Cutting sports

[smu accountant]

Background:
NCAA requires women give equal scholarships to men

Problem:
SMU has added women's volleyball and rowing to our list of sports that lose money. Well in fact, all sports lose money.

Opinion:
Men's basketball and football are the only sports that could potentially make money at SMU

Solution:
Cut Men's Track and Field and Cross Country. This will allow us to rid of some women's scholarships and sports.

Athletic programs thrive off of football programs. Our football program doesn't make money as it is, so we just lose more money off of other sports.

Honestly, what does track bring to SMU? There are no spectators, there are no home meets to bring in revenue, and we just dump money into all of these sports.

I don't want to offend anyone, but women's sports should not HAVE to give scholarships. In fact, neither should men's sports. The NCAA has a right to limit the amount of scholarships given, but they should not force schools to dump money down a drain.

------------------
Lets start making some money!

[Charleston Pony]

Conference rules require we play a minimum number of sports, both men & women. Not sure if we go beyond the minimum to begin with. Some of this is all about Title IX

[PerunaPunch]

My dad was a 4-year letterman, and high point man in the SWC running hurdles and spints for the Mustangs. He was also part of a World Record holding 4x100 team of Ponies.

There's a lot of history there to walk away from. I think a better plan would be to lure some of those track stars away from UT and bring them to the hilltop -- like our swimming, diving and soccer programs which bring a lot of national attention to the university.

Also for your consideration, my and my father's contributions to the Mustang Club don't specify what sports they're being given too (not that our contributions together get anywhere near to underwriting a team). But just because a sport doesn't fund itself off gate receipts and concessions doesn't necessarily mean it's a huge financial drain. It probably is a good INDICATION, but attendance certainly isn't the only measure you should look at.

Another consideration, you can run a track team at a fraction of the amount spent on other sports. Minimal equipment, facilities that are also used by other sports and a small (comparatively) number of events per year (reasonable travel budget).

I'd be williing to bet that football and basketball currently loose more money than track, but nobody would even consider the remote possibility of cuttiing those sports. Some bills you just have to swallow for prestige and to offer the full range of activites expected from a major university.

[stang_a_holic]

I agree that football and basketball are the only teams that have potential to make money at SMU and any other school. However, I do think that it is important to still have the other sports at SMU. I think that the soccer/volleyball/rowing teams are important to the overall success of the athletic program as well as the perception of the school.
With that said: Football/basketball should take top priority when it comes to receiving funding for their particular sport. All other sports should be in a second tier position when it comes to receiving funding. This means that the football/basketball teams should have the better equipment / facilities / special treatment. This is not to say that the other sports are inferior ... but lets face the facts .. not many people watch track/rowing/volleyball. Furthermore, the potential publicity / revenue from football and basketball is much greater than any of the other sports. In theory (trickle down), if the football/basketball programs succeed (make more money) then the other programs will prosper as well.

[smu accountant]

No one would consider cutting those sports because they are the only ones people go to watch and they are the only ones that have the possibility to make money at SMU--football more than basketball. I am not denying the fact that FB and Bball lose a ton of money, but they are the only sports that bring in gate revenue.

In response to your donation statement: look at the current track team now. I would say the majority seems to be foreigners that come here to train. They give little back to the university, financially speaking. They come here, train, get a free education, and go back to Europe/Asia to compete.

I understand the statement about history.

My main complaint is that we add these sports like rowing, which is a drain on the budget, maybe not a huge one, just because the NCAA forces us to due to title 9. Rumor has it, the rowing coach recruits from sorority houses, so we are basically throwing scholarships at people that normally would not even be college athletes.

My Opinion: THE NCAA IS HORRID.

------------------
Lets start making some money!

[BoazHoes]

Peruna Punch: "I'd be williing to bet that football and basketball currently loose more money than track, but nobody would even consider the remote possibility of cuttiing those sports. Some bills you just have to swallow for prestige and to offer the full range of activites expected from a major university."

On that logic then lets drop the track team and add a baseball team. Baseball would get local youth involved and have much more fan support.

[smu accountant]

Baseball would be cool, but it would hurt us worse financially. You would have to build a facility, pay big time money for a coach, and then compete with the Rangers. The reason why we have sports like volleyball and track is because they are not that much of a financial drain. Baseball would be a killer on the pocketbook.

------------------
Lets start making some money!

[PerunaPunch]

BoazHoes,

Yeah, we totally agree. I meant the same thing that you did by saying that you can't cut a sport based on its P&L. Even loosing major $$ in football is worthwhile considering how it draws alumni and fans back to the campus. The bottom line on sports is hard to quantify, because you don't know how many fans/alumni contribute money based on what. For example: as a Meadow alumni, I contribute money to that school independent of my Mustang Club contribution. But would I have done it if I weren't excited about the new campus upgrades and wanted to be a part of it? Am I feeling guilty cause I dumped a bunch of money into sports but hadn't done anything to support the academic side (probably the later is true in my case).

I'd assume the WOULD add baseball, except for the fact that there's no room on campus to add a diamond. I have always just assumed that was the case, so it never got any serious consideration.

[DiamondM]

Okay, here's the deal. There are very very few football or basketball teams that actually make money, i.e. net income. There are maybe 10-15 Division 1 football programs, and a few more basketball programs, that do because expenses for those teams are so much greater than revenues -- even for a lot of "good" teams.

The goal of college athletics, for most programs anyway, is not about being a profit center, but to offer students the chance to compete in athletics. The smaller sports actually have a better chance of being in the black than the big, so-called revenue sports at most schools because the budgets are so lean. Cutting them would not make it any easier for the big sports to make money. It's not like the marketing department is spending all their time promoting rowing at the expense of the big sports. It's not like the men's cross country recruiting budget is eating into the budget so much that it means worse recruiting in football. That's not the problem. Not to mention the men's track team has brought the school more acclaim recently than football and basketball because they have produced great NCAA finishes and a number of Olympians.

I could say so much more, but I won't, because SMU "Accountant's" proposal is based on too many fallacious assumptions to list here.

[Boston Pony]

As Diamond M has posted, the 'revenue sports' don't make money at many NCAA schools. The reality is that rather than focus on 'cutting' programs, we need to get the 'revenue' programs to produce revenue. How to do this? Need to fill Ford & Moody. How to do this? Winning and getting exciting teams to play. A full Ford (32,000 at $17.50 average/ticket = $560,000. Have five home games and you have $2.5MM+. Add in a bowl game with a $750K purse and you're making money. Same for basketball- Moody at 7,500 at $12.66 avg/ticket is $95k per game for 15 games is $1.425MM. Add in NCAA or NIT (home game) and you are in the black.
Again, cutting programs makes you 'bush', let's build our Revenue Programs.

[91Stang]

Isn't the men's track team one of the top 10 in the nation? Let's not go cutting a winning team.

[Bballer]

did you attend the Commitment SMU Acc.? If you did or didn't I am sure you have interest in it since a lot of numbers where thrown around. Whats your take?

[Rayburn]

God, SMU without a track team?

1. Title 9 is a communist plot.
2. Forgive me for being pollyannaish but college athletics used to be about the experience.
3. cutting programs is bush league to my way of thinking as well but it is a fact even for big state schools like Washington which recently cut some men's programs to even up the women's side.