The ACC sponsors 25 sports. The SEC only sponsors 20. Why? It saves millions. Based on data from Clemson (published on "Shakin' the Southland") the Tigers lose over $16 million/year on "non-revenue" sports. That's 2X more than the difference in TV money between the ACC and Pac-12 (about $8 million).

Want to be profitable? Cut 2 non-revenue sports... or better yet, cut 4 sports! We'd still have more sports than the SEC.

see also What the ACC can do, part 4 - costs

They could cut the following and start to save a bit of coin:

1) Women's Rowing (seriously -- they sponsor this)
2) Postseason Bowl Appearances.

(04-07-2012 10:58 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  They could cut the following and start to save a bit of coin:

1) Women's Rowing (seriously -- they sponsor this)
2) Postseason Bowl Appearances.

You must be messing with me.
1) this is the one women's sport that cannot be cut (it balances out football under Title IX)
2) bowl games don't really lose money

=====
I think the sport to keep is Lacrosse.
* it's a signature ACC sport (yes, I know the Big East plays it too).
* As I write this, UNC vs. UVa Lacrosse game is on ESPN (not ESPNU... ESPN!)

Drop field hockey, keep Lacrosse.

(04-07-2012 11:52 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 10:58 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  They could cut the following and start to save a bit of coin:

1) Women's Rowing (seriously -- they sponsor this)
2) Postseason Bowl Appearances.

You must be messing with me.
1) this is the one women's sport that cannot be cut (it balances out football under Title IX)
2) bowl games don't really lose money

=====
I think the sport to keep is Lacrosse.
* it's a signature ACC sport (yes, I know the Big East plays it too).
* As I write this, UNC vs. UVa Lacrosse game is on ESPN (not ESPNU... ESPN!)

Drop field hockey, keep Lacrosse.

Please keep both. The women's sports SU we actually good at are field hockey, lacrosse, and softball.

Cheers,
Neil

From the linked article:

Quote:Notice also that the SEC sponsors the fewest sports. This leaves more money to be invested in the revenue sports, primarily football.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of schools that field sports not sponsored by the SEC.

Alabama and Tennessee Rowing competes in CUSA.

Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and soon to be Texas A&M all have equestrian teams.

South Carolina and Kentucky play Men's Soccer in CUSA.

Ole Miss and Kentucky have Rifle teams.

Florida and Vanderbilt have women's lacrosse teams and play in the ALC.

Missouri will have to find a home for it's wrestling program.

Eliminating them as a conference isn't going to make the cost of said programs go away.

Cut Title IX, then let colleges keep those sports that actually render a zero balance or a profit.

(04-07-2012 05:42 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  Cut Title IX, then let colleges keep those sports that actually render a zero balance or a profit.

I'm no fan of Title IX in its current form (though I do support equal rights for women as a general principle).

There is another "outside the box" option that would not only save a ton of money but would also promote parity -- reduce the number of football scholarships further, to something like 65. It's enough for the NFL, and I'm pretty sure the limits for High Schools in S. Carolina are less than that... so why do college teams "need" 85 players? Isn't it just to keep your opponents from getting them? So to allow Alabama to stockpile bench players who would be starting at Duke, every team in the country must carry 20 extra football scholarships (and thanks to Title IX, 20 more for the ladies). That's predatory business practice 101.

(04-07-2012 06:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'm no fan of Title IX in its current form (though I do support equal rights for women as a general principle).

There is another "outside the box" option that would not only save a ton of money but would also promote parity -- reduce the number of football scholarships further, to something like 65. It's enough for the NFL, and I'm pretty sure the limits for High Schools in S. Carolina are less than that... so why do college teams "need" 85 players? Isn't it just to keep your opponents from getting them? So to allow Alabama to stockpile bench players who would be starting at Duke, every team in the country must carry 20 extra football scholarships (and thanks to Title IX, 20 more for the ladies). That's predatory business practice 101.

Injured players don't count against the 53 man roster for an NFL team. Once a school sets its 85 scholarship players, that's it for a year.

I am pretty sure the Big East sponsors field hockey. The article said they do not.

(04-08-2012 12:01 AM)Orange Eagles Wrote:  I am pretty sure the Big East sponsors field hockey. The article said they do not.

Rats! Shouldn't have trusted Wikipedia! Yes, Big East sponsors women's field hockey (but apparently not men's?)

Every current SEC school offers as many or more sports than VT except for Vandy and the MS schools (no surprise there). So this argument doesn't hold much weight with me. The concern is that the ACC won't generate as much revenue as other major conferences. Cutting sports doesn't increase that revenue. I get the idea, I just don't like it.

Cutting any sport that doesn't at least break even? You just knocked college athletics down to two sports: Football and men's basketball.

I like Title IX and it does NOT say scholarships must be at a 1:1 ratio for men and women. There are several ways to meet the requirement. I also think football should be excluded since for many universities it funds all the other sports.

(04-08-2012 06:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 12:01 AM)Orange Eagles Wrote:  I am pretty sure the Big East sponsors field hockey. The article said they do not.

