Online Now 1976

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

Online now 90
Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)

Reply

WoW. Maryland cuts 8 varsity sports to further fund football.

  • I disagree with the notion that a university shouldn't be about making money... We all know that's a falacy otherwise schools wouldn't force you to get x number of stupid credits that have zero to do with your degree and instead is a mere means to bring in more revenue and fatten the profs and admins pockets.

    signature image

    Stoopified!

  • The concept of University may have been as Queen describes 100 years ago, but only a truly romantic would fail to see we are light years from that today.

    Cobb has it. It's a business now, the only difference between it and Apple is we openly subsidize university.

  • MinterWonderlnd said... (original post)

    The problem with your statement (in my eyes) is that this is a university, not a business, and it's main aim shouldn't be to make a profit, it should be to educate people. It's short sighted to say the astronomy department isn't making a profit, lets cut it, what about what those graduates go on to do and achieve in the future because of their education at UK?

    I'd say every academic course of study (except Political Science) offered by UK is beneficial to society in ways too numerous to mention. How is the public enriched by the swimming, gymastics, softball, tennis programs, etc.?

  • cobbycobb said... (original post)

    I disagree with the notion that a university shouldn't be about making money... We all know that's a falacy otherwise schools wouldn't force you to get x number of stupid credits that have zero to do with your degree and instead is a mere means to bring in more revenue and fatten the profs and admins pockets.

    I need to expand on this... it also fattens the pockets of the lenders and politicians. The extra 'credits' that the Universities force you to get brings in more money, which means you have to borrow more money from the banks.

    signature image

    Stoopified!

  • In my opinion, it's short-sighted to argue in favor of cutting smaller-revenue sports than football and men's basketball. The NCAA's purpose (whether or not it's their first priority is another argument altogether, though I don't think any of us would argue on that) is to educate and to provide student-athletes with an opportunity to learn and to earn an education at a place that maybe they wouldn't have ended up otherwise. College sports like soccer and tennis enrich these students' lives because, who's to say they would have been able to go to college at all if not for the opportunity athletics afforded them? Just because a kid won't go professional in that sport, play for the national team someday or even make his or her university a boatload of money in the short-term doesn't mean it's not a valuable and worthwhile venture.

    I've worked as a sports writer for five years now (three years as a student reporter at the Kentucky Kernel, which included one summer internship at the Herald-Leader, and two years here at TCP). In that time, I've written at least one story about 16 of UK's 22 varsity sports. I've covered NCAA tournaments (or bowl games, in football's case) for seven of them. These programs are successful because they're winning on the field but they're also bringing bright young minds to the University that, in all likelihood, would have ended up elsewhere otherwise.

    Also: To say there is no interest in those sports is wrong. Interest in many of those sports is very high. If you say it isn't, you have not been around them. They may not earn as much money but interest is high.

    It also must be clarified that sports other than football and basketball do not get full scholarships for every athlete. Men's basketball gets 13 scholarships, women's gets 15 and football gets 85.

    Do you know how many men's soccer gets? 9.9. That's not a typo. Nine-point-nine scholarships. Women's soccer gets 12. Baseball gets 11.7 scholarships. Women's swimming and diving gets 8.1. Men's tennis gets 4.5. It's up to the coaches in those sports to figure out how to dole out partial scholarships among all of their athletes. I was talking to somebody at UK tonight about this very subject (oddly enough it was an unrelated conversation). Not a single baseball player in recent memory has gotten a 100-percent scholarship. James Paxton got 90 or 95% one year, and that's the closest anyone's been. Not even Alex Meyer, who was just drafted 22nd overall in the MLB draft as a junior.

    So before you pass blind judgments about how many non-football athletes are being coddled by football money, at least do your homework.

    It saddens me to see Maryland go down this road. This was all unfolding around this time last year with Cal and its baseball and softball programs. Alumni stepped up and donated enough money so Cal didn't shut down those two teams. It'd be great to see that happen in Maryland's case, but I'm not sure if they have as many high-profile alumni as Cal happened to have not just from its general alumni base but also from its baseball and softball teams.

    http://www.twitter.com/pennington_jl pennington.jl@gmail.com

  • JamesPennington said... (original post)

    In my opinion, it's short-sighted to argue in favor of cutting smaller-revenue sports than football and men's basketball. The NCAA's purpose (whether or not it's their first priority is another argument altogether, though I don't think any of us would argue on that) is to educate and to provide student-athletes with an opportunity to learn and to earn an education at a place that maybe they wouldn't have ended up otherwise. College sports like soccer and tennis enrich these students' lives because, who's to say they would have been able to go to college at all if not for the opportunity athletics afforded them? Just because a kid won't go professional in that sport, play for the national team someday or even make his or her university a boatload of money in the short-term doesn't mean it's not a valuable and worthwhile venture.

