Athletic program cuts

[buspen]

I just heard the entire track program is being eliminated, practically immediately. I understand the Board is to meet tommorrow to vote. I know a couple of kids on the team, they are great kids and I hate to see a nationally competitive team be eliminated. We need all the exposure we can get some of the success can bleed over.

I assume this is a Title IX casualty, if not, all of a sudden there is a large dark cloud hanging over the entire athletic department.

If cuts have to be made, is a successful program like this the one to cut?

[PK]

From what I gather from the posts on the "Other Sports" message board, it is the men's track program being eliminated, so it definitely sounds like a Title IX issue. What irritates me is that the decisions seem to be getting made without alumni input. Given appropriate warning there may be enough interest for some folks to increase there financial support to save a athletic program like this. E-mail the Athletic Department, the Administration and the Board of Trustees to let them know that you are not pleased with this move.

[50's PONY]

NEWS


SMU considers axing men's track
Athletic director cites financial reasons for cut


By Emily Powell
Managing Editor
February 19, 2004


Head Coach Dave Wollman and Athletic Director Jim Copeland told members of the men’s track team Wednesday evening that their team was to be cut from the university’s athletic program.

Junior Hannes Hopley, who won the men’s discus at the 2003 NCAA Outdoor Track and Field Championships, said the athletic secretary called to tell him about the mandatory meeting.

“Everyone knew something was wrong. I mean, they told us to skip class to come to the meeting,” he said.

Sophomore Michael Robertson, who finished third in the 2003 NCAA Outdoor Track and Field Championships and claimed All-American honors, said, “The coach just came in and sat down and told us the team had been cut.”

Hopley said Wollman was emotional because of the decision’s short notice. Officials told the coach at 2 p.m., less than five hours before the meeting.

Copeland cited financial reasons and the lack of a strong fan base for the decision to cut the men’s team. The women’s track and field team will remain active.

“[Copeland] said they’d crunched the numbers, and track just came out on the losing end,” Hopley said.

Some runners also felt the university’s desire to comply with Title IX influenced the decision, referrng to the new addition of the women’s equestrian team.

Title IX is the portion of the Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibit sexual discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funds. The educational institutions must provide opportunities for both male and female students in proportion to their respective enrollments.

“They really downplayed the Title IX issue,” Robertson said.

The team will finish out the rest of the season, and members of the team agree that they should still try for a strong finish.

“All of us need to get together and concentrate on winning this year’s NCAA championship,” Robertson said.

The men’s team finished in the top six at the NCAA Indoor Championships in four of the last five seasons and finished in the top 10 at the NCAA Outdoor Championships in five of the last seven years.

Members of the team will retain their scholarships until the end of their athletic eligibility.

Robertson said his future was still uncertain.

“We all just have to block this out. I’m concentrating on winning the NCAA championship and doing well at the Olympic trials,” he said.

According to members of the team, Copeland said the final decision would be announced Friday after meetings with the Board of Trustees.




SMU considers axing men's track
Post your feedback on this topic here
02/19/2004 I hope some rich alumni can step up... Jeremy S.
(Feedback requires a Javascript

[Buddha]

That is an absolute crime. The track programs at SMU are as strong as any, including soccer and swimming.

We never (I think) host a track meet, so I imagine it would be hard to generate much financial backing, considering nobody sees them compete -- we only read about their great successes. Nonetheless, I hate to see this happen. There are a lot of exceptional athletes who no longer will consider SMU.

And does this hurt football recruiting? Seems to me there are some guys on the football team who could double as sprinters or throwers, a la Michael Carter. Hope that possibility was taken in to consideration.

[Johnny Rock]

This action by SMU goes to prove my point in that we should drop out of Division 1-A. We cannot even afford to keep the track team...how pathetic. What is next tennis? or golf? Division 1-A athletics has changed dramatically over the last five years. SMU has made a decision not to compete, which is fine. So let's move to Division 1-AA and spend less on athletics and more on academic programs and be done with it. Are you guys ready for another pathetic football season? I'm not.

[Dooby]

This action by SMU goes to prove my point in that we should drop out of Division 1-A. We cannot even afford to keep the track team...how pathetic. What is next tennis? or golf? Division 1-A athletics has changed dramatically over the last five years. SMU has made a decision not to compete, which is fine. So let's move to Division 1-AA and spend less on athletics and more on academic programs and be done with it. Are you guys ready for another pathetic football season? I'm not.

Let me be the first to tell you "STFU."

[Eddie P]

Thank you!

