linked.

So why does everyone hate Maryland's move to the Big Ten?

The answer is simple. College sports are built on nostalgia. Everyone wants everything to be exactly as it was when they attended Old State U.

Read More:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/11/19/maryland-big-ten-realignment/index.html#ixzz2Ck4kKRPO

This hits the nail right on the head and alludes to a much larger issue. The conference system(s) at both the collegiate and high school levels are for the most part redundant levels of organization and rely solely on tradition as a means to keep these groupings together. Outside of football and basketball, what does a conference championship really mean? In the case of cross country, teams still have to report to a region or district with a similar number of teams to qualify for the next level of tournament competition. Track & Field is along the same lines except there are two conference meets.

Every time an athlete steps on a plane it costs a program, regardless of which sport, approximately $1000. Take a bus and you still end up with a five-digit tab for a team of 20 individuals and assistants (food, gas, services, room, board). The appointed committees of all the important VIPs' brothers, mothers, trustees and former lovers should pinpoint appropriate groupings geographically and combine the idea of 'region' with 'conference'. The region champion gets a title and the region champion moves on. Then there's none of this fodder of so-and-so beat so-and-so at conference but vice-versa happened at regionals. It also wouldn't require schools to get hit twice with hosting both conference and regionals in the same 3 week span.

Moreover, this would also open up the door for a free market of competition for Athletic Administrations who ARE willing to spend. Without conferences, Duke basketball won't have to face UNC twice in-season if it doesn't want to. It could make the trek to Ohio State or Oklahoma instead and make things really interesting for broadcasting companies. There could be more in-season tournaments.

I don't know what to tell you if you don't get Fridge getting canned. Did you actually watch his teams play? They were brutal to watch and every time he did ANYTHING right he stuck his hand out and asked for more money publicly. He had to go. Just because Randy Edsall is awful doesn't change that. It just means they made a bad hire.

Debbie Yow is largely responsible for much of the fiscal mess. Tyser expansion, expanding more unsustainable non-revs, Fridge's and Franklins contracts, strange accounting practices, raiding the emergency fund, and the most egregious of all; Women's basketball. Brenda Frese was given a huge contract, much more than she deserved and her assistants were actually paid more than the men's assistants for a couple of years. The men's assistants who work for a team that actually makes money.

She's gone now and it's been time to pay up. Cutting back on the sports that make money doesn't improve the situation. Football and basketball pay for the non revenue sports in good times and break even in bad. If you want the health of the non revenues to improve, you have to improve the ones that make money. This move lessens the blow and returns the program to solvency.

One thing that I hope comes from this. I HOPE FROM NOW ON WE NEVER HAVE TO HEAR AN EXCUSES FOR CUTTING XC/TRACK OF "THEY DON'T PRODUCE ANY MONEY."I've always argued that's a poor way to justify a college athletic program, but I've always thought these schools exist because of the student body. Hundreds of thousands of alums make the schools popular and enable any sport to bring in or not bring in revenue.And one thing is clear in reading these articles. It has nothing to do with the football teams at MD or Rutgers - it has everything to do with the markets they are in. I mean they are basically admitting they expect MD to come in and be the doormat in football, but it doesn't matter that there team is awful right now and they only average 42,000 fans a game.And Rutgers football isn't popular. But again that doesn't matter.As one guy said on ESPN.com:http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2380/does-rutgers-really-bring-in-nyc-market

Espn wrote:

"Sports writers are always looking for some excuse to bring the New York audience into a story," said Barry Frank, executive vice president of IMG Media, an industry veteran whose last college television negotiation included a $1.86 billion deal between the ACC and ESPN. "Rutgers attracts no interest in the New York market. They don't rate enough to matter...."

“Call a bookie in New York City and ask them how many bets they took on Rutgers,” Frank said. “That will give you an idea of how popular they are.”

The football teams aren't producing this money - it's the student body/alums/people living around the area that are producing it. Basically, instaed of surviing off of a $9.5 million student subsidy now - they will survive off of a $34 million cable tv subsidy from many subscribers who don't care at all.

friend of rojo wrote:

The football teams aren't producing this money - it's the student body/alums/people living around the area that are producing it. Basically, instaed of surviing off of a $9.5 million student subsidy now - they will survive off of a $34 million cable tv subsidy from many subscribers who don't care at all.

I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say but I think you've got it backwards. The schools produce a product (football) that is worth money (networks are willing to pay for that product). In turn cable companies are willing to pay them for their product and subscribers are willing to pay them for theirs. It's no more of a subsidy than you 'subsidizing' Apple when you buy an iphone or you 'subsidizing' Honda when you buy one of their cars.

