UB will drop four sports teams in athletics budget cutback | Syracusefan.com

UB will drop four sports teams in athletics budget cutback

That sucks. There's a kid from Central Square that played college baseball at UB and is now on the Rockies 40 man.
 
Had numerous friends, during my 4 years, on the baseball team. Think this is a pathetic move. I realize UB wants to be a football school but it absolutely should not come at the expense of other high priority, rising programs.

UB just threw in the towel for being the premier state school in New York, in my opinion.

Think this will fix the donor situation? Good luck.
 
Imagine that non-revenue teams are going to be getting dropped more and more frequently nationwide. The cost to fly around the country for something like swimming and diving that barely anyone cares about and brings in no revenue whatsoever just doesn't make sense these days. UBs baseball facility was a joke, my mens league team played in the same stadium most weeks and it was barely a good environment for a mens league.
 
Shocked tennis wasn't one of them. I've been lucky enough to go on some D1 Head Coaching interviews over the past month - and the landscape for college tennis is certainly changing.
 
Shocked tennis wasn't one of them. I've been lucky enough to go on some D1 Head Coaching interviews over the past month - and the landscape for college tennis is certainly changing.
Hmmm. Was there a trip to Charlottesville on your itinerary, perchance?
 
Had numerous friends, during my 4 years, on the baseball team. Think this is a pathetic move. I realize UB wants to be a football school but it absolutely should not come at the expense of other high priority, rising programs.

UB just threw in the towel for being the premier state school in New York, in my opinion.

Think this will fix the donor situation? Good luck.

Look, I can understand you frustration, but how can you say this without knowing their financial situation? If they can't fund the programs, what else should they get rid of?
 
Hmmm. Was there a trip to Charlottesville on your itinerary, perchance?

HA. I wish. That job could shake up the college tennis landscape. Have a feeling they are going to promote their assistant. If they don't, it could cause a domino effect around the country for coaching positions.
 
I'm surprised they're cutting women's rowing because that has the highest number of scholarships (20) and can have the largest roster (usually >40) of any women's sport and is the big counterbalance to football for Title IX. The only "mandatory travel" for rowing teams in the ACC is the ACC Championship Regatta held at Lake Hartwell near Clemson. Otherwise, most compete regionally and only the "really big girls" travel much across the country. The same thing is done in cross country.
 
It's the price you pay for wanting to be D1 unless your revenue sport actually generates revenue. SUNY Oswego played with the idea of going D1 for Hockey when I was there in the 90's. They ultimately shelved it because of how many other sports they would have to cut.
 
Get ready for a lot more of this if and when they start paying revenue sports players.
I disagree. The academics will step in and schools will drop to whatever level doesn't have to pay players rather than drop sports.
 
I disagree. The academics will step in and schools will drop to whatever level doesn't have to pay players rather than drop sports.
Virginia is going to drop a level? Or Syracuse? These schools will have to get the $$ from somewhere to pay student athletes from revenue sports. I think it will come at the expense of sports that don't provide revenue but to provide costs.
 
Get ready for a lot more of this if and when they start paying revenue sports players.
Just to bang the drum...

If you let all student-athletes profit from their name and likeness, it doesn't have to go the slash sports way.
 
Virginia is going to drop a level? Or Syracuse? These schools will have to get the $$ from somewhere to pay student athletes from revenue sports. I think it will come at the expense of sports that don't provide revenue but to provide costs.
And when the money isn't there, what do they do? I don't think they could cover the cost of being competitive in football and both basketballs even if they cut off all non-revs. The Ivies play in D-1 but follow D-3's rules. I think that if paid players ever came about and the present scholarship set-up was ended, there would be a division set up to follow the Ivy rules and a lot of familiar names would be in it.

