Competitiveness Subcommittee Report – December 8, 2004
Membership: Bob Botsch (chair), Deb Kladivko, Neil Berment, and Billy Morris
Introduction: This report is divided into three parts, Commendations, Recommendations, and Subject Areas. The main body of the report is the subject areas, which is based on the research we performed. That research included examination and interpretations of data provided by the Task Force and additional data provided by Angie Osbon, interviews by the chair of the subcommittee of all the athletic coaches (ranging from 30 minutes to an 1 ½ hours), several surveys of other PBC schools on matters ranging from the number of coaches to fundraising to travel and meals, a meeting with Student Government, and a number of interviews with other USCA personnel and entities, including the Athletic Director Randy Warrick, Branden Aiken, the Food Service, small groups of athletes, and the housing office. All interpretations are the responsibility of the subcommittee. The topics covered are those topics listed under Tab 8 of the Task Force binder. Some topics discussed did not result in recommendations if the status quo seemed acceptable, e.g. team managers. Other topics covered by other groups, like the balance between competition and academics and athletic trainers, were not covered in great detail. The Commendations and Recommendations sections were based on what was found in the Subject areas sections and the collective judgment of the subcommittee. One should not assume that all members of the subcommittee fully agree with each recommendation. Page references to the relevant subject area are noted on each commendation and recommendations.
1. Relative to the resources available, the athletic program as a whole is very competitive and should be commended for their efforts. (See pp. 9-10.)
2. Coaches are to be commended for placing more weight on academics than athletic standings and for the overall academic performance of student-athletes. (See p. 10.)
3. Coaches, players, and the Athletic Administration are to be commended for raising monies to supplement what they are budgeted. (See pp. 28-9.)
4. USCA and its supporters are to be commended for providing generally high quality facilities for all its teams. The greatest shortcoming is in the basketball and volleyball facilities, but the new convocation center will soon place USCA at the top of the PBC. (See pp. 14-15.)
5. Student Housing is to be commended for working with coaches who have athletes who need beds but have not completed all the paperwork necessary for actually assigning beds. (See pp. 15-16.)
6. The Food Service is to be commended for improving the quality of meals from the past and for working with coaches in such areas as box meals for teams going on the road and for expressing a willingness to adjust evening meal schedules to accommodate evening practices. (See pp. 16-18.)
7. USCA has significantly reduced the driving responsibilities of coaches, with the notable exception of the tennis coach (see below), and has improved safety with the purchase of the mini-bus to replace fully loaded minivans that were more subject to roll-overs. (See pp. 20-21.)
8. USCA is to be commended for its membership in the PBC. All concerned regard this as one of the best DII conferences, if not the premier DII conference in the nation. (See p. 33.)
1. Line of Reporting for the AD. On the line of reporting from the AD, we make no firm recommendation. Both sides of the argument have excellent points. We wonder if some arrangement could be made to improve what is already good communication but maintain the necessary ties between athletics and student life and services, perhaps by letting the AD meet with the “Monday group,” but keep reporting lines the same. (See pp. 7-9.)
2. Competitive Expectations in Academics. Expectations for academic success are explicit and are quite high. However, student-athletes and their coaches could use more help in enhancing academic performance in such areas as tutoring and building academic skills early in the careers of “at-risk” student-athletes. (See p. 10.)
3. Competitive Expectations in Sports. Although athletic standings and win/loss records are part of the annual evaluation process for coaches, coaches said they were unsure about precise expectations for competitiveness. Nevertheless, through a variety of informal means, all coaches seem to understand in a consistent way a set of fairly clear expectations. They seem to depend on the history of each particular program (maturity of each sport at USCA, the level of competition at other schools, past record of success, and resources allocated). These expectations seemed fairly realistic relative to unrealistically high expectations of various constituent groups in surveys performed. Coaches also had the appropriate balance with academics. We recommend that current informal expectations be maintained for the most part (exceptions are noted in subsequent recommendations) but be more explicitly communicated by the AD. Expectations should be discussed each year with coaches, but should be evaluated over several years rather than any one particular year. (See pp. 9-11, 32.)
4. Tiers for Competitiveness. No formal tiers currently exist, even though there are clear informal differences that can be seen in resources allocated and in the perceptions of coaches. However, those resources mirror what other schools are doing and also mirror the relative newness of the respective sports at USCA and to a lesser extent the popularity of the sport. If all sports were funded on the same level, then some would be condemned to hopelessness relative to other PBC schools while a few would be in an excellent competitive position. Choosing to emphasize some sports over others would have a similar effect. The current practice seems appropriate if we want to have most sports to have some reasonable chance of being competitive (with the important exceptions of women’s cross-country and men/women’s soccer and men/women’s tennis). In effect, we are equalizing competitive chances with some additional deference given to longevity and popularity of the respective sports. Given the resources we have, we find this philosophy to be reasonable. However, if we were able to find additional resources, we would recommend increasing the competitive chances of soccer, tennis and women’s cross-country. (See pp. 11, 31-32.)
5. Staffing in Coaches. While USCA is somewhat below other PBC schools in the staffing levels in coaching, with the exceptions of soccer and tennis, the disparity is not a great impediment on competitiveness. However, if these two sports are to be competitive, they must have a separate coach for the men’s and women’s teams. We would place a higher priority on soccer because of the far larger size of the teams and the different positions that ideally would have different coaching. In fact, the tennis coach felt that a graduate assistant would meet his needs, and we would recommend that this be done. We should also consider whether it would be better to hire a part-time women’s cross-country coach rather than continue to use an assistant from another sport who has no cross-country experience. (See pp. 11-12.)
6. Athletic Trainers. While staffing is improving with the addition of a second full-time trainer and while it is too soon to see the impact of a new degree program in providing services, we should strive to match the service equivalent of other PBC schools who average 3-4 athletic trainers. Hours that the training room is open should be posted. (See pp. 12-13.)
7. Coaches’ Salaries. Coaches’ salaries need to be raised. They are significantly lower than those at other PBC schools and are low to the point that we will have problems in retaining our most successful coaches. We might consider modifying the existing policy that does not allow coaches to run for-profit camps and clinics during the school year. Obviously, any change would have to be carefully monitored, but it might allow coaches to generate more money and expose USCA to prospective student-athletes. (See pp. 13-14.)
8. Computer Equipment. While computer equipment is generally quite good, both men and women’s basketball could improve their competitiveness if they had digital video equipment to use in analyzing game action. The old technology takes a lot of extra time to locate precise points in the action (several extra hours per game), which wastes time of both the coaches and players. We recommend that this new generation of equipment be purchased, using state lottery money if possible. (See p. 15.)
