In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
The majority of the article is about why college football should be banned and UMD is lucky enough to one of the prime examples. Good times...
"The most recent example is the University of Maryland. The president there, Wallace D. Loh, late last year announced that eight varsity programs would be cut in order to produce a leaner athletic budget, a kindly way of saying that the school would rather save struggling football and basketball programs than keep varsity sports such as track and swimming, in which the vast majority of participants graduate.
“If you want to establish a minor league system that the National Football League pays for—which they should—that is fine.”
Part of the Maryland football problem: a $50.8 million modernization of its stadium in which too many luxury suites remain unsold. Another problem: The school reportedly paid $2 million to buy out head coach Ralph Friedgen at the end of the 2010 season, even though he led his team to a 9-and-4 season and was named Atlantic Coast Conference Coach of the Year. Then, the school reportedly spent another $2 million to hire Randy Edsall from the University of Connecticut, who promptly produced a record of 2-and-10 last season.
In an interview with the Baltimore Sun in March, Mr. Loh said that the athletic department was covering deficits, in large part caused by attendance drops in football and basketball, by drawing upon reserves that eventually dwindled to zero. Hence cutting the eight sports."
The author of Friday Night Lights says the costs are high, and the benefits to students are low.
Taking out the part about us, it's hard to disagree that college football is a ridiculous thing on a lot of levels. Doesn't mean I want to see it go away or that I don't love it, but still, they whole system is just ridiculous.
college football funds most other athletic teams. When the football team is bad and not selling tickets teams get cut. When they are doing great you can add teams. Whats so bad about that?
Pic Sigs are for losers.
Given what we now know about brain trauma, I'm not unsure that football, at all levels, should be banned; at least until we able to properly design equipment to prevent such damage. I realized when I signed up to play that I might break bones, end up paralyzed or even die. I did not think -nor was I warned- that years after I was done playing that I'd stand a good chance of developing early versions of parkinsons or alzheimers; not to mention chronic depression. That, my friends, is definitely not worth it.
Now people know as its all over the place and yet they still play football. Banning things is dumb just like banning cigarettes would be dumb. Everyone knows its dangerous now long term in many ways but given that people still do it and that is their choice.
That's so stupid. We had to cut 8 programs because the football team struggled and our budget was created by a retard. Let's get rid of football all together so we have even less money in the budget and have to cut even more sports.
All I know is that swimming, diving, etc added nothing to my college experience at College Park.
I'm not really sure why he singles out football here. If he wants to argue that big-time college sports are detrimental to a school rather than beneficial, that's fine. It'd be a very unpopular argument, especially around here, but I can see where there's some truth to it. There's a reason why the world's best universities typically place a low priority on athletics.
By focusing on football, though, he comes off as completely hypocritical. D1 athletes in other sports work as hard as football players, but the sports provide even less benefit to the players and the school. Why is cutting football legitimate, but cutting competitive cheer and track a sign of some huge problem? At the very least, why not include basketball in there too?
I eagerly await Bissinger's call to ban big-time high school football in Texas as well, since it distracts from high school's main objectives of preparing kids for college.
Well, I mean, that’s what it is. I doodoo and then listen to Katy Perry.
big time football prepares kids for careers. Just ask all the kids hired by the NFL this year. Those who don't get hired have to look for work in other fields like everyone else, luckily for them they have a chance to get a degree and be debt free coming out of college.
He should at least pick a school that works at having a football team. It's more just a hobby at UMD.
I'm convinced that the liberal media has something against the University of Maryland.
Yeah, I have an irrational love for college sports, but the whole system is looking increasingly ridiculous and unstable. This latest round of conference expansion and the existence of nolaeer are really pushing me into the camp that thinks the whole thing is going to come crashing down in the not so distant future.
Along with the whole university system itself, due to the tuition bubble.
It looks like the progression's gonna be: Pee wee football --> Texas high school football --> NFL
I'm going to guess it's because those sports use a tiny fraction of the resources of football. Now the resources used on football make sense at a place like Ohio State where the return on investment but at a lot of other schools playing at the highest level, all that money is chasing minimal profit.
I agree, but that's not a function of college football as much as it is a function of schools just being stupid and not knowing how to manage their budgets.
If you ban college football, it'd just get replaced by something else.
One thing that people aren't pointing out is that minor leagues for the NFL would be a giant disaster. At least if you fail at college sports, you can fall back on a decent education. Minor league football would pay like $30,000/year, carry huge health risks, and leave you with nothing if you fail. But at least players would be getting paid, amirite?
this is 1000000000000000% accurate.
As has been pointed out before - the moronic writers who put these idiotic articles out do not understand the finances of college sports at all. All they think is that there is this pool of money that comes out of nowhere and funds sports. They fail to understand that without football, there is no money for swimming, tennis, track, etc. Reporters are tools.
when a public university is willing to bury it's head in the sand and protect its image when a coach is ass raping kids by the dozens, you know big-college sports has lost its way. I love it to death,.... but just sayin' we also gotta be the only place on earth that links big-time sports to university.
Now apply that same genius level thinking to popular reporting of macroeconomics. Is it any wonder politicians get away with the crap they do?
For all sports in general, everything is too expensive. The coaches, players salaries, food, parking, etc.
If the NFL wants the model to continue, they should throw something into the pot, otherwise, sink or swim on what you get for your product (capitalism at play), just like every other business. The non-revenue sports could be semi-revenue as someone has to pay for uniforms, equipment, coaches, travel, but you don't have to travel all the way around the U.S. If big contributors want to contribute, say Duke and Harvard which have enormous trust funds, fine. Otherwise get by the best you can as long as it is legal, ethical and moral. The NY Yankees have a great model, too bad for KC that they can't emulate it, but those are the breaks. It doesn't have to be a level playing field.
It would be great if college didn't cost two trillion dollars also. I'm sure all of the college prof's would teach for a lot less and same for the travesty of book costs. I could go on, but need to get ready for church.
LOL at "Mr. Loh", hope Marvin isn't sensitive to not being adressed at Dr. Loh.
Football at Maryland has essentially been a break even sport. Basketball was always the cash cow. There are years when football has made money but over the long haul, it's pretty much a wash. It's the attempted upgrade of sports that will never make money, most notably women's hoops, and the creation of and investment in things like competitive cheer, that kill the budget and dug the athletic dept this hole they are trying to climb out from.
Thankfully as conference emperors start to finally realize that subsidizing bowls in crappy cities, for no damn reason,is not cost effective and that the money they are costing their own schools by keeping this system in place is staggering. It will be this awareness that brings an end to the BCS and the college playoff most everyone wants
One of the reasons college costs keep rising at greater than the overall inflaiton rate, is because of student loans. The colleges know that they have a perceived valuable product (college grads typically make more than HS grads) which helps keep demand for a college degree up. So the colleges know they can keep raising prices and get away with it.
That said, not all college profs would or should ''teach for a lot less.'' My older brother has been a tenured full professor at his college, and he told me the faculty hasn't had a raise in five years. But their basketball coach gets seven figures, and he's deemed to be a ''bargain."
Those bowls bring in tourism dollars that benefit the restaurant and hotel operators in those cities - not defending crappy bowls (or cities), just wanted to point that out, as convention and visitors bureaus would put up a fight over the loss of bowls/business.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports