MARYLAND MENS XC AND TRACK CUT

The are more opportunities in college sports for girls than boys and less competition (since fewer girls are devoted to sports than boys).

So yes, it's better to be a girl entering college athletics right now, rather than a boy.

But a track program that has a mens and womens team will be better than one with only a womens team. They tend to support each other and give the team a bigger presence.

So if my daughters were to pursue track, the best deal would be to be at a place that had a mens and womens program.

And even if they don't pursue track, I don't feel good about a school that is cutting programs in general. Not with fees going up.

The whole Title IX thing gets used and abused when someone is trying to save a dollar. It's not about fairness at all.

Keep the men's track/x-c programs by implementing a few minor tweaks across the board for the athletic program:

- no scholarships other than work study

- must maintain 3.0 GPA to play varsity athletics

If that means UMD ends up competing in 1A, Div. 2 or Div. 3 I'd be a proud alumnus.

And this isn't just about Maryland, it's about the entire sport.

We are seeing colleges do this all over the country in the name of cutting expenses.

If you let this happen to James Madison, Deleware, Maryland it will just get easier and easier for other schools to do this.

The sport is being killed.

This was brought up on a local Md board. How much money could be made by the University hosting the state championships in track and xc? Maybe a big hs xc or track invite as well?

To add info. The current xc meet is at a high school that host a almost 100 team xc invite. They make money off of parking, concessions, t-shirt sales, and entry fees. The state track meet is at Morgan State, good venue, but not great. They charge for parking, and admission. It is a 3 day meet. Last year parking was like $5 a car and the parking garage was full. Admission was like $5 per person to get into the meet. Concession stands have long lines all day.

Don't know if it would put a dent into the problem or even be a solution, but it could be a start?

So, who do we email?

Did anyone read the article in the Washington Post?

To me the problem is simple.

1) The Athletic Department is expected to break even. Do other departments like the Chemistry department break even? I'm assuming the answer is no, but correct me if I'm wrong.

2) The Athletic arms race across the country is out of control. This is what the above poster references. Check out the final few paragraphs of the Post article:

Instead of saying, "We need to raise more money" or "We need to change conferences, etc." The adults in the room need to take a step back and say, 'This is ridiculous. No one should be spending $107,849 per athlete.'"

College athletics is out of control. The whole changing conference crap is the #1 sign of it. What's the point of raising more money or getting a new tv deal? They are just going to end up spending it anyway.

In terms of Maryland, it's clear they are just trying to get rid of what they view as the ridiculous sports. The only reason why track and field is included in the list is because of Title IX.

I've always wondered why schools - and the Ivies where I work lead the way - have so many sports. The big-time conferences like the SEC don't waste resources on a bunch of minor sports. The concept of do a few sports and do them well makes sense to me but how can track and field not be one of those sports?

This hits home in a much more "real" way. I almost went there.

I will fight for y'all. I am an ACC runner and will miss racing you guys. Can we do something similar to the Consumerist's Executive Email Carpet Bomb?

http://consumerist.com/2007/05/how-to-launch-an-executive-email-carpet-bomb.html

If we can figure out a specific list of email addresses, we can get at least 100 people from LRC to write a clear, concise, level-headed argument. Can you imagine getting 100 emails that were each unique and well written? It makes a difference.

Profit includes money given to the football program by the school. That is how some schools hide their financial problems with football.

We just spent a week this summer at the university for World History week. My son, a hs junior and xc/track runner, was actually considering applying to the school. Their loss, he's a good student too.

There are departments all over the country that struggle with these problems. Yet only one, Northeastern, has had the guts to do the correct thing: DROP FOOTBALL.

The amount of money most schools loose on football is enough to fund the majority of the department. Dropping track/xc, swimming, and cheerleading is cowardly.

If they really believe they have a viable fan base to support football, then announce the football team is on the chopping block unless revenue and donations increase. Then we'll see if they have the support to maintain a team. This is what ultimately happened with Cal baseball.

If you have ever been around big time college football or basketball programs, you know there is absolutely zero consideration for cost. They stay at the nicest hotels, charter planes, fancy restaurants, and ridiculous recruiting road trips for coaches. If the football and basketball teams at Maryland would conserve 10% of their operating budget (forget about scholarships and salaries) that would be enough to cover the current costs of mens track/xc and womens' swimming/diving.

The fact this commission decided it was a better option to eliminate opportunities for 100+ students rather than reduce spending by 10% for a different 100 athletes shows the sick direction athletics has taken.

Silly Old Fossil wrote:

Toro, I'd rather be a girl entering college athletics right now, rather than a boy. Title IX keeps your daughters way more protected. However, whenever a group of mens programs are cut, there is always a sacrificial lamb of a women's sport that also has to go.

How say u?

This is the way we need to start thinking it is some bull that all these women get full rides because men have a football program that take up like 85 scholarships so we have to implement title 9 to counter that. Thats why the program cant survive. They have no scholarships to give to men so the program has no improvement, hence why they are trash. Title 9 is ruining college atheltics not the big sports of basketball and football because they all full scholarships but the smaller mens sports like Xc Track Swimming Diving. DOWN WITH TITLE 9.

As an alumnus, but as a letter-winner on the soccer field, I thought everything was sufficiently fine at Maryland. I see my team on Fox Soccer all the time, and, at the same time, I see that the (since I graduated) new Kehoe track/ Ludwig soccer facility looks nice, and you just assume the business people in the athletic department are handling things appropriately for these non-revenue sports.

