Athlete's academic minimums

[keefusb]

PQ was "out to get" track and soccer to the extent that it was what he needed to do to push his LAX agenda through. BTW, I think urfan1 is right on the money in his analysis relative to the why and how.

The irony of Ayres and his academic allies dumping track and soccer, the two top-performing sports academically, is almost unbelievable.


#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[FrontRoyalSpider]

I vote for volleyball. Fun to watch. Should not break the sports budget. And it's an A10 sport.[/QUOTE Espically womens Beach Volleyball due to them wearing BIKINIS!

 

[97spiderfan]

Title IX definitely is a factor. Ivies don't have a problem with a large number of sports or the ratio issue you mention. Cost- really? I understand the plan was to bring on woman's crew, with the equipment and location we already had the number I was told was $150K annually to add the program after the few dollars needed to improve the existing facilities.

My analysis, Ayres was having trouble raising money, PQ says add LAX and I'll donate $X. Ayres could not turn it down, his academic side did not want to add another sport for fear it would take money from them (money they would not get btw) so Ayres dumped on soccer and track to placate his academic allies and get money he needed to raise. PQ was not out to get soccer and track but the collateral damage did not stop him from making his deal.

Thanks Fan1. I think the one thing our leadership fails to consider (or maybe does not consider highly enough) is the impact these decisions have on alumni and donors. So, we got all of the money from PQ and added lax, but in getting rid of soccer and track, pissed off a lot of loyal alumni and other donors.

Kind of similar to the Mooney situation we have right now, they kept Mooney, despite the fact that it pissed off many alumni, STH, and donors. You can add the Rocco fiasco and the hiring and "firing" of Keith Gill into this as well. All of which have been major blows to not only the success of our athletics but to our relationship with alumni, STH, and fans we hope to engage from the community.

When you look at holistically, you see a number of missed opportunities to find win-wins in situations within our athletic department over the past decade and then really bad communication to try and explain those decisions to your stakeholders. This pattern has persisted across presidents and athletic directors.

In this process, for every one PQ you gain, we probably lose 2-3 Bobby Ukrop's and who knows how many grass roots level supporters/donors. And it is really tough to get folks you lose back.

 

[spiderman]

I think the one thing our leadership fails to consider (or maybe does not consider highly enough) is the impact these decisions have on alumni and donors. So, we got all of the money from PQ and added lax, but in getting rid of soccer and track, pissed off a lot of loyal alumni and other donors.

I don't think they just winged it. they considered everything, and still made the decision they made. they 100% knew some wouldn't be happy.

 

[SpiderTrap]

Point being (with the academic requirements and past decisions and explanations) is that I don’t fully believe UR administration want a national level athletic program. By national level I mean making NCAA appearances on a regular basis in the major sports (basketball and playoffs for football) and then in lower level sports (example - lacrosse or baseball) making the commitment to take them to the next level nationally.
I think UR will do enough to be competitive and every so often that by chance will lead to a successful year, but not the commitment it takes financially and administratively (admissions requirements) to be that national level program. We are good in our sports across the board, don’t get me wrong, but I think that is as far as they want to take it

 

[urfan1]

I don't think they just winged it. they considered everything, and still made the decision they made. they 100% knew some wouldn't be happy.

I think that is the true problem.

 

[AnnapSpider]

I just don’t understand why you all think that an university as small as U of R should be
some sort of sport juggernaut.
In a lot of ways, we’re pretty amazing compared to the rest of university world.
Today, it was announced that 6000 freshmen and sophomores would be moving on
to Towson’s campus, with a total enrollment of 23,000 enrollees. Towson, a CAA basketball and football program that has good facilities like Unitas Stadium and the SECU Arena. Or W & M that was our rival
but no longer seems to be able to keep up with us.
You all dream BIG, and that’s really good, but not realistic.

 

[MrTbone]

I just don’t understand why you all think that an university as small as U of R should be
some sort of sport juggernaut.
In a lot of ways, we’re pretty amazing compared to the rest of university world.
Today, it was announced that 6000 freshmen and sophomores would be moving on
to Towson’s campus, with a total enrollment of 23,000 enrollees. Towson, a CAA basketball and football program that has good facilities like Unitas Stadium and the SECU Arena. Or W & M that was our rival
but no longer seems to be able to keep up with us.
You all dream BIG, and that’s really good, but not realistic.

Wait, so we didn’t really win the FCS championship? That seemed pretty realistic when it happened.

I don’t quite understand your point. Towson is big but barely competes in the CAA? W&M is like UR kinda but we’re way past them so we’re doing ok?

