Maryland drops XC/track, but can find $50 MILLION to leave ACC

MittJunior wrote:

This move will get UMd back in the black temporarily but if they go back and try to spend their way into real BCS football they will be right back way into the RED.

This is an obvious point that is being temporarily glossed over by the swooning administrators with allure of the Big Ten Network deal. It is a fact Maryland has not been able to maintain a competitive football program. Now you enter a top conference as a projected bottom-dweller. Do you think the athletic department and football program will dedicate the windfall to bringing back diving or even XC? Not likely. They will be pressured by boosters to spend even more on football to keep up with the new, more powerful Joneses. And all the non-revenue sports will travel farther, and rack up more expenses that will give the appearance of being even more of a burden than previously.

just out of curiosity, how many years could $50 mil fund an XC/track team?

terps wrote:

This is an obvious point that is being temporarily glossed over by the swooning administrators with allure of the Big Ten Network deal. It is a fact Maryland has not been able to maintain a competitive football program. Now you enter a top conference as a projected bottom-dweller. Do you think the athletic department and football program will dedicate the windfall to bringing back diving or even XC? Not likely. They will be pressured by boosters to spend even more on football to keep up with the new, more powerful Joneses. And all the non-revenue sports will travel farther, and rack up more expenses that will give the appearance of being even more of a burden than previously.

You have no idea if that's how this will play out. It was 100% the cut sports weren't coming back in the ACC. Now its some % less than that.

I'll take that chance, the extra $12mil a year in athletic money, and more research money for the academic side any day.

I was initially shocked and disgusted when i heard the news of this on sunday but now i like it. Of course its difficult to tell what will happen 10 years down the road who knows. They have been talking about bringing back 3-4 of the sports that were cut we shall see.

The biggest problem that i can see is that they will try to expand the stadium too soon and cause a disaster. They must wait until at least 2017 to think about that when that new tv deal gets done. Its nice to do all sorts of projections etc but they have to wait until the deal is actually complete before doing something they will regret.

Also I would like to restate that really the UMD track community at least did a very significant job of earning their reprieve by raising a lot of money in a relatively short time. That is the first case that I know of where a program has been slated for termination and actually been saved. It seems like an easy readdition to put at least xc back in as it is incredibly cheap even compared to the other sports that were cut.

Another thing in the favor of the track/xc teams is that their schedules will not substantially change I would not imagine. Its not like theyre going to be flying to Indiana/Minnesota/Michigan etc for dual meets every weekend. They will go to the same meets and spend the same money that they do now. Hopefully more because they basically run a in state and surrounding state program for meets especially in xc now to save money.

Finally as a former coach of two current UMD track athletes im partly just happy that they can have a normal outdoor schedule now and not be held hostage by Dukes stupid exams so they have to have the conf meet before Penn Relays. Of course the one is a senior so it wont affect her but the other should hopefully benefit. But as they say the proof is in the pudding we'll see how it plays out. Mmm pudding.

The big 10 doesn't require a track team; Northwestern doesn't have one. I think there is a minimum number of sports, though, not sure what it is.

1) Why would the ACC reduce the $50 million buyout fee? Seems pretty straightforward if its in the contract. What leverage does Maryland have in making them reduce this?

2) What's the financial difference Big 10 vs ACC? It must be a ton.

3) A lot of this is probably based on trying to get the Big 10 network (co-owned by Fox) in DC and NY. Fox also bought 49% of the YES network this week so now they think they have a lot of leverage in forcing cable companies to take the Big 10 network.

Big 10 is thinking if it can get $1.10 a month X how many people live on the eastern seaboard this deal is a huge bonanza.

Good article on the Regional Sports Network "bubble"

http://deadspin.com/5962206/news-corp-buys-into-the-yes-network-as-the-rsn-bubble-grows-closer-to-bursting

wejo wrote:

1) Why would the ACC reduce the $50 million buyout fee? Seems pretty straightforward if its in the contract. What leverage does Maryland have in making them reduce this?

2) What's the financial difference Big 10 vs ACC? It must be a ton.

1) When the buyout fee was raised earlier this year, UMD and FSU voted against it. UMD has argued it is overly punitive and therefore not enforceable. There were other arguments as well that I can't remember now. Bottom line UMD is threatening legal action to have it lowered.

2) 2014 projected difference which is based on the current tv deal so it should be pretty accurate: $12 million/year.

2020 projected difference based on a new projected Big 10 tv deal: $19mm/year.

Have they factored in these recent trends in order to become/remain competitive in the revenue sports?

