(01-25-2019 06:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 06:11 PM)Agust Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 04:23 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 04:01 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 03:00 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Houston ain't gettin jack **** if we leave.

Houston is 6-3 against UConn in men's basketball since American play began. We'll take whatever the hell we want.

True. I'd totally trade our 2016 AAC Tourney Championship and 2014 NCAA Championship in exchange for a 6-3 record vs Houston.

lol tourney and championship are two words that should not be associated together.
it's more like a 3 or 4 game win streak.

that's about as bad as ucf claiming to be the 2014 AAC Champions.

Yet both are better than anything Houston Basketball has accomplished in the AAC.

Last year was an accomplished year for a team that has been dormant for decades. This season also is getting off to a great season. A few years of finally putting a team together and revive a fan base and a stronger recruitment.

i'm not going to act like Houston is some hot stuff or like some all time diva. Nope, none of that. I'm happy they're finally winning. But I'll definitely take those accomplishments over a short win streak.

Unless of course we're just using our made up names.

(01-19-2019 07:03 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Temple dropped baseball softball and mens track several years ago. Had to be done, though there are several in the local press who haven’t forgiven them.

I took a few years off from any financial support of Temple athletics because of that.

That's your right, but it's pretty ridiculous. It makes a lot more sense to put resources into soccer than baseball, softball, and track.

I'm all for cutting any combination of Track/Cross Country, Swimming/Diving, Rowing, Golf, Volleyball, and Softball.

(01-26-2019 04:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  I'm all for cutting any combination of Track/Cross Country, Swimming/Diving, Rowing, Golf, Volleyball, and Softball.

I mean, you can, but you don't save very much doing it. If I remember correctly, D-1 requires a minimum of 6 men's sports and 8 women's sports (or an equitable 7/7 split, but the 6/8 is to facilitate football and facilitating football is what we're discussing here). By my count UConn's at 10 men's sports and 12 women's sports, so they have room to trim, but those aren't big-budget programs.

Using the 2014 numbers published publicly, Track and Cross Country get pooled together in budget reporting because they're functionally one program that counts as two sports, but the men operate with a budget of just over a million dollars and the women operate at a little over a million and a half (with the difference primarily consisting of the women's team getting substantially more scholarships to offset football). You can cut them, but that's half of all the cutting you can possibly do in terms of programs and you've picked up 2.6 million out of the 40.5 million deficit and created a Title IX imbalance in the process.

Golf costs the university about 200k a year. I don't even think they get scholarships. You can cut them if you want, but....hooray?

Volleyball and Softball individually cost about 1 million a year each, and half of their budgets are just made up of the value of the scholarships awarded (which, again, football). Softball's also gotten a substantial amount of fundraising lately because they're getting a new facility as part of the athletics district renovation, so that's politically difficult with the donor base.

Men's Swimming and Diving gets about 600k a year and the women get about a million a year (with the difference again being scholarships). Women's rowing gets 800k a year.

Doing things very roughly in my head, cutting all four of the men's sports on your list - Track/Cross Country, Swimming, and Golf - gets you about $2 million worth of total savings and the NCAA minimum number of varsity sports. It frees up around 750k worth of scholarship money. That's about 50k less than the Women's Track/Cross Country teams received in scholarship money in 2014, so assuming you could spread that single-digit-number of scholarships around other women's programs you could cut those two sports and find another $1.4 million in savings or so. Alternatively you could cut volleyball or (not and) women's swimming and diving entirely for $1 million in savings and dial back women's scholarships across other sports to the tune of 100-200k.

All told, this gets you down to the NCAA minimum number of men's sports and loses a women's program or two for a total of 5 or 6 sports cut, and you've picked up around $3.5 million in savings doing it. You probably trim a little bit of overhead that gets bunched into the "not related to specific teams" category as well, but there's no way of teasing that out with the numbers available. I have a hard time imagining that you get over $5 million total while cutting the department significantly.

