NowherePoke
Well-known member
WYCowboy said:NowherePoke said:BeaverPoke said:McPeachy said:Holy shit...thread derail.
Point is...UW doesn't compete at golf. Never has. Right now the ladies team is in 15th place in a 15 team field. They do the same every week, and so do the men. Perennial losers...both golf teams.
Why do the golf teams get a pass? At least UW baseball was effing competitive. So could women's softball be. And don't give me that weather shit as a reason. Baseball could be enough of a revenue sport to offset the cost difference from having last place golf teams. But that may too forward thinking for some. Too agressive. Too ambitious.
You are too agressive and too ambitious, especially talking about having a winning program here in Laramie. How dare you.
But seriously. UW should have baseball. End of discussion. No reason not to.
In order to have baseball though, you have to fund it and you have to meet Title IX obligations (adding Women's Softball would be the logical choice to do so). Operating expenditures could be partially (but not totally) offset by the discontinuation of the golf teams. Baseball/Softball will be quite a bit more expensive (more coaches, more support staff, more events/games = more travel, etc.), but at least that provides a chunk. The remaining operating funds will need to come from somewhere else in the department. That likely means cuts in Football and Men's Basketball budgets.
There are also infrastructure upgrades required if we want to get back into the sport. Where does that money come from? We could discontinue the planned renovations to the AA and redirect the funds towards baseball/softball.
IMHO, we should focus on funding Football/Men's Basketball to the best of our ability rather than redirecting funds towards starting new programs. If those sports were consistently successful, they could generate additional revenue (Imagine the revenue difference between 10k per game and 6k per game in the AA) that might open up the possibility of athletic department expansion. I am not saying that is likely. Keep in mind our athletic department exists solely due to subsidies providing by the general university fund (and by extension the State of Wyoming, also students).
It comes from the tightwad State of Wyoming (or is supposed to) if they would get off their collective tightwad asses and fund this university the way other states (who have less money and more universities than we do) fund theirs. I'm sick and tired of hearing about the tight budgets in this state when we have one of the highest budget surplus's in the country.
This is really the core debate surrounding UW athletics at this time. Obviously, I personally would like to see the State step up and provide additional infrastructure surrounding UW athletics (don't half-ass the upgrades to the AA, build a top notch aquatic center which pays dividends not just for S&D but also training and conditioning for other sports and regional uses, etc.). But that's easy for me to say. I am a UW alum who cares deeply about the University and it's athletic programs and I am also no longer a Wyoming resident so I am isolated from the other considerations surrounding funding and budgeting of the state government.
I see several issues:
1. While Wyoming maintains a significant rainy-day fund, the current budget outlook is not so rosy.
a. Natural gas prices are quite a bit lower than during the boom times and will remain modest for a very significant amount of time as even more additional shale production comes online in other areas of North America. We are talking $4/MMBtu type range and that is after a recent uptick.
b. Coal prices and production remain stagnant due to the NG prices as power production has shifted capacity from Coal to NG. It's not going away and exports are increasing, but we can't count on significant mineral royalty growth from that sector.
c. Legitimate risk of being f'd over by the Federal Government via cuts in mineral royalty payments under any number of guises (Sequestration, policy changes, etc.).
2. The State of Wyoming heavily subsidizes both UW athletics and UW as a whole.
a. UW is in the Top (or Bottom depending on your point of view) 10% of FBS public schools when it comes to percentage of budget supplied from the general fund or state. IOW, the athletic department isn't pulling its own weight at the same level as most of our peers (the empty seats at the WAR and the AA tell part of the tale and the empty plains that are not valuable to advertisers for Tier 3 media rights tell the rest).
b. Tuition at UW is almost unbelievably affordable to in-state students, particularly with the Hathaway. Nothing is free. It is being paid by the state.
3. With that in mind, I don't think we can say that the state government has not supported UW, because it has. Now, that doesn't apply to everyone. There are certainly some that are not supportive, but overall as an entity UW has been well supported by the Wyoming government. This is particularly notable in contrast with many other states around the country for higher education funding has been slashed dramatically.
4. However, Wyoming is of course in the unique position of being able to do even more. We haven't done so.
I don't necessarily know the correct answers, but I am reasonably certain there is no political will at this time to significantly increase state funding to UW athletics. We may wish it were so, but I just don't see it happening. If it were, I would rather see those resources go towards Football and Men's Basketball. That's not because I don't value the student-athletes or prospective student-athletes competing in other sports or that I don't personally watch the other sports because I do (especially Women's BB). However, only those two sports have the potential to pay back the investment and to help raise the profile of the University.