Welcome to Miami Hawk Talk!

This website is a fan-operated and fan-oriented site primarily about athletics at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

This website is not affiliated with Miami University, the Mid-American Conference (MAC), the National Collegiate Hockey Conference (NCHC) the NCAA, or any other collegiate or professional organization.

The College Athletics Dominoes are starting to fall

D_DayD_Day Wealthy Alum

The University of Cincinnati has just announced that it is dropping men's soccer.

I anticipate most schools including Miami will consider the budget, and many will drop more sports.
«13456710

Comments

  • Spanks004Spanks004 Wealthy Alum
    Not sure about Miami. Right now, we wouldn't have any sport that drives actual revenue. Not sure this is related to Covid, rather UC seeing this as a time to cut a sport they've wanted to cut for years.
  • mollauttmollautt Wealthy Alum
    =>Doubt it is 'rona related.  Cutting a sport is a long term decision.
    Spanks004
  • mollauttmollautt Wealthy Alum
    => 204 men's NCAA D1 programs. NCAA allows 9.9 scholarships per team.

    333 women's D1 programs. NCAA allows 14 scholarships per team.
  • mollauttmollautt Wealthy Alum
    D_Day said:


    The University of Cincinnati has just announced that it is dropping men's soccer.

    I anticipate most schools including Miami will consider the budget, and many will drop more sports.
    =>Not sure Miami can drop any more Sports. Miami I think operates at the minimum number of Varsity Sports you can have and still be Division 1. That include synchronized skating.
  • 2xHawk2xHawk Senior Barfly
    Miami could drop 1 men's and 1 women's sport and still be Division 1.
  • thechuck_2112thechuck_2112 Wealthy Alum
    Pete Thamel at Yahoo! reports that the G5 commissioners have sent a joint letter to the NCAA asking for a four-year reprieve on the minimum-number-of-sports requirement.
    DICK
  • MUHawk84MUHawk84 Wealthy Alum
    What is the logic in forcing schools to have a certain number of sports?
  • thechuck_2112thechuck_2112 Wealthy Alum
    MUHawk84 said:

    What is the logic in forcing schools to have a certain number of sports?

    I suppose it would be described by the NCAA as “institutional commitment to athletics,” but I think the general goal is to get bands of schools that, broadly speaking, spend about the same on sports as one another.
  • MooreHawkMooreHawk Senior Barfly
    edited April 14
    MUHawk84 said:

    What is the logic in forcing schools to have a certain number of sports?

    I think to discourage schools from, for example, only having men's and women's basketball and pouring all of their resources into that, rather than across a variety of sports.
  • FredFred Dodds God

    Pete Thamel at Yahoo! reports that the G5 commissioners have sent a joint letter to the NCAA asking for a four-year reprieve on the minimum-number-of-sports requirement.

    That’s an interesting post. Chuck, what do you think of it? It would seem odd to ask for a reprieve of four years, as that would be a fair amount of disruption to reduce the number of sports, only to have to rebuild later. I wonder if a permanent reduction of 1-2 required sports would be more logical? I’m not sure.
    This is a serious, straight forward question - I’d be OK with dropping everything and going all club sports given the impact of sports on our campus - but this isn’t a question related to that.
  • 96Skins96Skins Havighurstite
    This has been desired for years - they now have an excuse to pull it off (as temporary to get approval - but highly doubt they’ll ever come back). The ADs have been in a tough spot as they are increasingly asked to run the shop like a business - raise more $, build facilities, hire/fire staff based on performance, market to prospective customers, etc...and oh btw, maintain these other sports that bring in absolutely no revenue but treat them like they do. They talk out of both sides of their mouth and this could eliminate some of their greatest headaches. I love going to watch some of these non-rev sports, but mandating they exist is not healthy for the G5 schools.
  • RenmancoRenmanco Wealthy Alum
    96Skins said:

    This has been desired for years - they now have an excuse to pull it off (as temporary to get approval - but highly doubt they’ll ever come back). The ADs have been in a tough spot as they are increasingly asked to run the shop like a business - raise more $, build facilities, hire/fire staff based on performance, market to prospective customers, etc...and oh btw, maintain these other sports that bring in absolutely no revenue but treat them like they do. They talk out of both sides of their mouth and this could eliminate some of their greatest headaches. I love going to watch some of these non-rev sports, but mandating they exist is not healthy for the G5 schools.

