Temple drops 7 sports

[jimazee]

Temple drops 7 sports (not basketball)
http://owlsports.com/news/2013/12/6...sports.com/news/2013/12/6/GEN_1206130910.aspx

Temple University announced today that it will reduce the number of its intercollegiate athletic programs by seven, effective July 1, 2014. The action will mean a better and more sustainable experience for its remaining student-athletes and bring Temple into line with most other schools in The American Athletic Conference.

Affected by the action are baseball, men's crew, men's gymnastics, men's outdoor track & field and men's indoor track & field; as well as two women's sports: softball and rowing. The action brings Temple's total from 24 to 17 varsity sports. Members of The American field between 16 and 19 varsity sports, except for the University of Connecticut, which has 24.

 

[Icebear]

I guess we really don't belong in the AAC.

 

[DobbsRover2]

There was a lot of discussion about all this over on the top runners' forum yesterday. Temple is basically following the way of most other mid-level colleges who are enslaved to football even as the revenues will increasingly dry up for it. Many of the football crazed SEC schools have eliminated all but maybe 4 or 5 men's sports. Of course there's always that plaint about having to comply with Title IX thrown in, and the fact that many of these schools keep their totally noncompetitive and unsupported women's cross country teams around so that they can load them up with 60 joggers to balance off the football roster for the school's gender sports participation ratio is really irksome to the running media.

So what comes out of it is a return to club teams with a very local competition schedule, which is not the worst thing in the world, especially to those who weirdly believe that college is a place to extend educations and prepare for the working world rather than getting smashed at drunken lacrosse sex orgies and the other entertainments or the other rules floutings that go along with much of D1 sports.

 

[Blakeon18]

This is a shame.

Occasionally...especially recently...you hear folks strongly urging that collegiate athletes be paid. Should that ever happen [hope it doesn't] I think you would see many schools dropping teams....schools lose money on the vast majority of sports they play...paying athletes would just mean they lose more.

Oft-times the proponents of pay seem to focus only on football and men's basketball.
Suggest to them that if they pay in those sports they will need to pay in others....and they look at you like you are crazy. Lawsuits would fly over all over the place...imo...if they didn't pay all.

There already is compensation for student athletes....scholarships. The elite also get 'coached -up' for future jobs in the pros. That combo comensation is enough....imo.

 

[DobbsRover2]

This is a shame.

Occasionally...especially recently...you hear folks strongly urging that collegiate athletes be paid. Should that ever happen [hope it doesn't] I think you would see many schools dropping teams....schools lose money on the vast majority of sports they play...paying athletes would just mean they lose more.

Oft-times the proponents of pay seem to focus only on football and men's basketball.
Suggest to them that if they pay in those sports they will need to pay in others....and they look at you like you are crazy. Lawsuits would fly over all over the place...imo...if they didn't pay all.

There already is compensation for student athletes....scholarships. The elite also get 'coached -up' for future jobs in the pros. That combo comensation is enough....imo.

Depends. For most sports that is true. But for professional college football played among the SEC-B12-B10-PAC schools, too many of the players are coming out as concussed physically damaged specimens with little to show for an education that completely revolves around preparing for the gridiron. Yeah I know that a lot of top players grow up in severely disadvantaged communities and this football scholarship is their only way out and their only entree into a school that otherwise wouldn't care one fig about them, but personally I think that as long as the football powers are still reeling in the cash on the backs of these chewed-up athletes, there should be a way to set aside big chunks of change in a reserve fund as compensation in later years for the abuse they go through on the football field.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Its too bad, especially the ditching of softball and baseball, which are fairly popular sports in the abstract. Unfortunately, you need to be really good - and have nice facilities - to attract fans at the college level.

Some years ago, Rutgers dropped about 5 sports, I remember co-ed fencing, men's swimming and diving being among them. About the same time, they added wrestling, which is big in the B1G. But Rutgers did offer far more than is usual, I think possibly 29?, so that was offered as part of the reason.

Out here in AZ, there are less sports, but they are far more publicized, popular, and generally successful than at many other schools. Arizona recently added sand volleyball, which begins play in the spring.

 

[ochoopsfan]

I hope Temple did this with approval of Bill Cosby. who played both football and was on the Track and Field team back in the early 60's.

 

[johnnyc]

Personally I'm sad to see track and field go. That was my sport in high school and with Temple located in Philly it brought back memories of running in the Penn Relays. But it must be devastating to all who lost their particular sport.

 

[UcMiami]

Dobbs - valid point about football and I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of setting aside a certain amount to compensate athletes in football who do not play professionally for medical issues directly related to their college football experience. Part of the problem of course being that most of those issues only manifest much later in life.
Blake - total agree.
And generally - athletic departments were always seen as money losing propositions, the difference being that money is much tighter in general at colleges and the 'luxury' of a large athletics program is seen as an area that budgets can be cut - not unlike all arts programs in HS/elementary schools. Add to this burgeoning administrative departments within all levels of education, with increasing salaries, and coaching and facilities costs also skyrocketing and it really is surprising that more schools haven't gone this route. Within athletics - administrative and support staff expenses to run a competitive program are huge. No idea of the actual numbers but CD, Shea, and Marisa are all earning at a rate higher than a lot of WCBB coaches and more than probably most HCs in other women's sports and a lot of mens coaches. Add in trainers, video and weight room staff, tutors and advisors, and office staff