Rats! Shouldn't have trusted Wikipedia! Yes, Big East sponsors women's field hockey (but apparently not men's?)

I believe you may be confusing field hockey with ice hockey which Syracuse also has but which the Big East does not sponsor.

There is no version of men's field hockey that I am aware of.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-08-2012 10:30 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 06:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 12:01 AM)Orange Eagles Wrote:  I am pretty sure the Big East sponsors field hockey. The article said they do not.

Rats! Shouldn't have trusted Wikipedia! Yes, Big East sponsors women's field hockey (but apparently not men's?)

I believe you may be confusing field hockey with ice hockey which Syracuse also has but which the Big East does not sponsor.

There is no version of men's field hockey that I am aware of.

Cheers,
Neil

Um, yeah, what he said.

(04-07-2012 06:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC sponsors 25 sports. The SEC only sponsors 20. Why? It saves millions. Based on data from Clemson (published on "Shakin' the Southland") the Tigers lose over $16 million/year on "non-revenue" sports. That's 2X more than the difference in TV money between the ACC and Pac-12 (about $8 million).

Want to be profitable? Cut 2 non-revenue sports... or better yet, cut 4 sports! We'd still have more sports than the SEC.

see also What the ACC can do, part 4 - costs

It's really not about the conference sponsoring the sports, it's about schools sponsoring them. Subject to meeting minimum NCAA requirements, the conference sponsors championships when enough schools sponsor a sport. Schools are individually free to drop sports if they don't have the budget.

(04-07-2012 05:40 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  From the linked article:

Quote:Notice also that the SEC sponsors the fewest sports. This leaves more money to be invested in the revenue sports, primarily football.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of schools that field sports not sponsored by the SEC.

Alabama and Tennessee Rowing competes in CUSA.

Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and soon to be Texas A&M all have equestrian teams.

South Carolina and Kentucky play Men's Soccer in CUSA.

Ole Miss and Kentucky have Rifle teams.

Florida and Vanderbilt have women's lacrosse teams and play in the ALC.

Missouri will have to find a home for it's wrestling program.

Eliminating them as a conference isn't going to make the cost of said programs go away.

I think we should partner with the SEC for Olympic sports. It should be cheaper with more teams.

I think we should be playing them in basketball and football challenges each year too. The two leagues have a lot of history together and their regions compliment each other well.

(04-08-2012 07:35 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 06:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC sponsors 25 sports. The SEC only sponsors 20. Why? It saves millions. Based on data from Clemson (published on "Shakin' the Southland") the Tigers lose over $16 million/year on "non-revenue" sports. That's 2X more than the difference in TV money between the ACC and Pac-12 (about $8 million).

Want to be profitable? Cut 2 non-revenue sports... or better yet, cut 4 sports! We'd still have more sports than the SEC.

see also What the ACC can do, part 4 - costs

It's really not about the conference sponsoring the sports, it's about schools sponsoring them. Subject to meeting minimum NCAA requirements, the conference sponsors championships when enough schools sponsor a sport. Schools are individually free to drop sports if they don't have the budget.

Understand your point, but I think a conference together can help decide what sports they should sponsor. It is my hope that with us being added to the ACC that somewhere down the road we add men's baseball.

If we financially can't, we can't. And we shouldn't even consider it until we get our football back on track. But if that happens and both major sports start producing revenue for the college along with lacrosse (which is our third revenue generating sport) then the extra money we will be getting by being in the ACC should be used at some point to sponsor baseball over let's say wrestling or ice hockey, sports the ACC does not sponsor.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-08-2012 11:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 07:35 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 06:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC sponsors 25 sports. The SEC only sponsors 20. Why? It saves millions. Based on data from Clemson (published on "Shakin' the Southland") the Tigers lose over $16 million/year on "non-revenue" sports. That's 2X more than the difference in TV money between the ACC and Pac-12 (about $8 million).

Want to be profitable? Cut 2 non-revenue sports... or better yet, cut 4 sports! We'd still have more sports than the SEC.

see also What the ACC can do, part 4 - costs

It's really not about the conference sponsoring the sports, it's about schools sponsoring them. Subject to meeting minimum NCAA requirements, the conference sponsors championships when enough schools sponsor a sport. Schools are individually free to drop sports if they don't have the budget.

Understand your point, but I think a conference together can help decide what sports they should sponsor. It is my hope that with us being added to the ACC that somewhere down the road we add men's baseball.

If we financially can't, we can't. And we shouldn't even consider it until we get our football back on track. But if that happens and both major sports start producing revenue for the college along with lacrosse (which is our third revenue generating sport) then the extra money we will be getting by being in the ACC should be used at some point to sponsor baseball over let's say wrestling or ice hockey, sports the ACC does not sponsor.

