An uncomfortable topic...

[ragtimejoe1]

Who is laughing about a developmental program? 99% of the posts I've seen have said Bohl needs 4 years minimum. Also, JG didn't say you can't win consistently at WYO, it was someone he was talking to and the reporter happened to overhear (I remember the article but don't have link).

 

[SlowPoke]

Slow poke, you must be slow today...they said bring back Joe as the AD...Athletic Director. Not Head Coach. He's one hellova salesman and is well liked across the state.

OP: "... a quote I read back in the Joe Glenn era. I don't remember what paper it was in or who Joe was talking to, but the question was "why can't you win at WYO" the response was essentially, "nobody knows, but that is just the way it is". <- I was not referring to bringing Glenn back as the HC, I was referring to this.

 

[Coeur d' Alene]

Taking anything joe Glenn says as important is &$-*#% %+=#<*#^

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Just for the record and to be sure I'm not putting words in JG's mouth, it was not JG who said you can't win at WYO.

I've searched for the article but can't find it. Does anyone else remember it? JG asked someone (it wasn't just some Joe Schmoe; it was someone with knowledge of MWC and WYO) "why it was hard to win or why you can't win at WYO". The person responded with something like "It is just the way it is up there and the way it has been".

 

[PokeOLoco]

JG knows and has said many times that if they would have been able to get it right at QB they would have been able to win in Laramie.

 

[Cornpoke]

I disagree with Glenn on being one QB away. Our QB wasn't the only problem when we were giving up 50+ points to BYU, Utah, and TCU in Glenn's final year.

 

[PokeOLoco]

A lot of people don't remember that part of the Glenn era, very comparable to the last 6 games of the Christensen Era...

 

[WyoExpat]

I disagree with Glenn on being one QB away. Our QB wasn't the only problem when we were giving up 50+ points to BYU, Utah, and TCU in Glenn's final year.

The lunacy about the Joe Glenn era was that people claimed that he could not identify and recruit D-1 talent. However, take a look at the number of NFL players that came out of the Joe Glenn era compared to any of the 2-3 coaches before him. We talk about the Dana Dimel recruiting era, but he did not find as many future NFL guys as Joe Glenn did--and several of Coach Glenn's NFL guys were D Linemen.

We talk about NDSU here, but how many people realize that it is actually a bigger school in a bigger city than Laramie?

I think a developmental program offers the best chance for sustained "success." However, I would like to see someone really articulate WHY UW is well-situated for sustained success instead of simply attacking folks who recognize that it is not something we can automatically take for granted (unless leadership is incompetent.)

Finally, can someone please tell me why and how the system should work without taking away other people's money without their permission? In other words, how does this work based on $$$ generated by the Athletic Department and not student fees or tax money from the legislature?

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Finally, can someone please tell me why and how the system should work without taking away other people's money without their permission? In other words, how does this work based on $$$ generated by the Athletic Department and not student fees or tax money from the legislature?

I know it is not popular and probably less popular in today's society, but I think that for non-P5 programs, separating revenue generating sports from Title IX should be considered (by Universities and lawmakers). Since the P5 has autonomy on some issues, I think the G5 could pass a structure change in the NCAA on sports required, scholarships, etc. that would be more conducive to G5 budgets.

In the case of Wyoming, both football and bball turn a profit or at least break even. The stress on the athletic budget comes from the other sports. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them, but I think it would be reasonable to separate those that make money from those that cost taxpayers, students, etc.

Using WYO as an example (data is a few years old):
Bball expenses = $3.1 mill and revenue = $3.6 mill
Football expenses = $8.0 mill and revenue = $11.0 mill

Everything else:
Expenses = $22.7 mill and revenue = $19.2 mill

The rub here is the "not allocated to gender or sport" budget which is about $14 mill in expenses and $14 mill in revenue. That accounts for nearly 50% of our overall budget and overall revenue. This makes it difficult to fully dissect the budget because the $14 mill is a large undefined portion.

I would imagine the ceiling (for us) is a BSU-like situation where men's bball and football generate somewhere around $11 million in profit.

Either way, I think that managing the revenue and non-revenue sports separately is something to consider. For programs where football is a money pit, it can be more clearly defined. For programs where it makes profit, the state, students, etc. can decide how much they want to put into the non-revenue side of things.

I know, I know. I'm a horrible person who hates equality or whatever other outrageous allegation you want to sling. Actually, I'm not. I just think that perhaps the situation is a bit more complex than what Title IX mandates, especially for smaller schools.

 

[Bryoming]

It has nothing to do with Title IX. The revenue generating sports make the other sports possible. If you cut football and basketball money out of the equation there would be nearly zero intercollegiate athletics programs.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

It has nothing to do with Title IX. The revenue generating sports make the other sports possible. If you cut football and basketball money out of the equation there would be nearly zero intercollegiate athletics programs.