 

[hjoerring]

Dobbs - valid point about football and I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of setting aside a certain amount to compensate athletes in football who do not play professionally for medical issues directly related to their college football experience. Part of the problem of course being that most of those issues only manifest much later in life.
Blake - total agree.
And generally - athletic departments were always seen as money losing propositions, the difference being that money is much tighter in general at colleges and the 'luxury' of a large athletics program is seen as an area that budgets can be cut - not unlike all arts programs in HS/elementary schools. Add to this burgeoning administrative departments within all levels of education, with increasing salaries, and coaching and facilities costs also skyrocketing and it really is surprising that more schools haven't gone this route. Within athletics - administrative and support staff expenses to run a competitive program are huge. No idea of the actual numbers but CD, Shea, and Marisa are all earning at a rate higher than a lot of WCBB coaches and more than probably most HCs in other women's sports and a lot of mens coaches. Add in trainers, video and weight room staff, tutors and advisors, and office staff

Well said. But most of these D1 schools with these huge athl. programs would become anonymous if they were to drop sports like football and BB. Sports sell and it gives the students in some of these where-houses/universities something to do out there in lot 99. I have always have serious doubts about how a Div 1 football player can find the physical and mental energy to be a student on a daily basis. As a recreational jogger and noon-time bb/soccer player there were days when an hour and a half completely drained the energy out of me, so much so that a book was too heavy to sit and hold. Of course one can always blame it on ORGANIZATION-- or time management!!!

 

[DobbsRover2]

The question of finding the energy to do school work while balancing a heavy athletic workload is always a complicated question. Frankly I'm always amazed he Husky women can manage it well, but they are in a system that gives tremendous support on the time management and coursework issues, and they are also much better placed to deal with it then say the average Auburn linebacker. Too many high-pressure D1 football programs grind them up on the practice and game fields in ways that simply overtax any human system, and none of us do very well in exhausted states or compete well either in the classroom when we have overdone it in whatever sport we're involved in.

And obviously, trying to cut back on football in the SEC or B12 or much of the B10 would be like trying to pry armaments out of Charlton Heston's cold dead hand, but there are a lot of D1-type schools like a Temple or Rice or Army or Tulane that could almost certainly do just fine like a Villanova and the Ivies and William and Mary and Colgate type colleges that don't see the need to be all-in for the football arms wars. The temptations to be sucked in are great and the reasons trotted out for doing so are endless, but the risks are also huge and inevitably lead to the dilemmas that Temple faced. If the Temple administration had put it honestly on the table a few years back --we can try to enhance our normally sorry football program but only at the cost of axing 7 sports -- what would the answer have been then? Now just to keep their 3/4 dead football on life support, they have to shut 7 of their starving offspring out in the cold.

What it all means for UConn I will leave to the deep thinkers of the football board to work out as to whether they would sacrifice soccer and field hockey and track programs on the pigskin altar if god-forbid the choice ever arose, but I actually like UConn's position in a more low-key league that hopefully offers the opportunity for nice football seasons in the future, a situation not shared by Temple. I could care less if the Huskies never get the chance to face off against an Alabama in a BCS bowl after some bloodthirsty drive for elevation in the football pantheon.

 

[UcMiami]

Well said. But most of these D1 schools with these huge athl. programs would become anonymous if they were to drop sports like football and BB. Sports sell and it gives the students in some of these where-houses/universities something to do out there in lot 99. I have always have serious doubts about how a Div 1 football player can find the physical and mental energy to be a student on a daily basis. As a recreational jogger and noon-time bb/soccer player there were days when an hour and a half completely drained the energy out of me, so much so that a book was too heavy to sit and hold. Of course one can always blame it on ORGANIZATION-- or time management!!!

No question the justification for athletics departments is publicity for the school and the indirect benefits that are not part of the accounting on athletics are the donations that can rise and fall directly related to sporting success - and a lot of the donations that rise and fall are not specific to athletics but are made to the general school accounts or for specific endowments. The recently announced $3M donation to Uconn was split three ways with $1M as a scholarship fund for a specific school within the university for example.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Some years ago, Rutgers dropped about 5 sports, I remember co-ed fencing, men's swimming and diving being among them. About the same time, they added wrestling, which is big in the B1G.

With the exception of WW2, Rutgers has had varsity wrestling continuously since the 1930's.

 

[Icebear]

Speaking of wrestling 15,000 plus in the Bryce Jordan Center for a match with Pitt today.

 

[jsloanjr]

IceBear, I wish I was there to see that wild place........Cal has done an awesome job at PSU and all he does is win National Championships..........UCONN is not long for the AAC.........Here we come Big 10.........Move over the new King in the east will be UCONN in 2015...........

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

With the exception of WW2, Rutgers has had varsity wrestling continuously since the 1930's.

My bad. What they did do was upgrade, both in terms of coaching and facilities. Or so I understand.

Just to be clear, I was a supporter of the need to drop sports at Rutgers, for a variety of reasons. The only one I felt bad about was fencing, another historical sport and one where RU had a first rate coach.

What baffles me in general is that Rutgers has been so inept in so many sports for so long, and while benign neglect can account for some of it, it is still puzzling. Of course, there are plenty of other schools in a similar boat.

 

[Icebear]

Official crowd at BJC was 15,996 to watch PSU beat Pitt 28-9 in wrestling.