https://www.abqjournal.com/1198235/unm-l...ports.html

President and AD are recommending to cut men's soccer, men's and women's skiiing and women's beach volleyball. Additionally, rosters will be trimmed for men’s cross country and track and women’s swimming and diving.

"And those measures will not entirely cure the athletic department’s budget challenges; filling the shortfall could still require more support from main campus, students and/or the state."

None of the recommended cut sports are members of the Mountain West Conference. New Mexico skiiing won the National Championship in 2004. Men's Soccer is part of Conference USA (along with Kentucky and South Carolina), which would now have eight members.

At least Football is safe! Wasn’t there a thread here they might cut it?!

(07-19-2018 09:41 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  At least Football is safe! Wasn’t there a thread here they might cut it?!

UNM Football ... LOL ... bet they could have solved the whole deficit problem by cutting football alone. But now they are going to ask for more state money and student fees to keep their money-suck football program, the "front porch of the university!" even though nobody cares about it, going.

Administrator egos run amuck again.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/sports/...c550b.html

Gripe #1:
Men's sports (football & basketball) bring in most revenue.
But 25% of male athletes are eliminated to make things fair.
Women comprise 5.4% higher enrollment at the university.
But in the end, will have 14.4% more athletes (313 F; 234 M)
That's fair? That's right?

Gripe #2:
College athletics are bringing in record amounts of money.
But at the start of every fiscal year, 100's of student-athletes outside of P5 lose their teams.
And there will be fewer opportunities for future student-athletes.
(But on the bright side, P5 coaches can drive bigger cars and buy bigger homes-- several of them.)

Nothing I can do about it. I'm just griping. It burns me up each time I hear about it.

(07-19-2018 09:55 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  Gripe #1:
Men's sports (football & basketball) bring in most revenue.
But 25% of male athletes are eliminated to make things fair.
Women comprise 5.4% higher enrollment at the university.
But in the end, will have 14.4% more athletes (313 F; 234 M)
That's fair? That's right?

Gripe #2:
College athletics are bringing in record amounts of money.
But at the start of every fiscal year, 100's of student-athletes outside of P5 lose their teams.
And there will be fewer opportunities for future student-athletes.
(But on the bright side, P5 coaches can drive bigger cars and buy bigger homes-- several of them.)

Nothing I can do about it. I'm just griping. It burns me up each time I hear about it.

Sometimes gripes are justified, it feels good to vent. My take on your gripes:

1) I agree, the federal courts have taken a strict view of what Title IX demands. But, that view has clearly been endorsed by congress, as any time proposals to change Title IX are made, it's always to toughen the regulations not weaken them. E.g., early in 2003, the Bush administration floated some ideas about changing Title IX that IMO made some sense, such as using survey data to gauge interest in men's and women's athletic teams, but a firestorm erupted in congress and the proposals were withdrawn. That's evidence that congress wants things the way they are.

A school can free itself of Title IX, it just has to be willing to live without federal dollars.

2) This gripe I don't get. I like it when institutions that generate revenue keep it, and college athletics is largely that way. The P5 schools generate the money so they should keep it, otherwise you are talking socialism.

Heck, at P5 schools, the money brought in by football and men's hoops is already used to subsidize other men's and women's athletic teams at their schools, it would be silly IMO to ask them to also subsidize those sports at other schools.

(07-19-2018 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:55 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  Gripe #1:
Men's sports (football & basketball) bring in most revenue.
But 25% of male athletes are eliminated to make things fair.
Women comprise 5.4% higher enrollment at the university.
But in the end, will have 14.4% more athletes (313 F; 234 M)
That's fair? That's right?

Gripe #2:
College athletics are bringing in record amounts of money.
But at the start of every fiscal year, 100's of student-athletes outside of P5 lose their teams.
And there will be fewer opportunities for future student-athletes.
(But on the bright side, P5 coaches can drive bigger cars and buy bigger homes-- several of them.)

Nothing I can do about it. I'm just griping. It burns me up each time I hear about it.

2) This gripe I don't get. I like it when institutions that generate revenue keep it, and college athletics is largely that way. The P5 schools generate the money so they should keep it, otherwise you are talking socialism.

Heck, at P5 schools, the money brought in by football and men's hoops is already used to subsidize other men's and women's athletic teams at their schools, it would be silly IMO to ask them to also subsidize those sports at other schools.