Some here are saying we can do better if we so choose. We aren’t critically derailed by size or money or other obstacles, rather, the university chooses not to pursue certain paths for reasons that don’t necessarily make a ton of sense.

It’s hard to logically argue that we couldn’t do more and in so doing likely have more athletic success.

 

[SpiderTrap]

I am not saying we will be the next Gonzaga in hoops. But here are some basic examples.
Men’s hoops - back to back NCAA appearances and then nothing for the last 8 years with our two worse seasons the last two years. Not possible - just look 5 miles down the road at VCU. They were in same position as UR 8 years ago and have maintained consistent NCAA berths since even with coaching changes.
Football - national title in 2008 and we have made the playoffs 4 times since. Some bad coaching hires hurt and I hope Huesman gets UR back on track. No reason UR can’t be a team making the playoffs about every other year and winning games in playoff. Pretty close right now.
Baseball - this I don’t understand. We are a southern team in a northeast conference. We should be able to put recruit teams in the A10 and be a consistent A10 contender. But has never happened since move to A10. Better facilities? Lights on field? Not sure - but this should be a sport we are better.
Men’s lacrosse - 3 NCAA appearances in 6 years. But I have a feeling this is as good as it will get. Do I expect UR to win a lacrosse national title - no. But could they advance a year or two deep in tourney - yes. But my fear is they will not get that investment or opportunity and chemotti will move on to a bigger better program.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Those are both CAA schools. We chose to leave the CAA what....18 years ago?
Our AD says our expectations are to compete for championships.
When our fans clamor for that, it's a big, unrealistic dream?

 

[kneepadmckinney]

I just don’t understand why you all think that an university as small as U of R should be
some sort of sport juggernaut.
In a lot of ways, we’re pretty amazing compared to the rest of university world.
Today, it was announced that 6000 freshmen and sophomores would be moving on
to Towson’s campus, with a total enrollment of 23,000 enrollees. Towson, a CAA basketball and football program that has good facilities like Unitas Stadium and the SECU Arena. Or W & M that was our rival
but no longer seems to be able to keep up with us.
You all dream BIG, and that’s really good, but not realistic.

Dislike.

I view striving and investing and achieving in athletics as a prime mover in the status and recognition of the school. In many ways, sports are THE public face of the university. So our investment in having outstanding athletic success should mirror that importance. I think it's ridiculous to say, "meh, we have a team and that's good enough." Or worse, "meh, we don't really need the [ ] team because we'll just add lacrosse, and don't want to make the investment in a corresponding women's sport."

 

[spiderman]

we invest a ton in our sports and our facilities. someone posted the stats before. aren't we in the top 3rd in the A10 in athletic spending?

 

[kneepadmckinney]

Sman--I'm saying it's appropriate that we do, and that we continue to try to be the best in all of it. Like, let's indeed be a juggernaut. It will only help the perception and prestige of the school.

 

[urfan1]

W&M us playing Stanford in both basketball and football -- to showcase how it is done correctly.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

W&M us playing Stanford in both basketball and football -- to showcase how it is done correctly.

So playing BC in basketball and football is doing it incorrectly?

 

[urfan1]

So playing BC in basketball and football is doing it incorrectly?

The point of the article was Stanford has a strong combination of athletics and academics.

 

[Eight Legger]

we invest a ton in our sports and our facilities. someone posted the stats before. aren't we in the top 3rd in the A10 in athletic spending?

We invest a ton, yes. But that seems to be just about all we do in some cases. Spending lots of money is not commensurate with success. Do we want to be successful or do we just want to say we spent a lot of money?

 

[keefusb]

Spending money on sports programs is a smokescreen for the administration and athletic department. It is one way they can avoid criticism ("we are investing in athletics"), and not have do do much else besides throw a relative abundant resource (i.e. money) at our programs. The real secret sauce for success is the people component and decision-making, where IMHO we have been pretty terrible over the past dozen years or so.

For what we spend and have spent, we should have a much better ROI across the board.

#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[SpiderDaMan]

We invest a ton, yes. But that seems to be just about all we do in some cases. Spending lots of money is not commensurate with success. Do we want to be successful or do we just want to say we spent a lot of money?

Step 1. Eat the $ on CM and spend big on a quality coach with real live recruiting ties. Step two? Well there is no step two. Do the right thing while there's still time. The well's going to run dry if this keeps up. Otherwise it's time to go to the Timbuktu conference.

 

[WebSpinner]

no matter what kind of outfit you run, any decision you make is not going to sit well with some people. am sure that our admin takes everything into account before they pull the trigger on something. does not mean it will turn out to be a great decision or it may turn out to be good or bad but things change and you have to make decisions, sometimes very tough decisions. agree with Eight, throwing money at a problem does not mean you are solving the problem, see it every day with some entities.

