PDA

View Full Version : URI cutting sports



MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 10:55 AM
Not sure if this is the right forum. Move it if it isn't.


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=3347137&campaign=rss&source=NCAAHeadlines


I don't blame them at all.


That's just too many sports to support financially.




The strength of an athletic department is not measured in the number of sports you have.


It's measured in the financial support that you can give to each of those sports.

gophoenix
April 15th, 2008, 11:03 AM
Not sure if this is the right forum. Move it if it isn't.


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=3347137&campaign=rss&source=NCAAHeadlines


I don't blame them at all.


That's just too many sports to support financially.




The strength of an athletic department is not measured in the number of sports you have.


It's measured in the financial support that you can give to each of those sports.

Wait, I thought it was a numbers thing with you, and not about the financial support given. There was a whole thread on that.

Uncle Buck
April 15th, 2008, 11:11 AM
Wow, very scary things up at URI. It's amazing that football has survived up. Like most FCS schools they don't draw a profit and the savings from no football would probably be more than 800K. Either way, i'm happy to see the gridders still on their feet.

NYJMUSupporter
April 15th, 2008, 11:16 AM
We just had to deal with cuts to our teams at JMU. Hang in there!

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 11:41 AM
Well, a $12 million drop in state support will do it.


How many public schools are there in RI? Is it really that hard for an entire state to support one flagship university?

dgreco
April 15th, 2008, 11:43 AM
It isn't that it is too many sports. It is the fact that the state of RI is in a 500 Million Dollar deficit!!!! I feel bad for the athletes and coaches. It is rare to see fully funded programs have so many sports, but hopefully it works out in the end.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 11:45 AM
500 million?!


Cripes.


Is it something to do with "Mah-fier down Provuhdence" ?

401ks
April 15th, 2008, 11:52 AM
Well, a $12 million drop in state support will do it.


How many public schools are there in RI? Is it really that hard for an entire state to support one flagship university?


The entire population of Rhode Island is barely 1,000,000.

By way of comparison...

The population of Orange County, California is 3,000,000.

The population of Orange County, Florida is 1,000,000.

(Please forgive the Mickey Mouse comparisons!) :o

DFW HOYA
April 15th, 2008, 12:09 PM
The strength of an athletic department is not measured in the number of sports you have.

It's measured in the financial support that you can give to each of those sports.

No, it's both. Offering a variety of broad-based sports to students provides a lot of intangible benefits to a campus, even though all but two will hardly make any money. Support is vital, of course, but a lot of schools miss something when they're sitting at the NCAA minimum and offer students little more than football, basketball, track, and golf.

Grizalltheway
April 15th, 2008, 12:28 PM
The entire population of Rhode Island is barely 1,000,000.

By way of comparison...

The population of Orange County, California is 3,000,000.

The population of Orange County, Florida is 1,000,000.

(Please forgive the Mickey Mouse comparisons!) :o

The entire population of Montana is less than 1 mil, and we have two (fairly) well funded flagship universities. xrulesx

mmiller_34
April 15th, 2008, 12:42 PM
South Dakota has around 750,000 and has 6 public institutions.. please forgive me if i left one out.... South Dakota St, South Dakota, Dakota St, Northern St, Black Hills St, South Dakota Tech...

DFW HOYA
April 15th, 2008, 12:47 PM
No, it's both. Offering a variety of broad-based sports to students provides a lot of intangible benefits to a campus, even though only two will make any significant money. Support is vital, of course, but a lot of schools miss something when they're sitting at the NCAA minimum and offer students little more than football, basketball, track, and golf.

.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 12:55 PM
The entire population of Montana is less than 1 mil, and we have two (fairly) well funded flagship universities. xrulesx

I'll do you one better:


North Dakota has less than 700k population and we have TWO flagship universities that play FCS football. Unfortunately, our state constitution also forces us to support four 4 year NAIA schools. I hope that they all can be turned into 2 year schools soon!



South Dakota as well has two flagships that are playing FCS football and three NAIA 4 year schools as well as one DII 4 year school.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 01:00 PM
schools miss something when they're sitting at the NCAA minimum and offer students little more than football, basketball, track, and golf.