    Post this virus crisis, it'll be interesting to see how much of higher ed transforms to distance-based learning, as well as how parents who have seen their jobs or paychecks cut will feel about having a not insignificant portion of their kids' student fees handed over to athletic departments as a basic subsidy.
    AORedHawk33DICKelpalito
  • 96Skins96Skins Havighurstite
    Post this virus crisis, it'll be interesting to see how much of higher ed transforms to distance-based learning, as well as how parents who have seen their jobs or paychecks cut will feel about having a not insignificant portion of their kids' student fees handed over to athletic departments as a basic subsidy.

    Good point - surely there are major cuts coming from general funds - if I were any male sport not named FB, BB, BS or Hockey at MU I’d be very nervous and calling potential donors for scholarship / operational endowments. Women may have a few on the block as well.
    If the removal of limit restrictions are not approved, there will be an even larger separation btwn G5 & P5, possibly spurring on that final break up as well - we’ll now see what the NCAA really values.
  • RenmancoRenmanco Wealthy Alum
    edited April 15
    96Skins said:

    Post this virus crisis, it'll be interesting to see how much of higher ed transforms to distance-based learning, as well as how parents who have seen their jobs or paychecks cut will feel about having a not insignificant portion of their kids' student fees handed over to athletic departments as a basic subsidy.


    Good point - surely there are major cuts coming from general funds - if I were any male sport not named FB, BB, BS or Hockey at MU I’d be very nervous and calling potential donors for scholarship / operational endowments. Women may have a few on the block as well.
    If the removal of limit restrictions are not approved, there will be an even larger separation btwn G5 & P5, possibly spurring on that final break up as well - we’ll now see what the NCAA really values.  


  • thechuck_2112thechuck_2112 Wealthy Alum
    edited April 15
    Fred said:

    Pete Thamel at Yahoo! reports that the G5 commissioners have sent a joint letter to the NCAA asking for a four-year reprieve on the minimum-number-of-sports requirement.

    That’s an interesting post. Chuck, what do you think of it? It would seem odd to ask for a reprieve of four years, as that would be a fair amount of disruption to reduce the number of sports, only to have to rebuild later. I wonder if a permanent reduction of 1-2 required sports would be more logical? I’m not sure.
    This is a serious, straight forward question - I’d be OK with dropping everything and going all club sports given the impact of sports on our campus - but this isn’t a question related to that.
    The four-year thing makes sense in that I don't think a wholesale change to the Division I classification scheme can be justified based on an expected one-year dip in revenues.  Facts could change, of course, and it wouldn't surprise me if that eventually happens.

    Notably, I think it's entirely possible that this results in wholesale changes to how a university conceives of its athletic program.  Most schools are already either losing money on athletics or only breaking even through mandatory student fees.  I think a couple of disparate threads point to big changes on the horizon:

    • Increasingly, the academic side of universities is getting very cost-conscious.  In an environment where whole academic departments are cut or consolidated (and their teaching positions/admin support positions eliminated), how can a school justify the cost (coaches, support staffs, scholarships, facilities upkeep) of a non-revenue team?  The classics department (or whatever departments may be on a schools's chopping block) is at least part of the core academic mission of a university.  
    • Related to cost-cutting, as Renmanco points out, I expect moves to online courses.  Universities are already phasing out tenured faculty in favor of using adjuncts, and using adjuncts to teach online courses is even cheaper than using adjuncts to teach in person.  But how do you justify huge tuitions and fees when a student, even one who lives in a dorm or off-campus student housing at an otherwise "traditional" college (as opposed to a commuter school) is getting half their coursework from Zoom lectures?
    • And, as Renmanco points out, to the extent parents are helping out, parents whose income has taken a huge hit are going be justifiably wondering why they're either outright paying for an athletic department through student fees or co-signing a kid's loans that fund an athletic department through student fees.  A trend toward online lectures, to the extent it moves away from everything one associates with the traditional college experience, probably will increase these complaints.
  • 2xHawk2xHawk Senior Barfly
    Illinois was on the verge of announcing the addition of Men's Ice Hockey.

