U of Minnesota reinstates Outdoor TF, Indoor remains permanently cut

Eyeing up the situation I resolve to the fact that there is still a multi-million dollar indoor facility too fancy to be just a standstill component of the rec department.

There will be indoor track again at the U.

My theory is that the athletic department's intent is to challenge the sport to individually rally and become more sustainable on its own.

For example it cost the U $200K per year to keep Gary Wilson and Plasencia not including other staff which-- without attacking either their credibility or self worth -- is plainly too much for what the job actually is. It might be extra cush due to the three sport aspect and indoor was a 2/3 compromise.

Also consider the U provides Hockey at different levels than most other schools. Those funds have to be comparatively be allocated for too.

Last, consider the costs of the running programs themselves. It takes approximately $6400 per week to send Sally and her three best friend relay roomates out to all inclusive Spring Break and Summer vacations during the track season. Sometimes the entire team goes Thursday to Sunday.

No doubt these are valuable experiences for young men and women but post-meet there is little value to the actual results. Administrators have to push for the experience to be replicated with better ROI or someone else has to foot the bill. Perfect time to do this would be during an economic downturn.

I agree, it's likely alums will rally enough to get indoors back eventually, but I do not think the athletic department is pushing them to become self-sustainable; they just want them gone all together. If this was about money, they would have cut more expensive sports that lose significantly more money. Men's tennis and gymnastics presented plans to become completely self-sustainable with over a million dollars raised by each team to back it in just a few weeks time span, yet the AD and regents didn't even consider those plans, even though there were well thought out and viable possibilities. Men's track already had enough raised to nearly cover the cost of indoors for the next 5 years and the women's team would have gladly added to their roster to comply with Title 9 for next to no cost, yet that was not acknowledged either. As you stated, there are certainly plenty of areas these teams (or others) could also cut back on spending to lower their operations costs, yet none of that was discussed or considered, because this was clearly a pre-meditated hit job on Olympic sports. The AD's outright told a student that their goal for the past 4 years has been to reduce women's track numbers (despite the team's success and pride being built around large teams that also help balance football numbers.) You are absolutely correct that they are just using the pandemic as a convienent smoke cover to make these cuts. The only reason they removed outdoor track from the proposal was because they knew they didn't have the votes to pass it due to some regents' fear of lawsuits over cutting one of the most ethnically diverse teams and fraudulent collections of donations for the new track that opened up just last year, so they revised it to exclude outdoor track just to garner the needed regents' votes to at least cut some of the teams.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Cutting indoor is even better than not cutting it. Mindless, pointless, pseudo-competition, means nothing. Just train for outdoor - or take advantage of cheap modern travel and go south to compete.

I realize you say stuff for attention but unlimited travel is going to be a thing of the post for non revenue sports. No just go south to compete for a few years:

Realizing he didn’t have the votes, Coyle revised the proposal after the Regents meeting had already started. The “compromise” likely changed a vote or two. Coyle could claim a 3/4 win and leave a crippled outdoor program - something he would understand but the Regents did not. All of the women on the board voted in favor of the three program elimination proposal. Previous General Mills Chairman and board chairman Powell, likely having orchestrated the plot, cast the deciding vote.

I sure understand many athletes don’t like indoor but man does it make our sport exciting. I’m a STH of an NHL team ( 9 years) .. and I’ll say some of the events I watched at Gladstein Fieldhouse on those cold winter evenings a decade or three ago were as exciting and loud as any NHL shootout I’ve seen.

Internet Conspiracy Theory wrote:

Also consider the U provides Hockey at different levels than most other schools. Those funds have to be comparatively be allocated for too.

.

The U is the third or fourth best college hockey team in the state. It's the most storied program in the country but until they stop recruiting all these kids from Edina who peaked their junior year of high school and all these soft kids from Arizona and California (of all places), they should have to suffer through some austerity.

The amount of time team can practice is nearly identical with or without indoor. They can still run multiple indoor meets if they want, it would just count as part of their outdoor meet allotment which is ton of track meets. Many schools without indoor as a sport still run indoor meets, the only difference is your athletes can no longer qualify for indoor nationals.

nothing wrote:

The amount of time team can practice is nearly identical with or without indoor. They can still run multiple indoor meets if they want, it would just count as part of their outdoor meet allotment which is ton of track meets. Many schools without indoor as a sport still run indoor meets, the only difference is your athletes can no longer qualify for indoor nationals.

This is how indoors should be nation-wide. Have the practice, have the meets, but just make it the first part of the overall track season. Get rid of indoor nationals.