9. Facilities. After completion of the new convocation center, little in the way of facilities will be needed in the immediate future for USCA to be competitive in the PBC. As the area surrounding the convocation center is developed, however, a golf practice area should be placed at a higher priority than moving other sports that already have adequate facilities, such as soccer, women’s softball, or even tennis. In the long run such a facility will be necessary for USCA to retain its national prominence in golf. (See p. 15.)
10. Housing. Monitor demand for beds with the new housing in the summer of 2005 to see if additional “scholarship beds” can and should be retained beyond early July to accommodate late entry scholarship student-athletes. (See p. 16.)
11. Meals—hours on-campus. Hours for evening meals need to be extended so that team members who practice in the evenings will be able to eat. Jess Logan of the food service has expressed willingness to make some changes if coaches will meet with him. The AD should facilitate this meeting and request. (See pp. 16-17.)
12. Meals—travel. Game day meal allowances need to be increased in so far as the budget allows to bring us closer to other PBC schools. Ideally the allowances would be set at the same levels that faculty and administration get when they travel on university business. (See pp. 18-20.)
13. Transportation. While current policy seems to be working fairly well for most all teams, the tennis team is something of an outlier. Its travel squad is somewhat small for a bus and fills the mini-van to capacity. Because its longest trip is a multiple day trip that covers about 500 miles, the coach must do the driving. This may be acceptable as long as the coach is well rested before driving, but we should consider finding the money for a bus and driver for this trip. If and when more money becomes available, we should also consider reducing the time limits for the use of vans, so that perhaps all trips of more than an hour (rather than the current hour and a half) would utilize buses with professional drivers. Coaches could better interact with team members while traveling and rest after the mental rigors of athletic competition. (See pp. 20-22.)
14. Wellness Center. Until athletic training facilities are available in the new convocation center, provisions should be made so that athletes could have access to the Wellness Center in the summers, even when they are not enrolled as students. (See p. 22.)
15. Student Fees. Given the level of opposition from students and the relatively high level of student fees currently, we would be reluctant to recommend raising fees, though fees could be raised as a last resort. (See pp. 23-24.)
16. Scholarships. Additional scholarship monies could improve competitiveness and are essential if USCA wishes to attract more in-state students who cannot be attracted with waivers. This is the greatest need for women’s cross-country if it is to become at all competitive. (See pp. 24-25.)
17. Operating Expenses. Many coaches stressed the need to make athletes feel that they have a high quality first class experience while attending USCA. Many things contribute to that experience, but some additional money for operating expenses for seemingly little things like warm-up suits and extra equipment could also have a positive impact on attracting high quality athletes to USCA. (See pp. 9-10.)
18. Recruiting Expenses. Some sports might benefit from additional recruiting expense monies, while others might not. If any new operating monies do become available, coaches should be allowed to spend part of this money on recruiting. (See p. 24.)
19. Fundraising. This is the key to any significant competitive improvement. It has two aspects: time and the amount of money raised. Coaches and players spend far too much time fundraising. While some of this may always be necessary, hiring a professional fundraiser to coordinate things like selling signage and large events would allow coaches to concentrate more on coaching and allow athletes to concentrate more on school work and athletic performance. This would have to be carefully coordinated with other university fundraising. Many of our other recommendations rest on money. A professional fundraiser should be able to increase the amount of money available even after her or his own expenses are taken out. (See pp. 26-29.)
20. Number of sports – eliminate any? Eliminating sports in which we have invested time and facilities and human energy and commitment would be painful to say the least. We would not recommend elimination of any sports. However, if we are unable to find resources to hire a second soccer coach so that both the men and women’s teams can be competitive, we might recommend eliminating men’s soccer. Before such a recommendation could be made, a careful and thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed taking into account the money that would be lost from student-athletes who would not otherwise come to USCA. (See pp. 29-30.)
21. Number of sports – add any? This is entirely dependent on resources, and the feasibility of any new sport merits a separate detailed study. But if resources do become available, we would recommend considering the following sports: women’s golf, equestrian, and women’s swimming. Football, the most popular sport requested by students would not be a good choice because of cost and the fact that it is a men’s sport at a school that is primarily female. (See pp. 30-31.)
22.
Peach Belt
Conference? Stay in
the PBC. (See p. 33.)
Subject Areas
I. Administration and Staffing.
Appropriate reporting line from the AD.
The questions here is whether the line should be from the AD directly to the Chancellor or keep it as it is now, through the Associate Chancellor for Student Life and Services.
Factors that may support change:
· Direct reporting would enhance oversight and communication with the Chancellor, who is the CEO for the school. According to the NCAA Constitution and Bylaws, the institution CEO is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program. Because athletics is a highly visible department, the CEO should keep his/her pulse on what’s going on in athletics.
· Model organizational chart developed by NCAA DII Athletic Director’s Association has direct reporting of the Athletic Director to the Chancellor/President
· Most other schools in PBC have direct reporting, except Ga. Col and State U.
· An extra person in the chain of command requires more time for decisions to be made.
· The extra step can lead to a lack of or distortion in communications.
o Information that may be important to athletics may not always reach the AD if the Assoc Chancellor does not understand how it impacts athletics.
o Information that needs to reach the Chancellor may not reach him or be presented clearly unless the Assoc Chancellor completely understands the athletics perspective.
· Direct reporting would allow athletics to hear directly about issues on campus in a more timely way and reasons why decisions are made. This will also allow athletics to speak directly on issues that may affect them.
· Coaches might feel that a direct line reporting lends them more prestige – reports from athletics necessarily get diluted and their priorities may be watered down when athletics must share time in presentations at the Monday group with other areas of responsibility under Student Life.
· Athletics might be perceived by the campus and community as being more important when the department is directly involved with the other campus leaders
· Networking opportunities would be greater, for example, invitations to USC football games (possible fundraising possibilities), new faculty-staff dinner (get to know faculty and staff better), and other events where Monday Group is invited to wine and dine with the community. Greater visibility would help gain athletic support both in the stands and financially.
Factors that may support keeping the statues quo:
§ The AD already has access to the Chancellor through the dotted line on the org chart, which allows direct access on things that do not have a Student Life perspective, such as lunches with major donors, and on matters that require direct access, such as NCAA rules violations.
§ Just because everyone else in the PBC except GCSU has the AD report to the Chancellor does not necessarily mean that USCA should follow this model, unless there is some other overriding reason for direct reporting.
§ The Chancellor will be more difficult to gain access to for routine decisions, which now can be made quickly, so routine decisions may in fact take longer in a flat structure.