But this is embarrassing. As I mentioned on the other "this cut might happen" thread, I was friends with Mark Coogan and other guys on the track and XC teams, and I feel for all those ever involved in the program. It is shameful for the athletic department to be so poorly mismanaged over the years (from the letting Bobby Ross go days, to post-Len Bias tragedy, to present day Ralph Friedgen not agreeing to retire, then fired, and still receiving upwards of $2 million salary), and then to resort to cutting the least expensive operating-cost-sports to solve their own mismanagement and poor decisions relating to the most expensive sports and athletic venues.

You have to be deluded if you don't realize that football has never mattered at UMd, and the university was duped by sports industry types to believe that massive expansions were going to result in "build it and they will come," butts in seats business philosophy.

The Comcast Center had a better leg to stand on, since basketball has obviously been more successful over the years, but if they were truly using business sense and a forward-thinking educational institution, they probably could have figured out how to convert the historical Cole Field House into a more modern facility, and saved millions (a la Lambeau Field, or Soldier's Filed, other historical landmarks that, tourists or alumni would visit just to "be there again."

This is what happens when you listen to developers, marketers, builders, and business people instead of listening your own history and gut. I know Div. I college sports is portrayed to be big time business, but Maryland has never been in the SEC or Big Ten mold for massive support for athletics through thick and thin.

It has been traditionally a commuter school in a very saturated, expanding urban/suburban market.

I also have a law degree, and studied Sports Law classes dealing in among other things, Sports Venue financing, and could probably dig up lists and spreadsheets indicating a continuum of desirable cities for sports venue expansion, relocation, revitalization, etc.

The Baltimore-Washington DC metro area just has too many sports entertainment options. It was a poor decision to ever believe that dumping money into new/expanded facilities is going to pay off. MD is competing with the Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Ravens, Nationals, DC United, and every other college in the area for the business or law firm luxury box lease, season ticket seat purchase, and just "what are we doing on a random day" walk up ticket purchase. An alumnus simply does not have x dollars set aside annually specifically earmarked for a UMd season ticket. He or she weighs all the other entertainment options, and if a business, who wins the luxury box battle is dependent on which university or pro sports team impresses clients more.

UMd have never won that battle, and should have accepted their place, and expanded or renovated facilities under a more reasonable, well thought out plan.

I know that doesn’t really help, because it is all past-tense mismanagement and listening to the wrong people for advice on the department’s philosophical direction.

Now people make great points above about the single distance runner (1 guy on 3 teams) fuzzy math costing the athletic department 3 x $67k, or what does the $67k really represent - an average cost for all athletes (obviously football and lacrosse are more expensive per athlete) or an actual cross country/swimmer male cost per year?

This report is just a shell game; it won’t solve any systemic economic woes for the athletic department or university. It will take the heat off the departmental heads in office, then will be revisited when the numbers presented don’t seem to work out the way they reported.

You can reach the Athletic Director Kevin Anderson (his email not currently available in the Terps website for some reason) via his Executive Administrative Assistant Denise O'Rourke at

dorourke@umd.edu

, phone 301-314-7075, or -0013.

It's all mismanagement. You can say what you will about the eight sports not bringing in money, but almost every sport that isn't football or basketball loses money every year. The problem at Maryland is that all the money is going towards things that make absolutely no sense. I can also say without a doubt Kevin Plank is going to bail anyone out on this one. If you walk around campus, the football and basketball players get so much UA they don't even need to have normal clothes. The track team? Our star runner a couple years ago had to make nationals to EARN a $60 sweatshirt. But I suppose a third string kicker (and yes, Maryland does go that deep) need more UA gear than a Pre Med, Straight A, nationals qualifier.

One thing I wanted to add. The whole amount spent per student thing is a comical excuse.As I stated earlier, the Washington Post said Maryland spends $67,390 per student athlete but if they but the sports they will be spending 118,813 per athlete. But in reality, they won't be spending any more on the current athletes. They will just cutting the 3.5 to 5 million they spend on the athletes in the other sports. It's not like they will be spending more on the current athletes. So the whole stat listed below is a bogus PR stunt.

Wasn Po wrote:

Maryland ranks dead last in the ACC in spending per athlete ($67,390, compared to Florida State’s $118,813 per student-athlete). According to the report, that was among the reasons the panel concluded that the best course of action was to reduce the number of sports so more money could be invested for each student-athlete’s academic support, athletic training and health services.

If Maryland offered 19 sports, as the panel recommends, its per-athlete spending would jump to $107,849 — or sixth highest in the soon-to-be expanded 14-team ACC.

Also, I hope Kevin Plank realizes he is going to lose any and all credibility if he wants UA to break into running and swimming...not like he has any now anyways.

They are surely playing games with the numbers.

The want to cut their deficit AND spend more per athlete.

Cant' use the money twice.

The expenses listed for the three combined running teams was $489K for 43 people. That's $11K per athlete. ($3,800 per athlete per season)

And accross the river, George Mason University happens to be the largest college in Virginia when it comes to enrollment.

Mason doesn't have a football team.

Isn't Under Armor trying to break into the running business? Saving Maryland's track team might be a good PR stunt for them in that regard.