Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Major Men's Program Teeters

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • guru
    replied
    Re: Another Major Men's Program Teeters

    Originally posted by mal
    title 9

    If that were the case, schools like Ohio State, Florida, LSU, etc would be cutting men's sports like track as well. They're not.

    Leave a comment:


  • mal
    replied
    Re: Another Major Men's Program Teeters

    title 9

    Leave a comment:


  • guru
    replied
    Re: Another Major Men's Program Teeters

    Bill Schnier to retire following the 2013 track season

    http://cincinnati.com/blogs/uc/2012/09/ ... irement-2/

    Leave a comment:


  • guru
    replied
    Local columnist, who last week wrote a full column on UC's decision, in his morning blog today.

    http://tinyurl.com/dls27s


    Expect the ongoing Track debate at UC to go national. The pie is shrinking everywhere, and when that happens somebody always gets the short end and goes after big guys, football and basketball. UC track coach Bill Schnier talks about "fairness'' and "opportunity.'' AD Mike Thomas talks about "the market.'' Both are right.

    Schnier's point is idealistic, though, and not in line with the NCAA's undeclared mission: To keep the football-b-ball money train rolling. Schnier suggests that Brian Kelly doesnt need $1.2 m to coach football; Mick Cronin doesnt need 700k to coach basketball. Thomas says it's where the market is now. Schnier says the market is insane. He has a point. He has written to NCAA prez Myles Brand. He'll get nowhere. Unless, of course, CBS decides it's good business to spend $1 bil on the NCAA track and field championships.

    The current deep recession should cause all of us to reconsider what really matters and what really doesnt, and to view with amusement at best and disgust at worst the arms race for coaches and facilities. The market isnt buying that, though. Funny, sometimes, where our priorities take us.

    As I said earlier, it's pretty amazing the traction this has gotten with the local media.

    Disappointing that it's taken this kind of situation to earn more ink for the team than they've gotten in 30 years combined for their athletic acheivements.

    Leave a comment:


  • guru
    replied
    I'll say this - the local paper is certainly giving this alot of ink.

    http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009 ... 7/1062/SPT

    Leave a comment:


  • runohio
    replied
    http://saveuctrack.ning.com now has a petition to show support and help try to “Save The University of Cincinnati Men's Track and XC”

    If you would like to sign the petition go to –
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/5/save-t ... ack-and-xc

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce Kritzler
    replied
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    I agree that it is sad that the program is leaving,but its even sader that the coach,athletes,alumni,and fans are gonna take this lying down.Maybe the coach can come up with some kind of proposal to make some cutbacks,but not eliminate the program.
    The program is not leaving; it is going non-scholarship. None of the above are taking it lying down. That is why this thread continues to grow.

    Leave a comment:


  • williamwindhamjr
    replied
    I agree that it is sad that the program is leaving,but its even sader that the coach,athletes,alumni,and fans are gonna take this lying down.Maybe the coach can come up with some kind of proposal to make some cutbacks,but not eliminate the program.

    Leave a comment:


  • guru
    replied
    Column in yesterday's Cincinnati Enquirer. Some interesting numbers to be sure.

    http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009 ... 5/1007/SPT

    Leave a comment:


  • guru
    replied
    Organized effort up and running.

    http://saveuctrack.ning.com/

    Leave a comment:


  • klass klown
    replied
    Obviously the writer of this letter has an ax to grind over the firing of Jim Schnur, the former women's coach.

    Leave a comment:


  • runohio
    replied
    received the following email today and was asked to pass it on….

    Subject: BIG EAST/ UC / Alumni/ Donor/ BLITZ
    Hello,

    For those of you who are not aware, UC Track has been given a death sentence from the current AD, Mike Thomas. They fired Jim last year and now they have decided to cut the program (see the links below). Andy Hurley,Sr. Associate Athletic Director for Development stated to me in an email" by accepting admission into the Big East we surrendered ourselves to the way of life at the BCS level..." He also says we are all part of the "UC family ". If this is this case, it makes more sense to cut 2million across all programs, not simply cut the track and swim team to save 500,000. A 7-9% cut across the board would be more than enough and fair for all programs to feel a "pinch" rather than severing a limb.

    Mr. Hurley also stated, "One hallmark of the current athletics administration is that we view ourselves as caretakers of program and that ownership belongs to students, alumni & the Cincinnati community. " In this case, they are the undertakers. The administration views us as the owners and as the owners, we need to let the caretakers know loudly and clearly that this is not an acceptable direction for UC athletics.

