Track and Field

[AU64 10,122]

Why does AU continue to have T &F? A good number of schools have dropped the sport and even though we seem to have a ton of people on the roster, generally we only have a small handful that qualify for meaningful meets. From what I can tell, this sport can not bring in a dime of revenue so it's all out-go for the Athletic Department. I'm not posting this as an anti-JJ rant....it's just that I don't see the point of spending the money.

[ellitor 33,092]

Why does AU continue to have T &F? A good number of schools have dropped the sport and even though we seem to have a ton of people on the roster, generally we only have a small handful that qualify for meaningful meets. From what I can tell, this sport can not bring in a dime of revenue so it's all out-go for the Athletic Department. I'm not posting this as an anti-JJ rant....it's just that I don't see the point of spending the money.

Could be a sport the SEC requires all schools to have since all 14 SEC schools have it.

[AU64 10,122]

Why does AU continue to have T &F? A good number of schools have dropped the sport and even though we seem to have a ton of people on the roster, generally we only have a small handful that qualify for meaningful meets. From what I can tell, this sport can not bring in a dime of revenue so it's all out-go for the Athletic Department. I'm not posting this as an anti-JJ rant....it's just that I don't see the point of spending the money.

Could be a sport the SEC requires all schools to have since all 14 SEC schools have it.

Good point though I think some or going through the motions....Vandy has cross country with just a handful of male athletes. Do SEC schools use women's T & F to meet scholarship requirements for females? Just seems that only a few schools are really serious about.

[ellitor 33,092]

Why does AU continue to have T &F? A good number of schools have dropped the sport and even though we seem to have a ton of people on the roster, generally we only have a small handful that qualify for meaningful meets. From what I can tell, this sport can not bring in a dime of revenue so it's all out-go for the Athletic Department. I'm not posting this as an anti-JJ rant....it's just that I don't see the point of spending the money.

Could be a sport the SEC requires all schools to have since all 14 SEC schools have it.

Do SEC schools use women's T & F to meet scholarship requirements for females? Just seems that only a few schools are really serious about.

Yes. They are part of the Title IX requirements. Also with 8 men's teams in the top 25 and 6 women's teams ranked the sport is pretty healthy conference wide.

[AU64 10,122]

Why does AU continue to have T &F? A good number of schools have dropped the sport and even though we seem to have a ton of people on the roster, generally we only have a small handful that qualify for meaningful meets. From what I can tell, this sport can not bring in a dime of revenue so it's all out-go for the Athletic Department. I'm not posting this as an anti-JJ rant....it's just that I don't see the point of spending the money.

Could be a sport the SEC requires all schools to have since all 14 SEC schools have it.

Do SEC schools use women's T & F to meet scholarship requirements for females? Just seems that only a few schools are really serious about.

Yes. They are part of the Title IX requirements. Also with 8 men's teams in the top 25 and 6 women's teams ranked the sport is pretty healthy conference wide.

Arky, Fla and LSU have always been serious....and now TAMU.....but the others have been spotty.....sometimes UGa, MSU and AU...but now that they don't have the duel meets like in the old days, it seems we just send a handful of athletes to big regional or national meets. Checking the SEC points and four teams dominate and the rest are just fighting on 5th or 6th place and were just getting a few points here and there.....and Vandy men did not have a team.

[Mikey 16,582]

We're just a few years removed from our women winning the national track championship. Three, four years ago?

Track, golf, tennis, they all have their own fans. I follow the equestrian team because I own and ride horses. Vandy's last NCAA championship, just a couple of years ago, was in women's bowling. Who knew bowling was an NCAA sport?

Anyway, I suppose a case can be made to keep or drop any of the minor sports. Decades ago Auburn dominated wrestling in the Southeast. Then our AD Pat Dye dropped the sport because of title nine. I've never really forgiven him for that. There were plenty of sports we weren't having success in, why drop one we were good at?

[AU64 10,122]

Not picking on T & F in particular but the number of sports sponsored by each SEC school varies quite a bit and no school sponsors more sports than Auburn and a good number have fewer sponsored teams. So within a school's ability to meet it's Title IX obligations, they each seem to have quite a bit of latitude. Only about half the schools have gymnastics, a couple don't have diving and swimming. Vandy for example has the smallest program with 8 women's sports and 6 men's sports. It appears their plan is to limit the number of non-revenue sports. Though, in fact they do have some non-revenue sports in their program but all of those sports they sponsor have very small rosters which keeps the cost down. Looking at the chart at the site below, it's hard to see that the SEC requires anything beyond baseball, football and basketball ....... http://en.wikipedia....tern_Conference . Guess I'm back to the question of whether AU needs to field so many teams and provide so many scholarships in the non-revenue sports.

[Mikey 16,582]

Well, unless we're going broke and can't afford it, I think the scholarships for non-revenue sports give a lot of kids a chance at an Auburn education, kids that probably wouldn't be here otherwise. They also give current students and townspeople sporting events to watch year-round.

