U cuts men's tennis, gymnastics and track and field

Donate To GopherHole



MplsGopher said:
It's cheap, and it's usually rich kids who play. Wouldn't be surprised if there were very little scholarships involved, low coaching salaries, and the kids (families) purchase their own clubs.
Click to expand...

Just fyi, D1 players for the most part are supplied equipment by the companies that make it for the visibility and hopes of building a relationship whether they are a Tour Pro or Club Pro prospect.

Apparel I am sure falls under the overall contracts schools sign.
 

Ope3 said:
Just fyi, D1 players for the most part are supplied equipment by the companies that make it for the visibility and hopes of building a relationship whether they are a Tour Pro or Club Pro prospect.

Apparel I am sure falls under the overall contracts schools sign.
Click to expand...

I always wondered how that works for coaches.

They usually have such new gear handy / on all the time.

I imagine PJ has a pullover dispenser in his office. Like he walks back from pratice and throws his old one in the trash and puts on a new one or something....
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I always wondered how that works for coaches.

They usually have such new gear handy / on all the time.

I imagine PJ has a pullover dispenser in his office. Like he walks back from pratice and throws his old one in the trash and puts on a new one or something....
Click to expand...

The few times I have seen D1 Golf coaches, they for sure enjoy top of the line equipment and clothing.

Side note, Reusse had an article this Sunday about Jim Dutcher being on the NCAA Coaches Nike advisory board back in the late 70s. He was offered free gear for the players and $100,000 over 5 yrs or stock. He went with stock. Smart guy.
 

Ope3 said:
The few times I have seen D1 Golf coaches, they for sure enjoy top of the line equipment and clothing.

Side note, Reusse had an article this Sunday about Jim Dutcher being on the NCAA Coaches Nike advisory board back in the late 70s. He was offered free gear for the players and $100,000 over 5 yrs or stock. He went with stock. Smart guy.
Click to expand...

Didn't he do financial advising after the coaching gig ended?
 

Our ire over this is misplaced. The blame of COVID rests entirely with China. We are all paying an enormous price for their intentional or negligent actions with regard to the virus. The Title IX aspect is just a red herring. As I understand the facts, the U's male/female ratios are only slightly out of compliance with the Title IX proportionality rule and it is not likely the U would be sanctioned at these levels. I am not aware of any university being penalized for having violated the proportionality dictates.
 

proudgopher said:
Our ire over this is misplaced. The blame of COVID rests entirely with China. We are all paying an enormous price for their intentional or negligent actions with regard to the virus. The Title IX aspect is just a red herring. As I understand the facts, the U's male/female ratios are only slightly out of compliance with the Title IX proportionality rule and it is not likely the U would be sanctioned at these levels. I am not aware of any university being penalized for having violated the proportionality dictates.
Click to expand...
Title IX isn't a violation of NCAA rules. You don't get fined or sanctioned.

It's a law and thus provides an avenue for legal remediation to the wronged. IE, they can get sued over it.


But let's call a spade a spade: saving $2M a year does almost nothing to remedy a $75M shortfall (maybe that will drop all the way down to $40M, with football back on?). If they actually wanted to save those sports, they could've simply borrowed a few more millions on top of the many millions they will be borrowing to patch the shortfall.

No. The actual thing is: they've wanted to cut a few sports, for many years. And this was their opportunity.
 



MplsGopher said:
Title IX isn't a violation of NCAA rules. You don't get fined or sanctioned.

It's a law and thus provides an avenue for legal remediation to the wronged. IE, they can get sued over it.


But let's call a spade a spade: saving $2M a year does almost nothing to remedy a $75M shortfall (maybe that will drop all the way down to $40M, with football back on?). If they actually wanted to save those sports, they could've simply borrowed a few more millions on top of the many millions they will be borrowing to patch the shortfall.

No. The actual thing is: they've wanted to cut a few sports, for many years. And this was their opportunity.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with most of what you said here, but I would point out a couple of things. First, while there is certainly a threat of litigation for failing to comply with Title IX, the U has also taken the position that it will strive to be in compliance with the intention of the law. That means being proactive to be in compliance and not just reactive when someone threatens to sue.