Except that even at P5 schools, much of the revenue increase has gone to coaches and athletic directors. Offensive line coaches are making the same money that head coaches did 25 years ago, yet at the same time even P5 schools have cut more sports than they added. That's not how the nonprofit business model is supposed to work.

The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

(07-19-2018 10:23 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:55 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  Gripe #1:
Men's sports (football & basketball) bring in most revenue.
But 25% of male athletes are eliminated to make things fair.
Women comprise 5.4% higher enrollment at the university.
But in the end, will have 14.4% more athletes (313 F; 234 M)
That's fair? That's right?

Gripe #2:
College athletics are bringing in record amounts of money.
But at the start of every fiscal year, 100's of student-athletes outside of P5 lose their teams.
And there will be fewer opportunities for future student-athletes.
(But on the bright side, P5 coaches can drive bigger cars and buy bigger homes-- several of them.)

Nothing I can do about it. I'm just griping. It burns me up each time I hear about it.

2) This gripe I don't get. I like it when institutions that generate revenue keep it, and college athletics is largely that way. The P5 schools generate the money so they should keep it, otherwise you are talking socialism.

Heck, at P5 schools, the money brought in by football and men's hoops is already used to subsidize other men's and women's athletic teams at their schools, it would be silly IMO to ask them to also subsidize those sports at other schools.

Except that even at P5 schools, much of the revenue increase has gone to coaches and athletic directors. Offensive line coaches are making the same money that head coaches did 25 years ago, yet at the same time even P5 schools have cut more sports than they added. That's not how the nonprofit business model is supposed to work.

IMO, this is all market driven, namely by the fan base desire to win.

E.g., I recall 18 years ago I was living in Baton Rouge when Nick Saban came to LSU. Saban wasn't regarded as that great of a hire, he'd been only modestly successful at Michigan State, a school LSU regarded as below their own aspirations. There were many doubts as to whether he was the right man for the job so he didn't exactly ride in to Baton Rouge on a Golden Chariot with the fan base.

But despite that lack of initial power, Saban immediately came in and demanded that a lot more money be spent on stuff like training facilities, academic facilities (for athletes only) and for his coaching staff. He said that's what they are doing at Tennessee and Florida (the dominant SEC teams at the time) and unless LSU wanted to be a doormat for them they'd have to ante up too. He argued that LSU recruiting had suffered in recent years because of these things and that top Louisiana athletes would continue to hemorrhage to other SEC schools unless it got fixed. The proposals were greeted with a lot of skepticism, and this was before the SEC was making the big bucks of today, but Saban got what he wanted. The idea of continuing to lose to "Fat Phil" and the even more hated Steve Spurrier was enough to overcome the objections.

And so the SEC arms race started and it's never stopped.

As long as coaches are regarded as critical to success, and as long as success is regarded as critical to filling 100,000 seat stadiums, coaching salaries will rise.

(07-19-2018 10:31 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

Why would anyone in New Mexico care about hockey? It's pretty hard to get into a sport that no one grows up playing.

Could be a tough loss for CUSA soccer. 8 member is pretty thin, I wonder if SC and UK might eventually look elsewhere

(07-19-2018 10:38 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:31 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

Why would anyone in New Mexico care about hockey? It's pretty hard to get into a sport that no one grows up playing.

Like in Las Vegas where they have sold out all their season tickets and games when many were saying it will be a disaster.

Like in Brookings where the NAHL team is drawing well but no one under 50 played the games and they still don’t have HS sponsored hockey.

Like Sioux Falls where the USHL Stampede is the biggest thing ever where hockey was virtually unknown.

But hockey will be forever hard to get into for old codgers like you.

Again you post total ignorance.

(07-19-2018 10:31 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

Hockey is a money loss to a lot of programs.

(07-19-2018 10:46 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:38 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:31 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

Why would anyone in New Mexico care about hockey? It's pretty hard to get into a sport that no one grows up playing.

Like in Las Vegas where they have sold out all their season tickets and games when many were saying it will be a disaster.

Like in Brookings where the NAHL team is drawing well but no one under 50 played the games and they still don’t have HS sponsored hockey.

Like Sioux Falls where the USHL Stampede is the biggest thing ever where hockey was virtually unknown.

But hockey will be forever hard to get into for old codgers like you.

Again you post total ignorance.

It does well in some southern NHL cities as well. Granted, that may be partially due to transplants.

Do club sports fall under Title IX or is it only varsity sports?

(07-19-2018 09:55 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  Gripe #1:
Men's sports (football & basketball) bring in most revenue.