IMHO if we aren't going broke, keep all of the teams.

[ellitor 33,092]

Well, unless we're going broke and can't afford it, I think the scholarships for non-revenue sports give a lot of kids a chance at an Auburn education, kids that probably wouldn't be here otherwise. They also give current students and townspeople sporting events to watch year-round.

IMHO if we aren't going broke, keep all of the teams.

Agreed

[AU64 10,122]

Well, unless we're going broke and can't afford it, I think the scholarships for non-revenue sports give a lot of kids a chance at an Auburn education, kids that probably wouldn't be here otherwise. They also give current students and townspeople sporting events to watch year-round.

IMHO if we aren't going broke, keep all of the teams.

Guess I would agree if there was any indication that many/any people were watching them...even when there is no charge. As for the benefit of bringing kids to AU....there a lot of other academically qualified HS grads that would like to attend AU if scholarship money were available. From time to time the athletic department has donated money to the general scholarship fund I think. But, from a societal standpoint, the athletic department could help even more potential AU students by increasing it's contribution to the general scholarship fund ....which it could do if it were not burdened by all the overhead of coaches and administrators that run these non-revenue sports. JMO but if AU ran the same number of sports programs that Vandy runs for example, the income would still be about 95+/-% of what the department brings in now and expenses could be reduced by a substantial amount of money. Paying for all these programs is one reason that football ticket prices are climbing year after year. Ticket prices don't go up to cover the cost of football (or basketball or baseball) but to pay for the increasing costs associated with the 8-10 sports that have almost no revenue. Basically there is no way to raise revenue or ticket prices in sports where fans can only be enticed if there is little or no charge. ACC teams pretty much across the board field fewer competing teams than the larger SEC schools. Again, JMO, but this huge athletic program at AU comes off like an empire building project for the Athletic Department....lots of sports, lots of coaches, lots of staff ....and lots of money for all.

[Mikey 16,582]

Ticket prices don't go up in order to support the minor sports. Ticket prices go up because people will pay for them. Supply and demand as in Economics 101. We have plenty of money and with the new TV deal there will be scads more rolling in.

Quote: "if there was any indication that many/any people were watching them." Just because you don't go doesn't mean others don't. Recently I have attended Equestrian, Softball, Swimming and Soccer at AU. All were well attended with enthusiastic crowds. Were there overflow crowds? No, but there were nice crowds at every event.

To be somewhat repetitive, there is no good reason to discontinue teams unless finances are a problem and we've got more money than we've ever had to support these minor sports.

PS: About the Athletic dept. chipping in to help the rest of the university. Have you been on campus lately and noticed the construction and improvements at every turn? There is a lot of money coming in from somewhere, If Auburn is short of cash the problem certainly is not visible.

[AU64 10,122]

I agree on the campus improvements....many are long overdue and JG gets my credit at least for pulling together the master plan a few years ago....and finding the money for it. Still, AU is one of the least endowed schools in the SEC and seems the admin does a pretty good job apportioning it around to the various needs. Still, scholarship money is always needed and AU is still a school (like in my day) where a lot of students are the first in their families to attend a major university. We have personal association with a number of scholarship recipients and I can say from experience and their stories how much any scholarship money means to them. And yes ticket prices are partly supply and demand but I've witnessed enough bureaucracies in action during my lifetime to know that their expenditures will increase to meet (or exceed) the money they have to spend. The athletic department is like any other bureaucracy....give it more money and it finds more ways to spend it.....and usually for the benefit of those in that organization....just human nature. I'm just saying that there are better ways to spend the money on behalf of AU students than a handful of scholarships and a athletic department empire.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Anyway, I suppose a case can be made to keep or drop any of the minor sports. Decades ago Auburn dominated wrestling in the Southeast. Then our AD Pat Dye dropped the sport because of title nine. I've never really forgiven him for that. There were plenty of sports we weren't having success in, why drop one we were good at?

Not because of Tittle IX but because by dropping Wrestling and Womens Golf they save around 130K in 1981 that went back into funding the other non-revenue sports. Also Wrestling no longer counted in the SEC standings as most of the SEC had already dropped wrestling. UF and the updykes dropped it in 1979. I agree we were dominate and could compete. There was a committee that decided on both of those sports to be cut so they did.

[Mikey 16,582]

Then why do we have a women's golf team today? Your take on it is different from what I remember. I do know Dye was the AD. To think some committee went against his wishes doesn't seem right. He may have used a committee to hide behind but knowing Dye they didn't do anything he didn't want done.

