Brian Mull, UNCw beat writer for the Wilmington Star News, is tweeting up a storm regarding the news that an athletic review has tled to the reccomendation that the school drop Men's Cross Country, Indoor Track and Field, Men's and Women's Swimming and Diving and Softball.

Brian Mull ‏@BGMull
Have confirmed that #UNCW ath. review comm. proposed dropping: Men's indoor track, Men's XC, Both Swimming & Diving, and Softball.

If the UNCW Board follows those recommendations that would leave university at NCAA Division I minimum of 14 sports.

Over the last three years, the #UNCW athletic department reported to the NCAA expenses that exceeded revenue by $1.4 million.

IARC committee chair Terry Curran: "As heavy as our hearts have been as we finalized these recommendations, we realize nothing compares ...

to how our student-athletes and coaches will feel at the possibility of their programs being eliminated. While these recommendations ...

will surely invite disappointment and debate, inaction was not an option ... we submit this report with the greatest of hopes that ...

by facing tough decisions now, UNCW Athletics will be able to strengthen its remaining programs & be even more competitive in all sports ...

for years to come."

From the report: The Seahawk Club's donations are projected to be between $400,000 and $500,000 short of $1.047 million goal.

The recommendations represent an opportunity for a reinvestment of $800,000 annually in the athletic department, over time.

Recommendation will reduce male athletes at #UNCW from 182 to 120 and female from 218 to 163. Total of 117 athletes. #ilm

Proposes to honor all scholarships to student-athletes, provided they remain in good academic standing.

Report: UNCW should continue to evaluate future athletic conf. affiliation
opportunities within context of fiscal & competitive feasibility

Committee says dept. has suffered from lack of expertise in budget and fiscal management as well as facility development.

Recommends reviewing and restructuring goals in the Strategic Plan that was presented in 2011.

Cuts would free up 13.98 scholarships for reinvestment

Quick reaction: Most surprising is that cuts are recommended to go in effect in 2013-14.

Final decision is expected to be made and announced "in the coming weeks."

Total Operating expenses in 2011-12 #UNCW report to NCAA: Softball - $365,542, (W) S&D - $314,178, (M) S&D - $281,162 ... That's $960,882.

Indoor track and XC are difficult to delineate because all track & field and cross country revs and expenses are lumped together by NCAA

T-Dog wrote: From the report: The Seahawk Club's donations are projected to be between $400,000 and $500,000 short of $1.047 million goal.

Short close to half of their goal. That hurts. If that's the kind of support they are getting they don't have much of a choice.

Who thinks that they're still happy that they gave Buzzard all of the money? What an excellent ROI.

That 435K a year for Buzz plus their investments on assistant coaches and renovating Trask needs to pay off very soon otherwise the school will turn completely against the admins.

Dumping perennial CAA powerhouses like their Swimming and Diving programs for a fledgling basketball program is sure to raise some ire in a city like Wilmington where anything fiscally is voilatile to speak of in public.

Here's the full reporrt. Some pretty damning words.

http://www.uncw.edu/iarc/documents/UNCW ... ations.pdf

There have been rumors of UNCW looking to the SoCon due to budget concerns, but I'm guessing the loss of Davidson and CofC dropped the basketball profile too low for them to seriously consider it.

T-Dog wrote:Here's the full reporrt. Some pretty damning words.

http://www.uncw.edu/iarc/documents/UNCW ... ations.pdf

I don't want to read 18 pages on UNCW athletics, can you just give us the damning words?

Most of the points are above. Some of the others ones are that when they met with reps from all 19 sports, both hoops teams weren't present. the women because they were at the CAA tourney and the men just didn't show up.

Their AD says that to be "nationally competative and prominent", they must have a 16 million dollar budget. Their current budget is 10.4 million. The committee also blasts the "short-sighted internal decision making over the last decade" and probably most importantly, had complaints from student-athletes about missing classes due to travel, caused by the northern expansion of the CAA.

Well, the MBB rep was probably on a job interview.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On one hand, I understand cutting the sports that do not bring revenue in, such as the swim teams, and running teams. If you're not making money, you're really not helping the university a great deal.

On the other hand, the men's swimming team is incredibly successful, while the men's basketball team, the sport that gets a brunt of the money, is not doing good at all. Why should a successful team be cut for a failing team? I don't know how much longer I see UNCW being D-1 if they keep it up at this pace.

UNCW Chancellor Gary Miller announced this morning that they will keep ALL five programs that were recommended for elimination by the IARC report.

http://www.wect.com/story/22455279/no-s ... -from-uncw

He probably looks good to them right now, but when the entire athletics department starts floundering because they are not making money anywhere, even with the decision to keep these five teams, he'll be criticized for not making the right decision.

Here's the thing: not many people are willing to pay to watch people run around the track or swim. I know that that sucks, but it's the truth, and somebody had to say it. They may be incredibly successful programs, but if you aren't making money in collegiate sports, you're wasting money.

UNCW should have cut a few programs... which ones they should have cut can be argued, but programs should have been cut. On top of that, students don't decide to attend UNCW for the basketball, baseball, softball, or track, but they go there for the beach atmosphere. I think UNCW will continue to struggle when it comes to money. Wilmington is not a very athletic game friendly town, which is why UNCW could never support a football team. I foresee administration there being forced to cut programs within a year, and by that time, more than five programs may be on the chopping block.