Second, I have seen many people make an argument similar to your "$2M a year does almost nothing to remedy a $75M shortfall" position and, while that is true, it ignores the reality that there is no single or small set of cost cutting measures to plug that hole. They could try to borrow $75M and keep operating as if nothing has changed, but if they are to make up a sizeable portion of a shortfall that big, it will have to be accomplished through a number of smaller steps. The benefit of this measure, as opposed to temporary salary reductions, hiring freezes, staff furloughs, etc., is that it will reduce future expenses. That's especially important in light of the reality that future budgets are going to include debt service on the new loans.

So, could they have tried to find a solution that didn't cut sports? Absolutely, but I think they concluded that would have been irresponsible.
 

FWIW, the actual spirit of the law is to ensure that schools provide opportunities for the underrepresented sex (obviously females) to compete in athletics such that they fulfill the "interests and abilities" of that group. That's technically all levels: recreational, intramural, club, and varsity.

Given the U's total offerings for females ... I don't see any possible way forward for a lawsuit to allege that such opportunities are sufficiently lacking.
 

MplsGopher said:
FWIW, the actual spirit of the law is to ensure that schools provide opportunities for the underrepresented sex (obviously females) to compete in athletics such that they fulfill the "interests and abilities" of that group. That's technically all levels: recreational, intramural, club, and varsity.

Given the U's total offerings for females ... I don't see any possible way forward for a lawsuit to allege that such opportunities are sufficiently lacking.
Click to expand...
That's one aspect, but there also needs to be proportionality in scholarships. We can't, for example, offer 85 football scholarships and count 85 rowers paying their own way as evidence of "equal opportunities."
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
That's one aspect, but there also needs to be proportionality in scholarships. We can't, for example, offer 85 football scholarships and count 85 rowers paying their own way as evidence of "equal opportunities."
Click to expand...
Sure, that's not wrong. But if you start going down that route, how is it "fair" that PJ Fleck makes $4.xxx million per year and has a staff of 10 coaches, while rowing has like two coaches that probably don't even make six figures? How is it "fair" that football flies chartered airbuses, riding private coaches to the airport that roll directly out onto the tarmac, while rowing takes the light rail, stands in line at security like everyone else, and flies commercial? Etc.

I know the obvious and not incorrect answer is "revenue generated". But how does that fit into the legal framework of "proportionality"? Seems iffy to me, if challenged.
 



MplsGopher said:
Sure, that's not wrong. But if you start going down that route, how is it "fair" that PJ Fleck makes $4.xxx million per year and has a staff of 10 coaches, while rowing has like two coaches that probably don't even make six figures? How is it "fair" that football flies chartered airbuses, riding private coaches to the airport that roll directly out onto the tarmac, while rowing takes the light rail, stands in line at security like everyone else, and flies commercial? Etc.

I know the obvious and not incorrect answer is "revenue generated". But how does that fit into the legal framework of "proportionality"? Seems iffy to me, if challenged.
Click to expand...
Those things are potentially problematic, but the focus seems to be mostly on the student-athlete access to services. Coaches salaries are dictated by the market. Athletes at the U have access to the Athletes Village, medical and training staff, academic assistance, counseling, etc. Is everything totally equal? No, but things have vastly improved in that regard over the years. I don't think the experience of non-revenue sport athletes is much different now whether you play baseball, softball or tennis. I am sure that there is also an aspect of a "don't rock the boat" attitude among many in the non-revenue sports who know that they are subject to elimination if the costs related to their sport get too high.
 


Where is it written that football is a men's sport? If there was a woman that was talented enough to make the team and earn a scholarship, I think they would be welcomed with open arms. ;)

--The previous comment was 99% in jest. Please be gentle in your criticisms of it.
 

HopHead said:
Where is it written that football is a men's sport? If there was a woman that was talented enough to make the team and earn a scholarship, I think they would be welcomed with open arms. ;)

--The previous comment was 99% in jest. Please be gentle in your criticisms of it.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with gendered sports (if we are going to split sports it should be by more measurable standards. I've seen women in many sports that are way better than some men competing in the same sport but they never get to show it, but I digress.), there have been a few instances of women making it onto teams at the high school level and it's getting more frequent as time goes on. One, if I recall, played in the secondary and * may * have joined a college team.
 