    https://sports.yahoo.com/illinois-came-close-adding-divison-190926754.html
  • thechuck_2112thechuck_2112 Wealthy Alum
    edited April 22
    Boise State's entire football coaching staff has been furloughed, part of a much wider furlough program for the university.  It's possible that the lowest-level assistants who would be handling a lot of the day-to-day recruiting may not be allowed to work on recruiting at all--not for NCAA reasons, but because they wouldn't be eligible for unemployment if they actually performed their work duties. And unlike Bryan Harsin, the 24-year-old assistants really need that money.

    Mowch
  • thechuck_2112thechuck_2112 Wealthy Alum

    Boise State's entire football coaching staff has been furloughed, part of a much wider furlough program for the university.  It's possible that the lowest-level assistants who would be handling a lot of the day-to-day recruiting may not be allowed to work on recruiting at all--not for NCAA reasons, but because they wouldn't be eligible for unemployment if they actually performed their work duties. And unlike Bryan Harsin, the 24-year-old assistants really need that money.

    A friend who lives in Idaho informs me that Boise State has subsequently said the furloughs are only for one work week and won't all be taken at the same time, so I guess any disruption would be quite minimal.
  • 96Skins96Skins Havighurstite
    edited April 22
    https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29084218/louisville-furloughs-45-athletic-department-staffers-others-take-4-pay-cut-amid-pandemic
    Wealthiest basketball program in America and ACC member with ~$150M budget. It’s going to hit everyone and this is just the start for UL and most everyone else.
  • MooreHawkMooreHawk Senior Barfly
    https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29083340/schools-ask-ncaa-relax-member-requirements

    All D1 conferences outside of the Power 5 have now joined the G5 in requesting a temporary relaxation of requirements. 
  • thechuck_2112thechuck_2112 Wealthy Alum
    Learfield/IMG has told schools it will be 60-90 days behind on rights payments.
  • JiveHawkJiveHawk Wealthy Alum
    Akron announces they're cutting their athletic budget by 20%
  • JohnnyMacJohnnyMac Wealthy Alum
    For those of you who don't regularly peruse the "Inside Lacrosse" website, this article discusses the waiver request submitted by the Group of 5 conference commissioners:


    Apparently, there are meetings going on right now on the topic.
  • 96Skins96Skins Havighurstite
    I just don’t see a viable way to keep G5 schools with 16 sports afloat and competitive without an NCAA across the board mandated budget reduction (never happen). Schools will either say OK to keeping all the sports (reducing FB/BB budgets) and effectively kill FB/BB ability to be competitive thus killing any revenue generation oppy, or say they can stay but must raise all their budget on their own (MU did this with men’s golf in the late 90’s - Rodger Cromer saved it through hustle). Neither is a good or easy option. Institutional support for athletics is about to be decimated. This is why schools should raise $1 in endowment for every $5 in facility/budget Rev.
    AORedHawk33
  • DavearamaDavearama Havighurstite
    What percentage of the total athletic budget is football and men's basketball? Out of those numbers what percentage is for scholarships, for coach's pay and for travel?

    Out of the other 14(?) sports could anyone out there that that knows where to look put a list of each sport's total expenses most expensive to least? 

    I'm thinking it's going to be really ugly for college sports. You start looking at the list and try to figure out which sports stay and which goes and for the remaining sports how big are the budget cuts going to be?