They miss nothing.


Texas (Austin) does it better than anyone. They spent $90 million in 06-07 on 16 sports (technically 20 since men's and women's XC/indoor track/outdoor track are allowed to be counted as 6 sports instead of 2) according to OPE.


And again according to OPE they brought in $105 million in revenue.





A model for all NCAA members.

downbythebeach
April 15th, 2008, 01:45 PM
Rhode Island only needs one flag ship. You could add another one, but it would prob be within walking distance.

gophoenix
April 15th, 2008, 01:51 PM
South Dakota has around 750,000 and has 6 public institutions.. please forgive me if i left one out.... South Dakota St, South Dakota, Dakota St, Northern St, Black Hills St, South Dakota Tech...

You could also fit 49 Rhode Islands into the area of South Dakota or North Dakota.


North Dakota has less than 700k population and we have TWO flagship universities that play FCS football. Unfortunately, our state constitution also forces us to support four 4 year NAIA schools. I hope that they all can be turned into 2 year schools soon!

Why do you want to prevent those people at those NAIA schools from having some sort of nice ahtletics experience by making them 2 years schools? And why does this only apply to the NAIA schools and not the tribal or 9 other public schools?

BDKJMU
April 15th, 2008, 02:06 PM
Well, a $12 million drop in state support will do it.


How many public schools are there in RI? Is it really that hard for an entire state to support one flagship university?

Is it that hard for an entire state to support one flagship university? When your state is the size of a county. Rhode Island is by far the smallest state, 1214 sq miles. Rockingham County, which surrounds Harrisonburg, is 851 sq mi., and its one of 95 counties in VA.

I used to live in a county in TX that is bigger than Rhode Island. As a matter of fact, the avg TX County is close to 1200 sq miles, about the same size as Rhode Island, and there's 254 of them.

Rhode Island is basically the size of a county. Heck, you could bike ride across the state and back in an afternoon for exercise, its that small. Its a joke they allow something that small to be called a state.

BDKJMU
April 15th, 2008, 02:20 PM
It isn't that it is too many sports. It is the fact that the state of RI is in a 500 Million Dollar deficit!!!!

You can blame the politicians in RI as I'm sure the folks there pay enough in taxes. Everytime I hear a state has budget problems its likely not because of revenue- its because of spending. I bet if you look at their state budget over the last 10-15 years, like most states I bet it has increased an avg of at least double inflation plus population growth combined.

gophoenix
April 15th, 2008, 02:25 PM
Is it that hard for an entire state to support one flagship university? When your state is the size of a county. Rhode Island is by far the smallest state, 1214 sq miles. Rockingham County, which surrounds Harrisonburg, is 851 sq mi., and its one of 95 counties in VA.

I used to live in a county in TX that is bigger than Rhode Island. As a matter of fact, the avg TX County is close to 1200 sq miles, about the same size as Rhode Island, and there's 254 of them.

Rhode Island is basically the size of a county. Heck, you could bike ride across the state and back in an afternoon for exercise, its that small. Its a joke they allow something that small to be called a state.

In the whole scheme of things, you could say that about all of New England except New York and Maine. Put together, RI, VT, NH, MA and CT are smaller than most every state outside of NJ, SC, HI and WV.

But then again, by comparative terms, Alaskans could be complaining about how the rest of us live in states because we are all relatively small compared to them.

Personally, I'd rather complain about how Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and Midway aren't states.

zymergy
April 15th, 2008, 02:29 PM
Delaware isn't that big and we manage quite well.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 02:34 PM
Land area has nothing to do with the amount of money a state govenrment can generate.


That depends only on the number of people living there and how much money they make.


RI surpasses Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota in tax revenues, all three of which have two state flagships and more public universities.




If the entire state of RI can't support a single flagship in URI, something is broken.

Col Hogan
April 15th, 2008, 02:40 PM
In the whole scheme of things, you could say that about all of New England except New York and Maine. Put together, RI, VT, NH, MA and CT are smaller than most every state outside of NJ, SC, HI and WV.