 

[SpiderTrap]

I have been thinking more and more the last few years that UR does just enough to be competitive and field a good program, but does not really want to go the extra step. They want it to “appear” like they care about sports as much as the other schools but in reality do not. And I agree - money is not always the answer but for a school that has a lot of money, they tend to use a lot as an excuse. Two examples - can’t keep soccer and track and add a women’s sport. That would cost too much money. Can’t fire Mooney - would have to pay him the rest of contract. Too much money.

 

[FrontRoyalSpider]

I have been thinking more and more the last few years that UR does just enough to be competitive and field a good program, but does not really want to go the extra step. They want it to “appear” like they care about sports as much as the other schools but in reality do not. And I agree - money is not always the answer but for a school that has a lot of money, they tend to use a lot as an excuse. Two examples - can’t keep soccer and track and add a women’s sport. That would cost too much money. Can’t fire Mooney - would have to pay him the rest of contract. Too much money.

So do you think UR should drop down to D2 or D3?

 

[VT4700]

I have been thinking more and more the last few years that UR does just enough to be competitive and field a good program, but does not really want to go the extra step. They want it to “appear” like they care about sports as much as the other schools but in reality do not. And I agree - money is not always the answer but for a school that has a lot of money, they tend to use a lot as an excuse. Two examples - can’t keep soccer and track and add a women’s sport. That would cost too much money. Can’t fire Mooney - would have to pay him the rest of contract. Too much money.

What about the fact that we gave Mooney so much money? Doesn't that show that we care and will spend money? Can't have it both ways here. And, having too many sports is not only costly, but will affect the other sports if their budgets go down as a result. The bigger sports pay for the lesser ones. So, sure, let's spend a ton of money, and keep track and soccer, add a women's sport, and then stink at lacrosse, basketball and football for years as a result. Not to mention that this would lead to a higher percentage of athletes vs. non athletes when we are already at a higher ratio than most of our peers.

 

[MolivaManiac]

What about the fact that we gave Mooney so much money? Doesn't that show that we care and will spend money? Can't have it both ways here. And, having too many sports is not only costly, but will affect the other sports if their budgets go down as a result. The bigger sports pay for the lesser ones. So, sure, let's spend a ton of money, and keep track and soccer, add a women's sport, and then stink at lacrosse, basketball and football for years as a result. Not to mention that this would lead to a higher percentage of athletes vs. non athletes when we are already at a higher ratio than most of our peers.

None of our sports pay for themselves. From a cost-containment standpoint, we'd actually do well to dump football and basketball and add more non-revenue sports.

Regarding the student athlete ratio, what does that number matter to anyone?

 

[kneepadmckinney]

What about the fact that we gave Mooney so much money? Doesn't that show that we care and will spend money? Can't have it both ways here. And, having too many sports is not only costly, but will affect the other sports if their budgets go down as a result. The bigger sports pay for the lesser ones. So, sure, let's spend a ton of money, and keep track and soccer, add a women's sport, and then stink at lacrosse, basketball and football for years as a result. Not to mention that this would lead to a higher percentage of athletes vs. non athletes when we are already at a higher ratio than most of our peers.

Or, in the alternative, have each of soccer, track, and volleyball/softball, and be good at them. This is so defeatist. I really don't get it.

Also, why is a higher ratio of athletes to non-athletes bad?

 

[VT4700]

Or, in the alternative, have each of soccer, track, and volleyball/softball, and be good at them. This is so defeatist. I really don't get it.

Also, why is a higher ratio of athletes to non-athletes bad?

More athletes means less regular students. We have a very small school. We don't have tens of thousands of students each year who can do internships and pursue things that athletes cannot pursue. We have a great academic reputation, and we have had a lot more non athletes take things to the next level and make us a well known university than athletes. Not saying our athletes are not smart. They are, and I am proud of that, but they also need to practice and spend a lot of time on their sport while non athletes can focus more on their future occupation. I don't think it would be smart for us to make the ratio any higher than it already is.

 

[whampas]

More athletes means less regular students. We have a very small school. We don't have tens of thousands of students each year who can do internships and pursue things that athletes cannot pursue. We have a great academic reputation, and we have had a lot more non athletes take things to the next level and make us a well known university than athletes. Not saying our athletes are not smart. They are, and I am proud of that, but they also need to practice and spend a lot of time on their sport while non athletes can focus more on their future occupation. I don't think it would be smart for us to make the ratio any higher than it already is.

I suspect that there are a lot of "not regular" students that would like a piece of you for such a stupid comment. What sport did you play?