  • MUHawk84MUHawk84 Wealthy Alum
    96Skins said:

    I just don’t see a viable way to keep G5 schools with 16 sports afloat and competitive without an NCAA across the board mandated budget reduction (never happen). Schools will either say OK to keeping all the sports (reducing FB/BB budgets) and effectively kill FB/BB ability to be competitive thus killing any revenue generation oppy, or say they can stay but must raise all their budget on their own (MU did this with men’s golf in the late 90’s - Rodger Cromer saved it through hustle). Neither is a good or easy option. Institutional support for athletics is about to be decimated. This is why schools should raise $1 in endowment for every $5 in facility/budget Rev.

    What sports does Miami cut?
  • skin66skin66 Wealthy Alum
    MUHawk84 said:

    96Skins said:

    I just don’t see a viable way to keep G5 schools with 16 sports afloat and competitive without an NCAA across the board mandated budget reduction (never happen). Schools will either say OK to keeping all the sports (reducing FB/BB budgets) and effectively kill FB/BB ability to be competitive thus killing any revenue generation oppy, or say they can stay but must raise all their budget on their own (MU did this with men’s golf in the late 90’s - Rodger Cromer saved it through hustle). Neither is a good or easy option. Institutional support for athletics is about to be decimated. This is why schools should raise $1 in endowment for every $5 in facility/budget Rev.

    What sports does Miami cut?
    In a joking fashion I say lets cut every sport that had a losing record last year or perhaps over the last five years. Get this thing done to a manageable few. Concentrate on them. Make some people really happy. Obviously this can't/shouldn't be done, but it makes as much sense as cutting every sport that operated in the red. Wait, wouldn't that make us an strictly academic institution. Boy howdy, I'm glad I don't have to make this decision. 

    I am on the board of directors for a public library system. during our virtual meeting in April I am going to charge the director with making 10-15% budget cuts. Got to be done and that is just the start, I am afraid. 
  • MUHawk84MUHawk84 Wealthy Alum
    My comment wasn’t tongue in cheek but genuinely curious....outside of football and basketball, everything should be be on the table
  • 96Skins96Skins Havighurstite
    I think it’s a combo of sport budget, Rev generation ability and facilities (do they have brand new facilities - if so can they be repurposed). Not easy, but I’d say from a men’s perspective all but FB, BB, BS & Hockey will be on the table. Unfortunately that doesn’t really trim that much $ but you start there. Then try to balance with the least expensive women’s sports while trying to stay in compliance with title 9. 12 is prob as thin as you can get without cutting baseball (not happening with Hayden $) or hockey (could repurpose Goggin to BB...).
  • laxdaddylaxdaddy Senior Barfly
    skin66 said:

    MUHawk84 said:

    96Skins said:

    I just don’t see a viable way to keep G5 schools with 16 sports afloat and competitive without an NCAA across the board mandated budget reduction (never happen). Schools will either say OK to keeping all the sports (reducing FB/BB budgets) and effectively kill FB/BB ability to be competitive thus killing any revenue generation oppy, or say they can stay but must raise all their budget on their own (MU did this with men’s golf in the late 90’s - Rodger Cromer saved it through hustle). Neither is a good or easy option. Institutional support for athletics is about to be decimated. This is why schools should raise $1 in endowment for every $5 in facility/budget Rev.

    What sports does Miami cut?
    In a joking fashion I say lets cut every sport that had a losing record last year or perhaps over the last five years. Get this thing done to a manageable few. Concentrate on them. Make some people really happy. Obviously this can't/shouldn't be done, but it makes as much sense as cutting every sport that operated in the red. Wait, wouldn't that make us an strictly academic institution. Boy howdy, I'm glad I don't have to make this decision. 

    I am on the board of directors for a public library system. during our virtual meeting in April I am going to charge the director with making 10-15% budget cuts. Got to be done and that is just the start, I am afraid. 
    I am curious as to what the library staff has been doing since they have been closed. Were they laid off to save dollars? If not, why not, it they are not working. Kudos to you for serving. No easy decisions coming. I think state and local governments should have been more aggressive in trying to cut costs when they saw what the story was. There is no way they are going to be able to raise taxes on private sector employees who have lost jobs to fill the gaps.
Sign In or Register to comment.