This also ignores the fact that if everything UConn is doing is because long-term survival hinges on an invite to the ACC or Big Ten, it screams small-time. The vast majority of ACC teams sponsor both men's golf and swimming and diving, and every single one of them has men's track and cross country teams. Similar story in the Big Ten, where every school has men's track/cross country and golf, and 10 of the 14 sponsor swimming and diving. The women's sports discussed are likewise, where in both conferences either every school or almost every school sponsors those sports. Either you're all-in on a big-money-conference berth and this seems penny wise/pound foolish, or UConn's serious about getting money under control and everything should be on the table.

Don't get me wrong, I fully expect a program or two to get the axe in the coming years if only because the department needs something public to "show" that they're serious about the deficit, but a couple peripheral programs aren't creating significant problems.

I was just listing the UCONN sports that I could live without due to lack of fan interest and/or competitiveness, but ok...

(01-26-2019 09:17 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  I was just listing the UCONN sports that I could live without due to lack of fan interest and/or competitiveness, but ok...

Yea, and they probably will cut one or two of those programs loose in the next couple years so they can make a public show of "taking things seriously", but you're right back where you started from after you do it. Men's swimming and diving and women's rowing look to have approximately the same amount of money allocated for scholarships (at least in 2014), so my guess is it's them.

(01-26-2019 09:12 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 04:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  I'm all for cutting any combination of Track/Cross Country, Swimming/Diving, Rowing, Golf, Volleyball, and Softball.

I mean, you can, but you don't save very much doing it. If I remember correctly, D-1 requires a minimum of 6 men's sports and 8 women's sports (or an equitable 7/7 split, but the 6/8 is to facilitate football and facilitating football is what we're discussing here). By my count UConn's at 10 men's sports and 12 women's sports, so they have room to trim, but those aren't big-budget programs.

Using the 2014 numbers published publicly, Track and Cross Country get pooled together in budget reporting because they're functionally one program that counts as two sports, but the men operate with a budget of just over a million dollars and the women operate at a little over a million and a half (with the difference primarily consisting of the women's team getting substantially more scholarships to offset football). You can cut them, but that's half of all the cutting you can possibly do in terms of programs and you've picked up 2.6 million out of the 40.5 million deficit and created a Title IX imbalance in the process.

Golf costs the university about 200k a year. I don't even think they get scholarships. You can cut them if you want, but....hooray?

Volleyball and Softball individually cost about 1 million a year each, and half of their budgets are just made up of the value of the scholarships awarded (which, again, football). Softball's also gotten a substantial amount of fundraising lately because they're getting a new facility as part of the athletics district renovation, so that's politically difficult with the donor base.

Men's Swimming and Diving gets about 600k a year and the women get about a million a year (with the difference again being scholarships). Women's rowing gets 800k a year.

Doing things very roughly in my head, cutting all four of the men's sports on your list - Track/Cross Country, Swimming, and Golf - gets you about $2 million worth of total savings and the NCAA minimum number of varsity sports. It frees up around 750k worth of scholarship money. That's about 50k less than the Women's Track/Cross Country teams received in scholarship money in 2014, so assuming you could spread that single-digit-number of scholarships around other women's programs you could cut those two sports and find another $1.4 million in savings or so. Alternatively you could cut volleyball or (not and) women's swimming and diving entirely for $1 million in savings and dial back women's scholarships across other sports to the tune of 100-200k.

All told, this gets you down to the NCAA minimum number of men's sports and loses a women's program or two for a total of 5 or 6 sports cut, and you've picked up around $3.5 million in savings doing it. You probably trim a little bit of overhead that gets bunched into the "not related to specific teams" category as well, but there's no way of teasing that out with the numbers available. I have a hard time imagining that you get over $5 million total while cutting the department significantly.