 

[GKiller]

Not to mention that this would lead to a higher percentage of athletes vs. non athletes when we are already at a higher ratio than most of our peers.

Do u have something documenting that? Because I clearly remember an article at the time of this change showing 4-5 peer schools that all had higher ratios than us. It included Davidson a smaller more selective school. I’m not saying we r not higher than some peer schools - I don’t know - but the article didn’t list any, but had quite a number higher than us.

 

[keefusb]

So, sure, let's spend a ton of money, and keep track and soccer, add a women's sport, and then stink at lacrosse, basketball and football for years as a result.

So we don't have track, soccer, or women's <volleyball, softball, crew, whatever>, and we still stink at basketball and football. So what's your point?

#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[MrTbone]

More athletes means less regular students. We have a very small school. We don't have tens of thousands of students each year who can do internships and pursue things that athletes cannot pursue. We have a great academic reputation, and we have had a lot more non athletes take things to the next level and make us a well known university than athletes. Not saying our athletes are not smart. They are, and I am proud of that, but they also need to practice and spend a lot of time on their sport while non athletes can focus more on their future occupation. I don't think it would be smart for us to make the ratio any higher than it already is.

There are a variety of presumptive and erroneous statements in this, the most egregious of which is that somehow our athletes can’t pursue non-athletic endeavors. I’ve had women from the field hockey team babysitting my kids the past three years and all of them had internships and all of them have gone on or are going on to graduate programs in sciences. You really need to rethink what caliber students our athletes are across all sports.

 

[BuckinghamPalace]

I gotta shake my head. I know former athletes who own their own companies, freelance around the world for media outlets, run juvenile justice programs, etc.

 

[keefusb]

while non athletes can focus more on their future occupation.

Many of the non-athletes are practicing their bong skills while the student- athletes are out on the practice fields getting better at their sport.

#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[VT4700]

I suspect that there are a lot of "not regular" students that would like a piece of you for such a stupid comment. What sport did you play?

? For calling them smart and saying they make me proud?

 

[VT4700]

Many of the non-athletes are practicing their bong skills while the student- athletes are out on the practice fields getting better at their sport.

#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

No question. But, it's all about the ratio. Not just my opinion, pretty much every school's opinion. But, whatever.

 

[VT4700]

I gotta shake my head. I know former athletes who own their own companies, freelance around the world for media outlets, run juvenile justice programs, etc.

No question. We have and have had a lot of incredibly smart athletes. I know one who's an astronaut. But, again, the ratios back me up here. We are at 13% athletes to students. The average is around 6%, and many of those have dropped sports also. Yet, many of you complain WE should be higher?

 

[VT4700]

There are a variety of presumptive and erroneous statements in this, the most egregious of which is that somehow our athletes can’t pursue non-athletic endeavors. I’ve had women from the field hockey team babysitting my kids the past three years and all of them had internships and all of them have gone on or are going on to graduate programs in sciences. You really need to rethink what caliber students our athletes are across all sports.

Never said they don't or couldn't. You need to read my posts better and do more research before always rushing to disagree.

 

[urfan1]

So your point is too many athletes will harm the academic reputation of a University:
"the Ivy League represents a deliberate model to show that intercollegiate athletics are important. The conference sponsors 35 varsity sports. Harvard, for example, offers 42 varsity sports -- the most of any university in the NCAA. Reliance on the Academic Index indicates an approach with the intent to assure that this substantial commitment to sports stays within bounds academically."

 

[VT4700]

Do u have something documenting that? Because I clearly remember an article at the time of this change showing 4-5 peer schools that all had higher ratios than us. It included Davidson a smaller more selective school. I’m not saying we r not higher than some peer schools - I don’t know - but the article didn’t list any, but had quite a number higher than us.

I said most of our peers. I did not say all of them. If you can find an example like Davidson that has a higher ratio than us, great. Good for them. How does that make what I said wrong?

 

[VT4700]

So your point is too many athletes will harm the academic reputation of a University:
"the Ivy League represents a deliberate model to show that intercollegiate athletics are important. The conference sponsors 35 varsity sports. Harvard, for example, offers 42 varsity sports -- the most of any university in the NCAA. Reliance on the Academic Index indicates an approach with the intent to assure that this substantial commitment to sports stays within bounds academically."[/QUOTE

Using Harvard as an example? Wow. Interesting. No, that is not my point at all. Didn't President Ayers say that he didn't want to add sports at the expense of regular students? I agree with that decision, and I agreed with the decision to add lacrosse and drop the other two sports. Disagree with that all you want, but why is everyone acting like I am just making things up, or saying something that is wrong?

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

We could probably field a pretty good Overwatch team.