(05-26-2020 09:56 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 08:24 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 07:20 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 06:38 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 06:22 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Why would CUSA throw them a bone? What's in it for them?

Well since CUSA has 14 members but only 6 of them sponsor Men’s Soccer and there are 3 similar schools directly in the middle of their footprint that are looking for a new home, why wouldn’t they?

More competition for the automatic NCAA bid?

Not as big a deal for CUSA men's soccer, which usually gets multiple teams in — last year they had three teams (Marshall, Charlotte, Kentucky) with Marshall making the round of 16.

Are the 3 SBC teams good at soccer? If your 8 team conference gets 3 teams in, why would you add 3 bad teams and split the pie 3 more ways?

Coastal is really good, they made the NCAAs almost every single year in the 2010s.

Georgia State has had 5 straight winning seasons with a tourney bid in 2018.

Georgia Southern, well, they're not horrible, but they've been playing for 40 years and have yet to reach an NCAA Tournament.

As for Howard, the rules say you need 6 teams to get an AQ and Howard is technically a soccer team. Let's just go with that.

(05-26-2020 10:25 PM)HatterFan Wrote:  As for Howard, the rules say you need 6 teams to get an AQ and Howard is technically a soccer team. Let's just go with that.

The PR speak would be that Howard was really good for a period in the 20th century. They won the NCAA Championship game twice in the 70s, and are still one-time champions, as their 1974 NCAA championship wasn't vacated.

But their last tournament appearance was the 90s and last Round of 16 the 80s, so it might not be untouchable during a financial crisis ... despite the nostalgia factor.

C-USA is very unlikely to want the schools, as they have Kentucky and Florida as associates for 8 total already.

The SBC actually has 5 with Central Arkansas (SLC) and Howard (MEAC) as associates. They could maybe woo Houston Baptist and Incarnate Word (both SLC), who are in the 11 team WAC and have to travel to Utah, Arizona, California and Washington. Going east and joining UCA might be attractive.

But also wait a bit, the fallout is nowhere near complete. Other schools will be dropping sports, forcing consolidations of conferences for many lesser sports, including Men's soccer. There are plenty of leagues in the east for consolidation.

(05-26-2020 10:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  C-USA is very unlikely to want the schools, as they have Kentucky and Florida as associates for 8 total already.

The SBC actually has 5 with Central Arkansas (SLC) and Howard (MEAC) as associates. They could maybe woo Houston Baptist and Incarnate Word (both SLC), who are in the 11 team WAC and have to travel to Utah, Arizona, California and Washington. Going east and joining UCA might be attractive.

But also wait a bit, the fallout is nowhere near complete. Other schools will be dropping sports, forcing consolidations of conferences for many lesser sports, including Men's soccer. There are plenty of leagues in the east for consolidation.

If only 25% of the Sun Belt sponsors men’s soccer, then maybe the Sun Belt should no longer sponsor men’s soccer. It might come to that.

(05-26-2020 10:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  But also wait a bit, the fallout is nowhere near complete. Other schools will be dropping sports, forcing consolidations of conferences for many lesser sports, including Men's soccer. There are plenty of leagues in the east for consolidation.

Yes, barring drop announcements I've missed, the MAC's at 6 (average RPI rank 77), only 4 full members (but one affiliate's WVU), the ASun's at 7 (avg 128) and the SoCon's at 7 (avg 155).

Sunbelt's avg RPI rank is 90, so except for Howard, not a bad competitive fit to CUSA's average RPI rank last season of 67 (and without Howard, the SBC would have been an average RPI rank last season of 68).

I still think that many college presidents (academic types, sports haters) are using the virus as a cover to chip away at the athletic departments. They can't eliminate the entire program overnight, but they can start removing smaller sports. If we shrug and say "oh well, it's only track and tennis", we'll soon find ourselves having our favorite sports eliminated too. You cannot tell me that track and field or tennis make any kind of noticeable dent in the athletics budget at App State. This is a test to see how much push back fans, students, faculty, and especially donors give the schools. It's not just App State on the line here, it's everyone potentially.

The next time there's a "crisis" or anything they can latch onto, and all the small sports are already eliminated, they'll go after basketball and football. First they'll lower the scholarship totals, reduce coaching salaries, and kill the program from within. Then when the teams are at the bottom of the standings they'll pull the plug completely. I'm not saying this is App State's future, but many other small D1 schools that are eliminating sports are already doing these things (Furman).

(05-26-2020 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 03:34 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  Considering UCONN is about to cut about 8 of their 24 programs, APP state is doing great.

That figure of "8" was just a suggestion by a sportswriter. The AD didn't specify a number in the article I saw. They were just "thinking" about eliminating sports.

