Dreams Cut Short

[50's PONY]

OPINION


Amanda Henkes
Dreams cut short
OP/ED


By Amanda Henkes
Senior chemistry and Spanish double major
February 25, 2004


My commendations go out to the Ed Board for its classy farewell to the men’s track and field program. As a member of the women’s team for the past four years, I can say that the loss hurts the women’s team as much as the men’s. We share the same coaches, practice together and essentially are one team.

Over the past years I’ve spent at SMU, I can attest to the genuine bond between all members of our team and these men will truly be missed. These men work year-round training at their events. It’s more than just the 20 hours per week that the NCAA allows them to spend with their coaches at official practices. Track and field requires a lifestyle commitment.

It is a shame to put a roadblock in the paths of the dreams of these young men who have Olympic aspirations.

One reason cited by the athletic department for the cut in the program is the lack of a fan base. These men have a fan base.

Many of you can claim one of them as your friend or classmate. You always ask them how their competition went over the weekend after they missed a Friday class and how our chances look for winning in the Western Athletic Conference.

I can’t name how many times a friend or classmate has asked me when we will be having a home meet. I have to sadly respond that we will never have home meets, save a few informal competitions in the throwing events.

The fact that our athletic department has decided to cut the most successful program at our university (the team finished third at the 2003 outdoor NCAA Championships) is a travesty in itself, but to ax the program for the reasons of not having a fan base and not bringing in revenue are poor ones.

We have no revenue because we can’t host competitions. We can’t host competitions because our track was built in an area that is too small to extend the straight-away to make it long enough for a 100-meter dash. It is no fault of the athletes or the incredible coaches who train them. They work their hardest 365 days a year and achieve national rankings.

Why can’t the athletic department find enough money to make our facilities sufficient for us to support ourselves?

Why can’t they build up a successful program that is already there?

The fact is that the men’s track team has been nationally ranked the entire time I have been at SMU. There have been countless NCAA champions in this program as well as many Olympians.

Why cut a sport simply because it lacks funding?

Suspicion has been raised that the cut is due to Title IX, but the athletic department says there are financial reasons for cutting the team. What this says to the student body is that it doesn’t matter how good an athletic team is, but rather how much money it makes for the university. This is not the kind of reputation any athlete or alumni of SMU wants their university to have. It forecasts a tragic fall in sports at SMU.

The task of rising to the high level of Division I competition is left on another Mustang team that is less adequately prepared right now. Teams that do not perform well do not bode well for recruiting. Poor recruiting leads to less than stellar performances. Non-winning records cause the fan base to diminish. No fans mean no revenue. The cycle is endless.

The athletic department owes the student body a clear explanation with no details left out as to why track and field was chosen to “take one for the team.” Especially, when they have been more successful than any of the so-called “revenue” sports in recent years.



Amanda Henkes is a senior chemistry and Spanish double major. She may be reached at aehenkes@smu.edu.