Goodbye, Maryland tennis

[bluehshoe]

As a former Terp tennis player and student,(undergrad and graduate) it's embarrassing for the school and shameful for the AD. Most insider's know they overextended themselves in football and basketball. For a school comprised of close to 40k students this should not have happened.

[jaggy]

It would be interesting to know how many athletic departments survive solely on huge donors, if that dried up many would go to the wall. It is a noble enterprise run by idiots and controlled by overpaid celebrity coaches.

[bluehshoe]

Jaggy,

You have some valid points. I can tell you that the boosters (volunteers) are very loyal alumni that spent countless hours fundraising and lending their personal time to the universities. They certainly are not to blame. The front office, I feel sometimes takes their graciousness for granted. The football and basketball programs are compensated several ways outside of donors; merchandising and profit sharing from conference bowl games. It would interesting to see where the $$'s flow and to whom.

[TopDawg]

Maryland announcing today that they are departing the ACC for the Big 10. All current Big 10 Schools have tennis, I wonder if there is any chance of Maryland bringing it back. Maryland cited budget cuts when they got rid of the program but they're going to spend between 20 & 50 million to leave the ACC. The television revenue from the Big 10 is supposed to exceed the ACC by a large margin so there might be enough excees cash to get things rolling again. I guess we'll wait and see.

[goran_ace]

I wouldn't count on it, at least anytime soon. It really is just about football and basketball. Shame that Maryland's most sucessful sports program (lacrosse) suffers the most from the move to the B1G.

[andfor]

Not counting on it either. Colorado moved to the PAC-10 and doubt they will change their sport teams lineups by adding any. I hear ya on the fact they would be the only one without. Still can't see it coming back without a specific large donation/endowment to men's tennis to bring it back.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by andfor

Not counting on it either. Colorado moved to the PAC-10 and doubt they will change their sport teams lineups by adding any. I hear ya on the fact they would be the only one without. Still can't see it coming back without a specific large donation/endowment to men's tennis to bring it back.

Probably the truth to it here.

Never say never, but I don't predict any additions in the next decade. Maryland is just trying to stay afloat.

I actually think this move really hurts MD recruiting. Tough sell to a mid west kid to go to MD. Not as easy of a commute for family as it was to grab kids out of the Carolina's. I'm speaking mostly to basketball, which is where MD has the most revenue sport success.

[bluetrain4]

During the announcement press conference, Maryland officials did mention reinstating some of the sports that were cut. Not sure if that includes men's tennis. I'm betting it's not high on the list, but who knows?

[jaggy]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

During the announcement press conference, Maryland officials did mention reinstating some of the sports that were cut. Not sure if that includes men's tennis. I'm betting it's not high on the list, but who knows?

The cost of travelling to Nebraska and Minnesota etc may make this an issue but then again who knows, college sports have gone mental

[NLBwell]

With the revenue generating sports - football and basketball - using something like 100 scholarships, that means you have to create teams for scholarships for 100 women and find 100 women to fill them before you can put a single guy on scholarship in another sport. That's why you have situations like the 60 Minutes exposed where colleges are giving scholarships for the women's tennis team to guys who are hitting partners for the gals. They just can't find enough qualified women to fill the spots.

As far revenue generated by the sports, the revenue in vs. the revenue out for most teams may not be positive, but football especially helps a lot in getting large donations to the university as well as name recognition in attracting high quality students. They are also a rallying point for cohesion of the student body and alumni.
Most college presidents are no dummies and they know that the positive aspects of football and sometimes even basketball far outweigh the costs when all factors are taken into account.
Many professors don't like having sports teams because they only take into account the costs. However, many would not have jobs except for the other money that indirectly comes into the university from the existence of the sports teams.

[mmk]

Originally Posted by goran_ace

I wouldn't count on it, at least anytime soon. It really is just about football and basketball. Shame that Maryland's most sucessful sports program (lacrosse) suffers the most from the move to the B1G.

I like their lax program, but as far as most successful recently, that would be field hockey (champs in 05, 06, 08, 10, 11, final four this year - and most years).

[Art Rust Jr]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

With the revenue generating sports - football and basketball - using something like 100 scholarships, that means you have to create teams for scholarships for 100 women and find 100 women to fill them before you can put a single guy on scholarship in another sport. That's why you have situations like the 60 Minutes exposed where colleges are giving scholarships for the women's tennis team to guys who are hitting partners for the gals. They just can't find enough qualified women to fill the spots.

As far revenue generated by the sports, the revenue in vs. the revenue out for most teams may not be positive, but football especially helps a lot in getting large donations to the university as well as name recognition in attracting high quality students. They are also a rallying point for cohesion of the student body and alumni.
Most college presidents are no dummies and they know that the positive aspects of football and sometimes even basketball far outweigh the costs when all factors are taken into account.
Many professors don't like having sports teams because they only take into account the costs. However, many would not have jobs except for the other money that indirectly comes into the university from the existence of the sports teams.

This is not accurate information from what I've been told over the years. Title 9 rules are rather nebulous when it comes to specifics, and one of those areas is scholarship allotment. Very few of the FBS schools that get 85 football scholarships actually give an equal amount of athletic scholarships to men and women covering all sports. Title 9 is about equal opportunity, and that doesn't necessarily equate to equal athletic scholarships across gender.