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/articles/lexisnexis.aspx?lnarticleid=1784915743&lntopicid=136030023

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/editors/blog/default.aspx?id=1030

Although I am a graduate and against their decision to switch conferences, I can't deny that this could turn out good for their running teams if future growth projections allow them to resume funding their non-revenue sports immediately. As much as I want them to stay in the ACC and be able to take the bus to many meets, I foremost want them to actually have a team.

Shoebacca wrote:

Although I am a graduate and against their decision to switch conferences, I can't deny that this could turn out good for their running teams if future growth projections allow them to resume funding their non-revenue sports immediately. As much as I want them to stay in the ACC and be able to take the bus to many meets, I foremost want them to actually have a team.

I think I'd be more on board with this if, as part of the original announcement, they said, "And with this new revenue we're bringing back cross country, tennis, swimming, and will fully fund track and field."

Instead we get the typical language of "we'll look into bringing back sports." If you're talking of doing $50 million deals for the prospect of $12 million additional yearly revenue, you damn well better have a plan in place for what to do with that money before you announce the switch.

Legally, they and any business can do whatever they want. And I see why they are doing it.

I'm just saying I think this country needs to teach values at some level - not just follow the money.

***************************************************

Rojo, I'm fairly new to these boards, but there have been numerous references to your Republican-leaning political views. If that's inaccurate, then disregard this post entirely. But if it's not, then how do you reconcile your statement above with what seems to be the current Republican platform of unfettered, unrestricted capitalism?

Don't get me wrong...I generally agree with you. I'm a Wisconsin grad; a Badger through-and-through. We just had Ohio State in town for football and I don't envision that same type of rivalry developing with Rutgers or Maryland. I've been happy that the Big 10 (until now) has avoided the type of sprawl that other conferences have not.

Having said that, regarding "traditional" college athletics...that ship has long-since sailed. There are many examples, but take a look at college football. There are, what, 40 bowl games? Does anyone really care about Toledo vs. North Texas on December 13th? Obviously it's all about money and has been for a while.

terps wrote:

Have they factored in these recent trends in order to become/remain competitive in the revenue sports?

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/articles/lexisnexis.aspx?lnarticleid=1784915743&lntopicid=136030023http://www.athleticbusiness.com/editors/blog/default.aspx?id=1030

Not sure what either of these have to do with the Big 10 move but:

Yeah, big time coaches are getting more expensive. That's as true in the ACC as it is the Big 10. Having more cash on hand with the extra annual payout certainly widens the list of available coaching talent.

For the 2nd link. UMD's athletic department is separate from the school and the two don't really share funding anyway. For example; swimming's downfall was the school owns the pool and the athletic department had to pay something like $300k a year to rent it for practice/meets. So I guess to answer you, UMD is ahead of that trend.

buffalo street harrier wrote:

Instead we get the typical language of "we'll look into bringing back sports." If you're talking of doing $50 million deals for the prospect of $12 million additional yearly revenue, you damn well better have a plan in place for what to do with that money before you announce the switch.

That's why I referenced the above Athletic Business articles. And if you remember, the reason Maryland has been in the news in recent years is because they have not been very good at making plans. I do hope this is a full-fledged plan, not just a plunge into the world of even bigger college sports revenue and its corresponding spending to keep up with the Big Dogs like UW, Michigan, and Ohio State.

One point comes to mind after reading your post, given the board, president, and athletic department knew they were in dire straights prior to the non-revenue sports cuts, why didn't they propose a major fund-raising objective and plan PRIOR to cutting sports, instead of allowing the sports to save themselves after the fact when the bad press came in? Or, why didn't they pursue the move to the Big Ten PRIOR to cutting sports (maybe these recent cuts were some unreported prerequisite that the Big Ten had set, to show they were truly committed to solvency of the revenue sports, just reading into things).

Wouldn't that have been a more forward-thinking business plan? Heck, even if some sports were still doomed, it would have more reasonably provided notice to all current and former athletes and fans who have played, studied, worked, and paid tuition in the past for the Terps to step up for the good of the school.

On another note, the Rutgers articles I have read said their move has also followed $102 million in stadium and facility expansions, failures in funding of those projects, huge increases in football coach salaries, and the subsequent cutting of 6 sports back in 2006 (http://www.scarletknights.com/news/release.asp?prID=4153#.UK0dX4fhqxo).

So each of these schools has shown in the past that football and football spending comes first, figuring out how to pay for things comes second, cuts come third, and real plans come sometime after that.

SI has a new article out:

"How Maryland went broke: Inside the athletic department's decline"

Read More:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/the_bonus/11/26/maryland-athletics/index.html#ixzz2DWrUJmB7

Once you read that, you'll see that financially they really had no choice but to jump ship as they were in big financial trouble even with the 7 sport cuts.