But then again, by comparative terms, Alaskans could be complaining about how the rest of us live in states because we are all relatively small compared to them.

Personally, I'd rather complain about how Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and Midway aren't states.

Two points...

1) New York is not part of New England...

B) statehood is a population issue, not size...

Carry on....

Go...gate
April 15th, 2008, 02:45 PM
Not sure if this is the right forum. Move it if it isn't.


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=3347137&campaign=rss&source=NCAAHeadlines


I don't blame them at all.


That's just too many sports to support financially.


The strength of an athletic department is not measured in the number of sports you have.


It's measured in the financial support that you can give to each of those sports.

Thanks for posting. Rutgers has struggled with this as well.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 02:46 PM
Struggled in what sense?


IMO, more schools need to be cutting more sports and focusing on making fewer programs better, rather than having a lot of mediocre programs.

Go...gate
April 15th, 2008, 02:47 PM
Struggled in what sense?


IMO, more schools need to be cutting more sports and focusing on making fewer programs better, rather than having a lot of mediocre programs.

Struggled with the need to cut non-revenue sports, some of which are of very long standing.

gophoenix
April 15th, 2008, 03:14 PM
Two points...

1) New York is not part of New England...

B) statehood is a population issue, not size...

Carry on....

1) The Dominion of New England contained both New York and New Jersey, seized by the Dutch. So technically, they are historically part of New England (hence NEW and York/Jersey). They may not be part of it now, but ultimately we're both right.

2) Statehood is neither a population nor size issue.

[quote=MplsBison]
IMO, more schools need to be cutting more sports and focusing on making fewer programs better, rather than having a lot of mediocre programs.
[quote]

Why? These are colleges. If there is interest in a program, then shouldn't it be there? It is no different ultimately than any other club. Most college clubs and orgs are not self-sufficient. And really, in the scheme of things, most universities are known for a handful of majors, not the full array of majors that are offered.

You really have a warped sense of what college is or was about.

gophoenix
April 15th, 2008, 03:21 PM
Two points...

1) New York is not part of New England...

B) statehood is a population issue, not size...

Carry on....

1) The Dominion of New England contained both New York and New Jersey, seized by the Dutch. So technically, they are historically part of New England (hence NEW and York/Jersey). They may not be part of it now, but ultimately we're both right.

2) Statehood is neither a population nor size issue.

[quote=MplsBison]
IMO, more schools need to be cutting more sports and focusing on making fewer programs better, rather than having a lot of mediocre programs.
[quote]

Why? These are colleges. If there is interest in a program, then shouldn't it be there? It is no different ultimately than any other club. Most college clubs and orgs are not self-sufficient. And really, in the scheme of things, most universities are known for a handful of majors, not the full array of majors that are offered.

You really have a warped sense of what college is or was about.

College is about tooling the people paying for the future and providing the framework for a specific area of study while giving those same students opportunities to extra-curricular organizations, whether they have to do with the major or not.

So, should 90% of the clubs and orgs be cut because they "aren't up to" some imaginary standards? And what happens if every university did what you say. What if most canned all sports except a handful so they could "improve" that handful of sports. Then technically, every school in the country would have improved. Technically, not everyone can be top or middle. Someone has to be on the bottom, so what's the explanation then???

dgreco
April 15th, 2008, 03:22 PM
You can blame the politicians in RI as I'm sure the folks there pay enough in taxes. Everytime I hear a state has budget problems its likely not because of revenue- its because of spending. I bet if you look at their state budget over the last 10-15 years, like most states I bet it has increased an avg of at least double inflation plus population growth combined.

It is over a longer period of mismanagement and corrupt government that runs through RI. Regardless the 12 million a year saves them a lot of money. The state is in such dire need they are about to sell its water board/reservoir system to an outside company to pay off the deficit. I just feel bad for students who miss out on this.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 03:30 PM
Why? These are colleges. If there is interest in a program, then shouldn't it be there?


If there is interest then they can start a club program.


Varsity athletics are a business.

dgreco
April 15th, 2008, 03:42 PM
If there is interest then they can start a club program.