Didn't get to see the 60 Minutes piece, so not sure if they are also claiming that the number of scholarships needs to be equal, but if you look at some of the mid major type FBS schools you'll see that they don't even sponsor enough women's teams to even equal just football in terms of the amount of scholarships available per sport.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Art Rust Jr

This is not accurate information from what I've been told over the years. Title 9 rules are rather nebulous when it comes to specifics, and one of those areas is scholarship allotment. Very few of the FBS schools that get 85 football scholarships actually give an equal amount of athletic scholarships to men and women covering all sports. Title 9 is about equal opportunity, and that doesn't necessarily equate to equal athletic scholarships across gender.

Didn't get to see the 60 Minutes piece, so not sure if they are also claiming that the number of scholarships needs to be equal, but if you look at some of the mid major type FBS schools you'll see that they don't even sponsor enough women's teams to even equal just football in terms of the amount of scholarships available per sport.

The nuts and bolts of Title 9 is that you need to offer equal opportunity to women athletes as men. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily need to be a 50/50 split. It does need to accurately reflect the demographics of your student body.

So, a school like Ga Tech which is 2/3 male will not need to offer 50% of the scholarships to women. A school like Savannah College of Art and Design that is 3/4 female, would need to offer more than 50% to women.

Football does suck up 85 scholarships. Most schools have to make up that difference. That is why it is very common to sponsor varsity women's volleyball, crew, tennis, soccer, equestrian etc and not have a male counter sport.

[coaching32yrs]

In my opinion Title 9 is responsible for the termination of 100 men's college tennis teams. Football with 85 scholarships is the problem. Funding the 85 matching scholarships for women have strained university budgets beyond the breaking point. As a result men's tennis, wrestling and gymnastics have been eliminated at many colleges.

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by Art Rust Jr

This is not accurate information from what I've been told over the years. Title 9 rules are rather nebulous when it comes to specifics, and one of those areas is scholarship allotment. Very few of the FBS schools that get 85 football scholarships actually give an equal amount of athletic scholarships to men and women covering all sports. Title 9 is about equal opportunity, and that doesn't necessarily equate to equal athletic scholarships across gender.

Didn't get to see the 60 Minutes piece, so not sure if they are also claiming that the number of scholarships needs to be equal, but if you look at some of the mid major type FBS schools you'll see that they don't even sponsor enough women's teams to even equal just football in terms of the amount of scholarships available per sport.

The law itself does not demand exactly the same number of women's and men's scholarships. However, the government in practice keeps very close tabs on this and if they are not equal, the school will likely face a lawsuit where they will have to prove that they are giving equal opportunity. They likely could win the case if they have a lopsided breakdown in the student body or other such legitimate reason, but why would they risk it? Besides, since around 60% of college students are women, the government may start suing to get a higher proportion of sports scholarships to women than men.

[Kirijax]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

The nuts and bolts of Title 9 is that you need to offer equal opportunity to women athletes as men. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily need to be a 50/50 split. It does need to accurately reflect the demographics of your student body.

So, a school like Ga Tech which is 2/3 male will not need to offer 50% of the scholarships to women. A school like Savannah College of Art and Design that is 3/4 female, would need to offer more than 50% to women.

Football does suck up 85 scholarships. Most schools have to make up that difference. That is why it is very common to sponsor varsity women's volleyball, crew, tennis, soccer, equestrian etc and not have a male counter sport.

So we can't survive without football money, but because of their 85 scholarships, men's tennis gets botted to the curb. Title 9 is a no-win situation for men's tennis.

[zapvor]

its ironic too because in the last 10yrs or so maryland tennis has shot up the rankings. i think last time we were at around 57 in the nation

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Kirijax

So we can't survive without football money, but because of their 85 scholarships, men's tennis gets botted to the curb. Title 9 is a no-win situation for men's tennis.

Correct, it's a shame. And it's also the reason men's tennis gets 4.5 scholarships and women's gets 8.

However, if there was no title 9 you can rest assured that many schools would sponsor just football and men's basketball.

[Coach Carter]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

With the revenue generating sports - football and basketball - using something like 100 scholarships, that means you have to create teams for scholarships for 100 women and find 100 women to fill them before you can put a single guy on scholarship in another sport. That's why you have situations like the 60 Minutes exposed where colleges are giving scholarships for the women's tennis team to guys who are hitting partners for the gals. They just can't find enough qualified women to fill the spots.

Of course, they could reinstate the team and just not have it be a scholarship program. You would have players come in and pay their own way or be able to qualify for scholarshiping thru academic means or grants. You know, the old fashioned way...it's not un-heard of...with hard work and the BIG10+ budget and some creativity they should be able to compete after a little while with MOST teams.

[Coach Carter]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

So, a school like Ga Tech which is 2/3 male will not need to offer 50% of the scholarships to women. A school like Savannah College of Art and Design that is 3/4 female, would need to offer more than 50% to women.

Football does suck up 85 scholarships. Most schools have to make up that difference. That is why it is very common to sponsor varsity women's volleyball, crew, tennis, soccer, equestrian etc and not have a male counter sport.

Truthfully, this just comes down to your administrators and how they interpret the NCAA. We had great ones then had crazies. At a school that was 70% male (D3, non-scholarship), in the end we had to have everything totally equal...every opportunity...practice players...everything...ground us to a halt. Much of the NCAA rules come down to interpretation...they say very clearly..."we want you to have the leeway at your institution to make decisions. If you have questions or concerns, come to us. If there are problems or if things get reported to us...then we will come to you".