This week's athletic program cuts by the University of North Dakota took me back to 2011, when the University of Nebraska at Omaha announced it was eliminating the football and wrestling programs, adding men's soccer and golf, and moving all remaining programs to the Division I level.
On April 12, the University of North Dakota announced it was cutting its men's baseball and golf programs:
The announcement was made less than 72 hours after the North Dakota men's hockey team won the 2016 NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Championship in Tampa, FL. Eliminating the programs is expected to save the UND athletic department $750,000 annually. The athletic budget cuts (totalling $2.4 million overall) are part of a $9.5 million university-wide reduction mandated by the state's governor, due to revenue shortfalls.
Back in 2011, UNO made a decision to cut football and wrestling from its lineup of sponsored sports, due in part to budgetary issues and revenue deficits. The university had its sights set on moving all sports to D-I, rising up from the Division II level in order to improve fundraising efforts and the overall profile of athletics. They had an invitation from the Summit League (which didn't offer FCS football or men's wrestling in its arsenal) -- something needed in order to move up to the Division I level.
UNO added men's soccer and golf to align better with the Summit League.
UNO added men's soccer and golf to align better with the Summit League.
The elimination of football and wrestling was announced mere hours after the wrestling program won the NCAA D-II National Championship.
The resulting cuts unleashed a veritable firestorm of commentary in Omaha. Not only was the topic discussed ad nauseum in local sports circles, national outlets like ESPN picked up the story.
To this day, there are people in Omaha who question that move. To say that some people haven't been able "move on" is an understatement. In many instances, the most critical are those who give UNO Athletics barely a passing glance these days.
But it illustrates the powerful public relations impact such moves can have on collegiate athletic departments around the nation.
At issue is whether a university -- as long as it meets its Title IX and NCAA requirements -- should be forced to keep athletic programs that are a "drain" on the budget, and struggle to generate revenue and support.
College athletics exited the nostalgic realm of "kids playing a game" years ago. These programs serve as major business operations, and provide serious revenue and marketing opportunites for universities across the fruited plains.
Furthermore, smaller schools like UNO are now faced with having to offer "full cost of attendance scholarships" for their key athletic programs -- which covers expenses beyond tuition, room and board, and textbooks.
North Dakota started offering the stipends for men's and women's hockey programs this year, and will introduce it for all of its sports next season at an estimated cost of $731,000.
The "cost of attendance" movement was sparked by the more powerful schools (many of which play BCS football), but its impact is having a "trickle down" effect on smaller schools playing "niche sports" in smaller conferences.
There already exists a "have/have not" culture in university athletics nationwide. The introduction of stipends has the potential to further drain the tenuous budgets of schools that don't garner the television revenue that the larger football schools have in the power conferences.
Schools like North Dakota and UNO will do what it takes to keep their hockey programs at a congruent level with Big Ten institutions like Minnesota and Michigan in terms of funding these "cost of attendance" scholarships. At issue, though, is what will have to be sacrificed in that effort.
The Omahas, Colorado Colleges, Denvers, St. Clouds, and North Dakotas of the world don't have the same sort of lucrative TV contracts (based on football programming packages with cable and satellite providers) that BCS schools have in place.
The reality is that the programs that get cut are oftentimes "successful" in terms of success in the arena of competition.
The relative success of the North Dakota baseball program is highlighted in this column by Wayne Nelson of the Grand Forks Herald:
There is little doubt that moving all sports to the D-I level increases the profile and talent pool available to a school -- but it also increases annual expenses in terms of scholarships offered, coaching salaries, and travel costs.
In many instances, institutions have to upgrade facilities in order to remain competitive. UNO's new Baxter Arena was essentially a necessity for its fledgling D-I basketball and volleyball programs in the Summit League, and the baseball and softball programs will eventually need have their own digs (they currently lease time at local high school parks).
Time and again, programs that face the proverbial "hangman's noose" make proclamations such as "if only we'd known, we could have fundraised to make up the difference."
In my mind, if interested boosters are interested "after the fact," where were they during the proceeding budgetary years with such revenue-inducing efforts?
Anyone with half a clue understands that all collegiate athletic programs face budgetary constraints on an annual basis. Why aren't more outside boosters "leading the charge" to boost revenues for "rainy-day funds" if they are so concerned?
Part of the reason Bridget and I spend an inordinate amount of time and money focused on UNO Hockey (and various happenings at the University of Nebraska at Omaha) is that we believe it is a "cause" worth our time and effort.
We have both worked doing fundraising for various non-profit organizations and trade associations in the Omaha area, and understand that it is best not to take anything for granted.
Despite best efforts, athletic programs can find themselves on the chopping block. It can be a hard dose of reality for those who believe in a quaint, nostalgic notion of "amateur athletics." Everyone is quick to point a finger and make grand proclamations.
The answer lies somewhere between Cinderella's 1980s power ballad "Don't Know What You Got (Til It's Gone)" and Elsa Raven's campaign to "Save the Clock Tower" in the 1985 movie "Back to the Future."
We have to balance desire and reality.
In the scratchy vocal stylings of Cinderella lead singer Tom Keifer: "I can't tell ya baby what went wrong...I can't give you back what's been hurt...heartaches come and go and all that's left are the words."
No comments:
Post a Comment