University of Minnesota cutting Men's Track, Tennis, and Gymnastics

agip wrote:

It won't end until more women realize that title 9 is hollowing out college sports.

it won't end until women stand up and argue for a better safe harbor for title 9 enforcement.

more of this, please.

https://twitter.com/karagoucher/status/1304171869646581765?s=20

But if you look further in that thread Kara also thinks title 9 isn't to blame. Imagine being that dumb to not understand how basic economics work. This is the same line of thinking that people have when they say they want free college and when you ask them how we would pay for it they aren't sure what you mean.

Lifetime return on track and field and xc far outweighs that of football, because the latter produces people who are and become grossly unhealthy, and future liability suits related to CTE might well hit universities hard in the future, whereas track and xc tend to produce individuals with lifelong health and sustainable fitness. So, it's short-sighted. And there is very little savings here available because they are retaining women's track in that beautiful new facility intended to be part of a 100 year story, in the video. The idea of employing Title IX as a cudgel not to promote women's athletics but rather to reduce men's athletics, mainly outside of and because of football, is a gross distortion of the law and so the law should be altered to remove this kind of excuse.

Your grandma killed our track program.

As for the football team, they've been over .500 ten of the last twenty years (their best being 11-2 last year), and six of the previous twenty years (8 wins being their best), but they haven't won a conference championship since 1967.

Sad but T&F is taking a hit with this. Honestly I wonder... how expensive can a track team be? You know what is really expensive? Maintaining a swimming pool. Those things are money pits. Not that I think swimming should be targeted either but maintaining a track takes like 1 employee and I would imagine not too much $$$ unless something breaks. Maintenance of pool is astronomical just to keep it running and I know sh*t goes wrong a lot more often for a pool.

Also cutting the men’s side of a team doesn’t make that much fiscal sense to me. You inevitably save money with start up costs/ shared coaches/ shared facilities. There are few sports where you can double dip on this (swimming, xc/track, ???). Seems like a better solution would be cutting teams that only have 1 sex so you cut all associated costs. But hey, what do I know?

In 2019, the program had its highest revenue ranking:

#23 Minnesota $61.6 million

Say what we will about P.J. Fleck, he’s selling Minneapolis. This is the Gophers’ first appearance in the revenue top 25 with a chunky $33.8M profit.

Minnesota hasn't won the big10 in basketball in 38 years. This loser program should be eliminated.

Minnesota hasn't won the big10 in football in 53 years. This loser program should be eliminated.

Which school will be the next to cut in the Big Ten?

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Maryland, Rutgers and Purdue to do the same plus some Pac 12 schools.

agip wrote:

Dr. Marvin Monroe wrote:

Why did they not cut cross country? They won't get any good runners anyway without a track program.

obvi title 9 - track rosters are large and hard to balance on the women's side.

probably track travel costs are quite high too.

The women’s side? Only the men’s teams were cut. The women’s team is still there.

It's especially dumb when you consider how many women don't give a f*ck and just show up for the scholarship and social aspect.

just saying... wrote:

But if you look further in that thread Kara also thinks title 9 isn't to blame. Imagine being that dumb to not understand how basic economics work. This is the same line of thinking that people have when they say they want free college and when you ask them how we would pay for it they aren't sure what you mean.

You don't have to imagine. You are that dumb. Title IX isn't to blame.

With Title IX, they cut the men's team to save money.

Without Title IX, they cut the men's and women's teams to save money.

Title 9 didn’t cause this. Title 9 allowed the women to not get cut. If they could cut women....they would!

Iron versus cement. Something bad was going to happen eventually. UMN had to set priorities.

Am. football with 5 quarterbacks and 7 tailbacks still thrives. Agip blames Title 9. Why does cutting T&F make you mad at teenage females Agip?

I did not enroll full time at U of MN. I took summer school classes there and I owned real estate about a 1/2 mile from UMN Golf Course. I decided to attend a university below Mason-Dixon line. But this is all too bad.

University of Chicago has shown it is okay not to participate in Big 10 sports.

First off, Minnesota has been a positive program in so many regards for years. Lots of great performances and exceptional human beings coming out of The U. Hard to believe this is where whatever his is starts.

Once we start seeing women's programs being cut (and proportional men's programs on top of what has already been), with departments slimming down budgets and to bare bones sports offered to meet NCAA/conference minimums while still balancing out football & basketball (the golden goose) roster sizes & spending, we will know things are really dark. How many schools are planning something like this for the '21-'22 academic year, and now feel like they have to announce early enough for current student-athletes, recruits, etc.?

Reform NCAA football

Reduce scholarships to 50 from

85 and roster size well below the 100+ now allowed.

Plz cut football wrote:

Reform NCAA football

Reduce scholarships to 50 from

85 and roster size well below the 100+ now allowed.

or just exclude football from title 9 safe harbor bean counting.

agip wrote:

It won't end until more women realize that title 9 is hollowing out college sports.

it won't end until women stand up and argue for a better safe harbor for title 9 enforcement.

Title 9 may be speeding up the process for men's track but that is not what is responsible for this.

It's about money and the TV revenue football and basketball earn in the major conferences. It's about keeping up with the other schools or trying to. It's about image. And it's also about bloated administrative budgets.... they'll cut sports before they will cut administrators (since the administrators are making the decisions).

Track is less an less popular each year so it just keeps losing ground... back in the 80s/90s USC v UCLA dual meets would have 15k-20k fans in the stands and the meet would be televised... now maybe they get 1k and very little media coverage... that's just an example of how unimportant track has become.

I'd also like to mention that if they are cutting men's sports I am sure they are also reducing roster sizes on the women's side to get things back in line with title 9... if they are trying to save money they'll do it on the female side where they can.

this is a shame but I am not sure there is much anyone can do about it .... sadly things change ... sometimes in the wrong direction.

less and less