That is my point. Separating those makes sense. On one hand you have one that turns a profit, increases exposure, generates advertising opportunities, etc. and provides for student and alumni experiences while the other can be a component of a well-rounded athletics program and provide for students who are gifted athletically as well as academically. The non-revenue sports are sort of like music, entertainment, or other academic ventures, IMO.

However, it has everything to do with Title IX because Title IX prevents separation of what I would consider a very obvious distinction. It has nothing to do with gender. Men's non-revenue sports are very similar to Women's. Heck, in some cases, Women's sports (think bball) can be a revenue sport.

If we are speaking of fiscal responsibility, reducing student fees, reducing taxpayer contributions to athletics, etc. then, IMO, the discussion should be different for revenue and non-revenue sports.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

I'm confused here. Are you saying that the sports should be separated for the sake of discussion or they should be separated in actuality?

Because if you mean they should be separated in real life, then Wyo1016's point is that they would not exist. If you could isolate revenue sports from the other sports, then the University would cut the other sports as they would cost too much money. In this case we would have like 3 or 4 sports.

If you are saying that they should be separated for discussion, then never mind all that.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

On a separate note, I have a friend who reads the board and reminded me that our stated goal isn't having sustained success. Our stated goals are:

–Consistently finishes in the top half of the conference standings and almost never finishes last.
–Once every three to four years teams are contention for a conference championship.

http://wyomingcowboysblog.com/2014/05/16/burman-talks-strategic-plan-for-athletics/

In other words, for football, our goal is to finish somewhere above 75-80 most years, on occasion rank above 32, and try to avoid ranking below 121.

My friend is right. Delete this thread. I forgot all about that our stated goals are mediocrity at best.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Because if you mean they should be separated in real life, then Wyo1016's point is that they would not exist. If you could isolate revenue sports from the other sports, then the University would cut the other sports as they would cost too much money. In this case we would have like 3 or 4 sports.

I'm speaking in actuality. I don't think other sports would cease to exist. The people of the state, the students, and the university would have the opportunity to choose what level we wish to invest in athletics. Certainly there is value in non-revenue sports just as there is value in other university areas that don't make money. Think FCS or lower. None of their athletics (for the majority of the programs) make money yet they still field many sports.

It is a greater disadvantage to smaller universities (G5) who are struggling with the bills as is. It makes it even harder for us to continue to compete. If we were allowed to separate our revenue sports, they could grow and feed off of their profits. It would allow us or at least give us a little better shot of staying in the highest level of sports. Note: I'm suggesting this only for G5 or lower.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

Because if you mean they should be separated in real life, then Wyo1016's point is that they would not exist. If you could isolate revenue sports from the other sports, then the University would cut the other sports as they would cost too much money. In this case we would have like 3 or 4 sports.

I'm speaking in actuality. I don't think other sports would cease to exist. The people of the state, the students, and the university would have the opportunity to choose what level we wish to invest in athletics. Certainly there is value in non-revenue sports just as there is value in other university areas that don't make money. Think FCS or lower. None of their athletics (for the majority of the programs) make money yet they still field many sports.

It is a greater disadvantage to smaller universities (G5) who are struggling with the bills as is. It makes it even harder for us to continue to compete. If we were allowed to separate our revenue sports, they could grow and feed off of their profits. It would allow us or at least give us a little better shot of staying in the highest level of sports. Note: I'm suggesting this only for G5 or lower.

Ok, I see what you are saying.

Also, realize that schools at the FCS and lower levels are only able to have olympic sports for one or both of the following reasons: A) their revenue sports still turn a profit (just not as much as at FBS schools) thus paying for them, and/or B) because they are a lower division their expenses are far less than those at the FBS level and they can afford them using student fees, donations, sponsorships, etc.

In reality, I know our other sports wouldn't cease to exist because we have to offer a minimum number of sports. But in a world where Title IX and minimum sport numbers don't exist, we would have Football, M&W Basketball, Volleyball, Wrestling, and maybe soccer. You could say goodbye to swimming & diving, track & field, cross country, golf and tennis because I guarantee the vast majority of people care nothing about these sports at UW.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Also, realize that schools at the FCS and lower levels are only able to have olympic sports for one or both of the following reasons: A) their revenue sports still turn a profit (just not as much as at FBS schools) thus paying for them, and/or B) because they are a lower division their expenses are far less than those at the FBS level and they can afford them using student fees, donations, sponsorships, etc.

My guess is much more option B. The question becomes why is it less expensive and how much has to do with NCAA rules (number of scholarships offered or ?) or Title IX (full COA for all sports, equal money spent on __). In other words, if our revenue sports were a separate entity what would be the cost of FBS for other sports?