Another poster had the story of the kid who was offered his choice of a quarter or a dollar from someone every day and always took the quarter because he knew the guy's money offer would end if he took the dollar. In my view of that story, the kid is the athletic department and the one "handing out money" was the academics. It is also difficult for me to see how the present construct of athletics can survive the coming shift in demographics of graduates, once the baby boomers reach the age when they stop giving money.
 
Shocked tennis wasn't one of them. I've been lucky enough to go on some D1 Head Coaching interviews over the past month - and the landscape for college tennis is certainly changing.

I thought schools liked tennis because it is pretty cheap. Equipment is cheap, small rosters (especially to travel), can double up coaches on the men's and women's teams.
 
I thought schools liked tennis because it is pretty cheap. Equipment is cheap, small rosters (especially to travel), can double up coaches on the men's and women's teams.

To be honest - if you want a "good" division one program, it's hard to have the same person coaching two programs. It's almost inevitable that one program suffers. It's actually not as cheap as you may think, as booking tennis court time is very expensive, and if you live in the NE, Midwest, PNW - you are playing indoors for 3/4 of the season. With the way conferences currently are - you have people flying for 4 days at a time to play conference schools, which adds up very quickly. Here in Seattle, in the past 10 days I have spent three days in Arizona and 3 days in Kansas City playing conference tennis matches. For a sport that really brings no revenue in to the school, it's an easy thing to cut to help save a dime here or there.

Heck, look at UAlbany women's tennis. They made the NCAA tournament last season but had their program cut. It's happening all over the country.
 
To be honest - if you want a "good" division one program, it's hard to have the same person coaching two programs. It's almost inevitable that one program suffers. It's actually not as cheap as you may think, as booking tennis court time is very expensive, and if you live in the NE, Midwest, PNW - you are playing indoors for 3/4 of the season. With the way conferences currently are - you have people flying for 4 days at a time to play conference schools, which adds up very quickly. Here in Seattle, in the past 10 days I have spent three days in Arizona and 3 days in Kansas City playing conference tennis matches. For a sport that really brings no revenue in to the school, it's an easy thing to cut to help save a dime here or there.

Heck, look at UAlbany women's tennis. They made the NCAA tournament last season but had their program cut. It's happening all over the country.

I just assumed most big schools have indoor courts. But I can see that getting crazy expensive. Thanks for the response.

My D3 tennis career was on the cheap.
 
Just to bang the drum...

If you let all student-athletes profit from their name and likeness, it doesn't have to go the slash sports way.

This always get brought up... how do you control it? Is there a cap? All checks must be sent to the NCAA first? What stops Phil Knight from giving the PG or QB 10 million dollars for his autograph?
 
This always get brought up... how do you control it? Is there a cap? All checks must be sent to the NCAA first? What stops Phil Knight from giving the PG or QB 10 million dollars for his autograph?
You don't control it.
 
Sounds like it would work. No problem.
It would. It would be different, and yes, we'd see different winners and losers from what we expect now.

But the positives beat the negatives and it would ultimately be more fair because it's putting the money into the right hands.
 
You don't control it.

If you could have an independent group determining the fair market value of athletes, then sure it could work. Don't see that as being feasible though, and then all you have done is taken the boosters out of the shadows and given them direct access to the players, creating an even shadier situation where schools that have boosters with bottomless pockets buying up players left and right. If we think that the competitive balance of major college athletics is off-kilter now, just wait and see how much something like this would separate the haves from the have-nots.
 
If you could have an independent group determining the fair market value of athletes, then sure it could work. Don't see that as being feasible though, and then all you have done is taken the boosters out of the shadows and given them direct access to the players, creating an even shadier situation where schools that have boosters with bottomless pockets buying up players left and right. If we think that the competitive balance of major college athletics is off-kilter now, just wait and see how much something like this would separate the haves from the have-nots.
Yeah, but see, that's a good thing.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,494
Messages
4,706,725
Members
5,908
Latest member
Cuseman17

Online statistics

Members online
333
Guests online
2,129
Total visitors
2,462


Top Bottom