Coyle was on with Barreiro today. they went into some detail on the situation.
key points -
U of M student body is now 54% female. Under Title 9, the sports program is supposed to represent the campus - so scholarships, etc should be 54% women and 46% men.

The loss of FB revenue did not impact this decision. Coyle said the sports would have been cut even without the pandemic and loss of revenue - again, mainly due to Title 9. have to make the numbers balance.

the budget issues have been building up for several years. MN has the 8th-largest sports budget in the B1G but was 4th in number of sports offered.

Cannot fund-raise to cover the cost of the affected sports. title 9 again, plus long-term cost of maintaining sports.

can't add a new women's sport to make up the title 9 difference - cost again.

so cost and title 9, but mainly title 9.
 

The US Dept of Education runs a website called "Equity in Athletics", which makes public a participation report that every school is required to submit, each year. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

The latest report available for the U is for the 2018-19 school year.

Total Participants Men's and Women's Teams:
men - 429 (49%)
women - 445 (51%)

Unduplicated Count of Participants (Number of individuals who participated on at least one varsity team):
men - 359 (52%)
women - 338 (48%)


So by total participants (mostly this is double/triple counting some athletes for cross-county/indoor track/outdoor track), the ratio was 49% male to 51% female.

Ain't nobody would ever sue via Title IX for that.
 

This looks really bad:

https://www.startribune.com/400-mar...-proposed-cut-of-three-men-s-teams/572436372/

400 march to protest Gophers' proposed cut of three men's teams

That shock and sorrow quickly turned to righteous indignation, then to action. Wednesday, the three teams and their supporters took to the campus streets. About 400 people participated in a march organized by the women’s track team, walking from the Athletes Village to Morrill Hall to protest athletic director Mark Coyle’s decision to get rid of the three sports after the 2020-21 season.

Athletes, coaches, fans, donors, kids and dogs all took part, chanting and holding signs with slogans such as “Coyle Ain’t Loyal” and “People over Money.” The march was part of a wide-ranging and swiftly mobilized effort to save the sports, including social-media accounts, petitions, fundraisers and committees.

...

“This is a statement from the flagship university of this state that our sports, our teams, our families are not worth the money,” said Eric Rousemiller, a junior thrower on the track and field team, in a speech on the steps of Morrill Hall. “I pray that Mark Coyle and the Board of Regents can see the damage they have caused in the communities of these sports, and that they give these teams a second chance.”

In the six days since Coyle’s announcement, multiple accounts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have been created to support the teams. A petition on change.org to reinstate track had 20,000 signatures as of Wednesday evening.

...

Olympian Ben Blankenship, a former Gophers runner, said on Twitter he would “never again” represent the U as an institution. That ire continued to spill out during Wednesday’s rally.

...

Sweeney noted that Brown University cut men’s track in May and reversed the decision after an outcry. She is optimistic the same could happen at the U, with an effort she said is just getting started.

“We’re not going to just let this stand,” she said. “We’re going to fight.”
 

I think the gymnastics and tennis teams are toast, but they need to keep track and field.

That's my opinion.
 



The U turns away countless applicants every year. It sounds like the Admissions office isn’t doing their job if they can’t do a better job of gender balancing the student body. Don’t cut sports for Title IX; admit more men.
 

goldenboy said:
The U turns away countless applicants every year. It sounds like the Admissions office isn’t doing their job if they can’t do a better job of gender balancing the student body. Don’t cut sports for Title IX; admit more men.
Click to expand...
Yeah - seems odd they can't keep it balanced.
 

goldenboy said:
The U turns away countless applicants every year. It sounds like the Admissions office isn’t doing their job if they can’t do a better job of gender balancing the student body. Don’t cut sports for Title IX; admit more men.
Click to expand...
Word said:
Yeah - seems odd they can't keep it balanced.
Click to expand...
Isn't illegal? I don't think you're allowed to "discriminate" on gender, like that.

For all we know, admissions may be completely blind to gender on the applications. Or maybe not, I don't know the answer to that.
 

