ohio guy wrote:
I wonder if coaches were consulted on how to make the cuts to their programs? I doubt it. But if so the track coach may have been happy with the cut XC option.
Coaches have an obligation among the cuts as well. Did the Akron XC coach attempt to establish endowments for the program like baseball? Did they keep their team size of walk-ons at their limit? There are many other factors that can endear a program far above winning for non-football sports. Far too many coaches don't want to deal with such things and i understand, but those things may make or break programs deemed non-essential by the athletic department.
They were not consulted or asked to make and "x" dollar amount work. They were just told, "no more men's cross country." As has been stated many times, that cut in particular saves them almost no money and actually probably loses the university money. It could be argued by someone ignorant of the situation that if they are also going to reduce scholarships and cut a coaching position they would be saving more money by cutting the program but that's not true either. Since the entire track budget, scholarships, and staff roster is under the purview of the head coach of the program, he can make decisions about how best to allocate all those things without the need to cut the men's cross country program.
I have it calculated out based on next year's projected cross country roster, the cost of tuition, the number of scholarships those kids would have (assuming they were still fully funded) and the fact that the state of Ohio awards the institution $11,000 for each in-state kid that graduates, that the cross country roster alone would net the university about $500,000 over the next five years.
If you're an alum and reading this and haven't been contacted yet/would like to get on our email chain:
Email:
jto6@zips.uakron.edu(that's the letter o, not a zero)