Maryland is a university of lost opportunity.

Located 12 miles from the Capitol, it should be an academic and athletic powerhouse like Michigan.

It is not. For years that State did not invest in the school, preferring instead to fund the urban nightmare which Baltimore has become. Like most social investments made since the 1960's, the returns have been absolutely awful. Anyone who doubts this has not spent time in Baltimore.

Maryland's physical plant is the ugliest in the ACC. Argue with this? Check out the awful state of the honors dorms - yes - honors dorms. Gee, Maryland can easily draw top 1% students away from top schools with facilities like this? The best Montgomery County students do anything to stay away from Maryland. Michigan is a far more popular destination. The school was essentially open admissions in the 70's and early 80's - those reputational issues die slowly.

Throw into the mix Prince Georges County, with simply awful socio-economic statistics (crime, education, you name it), and Maryland's ambitions have long outstripped reality.

This all adds up - the school's endowment is ridiculously low for a school its size.

Don't get me wrong - Maryland has some good departments, and a good education can be obtained there. But as the Maryland soccer alum suggests, it has long been run poorly, with only lip service paid to true excellence.

Good luck in the Big 10 for them. They think they have hit bottom financially. I don't think so, even in the Big 10.

I have quite a few Facebook friends who attended UMD and it has been hilarious watching them post about how they are mad they are leaving the big rivalries with UNC and Duke. Newsflash: one-sided rivalries are not rivalries. No one in the ACC cared about Maryland and no one in the Big 10 will care about Maryland. They will never be taken seriously. Ugly school, ugly city, ugly students, ugly uniforms, ugly campus, ugly colors.

Can you really argue with me?

I do feel bad for the students, though. Academically, it can be a great school. What a shame.

I have a couple of questions.

First does anyone really think they will bring back mens xc?

Second what happened to Dunham?

My last question how long will these conference changes go on? What about the little guys? I say if you get big time tv money, then you should get no state money.

mder wrote:

I have a couple of questions.

First does anyone really think they will bring back mens xc?

Second what happened to Dunham?

My last question how long will these conference changes go on? What about the little guys? I say if you get big time tv money, then you should get no state money.

If the experience at WVU is any indication, no, Maryland XC will not be coming back. Since WVU XC/Track was cut "for monetary reasons," revenues have more than doubled and WVU has joined a conference that required, through its bylaws, some of those sports to be added back.

Instead, WVU is adding men's golf to partially comply with those bylaws.

Do the Big 10's Bylaws require their schools to have a track and cross-country team?

I agree with all of the criticism of conference realignment of schools chasing football and basketball TV dollars. Nebraska to Maryland is a ridiculous distance for teams and fans to have to travel.

However, maybe the silver lining is that Maryland will have to support track and cross-country better.

mder wrote:

I have a couple of questions.

First does anyone really think they will bring back mens xc?

Second what happened to Dunham?

My last question how long will these conference changes go on? What about the little guys? I say if you get big time tv money, then you should get no state money.

Coach Dunham is at Wilson High School in D.C. rebuilding another program. Don't know why he left Maryland,though.

School Ratings wrote:

I have quite a few Facebook friends who attended UMD and it has been hilarious watching them post about how they are mad they are leaving the big rivalries with UNC and Duke. Newsflash: one-sided rivalries are not rivalries. No one in the ACC cared about Maryland and no one in the Big 10 will care about Maryland. They will never be taken seriously. Ugly school, ugly city, ugly students, ugly uniforms, ugly campus, ugly colors.

Can you really argue with me?

I do feel bad for the students, though. Academically, it can be a great school. What a shame.

I agree that we aren't leaving any real rivalries in the ACC. The only real rival UMD has is Hopkins in lacrosse. In the Big 10 I'd imagine PSU will become a big football rivalry (if we ever get our football program in order)

I love most of the things you call 'ugly' at Maryland but can see why others could disagree. The one thing that shows me you have no clue is saying its an ugly campus:

When will the 80 or so also ran BCS football schools figure it out. They will never make it over that hump into the top 25 on a yearly basis.

Look at the BCS conferences what percentage of those school ever have an impact in the BCS standings. The ACC and the Big East being the worst. Literally two schools in the ACC play BCS level football and they are both overrated but the conf makes decision for the whole conference based on these two football programs everyone else is just chasing a dream....

This move will get UMd back in the black temporarily but if they go back and try to spend their way into real BCS football they will be right back way into the RED. There is only one football team the capital beltway cares about and that is the skins.

Prediction on how many cut sports return: 0-1. No way all 7 make it back.