Varsity athletics are a business.

Thats the problem with the NCAA people like you dont get it. It is about fun and support and a connection to your college. Look at fans who show up to those small sports and tell the kids and fans that it should be dropped. Go to any DII or DIII school. Get a grip on what college is. I listen to almost everything you post and you are so ignorant sometimes but I finally had to post, because you are really off base with this.

Franks Tanks
April 15th, 2008, 03:43 PM
If there is interest then they can start a club program.


Varsity athletics are a business.


Dont you think URI should drop the FB program as well since they dont have artificial turf? All real FCS programs have artificial turf.

USDFAN_55
April 15th, 2008, 03:55 PM
The entire population of Montana is less than 1 mil, and we have two (fairly) well funded flagship universities. xrulesx


I'll do you one better:


North Dakota has less than 700k population and we have TWO flagship universities that play FCS football. Unfortunately, our state constitution also forces us to support four 4 year NAIA schools. I hope that they all can be turned into 2 year schools soon!



South Dakota as well has two flagships that are playing FCS football and three NAIA 4 year schools as well as one DII 4 year school.

I think you also have to look at what else is available for the people to do in the area besides go to a football game. I'd imagine in North Dakota and Montana not much. I don't think it's a big surprise that a lot of the school's that get huge turn outs for home games are usually in towns that don't have many options in terms of entertainment (i.e. Notre Dame, Auburn, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, and etc)

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 04:18 PM
Notre Dame and Michigan are within reasonable driving distance to Chicago and Detroit, respectively.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 04:19 PM
Go to any DII or DIII school.


That's why the NCAA has DI and DII/DIII.


DI is business. DII/DIII is about fun and participation.



I hope that Bryant understands that.

USDFAN_55
April 15th, 2008, 04:21 PM
Notre Dame and Michigan are within reasonable driving distance to Chicago and Detroit, respectively.

Well over an hour drive. Not that close in my book.

gophoenix
April 15th, 2008, 05:13 PM
If there is interest then they can start a club program.


Varsity athletics are a business.

Ah. Then North Dakota State, and basically about half of the I-A and all I-AA schools, should basically pack it all up since none of us run basically in the black? After all, a business is about revenue. And if it is truly about business, then non-profit status should be given up too. And the public bail-out of these businesses at schools like yours, well, should stop? Is that what you're telling me?

xrolleyesx

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Varsity athletics are clubs, whether DI, DII, DIII or NAIA. Club sports are clubs. Fraternities are clubs. They are all clubs. And these are schools, not sporting houses.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Well over an hour drive. Not that close in my book.

You got me on South Bend (I was actually thinking of Valparaiso) but Ann Arbor is only 42 mi. from Detroit and all interstate highway. Not unreasonable.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Varsity athletics are clubs


Not at NDSU and other major college programs.

USDFAN_55
April 15th, 2008, 05:39 PM
You got me on South Bend (I was actually thinking of Valparaiso) but Ann Arbor is only 42 mi. from Detroit and all interstate highway. Not unreasonable.

Ok, I'll give you that one then. But can you agree that most of these stadiums that sell out are in areas most would consider rural, with not much to do besides go to the football game?

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 05:42 PM
There are several schools that have big draws despite being located in NFL towns.

USDFAN_55
April 15th, 2008, 05:50 PM
There are several schools that have big draws despite being located in NFL towns.

Of course there are, that is why I said "most"xnodx

gophoenix
April 15th, 2008, 06:57 PM
Not at NDSU and other major college programs.

then I go suggest you read the charters of said programs and departments that run said programs.

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 07:40 PM
They're meaningless, of course.

Cobblestone
April 15th, 2008, 07:44 PM
It is over a longer period of mismanagement and corrupt government that runs through RI. Regardless the 12 million a year saves them a lot of money. The state is in such dire need they are about to sell its water board/reservoir system to an outside company to pay off the deficit. I just feel bad for students who miss out on this.

xnodx Accurate.