[davidsmu94]

Some Track Alumi along with newspapers and Television news are going up to the Student Center at 4:15 to confront the board on this. Everyone, please make it if you can

[Greenwich Pony]

Normally, I'd agree with you regarding Johnny Rock, but the man has a point. If we cannot even maintain the men's track team, which IS nationally respected and successful; then we should reassess our ability to continue to compete at the Division I Level. This is absolutely ridiculous.

We have all endured questionable move after questionable move by the athletic department and bourne it with good grace on the assumption that they will get it fixed. This proved that they won't or can't. I really didn't think I'd every write these words, but it is probably time for Copeland to go, and frankly, if the Board of Directors approves this, perhaps it's time for a changing of the guard as well. This is a symptom of a much larger problem of mismanagement of the school. We are surrendering athletic programs left and right and what do we get in return? The university is not vastly improved in academic quality or reputation; the Board hasn't exactly lifted the school to the status of a Duke or a Stanford or even a Vanderbilt or Rice. We're seeing no significant progress on the academic front and we're fighting a retreat from athletics. It's time for a change.

Pardon my repeat from the other sports board, but I'm trying to work, monitor the board and find the email address of the administration and anyone else at SMU. Frankly, this is the last straw for me. If the board allows this, I will no longer support SMU in any way, shape or form.

[Boston Pony]

D-IAA is Division I athletics - just a division for football. What you are suggesting is that SMU drop to DIII or to DIAA in football and remain DI in all other sports - i.e. Ivy League/ Patriot League / Southern Confernce level. This suggestion to drop to DIAA in football is not bad - if we were in New England. In Texas you don't have any rivals outside of small state schools. To play in say the Southern Conference we would travel to SC, TN others to play Furman, Davidson, etc. which are schools of similar size (although somewhat smaller), however the added travel costs would eat up the savings on the scholarships. I just don't think it's going to happen

[Hoop Fan]

ridiculous. I'm sickened. The lack of a fan base is directly proportion to the crappy product that this Board and this university has put on the field in the revenue sports. I don't even like Track necessarily yet I am disgusted beyond belief. Every major university has a freaking Track program. I wish I had more time and clout to raise some hell. I am busy, but at minimum plan to launch a scathing letter at some Board member.

[Dooby]

If you think we are the only institution eliminating sports, then you are not paying attention. Cincinnati eliminated 3 men's sports in 1998, including men's tennis. UMASS and Tulane have eliminated men's track and field. Miami (Ohio) eliminated the men’s soccer, tennis and wrestling programs.Even UCLA and Virginia have eliminated some men’s sports (BCS schools have these problems, too). Wrestling programs at the college level are practically disappearing. Men's gymnastics is going the way of the dodo bird. Unless, I am mistaken, a few years ago, the reigning NCAA men's golf champion was eliminated.

Statistically speaking, over 400 men's teams were eliminated at the university level in the 1990's.

This is a sad day. This is an even sadder day for SMU athletics. However, SMU athletics will go on.

Some of you "chicken littles" don't know what you are talking about.

[Greenwich Pony]

I realize that I-A and I-AA are the same except for football. If this is the continued product, both in athletics and academics, and we're cutting loose successful programs like the men's track team, then perhaps dropping to DIII or cutting out football altogether may be the answer. Let's face it gang, it has given us so much joy for the past two decades...

This wasn't easy to say- I came to SMU in the fall of 1987. I could have easily stayed east despite the problems we had back then, but I choose to become a Mustang. I have stuck it out through thick and thin with the rest of you, and perhaps would have continued to tolerate our mediocrity in football and basketball; after all the only good news from the athletic department comes from the olympic sports, and even they haven't been performing as they used to in the passed few years, especially on the men's side. For the university to cut men's track, why doesn't Cox just cut accounting? Christ, we've been funding terrible programs for years, why can't we keep one of the few good ones we have left?

Why do we have a "Commitment" if we're just going to cut out or successful sports? Perhaps we need to cut the salary of the Athletic director instead...

Frankly, if the Board passes this, the fun's over for me. Period.

[Greenwich Pony]

Bully for UCLA, Tulane, and everyone else who has eliminated sports programs. It doesn't change the fact that this is indicative of mismanagement.

[PK]

I have said this before and feel compelled to get on my soapbox and say it again...those so called fans who have decided to withhold their finacial support until football and/or basketball returns to some personally satisfying level of success are being counter productive and forcing the athletic department to make decisions such as this which will be regreted in the future. This action of cutting the men's track program, if carried through, will be a black eye for SMU and even more so for the alumni who obviously are not willing to fully support all the athletic programs that add to the diversity of sports a great university should provide. We the "fans" are as much responsible for this as is the Administration and Board of Trustees if we are not doing our part. At least that's the way I see it. I'll step down now from my soapbox.