Here's the thing: not many people are willing to pay to watch people run around the track or swim. I know that that sucks, but it's the truth, and somebody had to say it. They may be incredibly successful programs, but if you aren't making money in collegiate sports, you're wasting money.

They may not be making money at the gate, but they are and will be making money in donations. You have to consider the athletes and their families involved in these sports. They have the money to donate and they do.

huskie3 wrote:Here's the thing: not many people are willing to pay to watch people run around the track or swim. I know that that sucks, but it's the truth, and somebody had to say it. They may be incredibly successful programs, but if you aren't making money in collegiate sports, you're wasting money.

They may not be making money at the gate, but they are and will be making money in donations. You have to consider the athletes and their families involved in these sports. They have the money to donate and they do.

But this money is not coming from the donations... the administration has already requested a $100 increase in student fees to cover the losses on so many floundering programs. The Seahawk Club(like our Yosef Club) donated a little over $600,000, compare that to the $2.4 million the Yosef Club raised last year. I'm not saying that donors aren't doing their share, but putting the cost of these sports that aren't quite student-supported on the student's shoulders is not right.

In my opinion, and it is likely an unpopular one, if the program isn't making money, but it is hurting the rest of the university's student's wallets, then cut it. I know it is not fair to the athletes, but would you rather make the other 12,000 students at the school have to pay more for events that they don't even go to?

A big part of the problem is not the sports that don't generate a lot of money but the major sports that have become increasingly more expensive to operate. There are very few programs that actually make a profit at most schools.

8993 wrote:Here's the thing: not many people are willing to pay to watch people run around the track or swim. I know that that sucks, but it's the truth, and somebody had to say it. They may be incredibly successful programs, but if you aren't making money in collegiate sports, you're wasting money.

I have been following this thread here because I think it is interesting. Often times people say what you said. If you aren't making money then you are wasting money. If that is the case, App would field what? Football? Maybe baseball? Charlotte would field basketball at (hopefully) football and maybe soccer and baseball. None of us would field women's sports and that is just the two of us. Imagine if all the school's applied that logic? There shouldn't wouldn't be much in the way of college athletics.

My argument is typically on the other side - it is that you field sports even if it costs you money because of the contributions to the student body and opportunity to student athletes. From a school with no football for decades I can tell you that even if we lose money on football the benefits will be gigantic. Obviously men's track doesn't have the same impact, but I still say making or losing money should not dictate if a sport should be eliminated.

IMO the real culprit here is Title IX. More men play high school sports than women, there is more interest in sports from men than women - so why on earth does Title IX equate to more women's scholarships at schools than men's - All based on enrollment numbers - even if statistics say that a higher % of men play sports. That is costing college programs money.

IMO the real culprit here is Title IX. More men play high school sports than women, there is more interest in sports from men than women - so why on earth does Title IX equate to more women's scholarships at schools than men's - All based on enrollment numbers - even if statistics say that a higher % of men play sports. That is costing college programs money.

I was in agreement until you put this in. Title IX, just like all other equality legislation from the 60's and 70's, started as a good thing and has been distorted by special interest groups. Title IX's original intent was to give equal opportunity to all. Title IX was/is a good and necessary thing, college athletics would not have given the opportunity unless required to. And yes I am the father of a female athlete who has chosen college athletics as her life work and I do have a bias view.

I'm amazed that no one has raised the issue of **zz's salary and the men's basketball program; the only team (without a foolproof excuse) that didn't show up for the Chancellor's meeting. [What a shock!] It was **zz's employment that required the former Chancellor/AD to BORROW money from outside sources and to use reserve funds to pay his first year. It's far, far more now!

Let me clear things up:

I am in no way saying that programs should be cut because they are not making money, because all in all, not many do. I am saying that if programs have to be cut, the ones that are not making money should be the first to go. Not many programs at UNCW make money as is, but the ones that get a little back should be kept because that is UNCW's lifeline right now.

If Appalachian State were in the same situation, I would expect for wrestling to be one of the programs cut, even though we are insanely successful there. It sucks, but you have to look at this from a business standpoint if you want to keep the athletic department alive, and that's what the administration will have to do soon.

huskie3 wrote:IMO the real culprit here is Title IX. More men play high school sports than women, there is more interest in sports from men than women - so why on earth does Title IX equate to more women's scholarships at schools than men's - All based on enrollment numbers - even if statistics say that a higher % of men play sports. That is costing college programs money.

I was in agreement until you put this in. Title IX, just like all other equality legislation from the 60's and 70's, started as a good thing and has been distorted by special interest groups. Title IX's original intent was to give equal opportunity to all. Title IX was/is a good and necessary thing, college athletics would not have given the opportunity unless required to. And yes I am the father of a female athlete who has chosen college athletics as her life work and I do have a bias view.

Oh I think Title IX should stay for sure! I just think the ratios that are applied are off. If (and I am making these numbers up based on some of my past reading) 65% of males are interested in playing college sports and 45% of females are interested in playing sports - then why does the access to playing the sports have to be equal? SInce more men want to play than women shouldn't men have more opportunities than women? Rather than 50/50 based on equal or based on enrollment being 60% female and 40% male and distributing them that way it seems the ratios should be figured differently. I certainly feel like it has it's place.

I did read during our push for football that schools can apply title IX 3 different ways. i can't remember the details but Charlotte chooses the one the equals the greatest number of female scholarships - which given our AD is no shocked.