    I urge you to contact anyone and everyone you feel can help change the direction of this program. Contact the administration, contact the president's office, contact board members, contact the largest donors and other alumni to let them know, that they need to reconsider this direction or the financial consequences could be devastating to the future support of UC Athletics. We may need a website and we may need to get the media involved and anyone and everyone that has connections, please explore all options and even take the time to look at other avenues. We also need to consider a re-instatement of Jim Schnur who was fired within 6 months of being eligible for retirement.
    I do hope you will get involved to make a difference.

    Here is some coverage:
    http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009 ... 4/1062/SPT
    http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009 ... 80024/1064


    Here is the Big East contacts: The AD states: "There are Big East standards that basically say you're going to support certain programs at certain levels.." Thus, he is blaming the Big East for this decision as well. Are all Big East Men's Cross and Track Teams being given the death sentence as UC has been given?

    Senior Administrative Staff
    Suite 880
    Mike Thomas
    Director of Athletics 513-556-4603 [email protected]

    Bob Arkeilpane
    Deputy Director of Athletics 513-556-2449 [email protected]

    Mike Waddell
    Senior Associate AD 513-556-4847 [email protected]

    Andy Hurley
    Senior Associate AD/Development 513-556-9302 [email protected]

    Derrick Magee
    Associate AD/Chief Business Officer 513-556-3876 [email protected]

    Robin Martin
    Associate AD/Senior Woman Administrator 513-556-0556 [email protected]

    Fritz Russ
    Faculty Athletics Representative 513-556-3935 [email protected]

    Dan Krone
    Assistant AD/Facilities & Operations 513-556-3541 [email protected]

    Mike Harris
    Assistant AD/Sports Communications 513-240-8884 [email protected]

    Beth Hussey
    Assistant to the AD 513-556-4603 [email protected]

    BIG EAST STAFF E-MAIL DIRECTORY (sorry I don't have their titles)
    Name E-mail Address
    Michael Tranghese [email protected]
    John Marinatto [email protected]
    Nick Carparelli, Jr. [email protected]
    Joe D’Antonio [email protected]
    Donna DeMarco [email protected]
    Dan Gavitt [email protected]
    Tom Odjakjian [email protected]
    John Paquette [email protected]
    James Siedliski [email protected]
    Jen Condaras [email protected]
    Barbara Jacobs [email protected]
    Susan Eaton [email protected]
    Rachel Margolis [email protected]
    Chuck Sullivan [email protected]
    Shawn Murphy [email protected]
    Mia Brickhouse [email protected]
    Bobby Weygand [email protected]
    Ben Fairclough [email protected]
    Mike Coyne [email protected]
    Kenny Schank [email protected]
    Terry McAulay [email protected]
    Lisa Zanecchia [email protected]
    Lois DeBlois [email protected]
    Sarah Emmett [email protected]
    Wanda Factor [email protected]
    Linda Yates [email protected]
    Kathy Kirkpatrick [email protected]
    Dan White [email protected]
    Farrah Segaloff [email protected]
    Tom Caracciolo [email protected]

    Leave a comment:


  • sprintblox
    replied
    Originally posted by geezer
    It's silly, frankly, to think you can save much by cutting a few scholarships. Scholarships are a form of discounting, and you only "save" that money if you can find a full-paying student to take the place of the scholarship-aided athlete. You can save the incremental cost of the student -- the food he/she eats, and other costs like that -- but unless you are chock full of full-ride-paying students, you'll save only a small fraction of the face value of anyholarship you're eliminating.
    They have a 76% acceptance rate, so they can surely find some paying students out of the remaining 24% to replace those who won't have scholarships.

    The other aspect is that athletic departments usually have their own separate budget, and the main part of the school bills the athletic department for each scholarship. So even if the school overall isn't saving much by cutting the scholarships, the athletic department sees some big direct savings. And that seems to be the case based on this sentence from the article:
    As a result of these proactive moves, UC Athletics will save more than $400,000 annually once all aid is transitioned. The savings will assist the department to move towards a balanced budget.
    However, given that they're cutting only the men's scholarships in two sports, it seems more like a Title IX issue. If it was just about saving money, why not cut the scholarships for both men and women in the same sport? They must have had a relative abundance of men's scholarships, so they cut those to bring the per-gender numbers more into balance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce Kritzler
    replied
    Another factor to consider is that, to remain a d1 school, you must have a minimum number of scholarships for the entire men's and women's athletic dept. Looks like UC offers football, basketball, baseball, and soccer as scholarship sports?

    Leave a comment:


  • geezer
    replied
    It's silly, frankly, to think you can save much by cutting a few scholarships. Scholarships are a form of discounting, and you only "save" that money if you can find a full-paying student to take the place of the scholarship-aided athlete. You can save the incremental cost of the student -- the food he/she eats, and other costs like that -- but unless you are chock full of full-ride-paying students, you'll save only a small fraction of the face value of anyholarship you're eliminating.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X