Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

Budget Advisory Group IV


UAFAN

Recommended Posts

Don't like the sound of this at all!

 

Model 2: Substantial reduction to Athletics, and smallest reduction to Schools and Colleges

 

..........A 50% reduction in the Athletic Department’s state funds budget would remove stateside funding for a significant proportion of the division’s staff.

..........Because this scenario would result in a withdrawal from participation in Division I Athletics, and consequent elimination of the student athletics fee, the cost of attendance at the University would be reduced by $500 and thereby enabling the University to explore the cost-of-attendance elasticity on enrollment

 

http://www.albany.edu/budget/files/Budget_Advisory_Group-IV_Final_Report.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the entire Model 2: IMO and maybe I'm being to optimistic, there is no chance of this happening. As this excerpt clearly states, 42% of the athletic budget comes from student fees which students voted for.

 

Model 2: Substantial reduction to Athletics, and smallest reduction to Schools and Colleges. We considered an institution-wide scenario which called for a large scale reduction in funding for intercollegiate athletics and a reduction as small as possible to the Schools and Colleges with the remainder of the required reductions being distributed across the other Divisions and the support areas of Academic Affairs in an across-the-board fashion.

The scenario considered would generate a significant redistribution of resources. A 50% reduction in the Athletic Department’s state funds budget would remove stateside funding for a significant proportion of the division’s staff. Conversely, the reduction in stateside funding for Schools and Colleges would be just 25% of what would be called for under an across-the-board model. Other divisions and the support units of Academic Affairs would have stateside funding removed for a significant number of positions under this plan.

Considering this scenario in the context of the Strategic Plan, it was noted that Athletics is not explicitly mentioned in the Strategic Plan, but has relevance to several strategic goals, including providing a complete and rewarding student experience, attracting a diverse student body, and increasing the visibility of University activities in the larger community.

 

Considered in the context of what is desirable and what needs to be changed, such a scenario would unquestionably mitigate the effects of the current budget on the Schools and Colleges and might be favorably viewed in some quarters as an appropriate focus on the academic mission. Because this scenario would result in a withdrawal from participation in Division I Athletics, and consequent elimination of the student athletics fee, the cost of attendance at the University would be reduced by $500 and thereby enabling the University to explore the cost-of-attendance elasticity on enrollment.

Concern was expressed that additional adverse consequences might accompany such a significant reduction to the Athletics budget, including loss of substantial philanthropic funds. A reduction of the size contemplated in this scenario would make it impossible for the University to retain its Division I status and force it to revert to Division III or some other lesser status. There was a suggestion that reversion to Division III status could result in few cost savings compared to what is required to support Division I athletics. A move out of Division I would also require the cancellation of the student intercollegiate athletics fee (currently 42% of the Athletics budget), since that fee was explicitly approved by the student body for the purpose of supporting Division I athletics. In addition, losing the student athletes and their academic accomplishments8 and losing one of the major sources of favorable coverage of the University in the media would be notable. The effects of eliminating Division I on such University activities as development, sponsorships, and donations from alumni or others are unknown at this time.

It was also noted that while a reduction in athletic spending of this magnitude would be popular in some quarters, it would be extremely unpopular in others. It was also suggested that the scholarly reputation of the University has a greater impact on the recognition of graduates of the University in contrast with the greater visibility of those Division I schools with a higher athletic profile.

It was proposed that a broader examination of the educational and other benefits and costs of Athletics, including all the various stakeholders (proponents as well as those who oppose), might be of considerable value and should be considered.

 

This is something that probably should be monitored since it's out there but at this point it's just an option on the table. I'm certain that there are those on campus who would welcome such a move, I've had some of them as professors who stated their intended goal is to abandon D1 but IMO they are a small minority.

 

Bing has been through this several times with their faculty, most recently when the doings of Broadus came to light, to this day there has been no action taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never going to happen. It would be an intentional relegation to Tier 2 status amongst University Centers.

 

Now, I can almost guarantee that there will be pain in the Athletic Department. We have been luck in recent years to not see sports cut. I think time has run out though.

 

I'd be worried if I was in a non-revenue men's sport right now. They all have to be on the chopping block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never going to happen. It would be an intentional relegation to Tier 2 status amongst University Centers.

 

Now, I can almost guarantee that there will be pain in the Athletic Department. We have been luck in recent years to not see sports cut. I think time has run out though.

 

I'd be worried if I was in a non-revenue men's sport right now. They all have to be on the chopping block.

 

Great point, I hadn't considered how this would play in the struggle of all four centers in branding themselves as the flagship campus of the system.

 

Moving out of D1 athletics would deal a critical blow to our aspirations of being one of these flagship campuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which sports would be in danger? I would think soccer, golf and tennis would be in serious trouble. Obviously, because of Title IX, things would have to be even on the chopping block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which sports would be in danger? I would think soccer, golf and tennis would be in serious trouble. Obviously, because of Title IX, things would have to be even on the chopping block.

 

Cuts don't really have to be on an even playing field. As our commitment to football increases (thats happening every year) one of two things need to happen: (1) more funding for women's sports or (2) decrease in funding to other men's sports.

 

I don't expect any increase in funding to any non-revenue sports anytime soon, so that leads me to believe option 2 will happen.

 

As for which sports, I don't know. But I don't envy those that have to decide. Lose-lose for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...