UNIVERSITY IF AKRON CUTS XC PROGRAM! Other D1 programs soon to follow?!?!

The Beautiful Game wrote:

At least they kept Men's soccer. They have done very well and have been nationally ranked. It's one of the only sports at Akron that can compete and win against most other bigger schools from Power 5 conferences. Akron won the NCAA D1 Championship in 2010 but lost in the final in 2009 and 2018.

If you are going to be a sport that loses money, you had better be a successful.

It’s easy to sit here and say cut this or that but the fact is... we all have treasured memories from college athletics. It was such a fun time in our lives. There’s nothing better. Getting up at 6:30 am Monday-Saturday and bringing the pain. What a great time all of us “hobby joggers” we all brought our ???????. We brought that “A GAME!“

Since this thread is getting longer and not everyone has likely read the whole thing, I'll post a few of the facts about Akron's cross country program again:

--Last year's operating costs for men's cross country were $6500. Yes, four figures.

--Since the men's track program is not being cut, they are literally "saving" $6,500

--If scholarships or coaching positions were being eliminated that still wouldn't necessitate the cutting of the men's cross country program because both scholarships and staffing are under the purview of the men's track team

--The 2020 projected men's cross country roster has less than two scholarships allocated among all the runners. The rest of them are therefore paying tuition (although some are likely on some sort of academic scholarship) and therefore netting the university money.

--When taking tuition and graduation into account, the men's cross country team is a large net gain for the university as a whole.

If any former Akron runner, or anyone who is simply interested in the cause, would like more information or to be added to our email updates, please email me:

jto6@zips.uakron.edu

(that's the letter o not a zero)

JT Olson

Luv2Run wrote:

The Beautiful Game wrote:

At least they kept Men's soccer. They have done very well and have been nationally ranked. It's one of the only sports at Akron that can compete and win against most other bigger schools from Power 5 conferences. Akron won the NCAA D1 Championship in 2010 but lost in the final in 2009 and 2018.

If you are going to be a sport that loses money, you had better be a successful.

By that assessment almost every sport would need to be cut except Football and Men's Basketball as they are the only two that make money. Title IX would prevent that from happening.

And according to this video, they only had 1.5 scholarship for the xc team to begin with...

Uh oh. That means the program cost way more than $6500 if they eliminate those scholarships.

run this way wrote:

Uh oh. That means the program cost way more than $6500 if they eliminate those scholarships.

No it doesn't.

The scholarships are allocated from the men's track allotment. They aren't getting rid of track so the scholarships still exist because the athletes are considered both track and cross country athletes. Even if they decided to cut those scholarships all-together, it is immaterial to how much the cross country program costs in addition to the track program.

It is all part of the overall athletic budget so if you cut 1.5 scholarships that cost $40k each, that is $60k saved. AD doesn't care if track or cross country or water polo. $60k is the savings.

I get that it's part of the overall athletic budget, but there aren't scholarships earmarked specifically for cross country but rather they are earmarked specifically for track.

You can cut the scholarships and keep the program.

If the AD decides to drop track scholarships from 12.6 to 10.0, he doesn't have to get rid of cross country to do it. In this case, there are no such thing as cross country scholarships. Just track scholarships that are awarded to guys who happen to run cross country.

The existence of cross country and the number of scholarships are mutually exclusive of one another.

Like I was saying couple of pages ago: at the end of the day, this has very little to do with money. Cutting these three sports was the easiest way for the athletic director to give the perception that the athletic department is willing to cut programs just like the rest of the University. If it really was about money, they wouldn’t even bother with Men’s cross country.

Good luck with your efforts. Knowing how athletic directors and businessman work, it will fall on deaf ears. Having been through the cutting of men’s track and field, the university doesn’t buy into the lost tuition argument. The reason being, we have 20,000 other students that go there and I have nothing to do with athletics.

Definitely do all that you can but it likely isn’t going to go very far. This is going to have a ripple effect in all sports that are non-revenue across the country. The NCAA has now opened the door for schools to sponsor less than 16 sports and remain Division I.

Unfortunately, when times get tough financially, you have to make a decision between things that you need and things that you want. That goes for all humans. In the business world, and athletic departments are businesses, they have to trim the fat. That means, realizing that the school doesn’t need extra non-revenue sports.

It definitely sucks. However, this is how the real world works.

Where are you getting the idea that a scholarship to Akron costs the university $40,000? The tuition plus R&B street rate is about half of that.

In reality, these students are not going to be replaced with a tuition paying student, so the cost to the university is just the national cost of educating one more student at a less than full university.

Voice text but hopefully you understand my post. Wish we could edit.

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

Voice text but hopefully you understand my post. Wish we could edit.

Kevin, we understand the odds, but we aren't rolling over.

CoachO wrote:

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

Voice text but hopefully you understand my post. Wish we could edit.

Kevin, we understand the odds, but we aren't rolling over.

That good! Do what you can! When you go in to try and negotiate just recognize that this is where they are. Key to any conflict resolution is to recognize who has the power and what their goal is and then work within that context to achieve your goal. :)

CoachO wrote:

Since this thread is getting longer and not everyone has likely read the whole thing, I'll post a few of the facts about Akron's cross country program again:

--Last year's operating costs for men's cross country were $6500. Yes, four figures.

--Since the men's track program is not being cut, they are literally "saving" $6,500

JT, totally support you fighting for the program. Props to you.

Caveat: Of course I don't know all the facts at Akron and I'm making a lot of assumptions.

That said, something to consider when making arguments like this... they aren't cutting only men's XC. They are also cutting women's tennis (8 allowable scholarships) and men's golf (4.5 allowable scholarships).

I am not a Title IX expert, but I believe when making cuts to athletic programs you need to cut scholarships at a ratio in line with the overall scholarship ratio at the school. (That is to say, if a given college offers 40 men's athletic scholarships and 50 women's athletic scholarships, they would need to cut 4 men's scholarships and 5 women's scholarships, etc etc.)

I would guess that the real cost-savings at Akron are coming from men's golf and women's tennis. (Travel and international recruiting expenses for tennis; course fees, equipment, etc for golf.)

But since there are more scholarships in women's tennis than men's golf, another program needs to be cut. And that's where men's XC comes in. The money saved from cutting men's XC is just a small bonus... the real "value" is in the XC scholarships allowing women's tennis to be cut.

WallyWallyOxenFree wrote:

I am not a Title IX expert, but I believe when making cuts to athletic programs you need to cut scholarships at a ratio in line with the overall scholarship ratio at the school. (That is to say, if a given college offers 40 men's athletic scholarships and 50 women's athletic scholarships, they would need to cut 4 men's scholarships and 5 women's scholarships, etc etc.)

Sorry, forgot to add... and it's not just about scholarships, either. I believe total roster count (scholarship or not) also matters.

This is why some women's crew teams have 80+ members on the roster, to help balance out football.

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

Like I was saying couple of pages ago: at the end of the day, this has very little to do with money. Cutting these three sports was the easiest way for the athletic director to give the perception that the athletic department is willing to cut programs just like the rest of the University. If it really was about money, they wouldn’t even bother with Men’s cross country.

I'm not sure this is true... cutting men's golf and women's tennis likely does indeed save a lot of money.

Problem is, you can't cut women's roster spots and scholarships without also cutting a commensurate number of men's roster spots and scholarships.

Fun fact: Larry Williams was previously the AD at the University of Portland, and he cut the men's and women's golf programs as a budget-saving move several years ago. (At the same time, he also added a rowing team to help with Title IX balancing):

To be clear: without a doubt Money is the catalyst for all of this. The sports that he chose are more for perception. They could have cut costs across the board and save the sports. No doubt all three sports would have been willing to take a hit. However, he needed to do something more tangible than just say “we will cut back”. You have to keep in mind that this happened after seven colleges within the university of Akron system had to dissolve or merge.

Once that happened, people on the academic side start raising all kinds of hell because they want to see athletics making similar changes. You have to understand that in the world of academia, not everyone sees the value of athletics. As a matter fact, many faculty members despise athletics. Cutting the three sports had less to do with how much money they were saving and more to do with the perception. They could’ve save the money other ways.

This was no accident that the three sports are three of the least popular. They are three sports that are least likely to cause problems. All of this is no accident.

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

You have to keep in mind that this happened after seven colleges within the university of Akron system had to dissolve or merge.

Once that happened, people on the academic side start raising all kinds of hell because they want to see athletics making similar changes.

Most likely a communication went out from the president to all departments including athletics with the message, "trim your budget by 23% by Friday." The AD then chose to trim several items including giving the axe to the three sports for the very reasons you stated.

My point is that the AD did not choose to cut back out of the goodness of his heart for the university's sake. I'm sure he was instructed to do so. I believe you know this but others have implied that the AD made independently. I doubt this was the case unless trying to free $ for other athletic programs.