It's not just a "suggestion", the state is broke and UConn thought they were a P5 school, not a quasi-rinky dink college. They have no choice but to cut sports.

(05-27-2020 05:34 AM)MercerFan Wrote:  I still think that many college presidents (academic types, sports haters) are using the virus as a cover to chip away at the athletic departments. They can't eliminate the entire program overnight, but they can start removing smaller sports.

Interesting theory, but I see it as the opposite: Those who worship at the Golden Calf of Football are using the crisis to eliminate other sports to (a) protect football right now, and (b) set football up to get more money in the future by not reviving these sports once the crisis is over.

I doubt the athletic-hater theory, because really, there are no professor types who have an issue with tennis or cross-country. They dislike the pernicious influence of football and men's hoops.

(05-27-2020 05:34 AM)MercerFan Wrote:  I still think that many college presidents (academic types, sports haters) are using the virus as a cover to chip away at the athletic departments. They can't eliminate the entire program overnight, but they can start removing smaller sports. If we shrug and say "oh well, it's only track and tennis", we'll soon find ourselves having our favorite sports eliminated too. You cannot tell me that track and field or tennis make any kind of noticeable dent in the athletics budget at App State. This is a test to see how much push back fans, students, faculty, and especially donors give the schools. It's not just App State on the line here, it's everyone potentially.

The next time there's a "crisis" or anything they can latch onto, and all the small sports are already eliminated, they'll go after basketball and football. First they'll lower the scholarship totals, reduce coaching salaries, and kill the program from within. Then when the teams are at the bottom of the standings they'll pull the plug completely. I'm not saying this is App State's future, but many other small D1 schools that are eliminating sports are already doing these things (Furman).

Not everything is a conspiracy. Sports need money to run. Public schools, especially those at the G5 level, rely heavily on allocated funds and state monies to operate. When there is a projected budget shortfall, every administrator at the school must tighten their belts including the athletic director. If the money was going to be there, these sports wouldn't have gotten cut, but it's not and it won't be for a while. The university presidents didn't just all get together and say "Hey, we should start cutting non-revenue sports at our school and see what happens."

(05-27-2020 07:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 05:34 AM)MercerFan Wrote:  I still think that many college presidents (academic types, sports haters) are using the virus as a cover to chip away at the athletic departments. They can't eliminate the entire program overnight, but they can start removing smaller sports.

Interesting theory, but I see it as the opposite: Those who worship at the Golden Calf of Football are using the crisis to eliminate other sports to (a) protect football right now, and (b) set football up to get more money in the future by not reviving these sports once the crisis is over.

I doubt the athletic-hater theory, because really, there are no professor types who have an issue with tennis or cross-country. They dislike the pernicious influence of football and men's hoops.

Don't know why, but they hate big time sports; they think its a zero-sum game: they somehow detract from them, when in reality, big time sports enhances a college.

(05-27-2020 07:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I doubt the athletic-hater theory, because really, there are no professor types who have an issue with tennis or cross-country. They dislike the pernicious influence of football and men's hoops.

That seems right ... the hockey players in our dorm on Western campus at Miami were architecture students ... hockey players leveraging ice hockey skills into reducing the cost of an architecture degree is not the kind of "football factory" issue that aggravates anti-athletic profs.

And one year at UTK, I was TA for the prof of the Intro to Latin American Studies course. This was previously known as "Salad Bars of the World" under the previous prof, and lots of FB and Basketball players took the course, but this was the second year with this guy teaching, the students looking for a gut course for that particular University requirement had moved onto to some other course, and the athletes we had were a handful of baseball players and maybe a tennis player or two.

(05-27-2020 07:14 AM)ZooMass84 Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 05:34 AM)MercerFan Wrote:  I still think that many college presidents (academic types, sports haters) are using the virus as a cover to chip away at the athletic departments. They can't eliminate the entire program overnight, but they can start removing smaller sports.

Interesting theory, but I see it as the opposite: Those who worship at the Golden Calf of Football are using the crisis to eliminate other sports to (a) protect football right now, and (b) set football up to get more money in the future by not reviving these sports once the crisis is over.

I doubt the athletic-hater theory, because really, there are no professor types who have an issue with tennis or cross-country. They dislike the pernicious influence of football and men's hoops.

Don't know why, but they hate big time sports; they think its a zero-sum game: they somehow detract from them, when in reality, big time sports enhances a college.

At truly big-time schools, like Michigan or Notre Dame or Alabama, sure, the football team enhances the university. But at a majority of even FBS schools, the football isn't actually "big time", and is a big money-suck to the university.