Cheers,
Neil

The ACC sponsors wrestling

(04-08-2012 11:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 07:35 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 06:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC sponsors 25 sports. The SEC only sponsors 20. Why? It saves millions. Based on data from Clemson (published on "Shakin' the Southland") the Tigers lose over $16 million/year on "non-revenue" sports. That's 2X more than the difference in TV money between the ACC and Pac-12 (about $8 million).

Want to be profitable? Cut 2 non-revenue sports... or better yet, cut 4 sports! We'd still have more sports than the SEC.

see also What the ACC can do, part 4 - costs

It's really not about the conference sponsoring the sports, it's about schools sponsoring them. Subject to meeting minimum NCAA requirements, the conference sponsors championships when enough schools sponsor a sport. Schools are individually free to drop sports if they don't have the budget.

Understand your point, but I think a conference together can help decide what sports they should sponsor. It is my hope that with us being added to the ACC that somewhere down the road we add men's baseball.

If we financially can't, we can't. And we shouldn't even consider it until we get our football back on track. But if that happens and both major sports start producing revenue for the college along with lacrosse (which is our third revenue generating sport) then the extra money we will be getting by being in the ACC should be used at some point to sponsor baseball over let's say wrestling or ice hockey, sports the ACC does not sponsor.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil - as much as I love baseball, I have a hard time seeing SU sponsoring it anytime soon. I look at the softball team and wonder how they can get away with playing five consecutive weeks in California, Arizona and Florida. Travel expense must be huge. Baseball would require an equivalent travel commitment and would provide little in the way of revenues, with a limited schedule of home games during any kind of decent weather. In addition, we'd have to build a stadium and indoor practice facilities.

Golf might be a nice ACC-friendly addition. It would require travel, but the sport requires limited scholarships and the school has an existing relationship with Drumlins CC. I'd also like to see the school restore swimming and diving.

(04-08-2012 11:40 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 11:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 07:35 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 06:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC sponsors 25 sports. The SEC only sponsors 20. Why? It saves millions. Based on data from Clemson (published on "Shakin' the Southland") the Tigers lose over $16 million/year on "non-revenue" sports. That's 2X more than the difference in TV money between the ACC and Pac-12 (about $8 million).

Want to be profitable? Cut 2 non-revenue sports... or better yet, cut 4 sports! We'd still have more sports than the SEC.

see also What the ACC can do, part 4 - costs

It's really not about the conference sponsoring the sports, it's about schools sponsoring them. Subject to meeting minimum NCAA requirements, the conference sponsors championships when enough schools sponsor a sport. Schools are individually free to drop sports if they don't have the budget.

Understand your point, but I think a conference together can help decide what sports they should sponsor. It is my hope that with us being added to the ACC that somewhere down the road we add men's baseball.

If we financially can't, we can't. And we shouldn't even consider it until we get our football back on track. But if that happens and both major sports start producing revenue for the college along with lacrosse (which is our third revenue generating sport) then the extra money we will be getting by being in the ACC should be used at some point to sponsor baseball over let's say wrestling or ice hockey, sports the ACC does not sponsor.

Cheers,
Neil

The ACC sponsors wrestling

Sorry, new guy. Is the league any good at it? If not, maybe they should consider not sponsoring it.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-09-2012 03:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 11:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 07:35 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 06:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC sponsors 25 sports. The SEC only sponsors 20. Why? It saves millions. Based on data from Clemson (published on "Shakin' the Southland") the Tigers lose over $16 million/year on "non-revenue" sports. That's 2X more than the difference in TV money between the ACC and Pac-12 (about $8 million).

Want to be profitable? Cut 2 non-revenue sports... or better yet, cut 4 sports! We'd still have more sports than the SEC.

see also What the ACC can do, part 4 - costs

It's really not about the conference sponsoring the sports, it's about schools sponsoring them. Subject to meeting minimum NCAA requirements, the conference sponsors championships when enough schools sponsor a sport. Schools are individually free to drop sports if they don't have the budget.

Understand your point, but I think a conference together can help decide what sports they should sponsor. It is my hope that with us being added to the ACC that somewhere down the road we add men's baseball.

If we financially can't, we can't. And we shouldn't even consider it until we get our football back on track. But if that happens and both major sports start producing revenue for the college along with lacrosse (which is our third revenue generating sport) then the extra money we will be getting by being in the ACC should be used at some point to sponsor baseball over let's say wrestling or ice hockey, sports the ACC does not sponsor.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil - as much as I love baseball, I have a hard time seeing SU sponsoring it anytime soon. I look at the softball team and wonder how they can get away with playing five consecutive weeks in California, Arizona and Florida. Travel expense must be huge. Baseball would require an equivalent travel commitment and would provide little in the way of revenues, with a limited schedule of home games during any kind of decent weather. In addition, we'd have to build a stadium and indoor practice facilities.

Golf might be a nice ACC-friendly addition. It would require travel, but the sport requires limited scholarships and the school has an existing relationship with Drumlins CC. I'd also like to see the school restore swimming and diving.

Actually, I think Gross may be thinking of men's ice hockey as the next sport, myself.

Cheers,
Neil