Clemson axes Mens XC and Track Teams

I don't mean to argue or disagree. I just want to understand why these cuts are happening now. I'm sure Radakovich is as big a jerk as you say. But jerks have been around forever and XC/TF survived for decades. Also, I have to assume that many of the AD's that are cutting XC/TF elsewhere are not jerks. So there must be a reason.

Why now? For many schools, COVID is a major factor. Also, many (most) schools have built an unsustainable financial model chasing the holy grail of football. But that is NOT Clemson. Clemson is a manipulative, dishonest AD using a pandemic to make sure he and football get paid. And dont blame football, they are not asking for more.

The facilities thing is a red herring. Even Northwestern just put $260 million into a new football facility. It's pretty amazing, you should Google it. I think it was Texas A&M that started the arms race but I could be wrong. Now everyone is doing it.

Correction, it was T. Boone Pickens and Oklahoma State that started the current round of football extravagance. Sorry Aggies.

future of college sports wrote:

The facilities thing is a red herring.

I'm not sure why you think it's a red herring: these are huge amounts of money. However, I should add this. It's not just about television, stadium, and merchandise revenue from the football and basketball programs. A significant portion of alumni contributions are also a function of how well the big sports do.

So sad to see this stellar program ending. I'm a Clemson grad, tried to make it as a walk on in track and xc back in the 80's but wasn't fast enough. I did get to train with some of their runners and actually beat some of them in open meets. I'm not sure how this "is in the best long-term interest of Clemson Athletics" as Radokovich says. Track and field isn't an integral part of an "athletics" program? What exactly is? Besides football of course. And why only the men's program? Did I miss something about how much better the women's program is than the men's? Clemson should just privatize the football program as a minor league training camp for the NFL and cut their "athletics" program entirely if they don't want to include a bedrock program such as T&F .

I read somewhere that cutting mens sports was a way to cut finance, because with less men, to comply with Title IX you could also cut costs on women sports (for example, less boats in womens' rowing at Clemson) without any problems.

Or a lot more money to fb of course....

On the other hand, the fb-facilities are an extravaganza... Unbelievable that It's just for the FB programma (not the real sport facilities, but the cafetaria, playrooms , etc.).

People acting like they suddenly care about Clemson track??? They're poop! Their only good recruit, John Lewis was a freaking flop and a half.

This is the problem with DI track and cross country. Even top DI programs (excluding Oregon only because of Nike's interest) don't provide any value to administrators. And while you many mooch off the department for free gear, the department and administration could care less about the program or its athletes. And ultimately, if DI can't figure out how to provide value, it will ultimately keep losing programs until they are all gone.

That's the difference between DI and DII, NAIA, DIII. At smaller schools, athletics isn't about revenue, its about enrolling students and providing good experiences. So smaller schools are more likely to value the athletes and the sport.

Bound4Glory wrote:

future of college sports wrote:

The facilities thing is a red herring.

I'm not sure why you think it's a red herring: these are huge amounts of money.

You're right, the money is huge. What I should have said is it's wrong to blame Clemson's new facilities, because all big programs are doing the same thing and Clemson didn't start it. In fact, alums used to complain because Clemson spent decades ignoring their sports facilities. They just happened to win a championship within a couple years of opening their new facilities, so it drew a lot of attention.

..... wrote:

Focus...all this is about is Dan Radakovich raising his salary (#1) and diverting what is left to football (#2) even though football does not need it and is not asking for it. Clemson , with a budget comparable to SEC schools, will now sponsor 16 sports, the NCAA minimum. IF Radakovich could cut more sports, he would. He does not care about opportunities for young people. He does not care about diversity. He does care about his money, and what is left that he can divert to football.

Exactly!

axes them what? wrote:

800meters wrote:

Clemson axes Mens XC and Track Teams

What did Clemson axe them?

Hi malmo!

The sport needs to get back to dual and tri meets. Short form meets against other schools, keep score. People can follow that, including most AD's.

The thing is, college sports are corrupt to the bone. Notre Dame and Alabama football players aren't students by any stretch of the imagination. Duke and Georgetown basketball are a swamp of ridiculousness - those players aren't qualified to be in any classes. BYU gives 10 years of eligibility. Oregon track is a dopers paradise. Track especially is overrun with overage foreigners. It would be great if we could get back to an intramural, club and Ivy model. Get rid of basketball and football. Get rid of the money incentive.

Boomba wrote:

That's the difference between DI and DII, NAIA, DIII. At smaller schools, athletics isn't about revenue, its about enrolling students and providing good experiences. So smaller schools are more likely to value the athletes and the sport.

So how come the smaller DII, NAIA, and DIII schools can afford XC/T&F, but the big schools can't? I'd like to see the XC/T&F budgets at the smaller schools and compare them to the equivalent budgets at the big DI schools.

they basic wrote:

The thing is, college sports are corrupt to the bone. Notre Dame and Alabama football players aren't students by any stretch of the imagination. Duke and Georgetown basketball are a swamp of ridiculousness - those players aren't qualified to be in any classes. BYU gives 10 years of eligibility. Oregon track is a dopers paradise. Track especially is overrun with overage foreigners. It would be great if we could get back to an intramural, club and Ivy model. Get rid of basketball and football. Get rid of the money incentive.

Problem is that the football programs pay for all the other sports and then some at many major D1 universities. Admittedly, I’m an alumni of a school with not only a very profitable football program, but a well-run athletics department. We have so many sports, both men’s and women’s, solely because of the football program. How Clemson cannot keep track and field is beyond my understanding. Sounds like mismanagement to me considering the millions of guaranteed dollars for CFP appearances they’ve gotten lately.

Bound4Glory wrote:

Boomba wrote:

That's the difference between DI and DII, NAIA, DIII. At smaller schools, athletics isn't about revenue, its about enrolling students and providing good experiences. So smaller schools are more likely to value the athletes and the sport.

So how come the smaller DII, NAIA, and DIII schools can afford XC/T&F, but the big schools can't? I'd like to see the XC/T&F budgets at the smaller schools and compare them to the equivalent budgets at the big DI schools.

They utilize student fees to fund sports and/or offer no scholarships for sports. I can’t speak for all major D1 football programs, but I know my school’s entire athletic department is funded entirely through football and basketball revenue so that no student fees pay for any athletic programs/scholarships in any way. I think a lot of major D1 football schools try to do the same.

Boomba wrote:

They utilize student fees to fund sports and/or offer no scholarships for sports. .

Are scholarship fees included in the T&F budget? That would explain some things (and also be ridiculous).

What would be the argument for adding a track and cross country program to a d1 college like Clemson.

What would be the argument for why they should spend money to create one?

I have yet to hear a good one. Because they should. It’s a shame. Remember, there’s a history doesn’t count.

If there’s no good argument to add one, then we should expect most of them to go away.

Maybe that most track athletes pay tuition and the school isn’t at capacity.