(01-05-2020 08:47 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Can we please put to bed the idea that UT is going to expand the Athletic Department with more non-revenue sports when it just ran a deficit of $21,000,000+ this past year.

Maybe we should be looking at what is causing the $21M deficit and cut the non-revenue sports that are contributing the most to the losses. Why do we have some of the sports we have now - especially where they have rarely been competitive? Who is protecting these sports - or are they not being challenged at all?

How do schools that have some of the lowest revenues in football (but likely all the same costs - except for the head coaching position) able to fund wrestling and men's track? What did they cut out? Why? Of the 6 MAC schools in Ohio (Kent, Ohio, BG, Toledo, Akron, Miami), only 2 have wrestling teams. Those 2 - along with Ohio State and Cleveland State, are the only Division I wrestling programs in Ohio. Pennsylvania has 11 universities with D-I wrestling. Any doubt as to why they produce the most NCAA champs, All_Americans, and Qualifiers?? Ohio is now dropping to a very distant 2nd place in talent being produced - and being passed by Illinois and New Jersey. We can get that talent - and grow more talent. North Carolina has 7 D-I teams and Virginia has 5 - with most of that talent being imported from outside the state. Virginia Tech has been getting a direct pipeline of talent from St. Paris, Ohio (Graham Local) NY also has 7 Universities with D-I wrestling.

As I mentioned in this post, we have a great opportunity to excel in a sport we had been very good at in the past.

BTW - where did you get the report on the $21M deficit from I'll look for it, but if you have a link, I'd like to see it and found out some of the details behind that number and if there is any breakdown provided. I spent my entire career in finance so I think I could analyze it pretty quickly - depending on how much info is available. Should be in the public domain, just a question of finding it. I have a feeling there is a lot of cost allocations charged to athletics although the incremental cash costs to the university are minimal.