[Charleston Tiger 134]

I think you can look at a lot of the non-revenue teams as ways to put Auburn out into the world. A lot of those sports are Olympic sports, so when we see our people go from AU, to Team USA and competing in World Championships and Olympic events, it's great PR for Auburn. International broadcasts are talking about Auburn's Swimming and Diving program every 4 years because they always have Rowdy Gaines out there for commentary, and with him comes a description of his pedigree: Auburn University and Team USA. Every time that happens, it shows that we produce and care about student-athletes enough to help them excel at truly the highest levels. JMO but we should absolutely keep these programs running.

[arnaldoabru 11]

We should drop Men's Basketball if we drop anything.

[AuburnNTexas 7,142]

Swede Umbach was great wrestling coach and we had a great program. In the old days there were a few All American football Players like John Hannah at the other school who were also All American wrestlers. Wrestling makes any big guy a better football player. The decision to drop a Sport is not easy and economics usually makes the decision for you. With Title 19 we had to add womens sports and get rid of some mens sports as it requires women have the same number of scholarships as men. With football having 85 it was inevitable that some mens sports would go and also some up and coming sports like Rugby and Lacrosse would never be supported by the majority of schools.

As a good AD Dye probably let the staff make the decision on wrestling asked a few questions and agreed with the decision. A great leader does not micro manage he hires good people and trusts them and he sets guidelines. The fact that so many other SEC schools also dropped wrestling makes it apparent that it was done for good reason. My oldest son was a very good High School wrestler who probably would have been good enough to get a scholarship wrestling when he graduated about 5 years ago. But because so many schools have dropped wrestling thers just aren't enough scholarships. He got interest and some schools wanted him to walk on but he decided that without a scholarship he would prefer to devote his time to school as college sports are extremely time demanding.

[IRONeagle1993_01 0]

I get where you are coming from AU64 but if it was up to you would we only have a football and basketball team?

Here's the way I look at it I'm from the north grew up in Columbus, OH home of the Buckeyes and the largest athletic department in terms of number of teams in the country the school even sponsors sports that aren't NCAA affiliated they sponsor 18 men's teams and 19 women's teams. For a comparison Auburn sponsors 15 teams combined. From an capitalist's perspective (which 90% of the time is what I agree with) you would only have profit sports. But Ohio State even though they lose money on almost all of their sports except the major 3 does it because of the pageantry involved (makes campus life more exciting, there are more things to do and events to attend) and because it raises the number olympic athletes that they send every year. I would be a fan of seeing the Auburn athletic department become a full fledged athletic department like OSU rather than cut everything but Football, Basketball, Baseball and the required title IX sports

[AU64 10,122]

Iron...I think you mis-read my message....I was just asking the question about our non-revenue sports though which I think is reasonable....college sports is a business and each product should have to make it's case from time to time.

As for your thought that AU does not have a "full fledged" athletic dept...I think you better check your facts. AU sponsors 21 scholarship supported sports and according the the information I could find, no SEC school has more. UGa also has 21 and the rest of the schools have fewer all the way down to Vandy which looks to have 14. IMO, there is no way anyone can conclude that AU is doing too little. NCAA stats also show that 19 is typical for Div 1 schools .

I did suggest that back in the day, the "minor" sports....golf, tennis, track and field, wrestling, etc. had few if any scholarships and most of the players were walk-ons...such as my attempts to make the tennis team back in the '60s. I had college friends that wrestled, ran track and played tennis as walk-ons. Football players ran track and played baseball....and other that football and basketball, most sports were truely amateurs. The school sponsored the teams, hired the coaches and paid expenses for matches but we played for fun. That's still the way it's done in most colleges in the US.

[arnaldoabru 11]

• No, seriously, we should drop men's basketball
  

[augolf1716 21,122]

• No, seriously, we should drop men's basketball
  

I thought we had????? j/k j/k

[Charleston Tiger 134]

• No, seriously, we should drop men's basketball
  

I thought we had????? j/k j/k

[aucanucktiger 1,791]

Ticket prices don't go up in order to support the minor sports. Ticket prices go up because people will pay for them. Supply and demand as in Economics 101. We have plenty of money and with the new TV deal there will be scads more rolling in.

Quote: "if there was any indication that many/any people were watching them." Just because you don't go doesn't mean others don't. Recently I have attended Equestrian, Softball, Swimming and Soccer at AU. All were well attended with enthusiastic crowds. Were there overflow crowds? No, but there were nice crowds at every event.

To be somewhat repetitive, there is no good reason to discontinue teams unless finances are a problem and we've got more money than we've ever had to support these minor sports.

PS: About the Athletic dept. chipping in to help the rest of the university. Have you been on campus lately and noticed the construction and improvements at every turn? There is a lot of money coming in from somewhere, If Auburn is short of cash the problem certainly is not visible.

Bingo. Also, let's face the fact that a university's sports (scholly or not) are reflective of alumni/supporter appetite. See the AU bass fishing team thread on this board. Harvard's proudest sport is crew (rowing). Iowa's is (was)wrestling.