As far as the Dept of Ed is concerned, the report submitted by the U for the 2018-19 school year shows:

Number of Full-time Undergraduates: 29,227
Men: 13,569 - (46.4%)
Women: 15,658 - (53.6%)

Unduplicated Count of Participants: 697
Men: 359 - (51.5%)
Women: 338 - (48.5%)


So 5% off. And I would guess the U isn't even the worst offender. Should they actively do nothing about it? Probably not. But this still seems like an excessive correction, in my opinion.

I will maintain that Title IX and Covid were used as excuses, to trim varsity programs that some people have been wanting to trim for some time.
 

Ope3 said:
Well that happened, sort of. Outdoor Track & Field saved but the others are cut. If they are keeping Outdoor, not sure why Indoor gets the boot, isn't it all the same coaches & participants?

Click to expand...
I believe you're correct, that there are no savings in terms of coaches or rosters. In fact, I don't believe the NCAA allows the school to award "separate" scholarships for indoor vs outdoor. They just allow what is essentially the sport of Track & Field to be formally split into two separate championship segments, one in the winter (indoor) and one in the spring (outdoor). I'm sure there's more nuance and history to it than that, which the split recognizes.

Lots of sports have off-seasons with organized practice, like spring football. And probably some sports actually play exhibition matches in their off-seasons. I know volleyball does, in the spring.


Anyway, in the Big Ten at least, Maryland also does not have indoor on the men's side.

STrib article today quotes a current track athlete as saying no indoor season will affect recruiting.

https://www.startribune.com/univers...r-track-doesn-t-need-indoor-season/572696062/

Among the athletes were a handful representing track and field, who learned early in the meeting that men’s outdoor track would be saved as part of an amended resolution. But eventually, the regents voted 7-5 to eliminate men’s indoor track after this school year, along with men’s gymnastics and men’s tennis.

Based on the immediate buzz, it seemed far from a victory for Gophers men’s track.

“Obviously, it’s pretty shocking and pretty new for us just as an idea,” senior distance runner Jordan MacIntosh said. “Because what is track without indoor? That’s half our sport. Thinking that you can recruit just as well with an outdoor program and no indoor program is pretty naive.”

Athletic director Mark Coyle, who first announced the proposed sports cuts Sept. 10, said Friday’s new resolution sprouted from “ongoing conversations” with the regents.

While at least one regent called it a compromise, MacIntosh reiterated what many of his men’s track teammates told him, that the U decisionmakers “really don’t understand the sport.”

“That shows with their new proposal,” he said.

Among Big Ten men’s programs, the Gophers will join two other schools that don’t offer the standard trio of cross-country, indoor track and outdoor track. Maryland has outdoor track only, and Northwestern has none of the three on the men’s side.

There are an estimated 20 Division I schools in the country that have men’s cross-country and only have men’s outdoor track. In the Pac-12, Oregon State and Utah don’t have men’s track and field, while Southern California has only indoor track on the men’s side.

“These have been difficult, difficult decisions,” Coyle said on a video news conference Friday. “Difficult, difficult conversations. I think [university] President [Joan] Gabel used the word ‘heartbreaking.’”

The Gophers men’s track and field roster for the coming indoor season has 48 athletes, 10 more than the NCAA average. Seventeen of Minnesota’s current track athletes also compete in cross-country.

At another level, the Minnesota State High School League sponsors outdoor track but has no indoor program.

But at the college level, training depends on having both an indoor and outdoor season. Eliminating indoor competition would make it extremely difficult to prepare for the outdoor season, sophomore distance runner Eli Hoeft said.

“To get those good hard workouts and races in, being in Minnesota, it’s hard to find good opportunities to get fit and really get in good shape unless it’s indoor track and field,” Hoeft said. “There is a ton of value that having an indoor brings.”

Hoeft, who couldn’t compete in his first indoor season last year because of pandemic cancellations, said several teammates entered the transfer portal in the past month.

The former 1,600-meter state champion at Hopkins hasn’t decided yet on his future, but he said he’s fortunate to have cross-country to compete in, along with outdoor track.