§ The Chancellor cannot be expected to be able to keep up with as much detail and monitor day to day activities to the extent that the Associate Chancellor can be expected to do.
§ Having Athletics under Student Life is consistent with the mission of the university, to focus on the total development of the student or student-athlete.
§ The AD and other Athletic Department staff regularly meet with staff from student life so that they are more aware of services and issues that impact athletes outside of their sport – if these routine meetings do not take place, there is a danger that athletics may become isolated and begin to develop their own parallel structure.
§ The move across the road to new facilities increases the likelihood of isolation of athletics and student/athletes from student life – maintaining reporting through student life and continuing routine meetings with student life could be an important way to ameliorate isolation.
§ Requests for student fee changes pertaining are forced to be balanced with other competing needs in student life.
On pp 9-10 of the focus group report from Braden Hosch, coaches expressed the feeling that we are not clear as an institution on how competitive we expect them to be. However, reading between the lines, some coaches seem to feel that they are expected to be somewhat more competitive than the resources they are given, and they take great pride in the feeling that they do more with less than the teams with which they compete. This observation was confirmed in interviews with the coaches, which suggests that in fact most do have an idea of what expectations exist for them, although these are unspoken.
The 2004 Athletic Task Force Survey of students, athletes, alumni, supporters, and faculty and staff that was performed shows that expectations for competitiveness vary with the particular group. Expectations are highest for current and former athletes, followed by general students. The lowest expectations come from faculty. In general, expectations are quite high with more than two-thirds expecting winning seasons, about three-fifths expecting conference championships, and over half expecting national championships. Not surprisingly, most, like American voters who want better schools with lower property taxes, those in the survey, especially students, want these high results without additional fees – just voluntary contributions through fund-raising.
We can in fact look at competitiveness in terms of resources. How competitive are we for the dollars we spend? We performed some calculations using the budget ranking (game day expenses) of each of our teams in 2002-3 and the conference finish in 2002-3 to see if our program is producing conference finishes that are proportional to financial investment. Our average ranking in operating expenses is 8.2 over our 11 sports. We took the ratio of operating expense ranking in each sport to the conference finish. This might be called an investment/outcome ratio. For example, if we ranked 1st in the operating expenses for a sport and finished #1, then the ratio would be 1 -- we got what we paid for in effect. At the other extreme, if we rank #11 in operating expenses and finished #11, then our ratio is still 1 (as it was in women's tennis). Our best ratio was golf in which we ranked 6 in budget but placed #1 in the conference, producing a ratio of 6. The lowest sport in terms of this ratio was men's soccer, in which our budget ranked #4 but ended up #7 in the conference, producing a ratio of 4/7 = .6. The average ratio for all of our 11 sports was 1.5. What this suggests is that our coaches as a whole, at least for 2002-3, produced outcomes proportionally better than the resources they were given.
In our interviews with coaches, most say that they feel little or any pressure to have any certain number of wins or losses, and do not seem unhappy with having no precise set standards. One said that being told that coaches were rarely fired for not being competitive was a factor in coming to USCA. The expectations are more generated by internal motivation than any external pressure or institutional pressure. However, the programs that have had a history of success do feel that there are unspoken expectations to live up to the history that they have established, and feel a little pressure because of that. But even in these cases, these pressures are less than the pressures that coaches place upon themselves. The only exception to this was one coach who felt that there was a slight increase in pressure over the last three years from the AD. Another long-term coach said that expectations have changed as USCA moved from an NAIA school to a DII school to a member of the PBC.
Almost all felt that expectations for academic success were greater than those for athletic success, and all felt that this was appropriate. Many felt that the school should provide more resources to help in academic success. Having tutors was a popular suggestion. Another problem many face is getting their students into classes that do not conflict with their practice. This was not a matter of scheduling priority, but rather a matter of being at a small school with a limited number of classes scheduled. The one exception to this was the same coach who has felt some recent pressure to be more competitive, and this coach said that more emphasis will have to be placed on recruiting better players rather than better students in order to accomplish this goal with the limited scholarship monies available.
In the interview with student government, students did not express any strong feelings about competitiveness. A few felt that since athletes are given scholarships to perform, that they should always be competitive. One went so far as to suggest that under-performing athletes should have their scholarships taken away! Most students seemed to feel that more successful teams would attract more student support.
Just as expectations for individual sport success exist in an informal way, most see informal tiers among sports with respect to competitive expectations. Coach’s views on this were quite consistent. At the top tier is our most successful sports followed by the most popular spectator sports: golf, men and women’s basketball, and men’s baseball. Golf is expected to always be in the running for the PBC title and have a shot at the national championship every year. Women’s basketball is expected to compete with the PBC’s top teams fairly consistently. Men’s basketball has somewhat lower expectations due mainly to the lack of success in recent decades, but more pressure exists to finish in the top half of the PBC because of the sport’s popularity in the region. In the next tier are volleyball and women’s softball, both of which are expected to have considerable success in the PBC. Expectations for how they finish are probably higher than men’s basketball, but they feel less pressure because of their lower visibility in the community. The next to bottom tier include men and women’s tennis followed by men and women’s soccer, both of which do well to finish out of the PBC cellar. And then last is women’s cross-country, which is in a tier all by itself. It is seen as a kind of left-over sport with no one dedicated to promoting its success.
Brad Fields solicited data from other PBC schools on the total numbers of coaches they have in each sport (counting full and assistants and graduate assistants as well as volunteer coaches). We should exercise caution in making these comparisons because we have thrown a lot of different kinds of coaches together. A full time coach is not the equivalent to a volunteer coach. Nevertheless, here are the raw comparisons. USCA was slightly above average in two sports. In men’s basketball the conference average was 3.3 and this year, due to the addition of a volunteer coach, USCA has four coaches. The average for baseball was 3.4, and USCA has 4 coaches, which is actually down an assistant coach from last year. This is a product of the baseball team’s successful fundraising efforts.
All other teams were below average. Golf has an average of 1.4 and USCA does quite nicely with just a head coach. Women’s cross country averages 1.6 coaches across the conference and USCA has only 1 part time coach. Men’s and women’s tennis in the PBC each have more than one coach each, 1.2 and 1.3 respectively. But USCA shares a coach with these two teams, so we have .5 coaches for each team. In women’s basketball the PBC averages 3 coaches while USCA has 2. The average for the PBC in softball was 2.6, and USCA has 2 on our staff. Perhaps the worst disparity is in men’s and women’s soccer, where the PBC averages are 2.1 and 2.5 respectively, while USCA does not even have a head coach for each team, but rather has one shared head coach and one graduate assistant, which averages out to 1 for each team.
To summarize, USCA has slightly above the conference average in the numbers of coaches in only three sports. USCA is below average in the other eight sports. Clearly the greatest needs are in soccer and tennis. The soccer teams need additional help if they are going to compete within the conference. There are simply too many players for one coach to deal with both teams, even with a grad assistant. Tennis is also in need of help, even though it has fewer players. The single coach cannot watch both teams play because matches take place for both at the same time. At least the soccer teams do not play at the same time. The tennis coach feels that a grad assistant would significantly improve the tennis program.
Women’s cross-country merits some separate discussion. Past practice has been that one of the other coaches, most recently, the assistant women’s basketball coach, serves as the cross-country coach, even if this coach has no experience in cross-country. This places the team at a distinct disadvantage with other cross-country teams. This fall, due to the last minute resignation of the assistant women’s basketball coach, the cross-country team was without a coach. A part time coach was hired who did have cross-country experience, and consequently the team did better in competition than it had done in previous years. Although one cannot be certain of any causal relationship here, it may be that a part-time coach with some cross-country experience is better than an assistant coach who is drafted into the job regardless of past experience.
We heard some complaints from athletes that they are not at games or in the office when needed. However, the hiring of a second full time trainer should help that situation, and in the longer run the degree program in exercise training that focuses on athletic training should provide student assistants to supplement what the two full time staff can do. We should note that even this increased level falls short of standards set by the National Athletic Trainer’s Association standards, which according to calculations by Branden Aiken, would call for five full time trainers for our campus. According to Aiken, other PBC schools average three to four full-time trainers. In the future we may be able to come close to that level of service, if not full time staff, depending on the success of the degree program. It is too soon to render any judgment at this point in time. But regardless of who is actually providing service, if we are to be successful, the trainers must be able to work with athletes in areas such as nutrition and weight training so that they can improve fitness and prevent injury as well as just deal with injuries as they happen.
Athletes and some coaches expressed some concern about training support when teams travel. Current practice is that a trainer will travel with teams when possible, but if they are needed here for a home event, they will call ahead and request assistance from the host school for support. In turn, they provide support for teams that come to USCA without a trainer. This cooperative relationship with other schools is appropriate for the resources that USCA and most other PBC schools have available.
Some athletes expressed concern about not knowing when the training room is open and staffed for assistance. Currently there are not hours posted on the training room, though phone numbers of the two full time trainers are posted for athletes to call if they have needs. Branden Aiken reported that he informs athletes at the beginning of the year that the training room will be staffed from 1-5 on weekdays all year. In practice, according to Aiken, the room is usually staffed from 6 am till as late as 9 pm to accommodate the long practice schedules of teams. Nevertheless, posting a schedule might improve access for athletes.
Team managers vary in importance among the sports. At one extreme, baseball has four managers, some of whom are even given scholarships to help in the heavy workload of washing dirty practice and game uniforms and keeping up with all the equipment involved in the game. They are sometimes even recruited from high schools where they managed. Without these managers the coach’s jobs would be even more demanding. Soccer has a manager who helps with many routine matters on equipment and in cleaning uniforms, who also receives a small scholarship. Men and women’s basketball also has a manager who performs similar functions, though the women players take turns in washing the uniforms. The men’s basketball team manager launders their uniforms. Other teams, such as tennis, volleyball and women’s softball, do not have a manager and operate quite well without one, dividing up the duties among players, or with the coach taking on more tasks.
Comparisons are difficult because other schools often do not pay coaches 100% out of athletic budgets, so what we see reported is just the salaries that come from athletics. Our coaches do not have salaries supplemented from academics for teaching courses (with the exception of tennis). Nor are coaches given other posts, like special assistant positions, that may pay for part of their salaries. While some of this was done in the past, it would be difficult for coaches to find the time to perform other duties given the amount of time they must spend fundraising. But even with this caveat, our average head coach salary of $36,742 is right at 25% lower than the average head coach salary for other PBC schools, $48,873 (data from last page in tab 8). So if anything, the real difference is larger.
At some other schools coaches are allowed to engage in camps and clinics during the contract year that allow them to raise additional compensation. Faculty can engage in paid research and consulting so long as it does not create a conflict in time commitment. This might be seen as comparable to coaches performing similar paid activities, but existing policy does not allow this. The danger of changing this policy is that coaches already are spread too thin in terms of their time, so it could create a conflict in time commitment. We might consider such a policy change if we carefully monitored it to prevent exploitation. One coach said that he would love to run camps with all proceeds going to his sports if he were allowed to do so during the year.
Interestingly, when asked to choose between a salary increase and additional staff, most coaches would choose staff or additional scholarships if money were available. Although most realize that they do not make as much as their competitors, they would choose that which would make them more competitive. It was obvious that they all take some considerable pride in doing what they do with relatively less resources.
Nevertheless, it is clear that coaches are significantly dissatisfied with their salaries. Some speak of being unable to continue to support their families unless some increases are given.
II. Facilities and Equipment
If it is true that ones customers are ones best advertising, then the quality of the experience that our athletes have here at USCA will play a major role in helping our teams attract high quality athletes in the future. To paraphrase one coach, players need to be treated in a first class way. They notice and take away all the little things, especially compared to what they see other players get on the teams with which we compete. That plays a big role in raising money in the future and in recruiting. Facilities and equipment are an important part of this equation.
The quality of our facilities varies relative to those of schools with which we compete. Our best facility is the new baseball stadium, which compares favorably at present with any site in the PBC. Basketball and volleyball, which presently play in what amounts to a good high school gym, will hopefully be moving in the next couple of years to a new convocation center that will also place us at or near the top of the PBC. Coaches agree that recruiting will be much easier with a new facility. The move by softball to Satcher Field greatly enhances their facilities, placing them among the best, if not the best in the PBC. The soccer teams’ coach rates their facilities as about average with those at other Peach Belt schools, but does not see that as a great impediment to competitiveness. The tennis coach rendered the same judgment. Golf has one of the best courses in the nation on which to practice and play, but it does lack any practice facilities on campus. This has obviously not been an impediment to the recruiting of excellent players. But to remain at the top and compete for players who might otherwise go to division one schools, USCA should have a driving range and practice green and bunker on campus so that players can practice without travel.
All teams have good computer support and get their computers replaced in the cycle with the rest of the campus. The only exception to this is that the graduate assistant coach for soccer, whose responsibility is for women’s soccer, does not have a computer.