If you're talking about all of Division I, or even just FBS, at more than half of the schools, football doesn't even generate enough revenue to pay for football, let alone pay for the entire athletic department.

So if we implemented a requirement that each varsity sport at each school must generate enough money to pay for itself, more than half of FBS, and much more than half of D-I overall, would have no varsity sports at all. Either that, or all of the coaches and support staff would have to be volunteers and other expenses of running the sport would have to be very close to zero.

(07-19-2018 10:46 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:38 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:31 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

Why would anyone in New Mexico care about hockey? It's pretty hard to get into a sport that no one grows up playing.

Like in Las Vegas where they have sold out all their season tickets and games when many were saying it will be a disaster.

Like in Brookings where the NAHL team is drawing well but no one under 50 played the games and they still don’t have HS sponsored hockey.

Like Sioux Falls where the USHL Stampede is the biggest thing ever where hockey was virtually unknown.

But hockey will be forever hard to get into for old codgers like you.

Again you post total ignorance.

Vegas is the newest team in the biggest league in a major city. Of course there will be initial enthusiasm. I thought hockey was really big in the Dakotas? I guess I was wrong. In either case that's a different animal than college hockey. Especially when you have to travel across the country to find teams to play.

And I'm willing to bet you're older than me, but that doesn't really matter.

(07-19-2018 11:23 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Do club sports fall under Title IX or is it only varsity sports?

Club sports, as well as Intramurals, must comply with Title IX, however each is judged independently.

(07-19-2018 12:02 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:46 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:38 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 10:31 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The solution is to bring in more sports that are revenue producing, like hockey. Don’t know if Albuquergue has an adequate college ice arena, but it would go over big there.

Why would anyone in New Mexico care about hockey? It's pretty hard to get into a sport that no one grows up playing.

Like in Las Vegas where they have sold out all their season tickets and games when many were saying it will be a disaster.

Like in Brookings where the NAHL team is drawing well but no one under 50 played the games and they still don’t have HS sponsored hockey.

Like Sioux Falls where the USHL Stampede is the biggest thing ever where hockey was virtually unknown.

But hockey will be forever hard to get into for old codgers like you.

Again you post total ignorance.

Vegas is the newest team in the biggest league in a major city. Of course there will be initial enthusiasm. I thought hockey was really big in the Dakotas? I guess I was wrong. In either case that's a different animal than college hockey. Especially when you have to travel across the country to find teams to play.

And I'm willing to bet you're older than me, but that doesn't really matter.

Made a mistake so my apologies. Thought you were jacksfan, who always downgrades hockey.

Hockey was nearly non existent in South Dakota a generation ago. Most small towns in ND don’t have it.

(07-19-2018 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  2) This gripe I don't get. I like it when institutions that generate revenue keep it, and college athletics is largely that way. The P5 schools generate the money so they should keep it, otherwise you are talking socialism.

Without too long of an answer: is college sports about college athletes or is it about just money?

I understand that the state takes some revenue from rich school districts to assist impoverished school districts. The state sees the benefit of better educated students statewide/systemwide. It seems to me a mechanism can be devised to share some of this multi-billion dollar wealth to provide more opportunities to more student athletes, while still rewarding the top brands who draw the eyeballs. If not, then split off the top 48 "brands" from the NCAA and go be NFL-lite or NBA-lite. The pursuit of the most dollars in the short term is distorting (and maybe destroying) college athletics in the long term. It is destroying the things that made college sports special (like the Nebraska v. Oklahoma, Texas v. A&M, 2pm Saturday kickoffs, among many others). Will I even recognize college sports in 10 or 20 years? In Liga MX you have several teams representing universities but in name only. It's like putting "Univ of Wisconsin" on the front of the Packers jersey or "Univ of Illinois" on the Bears. Is that the future we're stumbling towards? The P5 as 2nd division American professional football.

PS. Gripe #3:
I love college hockey. It can be a money maker for athletic departments, which (as we see) need it.
About 450 college hockey teams compete as club sports in the ACHA. Many are happy being a club team- that's great.
Others are "exiled" there by Title IX. Net result: fewer scholarship opportunities. Darn shame.

There is a rink in Rio Rancho, a suburb, with 7000 seats. It used to have a minor league hockey team, but doesn’t now.

Hockey is increasingly popular in the west. Bakersfield just started a club team in Rabobank Arena. Their existing minor league team draws 5000 a game.

It’s almost like there is a gold rush to PAC12 hockey. UNM would be well served to be an associate member. If it means cutting some non revenue sports, so be it.