    I've worked as a sports writer for five years now (three years as a student reporter at the Kentucky Kernel, which included one summer internship at the Herald-Leader, and two years here at TCP). In that time, I've written at least one story about 16 of UK's 22 varsity sports. I've covered NCAA tournaments (or bowl games, in football's case) for seven of them. These programs are successful because they're winning on the field but they're also bringing bright young minds to the University that, in all likelihood, would have ended up elsewhere otherwise.

    Also: To say there is no interest in those sports is wrong. Interest in many of those sports is very high. If you say it isn't, you have not been around them. They may not earn as much money but interest is high.

    It also must be clarified that sports other than football and basketball do not get full scholarships for every athlete. Men's basketball gets 13 scholarships, women's gets 15 and football gets 85.

    Do you know how many men's soccer gets? 9.9. That's not a typo. Nine-point-nine scholarships. Women's soccer gets 12. Baseball gets 11.7 scholarships. Women's swimming and diving gets 8.1. Men's tennis gets 4.5. It's up to the coaches in those sports to figure out how to dole out partial scholarships among all of their athletes. I was talking to somebody at UK tonight about this very subject (oddly enough it was an unrelated conversation). Not a single baseball player in recent memory has gotten a 100-percent scholarship. James Paxton got 90 or 95% one year, and that's the closest anyone's been. Not even Alex Meyer, who was just drafted 22nd overall in the MLB draft as a junior.

    So before you pass blind judgments about how many non-football athletes are being coddled by football money, at least do your homework.

    It saddens me to see Maryland go down this road. This was all unfolding around this time last year with Cal and its baseball and softball programs. Alumni stepped up and donated enough money so Cal didn't shut down those two teams. It'd be great to see that happen in Maryland's case, but I'm not sure if they have as many high-profile alumni as Cal happened to have not just from its general alumni base but also from its baseball and softball teams.

    I spend 2500-3000 thousand dollars a year on football games and have for 13 years, I do not do this to support secondary sports, I do it cause I want a football team, If it was up to to me ever penny would go to football but it doesnt and I am okay with that as long I see a SEC level commitment to the football program. You can get season pass for soccer and other sports for 40 dollars, If Soccer or Softball intrest is so high, start charging 30 dollars a game that all ask. You can treat these sports fair but they are not equal. UK is losing my donation every year if I do not see a new plan in regards to football. I know sports media in Lexington feel diffently but to be honest they get into all events for free and that does change how you view things.

    This post was edited by OptimusBlue5716 3 years ago

  • If you don't like how they're using your money -- and you seem to be making assumptions on where your dollars and cents are going without having any proof -- then don't give it to them. Simple enough.

    http://www.twitter.com/pennington_jl pennington.jl@gmail.com

  • I'm well aware of how the non major sports divy up partial schollarships. That has no bearing to me on the matter. And if they wouldn't get into college if not for a game then perhaps they don't deserve to be in college. Part of the problem with the world is the coddling of athletes and allowing someone to go to college simply because they can kick a ball is not what should be happening.

    At most schools the athletic department doesn't turn a profit. Thus, by giving money to non-profitable teams/units they are running up the cost of tuition cause that money has to come from somewhere. It's not like they are magically creating money out of thin air like the FED...

    signature image

    Stoopified!

  • Mitch: "These tough decisions have to be made in todays economy; I know I had to juggle the budget some in order to fund the massive football projects these past few years. It hasnt been easy finding money for the football program but I promised Rich Brooks I would do everything in my power to get that recruiting center."

    (just kidding-Mitch would not even come close to making such statements in supporting football-I was just daydreaming)

  • JamesPennington said... (original post)

    If you don't like how they're using your money -- and you seem to be making assumptions on where your dollars and cents are going without having any proof -- then don't give it to them. Simple enough.

    James , I agree that what I am going to do ! Thank you