This also ignores the fact that if everything UConn is doing is because long-term survival hinges on an invite to the ACC or Big Ten, it screams small-time. The vast majority of ACC teams sponsor both men's golf and swimming and diving, and every single one of them has men's track and cross country teams. Similar story in the Big Ten, where every school has men's track/cross country and golf, and 10 of the 14 sponsor swimming and diving. The women's sports discussed are likewise, where in both conferences either every school or almost every school sponsors those sports. Either you're all-in on a big-money-conference berth and this seems penny wise/pound foolish, or UConn's serious about getting money under control and everything should be on the table.

Don't get me wrong, I fully expect a program or two to get the axe in the coming years if only because the department needs something public to "show" that they're serious about the deficit, but a couple peripheral programs aren't creating significant problems.

Spot on analysis. more than likely they are just going to ride this thing off into the sunset or until the wheels fall off. nothing better to do but tighten the budget and see what the future brings.

(01-26-2019 09:12 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 04:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  I'm all for cutting any combination of Track/Cross Country, Swimming/Diving, Rowing, Golf, Volleyball, and Softball.

I mean, you can, but you don't save very much doing it. If I remember correctly, D-1 requires a minimum of 6 men's sports and 8 women's sports (or an equitable 7/7 split, but the 6/8 is to facilitate football and facilitating football is what we're discussing here). By my count UConn's at 10 men's sports and 12 women's sports, so they have room to trim, but those aren't big-budget programs.

Using the 2014 numbers published publicly, Track and Cross Country get pooled together in budget reporting because they're functionally one program that counts as two sports, but the men operate with a budget of just over a million dollars and the women operate at a little over a million and a half (with the difference primarily consisting of the women's team getting substantially more scholarships to offset football). You can cut them, but that's half of all the cutting you can possibly do in terms of programs and you've picked up 2.6 million out of the 40.5 million deficit and created a Title IX imbalance in the process.

Golf costs the university about 200k a year. I don't even think they get scholarships. You can cut them if you want, but....hooray?

Volleyball and Softball individually cost about 1 million a year each, and half of their budgets are just made up of the value of the scholarships awarded (which, again, football). Softball's also gotten a substantial amount of fundraising lately because they're getting a new facility as part of the athletics district renovation, so that's politically difficult with the donor base.

Men's Swimming and Diving gets about 600k a year and the women get about a million a year (with the difference again being scholarships). Women's rowing gets 800k a year.

Doing things very roughly in my head, cutting all four of the men's sports on your list - Track/Cross Country, Swimming, and Golf - gets you about $2 million worth of total savings and the NCAA minimum number of varsity sports. It frees up around 750k worth of scholarship money. That's about 50k less than the Women's Track/Cross Country teams received in scholarship money in 2014, so assuming you could spread that single-digit-number of scholarships around other women's programs you could cut those two sports and find another $1.4 million in savings or so. Alternatively you could cut volleyball or (not and) women's swimming and diving entirely for $1 million in savings and dial back women's scholarships across other sports to the tune of 100-200k.

All told, this gets you down to the NCAA minimum number of men's sports and loses a women's program or two for a total of 5 or 6 sports cut, and you've picked up around $3.5 million in savings doing it. You probably trim a little bit of overhead that gets bunched into the "not related to specific teams" category as well, but there's no way of teasing that out with the numbers available. I have a hard time imagining that you get over $5 million total while cutting the department significantly.

This also ignores the fact that if everything UConn is doing is because long-term survival hinges on an invite to the ACC or Big Ten, it screams small-time. The vast majority of ACC teams sponsor both men's golf and swimming and diving, and every single one of them has men's track and cross country teams. Similar story in the Big Ten, where every school has men's track/cross country and golf, and 10 of the 14 sponsor swimming and diving. The women's sports discussed are likewise, where in both conferences either every school or almost every school sponsors those sports. Either you're all-in on a big-money-conference berth and this seems penny wise/pound foolish, or UConn's serious about getting money under control and everything should be on the table.

Don't get me wrong, I fully expect a program or two to get the axe in the coming years if only because the department needs something public to "show" that they're serious about the deficit, but a couple peripheral programs aren't creating significant problems.