“At this point, I absolutely love the University of Minnesota and everything they stand for,” Hoeft said. “At the end of the day, I think we can have a tone-deaf athletic director and athletic department, but we’re still here for our teammates, coaches and the University of Minnesota community. We’re going to represent them the best way possible.”


One thing I wonder about, could (some) of the athletes compete in indoor meets as "unattached"? I know this is a thing in wrestling, at least.
 


MplsGopher said:
I believe you're correct, that there are no savings in terms of coaches or rosters. In fact, I don't believe the NCAA allows the school to award "separate" scholarships for indoor vs outdoor. They just allow what is essentially the sport of Track & Field to be formally split into two separate championship segments, one in the winter (indoor) and one in the spring (outdoor). I'm sure there's more nuance and history to it than that, which the split recognizes.

Lots of sports have off-seasons with organized practice, like spring football. And probably some sports actually play exhibition matches in their off-seasons. I know volleyball does, in the spring.


Anyway, in the Big Ten at least, Maryland also does not have indoor on the men's side.

STrib article today quotes a current track athlete as saying no indoor season will affect recruiting.

https://www.startribune.com/univers...r-track-doesn-t-need-indoor-season/572696062/

Among the athletes were a handful representing track and field, who learned early in the meeting that men’s outdoor track would be saved as part of an amended resolution. But eventually, the regents voted 7-5 to eliminate men’s indoor track after this school year, along with men’s gymnastics and men’s tennis.

Based on the immediate buzz, it seemed far from a victory for Gophers men’s track.

“Obviously, it’s pretty shocking and pretty new for us just as an idea,” senior distance runner Jordan MacIntosh said. “Because what is track without indoor? That’s half our sport. Thinking that you can recruit just as well with an outdoor program and no indoor program is pretty naive.”

Athletic director Mark Coyle, who first announced the proposed sports cuts Sept. 10, said Friday’s new resolution sprouted from “ongoing conversations” with the regents.

While at least one regent called it a compromise, MacIntosh reiterated what many of his men’s track teammates told him, that the U decisionmakers “really don’t understand the sport.”

“That shows with their new proposal,” he said.

Among Big Ten men’s programs, the Gophers will join two other schools that don’t offer the standard trio of cross-country, indoor track and outdoor track. Maryland has outdoor track only, and Northwestern has none of the three on the men’s side.

There are an estimated 20 Division I schools in the country that have men’s cross-country and only have men’s outdoor track. In the Pac-12, Oregon State and Utah don’t have men’s track and field, while Southern California has only indoor track on the men’s side.

“These have been difficult, difficult decisions,” Coyle said on a video news conference Friday. “Difficult, difficult conversations. I think [university] President [Joan] Gabel used the word ‘heartbreaking.’”

The Gophers men’s track and field roster for the coming indoor season has 48 athletes, 10 more than the NCAA average. Seventeen of Minnesota’s current track athletes also compete in cross-country.

At another level, the Minnesota State High School League sponsors outdoor track but has no indoor program.

But at the college level, training depends on having both an indoor and outdoor season. Eliminating indoor competition would make it extremely difficult to prepare for the outdoor season, sophomore distance runner Eli Hoeft said.

“To get those good hard workouts and races in, being in Minnesota, it’s hard to find good opportunities to get fit and really get in good shape unless it’s indoor track and field,” Hoeft said. “There is a ton of value that having an indoor brings.”

Hoeft, who couldn’t compete in his first indoor season last year because of pandemic cancellations, said several teammates entered the transfer portal in the past month.

The former 1,600-meter state champion at Hopkins hasn’t decided yet on his future, but he said he’s fortunate to have cross-country to compete in, along with outdoor track.

“At this point, I absolutely love the University of Minnesota and everything they stand for,” Hoeft said. “At the end of the day, I think we can have a tone-deaf athletic director and athletic department, but we’re still here for our teammates, coaches and the University of Minnesota community. We’re going to represent them the best way possible.”


One thing I wonder about, could (some) of the athletes compete in indoor meets as "unattached"? I know this is a thing in wrestling, at least.
Click to expand...

A microcosm of the wider world right now. I applaud the athletes for trying to find an alternate route, if feasible.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom