University of Maryland men's track and field was saved for one year

bump

it's a great story of a group of guys and girls truly battling against the odds. it's barely a victory, as they lost almost every season of running, including xc and indoor track, and they'll have such a diminished roster for outdoor track. But they fought and fought and fought, and hopefully their story makes some headlines and brings some light on the disasters that Title IX is causing.

Good for them. It's really sad how fundraising for the sports has to be tied up with other teams in order to justify their own budget. And keep in mind that Maryland isn't cutting back on spending, they're simply moving the money towards other areas such as football trainers where they think they'll see a greater return on their investment. While it's true that a big sport like football could save the whole school's sports budget, the irony is that their recent unjustified investment in football is what bankrupted them.

Don't blame Title IX, blame football..

They should recruit and train only for the multi events. Coaching staff is still in place for the womens program and they can maximize the athletes on the roster.

uhhhhhhhhhh wrote:

Don't blame Title IX, blame football..

This. Blaming Title IX is a farse. Title IX was needed, and great things have come from it. Judging from the current situation, what do you think would have happened had they not had Title IX?

Something needs to happen with college football. It is out of control. I am a fan of revenue sports. I watch college football all fall, but c'mon. Coaches making millions more than chancellors? Entire corporate industries thriving off the work of unpaid college kids? Give me a break.

All football budgets need to be divided in half and women's football teams need to be started. Like you say football is a great game, it just needs a few rule changes to protect against concussions. Women play rugby and hockey. They can play football. Every dollar spent on the men needs to be matched for the women.

uhhhhhhhhhh wrote:

Don't blame Title IX, blame football..

Blame tightwad aumni. My university just broke ground on a brand new muti-million dollar ice rink for the hocky team. Hockey really isn't popular at all around here and certainly does not produce any profit. So why are they building a new ice rink for the hockey team? Because an alum showed up and said "I'd like to pay for a new ice rink for the hockey team."

How many here have made a similar type of donation? Anyone?

I don't think you can just categorically blame the alumni. Even in your example, if your university had similar athletic department financial mismanagement and hockey was (due to internal budget meetings) slated for the ax, the hockey donor would only have saved this sport, and may have had to provide a greater donation to fund the program in addition to constructing the new facility, and most likely chip in for all the care and maintenance to keep it going, since his facility would now become a new potential issue the athletic department would have to manage in relation to other ongoing problems they have failed to adequately fund.

From what I remember, the U of Maryland athletic department was just completely mismanaged, and the answer was to cut 8 non-revenue sports to balance the budget. Do you really think men's cross country, water polo, or tennis alumni were following the inner workings of the greater athletic department financial woes to proactively avoid this extreme decision the university came up with?

I don't think any alumnus is that tuned in to how an annual donation to the varsity club, athletic department, or university is specifically earmarked. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if you donate to a specific team via athletic department or varsity club annual drives, we don't really know how it is administered, e.g., each team's annual percentage allocated to general athletic department programs it utilizes, etc.

What's shocking is how cheap it really is to maintain a cross country team, yet the school can't do it. I simply don't understand how the school can't find a way to preserve such an inexpensive sport. The biggest cost is the coach's salary.

It's not the expense of XC it's the optics of carrying another sport.

Pretty stupid.

I&*&yug wrote:

All football budgets need to be divided in half and women's football teams need to be started. Like you say football is a great game, it just needs a few rule changes to protect against concussions. Women play rugby and hockey. They can play football. Every dollar spent on the men needs to be matched for the women.

It would make more sense for women's rugby to be phased in since women already play at the college club level. It's a game that already has a history, role models, and a pro level. In fact, the national team is very good. The uniforming requirements are much less than for football and I would guess that it's a lower cost sport overall. And IMO women's rugby evens out many of the physical disadvantages that would make women's football boring to watch in comparison with the men.

uhhhhhhhhhh wrote:

Don't blame Title IX, blame football..

I get that a lot of this comes down to football, but why is it that every time a track team gets cut it is on the men's side? If Title IX has nothing to do with it, why not cut the women's team instead? It takes more scholarships to fully fund a women's track then it does men's.

I am all for supporting women's rugby. However, the point of Title IX is that once women have the opportunity to play a sport, football in this case, over a few generations they will play it just as much as men.

There are no physical disadvantages that would make women's football boring. Different, maybe but not boring. Do you think a women's 1500m race is more boring than a men's 1500m? Wait until you have kids. My daughter's races are just as exciting as my son's.