<p>
</p>
<p>Against NCAA rules anyway…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“One and Done” is not allowed in football; only basketball. Football requires you to play 3 years in college. Baseball gives you options: sign right out of high school, go to a JUCO for 1-2 years, or spend minimum of 3 years at 4-year university.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not back in the early 80s when I was at UC Davis. That rule wasn’t passed until 1991, and colleges were given until 1996 to comply. And some big football schools still to this day house many of their players in special dorms but skirt the NCAA rule by allowing a few real students to live there too, thus claiming that the jock dorms are not exclusive but theoretically open to all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah but walk-ons make up the rest of the roster, and they get all the “amenities” that people are complaining about without getting free tuition. My point is not every person on a roster is getting a scholarship or a full scholarship.</p>
<p>Most athletic department budgets run completely separate from the rest of the university in that they are self supporting through ticket sales and licensed merchandise</p>
<p>Exactly. these teams aren’t spending “university budget money” nor are they spending “tax dollars.”</p>
<p>Heck, my kids’ schools’ team puts them up in an on-campus hotel for 3 nights before a HOME game to control what the kids are doing, eating, etc. (THEY AREN’T PARTYING, as once person suggested.) There are armed guards on their floors and the elevators are controlled. </p>
<p>These schools’ teams are bringing in more money than they’re spending. Someone has to pay for all those money-losing female sports.</p>
<p>(If you want to complain about money waste, get rid of Title 9…think of all **that ** female sports money which could go towards academics…but those of you who are card-carrying members of Club-PC would go crazy. lol)</p>
<p>Since this thread has drifted away from the hotel room costs, and since some of the strongest voices on this thread are assuming that football teams are always revenue producers, which support other teams, I wonder if your opinions change when the football team becomes a drain on the athletic department?</p>
<p>See my previous posts, # 83 and 93 on this thread. U-MD’s athletic department went a little crazy a few years back, grossly overbuilt Byrd Stadium, and has been unable to fill the 64 suites (considered critical to the financial success of the stadium). It doesn’t help that the team itself has been mediocre at best since the stadium renovation. revenue is down, alumni support is down.</p>
<p>As a direct result of this financial mess, the entire athletic department is struggling, and 8 non revenue producing sports have been cut. </p>
<p>Any thoughts on this? (I am generally football neutral…love to watch it, understand that football and basketball are the only reason many other sports teams even exist on a DI campus. I am not bashing athletics, but shouldn’t every team have to suffer a little bit under these circumstances? The public relations disconnect of having nothing change at all for the football team when 8 other teams have been told to try to raise millions of dollars on their own does leave a bad taste in my mouth.)</p>
<p>There are coaches who will be losing their jobs and DI athletes with no teams next year at Maryland, but the football team is unaffected.</p>
<p>Why should the football team be affected…are you sugesting getting rid of football/basketball too? The only revenue generating sports on campus? Seems logical to me if you cant support other sports and comply with Title IX. </p>
<p>Per Dept of ED 2009/10 ACC Profit from football </p>
<p>Football Profit
Virginia Tech $14,853,103.00
Clemson Univ. $14,688,975.00
North Carolina State $11,609,800.00
Georgia Tech $9,350,858.00
Univ. of North Carolina $7,289,263.00
Univ. of Miami $6,767,811.00
Univ. of Virginia $3,076,978.00
Florida State Univ. $2,613,485.00
Duke Univ. $1,796,461.00
Univ. of Maryland $1,676,620.00
Boston College $1,211,197.00</p>
<p>* I wonder if your opinions change when the football team becomes a drain on the athletic department?</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>If you’re concerned about any football teams that are money drains, then you should be screaming from the rooftops about ALL the sports that are money losers. At least some schools have football teams that make money or break even. Which female teams can make such claims? If you’d like to see more money going to academics (including more of the football profits) get rid of the money-pit teams. </p>
<p>and 8 non revenue producing sports have been cut.</p>
<p>What’s wrong with that? If you can’t fill the bleachers, what’s the point?</p>
<p>* grossly overbuilt Byrd Stadium*</p>
<p>??? It only has a 54k capacity. That’s not overbuilt. the problem is the coach/team…not the stadium. The venue is fine, the performance is inadequate.</p>
<p>
I thought this was about “athletics.”</p>
<p>Apparently athletic performance is only achievable in front of a fully packed stadium, Hunt.</p>
<p>Smitty, did I indicate anywhere that I’m advocating that U-Md get rid of football?!</p>
<p>Football is a revenue source. I get it. I’m not disputing that. I do wonder why they shouldn’t have to share the misery, since the Athletic Department’s deficit is directly related to money spent on the football team:</p>
<p>At this particular moment in time the Athletic Department at U-Md has a $4.7 million dollar deficit. The cumulative deficit is anticipated to rise to $8.7 million by the end of the 2013 fiscal year without action by the school.</p>
<p>In 2008 Byrd Football Stadium was given a $50 million dollar renovation and expansion.</p>
<p>“Back in the days when the economy was booming former atletic director Debbie Yow added seats and suites to Byrd Stadium, additions NO ONE BUT THE MOST OPTIMISTIC thought the Terps could sell out. She was betting on a bright future for the football program that never really materialized.”</p>
<p>“Maryland’s budget woes were years were years in the making. The commission cited revenue declines in football, men’s basketball, fundraising, and other areas. it also cited unsold luxury suites at Tyser Tower, part of Byrd Stadium. The tower, completed in 2009 has been a financial disappointment.”</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t the football team have to share in the misery?</p>
<p>Why is it that the journalists, debaters, actors, etc who “perform” for / represent the university in various capacities don’t need to be put up in hotel rooms before home performances to foster camaraderie and behave properly? Every year my alma mater stages a huge performance (WaaMu) that is attended by Hollywood and Broadway talent scouts, and it’s very high stakes for the theater, dance and music majors who are involved. How come they are able to dedicate themselves to their craft – which is their freakin’ major – without needing the u to pay for hotel rooms? Teamwork is important in theater, dance and music as well.</p>
<p>Because the theater, dance, and music boosters are cheap.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe you should ask the ones in charge. Maybe they choose to not do it. Football coaches believe it is important and they spend money out of their budget to do it.</p>
<p>" I do wonder why they shouldn’t have to share the misery, since the Athletic Department’s deficit is directly related to money spent on the football team"</p>
<p>eastcoastcrazy–I guess I dont understand what u meant by football ‘share the misery’. In what way? fire coaches, players, no hotel rooms, fewer scholarships? The UM football team had 1.6 mil in profit…that not a deficit. The deficit was created when spreading those $$ supporting the 8 other sports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And also because, if the performance is not a revenue source regardless of quality, it doesn’t matter.</p>
<p>For those of you in business, I’m surprised you don’t “get” protecting revenue-producing assets, in this case, the players themselves. If the players don’t sleep or get hurt the night before the game, it can affect the outcome, which can affect income. It is so basic. If your business is selling diamonds, you don’t toss them in a pile and carry them around loose in briefcase.</p>
<p>Smitty, you are quoting 2009-2010 football profits. </p>
<p>The athletic department of U-Md had been losing money for a number of years prior to this, but a renovation and size increase in the football stadium was done, anyway. </p>
<p>In 2009 the renovation to Byrd Stadium was completed, at a cost of $50 million. </p>
<p>The stadium seats have NOT been sold out, the added suites and seats have NOT been sold. </p>
<p>As of November 1, 2011 the Athletic Department is showing a $4.7 deficit.</p>
<p>That deficit will increase to $8.7 million at the end of fiscal 2013 if no changes are made.</p>
<p>I totally understand the need for cuts to the athletic department.</p>
<p>Why should the football team not have to share in those cuts?</p>
<p>This year the Terps are routinely playing to a half empty stadium, and ended the season with a 2-10 record. </p>
<p>"Financial downturns in the University’s two revenue sports, football and men’s basketball, have contributed to the athletic department’s budget woes. In fiscal year 2006, basketball raked in $6,748,164 of net revenue while football brought in $3,535,774.</p>
<p>In 2011, basketball produced $4,482,714, while FOOTBALL LOST $64,891. </p>
<p>Over that five-year span, revenue has dropped 34% for basketball and 102% for football."
Quote from “University of Maryland Athletic Commission Recommends Elimination of Eight Teams”</p>
<p>Football LOST money this last fiscal year.</p>
<p>Tell me why the football program shouldn’t have to take on some share of the cuts?</p>
<p>It seems to me that the actions of university administrators–not the actions of the football coach or players–are what caused most of the financial problem. Why should the football team have to pay for the mistake? Why should any of the other teams have to pay either? They shouldn’t, of course. Still, in order to be responsible with tax payer money, the deficit must be kept from growing. Thus the administration which created the problem is choosing to fix it by eliminating non-revenue producing sports. This was their decision, not that of the evil football team. They also need to fire losing football coaches, because at least the football team has the potential to make money. People are never going to pay big bucks to watch a 20-30 minute cross country race.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, my D’s Div. 1 cross country and track teams actually ARE self-supporting due to 2 major invitational meets they host. So it’s not as though it can’t be done. Maybe some blame needs to be shared by the other teams too.</p>
<p>True. Football lost 64k. The other 27 sports (minus basketball) LOST $15 Mil. Dropping 8 of those teams can help the deficit. </p>
<p>Again, how do you propose football ‘share in the misery’ ? 64k is a lost easier to recover from than 15 Mil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um…last I checked, almost all schools lose money for EVERY non-football and men’s basketball sport. NOT just female ones. Sports like men’s soccer, baseball, and men’s lacrosse lose schools plenty of money too!</p>