Seawolf97
April 15th, 2008, 07:52 PM
Sorry to hear about this. The danger is once cutbacks start when do they stop? I believed they mentioned academic programs as weel or limiting majors. Thats a double whammy. Kids wont enroll , hence less funding, cut more , less students. Truly sad. In the business world thats a death cycle xsmhx

MplsBison
April 15th, 2008, 09:58 PM
It stops when they reach the FCS minimum of 14 DI sports.

Maroon&White
April 15th, 2008, 10:17 PM
1) The Dominion of New England contained both New York and New Jersey, seized by the Dutch. So technically, they are historically part of New England (hence NEW and York/Jersey). They may not be part of it now, but ultimately we're both right.


Good job taking that right from Wikipedia. And it's siezed from the Dutch, not by the Dutch. Can't you just admit you were wrong, New York is not part of New England. Maybe we should start calling the University of Maine, University of Massachusetts-Orono, since well, they were once part of Massachusetts. I guess the US should really just be considered part of England.

gophoenix
April 16th, 2008, 05:46 AM
Good job taking that right from Wikipedia. And it's siezed from the Dutch, not by the Dutch. Can't you just admit you were wrong, New York is not part of New England. Maybe we should start calling the University of Maine, University of Massachusetts-Orono, since well, they were once part of Massachusetts. I guess the US should really just be considered part of England.

Now that is being silly. But no, it wasn't pulled down from Wiki. And, I am no more wrong than you were. It's not my fault you didn't quantify it. And still today, some authorities like New York as part of New England. Just like some authorities like NC and VA as mid-Atlantic and not part of the south.

And no, the US should not just be considered England. After all, Florida was Spanish, there was the entire Louisiana Purchase that was French, the SW area was technically part of Mexico/Spain. And parts of the far northwest were part of Canada/England too.

Sorry man, we're both right on this one, until you just got silly about it. So just leave it at that.

Maroon&White
April 16th, 2008, 09:51 AM
Now that is being silly. But no, it wasn't pulled down from Wiki. And, I am no more wrong than you were. It's not my fault you didn't quantify it. And still today, some authorities like New York as part of New England. Just like some authorities like NC and VA as mid-Atlantic and not part of the south.

And no, the US should not just be considered England. After all, Florida was Spanish, there was the entire Louisiana Purchase that was French, the SW area was technically part of Mexico/Spain. And parts of the far northwest were part of Canada/England too.

Sorry man, we're both right on this one, until you just got silly about it. So just leave it at that.

I was never involved in the discussion before, until you actually tried to say you are right about New York being part of New England. In no way are you right. If you actually think New York is, you are just plain ignorant. New York is officially part of the mid-atlantic, NOT New England...just ask the US Census Bureau. And your response to the England comment was very predictable, though not completely accurate.

You're right though, your comment...
1) The Dominion of New England contained both New York and New Jersey, seized by the Dutch. So technically, they are historically part of New England (hence NEW and York/Jersey). They may not be part of it now, but ultimately we're both right. wasn't taken from wikipedia...
In 1686, King James II, concerned about the increasingly independent ways of the colonies, including their self-governing charters, open flouting of the Navigation Acts, and increasing military power, established the Dominion of New England, an administrative union comprising all of the New England colonies. Two years later, the provinces of New York and New Jersey, seized from the Dutch, were added. The union, imposed from the outside and contrary to the rooted democratic tradition of the region, was highly unpopular among the colonists.

It always amazes me when people are so ignorant about their own country, especially a part that has been around for so long.

UAalum72
April 16th, 2008, 10:39 AM
If you go by the language spoken today, the Hudson-Champlain valley (and eastern Long Island!) speaks Western New England, while the rest of upstate NY uses the Inland North dialect. NYC/Nassau is as usual all to itself.
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.html

Must be why I never felt out of place rooting for the Red Sox, even though Eastern NE is another dialect.

Dane96
April 16th, 2008, 11:55 AM
Now that is being silly. But no, it wasn't pulled down from Wiki. And, I am no more wrong than you were. It's not my fault you didn't quantify it. And still today, some authorities like New York as part of New England. Just like some authorities like NC and VA as mid-Atlantic and not part of the south.