(05-27-2020 07:12 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 05:34 AM)MercerFan Wrote:  I still think that many college presidents (academic types, sports haters) are using the virus as a cover to chip away at the athletic departments. They can't eliminate the entire program overnight, but they can start removing smaller sports. If we shrug and say "oh well, it's only track and tennis", we'll soon find ourselves having our favorite sports eliminated too. You cannot tell me that track and field or tennis make any kind of noticeable dent in the athletics budget at App State. This is a test to see how much push back fans, students, faculty, and especially donors give the schools. It's not just App State on the line here, it's everyone potentially.

The next time there's a "crisis" or anything they can latch onto, and all the small sports are already eliminated, they'll go after basketball and football. First they'll lower the scholarship totals, reduce coaching salaries, and kill the program from within. Then when the teams are at the bottom of the standings they'll pull the plug completely. I'm not saying this is App State's future, but many other small D1 schools that are eliminating sports are already doing these things (Furman).

Not everything is a conspiracy. Sports need money to run. Public schools, especially those at the G5 level, rely heavily on allocated funds and state monies to operate. When there is a projected budget shortfall, every administrator at the school must tighten their belts including the athletic director. If the money was going to be there, these sports wouldn't have gotten cut, but it's not and it won't be for a while. The university presidents didn't just all get together and say "Hey, we should start cutting non-revenue sports at our school and see what happens."

I agree, but what we are seeing are likely *permanent* solutions to a *temporary* situation. Covid-19 won't be around forever, but it's hard to re-start a sport once you've eliminated it.

The seemingly neutral move would be to just make across-the-board cuts, such as cutting expenses for each sport by 20%, or whatever is needed to make up the deficit. Rather than take the ax to certain sports and leave others much less scathed. That does suggest a longer-term agenda.

(05-27-2020 07:17 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I doubt the athletic-hater theory, because really, there are no professor types who have an issue with tennis or cross-country. They dislike the pernicious influence of football and men's hoops.

That seems right ... the hockey players in our dorm on Western campus at Miami were architecture students ... hockey players leveraging ice hockey skills into reducing the cost of an architecture degree is not the kind of "football factory" issue that aggravates anti-athletic profs.

And one year at UTK, I was TA for the prof of the Intro to Latin American Studies course. This was previously known as "Salad Bars of the World" under the previous prof, and lots of FB and Basketball players took the course, but this was the second year with this guy teaching, the students looking for a gut course for that particular University requirement had moved onto to some other course, and the athletes we had were a handful of baseball players and maybe a tennis player or two.

That's a good point: I've never really heard of a "tennis factory" or a "women's soccer factory", LOL.

(05-27-2020 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:17 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I doubt the athletic-hater theory, because really, there are no professor types who have an issue with tennis or cross-country. They dislike the pernicious influence of football and men's hoops.

That seems right ... the hockey players in our dorm on Western campus at Miami were architecture students ... hockey players leveraging ice hockey skills into reducing the cost of an architecture degree is not the kind of "football factory" issue that aggravates anti-athletic profs.

And one year at UTK, I was TA for the prof of the Intro to Latin American Studies course. This was previously known as "Salad Bars of the World" under the previous prof, and lots of FB and Basketball players took the course, but this was the second year with this guy teaching, the students looking for a gut course for that particular University requirement had moved onto to some other course, and the athletes we had were a handful of baseball players and maybe a tennis player or two.

That's a good point: I've never really heard of a "tennis factory" or a "women's soccer factory", LOL.

UNC would beg to differ.

(05-27-2020 07:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:12 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 05:34 AM)MercerFan Wrote:  I still think that many college presidents (academic types, sports haters) are using the virus as a cover to chip away at the athletic departments. They can't eliminate the entire program overnight, but they can start removing smaller sports. If we shrug and say "oh well, it's only track and tennis", we'll soon find ourselves having our favorite sports eliminated too. You cannot tell me that track and field or tennis make any kind of noticeable dent in the athletics budget at App State. This is a test to see how much push back fans, students, faculty, and especially donors give the schools. It's not just App State on the line here, it's everyone potentially.

The next time there's a "crisis" or anything they can latch onto, and all the small sports are already eliminated, they'll go after basketball and football. First they'll lower the scholarship totals, reduce coaching salaries, and kill the program from within. Then when the teams are at the bottom of the standings they'll pull the plug completely. I'm not saying this is App State's future, but many other small D1 schools that are eliminating sports are already doing these things (Furman).

Not everything is a conspiracy. Sports need money to run. Public schools, especially those at the G5 level, rely heavily on allocated funds and state monies to operate. When there is a projected budget shortfall, every administrator at the school must tighten their belts including the athletic director. If the money was going to be there, these sports wouldn't have gotten cut, but it's not and it won't be for a while. The university presidents didn't just all get together and say "Hey, we should start cutting non-revenue sports at our school and see what happens."

I agree, but what we are seeing are likely *permanent* solutions to a *temporary* situation. Covid-19 won't be around forever, but it's hard to re-start a sport once you've eliminated it.

The seemingly neutral move would be to just make across-the-board cuts, such as cutting expenses for each sport by 20%, or whatever is needed to make up the deficit. Rather than take the ax to certain sports and leave others much less scathed. That does suggest a longer-term agenda.

I look at it differently. The problem is permanent, which a temporary condition is providing the opportunity to fix. Heavy athletic subsidies are there for much of the G5 and lower divisions, and have been for some time.

(05-27-2020 05:34 AM)MercerFan Wrote:  I still think that many college presidents (academic types, sports haters) are using the virus as a cover to chip away at the athletic departments. They can't eliminate the entire program overnight, but they can start removing smaller sports. If we shrug and say "oh well, it's only track and tennis", we'll soon find ourselves having our favorite sports eliminated too. You cannot tell me that track and field or tennis make any kind of noticeable dent in the athletics budget at App State. This is a test to see how much push back fans, students, faculty, and especially donors give the schools. It's not just App State on the line here, it's everyone potentially.

The next time there's a "crisis" or anything they can latch onto, and all the small sports are already eliminated, they'll go after basketball and football. First they'll lower the scholarship totals, reduce coaching salaries, and kill the program from within. Then when the teams are at the bottom of the standings they'll pull the plug completely. I'm not saying this is App State's future, but many other small D1 schools that are eliminating sports are already doing these things (Furman).

App was a G5 outlier at 20 sports (10 men). This was bound to happen at some point. I assume Women's Tennis not Men's ITF would have been cut if not for Title IX.

Academics have always hated athletics. They don’t see the overall value they have to the institution in terms of marketing and building a sense of community and comradery among the student body and alumni. They resent that the institution’s academic standards get bent to admit athletes who might not otherwise be admitted.

But above all their biggest gripe comes down to money. They see every dollar spent as being better off spent on academic facilities, faculty salaries, or that slushy budget line for traveling to conferences and for academic research that they use to finance their personal vacations.

(05-27-2020 09:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Academics have always hated athletics. They don’t see the overall value they have to the institution in terms of marketing and building a sense of community and comradery among the student body and alumni. They resent that the institution’s academic standards get bent to admit athletes who might not otherwise be admitted.

But above all their biggest gripe comes down to money. They see every dollar spent as being better off spent on academic facilities, faculty salaries, or that slushy budget line for traveling to conferences and for academic research that they use to finance their personal vacations.

And it's funny because they're often the same faculty who resent students. There's a big correlation between the faculty who find their students to be a pain in the ass and who detest athletics, as well as the faculty who love/are popular with students and support athletics.

There used to be a forum called The Chronicle where it was basically all the teachers in the country who hate their students congregating to $hit-talk their students, department heads, and you guessed it...athletics.

(05-27-2020 09:21 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 09:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Academics have always hated athletics. They don’t see the overall value they have to the institution in terms of marketing and building a sense of community and comradery among the student body and alumni. They resent that the institution’s academic standards get bent to admit athletes who might not otherwise be admitted.

But above all their biggest gripe comes down to money. They see every dollar spent as being better off spent on academic facilities, faculty salaries, or that slushy budget line for traveling to conferences and for academic research that they use to finance their personal vacations.

And it's funny because they're often the same faculty who resent students. There's a big correlation between the faculty who find their students to be a pain in the ass and who detest athletics, as well as the faculty who love/are popular with students and support athletics.

There used to be a forum called The Chronicle where it was basically all the teachers in the country who hate their students congregating to $hit-talk their students, department heads, and you guessed it...athletics.

Certain segments of those who post on the The Chronicle are just looking to complain, no question.

I think saying that professors hate athletics is too broad of an overstatement. One also needs to remember that an English professor (or any other professor) has not been trained to run a college/university.
Generally, their college and professional life has been spent learning a lot about some very unique aspect of their discipline. So, would you ask a Civil Engineering professor about what should the college/university do to try and save money, are they going to say, cut my research funds? No, they are going to say, cut something else. That seems to be a natural reaction that we see through history. When the Spaniards were looking for the 7 Cities of Cibola, the people of the area kept telling them it was just over the hills. Deflection to preserve themselves. This is not different.

Now I am a professor/coach at a small JC in Georgia. I coach an "olympic" sport with a total budget (including my stipend) of about $15000. I was asked to prepare for a 14% budget reduction. For me, that means one fewer contest, holding off buying new uniforms for a year, changing our travel a little bit more. So if I get 5 students to come to my school, that might have gone elsewhere, my sport pays for itself through their tuition.

Those that are successful at the sport I coach tend to be good students as well, so there is not the same animosity in the classroom as might be towards other "typical" athletes.

Just a cautionary tale of statements such as "Academics have always hated athletics."