University is New Mexico Track/XC still alive, but forced to reduce track/XC roster size

An awful lot of high school boys play football and run track. For those who are really good at both, it is much easier to get a football scholarship than a track scholarship because there are so many more scholarships available. If we increase track scholarships for guys and reduce the number of football scholarships, won’t more of those dual sport guys just try to get track scholarships instead? That would improve the quality of the speed/power events in college, but I doubt it would greatly increase overall track participation rates or (more importantly) the attendance levels at college track meets. We would just be bringing in a different group of athletes and a different set of moms, dads, and girlfriends in the stands.

Instead of worrying about the profitability (or lack thereof) of the football team, we need to figure out ways to make track more fan-friendly so that it can be profitable by itself- which would ensure that our programs will not be cut.

There is talk of mandating 3 scholarships for XC. It won’t help track because it will still be a total of 12.6.

Are you familiar with Santa Fe, NM resident Joe Kapp? Vikings had a saying in 1969, "40 for 60." Forty men, give it your all for 60 minutes. A football team needs no more than 40 men. I played on a Pop Warner teams with less than 20. Track & field needs app. 40 men and 40 women. I believe in the 1970's D1 football teams were allowed to give out app. 115 scholarships. The idea of the high number of football scholarships was to hoard talent. The wealthy & successful programs, since they sold out their stadiums on Saturday's wanted to hoard talent to starve competitor university of talent. College football could survive on 25 scholarships. About ten guys getting 100% and give out 1/4 scholarships to whomever else. Just because college football generates greater revenue than T&F does not mean D1 college football needs any where near 85 scholarships.

Honestly, VERY FEW schools make big money on football. I'm talking net income here. You can say that other sources of general athletic department revenue (donations and student fees) are driven by football, but it's not a straight formula.

I went to grad school at a Pac 10 school, where football made it's first bowl game in a few years during my time there. It was a low-mid tier bowl. he team spent more money on the trip than they got in the bowl payout. The team lost money in operating costs that year, even after conference and TV payouts -- and that doesn't count facility costs, etc..

I now am on faculty at a Big 10 school, where they recently spent $270 million on one new football facility. And then promptly told faculty that pay "raises" won't meet inflation. I don't honestly know whether the football team brings in a profit.

Chronicles of Higher Education once published a study on a pair of state flagship schools: one that increased investments in big-time athletics, while the other de-emphasized, during the same 5 year period. Overall, the latter was much better off in the end, financially and academically.

Either way, if you accept that football needs 85 scholarships and 100+ rosters, then you can't blame a school for cutting other men's sports. And you certainly can't blame the women, who obviously do want to participate/compete.

If NFL teams can get by with a roster of 50, then college teams should be limited to 75 players. This would allow them to stock teams without hoarding talent and improve on-field competition. We might actually get to see who can really coach!

I agree with all of your points (and I do remember Joe Kapp, but did not realize he was from Santa Fe) except that I did say that complaining about the funding of college football will not help men's college track programs as much as growing track's popularity and revenue. Since your response was to keep right on complaining about the funding of college football, I take it you aren't really interested in solving the problem.

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

If NFL teams can get by with a roster of 50, then college teams should be limited to 75 players. This would allow them to stock teams without hoarding talent and improve on-field competition. We might actually get to see who can really coach!

NCAA just instituted a new redshirt rule for football, allowing a player to play 4 games per/throughout year (including a bowl) and still redshirt.

Reason for doing this - not enough able-bodied players toward end of season.

You mentioned an overlap in high school with football and track & field. You mentioned popularity of T&F. Either one likes T&F or not. Not much to do about that. I gather you like football more than I do. You do not want football touched in any manner I assume. One can't talk about college athletics without talking about the 85 football scholarships.

Football? wrote:

Chronicles of Higher Education once published a study on a pair of state flagship schools: one that increased investments in big-time athletics, while the other de-emphasized, during the same 5 year period. Overall, the latter was much better off in the end, financially and academically.

What state flagship de-emphasized sports and was better off? Idaho just went down a level in football, kicking and screaming.

Alex Harris has quietly transferred to UNM from Villanova