And no, the US should not just be considered England. After all, Florida was Spanish, there was the entire Louisiana Purchase that was French, the SW area was technically part of Mexico/Spain. And parts of the far northwest were part of Canada/England too.

Sorry man, we're both right on this one, until you just got silly about it. So just leave it at that.

Dude...WTF are you talking about-- YOU ARE 100% WRONG. I worked in the governments of Massachusetts and New York and neither consider New York part of New England.

If anything, it is considered Mid-Atlantic. That moniker does not work either. NY and NJ are generally considered to be EAST COAST and do not fit into Mid-Atlantic or New England.

biobengal
April 16th, 2008, 07:54 PM
Two points...

1) New York is not part of New England...


Neither is Maine.... as they would have me believe.

biobengal
April 16th, 2008, 08:00 PM
RIP: ISU's men's golf program was dropped on Tuesday. Apparently, the women's program was saved....... In other/related news, ISU recently added softball.

http://isubengals.cstv.com/sports/m-golf/spec-rel/041508aaa.html

swaghook
April 16th, 2008, 08:11 PM
I'll do you one better:


North Dakota has less than 700k population and we have TWO flagship universities that play FCS football. Unfortunately, our state constitution also forces us to support four 4 year NAIA schools.


North Dakota supports 11 colleges/universities in all. The 4 year colleges will always be 4 year schools.

catdaddy2402
April 16th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Dude...WTF are you talking about-- YOU ARE 100% WRONG. I worked in the governments of Massachusetts and New York and neither consider New York part of New England.

If anything, it is considered Mid-Atlantic. That moniker does not work either. NY and NJ are generally considered to be EAST COAST and do not fit into Mid-Atlantic or New England.

Well, if you want to play that game.....

A company I used to work for had a contract to provide a service for the United States Department of Justice. We covered everything east of the Mississippi except for New England. Our coverage area stopped at the Pennsylvania border with New York.

Seawolf97
April 16th, 2008, 08:32 PM
Well, if you want to play that game.....

A company I used to work for had a contract to provide a service for the United States Department of Justice. We covered everything east of the Mississippi except for New England. Our coverage area stopped at the Pennsylvania border with New York.

Hey I'll throw one out for ya. There is a legitimate move underway now on Long Island to be the 51st state. This has been talked about before with Long Island and NYC forming a state. Now the local politico's are talking about the two suburban counties Nassau and Suffolk forming a new state. Wait till they find out how much it would cost and what we would lose. We would still be bigger than Rhode Island . We will find out in the fall when their report is due out.xlolx

Maroon&White
April 16th, 2008, 09:52 PM
Well, if you want to play that game.....

A company I used to work for had a contract to provide a service for the United States Department of Justice. We covered everything east of the Mississippi except for New England. Our coverage area stopped at the Pennsylvania border with New York.

Was the company in South Carolina?

Dane96
April 16th, 2008, 10:01 PM
Well, if you want to play that game.....

A company I used to work for had a contract to provide a service for the United States Department of Justice. We covered everything east of the Mississippi except for New England. Our coverage area stopped at the Pennsylvania border with New York.

How insane can comments get on this topic?

The US Dept. of Justice does not consider New York a part of New England. I don't give a toot where your contract ended. At NO point does NY come under the auspices of ANY regional director other than the Mid-Atlantic.

The DOJ official distinction of New York is: MID-ATLANTIC.

It is an INDISPUTABLE FACT! The New England Headquarters, located in Boston, MA serves the FIVE STATES and ONE COMMONWEALTH of the region: Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.

While working for the Commonwealth, I dealt with Federal Agencies regularly. The DOT, also considers New York in the Mid-Atlantic region. So does the NTSB. So does FHA. So does the FAA. Same for the Federal Reserve....and on and on and on.

The fact people are still arguing this into the night is insane already.

Maroon&White
April 16th, 2008, 10:15 PM
The fact people are still arguing this into the night is insane already.

I find it highly amusing, yet disturbing, that people think New York is part of New England, and are trying to come up with things to support it.

Good thing it's not a debate over which side won the Civil War...or if it's even over!

Ahhh, southeners....xlolx