The plan to move toward web casting of games is seen as a significant plus in the recruiting process in that parents will be able to see their children compete, no matter where they live. A couple of schools in the PBC are ahead of us here, but we should have an advantage over most other schools if we continue to progress in this direction. This will, however, have costs other than computers, as personnel will have to be available to actually run the web casts.
Men and women’s basketball are perhaps the two teams that have the greatest needs in additional computer support to become more competitive with other schools. Both use videotaping to analyze games and play. Many schools are moving to a digital technology today because it saves much time in locating and viewing specific segments.
Housing
Having the new student housing has had a positive impact on student recruitment. Coaches feel that the physical appearance of the facility is attractive to parents and prospective student athletes when they visit the campus.
However, being able to reserve and guarantee spots in that housing is a concern for some coaches, especially for late recruits in July and early August. Being unable to do so is a deal breaker for some parents. One coach dissented from this point of view, feeling that if coaches do their jobs in the recruiting game, all athletes would be signed well before the deadline for housing. Another coach said the housing personnel work well in finding housing for late recruits. Students in Student Government did not express any strong objections to reserving spots. Some thought that this was already done. More concern was expressed about having problems in living near athletes, whom they see as more noisy than other students. This is a matter for the Housing Office to monitor.
Current practice, according to the Housing Office, has been to reserve about 24 “scholarship beds” for any late admissions who qualify for at least a $500 scholarship each semester ($1,000/yr). These beds are held until early July. Either academic or athletic scholarships qualify. By early July these are either used up or put back into the pool for those on the waiting list. Ideally, a few “scholarship beds” might be retained until the end of July or even early August. However, student housing is in a state of transition now with the opening of the new student housing in the fall of 2004. We have no experience with what demand will be this coming year. It would be premature to make any recommendation until we have that experience. We would be wise to monitor demand this next year to see if there is a need to try and retain a few of these beds until later than in the past.
Two major complaints come from coaches and athletes on food. The first has to do with food service scheduling. Teams that practice in the afternoons (soccer, softball, baseball, tennis, and golf) have a hard time getting to the evening meal when the cafeteria closes at 6:30.
Both athletes and athletic coaches have the evening meal schedule as a major concern. With most practices scheduled to ensure that players attend these sessions, players argue that by the time they get to the Cafeteria, it is closed. One athlete mentioned that players look forward to having a meal after practice. After speaking with all the campus’ athletic coaches, six of them agreed that their athletes complained about not being able to eat dinner. Jesse Logan, Director of the Cafeteria, has agreed to attempt to accommodate the coaches by staying a little late to facilitate the players but insists that the coaches must contact him prior to the practice time so he can make appropriate arrangements. One coach says that his players never eat supper. He suggests that there may be a special athletic serving for athletes. Another coach stated that dinner is a big problem specifically the time it is served. This coach believes that this is not a hard issue to solve. He suggest that if dinner is started one to two hours later, it would add one to two hours on the backend which would allow athletes to get in and have dinner a bit later. One athlete said that breakfast is great because it is early enough to accommodate the early practice sessions. The food is also good because there is a variety of breakfast food available. The women’s basketball team holds practices in the morning so these players do not have much of a problem. However, when there is a conflict, the food service willingly makes accommodations when possible.
One coach suggested that if a Cafeteria sub shop like the one in the H&SS building would stay open a bit longer, this would solve some of the problem and athletes’ complaints would be reduced.
Allowing players to leave practice early is not a good solution because players fear that they may miss out on important information as well as valuable practice time.
Overall, athletes and coaches alike have both agreed that it is not really the practice schedules that hamper eating times but the times set by the institution for dinner.
Bob Botsch discussed the meal timing issue with Jess Logan, and he said that extended hours could be arranged if coaches would meet with him and make a request. He pointed out that grill hours had already been extended, but the regular cafeteria hours might also be shifted to accommodate the needs to student athletes. Coaches and the AD need to make this happen if it is a concern to them.
As for the nutritional aspects of this issue, athletes have said that so far this semester, the food has been much better than in the past. One coach feels that dinners should be more nutritional with the addition of pasta and a lot more chicken than is already being served. However, there can be more chicken, tuna, pasta, fruit juices, bananas and other fruits on a daily basis.
The second complaint has to do with the $6 per meal travel allowance. This is not enough for anything more than fast food. Each coach works around this a little differently. Some just put up with fast food (and one coach even likes fast food as long as it is Subway), even though most feel that it provides poor nutrition. Some expect athletes to kick in a little extra to buy means at better places. Some use some of the money they raise in fundraising to supplement meals while traveling. Others scrimp on some meals so that they can eat at better places other times. Some get the cafeteria to do box lunches when the team leaves just before the noon meal, and are quite happy about this. One goes out and buys sandwich makings and takes it on coolers for the team. Most all feel that this is one place where they would like to give the students a better experience at USCA. They feel that this would help in recruiting, as meals on the road are a major concern for prospective athletes and their parents. Coaches are a bit disheartened when a visiting coach asks directions to Outback Steakhouse after their game here.
We surveyed other PBC schools about their travel meals policy. We asked them the following question: “When traveling, is there a standard amount of meal money given per meal? If so, what is that amount per meal? Do all sports get the same amount of meal money? If a standard amount is not given to each athlete, how are student-athlete meals handled?”
Armstrong Atlantic: State per diem limit of $28 per day. Specific meal limits too. Most of the meals are purchased by the coaches. Each sport has similar amounts per travel day for food and lodging.
Augusta State: There is no standard amount of meal money, it’s left up to the discretion of the coach on how much is given per student and how much is advanced per team travel. Our teams do a lot of group meals compared to per diem unless on trips that are longer in nature or a coach prefers allotting a certain amount for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Clayton: The answer to both 1 & 2 are the same. I do not put limits on meals or room numbers. We give our coaches a team travel budget in the spring preceding the upcoming year. It is their responsibility to both stay within that budget, and schedule according to what that budget will allow. The amount budgeted for each sport is based on what our past expense history has indicated. Since the coaches turn in an itemized expenditure report after each trip, we keep a log of expenses that we can go back and check to compare what was spent from one trip to another. Our team travel budgets are as follows:
MBB - $18,000
WBB - $18,000
MSOC - $10,000
WSOC - $10,000
MXC & Track - $7,000
WXC & Track - $7,000
WTEN - $6,000
MGLF - $12,000
Each one of our coaches has a different method of administrating their travel budget. For instance, some of our coaches will attempt to schedule more home contests outside the conference to give them more money per trip when they do travel. I am very confident that our coaches do not stay at five star hotels or provide filet mignon to their players. As far as the meals go, some will run one ticket and pay that ticket, some will at times give their players cash to each where they would like if there are options available. These amounts usually run from $8.00 to $10.00, according to the type of options available.
Columbus State: No, most coaches have meals together. We discourage giving money, but it does happen.
Francis Marion: Standard amount: 4 breakfast, 5 lunch, 6 dinner, however we budget $15 for day and can use it any way see fit. I have been fighting for three years to get this up. All sports get same amount.
Georgia College: We have not updated our policy in such a long time that the amount we specify is not relevant. Each coach decides the amount of money allotted to his/her athletes. The Director of Athletics approves all reimbursements. As the Director, I would require any coach to make a change if I was convinced that the coach acted irresponsibly. Some coaches give the athletes money for meals while others pay for all of the meals. Some discretion is give based on the fact that some teams such as golf are required to purchase meals at places where prices are grossly inflated.
Lander: No standard amount. Coaches determine this. $6-7 would be average.
UNC-Pembroke: At UNCP each coach makes that determination, the range for lunch dinner is usually between $7-10.
Univ. No. Florida: The standard allocation is $21.00/day. The breakdown is $3.00/breakfast, $6.00 / Lunch and $12.00 / Dinner. The State policies / procedures specify departure and return times that must be met in order to meet entitlements for meal allocations. In some cases, if costs exceed the State maximums, the Coach of the team in question is permitted to cover the difference using Foundation (i.e.: fundraised) monies to supplement the $21.00 / day allowed by the State of Florida.
USC Upstate: No set amount. Each coach sets the priorities with their allocated operational budgets. It varies from trip to trip and sport to sport.
Most schools seem to spend more money than USCA. Given the level of concern we heard from both players and coaches, we should try to increase what we allow for meals on the road, with a goal of perhaps matching what faculty and staff are allowed when they travel.
Transportation varies greatly with the size of the team. While a van may be perfectly adequate for the golf team, the baseball team needs a fifty-seven passenger bus for comfortable travel on longer trips, as does soccer. Baseball spends a little extra money out of their own fundraising to ensure that they have the larger more comfortable bus.
Unlike many other schools in the PBC, USCA does not have its own full size bus, but instead charters its buses for each trip in competitive bidding. Chartering has some advantages. Teams can generally be assured that they vehicle will be clean, and do not have to worry about schedule conflicts in getting access to the bus.
Basketball and soccer use buses shared by the men and women’s teams for almost all of their trips. They are unable to afford to travel unless they share. However, this means that both must accommodate the other’s schedules. The men must leave campus earlier, and the women must stay later on these trips. Many competitor schools have separate buses for each team.
Smaller teams are able to use vans, but this means that the coach must drive, which is an extra burden and responsibility for the coaches. The mini-bus works just barely for the volleyball team and for the tennis team, if the coach does the driving. Softball would like to use buses more than vans it currently uses to many games to relieve stress on the coaches and to allow students more room to relax and do schoolwork, which many do while traveling. The tennis team uses the all the seats on the 15 passenger van on even long trips in the range of 500 miles where the coach drives, although the new small bus should provide more comfort and space in the future, but no extra seats. The tennis coach will still have to drive on these long trips that take several days, and that is a concern.
Current policy is that coaches should only drive on short trips (less than an hour and a half) or on longer trips that take multiple days (to save the expense of a hired driver who sits around.) We seem to be following this policy, but we are yet uncomfortable with the long trips driven by the tennis coach. Additional money would have to be available to allow for a hired driver on multiple day trips to alter current policy. As long as the tennis coach is not fatigued when driving, existing practice may be acceptable.
USCA has no set policy on athletes per room when traveling. We asked other PBC schools the following question about their policy: “When student-athletes stay in a hotel room for games, is there a policy stating that they stay 1, 2, 3 or 4 per room or is that up to the discretion of the sport/coach? What is the normal amount of student-athletes that stay in a room together at your institution?”
Armstrong Atlantic: No specific policy due to the size differences in student athletes. Anywhere from 2, 3, 4. Most times it will be three to a room where there are rollaways.
Augusta State: We have no policy on number of people per room it’s left up to the coaches discretion. Normally all sports except softball and baseball stay two to a room and those sports may stay 3 or 4 per room.
Clayton: The answer to both 1 & 2 are the same. I do not put limits on meals or room numbers. We give our coaches a team travel budget in the spring preceding the upcoming year. It is their responsibility to both stay within that budget, and schedule according to what that budget will allow. The amount budgeted for each sport is based on what our past expense history has indicated. Since the coaches turn in an itemized expenditure report after each trip, we keep a log of expenses that we can go back and check to compare what was spent from one trip to another. Our team travel budgets are as follows:
MBB - $18,000
WBB - $18,000
MSOC - $10,000
WSOC - $10,000
MXC & Track - $7,000
WXC & Track - $7,000
WTEN - $6,000
MGLF - $12,000
Each one of our coaches has a different method of administrating their travel budget. For instance, some of our coaches will attempt to schedule more home contests outside the conference to give them more money per trip when they do travel. I am very confident that our coaches do not stay at five star hotels or provide filet mignon to their players. As far as the meals go, some will run one ticket and pay that ticket, some will at times give their players cash to each where they would like if there are options available. These amounts usually run from $8.00 to $10.00, according to the type of options available.
Columbus State: We try to do two only. We do try to get suite motels for a pull-out sofa.
Francis Marion: Student athletes in hotels. Basketball put two to a room all other sports three.
Georgia College: Again, this decision is left to the discretion of the coach. About half our coaches have athletes stay four per room and most of the others two per room. At least one has 3 per room and attempts to secure rooms with a hide-a-bed or roll away.
Lander: Usually two to a room sometimes three.
UNC-Pembroke: Again each Coach makes that call. WBB-MBB usually are 2 to a room. Some sports do put three to a room.
Univ. of No. Florida: The Athletic Department has established lodging policies that require that only one athlete may sleep per bed. We will allow 3 to a room, if necessitated by roster size, but a rollaway bed must be provided for the third athlete.
USC Upstate: Again, no set policy. Each coach decides based on number of student-athletes on the trip, hotel costs, mostly 2 and a rollaway to a room.
Coaches and athletes did not express concerns about the current policy, so we see no reason to make recommendations.
Athletes currently do not have access to the training and conditioning facilities in the Wellness Center in the summers when they are not enrolled in classes. For them to compete in the school year, they need to have access to some high quality facility year round. While the new facilities across the highway may take care of this problem in the years to come, if we are to compete in the interim, we need to allow athletes to gain access to these facilities.
III. Budgets and Funding
Budgets are very difficult if not impossible to compare. Waivers for out-of-state students to pay in-state tuition get counted and reported by USCA, but other schools have different out-of-state tuition rates and do not seem to be reporting the values of their waivers as USCA does. The underlying problem here is that no detailed good accounting practices standard applies to reporting these numbers. The bottom line for us in trying to get a sense of how much we spend relative to others in the PBC is suggestive at best. From everything that we can realistically compare, it seems that we spend relatively less. And more resources may be the key to improving our competitive success.
Our Athletic fee for students, which is included in their overall tuition payment, is $139 for a full-time student each semester. This is $29 higher than the average for the conference, $110. (For part-time students it is $11 per credit hour, but this is hard to compare because some schools do not report this and others calculate this differently.)
Fees need to be higher at USCA if we are to compete because we are the second smallest school in the conference. The median enrollment in fall 2001 was 4,799 and USCA was 3,139, nearly 1,700 fewer students. Mean enrollments are much higher because the two largest schools, Kennesaw and N. Florida have over 12,000 each. Since we must compete with them all, we should use the mean. The PBC mean enrollment in fall 2001 was 5,767. Looking at FTE’s, the PBC mean was 4,021. FTE’s at USCA were 2,526.
Combining these figures gives us an estimate of where we stand in generating money through student fees. The mean school, with a mean student fee of $110, would generate from their 4,021 FTE’s a total of $442,310 each semester, or $884,620 a year. USCA with its fee of $139 and 2,526 FTE’s would generate $351,114 each semester, or $702,228 each year. Our competitive disadvantage would be about $180,000, or about 21% below the average.
However, if we do not consider the two largest schools by using medians rather than means, and redo the calculations, it turns out that we generate money through student fees that is comparable to the smaller schools that comprise the bulk of the PBC.
We would be reluctant to raise student fees to gain more revenue because they are already higher than schools of similar size. They are sufficiently high to generate money that is comparable to all but the two largest schools. Moreover, students in Student Government expressed strong objections to any increase in fees. Students in the 2004 Athletic Task Force Survey were overwhelmingly opposed to raising fees.
Recruiting Budgets
This is one of the few areas where we really can make a fairly accurate comparison in budgets. USCA spends a total of about $25,000 annually compared to the PBC average of $27,684. However, the average is pulled up by the two largest schools, which spend over $50,000 each. We rank 5th out of the 12 schools. Our rival school across the Savannah spends about $42,000.
Despite this seeming rough parity with other schools in the PBC, some of our coaches feel that having a larger operating budget for recruiting would be a major factor in helping them better target the best athletes for USCA. However, one coach felt that extra money would be better spent on giving athletes a better experience at USCA, emphasizing nicer warm-ups and uniforms, as well as travel and meals on the road. All agreed that recruiting is the most important factor in being competitive.
Scholarship Support
Our scholarship support has increased each year to match tuition increases, but this is not necessarily automatic and doing so has placed a significant strain on our campus budget. It also increases the amount of money we appear to spend in that the waivers for out-of-state students go up in value, even though we do not have any actual money. One question is whether we should continue to match these increases. On the one hand it places a significant strain on the campus budget, but on the other hand, failing to do so would hurt the morale of players and possible cost USCA some athletes who would feel unable to make up the difference in cost themselves.
The NCAA has limits on how many scholarships can be awarded for each sport. The value of all scholarships for each sport depends on tuition and whether it is in or out-of-state. Using data from page 7 under tab 8, the value of an in-state scholarship is $9,884 and out-of-state is $15,024. If we award an out-of-state student at least $250 a semester, then that student is eligible for in-state tuition, and that reduction (the waiver) is $5,140, and that counts as scholarship money, even though we only awarded a total of $500 for the year for that student. This is done quite often, and the result is that while many students get some benefit (we make more than twice the number of awards as we could if we gave full scholarships to all athletes) the actual amount of money we spend is well below the maximum we could spend.
For example (again using data in a table from page 7, tab 8), at the low end is women’s cross country, where we could spend for 6 full scholarships, if we had the money. If all were in-state, then we could spend 6 x $9,884 = $59,304. Instead we actually spend a total of $6,200, but spread that out over 8 athletes, one of whom is an international student, who qualifies for in-state tuition and thus is credited with getting that extra $5,140 in waivers. They spent the equivalent of 0.68 full scholarships, or only 11% of the total real money that could have been spent (0.68 divided by 6).
At the other extreme, women’s basketball awarded a total of $93,833 in actual dollars over 13 athletes. They could have spent up to the value of 10 full scholarships, and came relatively close, in awarding in actual dollars the equivalent of 9.52 full scholarships. This represents 95% of what they could have spent (9.52 divided by 10).
All other sports were in-between: baseball awarding 68% of what they could have awarded in full scholarships; men’s basketball at 85%; golf at 35%; men’s soccer at 45%; women’s soccer at 42%; softball at 70%; men’s tennis at 50%; women’s tennis at 40%; and volleyball at 37%. The total over all sports is 56%. That is, we could have offered a total of 83.2 full scholarships, but in fact we only spent the money for the equivalent of 46.93 scholarships.
Coaches feel that they could be far more competitive if they had more actual scholarship money to spend so that more student/athletes could be given full scholarships and so that they could make better offers to in-state students. In-state students get the impression that they are not as valued when they see the value of the waiver that out-of-state students get, even though they end up paying the same amount for tuition. While out-of-state students and international students add diversity to the school, not being able to give much actual money inhibits coaches in attracting more recruits in the state. We miss some good athletes that way. As noted above, some coaches complained about lack of operational monies to do recruiting and assistance in recruiting as they did about lack of scholarship money. They felt that they could do a better job in identifying the best athletes with the best fit for USCA with more resources for the recruiting process.
Fundraising Revenues and Demands
While we do not have data for comparisons, Angie Osbon got the impression from talking to her peers at other schools that we do more of this for raising basic operating monies than other schools. We followed up on this impression by surveying other PBC schools, asking the following question: “In the area of fundraising, who does athletic fundraising on your campus? Athletic Director, Coaches, Booster Organization, Other (or what combination of above?). Does your campus have a person designated as athletic fundraiser whose primary job is to raise athletic funds? Does all of your fundraised money to into a general athletic fund to be used for all sports? If coaches are permitted to fundraise, do the funds they generate go back into their sport?”
Armstrong Atlantic: Three tiered fundraising. ONE: AD handles major accounts and seeks out new ones. TWO: Coaches handle smaller deals, i.e., signs for food, signs for tournament sponsors, etc. THREE: Booster club membership fees create a pooled fund that is used by all teams. No one primary fundraiser. Any funds that a coach generates go to their sport.
Augusta State: All of the above, A.D., Coaches, Administrators, Foundation, Booster Club, Community contributors etc. We do not have a designated person. Some goes to general while others are sports specific and are returned to their programs.
Clayton: All athletic fundraising is done in my office. Each coach is given the opportunity to raise dollars or in-kind gifts. The money they raise stays with their team. All fundraising dollars are deposited in to our Foundation Account which is administrated by the Office of Advancement. It is audited on a yearly basis when the College Foundation is audited. We contribute to the cost of the audit.
Columbus State: Athletic Director mostly. All people are involved. We now have a full-time marketing person that does all sales and coordinates fund-raising.
Francis Marion: Fundraising – it is written into each coaches evaluations fundraising goals for overall scholarships for entire athletic program. In addition they have goals to raise for their program. We do not have a designated fundraiser – I wish.
Georgia College: We have a person, Carolyn Ishee, who works through our Foundation, but is responsible for Athletics fund raising. All of us do some fundraising. Coaches may do independent fund raising efforts where the money goes direct into a Foundation account for their particular sport. In such cases they are told not to raise the money locally (Milledgeville) without permission from the Athletics Director and the Foundation. Some events (golf tournament and auction) are supported by all staff and the funds go to the general athletics budget through the Foundation. When Carolyn or I raise the donor is allowed to designate how the money is used. If they don’t express a preference, it is placed in the athletics general Foundation account and used as needed throughout the department.
Lander: We ALL do fundraising at LU as I am sure you folks do at USCA. 100% of all funds raised by the teams stay with their teams. Booster club dollars are athletic general unless specified by donor for a sport. Chipper handles our marketing program. Steve Grogan handles our Bearcat Club.
UNC-Pembroke: At present time AD is fundraiser but hopefully that will change. Each Coach is allowed to submit a written fundraising plan with 100% going to their Restricted Fundraising Account. No Fundraising should be occurring without a written pre-approved plan.
Univ. of No. Florida: The UNF Athletic Department employees a fulltime Assistant Athletic Director / External Affairs. This employee oversees a fulltime Marketing / Promotions Director (a new position for 2004-05) and the Sports Information Department.
The “Athletic Development Area”, headed up by the Assistant AD / External Affairs oversees the development of the Athletic Booster Club and solicits advertisers and sponsors in support of the Athletics program. This area also stages, as part of the fundraising effort, a number of annual special events. These events include, but are not limited to: the Fall Term Casino Night / Auction, the Holiday Reception / Silent Auction, the annual fundraising Golf Tournament / Silent Auction and the Annual Student-Athlete Awards Banquet.
All monies raised by the Athletic Department area are maintained in a General Fund to be used for the overall welfare of the Athletic Department. Expenditures are controlled by the AD.
Each sport is also assigned an account in the UNF Foundation. Each sport / Coach is encouraged to conduct fundraising activities in support of their individual program. These funds are maintained in their Foundation account. Expenditures must be co-signed by the AD to insure NCAA compliance.
Efforts are made to protect donors / prospects by avoiding duplications in the fundraising activities / contacts of all within the Athletic Department.
USC Upstate: Everyone fundraises. The Athletic Director leads. Each coach raises funds that stay 100% with their sport. We have just started a ½ development coordinator this year to oversee everything that generates revenues – auction, athletic association, golf tournaments, bb season tickets, hall of fame, corporate partners
At USCA, Each team is allowed to keep the money it raises, except for a small percentage. Some teams are far more successful than others. Baseball is by far the most successful, in part because it is a large group (about 40), in part because so many players are in-state, a certainly in large part from the great initiative of the coach. They raised almost $88,000 of the total of $157,000 raised by all teams, or nearly 60% of the total. The baseball coach pointed out that having many local players helps not only with fundraising, but also with attendance and general community support. It also allows him to give his players “first class” treatment on trips, using comfortable and spacious buses, and supplement meal expenses on the road. Much of what the golf team raises does not show in the reports. Agreements with equipment companies supply players with shoes, balls, and even clubs in some cases.
With few exceptions, raising money is a great strain on the time of coaches who have few assistant coaches to help out in training and practices. They estimate that fund raising takes a majority of their time, in some cases as much as 80% in the off-season! Typically coaches report spending about a fourth to nearly half of their time raising money.
Moreover, athletes are themselves significantly involved in raising money for their teams. Clearly coaches and athletes could be more competitive if they had more time to coach and practice (and study) rather than raise money. Some coaches do not like asking players to work to raise money for themselves, feeling that this is somewhat demeaning and gives less than a first class experience. However, all have found that they must involve players. Selling things is particularly difficult for international players, who often know few people in the community other than other students and professors.
One possibility for finding them this time and getting them more resources would be to hire a professional fundraiser for all the teams, who would be able to pay for her or his own cost in their activities. There seems to be a mini-trend toward this in the PBC, with two schools having someone with this responsibility and another with a half-time development coordinator. Of course, such an activity would have to be carefully coordinated with the activities of fundraising for the rest of the campus so as not to conflict with our other efforts. If this were to be accepted by the coaches, there would have to be some guarantee that they would receive as much money as they currently do through their own efforts.
IV. Athletic teams
Number of Sports
Too Many – if so, what to eliminate?
While this is an unpleasant subject to broach, we must consider the possibilities. First, we can only eliminate one sport at the most in order to maintain NCAA eligibility. Second, we cannot eliminate any women’s sport unless we are willing to come into conflict with Title IX requirements that say we need to be moving toward proportionality in athletics to the student body, which is roughly two thirds female. So that leaves men’s sports. For the sake of argument, let us consider the plusses and minuses for each and whether elimination would generate sufficient new resources that could be devoted to making other sports more competitive.
Baseball: It has a major new facility, attracts a large number of student/athletes, many of whom are in-state, so that creates many local ties to the community. It is very successful in generating new funds for itself. It has a tradition of excellence and has many alumni who have ties to the school through the sport. Much would be lost if we were to eliminate this sport. The only benefit would be that it would free up a significant amount of money.
Men’s Basketball. This is one of the top spectator sport at the school, and new facility is on the way. It adds to racial diversity in the school, and dropping it would be a major blow to the image of the sport in the community. However, it would free up a significant number of scholarships and a large amount of the actual money we spend on scholarships. It has been one of the less competitive teams in recent years, but the new facility should aid greatly in recruiting and in improving competitiveness.
Men’s tennis. This is a relatively n