There is always Hockey to be considered, UConn sponsors both men and women ice hockey... But then again they are a New England University where hokey does matter and if the Big Ten is their long term desire that may not work sine the Big Ten started sponsoring Hockey recently.

Hockey isn't going anywhere. Football would go first.

(01-27-2019 10:24 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 09:12 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 04:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  I'm all for cutting any combination of Track/Cross Country, Swimming/Diving, Rowing, Golf, Volleyball, and Softball.

I mean, you can, but you don't save very much doing it. If I remember correctly, D-1 requires a minimum of 6 men's sports and 8 women's sports (or an equitable 7/7 split, but the 6/8 is to facilitate football and facilitating football is what we're discussing here). By my count UConn's at 10 men's sports and 12 women's sports, so they have room to trim, but those aren't big-budget programs.

Using the 2014 numbers published publicly, Track and Cross Country get pooled together in budget reporting because they're functionally one program that counts as two sports, but the men operate with a budget of just over a million dollars and the women operate at a little over a million and a half (with the difference primarily consisting of the women's team getting substantially more scholarships to offset football). You can cut them, but that's half of all the cutting you can possibly do in terms of programs and you've picked up 2.6 million out of the 40.5 million deficit and created a Title IX imbalance in the process.

Golf costs the university about 200k a year. I don't even think they get scholarships. You can cut them if you want, but....hooray?

Volleyball and Softball individually cost about 1 million a year each, and half of their budgets are just made up of the value of the scholarships awarded (which, again, football). Softball's also gotten a substantial amount of fundraising lately because they're getting a new facility as part of the athletics district renovation, so that's politically difficult with the donor base.

Men's Swimming and Diving gets about 600k a year and the women get about a million a year (with the difference again being scholarships). Women's rowing gets 800k a year.

Doing things very roughly in my head, cutting all four of the men's sports on your list - Track/Cross Country, Swimming, and Golf - gets you about $2 million worth of total savings and the NCAA minimum number of varsity sports. It frees up around 750k worth of scholarship money. That's about 50k less than the Women's Track/Cross Country teams received in scholarship money in 2014, so assuming you could spread that single-digit-number of scholarships around other women's programs you could cut those two sports and find another $1.4 million in savings or so. Alternatively you could cut volleyball or (not and) women's swimming and diving entirely for $1 million in savings and dial back women's scholarships across other sports to the tune of 100-200k.

All told, this gets you down to the NCAA minimum number of men's sports and loses a women's program or two for a total of 5 or 6 sports cut, and you've picked up around $3.5 million in savings doing it. You probably trim a little bit of overhead that gets bunched into the "not related to specific teams" category as well, but there's no way of teasing that out with the numbers available. I have a hard time imagining that you get over $5 million total while cutting the department significantly.

This also ignores the fact that if everything UConn is doing is because long-term survival hinges on an invite to the ACC or Big Ten, it screams small-time. The vast majority of ACC teams sponsor both men's golf and swimming and diving, and every single one of them has men's track and cross country teams. Similar story in the Big Ten, where every school has men's track/cross country and golf, and 10 of the 14 sponsor swimming and diving. The women's sports discussed are likewise, where in both conferences either every school or almost every school sponsors those sports. Either you're all-in on a big-money-conference berth and this seems penny wise/pound foolish, or UConn's serious about getting money under control and everything should be on the table.

Don't get me wrong, I fully expect a program or two to get the axe in the coming years if only because the department needs something public to "show" that they're serious about the deficit, but a couple peripheral programs aren't creating significant problems.

There is always Hockey to be considered, UConn sponsors both men and women ice hockey... But then again they are a New England University where hokey does matter and if the Big Ten is their long term desire that may not work sine the Big Ten started sponsoring Hockey recently.

Having just joined Hockey East and committing to a new rink, I would be shocked if hockey gets cut.

I understand Hockey is important for many North/East programs but if both football and hockey were clicking on all cylinders, football IMHO would be the one sport that would get you the most eyeball interest and most popular kid in the block.