The state of sports today

by Mizzou Grad on Jun 2, 2009 11:27 AM CDT

While listening to David Lyle (sorry if that's spelled wrong) this morning, he commented on the salaries of coaches in the college ranks, and how that may be negatively impacting the availabilityof other sports to function. Considering that more of the big name programs in the world do not receiveanything but token funding from their general campus allotment, one would think such would not be an issue, at least not in a long range fashion. Well, one would think. However, I discovered that U. Northen Iowa has dropped their baseball program, to save 1.4 million (or so).

Now, well all can say that there is trouble in the state's budget, from moderate in Indiana and here in Missouri to outright panic in California. Also, and I think I may be in the minority for this, but Title IX may be more of a hindrance to schools than it was when it was passed. So, I pose this question. Should the athletic community as a whole, and for specific examples Missouri, attempt to alter the financial landscape in which it operates? Additionally, in a time in which no program is safe (examples given on KFRU are that ISU and Colorado both dumped baseball during good academic times, and dropped swimming and wrestling, respectively, as well), should MU consider removing any of theirs? Finally, should Miles Brand (is he still in charge?) and NCAA beginning to globally regulate the amount of money that the big named programs are allowed to spend? And though this is not to the level of revenue sharing, should that be considered?

I'm hopeing for a lively discussion. However, I'd like to point out about the questions...I'm not a journalist, I'm a scientist. My knowledge of sports goes so far, so if you can educate me, that'd be wonderful.

FanPosts may be posted by any RMN member and may not reflect the views of the management staff of Rock M Nation or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Mizzou has done just fine via Title IX

and Mike Alden should be commended for not only being able to retain every single sport he started with, but growing/improving a VAST majority of them. If anything, I believe that proves that Title IX is not a hinderance, but poor macro and micro-level planning and vision are the actual issues.

NU’s athletic budget will likely ALWAYS be larger than ours, but they still fell victim to the elimination of sports (for whatever reasons, and evidently the reasons they got rid of men’s swimming are ESPECIALLY juicy). It just leads me to believe you either try to slowly build up everyone, or throw unnecessary and overzealous resources at just a few programs at the cost of the others. Personally, I prefer to see a department like ours (especially when adding the strong academics our AD puts forth).

"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation

by The Beef on Jun 2, 2009 12:12 PM CDT reply actions

One factor is also that NU still has 1 more sport than Mizzou, even after the eleminations

So perhaps they were just falling back towards a workable amount of sports, which Mizzou already had.

As for CU, it must be more complicated, as they only have 11 sports total. Perhaps skiing is just really expensive?

As for Title IX, I think the only issue anyone has (or at least could legitimately have) with it is the fact that football costs so much to operate that it is not fair to the other men’s sports – and results in more women’s sports than men’s sports at every school.

by Texas Wahoo on Jun 2, 2009 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions

I somehow dont think their rifle and bowling teams are much of a cash drain :-)

Because that is how much more they have on us, including almost 10 million more in football ticket sales alone.

"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation

by The Beef on Jun 2, 2009 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Although most of the cost of extra sports is scholarships and travel

They may have to travel a lot for bowling competitions. It’s not like they play in the Big XII. Also, I would assume Mizzou’s basketball program brings in a lot more money than Nebraska (at least I would hope).

by Texas Wahoo on Jun 3, 2009 7:26 AM CDT up reply actions

One would think...

that schools, ADs and coaches together would start to curtail the coaches salary. This could result in schools keeping entire sport programs while perhaps not alienating the ‘head’ coach.

However if one school, or a few schools do this and others don’t then…some schools are going to have problems keeping good coaches. So does a school try to focus on only the big sports with big salaries to those respective coaches, or does a school try to slow the salary growth and keep more varied sports going?

I agree with Beef, I like the way Mizzou and Alden is doing it. Pay what a head coach is worth, don’t get into a bidding War, secure good character coaches that are willing to not be the highest paid, and spread the wealth to everyone. Give every sport an almost equal shot at improving, it is best for the school.

So there are a ton of questions this post brings up and I absolutely have no idea how to answer them.

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Jun 2, 2009 12:16 PM CDT reply actions