Either way, if they aren't sustainable financially, why drag the revenue sports down?

You could say goodbye to swimming & diving, track & field, cross country, golf and tennis because I guarantee the vast majority of people care nothing about these sports at UW.

With apologies to the amazing athletes who partake in those, and I mean that sincerely, I sort of agree with the concept that why do we need them if we can't afford them at our small Universities? The State could deem them very important and continue to fund them but it gives the option.

I don't know. Maybe I'm being an insensitive jerk, but I don't mean it that way.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

I agree with you that they aren't really "important" to most people. Which is unfortunate, because I always like to see our athletes succeeding whether it is in basketball or golf or tennis. But are students going to be ok paying student fees if they know it's going to the golf team? Probably not.

As for why lower division sports are less expensive, there are a host of reasons why FBS programs spend much more money.

First, as you mentioned, there are less scholarships at the lower levels. Even FCS football is only allowed 63 scholarships as compared to the 85 of FBS. But as you go lower, there are even less. Here is an interesting website I check out every now and then to see the difference in scholarship limits per sport/per division.

http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html

Also note that only Division 1 football, basketball, volleyball, women's gymnastics and women's tennis are head count sports. Meaning that all scholarships are full scholarships, not partials. Every other sport can split their scholarships up as many ways as they choose.

Other notable reasons why lower division sports are cheaper:

Travel - most D1 teams fly a lot, most D2 and D3 teams never or hardly ever fly,
Apparel - D1 athletes get hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars worth of gear; some lower division athletes have to pay for their own,
Food - catered buffet meals vs. Subway,
Lodging - D1 athletes usually get their own bed, D2 and D3 many times put 2 athletes to a bed.

Finally, enrollment sports are a thing in D2 and D3, not in D1. In these sports, the team has a minimal budget and their goal is to bring in tons of athletes to go to the school, play their sport, but most importantly pay tuition. Administration doesn't care if these teams are even successful, as long as they minimize spending, keep their grades up and noses clean, and bring in lots of students.

 

[WyoExpat]

Finally, can someone please tell me why and how the system should work without taking away other people's money without their permission? In other words, how does this work based on $$$ generated by the Athletic Department and not student fees or tax money from the legislature?

I know it is not popular and probably less popular in today's society, but I think that for non-P5 programs, separating revenue generating sports from Title IX should be considered (by Universities and lawmakers). Since the P5 has autonomy on some issues, I think the G5 could pass a structure change in the NCAA on sports required, scholarships, etc. that would be more conducive to G5 budgets.

* * *

Either way, I think that managing the revenue and non-revenue sports separately is something to consider. For programs where football is a money pit, it can be more clearly defined. For programs where it makes profit, the state, students, etc. can decide how much they want to put into the non-revenue side of things.

I know, I know. I'm a horrible person who hates equality or whatever other outrageous allegation you want to sling. Actually, I'm not. I just think that perhaps the situation is a bit more complex than what Title IX mandates, especially for smaller schools.

I like it-- a lot.

I don't know if the courts would allow it, but I would love to see profitable sports separated from non-revenue sports and then apply Title IX to the non-revenue sports. In places like UConn, this might mean that the women's basketball team (assuming it turns a profit) would not apply to the gender-equity calculations under Title IX and UConn would be forced to fund additional opportunities for women to remain in Title IX compliance. At some schools, football might not be profitable enough to exempt 85 scholarships from the men's side of the Title IX ledger.

The problem at Wyoming is that we fans tend to look for state $$$ and student fees to help upgrade athletics--even when we don't fill venues anymore, whether required by Title IX or not.

 

[WyoExpat]

I agree with you that they aren't really "important" to most people. Which is unfortunate, because I always like to see our athletes succeeding whether it is in basketball or golf or tennis. But are students going to be ok paying student fees if they know it's going to the golf team? Probably not.

I think we also need to remember that the definition of Division 1 includes fielding a minimum number of varsity sports teams. We have to have all of those other sports on campus in order for basketball and football to participate in Division 1.

 

[bladerunnr]

I'm going to defend the minor sports. Track and cross country athletes rarely travel far from the front range, so travel costs are minimal. I attend many track and cross country races. The crowds are not huge, but there are often hundreds of fans attending. The chance for exposure nationally is possible if we get a great athlete or 2. Shauna Smith won the national championship in the 400 hurdles in 2005. Her rounds and the final was on Espn.

Finally, just as other sports, an alum who participated in the program may be a big donor one day. Phil Knight was a track athlete at Oregon before he started Nike. Travel costs and coach's salaries for these "minor" sports are insignificant compared to the major sports. Frankly, if we can't afford non revenue producing sports, we should just get rid of the entire athletic dept. and make every sport a club sport.