Page 1 of 1
Future Mens track?
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:09 pm
by RossfordFalcon
Don't want to sound like a complete idiot here, but I was just wondering what are the chancing of BGSU have a Mens track team again? I know what happened with all the sports cuts a couple of years ago but I wasn't sure on all of the details.
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:14 pm
by It's the Journey...
I would say the chances are slim until the Athletic department can support them financially. I would love to see it personally. I think they cut the wrong sports myself. That being said, I am glad I wasn't the one loosing sleep making the decision.
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:34 pm
by redskins4ever
Best way to keep a sports team is to have their scholarships endowed. BG's best place to start there would be with the Hockey team and have those scholarships endowed, so those scholarships could be moved to other sports.
So in essence if you had 10 scholarships endowed for Men's Hockey, those could be redistributed to other teams or to bring back a different sport.
Id say it would be better to bring back Lacrosse then to bring back Track.
Re: Future Mens track?
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:26 am
by transfer2BGSU
RossfordFalcon wrote:Don't want to sound like a complete idiot here, but I was just wondering what are the chancing of BGSU have a Mens track team again?
Very, very slim.
You will hear a lot of people talk about Title IX being the cause of the ax falling on the three programs. That is so far from the truth. The programs were cut due to a debt of approximatly $3 million in the Athletic Department budget. The AD was instructed he had to shave the debt. Those three programs were cut because they are not requirements for MAC affiliation. No womens programs were cut because of Title IX and equalization (that is your only Title IX issue).
While their elimination did not wipe out the debt, it has made it more manageable.
There has been movement in the past by track alums and supporters to bring back men's track, but they have not been able to raise the money necessary for its revival. I haven't heard much about their activities since the begining of the year.
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:09 am
by factman
If that were the case, why do we keep sports like women's tennis and track and have to maintain and rejuvinate very expensive facilities for very few athletes. Not only does the track have to be resurfaced very soon, but there is also talk of moving the tennis courts which are in very bad shape. If it were a $$$ issue, it seems to me that it would make more sense to have sports that take far less capital expenditure, like crew, women's hockey (we already have a facility for men) etc.
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:46 pm
by NY-BG-FAN
Crew would be cool, but where would it take place in BG? The Poe Ditch?
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:13 pm
by Dr. Bucko
The "endowment" idea to support sports is good one ---- even to support the maintenance of facilities. I worked in an educational institution where anything built was endowed including the athletic facilities. ----- Men's track will eventually find its way back. It's too big of a sport to keep under wraps. The money for the construction of a new track and field facility at BG (to the tune of something like $750,000) is coming from an insurance settlement (which I don't understand).
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 9:11 pm
by It's the Journey...
It could be from the wind storm that tore up the press box out there. Maybe it did more damage than we thought. Just a thought.
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:20 pm
by kdog27
factman wrote:If that were the case, why do we keep sports like women's tennis and track and have to maintain and rejuvinate very expensive facilities for very few athletes. Not only does the track have to be resurfaced very soon, but there is also talk of moving the tennis courts which are in very bad shape. If it were a $$$ issue, it seems to me that it would make more sense to have sports that take far less capital expenditure, like crew, women's hockey (we already have a facility for men) etc.
And having no track team completely kills your XC team. Might as well not be Men's XC team if you are not going have track. Imagine how hard it must be to recruit XC runners without a track program.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:24 pm
by Dr. Bucko
Yes, Kdog, that's what puzzles me too. X-Country without track doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Serious distance running is a year-around commitment, i.e., the runners need to train and compete. If I were a talented distance runner (like a Sink or a D. Wottle) I sure wouldn't be going to BG. When they cut the track program, b ut not the X-Country program, most of us were puzzled. Did they know what they were doing?
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 1:29 pm
by NY-BG-FAN
Men's cross country runners can still run on the club Track and Field team, so at least they are competing year round even if not on the highest level.
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:23 pm
by TG1996
NY-BG-FAN wrote:Men's cross country runners can still run on the club Track and Field team, so at least they are competing year round even if not on the highest level.
Right, but what kind of selling point is that to put us above and beyond other area schools that have both? Club sports are great when there is no other alternative in the area, but to have the option of school A where you can run XC and track on the varsity level and school B where you can only run at the club level in one, school B better have a world of other options outside the program.