(10-13-2020 03:55 PM)Old tribe Wrote: Here's an interesting article that specifically mentions W&M. The author argues that cutting varsity teams is actually a good thing because it allows those teams to shift to club status, where more students are able to participate and the teams aren't burdened by NCAA rules. Food for thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/sport...-cuts.html
The author also notes a point that I don't think has been mentioned much in this discussion. At the Division I level, football and basketball are used as marketing vehicles for the university. If you go back and watch Martin's talk, that's definitely acknowledged in his slide that compares Division I to Division III. That's part of the reason those sports are prioritized. Right or wrong, people pay more attention to them.
I’ll bite. There’s nothing wrong with offering club sports, and having a club sport is better than nothing. However, we’re not going to attract the same caliber of student athlete to come to W&M to participate in club swimming or club track. Those exceptional kids will go elsewhere, DIII or another DI program. While not having to comply with NCAA rules may be nice for the athletic department, the kids actually view being an athlete competing under the NCAA banner as a positive. High schools don’t hold signing ceremonies for kids going to college to play a club sport.
As for the argument that W&M needs improve its brand through greater success in revenue sports, I think this motivation is a poor fit for the culture of the College. It also misses the point that W&M is already a nationally recognized brand in academic circles, where it matters. What you are asking us to accept is that it's worth taking away opportunities for 30% of the College’s athletes to cut 15% of the budget. For what? So, we have a slightly better chance of being a one and done NCAA tournament participant? At the end of the day, the CAA is a one-bid league. We could double the basketball budget and I’m not sure it greatly improves our odds of making the dance. More importantly, WM alums pride in the school isn’t conditioned or contingent on the College’s athletic prowess. We take pride in competing with true student athletes and doing more with less. We take pride in valuing all members of the athletic Tribe equally! These decisions to cut off members of the Tribe without fighting like heck to keep them runs counter to our values and culture.
As for football, it’s my understanding we offer the full compliment of scholarships and our facilities have been brought up to par or better with our FCS peers. Again, I fail to see where pouring additional money into football brings us an appreciable competitive advantage. Realistically, we will live or die with our ability to find and recruit quality players that can handle WM academically. That has always been both the draw and the hurdle and not one money alone can solve. Even if we won an FCS title, I don’t see that greatly increasing applications to W&M. The types of students that apply to W&M will continue to be drawn to the school wether or not we win an FCS title or go dancing.
It’s ridiculous for WM to justify these cuts using a playbook designed for lesser known regional schools with midling academics to increase their brand, donations and enrollment. We are not JMU or ODU. It shows a complete lack of understanding of our supporters, students, and alumni.
