18in32
Petard Hoister
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 27,889
Would you rather have a mediocre football team that produces few championships and pros, and a nationally prominent golf team that is always competitive and produces great pros... or vice versa?
That is, would you be willing to cut into any other GT men's sport to increase funding levels for football? If so, which one?
I exclude men's basketball from the poll since it operates in the black, as well as the women's programs, in light of Title IX concerns (though technically it doesn't quite work that way, but whatever).
We have one more men's program than is required of us, so theoretically we could cut an entire men's program to save money. Or more realistically we could simply reduce some funding — reducing scholarships, coaching positions or the like. And clearly some sports have 'more to give,' because of the number of coaches, players, support staff, etc. available. This is especially the case since in the Olympic sports there's a lot of overlap between sports and between men's and women's teams.
Since football provides revenue for all the sports, the idea would be that these cutbacks would be temporary, just until football revenues increase in the wake of our new consistently winning ways. Once the increased season ticket sales, merchandise, alumni contributions, etc. start happening, we should be able to return other sports to their earlier funding levels (or more).
Does this sound distasteful? But since none of us is going to give more money, where else is the money we need to improve our football program going to come from?
Or would you rather stay mediocre or try other things rather than hurt another sport?
I also realize this purely hypothetical and is obviously not actually going to happen. It is also obviously hypothetical since you'd need to have much more granular data to be able to determine which sports could be weather reduced funding most efficiently.
(BTW, for those who want to know more about NCAA FBS funding requirements, here's a helpful FAQ. FBS programs must spend at least $4 mil on scholarships — we spend $10.5 mil. FBS programs must have at least 16 teams, at least 6 men's, at least 8 women's — we have 17, 9 men's and 8 women's.)
That is, would you be willing to cut into any other GT men's sport to increase funding levels for football? If so, which one?
I exclude men's basketball from the poll since it operates in the black, as well as the women's programs, in light of Title IX concerns (though technically it doesn't quite work that way, but whatever).
We have one more men's program than is required of us, so theoretically we could cut an entire men's program to save money. Or more realistically we could simply reduce some funding — reducing scholarships, coaching positions or the like. And clearly some sports have 'more to give,' because of the number of coaches, players, support staff, etc. available. This is especially the case since in the Olympic sports there's a lot of overlap between sports and between men's and women's teams.
Since football provides revenue for all the sports, the idea would be that these cutbacks would be temporary, just until football revenues increase in the wake of our new consistently winning ways. Once the increased season ticket sales, merchandise, alumni contributions, etc. start happening, we should be able to return other sports to their earlier funding levels (or more).
Does this sound distasteful? But since none of us is going to give more money, where else is the money we need to improve our football program going to come from?
Or would you rather stay mediocre or try other things rather than hurt another sport?
I also realize this purely hypothetical and is obviously not actually going to happen. It is also obviously hypothetical since you'd need to have much more granular data to be able to determine which sports could be weather reduced funding most efficiently.
(BTW, for those who want to know more about NCAA FBS funding requirements, here's a helpful FAQ. FBS programs must spend at least $4 mil on scholarships — we spend $10.5 mil. FBS programs must have at least 16 teams, at least 6 men's, at least 8 women's — we have 17, 9 men's and 8 women's.)
